"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
The twist from left-centrist-right to past-future continuum are jumbled words in an attempt to redefine something that needs no definition. Choice IS NOT "this or that".
Both present parties present solutions to maintain our standard of living while saying they are striving to bring rights and comparable standards of living to others.
Leaders of both parties understand that for the rest of the world to better their standard of living we would have to sacrifice some of our own - as is happening now. With all people competing for finite resources - they have always understood that equal access to those resources will not benefit those nations who have lived well on economies of oil and plenty - so the "policy" will always be to get our hands on the resources first and control them - which will not insure equality - no matter the party affiliation. The respective party illusions are surely different courses and are used against one another to great effect - but at the end of the day neither will cede American power over resources - AND investment in resources - without bloodshed.
The doling out portions of spoils of resources to have-nots has reached critical mass - and there is no more separate battlefield. To fight American Armies on a battlefield is folly. They will fight as we once fought against a seemingly insurmountable foe - with idealism and insurrection. And right or wrong - their leaders can always point to what we have as
This post goes to the heart of the way our mind functions. We use our memories of past experiences as the basis for the way we behave presently and as the reservoir of information for our future decision making and actions. The only way to "over-ride" what is considered in psychological terms as our "conditioned nature" is to first, learn how to be aware of what we actually believe and think and secondly, to introduce "new" beliefs as a way of offering our subconscious minds other options for future decision-making thereby, not leaving us in a stuck pattern of repeating the past. Maybe, this is what the Bible talk about with a "renewing of the mind"...
Excellent, nerakami..
Unfortunatelyit is not past/present but more of th same politcal unbridled ambition. Obama built a power base on the liberal, and radical fringe. He hoped to keep it in the closet til nominated and elected. He was outed. He is not the champion of change or ending divisiveness. He is a glib politician who has been deciving th faunig liberal media and pundits for months. Try reading ormer mayor Ed Koch (democrat) assessment of Obama. Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing.
This post is obviously from someone not from New York. Koch gave us the same old cronyism and patronage that is unacceptable to most voters. I see the same thing in the Clintons but something different in Obama and I think most voters do too
Agree - also remember that thanks to the "bang-up" job done by Ed Koch, an otherwise democratic city (NYC) has been run by republicans for the past two mayoral races.
No I am not from New York, and I used to be a Democrat, headed the Collgiate Democrats in the 1960's. But Mayor Koch was saying what others should have, Senator Obama is a con- not a great leader. I have in my years known great black leaders from my days in the military, to my own political career. (I am 65 and semi-retired from California, now living in New Mexico home of another con type politician -Gov. Richardson). Senator Obam is all about Senator Obama, he loves to play soldier(wants to be commander in chief) but never wants to really be one. He talks about a new era of transcending the racial and other divides-then he hangs out with the most hateful divisive public figures. I need not a lecture from someone who has "celebrity stars" in their eyes for Obama. I founded the Catholic Interacial Council at my University in California in 1965. I know the brave civil rights fighters not the phonies like Obama. Before you lecture, study a little history and speak with some of us who have actually lived it. No I am not a fan of Koch, yes I think his article was right on.
"...who is bold enough to propose innovative ways of dealing with them in the nation's interest." I've yet to hear any actual innovative way that brings Delay, Rove, Boehner, Limbaugh, etc into this new post-partisan USA. Please, just one Obama specific. Anyone?
What is your point, Lewis? Delay, Rove etal are dinasaurs. Their extinction cannot begin soon enough.
They've ripped off enough to exist in their gilded estates and have nothing to contribute.
If/when they ever want to participate for the NATION's interest instead of their own, they will be welcomed.
Expecting Obama to reach out to that dreck is completely unreasonable. Don't you know the saying: You can't debate with someone who is crazy.
My point is that all you Hucksterposters, including this from Gary H, talk about how Obama will unite the country, how he will end the left/right divide, and bring this country together. His rhetoric is all about this post-partisan love-fest. I just don't seeing it happen. Please just tell me one policy he supports that both side will come together on.
You made the point. Rove, Boehner, Delay and Limbaugh represent political chicanery, dishonesty, patronage, cronyism etc. Most voters despise these things. They see Obama and not Hillary as a break from this type of politics and for most of us it does not matter if the pundits charactize Obama to the left or the right of her.
The speech excited me so much I had an Obasm.
