Like Reagan

Barack Obama tosses off a vague comparison between himself and Ronald Regan and Matt Stoller gets really pissed. I don't really get it. Obama is pretty unambiguously claiming that much as Reagan was a friendly, popular face of a much more conservative governing agenda than the country had seen before, he thinks he can be the friendly, popular face of a much more liberal governing agenda than the country has seen before.

Obama thinks -- as do a lot of people -- that the country may be primed for big change in 2008 the way it was in 1980 and that he's the kind of person who can sell the country on that sort of big change. He may be wrong, either in his assessment of the times or in his assessment of himself, but those are exactly the sort of claims you want to see a leader make on behalf of itself. Those who read the comments section here will know that strong John Edwards partisans like "Petey" frequently compare their man to Reagan, not because they're closet right-wingers but because they think Edwards can dramatically expand the popularity of progressive ideas.

Comments

There's very little Obama could say or do that wouldn't piss Matt Stoller off. He views everything about the guy through a pre-determined negative lens.

Posted by Dan | January 17, 2008 9:29 AM

Well put. In addition, Paul Krugman's protestations aside, the wide popularity of Reagan was only partly due to jingoism, and much more to do with his public speaking skills, understanding of the tremendous importance of reinforcing background images, etc.

It's true that from a liberal perspective, Reagan was an awful President, especially when it comes to union-busting but also on a number of other issues such as the right to choose, affordable housing, etc. But none of this was really appealing; it was much more Reagan's sunny disposition and stories about the pipefitter and so forth.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | January 17, 2008 9:32 AM

Exactly, Matt. This is, I think, the best and most important argument for Obama's candidacy.

You need to claim to be above partisanship -- and offer something genuinely new, both symbolically and substantively -- in order to produce a durable partisan realignment. Neither of the other candidates are likely to produce much realignment. I think Obama might.

Posted by Ted | January 17, 2008 9:32 AM

I think a lot of it is that there is a rump faction of progressives who understandably kind of resent the fact that Ronald Reagan made "liberal" a dirty word. But there's more to it: Since the case that Reagan was some kind of ideological intellectual—the Mikhail Suslov of American Gemeinschaft-nostalgia reaction—is patently ridiculous, defenders of Reagan's world-historical significance tend to fall back on the formulation that Reagan was a "talented" politician. But here's the thing--when you map his skill-set of "talents," you arrive at an inevitable conclusion:

Ronald Reagan was a sociopathic demagogue.

Now, maybe it's fine to compare oneself with a sociopathic demagogue--someone capable of preaching states' rights on the killing field of Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney; someone who could tell Menachem Begin that he was at Auschwitz when he was on a Hollywood studio lot; someone who could persuade millions that the Sandinistas were coming for us through Harlingen, TX, so we could go kill us some Nicaraguan peasants; someone who said he thought it would be a great time for an outbreak of botulism when poor people in Oakland were being handed out food by the Hearst family; someone who preached small government while blowing the budget and growing the federal bureaucracy.

But I beg to differ. This Reagan-to-Rushmore insanity has got to stop.

Posted by elle loco | January 17, 2008 9:37 AM

No matter what anyone on the left thinks, Reagan was a popular president. For Obama to use that imagery is damn smart politics.

Posted by Rich | January 17, 2008 9:37 AM

I think Stoller is misinterpreting Obama's remarks. In my opinion, Obama described accurately what Reagan voters said at the time. Obama didn't say he agreed with their reasons for electing Reagan.

And in October 2006, Obama said on the same topic,

when I think about great presidents, I think about those who transform how we think about ourselves as a country in fundamental ways...And, you know, there are circumstances in which, I would argue, Ronald Reagan was a very successful president, even though I did not agree with him on many issues,

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/obama_reagan_changed_direction_of_country_in_way_bill_clinton_didnt.php

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 17, 2008 9:38 AM

Stoller has made it perfectly clear he loathes Obama and will jump on the slimmest evidence to proclaim that Barack is the reincarnation of Barry Goldwater. Stoller like a lot of the liberal blogosphere would rather lose elections forever with angry, sharply partisan candidates like Edwards than have a chance to win with a likeable uniting candidate like Obama who not only can get independents and even some Republicans to vote for him one time but could make them part of the Democratic coalition for a long time.

Posted by Ron | January 17, 2008 9:38 AM

"those are exactly the sort of claims you want to see a leader make on behalf of ITself"

Hmm, are you comparing Obama to an android? Or is he now a leading newspaper article - a good solid "it"? Anyway, I am sure we can expect the Hillaroids to jump up and down and howl, in the graceless style of Taylor Marsh, while pretending the Obama wants to "be" Reagan.

Posted by basilbrush | January 17, 2008 9:40 AM

"Stoller like a lot of the liberal blogosphere would rather lose elections forever with angry, sharply partisan candidates like Edwards than have a chance to win with a likeable uniting candidate"

I don't know. I think Edwards supporters are just really gullible about primary season campaign promises.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 17, 2008 9:43 AM

> I think Stoller is misinterpreting Obama's
> remarks.

It is odd how often Obama's remarks are misinterpreted by people who aren't his ardent supporters. Once the ardent supporters chime in to correct things the remarks always become clear. Of course, those corrections always match up with the supporters' desires and don't bear much relationship to the actual words that Obama uses, but that's OK I guess 'cause Obama is just lying to all the Republicans to get elected.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | January 17, 2008 9:50 AM

Edwards's campaign is an explicit critique of everything Reagan stood for, as Reagan's campaigns were explicit critiques of everything we stand for. Obama's campaign is neither.

Posted by tib | January 17, 2008 9:53 AM

Obama: I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

That gives Reagan way too much credit. There are much better ways that Obama could have made his point.

People say he's just playing a sly game, but at some point you're going to have to confront and defeat the Republicans, rather than splitting the difference and co-opting them. If Obama slimes his way into the Presidency on centrism, he won't have prepared the nation for dramatic change, and the Republicans will resist him just as viciously as if he'd been straightforwardly left. Give em an inch and they take a mile.

