"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
It's long past time that we stopped relying so much on labels to define us. The truth is, most of us really want the same thing, and we need to work together on practical approaches to getting it done. When we let hype and hyperbole define us, reason and sensibility are lost, and too often we find we've surrendured our wills to anyone selfish and cynical enough to play the game.
The trouble is, as MLK said, "our works have become greater, but we have become smaller." We are capable of having such an impact on the world that we can't afford to treat these as idle questions, or just the vaguely meaningless shifts of power among the powerful, but as questions of the greatest urgency -- the fierce urgency of now, if you will. Thanks, Senator Hart, for reminding us of how important it is to take our problems seriously, and not just as ways we can use to fight amonst ourselves.
Most of us don't want the same thing. Most of us are just too lacking in imagination to want something else. Lacking in imagination, ill informed, lazy, and also deathly frightened by that which we don't have the knowledge or the will to understand.
HuffPost's Pick
Ask Americans if everyone should have the opportunity to earn a living wage, and they will say yes. Ask them if we're paying too much for health care, and they'll agree. Ask if we're doing the right thing in Iraq, they'll say no. On and on. But when you ask these things in a purely political context, you get different answers. We all want to live peacefully with each other, and to be able to make enough to get by. Most of the problem is with how we frame the questions. If we approached these things as if we were all in this together -- which we are -- instead of allowing unproductive disagreements to be ginned up between factions out for personal gain with no benefits to us, we would all be a whole lot better off. We DO want the same things, when we bother to ask each other, when we don't look through the distorted lens of a greedy politician's talking points.
Basic question:
Why people think that Obama will be able to bring country together. To this Republican it seems that he and Clinton managed to tear Democratic party apart. Not a great record so far...
Point well made. Someday people will realize how divisive every comment Obama has made truly is.
He might as well have just flipped us all off rather than give that speech he gave only to follow it up by saying his grandmother is a "typical white person".
Maybe this country does need to have a discussion on race -- it's just not evident that Barack Obama is the guy we should have leading it.
Yes, wasn't it terrible of Senator Obama to say that typical white people, like his grandmother, did not have any racial animosities? This is what he said after all-- or are you upset that he continued by saying his grandmother (and other normal white people) had some stereotypical fears? Which part bothered you? I would guess it is the part where he said typical white folks, like his grandmother, do not have racial animosities-- this would probably bother you because it interferes with the message you would like to generate. I could be incorrect, of course, you could simply be hard of hearing or a self-labelled "ditto-head" of Rush Limbaugh's. Who knows?
Troll?
You miss the point entirely. And as far as I see, Obama is the only one with enough guts to bring up the subject.
No maybes about it...
Sure like to see what you'd consider a devisive comment...
Obama is BLACK and WHITE - he is the ONLY person who could have given this speech. He has lived in both worlds. But you would have to have an open mind to receive his message. He said some of us will stay the same way we are. But don't change - stay just as you are but don't expect others to join you in the shadows.
Senator Obama is simply beating the candidate that some Democrats thought was a shoe-in. At some point, these Democrats will realize that the simple fact that Senator Obama is beating the "shoe-in" candidate shows that he is the better candidate. It won't be long now -- I am sorry ProudNeoCon but the days of Neo-Conservatives (translation-- very, very radical folks) in the White House will be over as of January 19, 2009 and the 44th President will be Senator Obama.
But have fun while this intra-party lasts, because you won't be having much fun come November. That is unless my fellow Americans actually liked the last 7+ years of embarrassment, corruption and abuse of the U.S. Constitution.
The "shoe-in" point is often over looked. By HRC not having this wrapped up by now is saying something very positive about Obama. Look how much support she has lost over the past months. If she didn't get all of her Supers on board early, she would have none. So, when she says that they should wait, she is only talking to the ones who want Obama. When the shoe-in/es
Sorry to disapoint you, but if Obama wins election I will not cry. This country is much more than any of 3 candidates. I believe that all 3 of them would make a decent president. I disagree with Obama on many issue, but like him as a great speaker. I just can not see why people think he will unite country... so far he have been pretty bad at it...
