A New Generation of Obama Democrats

Bill Clinton's ascension to the presidency was, at its time, the triumph of a new kind of politics. After a dismal Carter presidency, a crushing loss for Mondale, and a wayward Dukakis campaign, Bill Clinton offered a different style - more than just a solution for Democratic issues, he represented a solution for consecutive Democratic losses.

As the chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization whose aim was to recalibrate the party's message, Clinton personified their notion of a New Democrat. Rather than fight Republicans on a spectrum of left and right, Clinton aimed for a "third-way," a kind of politics that meant co-opting Republican policies and remaking them with a Democratic sheen.

Clinton was, no doubt, a master of New Democratic politics. Much of the vitriol with which Republicans berated him grew out of frustration, watching their own pet policies, from free trade to welfare reform, being advocated by a Democratic president.

With success came those who wanted to duplicate his political model. In time, so-called New Democrats held governorships and leadership positions in Congress. They pressed for a centrist agenda, avoiding, at all cost, being described as liberals. The precepts of DLC-centrism invaded the core of the party, pushing progressives to the margins. But it ultimately ended in failure. Bill Clinton had fathered a kind of politics that could be mimicked, but not replicated, the kind that requires the perfect touch and tempo and tone.

For most who tried, third-way politics meant the dumping of bread-and-butter Democratic policies, opting instead for a small profile of issues, directly in the center. Democrats began to define themselves as Republicans, but competent and with pro-choice credentials. As contrasts became muddled, a common complaint was a lack of clear differences between parties.

The exodus to the political center meant a wholesale abandonment of message, leading to crushing victories in 2000, 2002, and 2004. But for a series of blunders, an explosive corruption scandal, and a horribly unpopular war, the New Democrats might have continued their losing trend into 2006. In the aftermath of that victory, however, there are, at least, the signs of change.

In 2007, none of the Democratic presidential candidates spoke at the DLC Convention, an unheard of notion only a few years before. And with Barack Obama inching ever closer to the White House, it may be that a new revolution is afoot.

Obama has built his candidacy on reaching voters in the center without moving his policy positions there. In general election match-ups, Obama consistently beats John McCain among Independents, a group long considered to be the fuel driving McCain's success. Instead, Obama has produced a political formula that advocates a strong progressive agenda, while laying the groundwork necessary to ensure its passage. The new majority Obama speaks of is not an empty platitude; it is the most compelling reason to vote for him. The product of Obama's innovative campaign and transcendent message will be a powerful governing coalition, come January. Obama will consolidate and increase the size of the Democratic base while attracting droves of Independents, providing him with larger margins in Congress and a mandate, part hope and part juggernaut. With substantial political capital, Obama will help further the core of the progressive agenda, allowing it to make strides forward that have seemed all but impossible for more than 25 years. Without a doubt, his model will be copied.

Perhaps, much like the New Democrats, the Obama Democratic philosophy will require a master politician as its shepherd, its mimicry falling short of replication. But for a new generation of politicians, even those who fall short of the lofty peaks of Obama's speeches, a new kind of politics may still be a guiding philosophy: the kind of politics that embraces a progressive agenda, honestly and persuasively; the kind that respects the ideologies it rejects; and the kind that stands with pride, knowing that the language of politics still carries the power to spark movements.

The Democratic Party was left worse off when those who attempted New Democratic politics failed. Obama Democrats may too fail at meeting his standard, but having embraced the core ideas of Democratic thought, they will leave the party stronger for having tried.

Comments

[AnninCA]

One of the concerns I have about Obama is opposite of your point. I don't think we can afford his policies.

Seems to me that his platform requires huge infusions of taxes, and no real sense of how to achieve that.

That is, indeed, the old-style Democrats that pushed people away.

I thought we had matured past that type of thinking.

Guess not.

[Myrrhis]

But what you failed to grow INTO (aside from a rein on your carriage returns) is the idea that further extending social services (ie Universal Health Care) and conducting a war (Yup, she signed on, right at the beginning) cost money. Our new president is basically inheriting a bankrupt government, looted by Bush and Co., whilst in the middle of . . what do they call it now? An economic downturn? Stagflation? W/E.

Some part of wants to vote for Hillary and her UHC and her $ for HS grads, but you are saying you don't want to pay for anything. I don't know how Ms. Thang was going to fund these (unless that mandate was going to cover it, yeah, that's helping people out! Make them spend money on health care they might not need, while taking money away from things like food, clothing . . .) other than raising taxes. HUGE infusions of taxes.

But somehow you feel better about that. Better about high taxes from a woman who couldn't even reasonably oversee the finances in her own campaign.

Who's a bright penny, then?

