The Strategic Value of Lambasting our Candidate
I see the specter of the GOP bogeyman remains prominent in the "strategic" thinking of many Dems. Rather than fighting for one's principles, the apparent priority is to make sure the Big Meanies don't sock it to us later. We might just wilt if they do, given how supine we already are.
Politicians are universally by nature malleable creatures, with only a few hints of core conviction. It's perilous to give any candidate a free ride, including those we favor, as they'll sure as shit start paying vastly more attention to those who actually are yelling at them (as well as the obvious fundraising pipelines).
Obama's position on FISA is objectionable and he needs to hear about it. He (and many of his colleagues) should be raked over the coals by the left side of the political spectrum. The alternative is to see him shift further to the erroneous right, whose activists -- brickheaded as they may be -- are willing to throw down the gauntlet for their beliefs.
Al Gore's campaign strategy was to avoid potential GOP attacks. John Kerry's strategy was to avoid potential GOP attacks. Anyone who still endorses this brilliant method of achieving victory needs psychiatric assistance. Get out there and fight or get out of the way.
It's not about Obama. He's an ideal vehicle for progressive policy change, nothing more. Don't forget that. Make him work for us to the extent of our viable influence, and stop being so goddamned reactionary. It's no longer 2002, my traumatized friends. Note the shift in the winds and make use of them.
[Obama].. can't do jack until he gets elected - and the bare fact is, you get elected by appealing to the middle.
Obama's position on FISA does that perfectly. I don't agree with it, but given his history, I'm sure not going to stop supporting him because of it. I think he'd be the most likely of the three major remaining candidates to work against its worst provisions once elected. As for the political wisdom of his move, notice the polls in the last week - Obama's gone up in nearly every one since his FISA statement.
When you look at the totality of Obama's political career, what he's doing on FISA is the very thing that Alinsky would have done, if it facilitated winning the Presidency. And, despite the fact that progressives like me don't like it, it's probably that same approach that will get him elected.
By Boyd Reed
After Obama stated that he supported FISA his rating bumped up a few more point.
He is getting to those "security" voters.
O in '08
June 27, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm inclined to call that correlation without causation. And I certainly hope I didn't imply that those who object to Obama's FISA stance should abandon him. I'm merely saying that any number of interests will be vying for Obama's harness, and that we risk losing significant influence in his administration if we adopt an "anything you do is okay with us" posture.
Ideally, the Obama campaign should fear the wrath of the left as much as it fears the wrath of the right. And more so the former, given that the latter is currently in the midst of political collapse. But you'd never know that when observing the behavior of many Democratics, who still wet their pants at the thought of an organized GOP retort.
The populace these days isn't half as conservative as you think. But they'll always be responsive to concise, passionate appeals and persuasion, which unfortunately is one area where the GOP continues to run circles around us. In 2008, there's little or no political liability to firmly holding and defending a progressive position. Enough of the 2004 flashbacks.
June 27, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is framing things in a very "neocon" fashion, which is hardly surprising given their domination of the political language of this country for 40 years.
Why must it be stated in terms of fearing the right or the left? Doesn't it make more sense to change the whole dynamic that requires a president to tact between two extreme ideologies, thus ensuring nothing is really accomplished?
Based on how Obama has made most of his decisions, any sort of perceived debts to certain groups doesn't seem to be a factor. He pisses all groups off equally, which is fine in my book even if I happen to be one of them.
The republican party is facing a crisis right now, both in Washington and in the general populace. That doesn't mean the 45% of Americans who identify as republicans are all of a sudden going to become democrats. At best it means they are open to redefining their party as the part of Lincoln instead of Reagan. That takes time and patience on our part.
Not based on most national polls. The population is still pretty much split down the middle by those who consider themselves "conservative" and those that consider themselves "liberal" even though neither label really perfectly defines either group. There are conservative democrats and progressive republicans (though most them became independents over the last few decades.)There is certainly a hazard of over-playing our hand right now. The country may be in a transition and more "conservatives" than ever are willing to see the progressive argument in a new light, but they most certainly won't abandon all of their misconceptions in one fell swoop.
