"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
Left vs. right and future vs. past are certainly dimensions of the new political reality. According to an emerging idea, political positions are substantially determined by biology and can be stubbornly resistant to reason. These views are deep-seated and built into our brains. Trying to persuade someone to be liberal is like trying to persuade someone not to have brown eyes. We have to rethink persuasion.
Identical twin studies support this idea because -even if raised separately, there is a concordance of opinion between identical twins, more so than fraternal and other twins. Brain imaging studies and personality studies are increasingly finding that the attitudes, values and beliefs separating the left from the right are deeply ingrained in our DNA. Also, propaganda is very important.
The fear-mongering propaganda effects of today's media are interesting also. How can young people be terrified of two things at the same time, namely Islamo-fascism and communism? They are supposed to fear minorities and woman, too, so that right wingers can keep their death grip on wealth and power.
I speak to high schoolers regularly. The youth of today are rejecting the views of older Americans whatever they might be in favor of trusting younger people much as my generation did in the 60's. They may not understand Adam Smith or Karl Marx but they do understand that Bush is a liar and that older people have failed to come up with good ideas about their future.
thank you for this very interesting information! hmm...
you hit the nail on the head, gary. this IS a future-past election. and when obama and mccain stand on that stage together, this will become glaringly obvious to a lot of people. I for one am looking forward to it. this really is a do-or-die, make-or-break point in america. and not just because of the issues we are facing today, but the ones we are going to have to deal with tomorrow. will we prepare ourselves and move forward?
Mr. Hart,
Your post claims it is a myth that Americans live along a liberal-conservative divide, but then supports the very myth it purports to disprove when it simply defines what it is to be a Liberal and points out that when Liberals move too far center (read as right or towards the conservative perspective), we lose, we confuse issues and end up floundering. The liberal-conservative divide to which you speak is NOT a myth, and that divide has always been present in America since the earliest days.
Briefly stated, one might say that the early Liberals were the Revolutionaries, while the early Conservatives were the Loyalists. The Revolutionaries were innovative, bold, and believed in principles of equality and freedom while the Loyalists were fearful, rigid, unchanging, tied to the past and quite uninterested in severing ties to the Crown. Those two basic mindsets have survived and evolved into Liberals (revolutionaries) and Conservatives (loyalists). Liberals are constantly looking for innovative and creative ways to improve living conditions for average people while Conservatives mainly seek to protect what they have, which necessarily means keeping an uneven playing field in place so they can maintain power and the upper hand in all situations.
If there is a future-past continuum, as you called it, to the American political spectrum, it would be what I’ve described above, and it is not a myth. Your description simply does what it denounces: it triangulates and creates confusion.
"The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest and ourselves united. From the conclusion of [their] war [for independence, a nation begins] going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of [that] war will remain on [them] long, will be made heavier and heavier, till [their] rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782.
The question, is not which party is most "Noble", but which, will reverse the "Suspension of Habeas Corpus"--"Direct Democracy". The 70% without "Titles of Nobility" in which clearly the Legal Oligarchy and Scholastic Oligarchy, (collusively are 30% of Americans) owns a Monopolies in Private and Public sectors. The Commoner, must be allowed seats, at the top levels of all business and government, for "grass roots" representation.
I say do away with parties period and people vote for the candidate they feel is best, period. Then maybe people like the DNC that allows candidates to drag each other through the mud and attempt to kill the same party candidate to ensure that he loses in the general just to be able to run in 2010 would never happen.
I think after this debacle we need to seriously fight to end this party or start another party and give people a third party to vote for, then we will turn this process around, because apparently those leaders of ours in the DNC cannot be serious about winning this election. That are in fact ensuring that McCain is the next president because Hillary will not win again McCain, he is going to take the one with the special gift to keep this country behind him, including those college students that people try to make light of.
Mr. Hart says Barack is 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..."
There is no evidence to support this contention.
He's hardly been a transcendental figure in the United States Senate. He's missed important votes, held zero hearing as committee chair and began running for president a few minutes after he was seated. Going back to his record in the Illinois Senate, he did little of notice until it was decided he would be a good candidate for the open Senate seat. Obama's history shows he's interested in one thing and one thing only. His own political ambition. Senator Obama likes to talk about a "post racial" future but he doing his part to contribute to a hyper racial present. Every remark by his opponent or her spouse gets put under the microscope, looking for signs of racial animus. Don't ask the senator what he meant when he said it he wasn't sure how he would have voted on Iraq if was in the senate at the time or what he meant when he said he and GWB were not that far apart on the war, that would be too racially charged. Obama is very good at playing the victim of racism card. He's turned the phrase "3AM" into a new racial slur! None of this has anything to due with Barack's skin.
