|
of course, the most of the non-Obama supporters don't really care. Obama comes to bury Reagan, not to praise him by Fonsia
Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:24:18 PM PST
I found it painful to read yesterday's diary regarding Barack Obama's comments about Ronald Reagan. Seeing such obviously sincere people completely misinterpret Sen. Obama's comments and misunderstand the rare opportunity that Obama offers to the progressive community prompted me to attempt an explanation of that opportunity. Many Kossacks appear to be missing the possibilities for the generational change to progressivism that Obama is trying to achieve. Only by winning the kind of mandate that Reagan won can major change be accomplished.
Far from agreeing with Reagan, Obama instead is attempting to reverse Reagan's legacy. He is doing so by following Reagan's successful battle plan for winning a complete generational realignment of politics in this nation. He cites Reagan not for his policies, but for the man's undeniable political prowess. Reagan achieved a generational shift toward conservatism, still the dominant philosophy in the nation. Simply put: Reagan won, and we lost (as did America).
Now, because of the incompetence, stupidity, and sickeningly vicious politics of George W. Bush, we have a chance to overthrow not just the Bush/Cheney junta, but to completely overturn Reagan's victory. Only Obama, because he attracts the crossover votes necessary to achieve a powerful mandate, can do it.
Fonsia's diary :: ::
The chance for the kind of generational realignment achieved by Reagan comes rarely. Only a nearly complete disillusionment of the majority of the population offers that window of opportunity. FDR, as the Depression struck, seized the opportunity, as did LBJ after JFK's assassination, as did Reagan after more than a decade of strife left the majority of the population willing to try something new. Obama now sees a new chance for complete change.
These generational shifts go back a long way. Political conservatism dominated the 1920s. Harding and Coolidge allowed business to run amok in the 20s. Most Americans agreed with that approach. Throughout that decade the average American zestfully played the stock market as though it were a sure bet. Then, absent rational regulation, business collapsed and the roar of the 1920s morphed into a howl. Herbert Hoover, once a great humanitarian (Hoover had led the relief drive that saved many thousands of lives in Europe after the devastation of World War I), found himself trapped within his conservative philosophy. Government, he believed, must keep its hands off business. Hoover simply did not believe that he could marshall the power of the government that was necessary to aid devastated Americans, as he had previously aided Europeans.
Enter FDR, who understood how to reach voters during the desperate times. With the nation both economically and emotionally depressed, FDR ran his campaign with a strong message of optimism. "Happy Days are Here Again," he trumpeted. Of course he trounced Hoover, winning a strong mandate from voters.
In his first term, using the power of that mandate, FDR quickly pushed through his National Recovery Act and Social Security, (begun in 1935, although it did not pay benefits until later).
It was a generational realignment toward progressivism that lasted through Truman's administration.
After World War II and Truman's administration, which was perceived as a failure by the vast majority of the population, the country again turned mildly toward conservatism. Fortunately, smiling, optimistic Eisenhower was a far more progressive Republican than the rest of his party.
But Eisenhower's landslide victory was a realignment toward conservatism of a milder sort than we know today. The window of opportunity wasn't open in 1960--it took a candidate as inspirational (and optimistic) as JFK to barely eke out the narrowest victory in U.S. history.
After JFK's assassination, however, LBJ was able to win one of the greatest landslide victories in history, giving him a mandate to push through major progressive legislation, including Medicare. Johnson won not on optimism, but on an overwhelming sympathy vote from a traumatized nation, yet the mandate worked just as well to give LBJ the power he needed.
It could have been another realignment toward progressivism until LBJ ruined it with the Vietnam War.
The turmoil of the 60s turned half the country toward political conservatism. The nation divided along the lines we still see today. Because of Watergate, Nixon lost his chance for a generational realignment after his second, massive victory. Carter won with only a narrow victory that reflected the nation's continuing division, and was unable to achieve his goals as president. Then the struggling economy and the Iranian hostage crisis set the stage for another big shift.
Enter Ronald Reagan. He beat us. He also implemented shortsighted, egregiously destructive policies that were, intentionally, the polar opposite of progressivism.
