Obama the Cautious
| Tue Oct. 28, 2008 1:49 PM PDT
OBAMA THE CAUTIOUS....More Ezra, this time on the likely impact of a Barack Obama presidency:
If the fact of Obama's candidacy has been remarkable, however, it's hard to escape the signs that his presidency will be rather less transformative. Obama's domestic policy proposals were the weakest of the three major Democrats. His legislative instincts, as he's frequently admitted and as his career suggests, are fairly cautious. His staff is primarily comprised of competent representatives of the center-left. His campaign picked no major fights with Democratic Party orthodoxy.
This is what makes the eleventh-hour conservative meltdown over Obama (he's a socialist, a street thug, a terrorist lover, a radical leftist, etc. etc.) so strange. It's true that Obama is something of a Rorschach test, with all of us seemingly projecting on him what we'd like to see (or, in some cases, fear to see), but the reality of the man sure doesn't seem to support anything very apocalyptic. Yes, he's young, black, and charismatic, but let's get real: the real reason most people are thrilled with him is that he's not George Bush. After eight years of Republican misrule, the Democrats could have nominated Austin Powers and the world would have breathed a sigh of relief.
As for Obama himself, Ezra is responding to a Jack Shafer column that complains about reporters being completely smitten by "the notion that Obama's candidacy is momentous, without parallel, and earth-shattering." But the links he provides — presumably the best he could Google up — are pretty thin fare, mostly just a few pundits claiming that Obama might help restore respect for America abroad. In fact, what's struck me most about pro-Obama campaign punditry both in the blogosphere and the MSM is how little of it has been motivated by an active defense of Obama. Andrew Sullivan aside, the vast bulk has been anti-McCain and anti-Bush. The blogosphere, the country, and the world are just tired of Republicans. Obama has run a good campaign, but if Hillary Clinton had won the nomination (or Al Gore or John Kerry or Socks the cat) they'd all be ahead by seven points too.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
If the fact of Obama's candidacy has been remarkable, however, it's hard to escape the signs that his presidency will be rather less transformative. Obama's domestic policy proposals were the weakest of the three major Democrats. His legislative instincts, as he's frequently admitted and as his career suggests, are fairly cautious. His staff is primarily comprised of competent representatives of the center-left. His campaign picked no major fights with Democratic Party orthodoxy.
Which is why it's so ridiculous when Yglesias and so many others at blogs and in the comments complain that any disagreement with Obama is due to racism.
Going into 1992, 2000 and 04, lots of us were unhappy with the choice we had been handed down. Handed down by the media and handed down by the schedules of the primaries and caucuses. And we were free to discuss why we would vote for Clinton/Gore/Kerry but why we weren't happy with some of their positions.
It's only in this cycle that such talk has been so often met with cries of troll, concern troll, or even racist.
In fact, what's struck me most about pro-Obama campaign punditry both in the blogosphere and the MSM is how little of it has been motivated by an active defense of Obama.
Then you haven't been paying attention. Obsidian Wings was called a Obama spokesblog during the primaries, and hilzoy, pubklius and others have documented why Obama would be a good president (his method of gathering consensus, for one) pretty often.
A moderate Democrat that knows his ass from a hole in the ground would be quite an improvement.
But if we actually elect a black man President, and if (here's a pretty big if) the fabric of our Republic can hold up against the rage of our homegrown Nazis, that's pretty damn transformative in itself.
But of course these conservatives aren't racist or anything, that couldn't be what's so upsetting to them, could it?
if Hillary Clinton had won the nomination (or Al Gore or John Kerry or Socks the cat) they'd all be ahead by seven points too.
I agree they would also enjoy Not Being Bush, but I don't know whether they would have had either the very well organized "ground game" or would have benefited from the unusual involvement and turnout of young voters (which I attribute at least in part to Obama being, yes, young, black, and charismatic).
How much of his lead is due to which cause will, I am sure, figure prominently in many term papers and dissertations to come.
(And I imagine the same points will figure in many comments to come, not all of which will, I fear, be polite and equable.)
