Obama and Unity

Robin Toner asks "Obama’s Test: Can a Liberal Be a Unifier?" Since I was on the radio this morning to talk about polarization, this came up. And here's how I see it. Can Obama bring Republicans and Democrats together and reverse decades of structural trends toward ideological polarization? No.

Then there's the other thing. One thing many liberals believe is that one important reason America hasn't embraced liberalism is that the country is trapped in a politics of cultural division, and especially racial division. The theory of the Obama campaign is that the time is right for the right person to push the country past that and that Obama is the right person. I don't know that I believe that theory (I've primarily always been an anti-Clinton voter in this primary and I think there are fully adequate other reasons to back Obama) but I don't think it's a crazy theory. If Obama were to wind up securing 52 percent of the vote, that would be a long way from "unifying the country" but it would still be the biggest progressive mandate the country's had in decades.

Comments

Adding to what MY says: My understanding of Obama's promise to "unify" the country isn't that he'll make Barbara Boxer and Jim Inhofe suddenly become ideological soulmates, but that he'll be more effective in bringing public pressure and persuaisive force to bare on those citizens and legislators who are independent/unaffiliated/persuadable, thus consolidating everyone other than the 30%-sized die-hard GOP rump into a pretty solid working majority. His promise isn't to unify EVERYONE, but to marginalize everyone he can't bring into his coalition.

Posted by Daniel Munz | March 25, 2008 10:19 AM

I am one of those people who remains unconvinced that the political polarization we have seen recently is fundamentally ideological in nature. For lack of a better word I guess "cultural" works as an alternative to "ideological", and I do indeed believe that someone who can put together a broad "cultural" coalition could make it appear as if he or she had put together a broad ideological coalition. But again, just as the current appearance of ideological polarization is actually the effect of another (cultural) cause, I think that possible appearance of a reduction in ideological polarization would similarly be just the effect of another (cultural) cause.

Posted by DTM | March 25, 2008 10:19 AM

Obama is a unifier. What he is not is a compromiser. Oftentimes the two are confused.

Many prominent conservatives are enamored of Obama, some even going so far as to endorse him. Why? It is Obama's rhetoric and tone. He cedes immediately the notion that conservatives may have good ideas. He is a pragmatist. So he will listen to the right, he has listened to the right, he respects the views of the right - he just disagrees with them. So his strength comes from diffusing the partisanship that we have seen lately by listening to the right, even adopting some of its language, and then using that language to reinforce his agenda.

For example, when he talks about how children need to work harder in school, and parents need to spend more time with their children, turn off the tv, all that stuff. Without specifically taking any stand on a particular policy position, Obama here is recognizing the validity of the conservative position that individuals bear responsibility in the outcomes of their own lives.

Obama can speak the language of the conservatives while still believe and promote a liberal agenda. That is why he is seen as a unifier. He's not looking to compromise - he's looking to convert moderate Republicans and independents to Democrats because he (finally!) is willing to attempt to convince them of the merits of liberalism.

Posted by Craig | March 25, 2008 10:19 AM

Unlike our current guy in office, Obama seems smart enough to understand that 52% of the vote does not a mandate make. The beginning of his administration would involve a lot of treading carefully around mines, compromises, and explanations on why compromising is a good thing if his administration is to succeed.

Posted by Helter | March 25, 2008 10:19 AM

Forget racial divisions. The significance of a victory by a liberal like Obama is that it would be a concession, finally, that the culture wars are over. Liberals won. In fact, they won a long time ago.

Posted by Keith from Oxford | March 25, 2008 10:21 AM

Related issue. The Times positioned the entire story about Obama based on the National Review's totally bogus "most liberal Senator" rating. With that "ranking" in the third paragraph, that turned the story into a hit piece posing as news. "But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?" It would have been remarkably easy to turn this into an accurate story with a little bit of context comparing the Review's "ranking" (they manage to rate any Dem front runner as the most liberal) with unbiased ranking sources and using polling data showing the clear majority of Americans in favor of a Dem agenda. The Times chose not to. It's going to be a long time till November.