Oooh, the lying Republicans hate Obama! Hate him! Hate him!
It's not hate, it's fear! They can beat Hillary, she plays their game, and they've been planning for her for years! Obama changes the rules to a game in which they have little hope. Imagine a debate between Obama and McNut. Game over!
ProudNeoCon - says it all. Like saying ProudWarProfiteer
How open minded of you - judge person by his handle... nice job
I have not determined that Obama torn the party apart. In my view Clinton has come strongly against the man and he had every right to fight back, so it is my opinion that Hillary has and continues to tear the party apart, as she is intending too if she can't win, then what does she care about a party. She wants McCain to win if Obama is the nominee, do people really not see this, it is the only way she will be able to come back in 2012.
I completely agree that the left-right analysis of political belief is a drastic oversimplification. I would also agree that your idea of a past-future, or conservati
Yet McCain seems intent on offering more of Bush's policies. Excellent! It should be easy for either Democrat to win.
We all know how he flip-flopped on his decision to run for the POTUS. At first, Obama said he wanted to complete one term in the US senate because IF he were to run he would have to run right now. That was in 2004 when he was elected. Time after time, half truth after half truth Obama has navigated his own propensity to not tell the complete story or withold information. Only so later he can "claim" to take the "high road".
And another thing, we have a whole demographic (college students) who are responsible for Obama being where he is now. How they've done it? Caucuses. It's the perfect venue for college kids to crash and "make a difference". I'm sorry, but people 1 to 4 years removed from high school should not have this big of an impact on a primary election. We'll be stuck with Obama for 4 years and maybe that inexperience will disappear soon after he is elected. I maintain, however, that the college kids don't know anything about the real world.
The world in which the "uneducated" Hillary backers live in. They live in a purgatory far removed from the real life problems American families face on a daily basis. And their lack of wisdom is infecting MANY more than their own circle of voters via negative campaigning on behalf of Obama against HRC.
Here's to hoping the Superdelegates (undemocratic in some eyes) override the caucuses (undemocratic PERIOD).
Do you have any evidence to support your statement that Obama is only where he is because of college students at caucuses? I bet not because not only has Obama won in caucuses but he has also won in primaries. Speaking of my own caucus experience, there were no college students there. I live in Colorado in a college town, and the majority of those there were middle aged or older. Being 31 years of age, I was probably one of the youngest people there.
Being involved in the caucus process is truly an exciting, unique experience. At the caucus I attended in my state, although I did not approach the numerous people who attended to ask their ages, I would estimate that the youngest people there were in their early 30's and the oldest in their 70's and 80's. I met new people, heard numerous stories about my recently adopted state (New Mexico) and its history, and was involved in the political process at the ground-roots level. It certainly beats dropping a ballot into a box.
Another Clinton supporter wanting to change the rules in the middle of the game.
What proof do you you have that caucuses are not democratic? NONE
As somone who participated in one, I can say without a doubt that they are every bit as democratic as primaries. The main thing you have to do is show up and stay for the role call to verify your vote. In addition, the results are verifed by both sides with humans, not Diebold machines. So get over it already, Hillary, and quit making such preposterous statements!
is this another one of those "the old folks know better how to run things than the young folks?"
well I ask you - is it the young folks that have pushed this country into the crapper? who is it that has brought us to where we are today? is it the college students? or is it those people who know how to run things? great job at running things, obviously.
Why are you so angry that Obama is doing well? Your arguments make much sense to me. For instance, how are caucuses undemocratic?
I will not go so far as to say a caucus is undemocratic as everyone has the right and the opportunity to take part in it. But, I believe the notion that a causcus is less representative than a primary when it comes to gauging the will of the people is fair. I say this because a caucus draws far fewer people.
I also believe the process of primary voting better reflects the way we vote for Presidents, so it would seem choosing the candidate in the same manner would be a better indication of future results.
I'M WITH YOU 100% ON THIS.