Hillary, Kerry, Socks, or whomever would also be seven points ahead: but none of them would be poised, as Obama is, to win by twelve.
Not to count chickens, etc etc, but part of what is going on is an undercurrent of dread among establishment types from the center-left (Schafer) to the far right that is responding not to what seems to be happening now, but to what they anticipate: a total blowout election that will enable the kind of mandate-claiming that Obama has indeed eschewed to this point.
I'm on record as saying that Obama is worth 5 points over Kerry. Over Hillary, maybe only a couple of points, if that much.
Hmm, then I want to say that his campaign organization is also worth a couple of points over Hillary. Not much of distinction. Feel free to make fun of me.
The times are worth as much, maybe 5-6 points in the polls.
FDR was very vague during the '32 election too, milk toast I think is what you'd call it. However, the very fact that Obama will have both the House and the Senate on his side as well as the dire economic situation suggest that a lot will happen over the next four years. Of course, the same probably would have been true for any other democrat.
Submitted by tristero (not verified) on Tue Oct. 28, 2008 2:12 PM PDT.
Any time I write a post that is pro-Obama, I get attacked by nutjobs on the right AND the left. Makes me want to write more of them!
But seriously, I think Kevin grossly underestimates how much people really like Obama. You don't get crowds of 100,000 for nothing.
if Hillary Clinton had won the nomination (or Al Gore or John Kerry or Socks the cat) they'd all be ahead by seven points too.
Not to exhume passions from the primaries, but this campaign would have been very different had the Dems nominated any of those three peopl... er... alternatives. Especially Hillary Clinton. Yes, she would have gotten a boost from the economic crisis. But there's no way McCain's message would have been listless or meandering running against HRC. Nor would he have dared (or needed) to nominate Palin, the tipping point for many a moderate Republican as of late.
Yeah, it's not socialism. Take the complaint by McCain/Palin that a slightly higher graduated income tax (and not just the having, versus not) is "socialist" and then this is smeared against Obama. It is misleading and hypocritical. When are those who say they don't like "redistribution" by tax rates, going to prove their honesty by opposing the current capital gains tax rate already being lower than the tax on people who, ironically, actually did work hard to produce new value and earn the money directly? (I mean the base CG tax rate before any inflationary "time" adjustments - I support indexing.)
Also, McCain wants to make the CG rate even lower! I don't want my earned income to be redistributed to mostly worthless speculators! If we want to encourage real capital investment, then have a tax break such as deducting initial investment from taxable income, at the front end, instead of the current sop to traders. (You'd be surprised, how many people don't even consider than my selling XYZ stock to Mr. B brings me the money, not company XYZ.)
Submitted by Legacy on Tue Oct. 28, 2008 2:15 PM PDT.
Jeff: I didn't say pro-Obama commentary has been absent. Just that there's been an awful lot more anti-McCain commentary. I'll stand by that.
Thersites: I agree, and plenty of pundits have legitimately made this point.
Bleh: Obama has probably done better with young voters than Hillary or the others would have. OTOH, Hillary probably would have done better among women than Obama. It's impossible to know for sure, of course, but my guess is that Hillary would be leading by about as much as Obama right now if she'd won the nomination.
Of course, if Obama ends up winning in a historic landslide, then I'll change my tune. I think Hillary could have won by 5-6 points in the current environment, but certainly not by 10.
I would argue that Obama's campaign has been transformative. It has been truer participatory democracy than we've seen in a long time. The number of volunteers who have grown into leadership positions (running phonebanks, coordinating house parties, running canvassing, etc., etc.) is going to have a *very* strong long-term effect, especially if the organizational structure is adapted to the upcoming task of governance.
"if Hillary Clinton had won the nomination (or Al Gore or John Kerry or Socks the cat) they'd all be ahead by seven points too."
I'm not buying that. Obama went head-to-head against Hillary and he won, by building a 21st-century internet-based mass fundraising and volunteer operation, assembling an excellent staff of advisers (especially on foreign policy), and having a campaign staff that could plan a strategy and execute it, including knowing the rules for delegate allocation. HRC's team blew through a huge warchest to little effect, was riven by infighting and leaks, and couldn't figure out that caucus states mattered.
The excellent Obama team has run a similarly disciplined campaign against McCain, raising astonishing amounts of money from an unprecedented number of donors, and sticking to its message and its strategy - especially with the solid and reassuring debate performances. And no dumb gimmicks like Hillary's flirtation with the gas tax holiday.
I think other Democrats could have won. But right now the Obama team look like the world champions, and unless and until another Democratic campaign matches their achievements, we should give them due respect and try to learn from their success rather than downplaying it. Dems should have won handily in 2000 and 2004, but they didn't.
It depends on what you mean by "transformative." I think if Obama manages to:
1. Get something close to Universal Health Care
2. Manage Iraq and Afghanistan to non-disastrous conclusions and repair America's standing in the world
3. Institute a sane energy policy that addresses global warming, and
4. Prevent a financial meltdown and mend the economy back to health
Then Obama's Presidency would certainly bear comparison with Reagan and FDR. This stuff would be gravy on the cake, to mix metaphors:
5. Begin an era of liberal ascendancy, with the judiciary tilting back into balance
6. Sensible immigration reform, with a path to citizenship
7. Improve lower education, and widen access to higher education.
I'm not embarassed to say that Obama has a chance to be a great President. Clinton didn't have this chance: the political winds weren't strongly enough behind him, and the challenges weren't as serious. Obama does have the chance.
Yeah Kevin, Hillary or John Edwards would be drawing 100,000+ crowds in St Louis and Denver, 75,000+ in Kansas City, etc, etc. Sure. Hillary would be competitive in North Carolina. You betcha!
A big part of Obama's rise in the polls came during his handling of the economic crisis and in the debates. Would Hillary have projected as calm, cool & composed attitude in September? Who knows. McCain scattered around and looked like an idiot, so it wasn't too hard to look more in command and Presidential, but who knows whether Hillary would have been any better.
I am a far left progressive who has never been particularly enamoured with Obama. Some recent discussions with friends have led me to conclude that one aspect of the transformational nature of an Obama presidency will be its pragmatism. I know that is not sexy, and is something I have resisted.
We have been taught to assess politicians and policies in in terms of right, left or moderate, with moderate being something in the middle. Again as a far left progressive, I hate to say it, but I think those are fast becoming out of fashion approaches. The whole concept of everything being a 50/50 split of "I'm right and you are wrong", or the Rovian 50% plus 1 approach.
My twenty-something daughter and her friends perceive that as watching your parents or your friends go through an ugly divorce. And they don't like it. Isn't everyone tired of what used to be the "Crossfire" approach? The he said / she said approached ridiculed on blogs?
I think Obama offers a pragmatic "what will work" approach. I prefer socialized universal healthcare to Obama's plan. But Obama rightly intuits that he can sell, and people will buy his plan. Maybe we can go from there to my preference in the future, but this will work for now.
More importantly, I think Obama and my daughter's generation have an antipathy to dogma and labels. Someone who is mostly progressive might choose an unabashedly "conservative" policy on any single issue if it seems to work best for most people. Pro choice is relly this kind of policy and one which the majority embraces - as long as there clear limitations on abortion.
So, I don't think Obama always will be left, right or center. I think he will seek out a consensus that will work. And that might be left, right or center.
Using labels, his healthcare plan in 2006 would have been labeled far, far left. Now it is pragmatic. I don't think you can even say it is centrist in the sense of what a conservative would propose, versus what a progressive would propose. And guess what. It is being sold.
This approach is inhereently deliberative, just as democracy is supposed to be. Therefore, it seems cautious. If we go from "Crossfire" to that, it will be transformational.
McCain = Bush 3
Obama = Clinton 2
The choice is obvious, but nothing to get excited about.
evermore: FDR was very vague during the '32 election too ...
Keep dreaming. Personally I hope your dreams come true, but I wouldn't place any bets.