Posted by wvng | March 25, 2008 10:26 AM

I agree with some others here that Obama's plan is not to get all the Democrats and Republicans together to hold hands and sing kumbayah.

This is not much more sophisticated than gathering a coalition of 60 Senators, while still being willing to find common ground with the other 40. He's going to continue to work with the Brownbacks on policy they share in common.

Is there any doubt, after Wright, that Obama chooses to focus on the best in people instead of the worst? Isn't that, ahem, the way a true Christian would approach politics?

Posted by Jake | March 25, 2008 10:27 AM

I've primarily always been an anti-Clinton voter in this primary and I think there are fully adequate other reasons to back Obama

But she's the only experienced, tested candidate on the Democratic side. She even landed in Bosnia under sniper fire.

Seriously - Obama might not be able to bring the entire country together (and is not claiming that he can), but so what? No one can. At least he won't go down in history as attempting to tear the Democratic party apart, unlike Senator Clinton.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 25, 2008 10:30 AM

wvng:
It was the National Journal that labeled Obama as "Most Liberal". As much as the National Review sucks, they didn't tag him with that label.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 25, 2008 10:44 AM

I have no illusions that Obama is going to magically unify the country. What I think he will do is take an approach to our problems that is more pragmatic than it is political - as opposed to Bush, which is all political at the expense of pragmatism and the bounds of reason. I believe Obama is much more interested in getting the right people around the table - and by the "right" people I don't mean his political allies but genuinely smart people who sit on both sides of an issue - and hammering out solutions rather than playing political games.

I don't sense that Obama is interested in demagoguing his opposition and playing up caricatures. Look at the way he's run his campaign against Hillary Clinton. Given her and Bill's shady political past and the number of people who hate them, Obama hasn't said one-tenth of the things he could have gotten away with saying. He's run a very high-road campaign given the amount of material the Clintons have given him to work with.

I just think there's a lot to be said for doing whatever you can to set political BS aside and actually trying to solve problems. I don't expect Republicans to lay down for him, yet I think it's great when I read about Republicans who say they disagree with him but respect him and can work with him because of his approach. That means something.

Posted by SDinIA | March 25, 2008 10:48 AM

SoCalJustice:

While Obama may well go down in history as one in a long line of failed Democratic nominees. But won't Democrats feel really great about themselves? I suppose that's really what counts.

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 10:54 AM

The question is not whether he can unify, that's impossible, the question is whether he can achieve compromises on the key issues of the day (Iraq, the economy, health care, et al) that will actually help to improve the lives of Americans. I think Obama really does have the potential to do that. He has a very strong and fervent base that should provide him with an enduring resevoir of support, he is incredibly smart and reasoned, he doesn't demonize his opponents, he's something of a media darling, he surrounds himself with smart, capable people, he explores every side on an issue so as to know how best to attack it, and he is very disciplined in his approach. In short, he is the anti-Bush, and that, more than anything should give him the mandate necessary to bring a little change to Washington.

Posted by thomas | March 25, 2008 10:55 AM

Obama's emphasis on accountability and ethics has an appeal to libertarian, small-government types, such as myself. Furthermore, we have no home in the modern Republican party, which is spendthrift, statist and authoritarian.

Posted by Creamy Goodness | March 25, 2008 10:57 AM

To Joe Klein's Conscience. You're right. Sorry for the mistake.

Posted by wvng | March 25, 2008 10:57 AM

@SDinIA: Agreed. I also think he has a much better shot at any candidate in ages of catalyzing regular support from younger voters. My friends and I are tired of the black-and-white ideological dichotomy (and have been since at least high school, when Bill Clinton was in office), and even if we don't agree with all of Obama's positions, it's huge to finally hear a serious presidential contender approaching the issues with a bit of nuance.

Posted by moff | March 25, 2008 11:01 AM

Did everyone hear the line going around a few weeks ago? -- that if Hillary came back to take the nomination, the toughest challenge would be for the National Journal to rework its rankings to make Hillary the most liberal Senator? It was indeed silly for the Times article to give so much prominence to such a dubious metric.

