The Great Persuader
NEWS: Like FDR and Reagan, Obama can move a crowd. But can he do what they did and move the country?
Liberals have been feeling pretty energized about this year's election. And why not? While Barack Obama might not be the "most liberal member of the Senate," as National Journal claimed in January (10th or 12th is more like it), he's still a fairly reliable progressive on this year's key issues of health care, foreign policy, and climate change. His energy plan, in fact, is the best we've seen from a prominent national politician in—well, forever, and even his reluctant acceptance of increased offshore drilling if it's part of a "comprehensive" package demonstrates a welcome desire to actually get things done instead of holding out for the impossible. Democrats are almost certain to increase their control of both the House and Senate, which means that a President Obama would need crossover votes from only a handful of moderate Republicans to pass major legislation.
So that's that. Elect Barack Obama and it's smooth sailing starting at noon on January 20. Right?
If only. This is the thing that keeps me up nights about the Obama campaign: I can't help wondering whether he can actually get any of his agenda passed. It's one thing to win an election, but another to build a movement that makes an impact for years. (And if Obama loses? Then it's really back to the sustainability drawing board.)
So what will that take? In the same way that sustainable development is built on social, environmental, and economic pillars, you might say that political sustainability is built on three pillars: congressional majorities, electoral coalitions, and public opinion. Those are Obama's big challenges.
The first one is the easiest to deal with. Not only will Democrats probably have a bigger majority next year (even Republicans have pretty much given up on doing anything more than contain their losses in November), it's likely to be one of the most liberal Democratic caucuses ever. Past Democratic majorities may have been durable—until 1994, anyway—but they've also included so many conservative Southerners that, for all practical purposes, they were center-right. (The only exceptions came during a couple of brief periods in the first terms of FDR and LBJ—though even then the seniority system gave conservative Southerners control of many key committee chairmanships.)
But those days are gone. Genuinely conservative Democrats are largely a thing of the past and today liberals hold most of the key chairmanships. Obama—who got plenty of primary endorsements from his Senate colleagues, has an experienced legislative staff headed up by Pete "101st Senator" Rouse, and has shown an impressive ability to work across the aisle—will almost certainly have a congenial Congress at his disposal. He just needs to persuade it to take some political risks.
Obama's electoral coalition is a different story. It's usually described as a combination of African Americans, upscale whites, and the young—hardly natural allies. What's more, other elements of the classic liberal coalition (labor, for example) have been late, and sometimes lukewarm Obama supporters; the abortion rights group naral's endorsement of him, even though it came near the end of the primary season, caused massive blowback within the organization's own ranks.
So this is the state of play: If elected, Obama will be dealing with a Congress that's fundamentally on his side but cautious about taking political risks, and an electoral coalition that's hopeful but keenly sensitive to possible slights. This isn't a bad place to start from—just ask Ronald Reagan—but it can also be a pretty slippery place to start from—just ask Bill Clinton. The difference between the two, the difference between large-bore change and small-bore change, rested on control of public opinion.
Here, too, Obama starts on favorable ground. After eight years of Bush/Cheney, the public is increasingly ready for serious action on a raft of big issues. And Obama is, of course, a terrific public speaker. But watching him in action for the past year, one thing has become more and more clear: He doesn't seem inclined to use his oratorical skill to truly shape public opinion. He's only using it to win votes.
Franklin Roosevelt, that most subtle thermometer of public opinion, understood the difference. In a possibly apocryphal story told by I.F. Stone, FDR once met with a group of reformers who explained at length why he should support their cause. "Okay, you've convinced me," he told them. "Now go on out and bring pressure on me."
FDR—even with huge congressional majorities and a solid electoral coalition—knew he needed outside help to shift the electorate. But he knew how to do his part as well. His early fireside chats weren't just national pick-me-ups; they were designed from the first word of the first sentence to build public support for liberal ideas. Likewise, years later, when he was trying to persuade an isolationist American public to actively oppose the Nazi occupation of Europe, he gave a folksy speech comparing Lend-Lease with the loan of a garden hose to a neighbor whose house was on fire. It worked: With the public on board, Congress passed the enabling legislation and Britain survived long enough for America to join the war. Majorities may come and go, but FDR built a liberal legacy that outlasted him because, by the time he left office, the public believed in the New Deal and everything that went with it.