The economic situation is going to force Obama to be transformational, whether he likes it or not. And if he isn't, then he will not be re-elected.
And for the record, before losing the primary, Hillary's position on the economic crisis was atrocious. Wanting to put Greenspan in charge. Keeping housing prices up by giving away even more crazy loans. Maybe she could have pivoted to take advantage of the current economic situation, but there were a lot more negatives to hit her with (especially with the GOP Fannie/Freddie meme) than what they have thrown at Obama.
1. conservatives always step up the rhetoric. John Kennedy was called a 'communist' for example-- which is beyond laughable for a guy who nearly plunged us into nuclear war with the communists.
It's a stock in trade of a black-white no shades of grey political mentality.
2. there is something visceral about Obama's candidacy and the reaction t provokes, particularly in those over about 50 (but not exclusively those).
Underneath it all lies an unspoken assumption that a nation as great and powerful as the United States could not be led by a man so manifestly not white and so exotic in name and family history.
'Racism' isn't quite the right word, but it is the sort of feeling that this is the ultimate 'uppity black'.
It's not that these people are personally racist, but the shock of a guy like that, with a wife like Michelle, is going to be in the White House is just too much for the sense of equilibrium.
We are probing the dark underside of the American persona here (just as Austria just gave far right political parties 30% of the vote-- it's not that Austrians are fascists, but the country is xenophobic enough that the anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner slant works).
What the conservatives are channeling is a rage, and a disbelief, amongst perhaps 30-40% of the American electorate, that a man so manifestly alien could aspire to, and take, the White House.
I've seen a similar manifestation here in anti-Catholicism, which is now a dead issue in American politics.
It's a mirror in the way to how liberals felt about GWB (or for Richard Nixon for that matter).
Obama has run a good campaign, but if Hillary Clinton had won the nomination (or Al Gore or John Kerry or Socks the cat) they'd all be ahead by seven points too.
That's pretty stupid, Kevin! If Clinton is running, Palin is not on the ticket. And the whole thing with Obama is his charisma. Policy wonks might focus on the details, but Obama's rhetorical ability and his preternatural calm are the things that make his candidacy transformative. He is the John Kennedy of this generation. Hillary, Gore and the rest are vestiges of the 90s. Obama has amassed a special kind of political capital that can truly be tranformative and, perhaps, lead to bolder legislative initiatives than he has heretofore considered.
Look at Europe's embrace of Obama. You think they'd be dancing in the streets over Hillary?!
Ha!
>Underneath it all lies an unspoken assumption that a nation as great and powerful as the United States could not be led by a man so manifestly not white and so exotic in name and family history.
And being at the crossroads it is now, if the United States wants to remain the great and powerful leader of the free world, Obama, for both who he is AND his cautious center-left approach, are *exactly* what the doctor ordered.
Either that, or re-jig things to let Bill run again, but it's a little late in the game now.
evermore >"FDR was very vague during the '32 election too, milk toast I think is what you'd call it...."
EXACTLY. He projected the persona that he needed to so as to win, same as Obama is. Many will disagree with me but for the last 40 years or so a candidate couldn`t tell anything near the truth & get elected so most of them lied. The consequence is what we have today, the most acknowledged example being the FOXNoise channel.
And I don`t buy Kevin`s premise that just any Democrat would do. "We the people..." need a landslide so as to move forward into the 21st Century rapidly .
What a candidate says during a campaign has nothing to do with what they are likely to actually do once in office. Mr. Obama is no different
Bet on it !
I see that as a very positive strong recommendation for him BTW & I do expect very great things should he make it to January 20th.
Quit being so negative (unless the McSameos win, of course, then...)
"...It`s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine..." - REM
I also do not want to revive any hard feelings from the primary, but if Hillary had been the nominee:
- She would have taken public financing and not enjoyed the dollar advantage Obama has
- She would have automatically activated the Republican base and there would have been no(theoretically) disaffected women so McCain would have skipped Palin and might have indeed chosen a Ridge or a Lieberman instead of Palin
- African-American turnout would be significantly lower and states like Georgia and North Carolina would be solidly, no questions asked Republican
- There would be a fewer young voters mobilized, a less aggressive ground game and fewer states in play; it would all be back to Ohio and Florida with no margin for error.