I agree with what everyone's saying: right-wingers and the press (but I repeat myself) keep trying to interpret Obama's "unity" message as saying he's going to shoot for 100% approval on everything he does (see K.Lo's idiotic "He has to embrace Ward Connerly on race" last week). He's not talking to the 30% dead-enders; they're beyond reclamation, and will no doubt treat an Obama presidency the way everyone south of Mason/Dixon did Lincoln's. But he believes (rightly, in my opinion) that he can, at least in spirit, win over the rest of the country by being effective and not angry. The Clinton approach -- fight GOP fire with Dem fire -- was, arguably, the best approach in the 90s, when the level of GOP vitriol was unprecedented and the press seemed mostly to blame Clinton for it. But that day has passed, alot of voters have moved Dem on many issues (this, credit to Bill Clinton), and it's time to assume you can run the country more effectively by marginalizing rather than engaging the resisters 24/7.

Did anyone read John Heilman in NY Magazine this week? He says the GOP is preparing to run the '88 campaign anew -- Obama is a weird outsider, and hopelessly liberal. I really hope they do. I think, in the face of the manifold failures of the Bush adnministration, it'll be a hopeless flop...and that might prove once and for all (to the press, above all) that the '88 election was not some Dukakis slam-dunk wrecked by an incompetent campaign, but, rather an incumbent-favoring environment (peace and prsoperity) in which even the unappealing GHWBush could win. This cycle is a whole different story, and trotting out the same old canards will have little effect.

Posted by demtom | March 25, 2008 11:02 AM

@Tim K: As opposed to Clinton, who clearly had the shit 100 percent locked down. Until it turned out that we were allowed to vote for other people, I mean.

Posted by moff | March 25, 2008 11:05 AM

To Joe Klein's Conscience. You're right. Sorry for the mistake.

Posted by wvng | March 25, 2008 11:06 AM

While Obama may well go down in history as one in a long line of failed Democratic nominees.

He won't, Tim. But if that happens, it will be blamed on the fact that his Democratic colleague chose to "stay in the race," slinging mud and spewing Republican talking points for several months after it became abundantly clear she had no possible chance of securing the nomination for herself.

But won't Democrats feel really great about themselves?

The only reason I'm addressing you is for the benefit of people who may show up here for the first time today, but the fact that you think Obama would lose to McCain but Hillary would win is absolutely laughable.

Or do you think that her "experience" landing in Bosnia under sniper fire stacks up well against McCain's time in Vietnam?

The deadenders are deluded, you chief amongst them. Petey's a close second, though, which is sad. At least he was, for a time, a decent spokesman for his candidate.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 25, 2008 11:10 AM

Creamy Goodness:
Did you ever try telling McMegan that?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 25, 2008 11:12 AM

Wish Hillary Clinton had been at home this weekend thinking about her chances, hearing from "party elders" and worrying about her image and future standing in the party? As entitled as she feels, as unwilling as she is to ever stop fighting, she is not stupid.

It's hard to imagine her ever seeing a path to a nomination that would be anything beyond an awfully phyrric (spelling?) victory.

Imagine her standing with the party, the electorate and the press if she were to step out for her party and "the country's sake" to do her all to get a Democrat in the White House. Imagine the unity she could engender with a positive, supportive and rousing speech (with Obama at her side?).

This would be the time for such an action... before PA. If she wins PA in a big way Obama supporters will claim backlash from Rev. Wright & that this could last thru No. Carolina & Indiana, but that he'll have plenty of time to recover before November. She cannot pass him in delegate count, and I bet she's exhausted.

A move like this would cement her leadership role in the party, at the convention and in the Democratic controlled Senate. Also, if Obama should lose she will be the #1 Dem going forward for four years.

Musings from a political junkie...feel free to post on politico.com as your own.

Posted by Gary | March 25, 2008 11:22 AM

Wish Hillary Clinton had been at home this weekend thinking about her chances, hearing from "party elders" and worrying about her image and future standing in the party? As entitled as she feels, as unwilling as she is to ever stop fighting, she is not stupid.

