Smart Move: Obama Goes Populist In the Home Stretch

In my nationally syndicated newspaper column last week, I outlined some of the difficult terrain Barack Obama faces in trying to both court working-class voters and avoid the media's racist characterization of power-challenging African-American leaders as race-centric radicals. This is a very, very difficult thing to do, and I sympathize with Obama in moving carefully up to this point.

But with the next round of states overrepresenting for the constituencies Obama has done most poorly among - working-class whites and Latinos - he knows he has to try to thread the needle. He has to try to offer up more full-throated, class-based populism. And indeed, that's what he's doing. In his victory speech last night, Obama hammered the North American Free Trade Agreement, previewing a major economic speech today. Here are some excerpts:

"It's a Washington where decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China have been signed with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits, but none for our environment or our workers who've seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear; workers whose right to organize and unionize has been under assault for the last eight years...So today, I'm laying out a comprehensive agenda to reclaim our dream and restore our prosperity. It's an agenda that focuses on three broad economic challenges that the next President must address - the current housing crisis; the cost crisis facing the middle-class and those struggling to join it; and the need to create millions of good jobs right here in America- jobs that can't be outsourced and won't disappear.

For our economy, our safety, and our workers, we have to rebuild America. I'm proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years. This investment will multiply into almost half a trillion dollars of additional infrastructure spending and generate nearly two million new jobs - many of them in the construction industry that's been hard hit by this housing crisis. The repairs will be determined not by politics, but by what will maximize our safety and homeland security; what will keep our environment clean and our economy strong. And we'll fund this bank by ending this war in Iraq. It's time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together instead...

It's also time to look to the future and figure out how to make trade work for American workers. I won't stand here and tell you that we can - or should - stop free trade. We can't stop every job from going overseas. But I also won't stand here and accept an America where we do nothing to help American workers who have lost jobs and opportunities because of these trade agreements. And that's a position of mine that doesn't change based on who I'm talking to or the election I'm running in.

You know, in the years after her husband signed NAFTA, Senator Clinton would go around talking about how great it was and how many benefits it would bring. Now that she's running for President, she says we need a time-out on trade. No one knows when this time-out will end. Maybe after the election.

I don't know about a time-out, but I do know this - when I am President, I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers. And I'll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I've been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate - we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America."

This is really terrific stuff, and I say that as someone who has been critical of Obama in the past for his timidity on issues like trade - issues that make the Establishment particularly uncomfortable.

Politically, the benefits to Obama of voicing a populist message on trade are obvious. Recent polls in the Wall Street Journal and Fortune magazine show that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to America's current lobbyist-written trade policy. While this trade policy may be popular on K Street, it ain't popular on Main Street. And as it relates to Obama's message of reconfiguring the political map and attracting Republican voters, a populist line on trade is perhaps the single most powerful tool to do just that. A post-2006 election poll for the Democracy Corps and Campaign for America's Future showed that among Republican voters who considered voting Democratic that year, the GOP's support for unfair trade deals was the top reason they considered switching. While Clinton insultingly says many "red states" Obama won are unimportant because they supposedly can't be won by a Democrat on election day, these numbers suggest a populist message on trade against a "free" trader like John McCain (R) could profoundly change the map.

Substantively, Obama certainly hasn't been as aggressive as many would like on trade, and my reservations about him on this issue will persist. However, this is undoubtedly an encouraging step and it's fair to say he understands the real-world impact of this issue. This is a person who represents Illinois and who talks about working in the shadows of shuttered steel mills. With the departure of John Edwards, Obama is a candidate whose top economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, is the only remaining top presidential economic guru who acknowledges that our current trade deals are horrifying - rather than wonderful. And though we've seen people like Bill Clinton promise as candidates to get tough on trade and then as president do exactly the opposite, this is a different candidate and a different era - with a much more angry public.

True, Obama's a bit late to this - but as someone concerned more with movement building than with an individual candidate, I say better late than never. And, after all, the primary process is a time that can truly shape candidates in a genuine way. As just one example, Howard Dean was the moderate, near-DLC governor of Vermont, and had a very authentic and profound conversion into a more proud progressive populist during his 2004 presidential run. We should embrace that kind of transformation - and hold out the possibility that perhaps a similar dynamic is playing out with Obama on an issue like trade.

Sure, there's some opportunism here as well. Obama is likely trying to walk down the path John Edwards first courageously blazed in this race. He is looking out at the next cluster of primary states and knows that these are the ones that have been hit hard by NAFTA and other rigged trade deals. He looks at Ohio and sees Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) - a man who was elected in 2006 based largely on his opposition to our current trade policy. He also sees the New York Times report that former President Bill Clinton is going to be campaigning in Ohio - and knows that the best way to make that boomerang against his opponent is to remind Ohio voters that it was Bill and Hillary Clinton who jammed NAFTA down the Buckeye State's throat.