[kellygrrrl]

my 14 y/o daughter (the youngest of four) reminded my yesterday that SHE will be voting in the next election and she would like that vote to be for someone with integrity, who she can be proud of.

and I said, well, if that were this year, who would that be?

She said "Obama. Because he is the only candidate who she respects."

(she has watched several Dem and Repub debates, and regularly talks about this election with her friends and teachers.)

[FearlessFreep]

Show me a politician moving "to the centre," and I'll show you a politician who isn't moving to anything, who's just moving away from something.

The "third way" worked so well for Bill Clinton that the Democrats quickly lost control of Congress and kept it lost for the next dozen years! Clinton's "triangulation" policies were nothing if not selfish. (Why do so many of the people now denouncing Nader's "selfishness" hold Clinton to a far more lenient standard?)

[tchristin]

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?" Robert Kennedy

Each generation has it's own heroes. I think my son and his college aged friends who are now so engaged in the political process are doing so because of Obama. There is no doubt that he has struck a chord with them. But he is also appealing to older voters, independent voters and those who long ago grew cynical about our government.

The fight for civil rights or women's rights or ending a failed war and bringing troops home from Vietnam required a great collective will to accomplish. Inspirational leadership has been lacking and is sorely needed now. Those who belittle the dream are belittling the people who have those dreams. Ask yourself what you DO believe in? What are YOUR hopes and dreams for the future of our country? Is it just fashionable to be cynical? If we don't do it now, then when?

Hillary or Obama... Obama or Hillary.. either way we will always have to fight for what's right. In the words of Ringo... "You know, it don't come easy."

[kellygrrrl]

after the past 7 years, I am grotesquely cycnical. It's really nice to be feeling a little HOPE again.

[cheesewiz]

And while I'm at it, I'll tell you something else that annoys me about these Obamamanics--not that I'm a Hillary fan. That is their propensity to preach as if they have seen the light of political salvation. If I want to get preached at, I'll go to church, thank you. They seem to be demeaning folks of my generation, 58 years old, as having somehow "failed". Well, excuse me little ones, but it was us who brought you the Civil Rights movement, women's movement, anti-Viet Nam movement, etc. I can still remember the pain of a crazed cop's baton upon my ribs, not to mention the worry of all of our young men facing the draft. Remember tens of thousands of us taking to the streets, time and time again? Don't even try to compare what the young people of today have to face, it pales in comparison to what we went through. Please check the holier-than-thou attitude.

[chouwalker]

Yeah, and it was uphill both ways to school...

Kids today!

You sound just like the crusty old geezers your generation railed against in the 60s.

You'r not too old to join the wave of the future.

Obama '08

[Sheridan1]

I find it very interesting that people who support The Clintons say that Obama supporters are sliming them and being so nasty. The nastiest posters I have seen (are you here svreader?)are Hillary fans. When the candidate is desperate, it seems the supporters spew more and more venom...and we certainly get more "Hussein" comments now. But, you know, we do know his middle name.
And this thing about "youngn's" is ridiculous. I am 60 and have 2 kids in their 20's - we all have been volunteers for Obama, but I was the one who brought him to their attention. Like so many of their peers, they could have cared less about politics until now.
We aren't hypnotized, we aren't going to suddenly "wake up" and find him lacking, and we WILL vote for Hillary if she is the nominee.
It's just too bad that she takes this for granted, as she did her "frontrunner" status.
The world is looking to us to make the right decision - I have real HOPE that they will be pleased for a CHANGE with the United States of America.

[ADVOCATE4ZPG]

"Hope" of what "change," or does it violate the unbreechable spirit of "unity" to ask?

[Myrrhis]

Yea! I got it first!!!!! BACKOFF!

All you other Obama supporters, _I_ get to be the one to refer yet another deliberately uninformed person to Obama's website and particularly his Blueprint for Change.

Did ya catch that last word, "change"? That's www.barackobama.com

[OB]

It isn't Hillary who is taking the Democratic vote for granted it is Obama! He said " Hillary wouldn't get all the votes he would get but that she wouldn't get all the votes he would get" I am assuming he means all the new black voters couldn't be counted on to vote for Hillary.Maybe so but I and some other Democrats I know wil not vote him if he is nominated.

[mthespian]

Nope, he meant the independents and republicans that are "crossing the border" and supporting him. Like it or not, Hillary is viewed by many as a symbol of the 90s Democratic party. For some that is a positive association. For some others, that's a strong negative.

[EspritDeVoltaire]

Que Dieu vous bénisse, mon fils!

After months of getting blank stares when describing what "Third Way" actually means, here's someone who actually understands it and can articulate it well. There is hope for the nation!