Posted by John Emerson | January 17, 2008 9:56 AM

You reduced clarity when you turned Krugman's reasonable critiques into an apparent personal grudge match because Krugman and Obama, and you reduce clarity when you do the same here. Read my post. There are good reasons for being concerned about the way he talks about Reagan, ones that Rick Perlstein notes.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/perlsteins-greatest-hits-5-miscasting-reagan-optimistic

I doubt you'd say that Perlstein is 'really pissed' at Obama. You shouldn't say the same about this argument. If you disagree, take me on the merits of the argument.

Posted by Matt Stoller | January 17, 2008 9:58 AM

Agree with your comments, Ron.

tib, I don't think Obama's talking about the substance of the ideas that RWR ran on (and for his part, Obama said he disagrees with Reagan on the issues) but rather just shifting the playing field. Which is important. What's funny here is the reaction people are having so reflexively against a liberal/Dem/Progressive even mentioning Reagan's name. It's almost like we're revisiting last week's race debate (last week: "He said WHAT? That's racial!"; this week: "He said what? He's no Democrat!") He was simply using Reagan, who, like him or not (and I have no love for the man) shifted the direction of the country. Digby acknowledged this in her post, but I think she's still skeptical of the comparison, which is obviously her right.

Posted by Mike P | January 17, 2008 10:01 AM

But Matt (Stoller), it's rather clear that Obama is talking about the ability of Reagan to wield together a new governing majority, which including siphoning off many Democrats in the process. To suggest Obama admires the reasons Reagan ran or the issues he pushed is to be so divorced from reality, it's staggering.

Posted by Jmac | January 17, 2008 10:08 AM

Hey, just out of curiosity, when Reagan sunnily promised to address the gloom and stuff people felt, and finally turn back the damn welfare cheats and beat back the divisive hippies and shrink the parasite gubmit bureaucrats, what actually happened?

Did he actually improve the lives of those who believed he might? Because, you know, that might be important, too. Or maybe not, maybe it was about all that he said he was doing, and all that his admirers said he did, so maybe there's no reason for us bitter fringe extremist sour grapes nutballs to ever want to point out any potential disconnects between manipulation and inspiration.

Posted by El Cid | January 17, 2008 10:08 AM

Stoller's right, Matt; you're not doing his argument justice. See also Digby whose critique is similar. The point seems to be that Obama is embracing a particular version of history (or, at best, *presenting* that version of history and leaving it fuzzy whether he embraces it) about what the 1980 election was about -- a version whose perpetuations serves the purposes of an entirely unrepentant conservative movement.

A black man, waxing about the "excesses" of the 1960s (long-time GOP code for uppity blacks among other things), is a little sickening, I have to say.

Posted by Ryan | January 17, 2008 10:12 AM

Its a pretty difficult path Obama is treading here. The nuances in hearkening back to Reagan can be parsed by the likes of Digby or others who spend the time and have the background to understand the underlying theme, but at face value he is saying Reagan was successful. I can't really think of any major thing Reagan did in his presidency that I would call 'successful' as a Democrat. I am sure he wasn't all bad and when presented with this or that piece of evidence I would agree, but overall Reagan was a horrible president and was successful only in leading us on the road to ruin.

This is also what frustrates me about people who look at the candidates from their ability to accomplish things without even considering what they are trying to accomplish. I have little faith that Obama or Clinton will accomplish much that will help create a lasting or effective progressive majority in this country. So now I am looking at which of the two will be least capable of effecting the worst parts of their agenda on our country. Which candidate is least likely to get "good" Congressional Democrats on board when their bad policies come for vote?

Posted by Ricky | January 17, 2008 10:16 AM

I agree, Matt.

Sadly, Digby had a negative reaction, too, like Stoller.

I think these are uncharitable misreadings. Reagan was a game-changer. Obama believe he can be a game-changer too.

I doubt many people seriously argue that Hillary Clinton will lead any kind of flowering of the Democratic party. Obama may not do that, but he could.

Apart from the fact that Hillary is viewd far as far more liberal than her DLC positions. She may ramp up anti-Republican rhetoric, and she'll be better than any Republican, but she's not going to go as far as her primary rhetoric may make people think.

Posted by riffle | January 17, 2008 10:16 AM

No, I think Obama talks in a not subtle code, and I really believe that Obama as President would look much more like Reagan than FDR. Obama would increase efficiency in the Federal Gov't by cutting spending and streamlining. Any new liberal programs will be at the expense of old programs. This is really why Republicans like Obama and why they will be his allies as President.

I am not sure Matt & Ezra are not attracted to such an ideology, as long as Obama stops wars, Ronald Reagan, Obama's role model, didn't fight many wars.

Posted by bob mcmanus | January 17, 2008 10:18 AM

I think we've seen in the current Congress and Senate exactly how many Democrats are up for a real head-on fight with the Republicans. Honor to Chris Dodd - but look at how Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller are whoring for Bush and telecom money with the FISA bill. Obama's point is that you need to split off the more reasonable "Republicans" both in the Presidential election, and then in the Senate/House races. That's a realistic strategy, although it means the wilder left-wing partisans will have to lament the party's "lost purity" yet again. Well, tough. Their left-wing purity hasn't made them stand up to Bush in any significant or successful way, and if they can't do that, they should let people with realistic policies try and get us out of the swamp into which Bush and Cheney have led us. Purity without power is ultimately more about self-indulgence than benefiting others.

Posted by nickzi | January 17, 2008 10:18 AM

I can't speak to exactly what Obama meant, but the comparison is obvious and has been for a long time. Reagan, for all his faults, was optimistic, was hopeful, was persuasive, was effective and was interested in dramatically changing the country. I fail to see how these are bad things in a president.