Obama needs to be cautious right now in order to win. The time to gently maneuver the center back to the progressive left comes after we elect him president with a big enough mandate to be successful in that monumental task.
June 28, 2008 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, that should have been 30+% of Americans who identify themselves as republicans, not 45%. Although I think these percentages are shifting even as we speak.
June 28, 2008 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You re-phrase Obama himself, who says that it is we who will keep him real.
June 27, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Voicing an opinion is one thing. Bashing the candidate is another. I don't think you did that, but there have been plenty who have lately and with many threats of no money (or no vote). I find it ironic that the fat cats wielded their power with the same threat. Does anyone think it possible that we have taken the same position that they had, i.e. that we own him because we donated. I think Obama will do what his conscience tells him is best to do. My conscience tells me to voice an opinion with a reason given but not to be abusive. Hillary made a good point today. She's been involved in politics for forty years and ten elections. Democrats have had the White House in that time only three terms. Perfection is fun to talk about maybe, but it doesn't get most of our agenda addressed. Maybe it isn't always the big bad republicans who keep us out of our own government. Sometimes it is, but sometimes maybe we sit on our own shotguns and pull the trigger. Just a thought.
June 27, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least you're able to make your point without reducing yourself to an outright attack and degradation of Obama.
Yeah, I think FISA has issues. I don't like the bill. Yeah, I think Obama should hear from us. But I think most of the people who are completely up in arms over it are overreacting... Um... Just a tad. I'll leave it at that. =)
June 28, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
What you will accept from your nominee during the election is only a taste of what you will be forced to accept during his term as President.
If you believe that amnesty--at the word of the executive, mind you, and all done in complete secrecy--for corporations that violate the law and the Constitution is not a position that I will accept, either during the campaign or afterward.
If you think that governments give BACK rights they've taken from you, then you deserve to be taken. You're a fool.
I believe it is the responsibility of every American, and indeed, the responsibility of Democrats who choose a representative of THEIR party, to hold that representative accountable. If you do not, then you are colluding in the destruction of your own principles, values and ideals.
If that sits well with you, then be prepared to be willing to accept responsibility for your own irrelevance when the newly installed President ignores your voices in the future.
June 28, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
The voice of reason is impossible to ignore in your comment. Well said.
June 28, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is not the voice of reason it is the voice of dogmatic ideology. It is the failing of both political extreems. Few votes are ever as simplisticly black and white as you portray them and this one certainly is not.
June 28, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't portray anything simplistic, I supported the wisdom of holding representatives accountable.
Accountability is all citizens have to work with in a democracy. When people are willing to hold representatives accountable, it provides an incentive for those representatives to explain themselves and further educate the electorate. The more they informed citizens are, the better able everybody is to judge the decisions our representatives make.
I'm put off by all this fear that comes up when an open discussion occurs and someone says something that might make a candidate look bad. If Obama is wrongly perceived, he will find a way to overcome that as long as there people are engaged and he's got a good case to make. So why try to stifle discussion? What is there to fear?
June 29, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dead on. Thank you for the post.
People used to blame the Republicans and now seem to have forgotten that when the Democrats have not changed much of substance, either. Hello! That means the approach we VOTERS take needs to change. We must start holding representatives accountable to a much higher standard, rather than living in this weird fear space that just perpetuates the status quo. (which, by the way, is exactly where most Republicans and some Democrats want us to be). We've got nothing to lose here, people. We're Americans! We CAN change things for the better. Where has all the American spirit gone? I just wrote on this, so will try to repost the same below.
June 28, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
The main strategic value in lambasting our candidate is that, if we attack his positions without attacking his person or character, we make him look less extreme to those who trust neither extreme in politics and they are the ones who decide presidential elections.
June 28, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink