"Obama's Test" or Ours?
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.
Loading comments…
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
HuffPost's Pick
Mr. Hart, you still seem to be working on your candidacy complex. Back in the 80s, you lost against a party elder and you still bear a grudge.
America is left and right, conservative and liberal, black and white,. old and young. It is the diversity that makes America special. Looking at past election results, the American voters are more willing to vote conservative republican than the other way round.
Obama is no visionary, he just tells people what they want to hear. That not leadership, that is opportunism.
Every election is about future-past. The incumbent points out his achievement, the challenger promises change and stability, best of both worlds. Obama only promises change, because he has no past to stand on, but he asks his voters to draw their own pictures of the changed future. Will it change? Not at all. Contrary to his promises, no make that "hints", troops will remain in Iraq for much longer, because his dreams are just best case scenarios. If Clinton made Obama's statements, people would accuse her of a defective vision (if they are friendly) or of lying (if they are not).
Just imagine Clinton declaring that her foreign policy would be similar to the policy of Reagan, George Bush Sr. and JFK. People would call her delusional. Democrats would point out that Reagan or Bush are no rolemodels for a Democratic candidate. With Obama, this is just a sign of his chameleon-like ability to adapt to his environment.
I personally am so tired of "what if Hillary said"...because that also goes both ways. What if Obama made a fear commercial directed towards African-Americans (Hillary 3am directed towards woman/mothers/whites). Everything isn't black and white about the world, about the election, nor about the candidates. I can say things that others can't say and vise-versa.
And also to claim that Obama has a similar foreign policy to Bush or Reagan is not incorrect and to twist comments has become very common during this campaign. He also compared it to that of JFK. But I saw you didn't mention him...possibly because he is a respected Democrat. Do you not agree that we should have a large coalition of nations banded together when it comes to dealing with rogue nations....because that is what he was saying.
I think we should all stop reading the tag lines and be active thinkers and not just active listeners.
You didn't notice the black child in the 3 AM ad? Or the Latino child? You exemplify the truism that we see reality through the prism of our biases.
A very effective and seemingly rational argument for a Clinton Candidacy, bish66. What you fail to point out is that Clinton is, most certainly, going to represent much more of the same failed ideology and thinking that has produced 20 years of middle-class/lower class decimation, environmental decline, and regulatory malfeasance regarding the pharmaceutical industry, financial industry, and agribusiness. Inflation adjusted earning power of the average American has declined steadily since the 1970s, and we believe that "more of the same" is going to allow the typical family to thrive on one salary, to send their children to good schools without mortgaging their futures, to purchase affordable home?
BUSH-CLINTON-CLINTON-BUSH-BUSH ...
wake up.
Yes, Gary Hart lost against a party elder: Walter Mondale. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the victory was secured by unpledged ("super") delegates, wasn't it? It is my opinion that unpledged delegates are a hedge against the popular vote.
And how'd that nomination work out? A landslide loss for the Democratic party against the posturing figurehead, Ronald Reagan.
It is my opinion that Hillary is also a party elder. I don't see a party elder running as an advantage. I certainly don't see a party elder as electable. I hope a party elder doesn't get elected. I'd prefer to see someone more independent of any political party elected. I'm old enough to have seen how political parties operate, and how they've influenced policy and decisions. I don't like what I've seen.
The party, as I see it, sits in opposition to the will of the people. The party--whether Democratic, Republican, etc.--is a bureaucracy comprised of insiders who are likely to be out of touch with reality.
I don't see the basis for your arguments, e.g., "Obama is no visionary, he just tells people what they want to hear," "Obama only promises change, because he has no past to stand on," etc.
It would appear that you're pro-Clinton, but all you've done is to bash Obama--and by extension, Gary Hart.
This is HuffPost's Pick? How does that process work? Blog elders?
Things that are good changes..government transparency and please no more Fed control,no one is regulating them.No more devisivness,yet we need to get together and talk about things like income tax,abortion, government interferrence with parental rights and law suits against those who want to pray or have a nativity or sing God bless America in schools where the majority of people in those schools want those things.Conservatives feel attacked by liberals who are willing to try and take their rights , all the while crying for more of their own freedoms.If we could be progressive without losing any cival liberties,without stomping on the very constitution which makes us "American",I'm all for it.The main complaints I hear from my husband and other conservatives are those I listed above.Many fear the advance of a socialism which would strangle the cival libertiesof some in order to promote those of others.I think Obama can help to balance these things out.he's a fair minded,balanced person.
Great post, as usual. But i have no faith in the mainstream media. The NY Times blew it a long time ago in the lead up to the Iraq war. The MSM is an injustice to our democracy.
NY Times gave us Iraq and now, they wanted to inject another quandary in the form of Hillary Lieberman McWar Clinton.
Most Americans have proven to be DUMB ASSES. Unfortunately. It pisses me off to state that.
THE TRICK IS ... to stop being an immature spoiled brat VOTER .
BE A RESPONSIBLE ADULT.
THIS IS NOT a SPORTS event.
Choose the most common-sense
candidate who is NOT Republicans all over again. GET IT?
Sen. Hart, you are making sense, and that is going to get you a lot of flak.
The whole mind-set of "liberal vs. conservative" is nonsense, created probably by the massive war chests of those behind Limbaugh and O'Reilly. The Republican party has been kidnapped by the people that Pres. Eisenhower warned us about, the military-industrial complex, who have learned to profit mightily from an atmosphere of fear and minor wars in far-off countries. If Obama is elected, look for the stocks of the military contractors to fall drastically, as they did when Bill Clinton was president.
Your last sentence I disagree with. I no longer expect to get my news from American "news" companies, since they seem to be controlled by people who have little interest in serving the public. I look to the BBC, and to Mexican and Canadian outlets, for broadcast news. For the written news, various European English language edition news outlets actually are interested in what is going on in the world, instead of pushing a faux news agenda.
Collective delusion. You people have seen absolute evil in Bush that you have convinced yourselves in a Hollywood style construct, fantasy of absolute good, you have imparted this good on a man that has been carefully manufactured put together by a PR firm: Obama. There are no absolutes. Wake up. I want reality, Hillary is reality.
I considered Hillary before the California primaries - but changed my mind Stellaa. You 'want reality, Hillary is reality'. When Hillary lost her grasp on reality, I shifted my support. 'Collective delusion' - how bout individual delusion? Contrived heroic fantasies do not represent reality. What do you think of the HRC Bosnia fabrication? Oops, 'I mis-spoke, to some it is a revalation that I am human'. This speaks directly to a character that is deeply flawed. I want truthfulness, transparency, intelligence, dignity, wisdom, vision, and compassion. Maybe I am delusional?
With all due respect to Sen. Clinton, she is a 20th century reality... One with a selective memory, at that.
Much of our foreign policy and political process haven't changed much in the last 40 years. Then it was communists, now it's terrorists that we're saving the world from. Keep your friends close, ignore your enemy, then wonder why you have no bargaining power.
Sen. Obama is not a perfect candidate, or a perfect human (since by definition, humans aren't perfect). I agree with him on a number of his views, and respect his approach to solving problems, but hold no illusions as to his saintliness-- He is a remarkably intelligent, politically savvy individual, which is both good and bad.
Albert Einstein once wrote that insanity was doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result-- Sen. Clinton, and Sen. McCain will continue to do things as things have been done for decades. Sen. Obama offers the possibility of Something New, and the idea has grabbed the collective consciousness of the entire nation like few ideas have in recent years.
He may, just possibly, be the first "21st century" politician to rise to national prominence.
Paraphrasing a line from John Cusack, I will vote for anyone who stops the insanity. Obama is not the second coming, but he is the Democratic leader. If Hillary were the leader, I would have used her as an example.
Wow now I am starting to worrry.....
What about Mark Udall?
Gary you would have been something.
Now you are the only reason Hillary is still out there. Virtual lock goes to a convention and ends up a loser.
Billary is waiting for a Donna Rice event to overturn the voters and the primaries because a great change candidate got caught.
They know it is a long shot but there is a precedent !
Nonsense.
If Hart had been a great candidate, he'd have survived his bimbo problems like the talented male half of the couple you snidely call "Billary."
Hart was even more foolish than Bill Clinton, as Hart invited the press to follow him around when the Donna Rice rumors broke out. And then we got that Monkey Business photo. I'd like to think that times have changed, but I don't think they have all that much. When a candidate projects an image of righteousness, there is no room for something like adultery during the campaign, let alone in the past. I pray to God that Obama has the integrity that he has projected. Not even an Obama-leaning press could resist that kind of thing.
Very tacky!
The truth is tacky?
I only hope our party is smart enough to listen to you, Mr. Hart.
thanks for pointing out where me and so many others are coming from.
A great piece by Gary Hart...to add to it...Leaders are not made, they are born!! Hillary is made up of the years of Bill Clinton's name and artificial Senate career that was a front to the presidency...This lady can't be a good leader...leaders are made of character that shows about how they would govern. I would not choose the character of Hillary Clinton one that inspire me and has the quality we need to lead this country just by looking how her campaign is run. Sorry but I will wait for a real woman leader like Senator Claire McCaskill to make a mark in history as the First Woman President of the United States of America. Let's not forget Hillary represent the Divided States of America.