Great! Rather than respond to anything Gary has written, just give us the usual laundry list of HRC & Co. anti-Obama talking points. Which means, in his dichotomy, you choose the past.
BBox,
Respond to what? This idea that Barack Obama will transcend the politics of both left and right even though there isn't any evidence to back it up? Those aren't talking points, Obama said those things. Why is his record off limits for discussion?
Well, good for Gary Hart as he tries to dull the attacks that will surely come from McCain and his surrogates, namely "More liberal than Ted Kennedy, more liberal than Barbara Boxer, more liberal than Barney Frank..." (wonder if everyone will be as pissed off when it's called gay-baiting?)
What we have learned from the more recent Republican strategies is to frame the issue first - so let's call it past vs. future instead of liberal vs. conservative. Hope this works.
whether it's true or not it's the first thing they will say about hillary as well. the polemics work for the Republicans. Why we play that game internally is beyond me.
Resorting to the idea of "past vs. future" has been tried before. It doesn't help. If we can't raise the average thinking ability of the average American, we will continue treading water like this indefinitely. Past vs. future, Liberal vs. Conservative, Dem vs. Repub; none of it matters if the average voter can't critically analyze the issues to discern what is in their best interests. That's why Repubs consistently support educational initiatives that lend themselves to dumbing down the constituency -- it's like they think, "keep 'em dumb so they can't figure out we're screwin' 'em."
It was reasonably successful for Bill Clinton. We can't really know what would have happened if Ross Perot hadn't run.
thank you Senator Hart for your CLARIFYING Posts................AS a non elected Democrat who does not hold a position. you can speak the TRUTH.
The Republicans have repeated certain lines so much that people were beginning to believe it.
AMERICA should become a center-left country is it wants to be DEMOCRATIC
and JUST.
And for those who ask where would Jesus be...........
LEFT OF CENTER is exactly where JESUS would be...........just like where the HEART IS in the HUMAN BODY.
America has been moving too much away from Idealism . PRAGMATIC IDEALISM IS NEEDED NOW. not crass /mean realism
So now we are pretending to know which side Jesus would take in an Democratic primary? Maybe Jesus wouldn't vote at all since he loves all his children? Maybe Jesus would be too busy to care who won? Maybe Jesus should be left out of politics all together?
I rarely have anything nice to say about a Senator, but nice job, Senator Hart. A compliment worth a diamond the size of John Belushi if you only knew how rare it is.
You no that last sentence didnt sound good, When he is elected we might have journalism that might understand the difference, whats he going to do make them all left wing news media and not alow fair news? you no obama is a good guy but you act like as clinton said the heavans will open up and peace angels will come down from the sky, you no this might have happened if it wasnt for Pastor Wright, i think it did him in
In other words, you're a democrat. Shocker. Really sir. Why even bother typing? We knew you were a liberal democrat, and this makes no news at all. And you support the single most liberal running. Period. Case closed.
Jimpryor99
Your comments make not a whit of sense; "In other words, you're a democrat. Shocker. Really sir. Why even bother typing? We knew you were a liberal democrat, and this makes no news at all. And you support the single most liberal running. Period. Case closed."
What "case" is being closed in your mind? Why does Mr. Hart's being a liberal democrat somehow mean he should not bother to express his opinion? What point are you making. Is this a continuation of an argument you were having in your mind on only shared the snarky bits with the rest of us?
Susan Eisenhower, who can hardly be thought of as a "liberal democrat", mirrors much of Gary hart's thinking on this issue. Would you preclude her opinions equally unworthy of merit? Based on the lack of substantive argument in your disagreements, I believe she would fair no better.
Mr. Hart makes a good point, most of us are not concerned about how left- or right- winged our concerns are. We just want someone to protect the things that are good in our lives and help us correct the things that are wrong.
Mr. Hart, I commend you for so remarkably posing to us the real question for 2008.
Do we wish to live in the past or live for the future? I prefer the latter, as we can change the future. The past is what we should learn from, so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Conservatives have always been opposed to anything that smells of change. They're comfortable with the past and see no problem in the status quo as long as they are thriving.