How did Reagan beat us? By winning the kind of mandate that gives a president the power to achieve major change. Reagan capitalized on the sour mood of the country by running, as had FDR, on optimism: "It's morning in America." He was smooth and constantly smiling. He kept his fearmongering gentle: "There's a bear in the woods." He convinced large amounts of Democrats, the famed "Reagan Democrats" to vote for him.
As a result the Democratic congress, realizing that many of their constituents had voted for Reagan, feared that they would lose their jobs if they did not capitulate to Reagan's legislation. Because of that mandate, Reagan was able to achieve major change. That change was for the worse, but change it certainly was.
It was a generational realignment toward conservatism that has lasted for 28 years.
This is basic democracy, basic politics. If a candidate can win a strong mandate, as president he or she will have the power to implement major legislation. That mandate comes only by winning a significant amount of crossover votes from the opposing party.
Narrow victories do not give presidents that power. That's what Obama means when he says that a 50+1 victory "just won't do."
However, the opportunity to achieve such a mandate comes along only about once a generation, it seems. Now is such a time. A window has opened that can allow a complete shift in political philosophy. Americans are now so completely demoralized by Bush with his incompetence and aggressive attempts to keep us divided that they are searching for a new beginning.
That new mandate is what Obama is trying to achieve. Obama understands how Reagan did it. Reagan identified the yearnings of the majority of the population in 1980, and capitalized on them. Obama is doing the same in 2008, by capitalizing on the demoralized mood of the nation. He realizes that the majority of the population, Democratic, Republican and Independent, simply are heartily sick of the constant, vicious foodfight between polarized conservatives and progressives. He offers hope that things can change for the better, the nation can unite as it has not since before the 1960s.
That's why there are now "Obama Republicans" out there.
Only by appealing to Independents and to many demoralized Republicans can we achieve the kind of political power, that strong mandate, that can effect sweeping change. Bill Clinton never won that kind of power from the voters and thus was unable to shift the country toward progressivism. Instead, he found it necessary on too many occasions to capitulate to conservatism. DOMA, NAFTA, and welfare reform stand as testaments to the fact that Reagan's conservatism still dominated the nation, even while it was led by Clinton. That window wasn't open in 1992. It took a politician as talented as Bill Clinton to eke out a narrow victory.
Obama is running now, instead of four or eight years from now, because he knows that window of opportunity is open. Americans are so sick of these constant polarizing battles that they're nauseous. (Evidence: the positive, relieved reaction of most of the nation to Obama's 2004 convention speech.)
That's why only Obama has a real chance to achieve a generational realignment to progressivism. Sens. Clinton and Edwards, while both highly competent and strong candidates, forcefully promise to just keep slugging away, to continue the battles that have been raging since the 1960s. While that approach certainly attracts those of us who have engaged in those battles and who want to humiliate the opposition, it precludes the chance to win those crossover votes, that sweeping majority necessary to get major change accomplished. Hillary (as did Bill) and Edwards are still using tactics that appeal to only half the country, trying to expand the liberal side into the slightly bigger half. While emotionally satisfying and pleasant to Democrats, such tactics continue to alienate the half of the country that does not share our beliefs. Even if either were to win the election, as I believe either could, their approach stands less chance to win the powerful mandate they need actually to implement progressive change.
When Obama trumpets "Change we can believe in," he's talking about a complete shift in politics, a shift to progressivism that will last for decades. Because of his broad appeal, his ability to inspire as no one has since the Kennedys (he is older than both JFK and RFK when they died, incidentally), his basic civility, and his talent for bringing people together, he just might be able to win the kind of majority that will annihilate Reagan's achievement. Should he win the kind of mandate that Reagan won, by appealing to as large a swathe of the nation as Reagan did, he could gain the political power that is essential to implement major legislation. He could win the clout necessary actually to achieve universal healthcare, strong action on climate change, equal rights and much of the rest of the progressive agenda.
Here is our opportunity to win a real victory, one that will realign the nation to the progressive side for another generation at least, and finally begin the 21st century.
An Obama victory would be a complete, total repudiation of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and his pathetic son, because instead of merely defeating a conservative candidate, it would defeat conservatism.