It's hard to imagine her ever seeing a path to a nomination that would be anything beyond an awfully phyrric (spelling?) victory.

Imagine her standing with the party, the electorate and the press if she were to step out for her party and "the country's sake" to do her all to get a Democrat in the White House. Imagine the unity she could engender with a positive, supportive and rousing speech (with Obama at her side?).

This would be the time for such an action... before PA. If she wins PA in a big way Obama supporters will claim backlash from Rev. Wright & that this could last thru No. Carolina & Indiana, but that he'll have plenty of time to recover before November. She cannot pass him in delegate count, and I bet she's exhausted.

A move like this would cement her leadership role in the party, at the convention and in the Democratic controlled Senate. Also, if Obama should lose she will be the #1 Dem going forward for four years.

Musings from a political junkie...feel free to post on politico.com as your own.

Posted by Gary | March 25, 2008 11:22 AM

Wish Hillary Clinton had been at home this weekend thinking about her chances, hearing from "party elders" and worrying about her image and future standing in the party? As entitled as she feels, as unwilling as she is to ever stop fighting, she is not stupid.

It's hard to imagine her ever seeing a path to a nomination that would be anything beyond an awfully phyrric (spelling?) victory.

Imagine her standing with the party, the electorate and the press if she were to step out for her party and "the country's sake" to do her all to get a Democrat in the White House. Imagine the unity she could engender with a positive, supportive and rousing speech (with Obama at her side?).

This would be the time for such an action... before PA. If she wins PA in a big way Obama supporters will claim backlash from Rev. Wright & that this could last thru No. Carolina & Indiana, but that he'll have plenty of time to recover before November. She cannot pass him in delegate count, and I bet she's exhausted.

A move like this would cement her leadership role in the party, at the convention and in the Democratic controlled Senate. Also, if Obama should lose she will be the #1 Dem going forward for four years.

Musings from a political junkie...feel free to post on politico.com as your own.

Posted by Gary | March 25, 2008 11:22 AM

Did you ever try telling McMegan that?

Check out McMegan's Super Tuesday endorsement of Obama:

He's slightly to the left of Hillary on goals, but he's well to the right of her on process. His goal is not more government so that we can all be caught up in some giant, expressive excercise of collectively enforcing our collective will on all the other people standing around us in the collective; his goal is improving transparency and minimizing government intrusion, while rectifying specific outcomes.

It doesn't surprise me that many liberals would miss this.

Posted by Creamy Goodness | March 25, 2008 11:24 AM

I'd second(ninth?) the others here.

I think that the right wing has basically been punching way outside its weight the last decade or three.

I think the thing to note here is that the country itself has a lot of basically liberal sympathies - social security, good roads, weekends, competent disaster assistance, even affordable health care are all popular. Endless wars are not. I'd go so far as to say that the electorate has the potential to be a lot more uh, Western European than it may appear on the surface.

This makes a lot of sense, because, well, liberalism and social democracy do. And most people know we need government, they just want it to be well run. (Incidentally, that might actually include listening to some conservative ideas - I say liberal and not "Left" for a reason.)

Obviously there's a hard core 20-30% that really is "right wing", but the rest is largely an artifact of fear mongering about welfare queens, communists, and the French (and immigrants and abortion doctors and homosexuals and angry black people and middle easterners who hate our freedom and people who say "happy holidays" and...). I say artifact because I don't think this would ordinarily get them very far. It's only with the buy in/surrender of liberal leaders, and the wholehearted assistance of the press in spreading the lies unchecked that this strategy succeeds to the extent that it does.

I think Obama gets this. I think Hillary doesn't.

Now, I certainly don't know that Obama - or anyone - can turn all that around in 4 years. Or 8. And certainly not all by himself. But he can start changing the conversation.

Posted by jack lecou | March 25, 2008 11:26 AM

Well. It was ninth when I started writing...

"...improving transparency and minimizing government intrusion, while rectifying specific outcomes"

Isn't this, you know, liberalism?

While I think Hillary's wrong on the zeitgeist (and is far too quick to surrender to whatever she thinks it is this week), and has swallowed far too much Hawk-flavored Kool-aid, "collectively enforcing our collective will" on everyone is the position only of straw-lady Hillary.