But opportunism isn't bad. If Obama sees his opportunity in voicing a progressive, populist message on trade, then that's a good thing. That means that we have a leading presidential candidate who sees being a populist and a progressive as a major opportunity. For the progressive movement, that's what success looks like.

Obama is sure to be berated by national pundits for going populist - it's precisely the kind of message that drives well-heeled Establishment propagandists across the partisan spectrum crazy. From Joe Klein to David Broder to David Brooks, questioning the economic elite is seen as the ultimate blasphemy. As Sherrod Brown told the Nation this week, when he ran in 2006, "I got one newspaper endorsement in the state of the big nine papers." Most opposed him because he dared to challenge the economic orthodoxy that says we must have trade deals that encourage corporations to eliminate jobs, destroy the environment and exploit workers, while legislating protectionism for patents, intellectual property, copyrights and other corporate profit shields.

But Brown didn't cater to elite opinion - he was talking directly to voters. If Obama can withstand the inevitable onslaught of scorn from the Punditburo, his new populism may deliver him the presidency.

Comments

[irishgawdess]

I'm glad that you mentioned Obama's top economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee. I've been reading about him and the various theories he's put to Obama: behavioral economics, game theory and public and rational choice theory. Will we actually have an intellectual for a president? Obama's got a degree in Constitutional Law. Will we get habeas corpus back?

Obama wants to eliminate the inequality throughout our economic and social systems. It won't further devastate our economy, give more power to the state, nor impact our personal liberties. Obama's health care plan won't be mandatory (like Hillary's), but rather attractive to many so that they will voluntary sign up if they want it.

After the current "up is down and down is up" dysfunctional logic in Washington D.C., it would be such a relief to have a president who actually uses common sense. Capitalism is great the way it's *supposed* to work; it requires being willing to take risks in order to get the rewards. The government shouldn't bail out failed businesses or give them tax breaks to move OUT of the country to increase their profits. Imagine, corporations with a conscience. Of course, they will get tax breaks to stay IN the country and employ Americans...I think I could deal with that.

I'm excited about the promise of a green economy and repairing our infrastructure, educational and health care systems. Enough of our tax money going to cronies like Haliburton, Blackwell, oil and energy companies, and the military industrial complex.

I'm also excited for the potential to repair America's reputation throughout the world. No more newspaper headlines "How could six million people be so wrong?"

I hope many Republicans will be voted out and more Progressive Democrats in to Congress. Democrats will finally have the majority and get some things done. Republicans will have no one to blame for this except the cheney/bush regime. Ha!

It's the promise of what could be that's got me ready to vote for Obama. And it will turn all the traditionalists on their heads.

Yahoo!

[BUSHsurvivor]

Smart move? Or pandering...like a typical Washington politician.

[soupcity]

Obama pandering? Say it ain't so.

[RichLiberal]

Obama is selectively taking one piece of the overall Bill Clinton economic policy and saying this piece was a loser. The fact is the Clinton's presidency produced 22 million new US jobs, which directly benefited those "working class" voters you refer to (note: working class is anyone who has to go to work to keep going, i.e. if you never have to work another day and you can maintain your lifestyle as you please, you have economically risen above the working class. If not, well, wake up and look around, you are working class, too!).

So picking on NAFTA is like telling your portfolio manager, who after 8 years produced a profit of $22M, as compared to your prev portfolio mgr, who in 12 years produced zero, or your most recent manager, who also in 7 years produced zero. It is like you are complaining that among the $22M this guy made for you that some of the transactions lost money, ex, say one lost $3M. But your mgr made $25M netting you $22M.

But you, complain, complain, complain about the -$3M transaction and run right back into the hands of those who produced you zero. Real smart, David.

[tgood]

Obama told a black audience two years ago "cheap labor" from illegal aliens was one of the causes of their employment woes until he told a Latino audience a couple of weeks ago that blacks and others were scapegoating illegal aliens.

Oh yeah. He has a real firm stance on the economy, depending on the audience.

[Researchguy66]

He's late to the game, because that's not what he believes. Then again, neither does HRC.

The people who benefit from NAFTA will always be more politically powerful than all the little people. Whoever's elected in 2008, Clinton or Obama, won't shut off that particular campaign funding faucet for 2012.

[lfane]

We should've just nominated John Edwards, the real deal, rather than just settling for someone who is just mouthing the words.

[Bagger]

John Edwards didn't mouth words either. Seriously, I can't think of anything Edwards did besides be a good lawyer.

