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!
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
Barack says - Young people unite and do away with the old people! Tear down the bridge to the past and follow me! I will deliver the power to you, you so deserve.
Hillary says - Let's move together, as democrats, into the future - using all the talents we have, to solve the problems we have.
Who do I want to vote for? Hillary
It really has come down to style over substance and that silly mentality brought us Bush instead of Gore and Bush again instead of Kerry. On an operating table, I would like the surgeon who has had experience, knowledge and skill not the rookie who hopes and dreams that all will go well.
If anybody wants to really see what Obama represents, which is a Republican in Democratic costume, and a liar to boot, then read todays NYT's article on his Exelon Corporation and nuclear leak reporting legislation. Then you might read about his Illinois health care legislation which is a duplicate story.
The full version of the edited Op Ed piece posted above is in the Wall Street Journal on Jan 31, 2008. Well worth the read.
Zeldin was an independent counsel who defended the Clintons on TV for 18 months. He is now supporting Obama.
I agree with the central thesis that there are different perspectives in play, and that shapes the choices. I've noticed a strange point in some of the polls. When asked How Strong do you support your candidate, Hillary Clinton's supporters are more sure than Obama's supporters. That is in stark contrast to how people are talking about Obamamania.
I conclude that the Hillary supporters are less likely to engage in noise-making. Yet, they firmly agree with her that her obvious depth of experience and fighter mentality is what we need. I also suspect that those supporters choose NOT to increase the "Clinton fatigue" factor. It serves no-one.
My own "sick of how things are" revolves around the entire campaign strategy of Obama. I simply don't believe that anyone should be able to snag Oprah and then spend obscene amounts of money and get to be president with nothing more than a drive-by stop in the Senate. There's something wrong with our party if that's what we are willing to settle for in our candidate.
THAT, to me, is marketing to a tee. And that approach to elections is precisely why we are in a huge mess. Superficial thinking got us here.
So I do agree. There's a true fight going on within the party as to what we are going to be about.
I think it's an important fight, obviously. The people in this country deserve better than to allow Madison Avenue and a TV personality to choose our fate.
edited version WSJ OP Ed
Hillary's Campaign
By MICHAEL ZELDIN
January 31
Hillary has accused Obama of representing an inner-city slum lord while practicing law in Chicago. Sen. Clinton should know better.
During Whitewater, Starr investigated Clinton's legal work, on behalf of Madison Guaranty.
The evidence revealed that Mrs. Clinton spent only 60 hours of work on the case over a 15-month period. No charges were ever brought.
Yet, in the SC debate, Mrs. Clinton, denounced Sen. Obama for representing "Tony Rezko in his slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago." Her accusation invites scrutiny as a window into her character and as a lens with which to see whether a Clinton presidency will be a vehicle for change.
The facts: While an associate at a law firm, that firm accepted the representation of a church group that redeveloped a run-down property on Chicago's South Side. Mr. Rezko, not the client of the firm, was assisting the church. As an associate, Mr. Obama was asked to do about five hours of document review. That was it.
I suggest that this provides a window into Mrs. Clinton's character because she is willing to behave no differently than did her Whitewater accusers if she can gain politically.
Mrs. Clinton's willingness to ignore the truth for short-term political advantage is exactly what breeds the partisanship that's paralyzed Washington for too many years. Getting ahead by any means possible is the strategy. All that was said in the campaign is rationalized -- it will be forgiven and forgotten.
Sadly, it just isn't so. No one forgets and no one forgives in Washington. How you get elected defines who you will be once in power. Mrs. Clinton has shown us with this one baseless accusation why it will be hard for her candidacy to represent a change. She appears too comfortable with the politics of personal destruction if she can gain a political advantage.
This election seems to be revealing more about us, the people, than the candidates. When educated people spin away their opinions and try to brainwash the masses, it shows what a bullsh*t nation we have become. The whole world must be laughing at us when they see us choose the president, not as a super smart human being who will help the nation, but as a contestant on American Idol who will entertain us more because of what makes us "feel good". Even those who are not voting for Hillary know that she has clearly won every debate with her brilliant skills, her knowledge of the issues and her ideas to truly make this nation a better place. The world is ready for her. Read the foreign press and they can't understand why we Americans keep bashing the smartest person on the stage. This sadly says more about who we are and yes, we still vote for the person we want to have a BBQ with.
Less a party split than a major difference in approach.
Rove echoed the same sentiment, that Clintonian triangulation is at the heart of a Democratic party split. Not so.
Obama's method is designed to gather voters from across the board. Values, connection, authenticity, trust, and identity are elements that, yes, the voters must consider and the candidates should speak to through their words and actions -- but, ultimately, the actual policies they propose to implement are the issue.
