What Counts as an "Issue" In the Clinton-Obama Race?

Political endorsements rarely make interesting reading. But this year is different. Take the endorsements of Hillary Clinton by the New York Times [NY Times, January 25, 2008] and Barack Obama by Caroline Kennedy [NY Times, January 27, 2008].

To the editors of the New York Times, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agree on policy goals:

"On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove."

What matters to the editors is experience in "tackling ... issues" -- in mastering details of policy and carrying them out one by one. "The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work."

To Caroline Kennedy, policy is not the real issue:

"Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates' goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.

"I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved."

The difference is striking. To the editors of the New York Times, the quality of leadership seems not to be an "issue." The ability to unite the country is not an "issue." What Obama calls the empathy deficit -- attunement to the experience and needs of real people -- is not an "issue." Honesty is not an "issue." Trust is not an "issue." Moral judgment is not an "issue." Values are not "issues." Adherence to democratic ideals -- rather than political positioning, triangulation, and incrementalism -- are not "issues." Inspiration, a call to a higher purpose, and a transcendence of interest-based politics are not "issues."

It is time to understand what counts as an "issue," to whom, and why.

In Thinking Points, the handbook for progressives that the Rockridge Institute staff and I wrote last year, we began by analyzing Ronald Reagan's strengths as a politician. According to his chief strategist, Richard Wirthlin, Reagan realized that most voters do not vote primarily on the basis of policies, but rather on (1) values, (2) connection, (3) authenticity, (4) trust, and (5) identity. That is, Reagan spoke about his values, and policies for him just exemplified values. He connected viscerally with people. He was perceived as authentic, as really believing what he said. As a result, people trusted him and identified with him. Even if they had different positions on issues, they knew where he stood. Even when his economic policies did not produce a "Morning in America," voters still felt a connection to him because he spoke to what they wanted America to be. That was what allowed Reagan to gain the votes of so many independents and Democrats.

There is a reason that Obama recently spoke of Reagan. Reagan understood that you win elections by drawing support from independents and the opposite side. He understood what unified the country so that he could lead it according to his vision. His vision was a radical conservative one, a vision devastating for the country and contradicted by his economic policies.

Obama understands the importance of values, connection, authenticity, trust, and identity.

But his vision is deeply progressive. He proposes to lead in a very different direction than Reagan. Crucially, he adds to that vision a streetwise pragmatism: his policies have to do more than look good on paper; they have to bring concrete material results to millions of struggling Americans in the lower and middle classes. They have to meet the criteria of a community organizer.

The Clintonian policy wonks don't seem to understand any of this. They have trivialized Reagan's political acumen as an illegitimate triumph of personality over policy. They confuse values with programs. They have underestimated authenticity and trust.

So do the pundits who pose the questions in the debates.

This nomination campaign is about much more than the candidates. It about a major split within the Democratic party. The candidates are reflecting that split. Here are three of the major "issues" dividing Democrats.

First, triangulation: moving to the right -- adopting right-wing positions -- to get more votes. Bill Clinton did it and Hillary believes in it. It is what she means by "bipartisanship." Obama means the opposite by "bipartisanship." To Obama, it is a recognition that central progressive moral principles are fundamental American principles. For him, bipartisanship means finding people who call themselves "conservatives" or "independents," but who share those central American values with progressives. Obama thus doesn't have to surrender or dilute his principles for the sake of "bipartisanship."

The second is incrementalism: Hillary believes in getting lots of small carefully crafted policies through, one at a time, step by small step, real but almost unnoticed. Obama believes in bold moves and the building of a movement in which the bold moves are demanded by the people and celebrated when they happen. This is the reason why Hillary talks about "I," I," "I" (the crafter of the policy) and Obama talks about "you" and "we" (the people who demand it and who jointly carry it out).

The third is interest group politics: Hillary looks at politics through interests and interest groups, seeking policies that satisfy the interests of such groups. Obama's thinking emphasizes empathy over interest groups. He also sees empathy as central to the very idea of America. The result is a positive politics grounded in empathy and caring that is also patriotic and uplifting.

