It’s been over a month since the election, which means it’s past time to start thinking about the upcoming Presidential campaign.
To be clear from the get-go, I’m not committed to anyone in particular yet. I can say that of the likely candidates the two I like the most are the two “frontrunners:” Obama and Clinton, for some different reasons. And I really like Gore a lot, so if he decided to enter, I’d have a hard time supporting someone else. But the first primary isn’t for over a year, so there’s plenty of time to sort these things out.
With that in mind, I’ll be sure to write about the various other folks over the next few months when the mood strikes me. To start, since pretty much the whole world is already talking about the guy, and he just finished a trip out here to little ol’ New Hampshire fueling even more speculation about a Presidential bid (with a number of sources citing the rather absurdly precise guess that there’s an 80% chance he’ll run), now seems as good a time as any for some thoughts on Obama.
Completely bracketing the question of whether he’s the best fit for the White House, I really hope that Obama runs, for a couple reasons. First, even if he can’t (or shouldn’t) win now, he’s going to be an important player in the future of the Democratic Party, and a race now to get his name out there and possibly set him up for Vice-President (getting him out of the Senate – where Presidential candidates go to die) is a good thing. Second, he’s perceived as a big deal – if another Democrat beats him, I think that will help him or her to generate some momentum and credibility for the main campaign. Third, and perhaps most important, I think that having him in the race will be good for politics in the broad sense.
Third Planet – Modest Mouse
It’s not my favorite of their albums, but it might be their best, and no part of The Moon and Antarctica is better than the opening line: “Everything that keeps us together is falling apart.” In seven words, the zeitgeist of our era is summed up, setting the stage for a record that will delve deeply into our sense of isolation. It taps into the inescapable feeling that, even as the world grows smaller, the things which hold us together are fracturing.
It calls to mind another great line: “things fall apart, the center cannot hold.” This is as true in politics as anywhere else in society. Even though political rhetoric increasingly emphasizes the importance of the center (moderates, swing voters, independents, etc.) politics itself is often little more than a battle between increasingly divided and embittered sides. And while many pay lip service to bipartisanship, in practice this only means forcing the other side to sign onto your ideas.
Some might argue that there is nothing wrong with this: after all, Clinton exploited these factors to fine effect with his strategy of triangulation. Then there is the opposite side of the same coin: the Bush/Rove strategy of throwing red meat to the base and splitting off just enough of the center to run the tables garnered them a number of big wins. The uniting factor in both approaches is the strategic calculation of what compromises must be made to siphon off just enough of the center. Perhaps the lesson to draw is that this is simply the reality of modern politics and the solution is to be better at it than the other side.
Obama, however, does not think so, and I’m inclined to agree with him.
The problem with that understanding of politics is its fundamental negativity. It accepts that battles must be fought at the margins, it accepts that the is little room for politicians to tap into broad values or ideals which can bridge divides, and it accepts that . In short, it treats the battlegrounds as a given and merely asks us to fight better than the enemy.
Don’t get me wrong: some of these factors are immutable, and I wouldn’t support any candidate who promotes compromise for its own sake without regard to the consequences.
Unfortunately, I’ve read a number of articles about Obama suggesting something along these lines: that his primary message is bipartisanship. To me, that suggests just how important his real message is. And that is simply: hope. Hope for a political framework that encourages unity. Belief that if we can remember the plethora of ways that we agree, it will be possible to engage in fair and honest debate about those places where we disagree.
This is an incredibly powerful message, as anyone who saw his speech at the 2004 Convention should understand. If you didn’t, I strongly urge you to check out out, or download it and hear for yourself. A brief excerpt of the most inspiring section:
“Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us — the spin masters, the negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of “anything goes.” Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America — there’s the United States of America.
The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.
In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?”
Hope – The Submarines
This is why Obama is a truly unique and important voice. He is building an idea of America that the overwhelming majority of this country will support and which is inextricably tied to progressive, liberal politics.
Hope, hope in the future, hope that America can fully live up to its ideals. But not a blind hope, not needless optimism. It is a hope built out of our shared beliefs and desires, which casts an enormous shadow, encompassing everyone from radical environmentalists to advocates for reproductive freedom, to working class families concerned about maintaining their standard of living, to people worried about genocide in Darfur or living conditions in downtown Detroit. Christians and atheists, red states and blue states, whites, blacks, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, everyone…Obama is inviting us all to discover what unites us rather than what divides us.
In doing so he is not saying anything that we haven’t heard before, but he is saying it in a way that few Democrats have been willing or able to for a very long time. For too long, Democrats have been perceived as reactive, without a unique vision for the future. They are perceived by many as weathervanes, testing the public will and then responding accordingly. Or, they have been perceived as radically liberal, far outside the boundaries of contemporary civic and political discourse.