Posted by Bud | January 17, 2008 10:21 AM

Jmac, that's probably what Obama is referring to. The problem is that Reagan didn't build an election coalition by preaching optimism and hope. He preached hatred, resentment, and revenge. His entire political persona in 1980, as it had been since the 1960s, was about being the guy who was angry enough to get back at the blacks, the women's libbers, the homosexuals, the DFHs, the liberal elitists, the agitatin' troublemakers, and the commies.

Reagan's strategy, as he clearly signaled in Philadelphia, Mississippi, was to build a national lynch mob.

He only turned sunny and happy later on in his presidency, after getting shot, overseeing the disastrous recession of 1982 (unemployment over 10%), and starting to lose his marbles.

Posted by Pesto | January 17, 2008 10:22 AM

I think we could agree that there is a difference between the historical Reagan (mediocre, but lucky president), and the mythical Reagan (smiles, won the Cold War, made the US proud again). Personally, I think Reagan was an appalling example of ineptitude and conflict, but the legend of Reagan remains potent.

Posted by kallikanzaros | January 17, 2008 10:29 AM

I tend to agree with the liberal critiques of what Obama is doing here. I think it is possible to talk about Reagan's ability to take advantage of "the moment" - to capitalize on perceived need for political change in the country - without buying into the GOP's "optimism" myth. Reagan was a transformative president because he took advantage of political anger in way that didn't, on its surface, seem angry. He capitalized on the anger of the partisans on his side without totally enraging the partisans on the other side. Obama could do the same; arguably, Hillary could not. And he is eloquent enough to explain this without playing into the right's Reagan mythology.

Posted by owens | January 17, 2008 10:29 AM

"Look, I know this is weedy stuff and probably doesn't matter to the average voter under the age of 45. But to long time liberals who lived through this period as an adult, it's like waving a red flag in our faces. Reagan ran explicitly against the left(and in the process normalized the kind of indecent talk that made Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter millionaires.) Because he won big in 1984, leaders in both parties accepted this omnipotent Reagan myth and have run against liberalism ever since --- and have ended up, through both commission and omission, advancing the destructive conservative policies that brought us to a place where we are debating things like torture. It would be helpful if ending the era of Democrats running against the liberal base could be part of this new progressive "trajectory." ...digby

With his Reagan-worship, Obama has spit in my face and insulted everything I admire and value. I do not accept it as a tricky electoral ploy because I am not going to be there for him if elected. I presume he means it and would rather have the Reaganites on his side than me. And that new colation that excludes all liberals over 30 will be worse for Democrats and liberals and progressives than 8 years of Romney.

Fuck Reagan. Fuck Obama.

Posted by bob mcmanus | January 17, 2008 10:33 AM

I think Obama's comments on Reagan don't exclude Stoller's comments on Reagan. Reagan's optimism, and Reagan's appeal to fear, were consistent with each other, parts of the singular politics of the man. The Star Wars Defense initiative is a perfect example of this. The fear that we would all be annihilated by the Soviets was, of course, one of the big conservative cards during the late seventies and early eighties. So much for the fear - the unique Reagan touch is that the anti-missile system is going to give us this 'optimistic' solution - nuclear war will no longer work. Our magic rays in the sky will knock down missiles, as the magic in the marketplace makes us all rich. It was this combination of fear and optimism that made Reagan such a different politician than Nixon, say. And Obama is also right that, under Reagan, there were fundamental changes, which created the pattern within which all presidents since Reagan have operated. Whatever combination of qualities contributed to Reagan's success, he broke the drive to greater equality - the wilder and wilder inequality since the Reagan years has shaped every domestic policy initiative - and he returned us to the traditional 'predatory' model in foreign policy, after a rare and short period of relative peacefulness under Carter. Carter, of course, by helping the rebels in Afghanistan and declaring the Persian Gulf an American lake, had already made it easy for Reagan there. And the wholly unnecessary Reagan military buildup had already been projected in Carter's last budget - both parties were converging on the tried and true tactic of military keynesianism to fight the recession. If the government sets out to waste a couple of trillion dollars, it does have to justify it somehow.

Posted by roger | January 17, 2008 10:33 AM

Two things:

1. Reagan some will recall, liked to invoke FDR's legacy in weird ways that didn't indicate anything about actual policy.
2. Obama '08 is positioning himself the way Clinton '92 did - a moderate guy with charisma and broad appeal who can win one from the Republicans.

I'll leave it as an exercise for other commenters as to whether No. 2 is a good thing.

Posted by politicalfootball | January 17, 2008 10:33 AM

Ricky:

I can't really think of any major thing Reagan did in his presidency that I would call 'successful' as a Democrat.

In his defense, Reagan nearly managed to negotiate total nuclear disarmament with Gorbachev at the Reykjavik summit in 1986. He seemed genuinely to want to get rid of nukes by that time, too.

Posted by Pesto | January 17, 2008 10:36 AM

Bobby dear, your meds are on the table.

Posted by bob mcmanus' mom | January 17, 2008 10:38 AM

If Obama had only talked about the image of Reagan I might have some hope left. But Obama went out of his way to describe the policies of Reagan in Reaganite framing:

"I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating" ...Obama

That was no accident.

Posted by bob mcmanus | January 17, 2008 10:38 AM

Maybe Barack Obama is too young to remember how Reagan fucked this nation up with his "new direction," but I sure as hell damn well ain't!

He seemed genuinely to want to get rid of nukes by that time, too.

Posted by Pesto

WRONG!

He wanted the Soviets to give up their arms. He was forced into a mutual agreement when Gorbachev made sure American weapons had to be on the table, and even then, he was grudging about it.

Posted by actor212 | January 17, 2008 10:40 AM

Reagan was a game-changer. Obama believe he can be a game-changer too.

That's certainly the most charitable reading and maybe it's all he meant.

But Reagan also offered a set of reasons for why the game *needed* to be changed, and Obama (as I read him) seems to be saying that he was correct. I.e. that Reagan's diagnosis of what was wrong with America in 1980 was correct. And that's offensive.