For a great many Democrats, these are the real issues. These real differences between the candidates reflect real differences within the party. Whoever gets the nomination, these differences will remain.

It is time for the press, the pundits, the pollsters, and the political scientists to take these issues seriously.

George Lakoff is Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley. He is the author of Don't Think of an Elephant!

Comments

[ShirleyKnot]

I wish with all my heart that Obama were as "deeply progressive" as you believe he is, but, after reading about his relationship with the nuclear industry, I can't share your optimism. I actually think Edwards did more to re-frame the Democratic campaign around progressive values we all intrinsically share, and he did so in such a lucid and steady way that he would have gone into office with a crystal-clear mandate to fight poverty and corporate influence in government. Because he kept bringing the conversation back to those goals, without fear or apology, the other two candidates are now running more progressive campaigns than they would have dared to before.

Alas, neither of these two seems genuinely interested in fighting corporate influence in government, which I think Edwards had correctly identified as underlying much of the mess we're in now, no matter which part of it you look at.

That said, Obama or Hillary would be incomparably better than anyone the Republicans have to offer, and I'll vote enthusiastically for a Democrat in the general election.

[badmommy]

YES! This is not, by the way, "mind-reading", as Janelynne suggests. This is the way Lakoff uses his profound insights into human speech and language choices to reveal personal motives. This takes the highest level of sophistication and just a damn good ear. He is again the master. At this point, we have a great opportunity to choose a brilliant visionary for ALL Americans. Discerning the difference between Obama and Clinton is imperative. Thank God we have such editorials as this one!

[JoeGarcia]

We are in an election cycle where I hope the wonders never cease. Susan Eisenhower, Caroline Kennedy and Tom Hayden agree on the same thing. All three want Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States.
Who does this scare? It severely frightens the establishment of both the Democratic and Republican parties. The recent purpose of our two party system has been to ferment screams of ear popping loudest and conjure the best scare tactics to cause panic among the American people.
Rudy Giuliani"s failed candidacy should illustrate that Americans do not want a catastrophe candidate. We want a candidate who offers hope, growth and opportunity. It seems more and more Americans have come to the decision that Barack Obama is that candidate.
His critics say that he is inexperienced. Teddy Kennedy told us people said the same thing about his brother Jack, but in less than two years in office he influenced a whole generation to enter public service, fight for equality and be selfless with regard to our national interest.
We have had enough of corporate greed and special interest domination of our politics. It is for this reason that Obama has the political power structure running scared. The era of special interest domination of our politics from the corporate board room to the labor union may be in jeopardy. Their selfishness has gone far enough.
(Joe Garcia is a political consultant with 25 years of political combat experience.)
The remainder of this commentray cand be found at http://reform.squarespace.com

[Janelynne]

George, you make a lot of sense to me at times. But I don't really understand this premise. It is as if you can read people's minds, and when you look into Obama's mind you see authentic values, and when you look into Hillay's mind you don't. I don't see semantic logic, or any logic here. My tea leaves look much different, but I wouldn't write a editorial about them.

[autumnal]

We aren't voting for a priest or a character out of a Camus novel so really could you dispense with all the moralisms and existential crises crap, please.

We're voting for who the Democratic Party should offer to the country to be President of the United States.

The United States, you know that most potent nation-state and most complex political economy in human history United States. You've probably heard of it sometimes called "America" yeah that United States.

So what if Obama's record is weak, his abilities unproven by act or time, or that his probably as compromised as any other politician.

He talks the talk so .... pfft spare me.

Talk's cheap so freakin cheap and people usually realize it, though that sense has certainly undergone a sustained beating by the delusional, fiction writing "narrative" class.

[MartinEdwinAndersen]

HILLARY HANDS REPUBLICANS DEVASTATING SOUNDBITE FOR FALL ELECTION ...

Feb 3, 11:40 AM EST

Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay

By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages ..."

"GOING AFTER PEOPLE'S WAGES" ...

IS THAT THE WAY REAL DEMOCRATS TALK? ...

