The Power in a Genuine Obama Mandate

I've been thinking a lot recently about an article I read some years ago. The author had asked about 50 people how they would define the word "power". There were the usual responses one might expect, such as "rich and famous", "strength" or "being able to have anything you want". But one particular definition jumped out at me -- and has stuck with me ever since: "power is the ability to get things done".

How would each of the major political parties today define the term "power"? And how does that perspective shape each of their agendas and approaches to governing? When asked in a 2004 Time Magazine interview what he thought the major differences were between the Republicans and the Democrats, President Bill Clinton said:

I think the Republicans are better at understanding how to get and keep power. They've shown that since 1968. The Democrats tend to be more responsible in the exercise of power but sometimes don't understand how to get it or keep it.

At the risk of distressing some superstitious Democrats with just two days left before the election I've been wondering: what would happen if Obama were given an ACTUAL mandate this Tuesday? What if he were to win decisively (including in traditionally Republican states) and also gain a filibuster-proof Senate? How would he and the Democrats use their power to lead the nation?

Consider that following President Bush's narrow victory in the 2004 election with 51% of the popular vote and 34 more Electoral College votes, he claimed:

I earned capital in this campaign, political capital and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. When you win, there is...a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view.

Most telling, he pledged that he would "work in a bipartisan manner with everyone who shares our goals".

So what did "The Great Divider" proceed to do fours years after a bitterly contested 2000 election where the Democratic candidate actually won the popular vote, deeply dividing the nation? He used the pretense of an artificial mandate to continue dictating and imposing a completely partisan agenda, further deepening the divide.

In contrast, a clear mandate would give President Obama and the Democrats a refreshing opportunity to demonstrate to the American people (and the world) that such power can be transformative and healing, rather than divisive. That it can be used to bring about real change with an agenda that truly tries to address the needs of all the people, not just some. That power can be used to actually get things done rather than using it solely to maintain it. That promises made by a presidential candidate in a campaign might not be empty but actually delivered upon. President Obama and the Democrats might even redefine what it means to be "patriotic" with "American values" in the 21st century, something which has been distorted by the Republicans during the last eight years as part of their "divide and conquer" strategy.

There will undoubtedly be a reflexive tendency for many long-serving Democrats to use their newfound power to aggrieve what they perceive as previous abuses by the other party. This will be particularly true after increasingly negative attacks by the Republicans in the last throes of the election. Such a Democratic reaction would be a huge mistake and merely continue the cycle of gridlock which has plagued the nation for far too long.

President-elect Obama must lead his party by example in the same manner he has acquitted himself so well in the campaign. He needs to remember that it was his simple yet eloquent statement that "we are not red states and blue states, we are the United States of America" that thrust him on to the national scene four years ago and inspired the hope for change that so many now embrace.

As Uncle Ben so poignantly reminded Peter Parker/Spiderman: "with great power comes great responsibility." Starting January 20th, President Obama will hopefully have the chance to show all Americans, particularly those that doubted him and did not support or vote for him, that is a concept he truly understands.

Comments

[tuttlemsm]

One of the most important things anybody ever said in the 20th century was said in a lowly comic book. Who knew?

[dlvme2]

EVERYONE has a right to voice thier opinions and differences should be discussed in rational ways. The world has a great deal facing it and people need to be involved in what thier governments are doing. All of us need to learn to work together for the good of all of us. No one is going to agree all the time, but it is our differences that make us better people. People tend to fear what they do not understand - when lines of communication are opened knowledge is gained and we learn tolerance, acceptance - it becomes easier to work toward common goals. I believe it is possible to have respect even for people that we do not agree with. We are all Americans - ALL of us and what Americans do affects the rest of the World and what they do affects us. I hope that with Obama steps can be made that will help the people of the world learn to tolerate each other and work together. It is important that we unite and work together.

[GBGB]

Wonderful article. I really enjoyed it. I hope that what you write about comes true and that Obama leads in the way that you have suggested.

