One of the more enduring myths in Washington is that Americans live their lives on a left-right ideological spectrum. We are all little liberals or little conservatives. Thus, the New York Times ponders how the "liberal" Barack Obama can fashion a governing coalition when conventional wisdom continues to convince us that the political center of gravity in America is right of center and only Clintonian "centrism" offers the Democrats a shot at governing. And, if you spend your adult life in Washington (which some of us choose not to do), you fall into the static mindset.
But what if most Americans, unlike perpetual Washington insiders, are neither liberal nor conservative? What if, instead, we live our lives on a future-past continuum? Students of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and others know that those who deal only in ideology can still make this work: the Democratic party (at its best) is the progressive party, the party of the future, and the Republican party is the party that wishes to hold onto the past. When the Democratic party is truly the party of the future, for change, for experimentation, for adaptation, we win. When we "triangulate," we may create enough confusion to get ourselves elected, but we have no mandate to govern and we sacrifice our identity.
The best Democratic leaders, those who succeed as national leaders, are those who define the future and show us how to get there. It shouldn't surprise anyone that those rare leaders, like Barack Obama, also have a "liberal" voting record, especially when, as Senator Obama accurately points out, right-wing ideologues make sure the voting deck is stacked to reflect the old divisive agenda they've perfected. But, as he also points out, "as president, I would be setting the agenda."
Contrary to the New York Times story, this election is not a left-right election. This is a future-past election and that is why I, a veteran of such politics, strongly believe the candidate of the future, who understands the dramatic changes now at work in the world and who is bold enough to propose innovative ways of dealing with them in the nation's interest, is Barack Obama. Besides, when he is elected, perhaps we will have journalism that understands the difference.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I thin Americans should be given the "monkey Business" test. You should never take advise from someone who can't remember what that means.
Whenever someone lacks anything intelligent to add to a discussion, they usually submit mindless drivel such as the "monkey business" test. These are the people whom you can't trust and certainly not respect.
One of the most essential arguements that are consistantly left out of any of these articles about Obama is perhaps the most important. Our image to the rest of the world and the message that we would be sending by electing Obama. We have not only been the military super power but the economic super power as well. Having abdicating our moral authority with the thugs that have been running our government for eight years, we have a chance to extend some good will hopefully resurect a positive perception of American again.
It is going to be imperative that we seek the cooperation of the world to aid in this debacle of Iraq. If we have a leader that doesn't offend the people of the world on a daily basis, we might have that opportunity. Our economy and moral standing hinges on it.
Give the bulk of domestic policy back to congress, where it belongs. And give the presidency the foreign policy clout it will need to make a difference in this dangerous world. Obama '08.
So tell me how the current "thugs" are really any different than any other "thugs" that have been in office.
Are you serious? Name one president, in current history, that when our military was in battle said "bring 'em on". Name one secretary of defence that used the phrase "old Europe" when trying to ilitcit support. Name one VP that when asked about America's concern with 4000 dead and billions lost who had the nerve to respond, with very little comment after, with "so". When you can, then you can call all adminstrations "thugs".
I agree with your post, I think every American would do well to read
"Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion
of American Democracy" by Charlie Savage
I think the issue is whether you want a larger government that is more intrusive, controlling, and infinging upon a citizens liberty. In recent years both parties tend to less liberty, albeit in differing areas. Democrats want more control of business (wages, hiring/firing practices, even smoking at work), higher taxes, and compulsory national health care. Republicans want more control of individual morality (for lack of a better word), a lessening of individual privacy (for "security" reasons), and federal funds supporting religious institutions. Neither party seems able to reduce the size and scope of government. Why is it that a citizen has to hire someone in order to pay for their share of government expenses? How much does our current tax code cost our economy? Even a trivial issue like taxation becomes a huge mess of contradictory and arcane rules that even experts cannot agree on. If the "candidate of the future" is one that is for a larger government, without first attempting to make sense of all that the government does poorly currently, or shouldn't do at all, I don't think they can be described as forward looking.
The Democrats have already won the war on smoking. Now they've moved on to wanting to regulate our diets.