So, would Hillary have won in this environment. Maybe. Probably. But perhaps Democrats clearly did field our strongest candidate. That's what I think.
It's all timing, isn't it?
I'm ready for a president who is thoughtful, measured, smart, articulate, young, and who (more or less) reflects my values & policy interests.
That Obama is adorkable is bonus.
I was absolutely not in the mood for reliving the Clinton Wars. Sorry Hillary, that's life!
And nobody is in the mood for another Republican.
I second Tilli's
"I was absolutely not in the mood for reliving the Clinton Wars. Sorry Hillary, that's life!"
Because my state has been out of play in recent decades, I did not vote for Kerry or Gore or Clinton, or Dukakis (I voted third party). I would not have voted for Hillary because she represented the DLC machinery. But in Obama I do see a chance to change the political structure. So this time I am even volunteering to call voters in swing states. I'd wager I'm not alone.
"but if Hillary Clinton had won the nomination (or Al Gore or John Kerry or Socks the cat) they'd all be ahead by seven points too."
Talking of Socks the Cat, the former First Feline is still alive, at least as of june:
http://www.somdnews.com/stories/06062008/entecov172737_32166.shtml
I agree with tristero: "But seriously, I think Kevin grossly underestimates how much people really like Obama. You don't get crowds of 100,000 for nothing."
And not just really like, but really respect. The discipline and strategic excellence of his campaign has been a marvel - and bodes well for an Obama administration. His astonishing self-control in the face of relentless and vile onslaught by McCain and Palin. His general (not universal) unwillingness to take policy positions to pander for votes when that could harm passage of meaningful legislation later on. His talking to us as adults who can follow an actual argument. His gentleman-like behavior throughout the campaign.
I went to Harrisonburg Virginia for the 5:30 Obama rally today. To be held in the James Madison U. convocation center. Got there at noon, there were already a few thousand people, some had been there since very very early. Was directed to the soccer field, and more and more and more people came. It was bloody windy and cold, but people were patient and hopeful.
.
The whole thing was pretty organized, with effectively rope lined (with no ropes) walking paths. At about 2 pm, a campaign guy wandered through and described the path people would be taking to the convocation center. People stood up, and scrunched around the course a bit until about 3:15 when the center doors were to open. People scrunched around some more for another hour, but it is my impression that no one from the soccer field made it to the 7,200 person capacity convocation center before the center closed and they had to close the doors. There were more entrances than the one, and I have to assume that one was given great preference.
.
Our candidate did make an appearance at the field for maybe 5-10 minutes, gave a brief talk, apologized that the center was too small for everyone, shook a few hands, and was off.
It was disappointing not to get in to see the main speech, but his coming out made, literally, all the difference for the crowd. People so wanted to see him, and they did.
Heckofa thing to see so many people hanging around in unpleasant conditions for sooooo long with little complaint.
They did it because he represents more than just another candidate.
Kevin, Kevin, please don't kill my buzz. I was just over at Shakesville looking a pix of Obama w/kids. All authentic, all positive; combine that with intelligent discourse and a FIRM stance on staying out of the gutter--can't I think he's the bomb? Please?
Polls, Schmolls. The election will be called on Monday the 3rd. On Wednesday the 5th no one will be foolish enough as to assert that any other Dem could have won by margin's remotely approaching Obama's.
That's the easy part. I predicted a 15 point win when Obama was in the doldrums before the convention. What happens after is next to impossible to predict given the volatile state of the economy.
Obama's intelligence, education, and temperament make him very qualified to be president. His youth and life experience offer the possibility of an administration pleasing to the center and all but the extreme left. It's been a long time since we have had even that.