Now fast-forward 70 years and ask yourself, What is it going to take to pass serious climate change legislation? A liberal majority in Congress? Check. Interest groups willing to rally? Check. But to paraphrase an old military saying, the opposition gets a vote too. And the opposition's message to a public already tired of high gasoline prices is going to be simple: Liberals want to raise energy prices. Your energy prices.
And make no mistake. Barack Obama's cap-and-trade plan to reduce carbon emissions may be technically one of the best we've ever seen, but it will raise energy prices. That's the whole point. So once the public understands that there's more to Obama's plan than green-collar jobs and serried ranks of windmills on the Great Plains, they're going to have second thoughts. And those congressional majorities, who face election in another couple of years, are going to have second thoughts too.
The right way to address this won't be found in any of Obama's white papers. There's a story there, if you dig deep enough, but it's long and complicated and relies on things like increased efficiency, consumer rebates, and R&D funding that pays off in another decade or so. In the short term someone is going to have to tell the public that, yes, there's some sacrifice required here, but it's worth it. Someone needs to come up with a garden-hose analogy to convince a financially stressed public that doing something for the common good is worth a small price.
That someone, of course, is Barack Obama, but it's not clear yet if he gets this. His speeches soar, but they rarely seem designed to move the nation in a specific direction. Is he pushing the public to support cap and trade even though it might cost them a few dollars? Or merely to vote for "change"? It's sometimes hard to tell.
This is hardly an original concern. Liberal pundits have been stewing for months over the question of whether Obama is too cautious to win big victories, too invested in a narrative of bipartisan unity to get his hands dirty in a real street fight. As a former community organizer he understands the power of direct action, but does he understand how to shift public opinion on a national scale? And is he willing to try?
Because that's what it's going to take to build a sustainable progressive movement: a public that's firmly committed not just to change, but to specific change. A public that makes it clear to Congress that it wants—and will reward members who support—universal health care, withdrawal from Iraq, and serious action on global warming. That it supports a broader, more dynamic vision of collective action in the service of the public good. And not for 100 days, but for years to come.
Maybe Obama will get there. After all, FDR himself ran a notably fuzzy campaign in 1932, becoming the master of public opinion only after he was safely elected. But one way or another, Obama needs to make the transition from inspiration to leadership. In politics, public opinion is at the root of every enduring movement. It's time for him to get working on it.
Kevin Drum is blogger and correspondent for Mother Jones.
Photo: Paolo Pellegrin/Magnum Photos
I think liberals see that sacrifice is necessary. Yes, there might be an increase in taxes (but, if you can take Obama for his word, it'll only be on the very wealthy) but we'll have to sacrifice to go forward.
Same thing with energy prices. I hate to be a green liberal, but higher energy prices are good. It creates an economic incentive to find better alternative energies. It makes solar, wind and hybrids economically viable choices. It forces us to put money into energy research, public transportation for cities and creating green jobs.
But Obama needs to talk the talk to create policy change, not just to get elected.
--------------------------
Obama 2008
“Mad McCain” videos: http://tv1.com/playlists/show/11
Obama may have been a great community organizer and a great election campaigner, but the nuts and bolts of leadership are yet to be tested.
But he's shown a great ability to change positively as he's gone along - the 'soaring' Obama of the first half of 2008 is long gone. I find the focused, data-based speeches of the second 2008 half to be much more convincing.
So we've seen Obama the community organizer, Obama the startup visionary inspirational leader and chief salesman.
Let's hope we now see Obama the great CEO and Obama the calm, collected troubleshooter.
If Obama's success up to this point is any indication, he has got a plan already to make these changes happen and to make them work. The election cycle is nearly over, so (hopefully) soon it will be time for him to outline how we are going to get there.
I am quite hopeful that he will be left center like Clinton, but get more done because he has a congress that needs to demonstrate it can accomplish something substantial as well.
If past political elections are any indication, on January 21st we will see the longest line of Obama supporters ever seen "outside the Oval" all with their hands extended, expecting to be rewarded for their support in "getting their man elected." Sure, it would be nice to see alternative energies developed, but are YOU willing to abandon your auto and bike to work? Are YOU will to pay over $500 per month to heat your house in the Spring and Fall, and over $1000 in the Summer and Winter? Furthermore, Democrats (not liberals) don't have the greatest track record in promoting alternative energy when it inconveniences them in some way... look at the Kennedys and the Massachusetts Offshore Windfarm imbroglio.