Or maybe he's just saying that those reasons (whether they were correct or not in 1980) *do* apply today. Except in a different way. A different direction -- now we face conservative excesses and unaccountability of a conservative government. It's all very fuzzy.

In general, with Obama, fuzziness seems to be the point. You make vague gestures toward the middle in order to get elected. Then, once you're in, you hope the right continues to be so dazzled by your triangulating and transcendent rhetoric that you are able to get progressive things done. Or at least things that will get you reelected.

It's all pretty Clintonian. And I'm not sure it will work any better than it did the last time.

Then again it probably has a marginally better shot of working for Obama than it would for Clinton.

Posted by Ryan | January 17, 2008 10:42 AM

Matt Stoller: You and Perlstein apparently think think it's worth the time and energy to re-fight the fights that took place two decades ago. That's fighting on their turf. If you think to get anything accomplished you have to reverse the general impression the country has about the state of the nation and the word in 1979, well good luck with those windmills. Besides, who gives a shit? It's 2008, we have new problems and new solutions and, yes, new fights. But the fights we have today are big enough without trying to re-fight the fights we already lost in the 80's.

To put it another way, a large number of voters who are vaguely in favor of democratic proposals have fond memories of Reagan that have nothing to do with his policies. I'd like to make sure those voters vote for a Democrat in 2008.

Posted by Led | January 17, 2008 10:42 AM

angry, sharply partisan candidates...

Hearing Edwards described as such is fairly amusing

Posted by Xanthippas | January 17, 2008 10:43 AM

angry, sharply partisan candidates...

Hearing Edwards described as such is fairly amusing

Well, must be because he was forced to grow up in a mill.. or was he forced to work there? Well, something about mills, anyway.

Posted by basilbrush | January 17, 2008 10:44 AM

Those guys over at Open Left and MyDD are in hyperventilation mode over Obama. I'm not sure why because his chances of getting the nomination are pretty slim. Even with wins in Nevada and South Carolina, he just has no time or the Mt. Everest of cash needed to break through in places like California, New York, New Jersey, or any of the large mid-western states other than Illinois.

And I see Matt Stoller pipes in to cite Krugman. I'm a decades long fan of Krugman but I have no problem disagreeing with him like I do on Obama's economic package. But Stoller and the gang have apparently built some kind of personality cult around the guy.

It's sad to see the Dem left crack-up at a time when the generic ballot is so much in our favor.

Posted by MikeKC | January 17, 2008 10:46 AM

He is talking about creating Obama Republicans and Obama independents the same way Reagan was able to get Reagan Democrats. You know create a new coalition. He always talks about a new PROGRESSIVE MAJORITY. Good god it's not that hard to figure out. Some folks are just flat out slow... I suggest some try hooked on phonics....

Posted by Ann | January 17, 2008 10:48 AM

I am not sure sure that Obama can't win this thing. The national polls have been tightening steadily, with him hunting down Clinton pretty consistently over the last 6 weeks. Remember that if McCain is obviously screwed by SuperTuesday (which looks very likely), the odds are that the Independents will go heavily for Obama - and that might well make the big difference. Add to that the possibility of Edwards as kingmaker, and I think Clinton should be the more worried of the two right now.

Posted by maximin | January 17, 2008 10:52 AM

i read through all 37 comments just to see if someone would make the obvious point: the country was NOT primed for change in 1980.

if it had been, reagan would have rolled to the same kind of big win he had in 1984. instead, the election was rather close (partly because of john anderson as a third party candidate) until the final week, when the polls showed a decisive shift to reagan, who nonetheless only won 50.7% of the vote (although he had a dominant margin in the electoral college, of course: i remember well walking into an election eve party at 7:59 eastern with a large bottle of wild turkey that i - and others - had finished by 8:30 once it was clear the scale of reagan's win).

now, reagan and the republican party were ready to give the country a major change, but that's not the same.

as for obama talking about the government excesses of the 1960s and 1970s, i'm with ryan and bob mcmanus: utterly disgusting and disgraceful and sickening. that doesn't mean i won't end up voting for him if he wins the nomination, but i'll never trust his rhetorical skills again if that's how he's going to employ them.

Posted by howard | January 17, 2008 10:53 AM

Matt Stoller has been miffed at Obama from early on because the Obama campaign did not "reach out" sufficiently to bloggers. Matt represents the 2004 vision of the left political blogosphere leading a new progressive movement rooted in blogospheric activism and fund-raising promoted with an edgier, more sharply partisan political rhetoric.

Obama partly subverted that model by hitting on an entirely new approach: packaging progressive policy inside an optimistic unity-based national appeal, while intentionally standing off a bit from personal engagement blogospheric ranting and rancor, while still making use of its fund-raising and message-spreading abilities. Obama imbues progressive themes with an uplifting rhetoric which is helping to produce a renaissance of the progressive spirit by reminding people of the most ennobling, universal and traditionally American aspects of that spirit. The approach has been remarkably successful, as Obama's consistent out-polling of Edwards has shown. This success is, I suspect, an affront to Matt Stoller personally, because it tends to diminish somewhat the role he envisioned for himself and his own version of the progressive movement.

Perlstein doesn't really get it about Reagan. Of course it is true that Reagan's movement represented at its core a crew of of hard core, selfish, anti-government, anti-worker, pro-corporate conservatives. And it's right that that was the policy substance of the Reagan revolution. But the point is, how did Reagan sell this to the public? And in that case, there is no question that Reagan imbued this substance with a sunny and optimistic patriotic message. He created a whole class of (mainly white middle class) voters now called "Reagan Democrats" who were motivated by economic self-interest to reject the welfare state, but were also turned off by what they perceived as the cultural left's anti-Americanism, by what Agnew had called the "nattering nabobs of negativism". Probably the most memorable line from Reagan's 1980 campaign was his "there he goes again" jab at Carter which summed up the spirit of the campaign perfectly. Reagan was the original "Teflon president" because the hard-ass substance was dressed up in a sunny and bouyant optimism that made it hard for Reagan's critics to win the battle of personal charm.