THE REPUBLICANS WILL KILL THE DEMOCRATS WITH THAT KIND OF ANTI-WORKER, ANTI-FREE CHOICE RHETORIC ...

MARTIN EDWIN ANDERSEN

[ImayAgree]

I was for Edwards but he is gone. But I'd like to know if you Obama people are following the money to him as much as you say you are following the money going to Hillary. You don't get the kind of money he got from the beginning of his campaign from the little people that kind of money comes from big Interest just like Hillary's. So please quit making him such a representative of the little man and look at those who surround him as close as you seem to look at those that surround Hillary. After all it seems to me that a lot of ex-clinton people are now Obama people.

[leapyear]

I can't take any more! I think these people touting Barack Obama as the 2nd coming of J.F. K. are dreaming in technicolour! Due to an accident of birth, Caroline Kennedy's opinion should influence the way people vote! I was one of those young people inspired by J.F.K. and was very dismayed by how morally bankrupt he was, as it gradually became apparent. Bill Clinton was, alas, also a bad boy, but I think history will judge him a better president, policy wise and diplomatically.
Inspiration is one thing, show me the issues!

[opines]

Part II

Iraq Policy

In exchange for providing the lion's share of the Federal budget to the War group, the voters must have explained the near, mid-range and long-term objectives and costs of the War policy.

"Winning the War on Terror" is far too vague a response. However explained, it will be seen by a clear majority as a dead-ended money drain. While Americans might be persuaded that War, not Peace is a better stimulus for the tottering economy, even its short-term benefit is too uncertain and far too costly.

Again, Obama is best suited to represent and craft a policy for the "surrender', 'strategic retreat', call it what you will, but get us 'Out of Iraq' Americans.

Clinton can hardly claim to be the leader of the 'out of Iraq' camp, nor can she be cast as the champion of the lower and middle classes.

So, how can she win against Obama on Super Tuesday?

Only if enough voters cast their ballot based on experience, leadership qualities, peference for a first woman or first half black candidate, rather than the War in Iraq.

It is the Mainstream Media's mission to divert voters from Iraq.

And to the tuned-in world audience which has struggled to comprehend how we could have reelected Bush/Cheney in 2004, but trusted it was an aberration, an election between McCain and Clinton signals no substantial change in our criminal, near-genocidal attempted armed-robbery of Iraq's oil resources.

We will have demonstrated that the American Experiment in Democracy has failed.

[opines]

Part I

The issues in this election are not about
leadership or experience. It is not about immigration.

Discussion and comments on these down the line 'issues' are a diversion from the only issue that matters. Iraq Policy.

The economy issue is a secondary issue and its solution varies widely depending on how the Iraq Policy issue is decided.

For example, if McCain wins, he will claim a mandate to take whatever steps the Pentagon sees as necessary to bring about a successful end to the War in Iraq.

The 'economy' for open ended war will be skewed to first fulfilling military requests.

After payment of interest on the debt, what little is left will go to infrastructure and social programs. Preference will be given to those programs that aid the war effort if funds are available.

Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will be sacrificed, eaten up by inflation and the needs of the war.

So, a debate devoted to the cconomy if the War faction wins would have to focus on how the war would be funded.

The McCain/Pentagon side would claim a mandate to fund it with further reduced taxes for highest brackets (part of the stimulation package)and a cut in 'non-essential' wartime programs.

The lower and middle classes overwhelmingly prefer Obama to be their champion. Hillary cannot compete here.

Far different priorities would determine the distribution of what Federal funds are available under an Obama, hard times, 'trickle-up' economy.

The American public found the war too costly (blood, dollars, national honor)and so voted in 2004. Obama can be trusted to pursue the 'end the war' policy that the majority in 2004 had mandated.

Obama would do well to demand planning now to assure that in the event of a hard landing, plans to deliver food and other necessary services to our cities and rural areas are in place.

Crashes do occur and assurance of food and necessities does reduce looting.

