As you know, I think that the whole Obama/Reagan flap is nonsense. And yet the controversy gave rise to this interesting essay, which appeared on -- who'd a thunk it? -- Democratic Underground.
In brief: The author of the afore-linked piece argues that Reagan did indeed change the country in fundamental ways, as Clinton and Nixon did not. The essay draws a distinction between "transformative" leaders who tend to be partisan, ideological and confrontational -- think Andy Jackson, think Teddy, think FDR, think Ronnie -- and the "co-opting" presidents who compromise, cut deals and crib from the opposition. Nixon didn't get into politics to implement an EPA, yet he did; Clinton didn't get into politics to gut the welfare system, yet he did. (In this system of thought, W would, I imagine, be considered an unsuccessful transformer, while Carter would be an unsuccessful co-opter.)
Here's the problem: If rhetoric and resumes mean anything, Obama is a classic co-opter. Perhaps that's not a bad thing. But he casts himself as an agent of profound change, as a Reagan for the Dems. You can pitch bipartisanship and you can pitch radical transformation -- but you can't pitch both.
2 comments:
I truly have not yet figured Obama out. But my most generous interpretation of him is that his secret dream is to form a new transformative coalition as FDR did -- and that to do so he needs to reach out, not to the Republican Party, but to many people who currently think of themselves as Republicans. You know -- the ones who tell pollsters that they consider themselves conservatives but who somehow then agree with all the specific liberal goals in the poll and not the conservative ones.
If I'm right about this -- and I give you absolutely no guarantees that I am -- then Obama is fine-tuning his rhetoric very explicitly to appeal to those people, and is being as deft and precise about it as a fly-fisherman casting his lure to coax the fish out of their deep hidey-places and onto his line.
If I'm wrong, of course, then he's just a slightly different flavor of whore. Or if I'm right but he isn't good enough to pull it off, then he'll merely have succeeded in muddling the national discourse. But if he really is doing this, and really has the nerve and the political sensibilities to bring it off, he might ultimately be as transformative as he clearly hopes to be.
At any rate, I'm still watching and assessing. I've been disappointed often enough before by candidates who weren't nearly as good as their best moments promised they might be. But it's a more enjoyable game than either the cynical or the optimistic alternatives.
Iam a huge advocate for Obama so you know right up front, but I did not become a supporter until I read as much as I could. The more I read the more I became convinced he is the best candidate.
Obama does not come from a wealthy family. He has worked in Chicago slums as a community leader, he has been a civil rights attorney, a Constitutional law professor, state senator and a US senator.
He has fought hard to pass legislation that benefit people. What appeared to be an impossible task he got people on board without compromising his principles. For instance "Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped." It was unpopular with politicians, the police department, etc. But he got it passed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Obsedianwings has a great post about him:
"... Obama tries to find people, both Democrats and Republicans, who actually care about a particular issue enough to try to get the policy right, and then he works with them. This does not involve compromising on principle. It does, however, involve preferring getting legislation passed to having a spectacular battle. (This is especially true when one is in the minority party, especially in this Senate: the chances that Obama's bills will actually become law increase dramatically when he has Republican co-sponsors."
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html
Moral courage means taking political risks. Telling an audience the truth rather than what they want to hear illustrates political will. It's rare when a politician is willingly forthcoming. Inarguably Obama is one of those rare and unique politicians. I believe he is that "one" that comes along only once in a generation.
Truth matters. Conviction matters. Moral courage matters. Political-will matters. I have no doubt they matter to Obama, too. I may not agree with him on every issue, however, I have confidence in his leadership abilities. I feel I can trust him.
I believe in Obama's vision: hope for the world's future is a vision all of us -- the nation and the world community -- share.
Post a Comment