Historical symbolism as short-hand (Reagan/Obama)

Voters cannot read candidate's minds, so they rely on a host of symbols to assess where candidates stand along various intrinsically indistinct political spectra.

One of the horrors of the post-9/11 era was that Pentagon planners were up front in comparing their military brilliance to that of Nazi Germany. Rumsfeld, and others, were open in comparing the invasion of Iraq to the Nazi invasion of France.

Militarily... historically, there is much truth in the thing. The 1940 invasion of France was a splendid military campaign, and is studied today for its many lessons about the capability of light, seemingly under-supported forces to kept the initiative through a combination of speed and aggression.

Any military thinker who doesn't study Nazi tactics is a fool. But an American Secretary of Defense is supposed to be sufficiently sensitive to what Nazism represents that he would never publicly boast that our military is even cooler than the the Nazis.

Invoking Blitzkrieg in boasting about our Iraq invasion plan suggested that our Civilian military leadership was somehow alien to American values.

Invoking Ronald Reagan is a similar thing. The tedious back-and-forth about whether Barack is "right" is side-ways to the real point of concern, which is that a person with a decent understanding of American history does not invoke Reagan's name lightly.

Huey Long and William Jennings Bryant are important predecessors of John Edward's populism. But that historical fact does not lead Edwards to invoke Long favorably, because Edwards understands in his bones that Huey Long was an anti-intellectual demagogue. Long's political techniques were brilliantly successful, just as I am sure Mussolini's political techniques were brilliantly successful. But you don't hear Edwards tossing around Huey Long's name as a great example of the political power of populism because he knows better than to do that.

The academic question of the nature of Ronald Reagan's political skills is beside the point. The point, the symbolic content, is that Senator Obama does not think of Reagan the way Edwards thinks of Huey Long.

None of this would matter if it were not part of an established pattern and practice. Senator Obama is running against the Democratic party. He is an insurgent, seeking to remake a failed party. This would be a perfectly appropriate "wilderness" message, but we are not in the wilderness. We are on the brink of controlling both congress and the white house.

Senator Obama's critique of the Democratic party has much validity, and would have been useful in 1984 or 1988, or even in 2000. But it is a bizarre message for 2008.

I don't think Senator Obama is wrong in identifying those aspects of the Democratic party that lead to whopping defeats in 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1988. But so what?

We currently face the task of rebuilding a national political ethos shaken by its embrace of fascist political methodology. The only political institution standing is the Democratic party... a flawed party built on a flawed coalition. But it is ALL WE HAVE.

In terms of sports teams, the Democratic party is an aging team with a shot at the championship, and Senator Obama is urging a rebuilding phase. It's not categorically wrong, but it is grossly mis-timed.

And that troubles me - at this late stage of the game. I am still trying to make sense of the invocation of Ray-gun as an icon. I wonder if Obama really understands what he's doing.

If his bi-partisan message is campaign happy-talk bullshit it is sort of insulting to the party, but politics is politics.

But if he really believes this stuff, he will be eaten alive.

The national Republican machine is an entity in itself... it's not just a collection of decent, persuadable, well-intentioned people.

I don't think he sees them as the enemy - and that may be the root of the problem.

Until that collection of pernicious choices is off the menu entirely we cannot move forward, because the poison will reassert itself... people will opt for those choices time and again unless they are considered as discredited as 20th century communism is considered today. Ash-heap of history, and all that.

His whole mission is the "one America" thing, which is pretty repulsive to partisans and damn refreshing to apolitical and indie types. So you're right, he's not addressing the Dem base - but he's not exactly reaching across the aisle, either. He's rearranging the seats.

K&R, BTW.

You are making some valuable contributions here.

After the Luftwaffe levelled Rotterdam I believe the French decided they didn't want Paris to end up looking the same.

D'oh!

You are right that France saw no point in wrecking their country again in a lost cause, particularly since they had barely rebuilt stuff wrecked in WWI.

Politically, France also had a LOT of fascist sympathizers and RW anti-semites. "Better Hitler than Blum!"

You know, waiting in the wings in order to take over immediately, to embrace the Nazi invaders.

figured that he would round up all the French socialists, which pleased them.

This all seems like a legitimate part of the conversation that the country should be having right now. Out front and in the open. What was Reagan's real effect on history, and what is the real pedigree or lineage of his particular flavor of dogma?

I don't think Obama gets it, or if he does, he wants to avoid having that conversation, at all costs.

Everyone knew that WWII was going to end up as a war between Germany and the USSR. The wars with France and Britain were just Germany securing its rear before turning east.