As for taxes, someone please tell me who is "wealthy?" Is it someone who makes $200k per year? $150k? $120k? $42k? Will it be based on net wealth, which is where it should be based? (Okay, I'm a radical when it comes to taxes. Free admission.) And will these new income levels come with special "exemptions" for select constituencies? What will happen when trillions of dollars vanish from the US into offshore accounts?
Foreign policy - I think both sides have it wrong. I believe that the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive attacks is a joke, but by the same token I believe that diplomacy is the last bastion of the scoundrel. Remember Teddy Roosevelt, "walk softly but carry a big stick." It's very easy for a "bad guy" (fill in your own name here) to continuously come to the bargaining table while simultaneously developing the capacity to wage war on those he disagrees with. Just look at Somolia, the Congo, North Korea, Iran, etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseum. Would an Obama administration be willing to make the tough calls when necessary?
Finally, remember to be careful what you wish for. IF Obama is elected, and IF Democrats have an unassailable majority, then realize that EVERYTHING that happens over the next 2-4 years will be laid on their doorstep. If the economy does not improve, if the global situation goes completely to pot, if people see a liberal elite ramming through an unpopular agenda while ignoring their constiuencies and spouting platitudes about "change" and "sacrifice," then it will be 1994 all over again. I trust Obama (sort of) to at least TRY to govern effectively and in a bipartisan manner. I DON'T trust the next three (Biden/Reid/Pelosi) to do anything more but to promote an agenda that makes Karl Marx look like a conservative... and themselves.
In summation, remember that there are 300 million Americans, and only some of them are Democrats and/or liberals. No civilization can survive if it marginalizes a significant portion of its population. The next six months will be instructive.
If the media were not biased towards McCain/Palin; every single time McCain or Palin spewed one of their lies, the media would have stopped reporting what McCain/Palin were saying at that moment and immediately explain to the voters that McCain/Palin had just spewed another lie.
For example CNN and other networks enabled and facilitated McCain’s and Palin’s many, many lies; by not interrupting their broadcasts, at the moment the lies were being spewed. For example every time McCain or Palin used the word Socialism, the broadcasters should have immediately let voters know that getting rid of the Bush tax cuts is not Socialism.
When Palin started spewing her lies about the Obama interview that she claimed was “hidden” where Obama was discussing clean coal; the broadcasters should have immediately halted their enabling and facilitating the spread of the lies and pointed out that the interview has been online since January. Then they should have also immediately reported that a GOP senator, on the senate floor, had claimed that McCain proposed legislation would have cost tens of thousands of coal jobs in Ohio alone. And they should have also pointed out that McCain and Obama are both for cap & trade with the exact same consequences for utilities.
Enabling and facilitating the spread of lies is no better than telling the lies in the first place.
Obama as a great leader??! Who according to one post said:
“..that to get our economy and country on track it will take sacrifice”...
- And when was that? Because according to me he never ever
mentioned any hardaces on the road, but quite the opposite. All you have to do is ask some of Mr. Obamas followers who now believes that with his guidance they don’t have to worry over mortgage payments nor gas-prices anymore. I wonder what will happen on that they when they realize the awful truth.
- So the bottom line is that you’re doing just the right thing – anxiously wondering how this Barack-election thing will unfold, because there are preciously few ferry-tales, and even scarcer happy-endings. In real life, that is.
- Now that’s real courage. Hats on for such a brave dude, hurray for the brave! For the next four years. Maximum.
As for reducing carbon footprint, gasoline tax would do part of the trick. Hardly anyone in Europe drives car with engine over 2.5l.
However, greener energy is an issue which concerns coastal liberals in safe Democratic states. And it will take years before ordinary people see anything tangible because it will take 5-10 years from start of technology development till industrial production. Pushing that topic first in time when country is deep in debt on all levels and many people scrape by would not be vise decision.
Progress will be, as it almost always is, difficult, protracted and fought by entrenched interests furiously.
The one thing that gives me, an old flaming liberal, comfort is the persistence and management skills Obama has displayed throughout this race.
He will keep seats at the table for ALL of us with an interest in making practical progress, left, right, and center.
And if ever there was proof of the need for leadership, it was contained in an article in today's Wall Street Journal, where it was noted that due to falling gas prices, sales of trucks and SUVs are picking up once again, just like happened after the gas shocks of the 70s. Obama's "cap and trade" plan for CO2 emissions would keep the price of gas high, discouraging this "truck and SUV" behavior and encouraging green energy alternatives. I'm not a religious man by any means, but I sure pray Obama is the leader I think he CAN be, because we need a real leader now more than anything.