The thermostats in our houses are next. Not only that they want to force us to use mercury laden light bulbs that are legally toxic waste.
And I do not see any of this thinking coming fro the Obama camp or any of the pols running for that matter.
It really is the same ole same ole......just with a few twists in the way the same ole same ole is presented.
I have an open mind about Obama. That said, Obama has no experience. And the White House is not an entry level job.
I've begun reading Sen. Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope," and parts of it are very appealing like the man himself. However, he deals in generalities and unlike you I do not find Obama's analysis of contemporary American life very forward looking. I see lots of cliches as he tries to fashion his picture of what America is like. In huge contrast to Reagan, Obama himself depicts this -- as though it were a college essay exam. Reagan's ideas were shaped FOR him by a long tenure of listening to people. Reagan was the true "grass roots" guy, getting his talking points from real citizens whose views he respected and didn't patronize (big difference from today).
I have been reading Reagan's "An American Life" lately. Reagan is the most "forward" looking president we've had. I have been astonished reading this book, now eighteen years after its publication. The emerging threat of Islamic terrorism is something Reagan predicted with stunning clarity.
Your current progressives are old school Do Gooders. They focus on "solving" the problems of ordinary Americans -- so sure that ordinary Americans are incapable of solving their problems themselves. "Nanny government" is not just a Republican jeer.
Otherwise, though, I agree with you that most Americans are neither "right" nor "left" and the biggest error the two political parties make is supposing it to be otherwise.
Both parties have been taken over by the fringe- the far left and far right and no longer represent the majority of the country. And since when does the media dictate to us who are the viable presidential candidates? The media elite (both on the left and right) seem to think that they know what is best for us but they are sadly mistaken. It may not happen in this cycle but we will take our country back. I will no longer tolerate the practice of personally attacking somebody because they have a different political philosophy.
We are all Americans first.
Yes, we are Americans first. We need to be Americans, first. Bravo.
I will say this. Anyone who has read the history of the 20th century has concluded t hat socialism did not work....and that capitlism did.
I think your post is a bit nonsensical, I'll include two links that I think dispute your claim.
The first is: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/understanding_fascism.htm
The second is: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/rise_of_american_fascism.htm
The gentlemen who wrote these articles does not strike me as having an ax to grind, but
as a serious scholar of history. You're free to disagree.
here is the continuation of my post.....
2. These articles talk about the phenomenon of monoply businesses. I think the history here is a little off. In a capitalist system a pure monopoly is almost impossible to carry out for any given length of time without the help of the government. I think the Sherman Anti-trust laws of the late 1800's accomplished little more than political capital to a percieved but not ultimately distructive issue.
Here is a link that expands this:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Monopoly.html
So I argue that many of the precepts that lead to popular support for socialism and fascism were built on misinformation or a misreading of what was really happening.
I read your link your link, which I think is dead on, but ignores one key
little argument, mainly big business hates competing, and much prefers
subverting government, to give them a competitive edge.
Well there is a lot of material here to read. I have read the first few sections of each link. I have 2 general comments:
1. It is true that people in the 19th centrury became concerned with disparity in wealth accumulation and this lead to the support of fascism and socialism movements. However, I believe those that take this view fail to consider a few important points about capitialism that make it overall a superior economic system to the other 2. The first is that while those that brought successful products to market accumulated more wealth than say the laborers that worked during the time, in general the standards of living of nearly everyone was increasing. Capitalism provides a strong incentive to get ahead. That is why having an income disparity is beneficial. That is the very thing that provides the incentive to advance our standard of living. The desire to equalize and distribute wealth in a socalist model is what ultimately causes the collapse of this type of social organization. This is because the incentive to make profit by taking risks with capital is usually diminished by high taxation and other forces that seek to equalize wealth accumulation. Just look at modern day Cuba, for example. There standard of living is far below ours.
to be continued....
I find you're reference to Cuba as an example amusing, unfortunately
our government has been doing everything in their power to screw
them over, and faulting Cuba or Castro for that seems disingenuous.