[Wulfstan]

Edwards won lawsuits against big business which netted him $20 million. I prefer a winner like him not a loser like Hillary (on healthcare) or a motivational speaker like Barack. What did he ever do anyway?

[qwr]

Unfortunately, that is the conclusion I came to as well. For a while, I was an Obama-Edwards voter, and couldn't decide whom to support. But when I looked into their histories, I only found one thing that Edwards fought for, and that was the failed Patients' Bill of Rights. Then I found out about the hedge fund. For Obama, I read *Dreams From My Father*, about his organizing in Chicago. He has genuine, populist roots. I also found out about the one constant in Obama's career, ethics reform. This, in my opinion, is the most important issue in the coming years. No good can come from corporations writing policy. Edwards talked about this, but he had ample time to do something about it, and he didn't.

[solarenergy]

I supported Edwards. I gave him money. But it was true that his voting record did not match his populist message, so his critics questioned his sincerity.

I didn't, until now. If he endorses HRC, the least populist candidate in our party, I may have to concede that his critics were correct.

[Bagger]

Do it! Time to get after it Obama.

[Moose49]

This is excellent, one area where good policy and smart politics come together. I have always felt that Obama was more of a populist -- and more of a true progressive, especially in comparison to Hillary -- than people have given him credit for. This may well be evidence that this impression was right on the money.

I have never felt that his talk about bipartisanship and unity was inconsistent with a populist stance on jobs, trade and the economy. Because I don't think he means that Democrats should compromise with the wingnuts who dominate the Republican Party; rather, what I think he's saying is there is room for common ground with grassroots Republicans who are buffeted by the same economic trends and policies that hurt most working families. And I do think that just as there were Reagan Democrats in 1980, there could be a fair number of Obamicans, as he puts it, in 2008.

[S1m0n]

It's a bit unfair to scold Obama for being 'late' on this: being black meant that Obama had to cleave to a very careful line with his platform. Even the smell of anything 'radical' would have blown him out of the water: the press would have treated him as the second coming of Jesse Jackson or Ralph Nader, and he'd have been consigned instantly and irrevocably to the margin.

Now that he's becoming better known, america is beginning to get beyond the fact that he's black, and he can start to flesh out positions that are a little more radical than he could at the start.

[jesseln]

These aren't necessary new beliefs to Obama. People accuse him of customizing his message to his audience, and that's probably not entirely untrue. However, he's had a message all along, but the media and the people have been responding to inspiration, so that's what he's giving them.

There are plenty of indications in his record that show he's going to be working for the poor and middle class, more so than Hillary on many occasions. You can see every place their senate voting record differs here: http://politicalmaelstrom.blogspot.com

[LeeFromVA]

I mean no disrespect but...

Is it possible that the working class whites and latinos are just slow to catch on? Isn't this the same group that overwhelmingly supported Dubya against their better interest? They seem to be the group that will quickly go for name recognition. They're also a group that doesn't want to buck authority. I know it's politically incorrect to say this, but it just rings true to me. I don't think they're paying attention.

Seriously, I have deep respect for the working class. This is not meant as an insult to them or to Senator Clinton. But it may be the 400 pound gorilla in the room. I doubt many of them even know what NAFTA is. What they want to hear is some good old fashioned pandering about the minimum wage, more jobs, etc. It's the guilt ridden liberals that are won over by the populist talk, 2 Americas, inequitable tax system, etc.

[Researchguy66]

If it's not you, it'd be someone else.

I don't mean to be disrepectful to the intellectual leftist elites, but I'm going to be anyway.

Working class Americans voted for Bush in large numbers TWICE simply because Democratic presidential candidates have a habit of making themselves very unlike-able.

The party infrastructuire condescends to anyone who goes to church, believes that fetuses shouldn't be treated like a skin rash, likes to hunt or otherwise enjoys guns or believes in a foreign policy based on strength.

It's not even an issue of political platform, it's an issue of some measure of respect for their beliefs. That's something they're very unlikely to get from HRC or Obama.

[sky2evan]

Researchguy:

"It's not even an issue of political platform, it's an issue of some measure of respect for their beliefs. That's something they're very unlikely to get from HRC or Obama."

I believe you're probably wrong on that when it comes to HRC (who actually does believe in a foreign policy based on strength)... and definitely wrong on that when it comes to Mr. Obama.

This is why there are "Obama Republicans".

[soupcity]

Well uuhhh duhhh i tink i no wat nafta is. i stil mak under 50 thowsind and liv in ne ohio.


I also can read and think too, and as I was reading, like actual words and stuff, I found out that NAFTA was bush sr's baby. Edwards was completely marginalized and Obama is pandering. Ahh... the new politics.

[DemandTruth]

Here's hopin' man!

[zaneblue]

He just got my vote.