If Obama can create a new coalition of "Obama Republicans", turned off by the Republican degeneration into a fractious and radicalized coalition of rabid anti-government nuts, religious fanatics preaching a gospel of ignorance and anti-American rejection of the Constitution, and out of control spendthrift war mongers, then I say great for Obama. Bring on the Obama Revolution.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 17, 2008 10:56 AM

Ann:

He is talking about creating Obama Republicans and Obama independents the same way Reagan was able to get Reagan Democrats.

Ann, the whole point is to discuss how Reagan got the "Reagan democrats" to support him. The mythology is that it was by being sunny and optimistic and positive. The reality is that it was by being angry, nasty, and hateful to all the right-wing's favorite scapegoats.

Reagan won support by selling the line that America had fallen from Greatness by being too wishy-washy and "permissive" -- what the country (or, at least, certain "elements" in the country) needed was a damn good beating, and Reagan was the one to deliver it.

Reagan's 1980 campaign sounded a lot more like Tancredo '08 than Obama '08.

Posted by Pesto | January 17, 2008 10:56 AM

Why be so nice to Stoller. He isn't "misinterpreting"; he deliberately lying when he says that Obama "admires" Reagan.

If Obama was a small businessman instead of a popular politician, and Stoller lies hurt his business, he could be sued for libel. Where's the responsibility part of journalism?

Posted by converse | January 17, 2008 10:59 AM

But Reagan also offered a set of reasons for why the game *needed* to be changed, and Obama (as I read him) seems to be saying that he was correct. I.e. that Reagan's diagnosis of what was wrong with America in 1980 was correct. And that's offensive.

Actually, he didn't. Instead he was making a historical observation about the political climate of 1980 (referring to them as 'they'), in which large numbers of Democrats and independents flocked to Reagan and built the conservative majority.

One could look at, say, the political and social conditions in Russia in the late 1910s and make the observation that the time was right for a drastic change in governance, but that doesn't mean you endorse Communist dictatorships.

Listen, the freaking out of folks over this is almost comical. If you look at Obama's record and his past comments, it's rather obvious that he had very strong disagreements with Reagan's political agenda (since it proved to be a train-wreck for the U.S. economy), but there's not doubting the fact that he fashioned a mythos about him and delivered the basis of a new Republican majority.

Why wouldn't you want a Democrat to do the same, but only with a progressive political agenda which Obama has (contrary to Krugman's hit pieces).

Those guys over at Open Left and MyDD are in hyperventilation mode over Obama.

Those guys? Overreact? Knee-jerk? Shocking.

Posted by Jmac | January 17, 2008 10:59 AM

If there is a DLC trojan horse in this race, it isn't Hillary, but Obama. Using the same sound political judgement that caused him to back going to war in Iraq, Matt is determined to see no evil where Obama is concerned.

I was for Gore, Clark, and then Edwards, but at this point, looking at Obama, I can only say, Go Hillary!

Posted by tdraicer | January 17, 2008 11:02 AM

Well-freaking-said Dan Kervick.

Posted by Jmac | January 17, 2008 11:05 AM

One question that needs to be asked: who the hell cares about Matt Stoller? How did this idiot become a top-rank blogger whose views other bloggers need to address? This is truly one of the enduring mysteries of the liberal blogosphere.

Posted by Ryan | January 17, 2008 11:08 AM

I think that for Obama to win the nomination he has to fight back against the Clintons, and that is largely what this comment about Reagan is about. I don't fault him one bit, considering the kind of campaign the Clintons have run against him. I think he's basically talking about a time in American politics where people were ready to embrace the concepts of hope and change. He is not endorsing Reagan's enactment of those ideals. The guy was a community organizer in Chicago while Reagan was in power, and has commented that he saw firsthand the effects of his administration on the most vulnerable people. Now, the Clintons have repeatedly run down his work as an organizer (and how can this not offend liberals?), but the fact is he paid his dues and has shown himself to be generally on the side of progressive politics throughout his adult life. Let's give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by Mark | January 17, 2008 11:09 AM

I can't really think of any major thing Reagan did in his presidency that I would call 'successful' as a Democrat.

Well of course not. That's the point. But still he got a bunch of independents and former Democrats to vote for him.

If in 2030, we can have can have the current crop of fools at the National Review look back in anger at two terms of an Obama presidency, and say, "I can't think of any major thing Obama did in his presidency that I would call 'successful' as a Republican", then I will say "mission accomplished."

To acknowledge Reagan was a successful politician is not to say that he was a success in some transcendent moral sense. The point is that he was a political success because he won twiceand achieved major parts his own agenda. Some of us hope that Obama can also win using the Reagan model for political success in order to achieve major parts of the progressive agenda.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 17, 2008 11:11 AM

I took Obama's statements to mean that he wants to be a "game changer" and is trying to compare his plan to change the landscape with Clinton's failure to do so in the 90s.

If Obama really was running a campaign that traded on the public resentment to republican policies and whipped up resentment towards years of right-wing mismanagement in government and then praised Reagan for his campaign of sunny optimism and hope, then I'd be able to take his political posturing a bit more seriously. I always worry that Obama takes this "happy talk" stuff a bit too seriously and doesn't realize how campaigns are really won.

This is what's so frustrating about Obama-- so much of it depends on trying to explain what he really meant and how his background as a community organizer means that he's really a down-on-the-ground two-fisted political brawler. I'd like to have a bit more in-your-face evidence of this as opposed to just the "hope" that it might be for real.