Sorry, I should have included a book by William Blum, called "Killing Hope", which
details every CIA and military involvement since WWII. The book does not make
one proud to be an American. I think, however, that you'll conclude that our
government has done everything possible, to stamp out any vestige of
socialism.
I have not read that book but I think a good arguement is to be made for the opposite thesis that some of those promoting socialism sought to do us harm. If you read the communist manifesto for example you would find that it therorized that the whole world would need to be communist in order for the system to work. So that meant that the US would have to be brought into the communist fold....a feat that would have undoubtedly had to have been accomplished by force.
Not to mention, Obama has shown no clues that he might be or become a socialist.
I see all of this rather simply...Obama has won this nomination and he will be given it, nonetheless Hillary and Billary refuse to say die...ok that is okay they are only hurting themselves and people's opinions of them, especially Bill! Let Hillary duke it out for the governor of New York if she has so much fight left. Soon she will abandon this fight for the nomination because she will see the hand writing on the wall but Bill...well Bill has lost all perspective and I hope he goes away...far away! far far away.
Obama will be given the nomination and he will win the White House because it is about the WAR and the ECONOMY. And lest we forget it is about necessary change on all fronts, global warming, health care, seniors, immigration, education and so on. When the general election comes and gas is $4 per gallon and the war rages in Iraq what do you think the electorate is going to do? They are quite simply going to vote for the one who can best effect change...it will be clear. It will be Obama.
What are Obama's ideas to change all these things you've just mentioned. ? He never talks in specifics.And neither do any of his supporters. They just tell us Obama represents "change" whatever that means.And don't tell me to go to his website either. I'm more interested in hearing what specifics you know about this man you support, not just a slogan that tells me he represents "change."
Sorry Senator Hart, but it is even simpler than that. The entire world is divided up between those who benefit from war but do not have to serve themselves and those who are sent to kill or be killed and really have no way to get out of it.
There are winners and there are losers.
This simple truth cuts across all political parties.
The Military Industrial Complex of the United States rules this nation and, therefore, rules the entire world now. It rules the Republican Party and it rules the Democratic Party. There is just too much money in the weapons of war. It is now not just a PART of the fabric of our country, IT IS OUR COUNTRY LOCK,STOCK, AND BARREL. No one and no thing can stop it now except the powers of the Cosmos. As the Hippie from Galilee said "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword." And we are now dying as a nation by the sword in both blood and treasure.
"100 Years of War" is a damn good campaign slogan given this now completely unchallenged system. I fear that it will be a winning one as the Democratic Party rips itself apart.
We are in very, very big trouble.
What about the farm lobby?
What about the lawyers lobby?
What about the public employee unions?
What about unelected bureaucrats?
The entities you mention have no influence compared to that of the war profiteers.
You are kidding me?????....right????
Members of public employee unions retire with 90% of the pay the got while working.
Lawyers get to sue corporations because they made the coffee "too hot"!
Give me a break....
Gary:
The conservative agenda is and always has been the agenda of wannabe robber barons and despot kings, at least as far back a Hooverville.
The glorious fruit of that conservative agenda was BushCo when he was popular. BushCo is Corporatist fascist.
Rethugs are corrupt.
The believe in conservative fascist corporatism elitism.
The "mob", that's regular folks in rethugs speak, are not worthy of serious discussion of the truth,
they are only to be manipulated with lies and deceptions.
Rethugs always have agendas that guide which lies and deceptions they will use on you.
There is a sharp organizational dividing live between the Dem and rthugs.
I wish you would talk the sharp organizational divisions within the Dem.
For instance, the DLC, the progressive caucuses, The power of Lieberman, etc.. With your insider knowledge you could explain the clicks and rivalries.
research, This problem is far older than you imagine, read Livy's "The Early History of
Rome", Penguin books had an excellent translation, and I was so impressed, that I'm
not sure I would grant the franchise to anyone, until they had read the book, and could
demonstrate their understanding.