Posted by jack lecou | March 25, 2008 11:46 AM

Craig nailed it. What people don't get is that the "Change" slogan is barely about ideology. It's about approach to politics: beginning with what you have in common and and working towards it, accepting that you might not always be right, not dismissing those that disagree with you as immoral or unpatriotic. Issues like securing loose nukes and ethics reform comes to mind. I think one controversial issue someone (maybe Obama himself) has mentioned is abortion: whether you agree with it or not, everyone can agree that we should take steps to reduce the number of abortions.

I don't think Hillary embodies this new approach to politics. I don't think anyone but he does.

Posted by Monster | March 25, 2008 11:49 AM

RE: "progressive mandate"

It is perhaps one of the greatest tragedies of our time that Gore plus Nader was well over 50% in 2002.

I'll take 52% for Obama (or Clinton) in November, so long as it comes with at least 270 electoral votes.

Posted by Snow Camp | March 25, 2008 12:20 PM

2000, not 2002. Sorry

Posted by Snow Camp | March 25, 2008 12:22 PM

I think one controversial issue someone (maybe Obama himself) has mentioned is abortion: whether you agree with it or not, everyone can agree that we should take steps to reduce the number of abortions.

No. I would not concede this rhetorical ground as long as the anti-abortion movement is also a pro-undesired pregnancy movement. What I believe, and what I also think would be a good move rhetorically, is that we should focus on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. This could help to differentiate between those who just want to control women and those who just feel queasy about abortion (and also don't have much commitment to women's rights).

This should also have the happy effect of reducing the number of abortions, but that should not be the goal. I am hoping Obama is willing to make a move like this, but we'll see, this is still a politically touchy issue and I'm not sure how important women's rights are to him.

Going down the 'abortions should be minimized' pathway is a classic liberal-pandering-to-conservative mistake that will ultimately erode women's rights and shift the political advantage to the conservatives (as long as the dems stay to the republicans left on abortion). It's the kind of mistake that Obama has largely avoided in his career.

There is a difference between pre-empting criticism from your opponents and ceding rhetorical ground that they will beat you up with later.

Posted by mpowell | March 25, 2008 12:31 PM

SoCalJustice:

Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida. That's an election. Virginia, Colorado, Nebraska, Kanasas, North Carolina... that's a pipe dream.

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 12:35 PM

Tim K,

In Imaginationland, all the states that Hillary has won in the primary season are the only one's that count! She is winning the imaginary election!

That's why you will be the bestest VP in Imaginationland history. Hillary, you, 3am phone calls, sniper fire - it will happen if you believe in it enough!

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 25, 2008 12:40 PM

Tim K,

Colorado and Virginia are trending blue, so what are you talking about?

Posted by Micheline | March 25, 2008 12:41 PM

He won't, Tim. But if that happens, it will be blamed on the fact that his Democratic colleague chose to "stay in the race," slinging mud and spewing Republican talking points for several months after it became abundantly clear she had no possible chance of securing the nomination for herself.

And will the blame be correctly placed?

For example, when he talks about how children need to work harder in school, and parents need to spend more time with their children, turn off the tv, all that stuff. Without specifically taking any stand on a particular policy position, Obama here is recognizing the validity of the conservative position that individuals bear responsibility in the outcomes of their own lives.

Do you think the liberal position is that individuals don't bear responsibility in the outcomes of their own lives?

Posted by Rambuncle | March 25, 2008 12:43 PM

Do you think the liberal position is that individuals don't bear responsibility in the outcomes of their own lives?

I am not here to defend or discuss the "liberal position" on anything. That was not the topic of my post.

I was writing about the fact that a candidate who has clearly lost the primary election has chosen to spend millions of dollars over several months (after the fact became clear that she has lost) trashing the character and abilities of the candidate who has won - which is a tremendous gift to John McCain and the Republicans, and is something that will clearly be taken into consideration in any general election post morten.

Obama will still likely overcome all of the damage that the Clintons have done to the Democratic party's chances, but instead of enhancing her own electoral chances, that's the net result of her efforts. And that is sad.