[754]

My Mom is 73 year old Fox Propaganda channel/Bill O'Reilly loving Republican so in the interest of family harmony, we don't talk a lot of politics. I tenetively brought up the subject of the primary election wondering which Republican she would be supporting, and to my utter shock she told me she was leaning toward Obama. When I took a step back and my jaw sort of dropped, Mom looked at me and said, "I've voted Democratic before!". We both chuckled and I asked exactly which Democrat did you vote for in the past and she said John Kennedy.

Mom said she remembered the time of JFK and she loved the way the country came together then, and she talked about how Barack brought a lot of those same optimistic feelings back when she heard him speak. The one candidate that she said she absolutely would not vote for was Hillary. I know other septuagenarians that feel the same way about Mrs. Clinton, and if given the choice between Hillary and McCain, they'll take McCain. Now having said all this, I'm not certain that Mom will wind up voting for Obama, but the very idea that she would consider voting for a Democrat for president gives me hope that maybe we are on the verge of a real change in our country.

[donaldw6]

I believe you've done a pretty good analysis here, sir, and I appreciate it. It's my belief that Obama's heart really is in the right place, and that has led me to support him from the beginning of this campaign, even though my own stated positions are often far to the left of Obama's. I'm sure we'll all discover that he's far from perfect, but what else is new? If we're taking chances -- and that's inevitable -- I'm going with my gut, and saying we need much more than old-style foreign policy approaches and chumminess with powerful interests. We need a smart person who still holds onto a little idealism, and hope we'll have someone who lets us continue to participate with them long after the votes have been cast.

[PaulALondon]

Messianic Democrats.
January 28, 2008

I have wondered why many well-off, well-educated Democrats instinctively signed up with Sen. Obama the moment he declared. Senator Ted Kennedy's endorsement made the reason clear to me because I have seen it before.

In almost every election one wing of the Democratic Party, more messianic than liberal, has split with the pragmatic wing that Hillary represents in 2008. The difference between the wings is that pragmatists do not believe that they can change the nature of man or of politics while the messianic wing, heavy with better-off Americans and students, thinks it can.

The pragmatic wing is willing to compromise, even triangulate, which is offensive to the messianic wing. That is why many journalists who want more from politics than mere improvement joined the Republicans to attack Bill Clinton during the 1990s. They want to believe that they themselves, politics,and the world can be miraculously better than they are.

The pragmatic policies of the Clintons brought employment, surging investment, and other changes that improved the lives of millions of Americans. The Clintons also outfoxed Newt Gingrich and the hard right but that was not enough for Democrats who want a president cum messiah.

Woodrow Wilson, a progressive Democratic president, was assailed by messianic Democrats for failing to achieve the impossible, a generous peace for with Germany.

Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey, authors of the Great Society, were excoriated by Democrats over the Viet Nam War, leading to Richard Nixon. Jimmy Carter was undermined by Ted Kennedy because he was not perfect, certainly helping Ronald Reagan.

Senator Obama probably is a pragmatist on most policy issues. The political problem is that Republicans will paint him as a "Kennedy liberal" if he gets the nomination. This means that endorsements from Kennedy and Moveon.org will be negatives in the general election when voters are moderate and suspicious of candidates bearing the Ted Kennedy brand.

[Momenta]

And this is why an Obama/Clinton or a Clinton/Obama ticket is not in the cards. They don't even speak the same language.

[kestudi]

You're entirely wrong, author. There is nary much that separates Mr. Obama from Ms. Clinton, and that's the problem. The only candidates who had real contrast to these two, Richardson, Kucinich, and perhaps Dodd, are gone. Speared by the Iowa Caucus, because of the silly Democrat "viability threshold" of 15% in the first election of the season.

Establishment-reinforcing party structures aside, the point is, Clinton and Obama are different personalities, and that's about it. In this sad age of media election coverage, that's enough to create an illusion of difference between two candidates who support the same set of priorities in government in basically every category. Sure, Barack "opposed the war, ah, from the start" while Hillary voted for it, but what are their solutions now? Same crap we hear from Republicans: I want the troops home as soon as possible, but we should reflect upon the "situation on the ground" and make sure the "region is not destabilized." In other words, it's gonna take a while, and we're not willing to do that much about it.