Posted by Tyro | January 17, 2008 11:11 AM

Bob McManus
I am going to take this statement and change it so that perhaps you can understand what Obama is saying. Reagan is being lauded for a method not his objectives. For instance when Digby says:

" Reagan ran explicitly against the left(and in the process normalized the kind of indecent talk that made Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter millionaires.) Because he won big in 1984, leaders in both parties accepted this omnipotent Reagan myth and have run against liberalism ever since --- and have ended up, through both commission and omission, advancing the destructive conservative policies that brought us to a place where we are debating things like torture"

In terms of what Obama meant you should read:

Obama ran explicitly against the right (and in the process normalized the kind of decent tolerance that made MLK and JFK great leaders). Because Obama won big in 2008 leaders in both parties accepted this omnipotent Obama myth and have run against neoconservatism ever since ---and have ended up, through both commission and ommission advancing the constitutional principles this country was founded and brung constructive governance by the people as a democracy that has brought us to the place where we are discussing things like how America is a global leader at home and abroad once again setting the tone on humaitarian issues and democracy principles.

THAT is what Obama is saying he is talking about a shift in the very paradigm of how politics is conducted in this country a FUNDAMENTAL change just as REagan brought a FUNDAMENTAL change.

The difference is the direction, Obama is saying just as the mood of the country was ready for the era of conservatism that Reagan ushered in, right now at this time in this moment America is ready for the era of progressivism that Obama can usher in.

We can swing the pendulum back to our interests with the right leader, just as it swung agaisnt our interests with Reagan...because

this is our DEFINING moment...the moment is NOW.

Obama understands that and that is what he means when he says he is running because of the fierce urgency of now.

Where folks like you get lost is that Obama fails to go into all the specifics because he believes based on his LEGISLATIVE track record, you will KNOW which way he is swinging the pendulum. Obama has nothing but a legislative record progressives can be proud of whether the issue is war, foreign policy, healthcare, education, abortion, DOMA....his votes all show a progressive agenda.

Obama thinks this is IMPLICIT to his statement.

But I guess for SOME folks they want to separate what he says from his RECORD. That is the only way they can go off on tangents and speculate about Regan and what HIS POLICIES were as being what Obama meant DESPITE Obama's legislative record being the anti-thesis of Reagan's policy.

C'mon people look at the FACtS...stop with the false speculation, conjectuare and innuendo

Posted by vicissitudes | January 17, 2008 11:13 AM

Dan Kervick gets it exactly right. The left bloggers have been in a tizzy over Obama from day one because his success would greatly undermine the role these bloggers -- and an insurgent left -- would play in national politics. This leads them to consistently see conservatism where Obama's supporters see pragmatism, a pragmatism intent on delivering achievable, progressive policy.

The hysterics of people like bob mcmanus show exactly the kind of politics that cannot deliver a progressive agenda. I am strangely heartened to see these attacks in the comments on a daily basis because it means Obama is really on to something, and if his rhetoric marginalizes those who would rather pick a fight over the Reagan legacy rather then deliver real results, so much the better.

Posted by dan | January 17, 2008 11:14 AM

Jmac:

Instead he was making a historical observation about the political climate of 1980 (referring to them as 'they'), in which large numbers of Democrats and independents flocked to Reagan and built the conservative majority.

But it's an inaccurate historical observation that buys into reactionary mythologies about the political movement that's been ruining this country (and much of the world) for generations.

You want to bring the country together? It might help to talk openly about one of our nation's prime avatars of hatred, division, and the politics of revenge and resentment.

Posted by Pesto | January 17, 2008 11:15 AM

But it's an inaccurate historical observation that buys into reactionary mythologies about the political movement that's been ruining this country (and much of the world) for generations.

OK, but the myth has almost become fact now, hasn't it? If Obama wants to run a campaign that discusses a new kind of politics and seeks to build the base, as the myth of Reagan claims to have done, then what's the big deal? We're arguing about semantics?

You want to bring the country together? It might help to talk openly about one of our nation's prime avatars of hatred, division, and the politics of revenge and resentment.

Reagan's been out of office for 20 years (and, of course, is now dead), and I think the fact the Obama is pushing a progressive agenda is doing just that.

Posted by Jmac | January 17, 2008 11:18 AM

Obama would have served himself and his party much better had he not taken the swipe at Bill Clinton's presidency in the same interview.
That litttle zinger made the whole thing come off more like pandering to the right (again) than truth-telling to me.

Posted by magisterludi | January 17, 2008 11:20 AM

"C'mon people look at the FACtS...stop with the false speculation, conjectuare and innuendo"

If Obama had Brad DeLong or Paul Krugman or Jaime Galbraith on his economic team instead of Austan Goolsbee and Jeffrey Liebman I might be listening to the Reagan worship differently. Obama is not a progressive.

Posted by bob mcmanus | January 17, 2008 11:22 AM

Pesto: are you saying Reagan *didn't* win because the electorate decided there were "excesses" to the 60s and 70s? Reagan mobilized dissatisfaction and created a coalition to govern. How can you dispute this?

The only question is whether the left wishes to do the same now. It would be so typical of the "left," which hasn't delivered a policy success in 30 years, to fail to understand this conversation is about successful strategy, separate and apart from the policies that strategy achieved.

Posted by dan | January 17, 2008 11:24 AM

Reagan was a putz. I saw his central American policies first-hand. They were brought to us, by the way, by some of the same people who gave us the Iraq War.

I'm torqued at Obama for saying this. He's reinforcing Republican memes, such as out-of-control government. That's what the Republicans said in response to the 60's, Watergate, and Vietnam--as if "big government" was the reason for those things.

Matthew is clueless on this one--blinded by his love for Obama. I like Obama too, but he stepped in it on this one, and clear-eyed observers should be able to see it.

Posted by John Petty | January 17, 2008 11:24 AM

Obama thinks -- as do a lot of people -- that the country may be primed for big change in 2008 the way it was in 1980 and that he's the kind of person who can sell the country on that sort of big change.

Yes.

The Democratic frontrunners are appropriating this theme, social security, and taxes, which leaves the Republicans blathering about what kind of theocracy is acceptable.

Nice. Even if the GOP gets back on-message, they'll look like a bunch of johnny-come-latelies.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 17, 2008 11:26 AM

Stoller and Digby are acting like speech police on this one. Thanks for the common sense Matt Y.

Posted by john o. | January 17, 2008 11:31 AM

dan, i can't speak for anyone else, but yes, i'm saying that the public did not elect reagan because of government "excesses" of the 1960s and 1970s.

the public elected reagan because it couldn't stand jimmy carter, because of stagflation, and, of course, because racist whites were migrating to vote republican.

reagan was not elected because the public hated medicare, or food stamps, or head start, or the peace corps, or even, for that matter, nixon's wage-and-price controls, the ultimate government excess of the period.

Posted by howard | January 17, 2008 11:32 AM

dan, i might add that certainly significant components of the public elected reagan because it hated long hair on men, hippies, drugs, free love, rising divorce rates, women's liberation, and a number of other ultimately dominant social trends, but that's not government excess, which is the term obama used.

Posted by howard | January 17, 2008 11:34 AM

Dan,

Read my comments above. Reagan did in fact get support from people who believed that the country was done in by "excesses" in the 60s and 70s. He won in 1980 by promising to exact revenge on the various right-wing scapegoats who were to blame for the country's decline.

In my first comment above, I described Reagan as organizing a national lynch mob in 1980. I stand by that description.

People might think it was all just a big, happy, red-white-and-blue optimism party in 1980 turning out for Reagan, but the fact was that the point of the party was to string up the blacks, the feminists, the DFHs, the troublemakers, the godless liberal elitists, the welfare queens, the fags, and commies, and party under the corpses.

Appealing to some fantasized version of what the Reagan coalition was really about in 1980 is a foolishly short-sighted, cynical attempt to win votes.

Posted by Pesto | January 17, 2008 11:35 AM

I think that if Obama had mentioned FDR AND Reagan or only the former, then I think that more people would have been open to the idea that Clinton did not fundamentally change American politics. Although I have to admit that Reagan did change American politics but not in the kind of change I would have wanted.

Posted by MGJ | January 17, 2008 11:36 AM

I think the point that Perlstein and Digby are making (perhaps because they're aware of the history here) is that Reagan did not win in '80 based on content-less sunny uplift. He had been running since the Cow Palace convention in '64 as a hard-line Goldwater conservative and updated his cred through the years by gassing the Berkeley students and dumping on African American activists in addition to subtly celebrating the murderers of the Mississippi activists in Neshoba County by opening his campaign there. No one should forget that or contribute to the air-brushing of Saint Ron by saying that he won by being such a sunny guy, just like me. No liberal or Democrat making the case to Democrats, particularly. As others have noted, Obama likes to make these indirect dog-whistle references to conservative memes but never seems to find it advantageous to make similar appeals to folks in his own party. That's odd and disturbing. If he wanted to make the point that he prefers this election to be a realigning one, he could have done it far more smoothly and with a considerably less superficial treatment of our history.

Posted by scott | January 17, 2008 11:37 AM

I don't want to be lectured to by people trying to explain what Obama meant. I am plenty smart enough to understand what he said. He said: I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. Obama didn't say that Reagan was wrong when he said that. What he didn't say was that it was Nixon's government that had grown and grown and prolonged the war and thwarted civil rights and used the IRS and CIA to terrorize and spy on Americans. And Obama used Reagan, an even more hideous figure in American history in that he was a self-identified traitor, as some sort of guide or person to emulate or something. I mean Jesus Christ it makes you wonder what he was trying to do, But it does not make me wonder what he meant, his words are clear. Its the thought that is terrible.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | January 17, 2008 11:46 AM

Obama would have served himself and his party much better had he not taken the swipe at Bill Clinton's presidency in the same interview.
That litttle zinger made the whole thing come off more like pandering to the right (again) than truth-telling to me.

But Obama's chief competition in the primary is Bill Clinton's wife, who is building her argument around her connection to her husband's presidency. It would appear to be a sound political strategy to draw contrasts in your vision and experiences and your opponent's.

Posted by Jmac | January 17, 2008 11:49 AM

Please note that the Ryan who commented at 11:08 is not me, i.e. the Ryan who commented twice further up the thread. Unlike that guy I think Matt Stoller's often worth listening to, and certainly is on this issue.

Posted by Ryan | January 17, 2008 11:50 AM

Peter, goodness that's misguided.

- Obama didn't say Reagan was wrong in that instance, though he has repeatedly noted that his policies were, well, flat-out awful in this campaign and prior to it.

- Uh, if you acknowledge that government had grown with little to no accountability, then what is false about Obama's observation? It was a train wreck of a bureaucracy that wasn't doing the job it needed to do either well or efficiently (in fact, one could argue this helps Clinton since her husband streamlined government, boosted revenues and expanded services in a way Reagan wasn't able to).

- If you're smart enough to not be lectured, then quit reading brainiac.

Posted by Jmac | January 17, 2008 11:56 AM

Ok, people, let's try a new strategy. We shall tell the uncommitted electorate to vote Democrat because we are angry. Enraged, Furious. And we all grew up in mills as well. Or worked there, or something. I like John Edwards - but can't you see that anger turns most voters off? Obama is on record as criticizing Reagan's policies, but when it comes to offering an optimistic alternative to Dem-Repub MAD, you can bet that this "Reaganesque" approach will play better than another round of Revenge II: Return of the Disgruntled Democrats. You may dislike Reagan's policies - as I do - you may think he was a mediocre moron who got lucky on the Cold War - as I do - you may think he was a senile old fraud by the end - as I do - BUT you can't deny that he was very effective with the sunny optimism message. That's why his legend lasted - and it's that legend that Obama wants to take over. If you don't get the political analogy, ask yourself who you would want to associate with - the guy who hates the world and wants to punish it, or the guy who is hopeful of making things better.

Posted by basilbrush | January 17, 2008 11:57 AM

Since the Obama claque has been accusing Obama's Democratic opponents of all kinds of silly personal motives, let me play that game too, and suggest that the Ivy Dweeb Youth Vote goes to Obama because he's cute, snappily-dressed, and slender.