However, those who prefer the future, building and correcting our future based upon the avoidance of the mistakes of the past, are usually Liberal. They are more attuned to the history of the past and wanting to change the current situations to allow for everyone to benefit in the future. Everything occurs/changes in its own time. Change to improve the future for everyone is necessary.
I want my kids to have a brighter future than what my generation has ended up giving them (thanks, George, Dick & co.). In my own little sphere of influence, I've always worked for change, to improve our world, our lives, our relationships toward one another. I've always thought that was our responsibility... to leave the world a little better off due to your presence. That is how I perceive Obama and why I support him.
You shouldn't live in the past and you can't live in the future. Unless you think Obama can change time or quantum physics or the natural laws of the universe. Which wouldn't surprise me if you do. Anyway, I am living in the present. That's where I would like my President to be. In the present. The candidate I support lives in the present. Yes there are a lot of problems, but she/we can fix them. If you really want a better future it starts in the present. But you have to get your head out of the clouds first. (I'm being polite by suggesting that is where your head is.)
Frankly, I think you described the difference between Independents and most Democrats and Republicans.
It is hart to talk about the "Obama test" when CNN literally carpet-bombs the innocent spectators with their racial spin. I watch CNN every morning in a gym and get it without sound (only the visual stream). That is a typical CNN stream recently:
- a lot of smiling Hillary (sometimes McCain), positive images (work, workers, children, sunshine)
- recurring news about the Deitroit major (as frequent as possible): CNN hint - Obama is also black (notice: nothing about Spitzer).
- brief images of Obama next to Rev. Wright
- report about about a poll [possibly among Sultzberger's relatives] showing that Hillary is ahead
- some analyst saying that we have to vote for someone who can win
- Obama at a beach doing nothing (reminiscent of Kerry hunting 4 years ago), some title containing the word 'controversial'.
- .. it never ends...
sammy 333, should file a complaint with the FCC, regarding CNN's biased, narrow-casting and that way they will have to go under review -a lengthy process- and maybe brimng them back to the real world of colours. Oh, the official name for that complaint is; Informal Objection. Go sammy go
Whether you're going backward or forward, it's worth contemplating this: If we were counting electoral votes in the 27 states (and D.C) Obama has won and the 16 states Clinton has won as (with 8 states representing 73 electoral votes still up for grabs), Clinton would be leading 263 to 202 (270 are needed to win). If Florida and Michigan were subtracted from her column, she's still up 219 to 202; and if you evenly split the 44 votes from those states, she remains ahead 241 to 224 ... But I might not want the nomination unless some agreement is made to fully enfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan beforehand. I believe it would be fair to count Florida according to the vote that already occurred (it'll probably stay Republican in the fall anyway). In Michigan, however, the most recent polls have Senators Clinton and Obama evenly dividing another primary vote in that state, a place that has voted Democratic by consistently dwindling margins in the last 4 presidential elections and where polls currently give McCain a slight lead over either Democrat. I believe it is likely the Democrats will lose the general election if they fail to hold Michigan's 17 electoral votes. If that happens, it will be for one reason: a backlash against disenfranchisement that McCain will exploit as a symbol of division with the assistance of Michigan favorite son Mitt Romney as his running mate. I wouldn't want to be the one responsible for that.
You know I thought about this electoral vote and I think it is the worst suggestion I have heard all year along, not because it may not be the best way to elect a president, I did say president. But, because it is another one of Clinton's desperate moves to change the meaning of a word, a rule, a party.
She was adamantly against this in 2000 when she had no real stakes in the race, now all of a sudden she thinks it is the best way to elect a nominee in the primary. I really do not believe the spin that the media or Hillary attempts to portray.
Bye the way, I love the article.
What is more important to me is how she is still in this race. If Obama had the same scores as she does they would have call her our presumptive candidate, but no, she is Clinton and the mass of those in politics owe them. Now, I believe in helping those that have helped you in the past. However, when your helping will devastate a nation, the collateral is too high and you must do the right thing rather than the common thing. Richardson may have gotten appointed by the Clintons in to certain positions and feels an obligation to them. However,helping Clinton's win a race that is certainly not theres to win would be more of a disaster to the country and the party.