Tax Cuts!
I Support Gun Rights!
I Didn't Vote Against PBA!
(Fill-in-blank name of progressive) is not the man I thought I knew!
I'll Lower Gas Prices!
Defense of Marriage Act, yay!
I...don't really know what I think about Free Trade! Ask me again later!
All Center-Right positions. And you think he's going to push a Cap/Trade scheme that will be enormously unpopular by raising energy costs?
Can you name me a bold, progressive stance he's taken so far? Pro-Unions? Not a terribly bold/risky stance. Pull Troops from Iraq? Again, not exactly "bold" - and he says he's committed to long-term deployment in Afghanistan. Do you think he's going to risk Presidential Term 2 and bad public opinion ratings on some lofty Progressive Principles?
I'm skeptical. Or hopeful, depending on how you look at it. Here's hoping he's Clinton III, not Carter II.
(Oh, you also fail to account for the "good-ole boy network" factor. For example, the Health lobby makes too much money, and owns too many liberal Democrat senators, for "universal government-run healthcare" to be other than a pipe-dream. Big Oil = No cap&trade scheme, other than some farcical looks-good-to-the-plebiscite program that doesn't affect profits, and also has no real "green" benefit).
"...We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."
In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933. Sound familiar?
I wrote the McCain campaign to
urge applying this information to Sen. Obama's proposals! The level of incompetence and lack or organization is frightening! He should be measuring the drapes!
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucl a/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx
Sen Obama and likeminded social egineers will destroy the fabric of society.
So relax, have a cup of nice hot tea (or a glass of wine if you are so inclined), and turn off The Fox News. It will all be OK.
Signed a member of the "left-wing, feminist, liberal elite"....otherwise known as a college educated Registered Nurse.
Go Obama 2008!
You go girl!
So why should I, as a life-long progressive Marxist-Leninist, put my hopes with the new beacon of the working class?
Barack is someone people listen to, and herein lies his big chance for change.
All very high-minded, but first he has to get elected. Then we'll see how he handles the job.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
Even if he wins the election, there are a lot of people in this country that won't agree with him on many issues - too many to just steamroll without a repeat of '94.
The _idea_ of Obama is inspiring, I have yet to see whether he will be.
If Obama followers don't stop and take notice and continue to be mesmerized and blinded by the exaggerations, promises and slick talk coming from their near Messiah, than we all will have to kiss democracy and our pocket books goodbye. I see the writing on the wall, all of Obama's utopian plans will be dropped if he is elected to office and he will look to place blame for his inabilities on the conservatives who he professes cause all the problems.
King Obama seeking Messiahship!
It seems that the despicable Rev Wright's wish has come true: God has damned America!
I beg to differ about Reagan moving the country forward. This so called experiment in conservatism didn't work out to well for us.
The Democratic party, true to its self-destruction gene, wouldn't work with Clinton (or Carter, if you remember). It remains to be seen if they will actually support their own president, Obama.
When you take out the conservative democrats from the 56 seats the Dems have in the senate, their real majority looks shakier. That's whay O has to mobilize and motivate the public then the congress will be pressured to cooperate. Reagan did this and got his radical far right agenda adopted even with a lot of Democrat support (unfortunately, we're all paying for this beginning of the road to the decline that the country is in now and the terrible failure of Conservative unregulated free market capitalism.
What impatience! The guy has been president-elect for less than a week. Of course, everything he's said in the last few months has been calculated to garner votes. He wasn't yet in the position of harnessing public opinion. He needed to get elected first.
Now that he has been, I'm sure he will turn his mind and his considerable powers of persuasion to the tasks at hand. But geez...he only just had his guided tour of the White House today!
Why are you not doing articles on the fact that Obama has stopped talking about taking our troops out of Iraq? Just today the Iraqi Government voted to keep US troops until 2012. Didn't Obama promise change? Didn't he tell all you liberals that he would take the troops out day 1???
Change? What does that mean? You all were LIED to. And the liberal media never asked Obama a damn question!!!! Fools!
Coal, gas, oil, and atomic energy is destroying the planets livability and therefore the last forty-five years of ecological green revolution has brought into being the hi-tech tools to put in place wind, tidal, and solar power that transforms to electricity and is more power than can be used by society. No more blackouts. This non-pollution solution is given freely in natures kinder laws and provides work for all and forever more. Viva social liberation. End pollution wars, not endless wars for more pollution.