That is obvious.

The rest of your post is immaterial to me.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 25, 2008 12:59 PM

Do you think the liberal position is that individuals don't bear responsibility in the outcomes of their own lives?

Rambuncle,

The sad part is that many people believe that liberals don't actually believe in individual responsibility. Many equate liberalism with libertinism. Of course liberals believe in individual responsibility, they just don't think that it is the SOLE factor in understanding inequality.

Posted by Micheline | March 25, 2008 1:10 PM

Micheline,

You have to understand that in Tim K's world, if Clinton could not win a state, then no Democrat could.

Posted by DTM | March 25, 2008 1:28 PM

SoCalJustice:

How are your arguments any different than the ones the Carter campaign would have been making in the spring of 1980? But Carter didn't lose because of Ted Kennedy's challenge, and at least the Democrats would have had a chance in hell with Teddy.

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 1:31 PM

How are your arguments any different than the ones the Carter campaign would have been making in the spring of 1980?

Jeez, Tim K, I dunno.

Oh yeah, because all of the major issues of the day, from the economy (the dollar, housing prices, gas prices) to the Iraq war, are lining up favorably - for the Democrats - after 8 years of a Republican presidency.

And she has done everything in her power to minimize the issue gap by dragging her primary opponent down - AFTER - it is clear that she has lost.

Carter, on the other hand, was an incumbent facing his own set of problems at the time that occurred during his own administration. That, amongst several other reasons, are how they are different.

Tim, if you really can't see the differences, that is beyond pathetic.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 25, 2008 1:38 PM

He has a very strong and fervent base that should provide him with an enduring resevoir of support, he is incredibly smart and reasoned, he doesn't demonize his opponents, he's something of a media darling, he surrounds himself with smart, capable people, he explores every side on an issue so as to know how best to attack it, and he is very disciplined in his approach

Excatly the same could have been said of Jimmy Carter in 1976.

All of the these are nice attributes, but they have little to do with guaranteeing a successful outcome.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | March 25, 2008 1:42 PM

SoCalJustice:

Every situation is different, that is to say every situation has differences. There are no perfect parallels. But what you seem to be suggesting is that if Democrats are legitimately concerned with the likely nominee being unelectable it is their responsibility to simply fall in line?

Simply because you are unable to fathom circumstances in which Obama loses this election doesn't mean others are equally impaired.

Posted by Tim K | March 25, 2008 1:58 PM

Every situation is different, that is to say every situation has differences.

Then why did you ask "How are your arguments any different than the ones the Carter campaign would have been making in the spring of 1980?"

Simply because you are unable to fathom circumstances in which Obama loses this election doesn't mean others are equally impaired.

Wow, you really are dense, Tim.

Unable to fathom? We've been talking all morning about how a certain person's actions are potentially going to torpedo Obama's chances in November - on this thread and the other one.

Unable to fathom?

I'm pretty sure you do not know what two of the words in that three sentence phrase mean.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 25, 2008 2:08 PM

Actually, as one who lived through the year as an adult, I can tell you the person who was considered unelectable in 1980, even after he'd won the delegate race, was The Sainted Ronald Reagan. Gerry Ford was going around suggesting the delegates switch to him because he was, that's right, "electable". The Anderson candidacy flourished first as a protest among Republicans. Anderson was polling near 20% in late Spring/early summer, which, despite Carter's innumerable serious problems, kept Reagan away from a lead. Even in the Fall, when Anderson dwindled to a strictly wine-and-cheese demographic, Reagan, because of his reputation as Scary Right Winger, failed to consistently poll ahead of Carter until a fortnight before the election.

The Lesson here? There are no "unelectables" among the out party when the incumbent is deeply unpopular (see also 1992: Google some Spring articles, to see just how hopelessly dead Clinton was thought). McCain may have the fellation of the press till election day; he'll still have to run with as bad a set of election circumstances as any incumbent party candidate since at least 1980, and maybe 1932. Either Obama or Clinton will win in that circumstance, unless the laws of electoral gravity are repealed.

Posted by demtom | March 25, 2008 2:23 PM

"Going down the 'abortions should be minimized' pathway is a classic liberal-pandering-to-conservative mistake that will ultimately erode women's rights and shift the political advantage to the conservatives (as long as the dems stay to the republicans left on abortion). It's the kind of mistake that Obama has largely avoided in his career. There is a difference between pre-empting criticism from your opponents and ceding rhetorical ground that they will beat you up with later."

Couldn't agree more, mpowell. If elected, Obama can post some early "bi-partisan" wins by focussing on those issues where the public has been trending our way (War in Iraq, individual privacy protection, renewable energy, bankruptcy regulation) and where many GOP politicians really have no cover.
I would think that once the Bush-Cheney regime is out of power, a large portion of the remaining GOP will understand they have no mandate from voters to push the old regressive policies and will need to vote more progressive to preserve their jobs.

Posted by CParis | March 25, 2008 2:24 PM

I would think that once the Bush-Cheney regime is out of power, a large portion of the remaining GOP will understand they have no mandate from voters to push the old regressive policies and will need to vote more progressive to preserve their jobs.

Which is, I think, largely because over the last 8 years the GOP has painted themselves into a corner where they are now forced to defend a lot of policies that are at best useless, and, in many cases, simply insane. It's not just that the policies are regressive. It's that they're now so far detached from reality that they're really not good for anyone or anything but getting their proponents elected. And with the backlash that's brewing, even that is no longer certain.

But, I think it's really important to understand that the backlash is not about Lefties taking over. Or it shouldn't be. It should also involve seriously listening and building bridges to the good, sane parts of conservatism, and generally constructing some kind of politics based on sanity and thoughtfulness and...reality.

I think that's the path to uniting everyone you'd want to unite with. And I think Obama has far and away the best handle on doing this.

(I'm not as sanguine as some of you that a McCain win is impossible though. The media is still astonishingly bad at telling the truth. The backlash could well have to build for another 4-8 years under McCain...)

Posted by jack lecou | March 25, 2008 3:13 PM

The main electoral danger for Obama in a year Democrats ought to win is when his disingenuousness finally catches up to him, especially in contrast to McCain's "straight talk." If Obama had been campaigning as a liberal Democrat rather than as a nonpartisan centrist all-things-to-all-people shapeshifting messiah, he'd be well prepared to go head to head with McCain on the issues and beat him, just as Reagan beat Carter in 1980 running as an unapologetically conservative candidate. (Yes, I know you can go look up his standard liberal policies in the fine print his website, but that's not what he's projecting on the campaign trail.)

But when voters start to wake up and realize that Obama is not Oprah in a suit, that he's a real human being with a past that's way to the left of the average voter, they are going to feel tricked. And that perfectly reasonable resentment could elect, God help us, John McCain.

Posted by Steve Sailer | March 25, 2008 4:10 PM

...way to the left of the average voter...

That's pretty much buying straight into the GOP frame on things.

There is no such thing as an "average voter". And to the extent that there is a median voter that needs to be reached, it's not at all clear to me that "far left" positions like universal health care, civil liberties, and a maybe-war-shouldn't-be-the-first-resort based foreign policy are all that unpopular.

If the electorate really, truly prefers xenophobia, regressive taxation, air pollution, and uninspected meat products, then we are all screwed anyway.

Posted by jack lecou | March 25, 2008 5:40 PM

jack lecou is obviously not very familiar with Steve Sailer. Obama is black dude.

Posted by Barbar | March 25, 2008 5:43 PM

SoCal:

It's really bitter of you to suggest the only way Obama loses this election is because of Senator Clinton. Maybe Obama supporters can allow Obama to have responsibility for his own success or failure.

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 2:00 AM

Bin Laden is the only unifier.

Posted by konan | March 27, 2008 9:47 AM

Tim K,

Bitter? Really?

Wow, even for you, that brings new meaning to the whole "pot," "kettle" thing.

I see you didn't look up the word "projection" in the dictionary.

You still have homework, Tim.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 27, 2008 10:02 AM