A Reminder For Senator Obama: Fortune Favors The Bold
I was a little disturbed to read this in Saturday's Washington Post.
"Those who accomplish the most are those who don't make the perfect the enemy of the good," said former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle, a key Obama supporter. "Barack is a pragmatist. In that sense, he has a larger vision but oftentimes knows that we can't get there with one legislative effort. When these occasions arise, he is willing to accept progress, even marginal gain, as a step toward that vision."
Key in on that little bit of maxim that Daschle quotes in that first sentence: "Don't make perfect the enemy of the good." See, Daschle's got that twisted. My father taught it to me differently: "The worst enemy of the best idea is a good idea."
Now, have to say, I think that the distinction there is critical! I hate to detract from Mr. Daschle's accomplishments or go too far or be too cute in making myself out to be some astounding success that I'm not, but let's compare. A little less than four years ago, I decided to start blogging. I heeded my version of that advice amd worked hard at it every day and soon it went from hobby to avocation to freelance occupation to writing full time for the Huffington Post. People tell me that's not bad! Meanwhile, Tom Daschle was one of those in the Congress who played go-along-to-get-along with the Bush White House, staking out safe positions, not throwing any major static Bush's way. It wasn't the perfect way to run a campaign, but Daschle felt it would be good enough to get him elected. I had my dad's advice to work with, and Daschle had his own. So how'd that work out for everyone involved?
Like I said, I hate to be cute, but Daschle arrives on the scene here suddenly played up as a "key Obama supporter" around the same time that the supposedly wise old heads in the media are starting to take note of, and further recommend, an Obama "shift to the center." Now, I've been hearing the phrase "shift to the center" over and over again for the past decade or so, and I have two observations for you. First, it is always the Democrat who seems to need to "tack to the center." And second, those Democrats typically lose. So, outside of defeat, I don't know exactly what's to be found at "the center." To me, "the center" seems to a euphemism for "the place where one stakes out the safest possible position." Well, I imagine you'll live a long life without ever hearing the rallying cry:
What do we want?!
To stake out the safest possible position!
And when do we want it??
Oh, you know...whenever it's convenient!
For too long, there has been an assumption that there's a Cracker Jack prize somewhere at this magical "center" - that playing it safe nets you the fifty percent-plus-one you need to win. In the first place: playing for a one point win is virtually the same as playing to not lose. In the second place, the prize is nothing but a MacGuffin - there's no intersecting sweet spot among the voting public that you can get to playing it safe. Some people are indifferent about many issues, but virtually all people are passionate about something. So ask yourself, do you think glory is more likely to be obtained by appealing to people's passion, or by appealing to their indifference? If you answered the latter, you are Tom Daschle, and I'll remind you that the last time I checked, YOU LOST.
Fortune favors the bold. And that doesn't necessarily mean that bold equals running hard into the far-left hinterland. It just means that if there's a position worth having, it's worth taking. Take the issue of telecom immunity. It's very clear that whether Obama is for it or against it, he's going to present himself in opposition to some significant group of Democratic allies. Any decisive move will have its negative impacts. But the game Obama is playing - in which he's trying to get through the matter without having to stick his neck out - is worse. Obama has injected such a strong undertone of boldness into this race - its funding mechanism, the thousands who have been rallied behind it, the daring insistence that competing in all fifty states is critical to success - that Obama's attempt to be the invisible man on this issue is fundamentally at odds with the guiding principles of his campaign.
But that's what happens when a get-along-to-go-along guy like Daschle is in your ear, telling you that perfect is the enemy of good, and that it's time to start racking up marginal gains. Pretty soon, "good" becomes "good enough", and "good enough" becomes "enough."
Last Friday afternoon, Matt Yglesias broke out some numbers from USA Today/Gallup that indicated that on a host of domestic issues - especially ones related to the economy - Obama was the clear choice of voters. But those numbers painted a different picture on Iraq and terrorism: the two candidates were tied on the former, and McCain was well-ahead on the latter. Based upon Matt's take of the situation, I'm guessing that Daschle quote got him a little worried:
The conventional Democratic strategy would be to try to duck the debate and hope the economy will carry him through. That kind of thinking is, however, one of the reasons Democrats have had their Heads in the Sand for many years. It's relatively likely that events in the world will lead to a renewed focus on national security at some point in the coming months, and it's also relatively easy for the McCain campaign to change subjects in this direction at a time of their choosing since security issues are, by their nature, visceral and frightening.
I have to agree. The media might not want to cover the Iraq war right now and the American people may tell pollsters that they're more worried about their wallets at the moment than about terrorists. The Democrats, however, know that the war in Iraq is the wrench in the gears as far as improving the lives of Americans are concerned because it's the very issue they won on in 2006. And not only should they refuse to countenance the idea that they'll escape the election season without having to face a debate on those issues, they should be forcing that debate right now. I do not believe Obama can win this election by hitting McCain where he is already quite weak. He has to run right at his strength.
And look, right now, Obama is out there in the weeds on a number of trivial issues, such as telecom immunity, gun rights in the District of Columbia, and this expansion of the death penalty for child rapists. None of these matters are pivotal, and all of them seem only to invite internecine sparring between Obama's nominal allies. They're all issues that only demand the candidate be good enough. But the Iraq War is an issue that's going to demand that Obama set his sights on perfection. And running hard at the Iraq issue is going to change the conversation, allow Obama to get out of those weeds, and give him a platform to elucidate the flaws in the strategy that McCain is pimping - and that three-quarters of the electorate already feels uneasy about.
Tom Daschle believes some "progress" is enough. He believes "marginal gains" are enough. He believes that a single "step toward that vision" is enough. And he's of the belief that the easy approach is the best approach. But in February of 2008 the students of Prairie View A&M left their campus en masse to go to where they could vote early in the Texas primary. They did not raise a cheer for marginal gains and they were not content with a single step toward progress, and fittingly, they did not take the easy route toward their destination. Their march is the clearest way I know to visually represent the reward that's waiting out there for Obama. But it cannot be won by default. It must be taken.
Loading comments…
First Posted: 06-29-08 03:43 PM | Updated: 07- 7-08 05:12 AM