[TheMediaRanger]

I think Barack Obama has a keen insight into one thing: that his personal success is intimately tied to his ability to get people engaged and involved. Though these skills were derided by his opponents during the campaigns -- particularly Sarah Palin's condescending knock on the value of a community organizer's background -- I'm sure he knows that the American public hasn't felt it has a voice in policy in a very long time.

With or without a filibuster-proof majority in the Congress, an Obama victory sends him to Washington with a lot to prove. In the minds of many, expectations will be higher, some will look for (or even hope for) signs of weakness and failure, and he's stepping into one helluva mess. It's not the best time in history to take over in the Oval Office. But after selling his supporters on the idea of hope and change, perhaps they'll be unafraid to hold his feet to the fire if he starts going off course (which is REALLY a new concept in D.C.) and that's very good.

[egal]

I think the original Uncle Ben quote to Spider-Man conveys more truly both its message and the strength and humility we see--and hope to see dominate his presidency--in Obama:

"With great power MUST come great responsibility [emphasis mine]."

Obama not only understands this, but in his actions and policy decisions up to this point, he has repeatedly demonstrated that he not only respects the careful, thoughtful, and evenhanded application of every form of power, but that he also respects the needs, voices, and potential of the American people.

Should he remain firm in his propensity of listening before speaking, studying before moving, and considering all sides in light of numerous variables, Obama stands a good chance of giving us the power, as citizens, to be more involved in our government, and giving politicians and companies the framework to prevent self-interest continue to derail our nation.

[framingtheissues]

I agree that the most important thing is that we vote. But if Senator Obama does win and Democrat's pick up seats in Congress, this will not be a traditional mandate. The Democratic victory will be largely based on Senator Obama's network of volunteers. The push for a progressive agenda will depend on how active that network is after he is elected. To be frank, I believe things could go in a couple of different directions. Either the Democratic party leadership, corporate interest, or Obama's cabinet; could influence Obama and the Congress. And President Obama could reach out to his network for support of this agenda. Or different elements of the network could define what they feel needs to be done and they could form coalitions around specific issues that they want the President and Congress to address. If the second scenario doesn't happen, its business as usual or worse (e.g. recent bailout).

www.framingtheissues.com

[STILJON]

There is only one thing anyone should be saying in these comments. GO VOTE!!! The polls mean nothing unless everyone votes. Give one day if it takes that and work for our future by voting for Senator Obama and he will continue to spend every day working for you. The polls are so wide in large part because of new voters. It’s up to all of us to stand in line for as long as it takes and vote. This is the largest effort ever to bring in new voters so if you don’t vote you will permanently prove the belief that first time voters do not go to the polls and ensure your concerns are never pursued or listened to again. Make this time different. You could finally change the landscape of the electorate and force your ideas to be considered, expanding policies beyond the base of both parties. Every single vote counts and we cannot afford to wake up Wednesday and find out democrats lost by only a few votes again, because we thought it would be a blowout. Let’s make it a landslide and prove the polls right!! Everyone take a day and change the world!!! VOTE!!!!!!!!

[certainot]

bipartisanship and democracy in will continue to be nearly impossible as long as the GOP keeps its talk radio monopoly intact. what keeps republicans in line is the talk radio base and the pressure it can put on politicians and media when limbaugh and then hannity and company can blanket the country (and parts of the country where there are no alternatives to listen to during driving and working) with a coordinated uncontested repetition of GOP attacks, lies, and talking points. blue dog dems are really limbaugh dems- their constituents live in limbaugh country. unless dems get better than a supermajority and stay solid on important issues the party of limbaugh will likely be able to stop obama appointments or at least force the wishy washy compromises that keep us from progressing out of the idiotic 'bipartisanship' that ensures flat earthers and global warming deniers will always get a seat at the debate. breaking up the talk radio monopoly and its disastrous ability to short circuit democracy and determine what is and what isn't acceptable in the rest of the media is an essential first step to any real bipartisanship and intelligent discussion of the problems this country is facing and must soom tackle.