Of course, a large part of this is spin – what some may call “flip flops” another might call “attention to nuance” – but fair or not, those perceptions have shaped public opinion, making it difficult to win elections or to build a broad progressive coalition. Gore and (especially) Kerry lost the spin war on the question of a firm political vision. I think it is important that the next candidate take on this fight directly, not by sacrificing nuance, but by articulating an overarching belief in America which accounts for and requires a willingness to recognize shades of grey and openness to tough decisions.
As I said, this does not mean that Obama would avoid taking a stance on contentious questions: quite the opposite. His vision of politics is one where people can hold contending beliefs, but find room to discuss them openly.
Why is this important? At the most basic level, because progressives and liberals will win elections if politics is organized this way. The more the public is willing to consider details and nuance, the better off we will be. The less that tricks matter, the better we will be. And the more that real values are considered, the better we’ll be. This is true because, in general, the public agrees with us.
I know conservatives say the same thing, and in many ways they’re right. But I think they’re only right because we let them be right. We have ceded control over the framing of politics to the Right. In their world, people don’t like the government taking their money, they like America to be strong, and they don’t want people to behave immorally.
The problem is, that’s not really any different than the progressive perspective, except for framing. The Right says “the Democrats will raise taxes” and we should be saying “the Republicans won’t pay for education, health care, Social Security, energy security, etc.”
The Right says “we want America to be strong” and we should be saying “we want America to be strong, but our strength does not only come at the barrel of a gun – it also comes from our moral strength, our willingness to improve the lives of every person on this planet, and our economic strength. Anyone can be a bully, but as we learned from Spiderman, ‘with great strength comes great responsibility.’ We can and should be strong enough to exercise our power judiciously and wisely.”
The Right says “morals matter” and we agree. We disagree about some of those values (abortion, gay marriage, the role of religion in public life), but we agree on the overwhelming majority of them: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In general, we find that people should have the opportunity to a good education, job opportunities, freedom from discrimination, and the chance to live the life they want to live.
This does not mean there are no differences, nor that we should avoid arguments about those differences. To the contrary, it means we should pursue those matters in great detail. But it changes how we think about them. In this conception gay marriage is not a war between two sides, both of whom find the other to be immoral and despicable. Rather, it is a discussion among many people who share the basic ideals (the importance of love and caring families) but disagree about how those can be achieved.
If that is the case, we have space to discuss. And this is where progressives win, because in the end, people will agree with us. Values are fundamental but how we interpret those values can change. For example, in the status quo, gay marriage is considered untouchable by most Democrats because polls consistently show the majority of America is against it. But those same polls said the overwhelming majority of America was in favor of segregation and laws against miscegenation not that long ago.
The point is that intolerance is far more often the result of ignorance than intention. As people became aware of the issue, it became more and more infeasible to publicly support segregation, to the point where Trent Lott is only just now climbing out of the pit he dug for himself by reminiscing positively about Strom Thurmond’s presidential campaign.
This is why I think it will be a good thing for him to be in the race. Even if he does not win, other candidates will be forced to accept these terms as possible, will be forced to work within them, will be forced to forge coalitions among disparate groups. This does not mean the campaign ought to focus exclusively on these “divisive” issues, but the ability to incorporate the economy, Iraq, job security, health care, race, sexuality, and hope into a broad framework is essential.
And if Obama does win the nomination, I think it may be a great thing for those interested in creating a meaningful progressive coalition bound together by shared dreams, rather than a temporary one created by backlash against GOP corruption, the war in Iraq, and struggling economy. Any candidate can do it, but Obama is likely best-suited to become a rallying point that empowers Democratic candidates across the board in state legislatures, school boards, governorships, and the US Congress, both now and in the future.
As I said in the beginning, I don’t want this come off as absolute support for Obama. I do have a number of concerns, the most important of which is whether the audacity of hope will translate into a real commitment to progressive values. He talks the talk but, for example, he supports the pretense that civil unions are a meaningful compromise on gay marriage. The line between a genuine politics of unity and surrender is a thin one, and even if his ideals do not step over the line, I worry that the rough-and-tumble of politics may defeat idealism. And if that happens, the sheen will quickly rub off and it will become difficult to distinguish Obama from any other centrist candidate.
But at the very least he is an interesting candidate and it’s a good thing for the party to have people like him. If you want more, I can strongly recommend his book The Audacity of Hope, which goes into much greater depth on many of these points and is an enjoyable read in its own right, showing one other great thing about Obama – his talent with words and obvious intelligence and care about language.