Both liberals and conservatives need to be progressive in order for their party to survive an not remain static. Barry Goldwater understood this and John F. Kennedy understood this. The current perpetual Washington D.C. crop of insiders perpetuate the myth of: the liberals being idealistic; and conservatives being realistic. Ironically, At this point it is the conservatives that are too idealistic (the surge is working). And some liberals that are too realistic (life is tough, you have to act tough, there is no hope!) It just proves that the past way of thinking is up against the future and modernity. Maybe Obama is a combination of Goldwater and Kennedy - just a thought.
I stopped watching the Clinton New Network after the Texas debate. The last question was so obviously set up that I lost whatever little respect I still had for them.
great post. that is exactly how the politics of today is formed, also in europe.
that shift of paradigm from left-right to past-future worked brilliantly in finnish and swedish parliamentary elections last year where the right wing coalitions (similar to US liberal views -no neo-cons here, no) won and ended a long social democratic rule exactly with that recipe:
engaging in dialogue to create the future, challenging new creative solutions in and between public/private sector but also cross-over relationships between business/e
I like your message. I do think, however, that Obama is a Rorschach test. People are seeing what they want to in his message and even projecting on to him what they "think" his messages mean to him and making him into that candidate. That's fine and perhaps how people rise to leadership, however, I'd like to hear Obama speak specifically about what exactly his change means in details from him. Details, not "I'll figure this out when I get there" or "we'll all sit down and talk". I want to know what it is he is going to do.
Most importantly, I want to know what he is going to do with the corporations. Is he going to turn his back on them to give the voters what he's promised them or is he going to work with them. We need to work WITH the corporations. Regulate them more, but not turn out backs on their ability to bring goods and serives to the American people. Also clarification on NAFTA. NAFTA has been good for out country, except it created more job loss. We need an answer to that.
The Clintons have worked WITH corporations and I feel comfortable with them that they will strike a balance between supporting the people and working with corporations.
OBAMA please be more specific!
What I find laughable is the liberal - conservative paradigm the Times and most msm uses to define our politics and candidates. The United States is so right of center and has been for 20 plus years that Barack Obama would be considered a conservative candidate if he were running in a western european country. Progressive??? What is so progressive about ending a war and offering the weathiest nation healthcare for all? Decades behind other industrialized countries.
I teach liberal and conservative ideology in my political science class. I even draw the line on the chalkboard and write the values and labels associated with each side. But the classroom discussion reveals that this is fairly meaningless to the students. They live in a poor, hispanic, border town. They may have Conservative values as Catholics from a traditional society, but they are also samaritans who believe in a social safety net and want the environment to be safe and healthy. Most of all they want the ability to raise themselves, and their family, out of poverty, they want a profession and good-paying jobs, and they want to be respected. They usually decide they are independent or moderate because they pick and choose values from each side of the spectrum. These days they are definitely starting to listen to the language of hope from Barack Obama. Many favor Hillary Clinton, but her ties to the status-quo are wearing thin to their young ideals and hope for the future. Very few support John McCain.
Thanks for teaching our kids.
I hope you're right Mr. Hart. This Government has been stolen by those who think the people are in the way, and are soft enough to drive over.
Senator Hart,
You were the candidate of the future in 1984 but Obama is not the candidate of the future at all, unless of course, one thinks that a candidate of the future doesn't have to be firmly rooted in achievement.
Obama doesn't even have as much experience as you had in 1984 nor is he capable of the same brillance of thought and common sense as you were.
He took drugs, you and I didn't.
He can't even figure out what to do with his hand when the National Anthem is played, you didn't have the same problem.
You finally expressed the thought that all life is sacred and he is still living in the past.
Geez, how simple is this comment. To put the hand wherever, to wear a pin or display ribbons
on the back of a car has nothing to do with your character. Obama has fresh ideas, some of them
now getting duplicated by Hillary. Obama's senate record, while not impressing, is still better than
Hillary's. Hillary's experience of the last 30 years amounts to misspoken words, downright lies,
trying to credit where none is due, etc. No thank you, she did that too many times in the past and
I have not forgotten. I bet that many in congress/senate and CEOs, while in college, did drugs
and experimented. I don't hold it against them though I never joined them. Obama is not what
I would have wanted but again, we were too stupid and let the good candidate, who really wanted
change, go by the wayside already. Nothing has changed, nothing will change.