So tired of hearing how the youth should be coddled -- can't have anyone else win the Democratic nomination or the youth vote will be discouraged. Who cares. The college kids are simply voting for whoever has the most Facebook/MySpace friends. As if that's a true measure of anything other than the fact Obama hired the best web designer. Obama hired one of the founders of Facebook to set up his online community -- a shrewd move no doubt -- but justification for being given the nomination it's not.
For those youngsters who are gonna cry that their candidate was robbed, remember this country was stolen in the first place. You can say it was stolen from the Natives or the British -- you choose. So, with a foundation like that, what do I care if the perception is that one nomination was stolen somewhere along the way.
Grow up, kiddo. One of the most important lesson you should've learned by now is that you don't always get what you want -- I learned that long before I could vote.
HuffPost's Pick
Who has asked for the youth to be coddled? Certainly nobody from Senator Obama's campaign. Anyway, Senator Obama is winning so to give him the nomination that he won is hardly coddling anybody. Now, if 72% of the superdelegates (by MSN's math how many Senator Clinton would need) give the election to Senator Clinton that would be some serious coddling. Don't you think the person with the most votes should win -- or were you o.k. with what the Supreme Court did in 2000? Just curious.
John McCain is an excellent example of a future-past candidate. He has been at times a maverick and a progressive Republican, who is capable of crossing the aisle and working with the conditions that are a result of the past. He has also demonstrated this tendency for a long time.
If you wipe out the left and the right, and forego the naturally tendency towards ageist discrimiation, McCain polls with the most positives, and yet respects the past.
Democrats hold onto the progressive mantle, then elevate change agents as their leaders -- only to discover that the past comes back to haunt them. John Kerry is a shining example. A progressive leader, whose past imperiled his future.
Senator McCain is relying on cold-war mentality to fight Al Quaeda and conflating them with Iran. Senator McCain will appoint Justices who practice a legal theory out of date since FDR. Senator McCain is advocating for the tax cuts of President Bush and even more tax cuts for big corporations. Senator McCain backtracked on torture and advised the President to veto the bill which banned it (which President Bush did). Hmmm, how exactly is Senator McCain the candidate of the future? I don't see it anywhere. I do see him as an honorable man who is hopelessly addicted to the 1950's, just like many Republicans.
"Besides, when he is elected, perhaps we will have journalism that understands the difference
Do you believe Obama is a magic wand, Gary? Do you believe that by electing Obama he'll magically cure our nations ills at home and abroad? What are his credentials? Has he any experience running ANYthing at all?
He's been elected twice via eliminating his competition and now that he's got a fight on his hands, he can't take the heat. What will happen when he feels the pressure of executive decision? How will he react?
You see, the problem is we really know very little about Obama. That is why I am scared to vote for him. I live in Illinois (Chicagoland) and I remember the scandals which plagued his competition. I remember him going through the courts to deny his competition it's petition of the people to be allowed to run against him.
I know that until around 2003 Barack was largely a shutout in the Illinois legislature. Time after time, bill after bill Obama failed. It was only until Emil Jones took important, if not controversial, bills from legislators who did the hard work and let Obama "author" them after the legwork was done. Obama got a lot of credit for work he never did.
None of the three candidates have any experience running anything except their Presidential campaigns. Senator Obama has handled his money better, raised money better, organized better and maintained better campaign discipline -- oh yeah, and he has won more votes than one of the most well-known politicians of our time. On this count, Senator Obama is the best candidate.
A shut-out in the Illinois legislature? What??? Senator Obama got healthcare reform there. Senator Obama reformed the broken death penalty that was sending innocent people to death -- something nobody wanted to touch. What about the legwork? This is not what I read. You need to give proof, or refrain from smear.
And what has Hillary run?
This is a specious argument. Obama has run the most impressive campaign in modern memory. If you are only going to elect people that have "run things," then all three remaining candidates for the presidency would be disqualified. None of them have been executives. None have served as a mayor or a governor. All three are legislators. Obama has more legislative experience than Hillary, but less than McCain.