And a lot of people were glad to see the USSR taken on.

And there was a lot of anti-semitism in France, including the blanket association of jews with socialists.

Maybe this will help.

A tactically brilliant politician may be someone to study tactically, but if he's the author of disastrous policy, he's not someone to emulate or deify.

Unless, of course, you don't think his policies are all that bad. Personally, I can do without Democratic candidates who think that Reaganism was okay.

... but it goes beyond symbolism. Is a successful car salesman going to use the profits he's accumulated for the dealership as a selling point to his clients?

Reagan successfully manipulated the voters through appeals to their most base instincts. I don't see anything to admire, except his political success.

"Vote for Me! I'm as skillful in getting your vote as Benito Mussolini!"

and fail to deliver an actual Vision that will rally a MAJORITY of Americans the way the Republican party has done using Reagan as their vessel.

If you don't think the Dem party desperately needs to retool it's Marketing PLEASE stay out of politics. You are a part of the problem.

Reaganesque unity was ethnic unity... white unity achieved through a resentment mythology.

It is not accessible to us... we cannot harness the awesome power of racially divisive demagoguery because we are not a ethnically homogeneous party.

The best communicator and conciliator this party has produced in my lifetime was Bill Clinton. Clinton and the DLC went about as far as you can go in adopting Reaganism to good causes. Many say they went too far.

Unlike Reagan, Clinton did not have the option of achieving big electoral majorities through racist appeals. And I doubt Senator Obama has that option either. The only thing Bill Clinton did "wrong", in comparison to Reagan, was representing black people.

Bill Clinton was, and is, a vastly superior politician to Ronald Reagan. He was playing an intrinsically weaker hand.

And the Republicans don't have the Reagan coalition option either. In 1980 America was a very white country. Today it is only about half white. The racist Reagan coalition no longer exists because we have added so many non-anglo voters since 1980.

And unless we can somehow manage to enlist Independents and Republicans to join us fixing the fucked up mess in Washington and make them WANT Democrats in office, it's the same old devisive bullshit. We also have the rest of the world with which to repair our standing, so we'd better have someone willing to work with people and transcend differences to reach a common goal.

There are so many people who became Republicans during the Reagan era that will potentially come back to our party. We want them and we need them. They won't vote for Hillary and she will not win the GE. Edwards has a chance but Obama is the one with the most potential.

This isn't about party affiliation for Obama, it's about American and Americans. The President SHOULD NOT be political as Bush is because he leads us all. Remember that.

How can you enlist them to "fix Washington" when they want to destroy it and we want to rebuild it?

I know many so-called Republicans who were never very political; got sucked into the whole Reagan thing and haven't found a way out since. They now have one. They realize Bush is a bastard, the Republicans suck, our country is in peril and they want to make things better as much as we do.

Yes, there are Republicans on the extreme right who are too far gone, but your sort of exclusionary thinking only damages this country and keeps us divided.

I know how your typical Republican thinks and I want them nowhere near government. The wealthy want it out of their hair so they can crush workers' rights and labor unions and make oodles of money. The middle and lower class Republicans are often bigoted, ignorant, or just plain mean wanting to take away assistance for the disabled and destroying public education. That sort of stance cannot be compromised with. Look at the bulk of Republican elected officials. Where do you see us achieving compromise?

No point in continuing this discussion.

There was a time when the Republican Party had sober men in it. That time has past. I don't want them near government until they have reformed.

W/out thinking that, no matter how well he made his point, people like myself will see RED when he speaks of Raygun.

I agree all around. It is important to separate, in politics, the underlying ethos with the practice.

You can credit a Republican like Reagan with giving a good speech, and respect that ability, just as you can with a Bill Clinton. And both themes could be positive. Reagan could appeal to our can-do attitude in working hard and pulling ourselves up, as could Clinton. But when you realize that Reagan's pulling ourselves up means pull yourself up or starve in the street, then the 'good speech' is in actuality an appeal to a baser notion of what we are.

It's notable that Obama is so taken by Reagan, even after twenty-five years of historical context and all we know of where that appeal rested with many people. And to me at least, it reinforces my instinct that Obama is about little more than facade; charm and talk. No wonder he he sees Reagan in a positive light. He looks at the facade, not the underlying notions. Ron charmed America, down the wrong path. Obama wants so obviously to be that charmer. He tries to sound like MLK and he still reveres Reagan, all the while constantly dumping on Democrats and the Democratic party. He's shown more appreciation for Reagan's surface attributes than he has what our party stands for.