Name one idea , just one. This guy obama is a salesman thats all , if you want to believe he's the messiah go ahead, but please, please ,please tell me one concrete thing he says he'll do. Please, just one.
(tacky irresponsible remark in regards to NOT knowing what to do with his hand during national anthem...P
How about giving credit where due when HONEST ADMISSION and ACTUAL STRAIGHT TALK ?
You want to further the debate on the definition of "IS" ? A wag of the finger to sorts that try to make such absurdities a COVER for perhaps their more innate prejudices that they will NOT admit to !!! which certainlyseems the case for far too many who give the CLINTONS a pass on so many issues of record/on record and want to demean Obama ERRONEOUSLY at every opportunity !!!
So, if Hillary or McCain puts their hands over their heart and wear the lapel pin and then get into bed with lobbyists, they are acceptable to you? It is precisely this habit of accepting the superficial over the real that is keeping corrupt politicians in Washington
Obama knows what to do with his hands, he is anti American and decieving a lot of people. did u here what his wife said about our country? then link that with his pastors statements, this guy is decieving every one, its untelling what he will do if he gets in there, could you imagine Faricon as secratary of state? i heard someone talking on aanother site that his Pastor wright was talking to Faricon about something in his adminastration if he gets elected, for our kids sake i think webetter take a hard look at the facts here
Troll, get a spell checker...
Wherever you get your news you should be ashamed. If you believe this crap, so be it, but don't spread it around. It makes you look foolish.
I wonder what you are doing with your hand. I know mine was over my eyes after reading this.
Super patriot?
Hillary supporter?
Hard to tell but I hope your real agenda gives you comfort as your praise for Sen. Hart is nice but lacks some sincerity.
I think you are illustrating a 'holier than thou' mentality which is unfortunate as this was a smart and refreshing post and you seem to have missed the point.
If Americans choose someone other than Obama, they'd live to regret it (or may be not. May be they are suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome. They have fallen in love with the Bushies. As for Hillary, well.. for all her real and exaggerated resume, she represents the past.
And one last word- we are all familair with the glass half full, half empty syndrome. It is up to us to see the good in others and ignore the bad, the irrelevant. None other than the one and only Christopher Hitchens devoted an entire book to denouncing Mother Theresa. And perhaps he made a point but the point was thoroghly petulant, ill-considered and irrelevant. Likewise, let us ignore all the emotional partisan garbage thrown at the candidates and stay focused on their message and yes.. track record (not padded-up resume but the real record which is obtainable by anyone with a bit of diligence and patience on any candidate)
I salute you Mr Hart. You have brilliantly re-framed the debate.
Also, hats off to "indiethinker" above. Couldn't agree more. Also, to L4TRUTH above, well said. Yes, the Americans (sorry- the American "people") are always short of time, always leading hectic, tense lives to be the numero uno in whatever they are pursuing. But they have no choice but to spare a few moments to think for themselves, read and observe outside of their comfort zones (the heck with MSM), indulge in critical analysis and then draw conclusions. The Rev Wright controversy is a great example of this short-sighted, tunnel-visioned approach. A good man's (Obama) reputation is being destroyed over nothing. Watch the entire clip, and watch Peck's (US Ambassador to Iraq) interview given to Fox whom Rev Wright quoted. A different picture emerges. Lord Buddha said: "Be like the Lotus flower. Live in mud without being of mud." Obama can very well sit in the church for 20 or 200 years, listen to the good as well bad sermons and espouse what appeals to him and reject what doesn't. For God's sake, how hard is that to grasp?
Thalia?
Ariadne: was the question directed at me ?
I couldn't have said it better sittingcow. As soon as I heard about the Rev. Wright controversy I made it my business to find a video of the whole sermon. The sound bites were deliberately manipulated and taken out of context. Anyone with eyes to see and half a brain couldn't miss it. Yet most people just swallowed the vicious Faux News edition. Has 25+ years of right wing dreck paralyzed people's minds?
Not much time athe moment to opine extensively, but I think we are looking at (and for) a new paradigm in earnest. It happens every so often in the formation of a third party. This time it just happens to fall within an established party.
It is from the numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centres of energy and daring, those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression or resistance.
-- Senator Robert Kennedy
Where would we be now if Sen. Kennedy had lived?
Thank you.
Earthlings Unite!
Thanks for that quote.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