Bingo. I personally am disquieted by the extraordinary parallels between the final days of the Roman Republic, and the present political situation in the USA. Just how close are we to having someone declare themselves our absolute ruler under a fancy and deceptive title?
Gary Hart, I thought your article was excellent. A number of years ago, there was a political cartoon,
by Jules Fieffer, featuring a cigar smoking old political pro, that was starting up the party of the
radical middle. I immediately adopted that position, and have been comfortable with it ever since.
In all honesty, we are more multidimensional than being measured on an axis of left versus
right, but I find it useful in identifying the extremes as right wing trolls or left wing fairies.
"...when conventional wisdom continues to convince us that the political center of gravity in America is right of center..."
This is right-wing media propaganda. Gary Hart should not be repeating this media-driven myth. Americans are NOT right of center!
And unfortunately, Obama is NOT a liberal. If you care to look at his voting record, you'll see he's fairly conservative, even though he'd be a great improvement over the fascist in the White House right now.
"But what if most Americans, unlike perpetual Washington insiders, are neither liberal nor conservative?"
But what if most Americans ARE liberal?
If you ask Americans if they're liberal, few answer yes.
If you ask Americans if we should have socialized health care for all, if the rich should pay less taxes, if we should stay in Iraq, if corporations should control our government, you suddenly find that in fact most Americans ARE liberals!
But if you ask most people if they want lower taxes...they answer YES.
If you ask them if they think government is too large and intrusive...they answer YES.
If you ask them if they think a government run medical system would work better than the private sector medical system...they answer NO.
If you ask them if public employee unions are slowly raping the taxpayers... they answer YES.
I think most people are libertarian but don't realize it. They recognize that despite spending trillions of dollars on the war on poverty that the welfare state actually does the poor more harm than good by teaching them to be dependant on the government. Despite all the money spent, poverty still exists in as great a percentage as when the "war" was started in the mid 60's.
They also realize that it is unfair to take their tax money and give it other people, businesses or special iinterests.
They realize that the only real way to get money out of politics is to give government officials less power and less functions.
They also realize that governement does not care about naything or anyone except their own self preservation and that government...not corporations is the element that is forcibly trying to take as much of our money as possible so they can enrich themselves and gain more power over our lives.
I really think that at this point, Dems have to start considering a third candidate, someone who can unite, even if imperfectly, Democrats. I think the supporters of both HIllary and Obama will resent bitterly the other one winning, but I think while they may grumble a bit initially about a third candidate, in the long run they will realize it is the best option, and will feel better and far more enthusiastic about the campaign.
Please do the math. Neither candidate can win the general election. Who cares which is the nominee if either is going down to defeat against McCain?
There are, I think, three potential draft candidates who could unite the party. algore, Edwards and, as a safe but boring choice, Joe Biden.
I want to ask Democrats this then. Suspend for a moment your hope and belief that your own candidate can win both nomination or election. If you support Hillary, could you support a ticket with Obama as VP and one of the above three named as President? . And if you support Obama, can you accept a solution which does not give your guy the nomination this time around, but sets him up for one or two terms down the road?
Both are damaged good. Either of them at the top of ticket, because of the damage done and that will be done, spells crashing defeat in November. When will Dems see that?
To what math do you refer? Obamas going to win, with a majority of states, votes and pledged delegates, and He is going to win the General, because, in the end, McCain is promising "more of the same" thing that has been provded by a president with almost historically low approval ratings.
Hillary is also promising more of the same, but just a little LESS than McCain (or so her deluded followers hope. She really ought to be running with McCain, in that her and Bill are already appear to be campaiging for him.
Don't waste your time trying to decrease the enthusiasm of Obama supporters. I see NO enthusiasm for Hillary, but rather, most of the time I either see her supporters attacking Obama supporters or trying to make excuses for things like Kosovo war stories, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Failed Health Care, ect.ect.ect.
Woah Nelly!
I don't see the supers giving it to Hillary after Barack has more delegates, more states and more popular votes...
I CERAINTLY don't see them giving it to a third yahoo who didn't go the course..
Its Barack's.
Posted March 25, 2008 | 10:39 AM (EST)