This sort of, "we don't know enough about him" pseudo-racist, fear-based rhetoric is really kind of laughable. Given the amount of information available online, we probably know more about Obama than any presidential candidate in history. What more do you need to know?
And what do we know about Hillary that makes her the better choice? That she's divisive? That she'll do whatever it takes to win? That she has a casual relationship with the truth? That she's insincere? That she can't admit when she's wrong? That she treats every decision like a political calculation? That she demeans anyone who does not vote for her?
You've pretty much summed up my reasons for voting for Obama.
However, your last line also sums up my concern. Only we can change the media, by not watching/r
You are right about that. But the more Senator Obama campaigns the more people realize that they are the change they have been waiting for. It is a slow and difficult process -- waking up. But we are doing it all over America and most of us won't go back to sleep.
Its a wonderful article. Democratic Party should know they have lost all credibility because they have moved right of center — as if they are in some way ashamed to be called progressives or liberals. So Gary Hart's suggestion should work really well. Frankly, if it was not for Obama, I wouldn't have voted in this election too because as the parties stand today, I don't see ANY difference between them. Remember Iraq war, remember Clinton's no fly zone violations, not to mention the deregulation of Clinton's times in office.
I'm 61 and have no plans on voting for either Clinton or Obama. I've seen the promises come and go, grand promises and probably dreams that a person honestly believes in while campaigning but dreams that turn to mist as soon as the oath is administered.
I just sat dumbfounded when I heard pundits speak of how Obama had "finally" opened up the dialogue for race discussion. Opened it up ? We've had discussion, infinitum, since the day of the civil rights marches.
Jonah Goldberg got it right in a recent article in the Los Angeles Times. He wrote,
" Snatching me from any such reverie was this masterful understatement from Thursday's New York Times: "Religious groups and academic bodies, already receptive to Mr. Obama's plea for such a dialogue, seemed especially enthusiast
"Who is Janet Murguia? Oh, she's just the president of a group called the National Council of La Raza, which -- despite what they'll tell you -- means "the race." In fact, doesn't it seem like the majority of people begging for a "new conversation" on race are the same folks who shout "racist!" at anyone who disagrees with them?" end of quote
Watch what you wish for .
You lost all credibility with the words, "Johnah Goldberg got it right..."
Obama will shine the brightest when he is alone against the GOP. I have a question. When the polls show how well or not well the 2 dems do against McCain, would those be skewed because there is still 2 dems? and would they get better for the dem nom. when there is only one?
"Besides, when he is elected, perhaps we will have journalism that understands the difference
I'm sure they will, if they drink from the same trough of Kool-Aid that you drank from. Better yet maybe you can all establish a monarchy and you can all worship King Obama and journalism, true journalism will be just an ugly thing of the past. Oh if only . . . .
Gary, I'm not confused. I know exactly why I'm a Hillary supporter. These story are nothing more than mere entertainment today in politics.
Your position statement is a bit simplistic and overly romanticized Mr Hart. Almost every election we have ever held and most of those yet to take place come down to the voter's decision about either "staying the course" as established in the past, or, changing direction and speculating on a different proposition for the future. Sometimes the speculation pays dividends (FDR, Bill Clinton etc.) but there is ample proof of the opposite results ( Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and others) where the hollow promises of a NEW type of politics and a CHANGE from the negatively characterized past brings disorder, vulnerability and misgiving. There is nothing in Senator Obama's personal or political resume that suggests he has either the strategic where-with-all or the judgmental rectitude to become a better speculation than Senator Clinton. Wishful thinking held together by contempt for the alternative choice and the collective fervor borne of emotional and spiritual need do not make for positive final results.
Lets have some change in Washington! Screw the rich liberals,Clinton and the rich conserv.s, McCain.
No thanks, please. I have had enough of the republicans, and you would be unwise to help make that happen, if you are not a true republican. You can bite off your nose to spite your face, but you will live to regret it.
I must see a dem in the WH, regardless of the nominee, I think. I may change my mind and stay home but I will not vote for a man demonstrating dementia or something lately. No thanks,
thanks gary, can we go fishing now baby boy....
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