I hope you received your check from the Clinton campaign bumchicken. By repeating the ridiculous "electoral vote theory" you have shown your bias and furthered the new Clinton talking points. Considering this is the only metric that shows her ahead on anything related to the primary (except the number of people stating they would never vote for a specific candidate,i.e. high negatives) I say you at least have enormous chutzpah.
As for the other talking point about voter disenfranchisement, no matter who ,wins this ridiculous spin war, I would love to see your scenario play out. For you, as a repub, would never again have a say in the dem primaries. Every other state in the union would try to jump to the front of the line if they were rewarded by having broken the rules and been rewarded by having the final say on the candidate. By this logic, (thinking the US is a pure democracy, and not a representative republic) California, by virtue of overwhelming population, would pick the candidate every time. We could also eliminate the electoral college and the Congress, because if you are a dem in a repub state, you are constantly being disenfranchised.
I don't know if you looked at your precious polls lately, but they say that about 35% of the country calls itself republican, insuring that the majority will never allow republicans to rule again.
I'm sorry you're so paranoid.
I agree that a Michigan revote is necessary. However it would be nice if Hillary would quit trying to blame Obama for this. The legislators in Michigan would not support a re-vote and Hillary will not allow a caucus. If anyone is preventing Michigan from getting their voice heard it is Clinton, The twisted "electoral vote" analysis contrived by the Clinton campaign is more of the same old politics, changing the rules in the middle of the game so your side can win. To hell with the rest of those democrats who dont support her. Hillary stands to lose a lot of democratic votes in Nov. if she pulls this off.
On the other hand, if Obama wins she and her campaign apparently intend to ensure he is so damaged that he will lose to McCain and gi ve her another shot in 4 years. The problem for her will be that former VP Al Gore, the 800 lb. gorilla of the democratic party, will be ready to run by then.
Actually I have not seen my "twisted electoral vote analysis" anywhere before. It simply occurred to me to look at the math from that perspective last night and I probably would have posted whatever i found. The fact is I have nothing to do with the Clinton campaign except in so far as I would encourage it continue while I try to decide who will be the best candidate to beat the Republicans in the general election which - since both Democrats are otherwise excellent - is all that really matters to me.
The media narrative, does not jibe with whats going on with Obma's candidacy or support.My sons , one liberal one a Bush voter both support Obama as well as my extreme left green party nephew. I went to his speech in Portland and the crowd was amazing not just in it's size and enthusiasm but in it's diversity. Union workers and nerdy types along with huge swaths of our population varying in race, gender , age all came for the same reason, change from the politics of division and participating in an election where we the people will be heard. Inside the beltway they know damn well that it's a phony divide they promote this narrative as it keeps them in power and off the hook, so they think.
Future-past? Everything is about trying to predict and deal with the future based on what we think we have learned from the past. The differences between the parties are their abilities to understand what the past has to teach them, and to have the imagination to ask the right questions of history and open their minds to see and best choose from the range of possible solutions. If the past has shown us a book from science, and a book from mythology, for example, which book do we trust to point out both the problems we face as well as the possible solutions? Members of both parties may look at both books, but the democrats are more likely to know which one has the answers to what.
So it's just not as simple as past-future, change-don't change, etc. It may be more of a smart-dumb dichotomy, but again that's just too simple. Objective-subjective? Rational-emotional? Maybe all of the above that only the more intelligent can sort out - what's so new about that?
I might add that this seems one of those attempts to find a theory that fits a particular politician that you already have decided to back for a completely different set of reasons. It's not exactly helpful if the theory seems somewhat bogus and thus reflects on your judgement and the accuracy of your opinions in general - and in particular of any involving your choice of candidates.
I too like Obama, but because his judgment seems much less likely to settle for simpleminded solutions or for rationalizing gut reactions and the like.
I hopr that is not true. Obama in my estimation has done and continues to do an excellent job, as did Sen Hart, of raising the issue of the future we want. He mwy not have all of the answers, none of us know what future we want, at least I don't think we do. but I do think this: after 8 years od failed forieng poicy, eight years of economic stagflation, almost eight years of being a natiopn in shock and in fear of there the next boogeyman will raise his ugly head; 5 tears of a mindless war, that went after the worng guy, at the cost of 4,000 lives. We need a new (and I NEVER though I would say this) "morning in America" With Clinton and McCain all I see are more twilight zone reruns
I agree with you LeonardB, We need something new. Now perhaps Mr. Hart could get the DNC to do something, anything useful?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