There's no way for most Americans to be liberal. There's no access to liberal thinkers and ideas to the mainstream population.
That's a good point Uselessboy...we are too busy doing the daily grind to pause for reflective thought in the greater good. Thanks for jogging my gray matter on this point and since its Sunday, I think I will make time for some quiet time today and "get liberal", at least for a time today.
I'm going shopping to do my part in the fight against terrorism!
Bingo. Liberals are a minority. I was reading about NN Taleb's latest project recently in an article about an interview he gave. I can't seem to find it now though. Anyway, he apparently said he is looking into whether humans have a limited capacity to be skeptical, thus if skeptical about religion cannot be skeptical about science for example. I am sure I am oversimplifying since the thesis has not yet been laid out clearly and this was some kind of lunch interview. Considering his thinking prior to the current banking liquidity fraud crisis, I think it's worth paying attention to.
The interview with Nassim Nicholas Taleb in the Financial Times is here:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2855f64c-f976-11dc-9b7c-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
"Taleb is conducting experiments to test his theory that we can only cope with so much scepticism and that people who are sceptical about religion are gullible in other ways. “Most people are sceptical about the wrong things and gullible about the wrong things.” He admits his extreme scepticism can lead to extreme conservatism. “I believe it is dangerous to mess with complex systems and traditional things, such as religion or the environment.” "
Personally, while I tend to agree with Taleb's caution about fiddling with complex systems, I'm skeptical whether his theory of a fixed ability to cope with skepticism will bear fruit...
Interesting as it is, I'm not quite sure how this relates to Mr. Hart's comments, or to the comment above about a dearth of liberal influences available to the average person.
I agree that Obama unequivocally represents the future in this election so far. (Witness today McCain stating we need to remove more regulatory barriers in response to mortgage mess.) But, don't all presidents strive to lead us into the future, even GW? It's just that not many presidents are good at it in action, GW again. Now, what about Reagan as an accomplished future-based leader? I'm sure there are other Republican presidents since our founding, I'm just not a history buff.
This race has more to do with whether WE are ready—not the visionary from Springfield. As a young English teacher in a struggling urban school, I know I am prepared to accept Obama’s challenge to share in the responsibility to ensure our community’s better tomorrow. Words do matter. I foresee Obama coming into the nation’s capital on a mission to move Congress like he has moved public servants like me. He is a brilliant, slightly-seasoned, intellectual "Mr. Smith" slaloming his way to Washington. Should he make it, should his proper balance of charisma and brainpower mobilize Washington toward JFK-esque far-reaching goals, I will, for the first time in my life, appreciate the depths and potential of an "American" vision. I think I would be more conscious and inspired that my everyday work and role as a parent would be guided by national values.
We’ve indeed been offered a gift to bring a new focus to a culture very much muddled in an identity crisis: we're so idealistically fractured, we don't even know what a "community" means anymore, and we're now mistrusted by much of the world. We NEED somebody who can persuade...who can convince people to trust the intentions of their leaders.
And having witnessed this man brilliantly turn a recent assault on his character into an opportunity to prove his character, I know he is as much action as he is words. Indeed, words can move the masses to move.
As a person who voted for Obama in the primary, I would have felt much better about my vote if Obama had used the words he moves the masses with so effectively to move the Senate off their butts and change the sorry state of affairs in at least the senate. That would be a great start.
Earth to WomanInOrangeSweater: the Republicans had absolute control of both the Houase and the Senate until 2006...and have maintained de facto control even after losing the majority in both branches. Nothing gets done that the Republicans do not want done - and everybody knows it.
This is what we HAVE to change, by forcing as many Republicans as possible out of both branches of Congress. I don't know how far into the minority they will have to be driven before their stranglehold is broken, but it MUST be done.
So, which Democratic Presidential candidate do *you* think has the longer coattails? AnNd besides that, don't forget to work your tush off to get your local Republicans out of office if you are so unfortunate as to have them, and to get more progressive and less "go along, get along" Democrats in if you aren't infested with Republicans.
Gary,
what if most Americans are centrists? and not liberals or conservatives?
What if an argument about futur (liberals or progressives according to you) and past (conservatives) would be resolved by using our past experience and the present circumstances to better our futur. Hence using both liberal, conservative ideas, and taking into account past, the present and future in such a way as to maximise what we get out of the political arena? May be a centrist agenda???
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