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

I bear no personal animosity toward Barack Obama, at least not in the way I loathe the Clintons. Still, having been a little clairvoyant since my days of gingham and pigtails I can usually see through people's masks and read between their lines. It's much more difficult on the tee-vee but it can be done. And what I see of Obama? He's a Manchurian Candidate riding a Trojan Horse.

Unfortunately, right now he's the best of our bad options, God/dess help us.

This Asia Times article is interesting, here are excerpts:

"No, Obama, you can't. You can't blame America's trading partners for the loss of manufacturing jobs, and at the same time persuade them to replace the misspent capital of the American banking system. You can't persuade the world to fund hundreds of billions of dollars a year of American home mortgages, and protect the employment of a few hundred workers at Maytag . . .

. . . Obama is the "Democratic Reagan", observes one of my favorite bloggers, Beliefnet's Rod Dreher. In terms of political punch, the comparison is apt . . . In content, though Obama is the anti-Reagan, promising that the government will come to everyone's rescue . . .

. . . If Reagan offered "voodoo economics", as his opponents charged, Obama is selling Cargo Cult economics. After World War II, New Guinea aborigines build model airfields to entice the gods to bring them "cargo". They watched American soldiers build airstrips and land cargo planes, and sought to accomplish the same through sympathetic magic. Given the culture of the aborigines and their observations, anthropologists aver, making radios and observation towers out of straw and coconuts was a rational response. Something similar might be said of the position of the American middle class."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JA29Dj06.html

[ElectionFanatic]

The new generation of Obama Democrats is Generation Jones--the lost generation between the Baby Boomers and Generation X. Obama is a US example of a global trend in which Jonesers (born form the mid-1950s to mid-1960s) have been taking over leadership positions (new prime minister of Australia, France's Sarkozy, Prime minister of Canada, etc.). Jonesers are quite different than Boomers (as Newsweek argued recently) and that is important to understand in getting our arms around this election.

[texanna]

ElectionFanatic, interesting that you put Obama in a group with Sarkozy and the Prime Minister of Canada as these two, recently-elected people are more like Bush than their predecessors in their policy positions and their general style of governance. Is that really what is in store for us should Mr. Obama make it the WH?

[ndolomar]

negotiation is key to progress -- it's only logical. even before obama announced his candidacy, i always looked to him as someone who possibly could found a new political party: Pragmatic Party. he's espousing ideas and platforms that the most successful businesses exercise. you have to be able and willing to hear new ideas -- as well as re-hear old ones with which you disagree -- in order to discuss and move forward. it's not that he won't fight; it's that he recognizes you can't bring about negotiation if either party is in defensive mode. if anything, he's practicing what we teach children every day: use words, not violence. it baffles me that we don't mind teaching it to our youth, but when it's practiced by adults, suddenly it's a "bad" thing to choose discussion over violence and arguing.

[daveny]

AMEN. So many so-called "leaders" don't understand the difference between negotiating, and just posturing for negotiation...

[roncraw]

He hit the wrong key 5 time v oting in the Ill.Senate,keep in mind there are more important keys on the Pres.desk,with no excuses.

[obamagal]

Bingo. Very astute and one of the best posts I've read on Obama and in part, why he has become as successful as he has, and why he has been able to grow such a wonderful grassroots base. Very well said.

[Openeyes]

Mr. Loewe -
Thank you for this very interesting post. I've been hesitant to make the comparison, because it seems like heresy, and has lots of baggage, but your post prompts me to - we may be on the verge of another "Reagan Revolution."

Obviously, Obanma's policies and views are not Reagan's but the point is Reagan was able to capitalize on general dissastifaction with government and with Carter to reach the "Reagan Democrats" and produce broad-based support.

He didn't do it by explaining detailed policy, he did it by stating general goals, almost a philosophy of governance, rather than a policy for specific problems. Peaople were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he'd surround himself with those who knew more to implement policy, and that he would be a leader. People wanted a leader to lead them out of the problems the country had at that time.

We see a similar dynamic now. Dissastifaction with Bush, the war, and the economy is widespread. People want change, and they want a leader. It's not as clear that the want specific policies. I think that explains why Obama's inspiratio­nal/leader­ship approach is so popular (although bipartisanship is highly overrated).

Clinton appears to be campaigning almost like a "strongman," not a leader in the sense of getting others to work on the problem and achieve a solution, but as the only person who has the solution. She casts herself as the one with the right policy, the one with the experience, the one who will fix everything.

Frankly, that resonates more with Bush's style than Reagan's.

Obama's style is more "follow me, I will lead, together we'll get there" and Clinton's is more "I should be in charge" the implication being she deserves to be in charge and that she doesn't need anyone else, including followers. People sense that, and don't want another domineering power monger like we've had for the last 8 years.