It's the chance to finally, permanently, bury Ronald Reagan.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/17/55056/5026/147/438174
Obama is freaking right by MBNYC Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:57:20 AM PST Here we go. Barack Obama, in an interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal, said some things of Ronald Reagan that were not quite to the taste of some people who happen to support other primary candidates (as, indeed, I do as well). Long story short, the Illinois Senator credited Reagan with a fundamental re-alignment of American politics. Clearly, this witch must burn. The background to the story is at TPM, here. Stoller has a transcript, here. Now, predictably enough - it is the silly season after all - the lamentations of rival partisans rend the very heavens in their anguish. It is to weep. MBNYC's diary :: :: Let's make this as clear as is humanly possible. Obama did not extol Reagan's achievements, if that is the right term for what what the man left behind. His argument is political, and thus, very much worth listening to. Because, if we can face facts for a moment, Reagan crushed us. His defeat of Jimmy Carter ushered in twelve long years of republican rule, years in which the conservative movement grew and built that vaunted infrastructure that has more recently cost us so dearly. This is what Obama is looking at. And guess what? He is absolutely, one hundred percent, right. America needs a movement President - the Progressive movement needs a movement President. As Obama said: I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. Damn right. Neither Nixon's nor Clinton's presidencies ushered in partisan realignments for their own parties, instead, both effected a swing to their respective oppositions. Nixon and Clinton did not challenge or change the prevailing ideology of their times; they reinforced it. In Nixon's case, the orthodoxy was liberal; in Clinton's case, Reagan-conservative. Richard Nixon brought us the Clean Air Act and the EPA, even was kind enough to hand us expanded Congressional majorities and disgrace his party. Bill Clinton brought us, drumroll, school uniforms, Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act. Bill Clinton, through a combination of political ineptitude, unpopular policies and the sheer force of his personality, lost his party, our party, the House, the Senate, and a majority of governorships in 1994. The raw numbers are appalling: Democrats lost 54 House seats, giving the other party a majority for the first time since 1954. Prior to 1952, the republicks had not won a majority in the House since 1928. Bill Clinton changed all that, for twelve long years, freaking political genius that he is. Throw in eight Senate seats (including Al Gore's seat) and twelve shiny new republick governors (flanked by 472 new republick state legislators creating new majorities in 21 state chambers) and you have the building blocks of the Bush era. Worse yet, from the standpoint of the Progressive movement, the Clinton era saw the withering both of the Democratic brand and of the Democratic party. Democrats in the Clinton era were those nice people who brought you NAFTA and 100,000 more cops on the street and ended big government as we knew it. Welfare reform and a new law that prohibited the Federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, signed with a flourish by a Democratic President and enthusiastically advertised during his re-election campaign. That's not how you build a movement. You also don't build a movement, just to twist that knife, with reptilian Beltway bobble-heads like James Carville and Terry McAuliffe prattling away on the teevee and sucking up to millionaires for seven-figure checks. You especially don't build a movement by shutting out your own party's grassroots. If you really want to go for the gold in the how-not-to-build-a-movement sweepstakes, you construct a shiny new party headquarters in Washington, D.C., paid for by big donors, and completely screw up the unsexy stuff like, say, voter databases. The Clinton approach to party-building combines the charm of a top-down, center-periphery mindset with the stench of incremental (but ultimately massive) failure. What a winning team. From a strictly partisan political perspective, candidate Obama has already done more for Democrats than, say, Bill Clinton's entire post-Presidency. The same can be said of John Edwards, my preferred choice, who has led the war of ideas. Edwards went to New Orleans to announce his candidacy - Bill preened in Davos and went on a tour with George Bush the Elder. Awesome way to create distinctions, Big Dog. It's not Bill or Hillary who fixed the damage to the Democratic Party their tenure inflicted; that credit goes, among others, to Howard Dean, the same guy they're going to get rid of as DNC chair and replace, presumably, with another odious DLC suckup like, say, Harold Ford. If Barack Obama wants to be a different President than Bill Clinton, and do for our party what Reagan did for his, I'll re-consider voting for him. I want a movement President. This movement needs a movement President. Say what you will about Barack Obama, but he gets the grassroots - just look at the man's spectacular campaign. Just ask all those new voters he's bringing into the fold. The Obama independents (and republicans) are today's Reagan Democrats. That's your lasting Progressive majority, right there. Eat your heart out, Taylor Marsh. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/17/105720/622/269/438076http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4093973&mesg_id=4093973 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(863 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