I think the stars were aligned for Democrats this year - Howard Dean and Obama. They make a good pair, with the 50-state strategy that Dean began being fleshed out with Obama's money and organization. Obama's campaign has reached areas that have been left out - like Montana, even in general election. I liked Hillary, didn't want all the drama, know she would make a good president - but she didn't have the vision of expanding the map and taking the fight to the red states, not just trying to replicate Kerry + 1 state. Obama has and we will be better for it.
Submitted by Carl Nyberg (not verified) on Tue Oct. 28, 2008 8:35 PM PDT.
McCain would be doing better against the other candidates mentioned.
The Republicans know how to run against Gore, Kerry and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Obama has been a completely frustrating opponent because he refuses to play the GOP game.
HRC wanted to play their game b/c she thought she could beat them at their game. And she probably could have.
But Obama has the GOP off their game. He's got more infrastructure in more states. That stuff makes a difference.
If Clinton was the nominee, it would be much closer and she'd be using the closeness to motivate donors and volunteers. And there would be only the faintest hope of the Dems attaining 60 Senate seats.
I have supported Obama since the night he won the Iowa caucus. I sort of believe in him, and that scares me, because every politician I have ever believed in has disappointed me terribly. I did, and do, expect the same from Obama. And yet...
My take on the guy is that it's his nature to be cautious, non-confrontational, consensus-focused. But he is capable of being bold, or he wouldn't have run against Hillary Clinton. A year ago, who thought he could beat her? Yet he did.
I agree with the poster Walker, above, that the times will force Obama to have a transformational presidency. Nothing less will serve. Not now. And I believe that Obama is smart enough to see that, as he was smart enough to see how he could win the nomination against the most respected name in Democratic politics.
We don't know what kind of president he will be. We only know what kind of candidate he has been. I, for one, like what I see. His positions have not been as progressive as I would like. I want (for instance) universal, single-payer health care. But I also think that if Obama had made that his platform, he would not now be in a position to win the presidency. There's too much money and power in the insurance companies that grow rich as we grow poor. I think the only way we can get there is incrementally.
I could be wrong. Obama could be another disappointment. I would vote for him anyway, because I believe McCain would be a disaster.
But I have actually been infected with hope. We're on the brink of a financial meltdown that would make the Great Depression look like the good old days. A cautious, thoughtful pragmatist who is nevertheless capable of bold action when circumstances indicate it... seems like the right guy for the job.
Before the economic meltdown Obama was running behind the Democratic brand. I assume a fantasy Edwards that won the primary and didn't nail the help would win by over 12%
John Kerry drew over 75k several times in 2004 - WI, OH and PA
"I'm ready for a president who is thoughtful, smart, articulate, young, and who (more or less) reflects my values & policy interests"
you must have really liked Clinton '92 who managed to win in a much tougher environment
Yes, he's young, black, and charismatic
Not to be pedantic, but Obama is multiracial. He is as white as he is black. I take great pride in pointing out to my children that the next president will be multiracial, just like them.
Submitted by Jassalasca Jape (not verified) on Wed Oct. 29, 2008 12:47 AM PDT.
My dear little a @ 6:48,
lol. That joins "military intelligence" and "UN resolution" amongst our list of favorite oxymorons.You have overlooked a mistake among the grammar of the above statement.
You are right. Obama knows that with a 10 trillion dollars deficit he will have not much room to do fantastic things for a few years with this economy, so "careful" is good.
If he can make Health care just a bit more affordable and more universal he is doing a great job.
Singularity,
you're not wrong, and in a sane country everyone with more than one great-grandparent of a different race would be multiracial and nobody would give a flying f@ck anyway. One of my wife's four grandparents was African-American, and the sad reality is that in some people's eyes this still qualifies her as a n****r. But then we're both in our late fifties. I think there are more mixed couples than there were thirty years ago. I like to think that, in spite of the antics a few trailer-park Nazis, there are less bigots.
I sincerely hope that your children get to grow up in a better country. Electing Obama is certainly a step in the right direction.
But meantime most white folks, even those that aren't racist, are going to think of him as "black." It's part of our shameful legacy.