[solutions]

there is no such monopoly. If no one listens, they are off the air. As far as this libertarian can see, the hannity's and limbaugh's can prove what they say with fact. evidently, facts elude you. If you morons think Washington is broken, you are correct but if you think Obama will fix anything you're insane. All you accomplish with an Obama/Democratic majority is to strengthen Washington and make things worse. Talk radio as you describe it is the ONLY source of conservative views and if you think they have caused problems, I feel sorry for you.

[GREGy]

let's make the New York Times our only news paper, and have the "Gov't" run it. Let's eliminate free speech.

PERFECT for a National Socialist take over.

[certainot]

there is a monopoly and it is agressively protected. thom hartman, randi rhodes, ed shultz beat limbaugh hannity and co on an even playing field in diverse markets and today there are blue state areas and cities that have little or no alternative to limbaugh hannity etc. in large areas of the country- the red states- there are large areas with no alternatives for people to go to.

in a monopoly market forces are distorted- that's the only reason two guys who have been completely wrong about everything important got 1/2BIL$ in contracts- they sell war, deregulation, and global warming denial- profitable for the few- misery for the rest. i hope you didn't buy a gas guzzler last year when limbaugh was still selling those.

limbaugh and hannity aren't conservative- they're salesmen of GOP talking points and proven liars and now the Party of Lincoln is the Party of Limbaugh. stations that play them are using the public airwaves to blast out a coordinated uncontested repetition of propaganda- soviet style- and that's on the public airwaves and illegal.

[okmama]

limbaugh..­.hannity..­.o'reily..­.....Repug Propaganda Radio

[GREGy]

YES!!!!

Let's curtail free speech!

Perfect.

[Neaguy]

An Obam mandate shores up support for corporate America, now stronger than ever before---even though their practice and ideology has been exposed by the Wall Street debacle as a massive failure.

With Obama we will get more free market fundamentalism at home: he keeps telling us how he loves the free market. Are you not listening?
On foreign policy expect more of the same: neoliberal and muscular. Again, are you not listening to what he says he will do? More military spending, more unilateralism, more troops in Afghanistan, more expansion of NATO, more sanctions on Cuba (recently rejected at the UN by 185 to 1), more pressure on the left democracies in South America, etc.

And he's pro death penalty and anti gun control...

Actually listen to the this deeply conservative man instead of projecting your unrealistic hopes.

[DofG]

HuffPost's Pick

A predisposition allows us to see what we want to see!

What's conservative about understanding that reinforcing the base (the working class) of a "pyramid" makes the whole economy stronger? What 's "conservative" about exposing neo-con-"f­ree"-marke­t-fundamen­talism for what it really is-untempered competition, degenerating into self-destructive corruption? How can Obama be a unilateralist when he's stated, unequivocally, that he is willing to have diplomatic relations with those who have been deemed enemies by the Bush administration?

And what is wrong with the sustenance of hopes, and dreams, even if they are deferred, or never materialize?

[super]

Neither "conservative" not "liberal" should be bad words. Many conservatives will be voting for Obama and many liberals are conservative on some issues. Using these labels to divide people is a tactic renounced by Obama and embraced by his supporters.

Indeed, Bush spoke sincerely when he said that he would "work in a bipartisan manner with everyone who shares our goals." Today however most Americans have rejected those goals of endless war, cronyism, socialized corporate risk and destruction of our environment.

[woodyy]

The thing to keep repeating to democrats is that if you want to be part of this history making event, you have to vote. Even if you live in a safe state, you are only part of this history ,if you vote on Tuesday!

[tomas0808]

A agree. This needs to me addressed by the media, the fact that Democratic administrations have been more responsible to the American people. Their administrations generally don't start wars or rip off the American people. For the most part they are stable and there is genuine growth for the economy and the ordinary citizens life becomes better, and they can hope for their kids. They might not generate as many 'newsworthy' headlines with a lot of big buzz words but there are plenty of real news stories if the media would just bother to look.

[solutions]

You are correct. The dems never start wars but their incompetence usually causes them. Giving hard earned money to your government has never proven to solve ONE thing...th­at is to say, except to cause you to have less of YOUR money.