The intensity of this youthful passion is offputting -- but then, we're dealing with hormonal people not too far out of high school.

Back to you, dweebs! Show me your worst!

Posted by John Emerson | January 17, 2008 11:59 AM

Since the Obama claque has been accusing Obama's Democratic opponents of all kinds of silly personal motives, let me play that game too, and suggest that the Ivy Dweeb Youth Vote goes to Obama because he's cute, snappily-dressed, and slender.

The intensity of this youthful passion is offputting -- but then, we're dealing with hormonal people not too far out of high school.

Back to you, dweebs! Show me your worst!

Posted by John Emerson

That's ok, John. We don't mind the fact that you are ugly, dressed in a paper bag and grotesquely overweight. We are about change - and given your circumstances we think it might be good for you too.

Posted by basilbrush | January 17, 2008 12:01 PM

can't you see that anger turns most voters off?

Actually, no. It worked quite well for Reagan.

It wasn't Reagan's "sunny optimism message." It was his complaints about "young bucks" buying steak with food stamps and welfare queens in cadillacs that swept him into the presidency, along with demands that the Berkeley students be expelled that propelled him into the governor's office.

And when the heck has Edwards ever been "angry"?

Posted by Tyro | January 17, 2008 12:04 PM

Howard: I think you have a legitimate point. I think Obama's rejoinder is that (a) he is arguing image-ology, that is, the received view of Reagan and his accomplishments, and (b) I think "government excess" -- rightly or wrongly -- has become a fully legitimized view of of the post-civil rights era, thanks in very large part to the husband of his main competitor. Obama has to take the terrain as he finds it.

Pesto: but the point is that Reagan had a functioning coalition to make change/"exact revenge" -- his statements are meant to show that that was the necessary precursor. I don't accept your terms, but what if I did for a moment: would it be so bad to have a "national lynch mob" out to get gaybashing evangelicals, warmongers, oil companies, etc.?

Posted by dan | January 17, 2008 12:06 PM

I've been listening to right wing dogwhistles from the Bush administration and the Conservative Movement generally for over 5 years of daily blogging and thousands of posts.

I know one when I hear one.

Obama's dogwhistling to the right started at least as early as putting Social Security in play as a "problem," and keeps on going. You could argue that it's implicit in the Unity message, as well. There's a reason why Kristol, Brooks, Sullivan and Broder are all Obama fans, and Krugman calls bullshit. And if you care about track records, that data point should tell you something. (And the fact that the Obama fan base goes after Krugman, while blithely treating endorsements by stone Conservative operatives like Kristol as just Obama's due should also tell you something.)

I wish it weren't that way, and I didn't expect it to be, but that's where the data leads me.

At best, Obama looks like a Clintonian triangulator to me, and heck, why not vote for a real Clinton?

[Stands back, waits for avalanche of Hillary Hatred.]

Posted by lambert strether | January 17, 2008 12:09 PM

And when the heck has Edwards ever been "angry"?

The last alleged tally, delivered in a ferocious bellow, was "54 years". Or so I understand.... There are those who extend the total back by 9 months, to accomodate his uterine fury.

Posted by basilbrush | January 17, 2008 12:09 PM

Liberals hate him for this, but Reagan transformed the face of conservatism from the province of country-club stuffed suits with Roman numerals in their names, to something that all the "cool kids" wanted to be.

Hillary Clinton would be a perfectly fine President, but I really don't think her message of practical experience and incremental changes is going to bring Liberalism to a new generation of "cool kids."

That's the contrast I think Obama is drawing, and I don't find it objectionable at all.

Posted by Jalmari | January 17, 2008 12:09 PM

By the way, I don't think candidates who are "angry" seem to turn people off at all.

It all has to do with at whom you appear to be angry. Reagan's fans never minded him seeming to be really angry at all those welfare queens and invisible bureaucrats who were ruining the country.

Posted by El Cid | January 17, 2008 12:12 PM

lambert strether, could you tell us what a "real" Clinton looks like? Does it support Bush's war on Iraq? Does it support bills that let credit card companies screw normal people? Does it endorse racial equality and then surround itself with racist surrogates? Does it endorse voter-suppression in Nevada?

Posted by basilbrush | January 17, 2008 12:13 PM

No, Driscoll, you don't understand what Obama said. By your own admission, you understand what he "didn't say" and what he "thought". Nice trick.

Posted by converse | January 17, 2008 12:17 PM

And the fact that the Obama fan base goes after Krugman, while blithely treating endorsements by stone Conservative operatives like Kristol as just Obama's due should also tell you something.

Krugman's rational, of course, seems terribly off to me, as does his affection for Clinton when he's spent a large portion of the past few years railing against the War in Iraq, yet he's more than willing to lambast the only candidate who actually opposed it. This seems to me to be an actual worthy disagreement, doesn't it?

If Kristol likes Obama ... so what? He's a bit nutty, but if likes (or dislikes) Obama, why should I care?

Posted by Jmac | January 17, 2008 12:18 PM

This quote:

I am going to take this statement and change it so that perhaps you can understand what Obama is saying.

is a fine example of a tactic that has got to be in the Obama Fan Handbook; I've seen it over and over and over again at Big Orange, though this is an elegantly worded variant.

The tactic is explaining what Obama "really means."

What never seems to occur to the Obama fan using this tactic is that people who don't necessarily make Obama their #1 choice -- who may even have come to this position through a process of reasoning -- may have examined Obama's words quite carefully, and feel that they understand all too well what Obama really means.

At this point, I hear Obama's oratory as almost entirely vacuous, except for the right wing talking points floating about it in.

The beauty part is that people can project all their hopes and dreams onto the vacuity -- while low information voters and Republicans pick up on the dogwhistles.

Genius, really.

Posted by lambert strether | January 17, 2008 12:19 PM

lambertstrether - still trying to come up witha real Clinton? Let's hear your pitch.

Posted by basilbrush |