I think people are generally more inclined to say they'll trust a leader, and give the person a chance to lead, than to embrace someone who seems to already have all the answers, and just wants on opportunity to tell everyone else what to do. It's the difference between supporting someone who wants to lead, and supporting someone who wants to be in charge - those are very different places to operate from.

So yes, we could be on the verge of a letting someone with more vision than blueprints lead, and the great blessing may be that he is informed by progressive goals rather than conservative ones.

[roncraw]

openeyes: What's Obama going to do every morning read all the letters to the editor to form his policy.

[mthespian]

Please tell me you didn't just chide someone running against a Clinton by claiming his decisions are based on public opinion polls.

Who voted against banning cluster bombs because they thought it would make them look strong for the national election? Who voted to authorize military force in Iraq? Who made the same mistake again on Iran?

[cheesewiz]

I see nothing but another children's crusade, a la McCarthy, about to crash and burn, if not now, then surely in the general election. You all knew this man's middle name of Hussein, his Muslim background, and the likelihood of pictures of him in a turban. But most of all, you knew that this is simply unacceptable to the majority of American voters, regular voters, not people who post on websites or agonize over elections, yet now that people are starting to notice these things, you go into self-righteous indignation, professing to be "shocked" that voters would even notice a man in a turban, likening it to a politician trying on a cowboy hat in Texas. I don't make the rules any more than you silly Obamamaniacs do, but the rules are there and by choosing to ignore them, again, you have shown that the Democratic party is still in the throes of a long-term death wish, and "turning the page" a hundred times will not alter the outcome.

[Repubnomore]

Your assessment of your fellow Americans, their fears, and prejudices is probably pretty accurate. And sad at the same time.

Every election it's a choice between what you've got and what you'd like. In '04, despite the opposition to Iraq, a slim majority felt safer with the same because the GOP painted Kerry as a "flip flopper".

Obama may scare the uneducated, but that fear won't get people to vote against him. The fear of another four years of war, deficit spending, and a tanking economy will motivate more people to vote against Mc Cain.

[stonepier]

I think, and hope, that this is complete bollocks.

[IMustKnow]

Read Geraldine Ferraro's op-ed in NYT, Feb. 26 and let us know what you think.

[samanthasmom]

Geraldine Ferraro is another brave woman who deserves our respect and gratitude. If anyone should recognize sexism for what it is, she should.

[AuntSally]

If you follow the rules, you validate the rules. Join us, cheesewiz, ignoring the 'rules'. Life as a scofflaw is liberating...

[enoughalready]

Change doesn't happen without the movement to do so. Obama has created the stimulus for that movement. The people will make the changes.

The Viet Nam war didn't end till the people led the movement for change - in the streets and all across this nation. The same can be said of the civil rights movement.

2008 will be the year that the youth of this nation take up the banner as we boomers did in the 60's to change our future. Obama is the reason. He organized the movement and he will lead the movement.

Our country will be better for it.

[trevor01]

Obama's defeat in the general election will no doubt energize the left but only after a couple of years of hand wringing and mourning over what could have been in their fantasy of fantasies. The ironic thing is, they could actually have what they wanted if they didn't behave like such sheep. Hillary was right - she and Obama will be okay whatever happens - it's the country (and the world) that will suffer for the wet dreaming that's going on in America today.

[roncraw]

Yea I can hardly ride down the street with all Iraq war protesters.What a joke.

[daveny]

Tell that to the republicans who lost both houses of congress in 2006 because of people who got involved -- and even ran for office -- because of the anti-war movement.

Tell that to the current chairman of the DNC, Howard Dean, who would be a nobody today if it hadn't been from the massive grassroots support of the anti-war movement.

Tell that to the people who got stopped by traffic and march routes in 2003 and 2004 when millions marched in cities accross the country.

Actually... don't bother. Just go sit on your cynical thumb and then suck it.

[IMustKnow]

yeah lead it over the cliff.

[roncraw]

All the lobbyist and special interests are now packing up and leaving Wash. They heard the man with all of that hope is on the way.they don't know how to fight hope.The poor dears.

[Democrab]

This is a great blog, well thought out and incitive, with a talented writing flair and fresh approach to bloggishph­ericalness­ology.

Unfortunately I don't agree with any of it.

It sounds like a weather report that's been predicated with a study of atmospheric and barometric pressure, doppler radar and photoelectron spectrometry analysis; but then the weather guy checks out the cricket in his matchbox to give his final predictions.

It is, after all, just guessing.

[daveny]

Yeah, but that's all that any punditry is! I always wonder what makes some people think "Hillary will get results!" is any less a prediction than "Obama will lead a progressive revolution!"