If you have identical or similar positions, but one wins the trust of voters because they show how they can work to make that happen, then they will win. Obama and Hillary, both, must show the relevancy of their positions and win over a diverse electorate. So, yes, Reagan was the master at doing this -- but, the method is not the issues, the issues are the issues. Obama may win by making people feel good -- but that is not a political issue, it is a political method.
"In my lifetime I have never seen anyone broaden our party and excite young people....
The elephant in the room is this for Democrats: Bill Clinton was the first Democrat since FDR to win two terms in the White House with this perspective. The White House is the most important position to hold because of judicial appointments and positions that run agencies. Obama to me is not Kennedy but McGovern. Remember what happen to him in his election. It can happen again and I believe it will if Obama receives the nomination. The irony is that base Republicans are not in love with McCain, but think he can win. The base Democrats are not in love with Hillary, but many like myself believe she can beat McCain. I want the White House, not ideals. As for Kennedy and his victory in 1960, close scrutiny of the election (especially in Chicago) would probably determine there was some hanky panky since Nixon only lost by very few votes Kennedy, irrgardless of the fantasy about him as president, was a bad president and made major mistakes. Granted he was cut short, but his time in office did not bode well for Democrats when he would have come up for reelection.
This article is so much postmodern playfulness. Historical facts are immaterial (the Kennedy everybody's swooning over never existed: http://mca
This is a disappointing essay from someone whom I have admired. Mr. Lakoff is clearly swept away by Obama's charisma and "authenticity". His disdain for Hillary Clinton could not be more transparent as he simplistically "frames" her motivations as craven and calculated, i.e. to "get more votes" or satisfy interest groups. Obama, on the other hand, is motivated only by the very highest moral principles, which he would never surrender or dilute. On what evidence does Mr. Lakoff base this assessment? Seemingly only upon his emotional response to Obama's very skillful and inspiring speeches.
Today's NY Times article titled, "Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate," describes how Senator Obama watered down his proposed legislation to force disclosure of nuclear leaks in response to pressure from Republicans and a large contributor, Exelon. The final revision (which was "held up" and not passed) was diluted to keep reporting voluntary, resulting in a bill that was deemed satisfactory by the nuclear industry.
I urge Democrats to question whether we are projecting lofty qualities onto Senator Obama simply because we are moved by his speeches. What actions support our assessments of his character or our assumptions about what he will do as President? Personally, I do not believe that charisma is the primary quality needed in our next president. When Bush leaves office, there will be a giant mess to clean up and we'd better elect somebody capable of tackling that job effectively. That wonderful, inspiring feeling will turn sour very quickly after the inauguration if things don't change concretely for people who have been hurt over the last eight years.
"he [Obama] adds to that vision a streetwise pragmatism
On what Street? Sesame Street? Wall Street?
Easy Street. I don't think the street is Jackson Boulevard in Chicago.
Just because your black does not make you streetwise. Obama is not as streetwise and Kanye West, in fact he is not as streetwise as Cornell West.
Cont>
Ronald Reagan was an actor and quite a good one. He could be whatever his handlers wanted him to be and the morning in America rhetoric was just that – rhetoric. Carter was perceived as a failed president and a wimp because his secret helicopter attack to rescue the hostages failed. That is why he lost the election. And the white southern male democrats that voted for Reagan did so because the democrats had betrayed them by letting black people into their party. They didn’t leave because Reagan was an inspirational speaker. And they won’t come back because democrats still let black people into the party.
JFK was inspirational but he was also very experienced. And history isn’t as kind to him as one might have expected for someone who was cut down in the prime of life. And the questions raised were could any of his great society ideas have been carried out if Lyndon Johnson hadn’t been the one left to force them through Congress? LBJ with his arm-twisting and his ability to get down in the muck with the best of them. But LBJ brought electricity to his congressional district. Again how did Obama’s vision transform the 13th district of Chicago?
The Clinton “policy wonks” understand that it is the implementation of programs that reflect your values that are the important thing. We have had enough of government by wishful thinking. That is how Bush has governed for 7 years. If we invade Iraq somehow it will all work out. If we throw tax breaks at the wealthy somehow they will take care of the rest of us. If we say Osama bin Laden isn’t important then he won’t be.
Yes there is a split in the Democratic Party. It is between those who think actions speak louder than words and those that think all you have to do is talk.
Why George Lakoff has it wrong and the New York Times has it right. (in two posts because long)
The question that needs to be asked is what did Obama do to make his district in Chicago better during the 8 years that he was its senator? It seems to me if the hype about him is how he is going to be able to transform America and bring people together and make people do for themselves, then that should be evident in what he did in Chicago in District 13.
Did the schools in his district become excellent during that time or did they significantly improve? Was poverty eliminated or even reduced? Did the housing for the poor improve and was it put under excellent management during his tenure (oops Resko ran several of them if I recall)? Did his constituents get better streets, more parks, better after school programs? Were more health clinics opened in his district? What did Obama specifically accomplish for his constituents in those 8 years?
Or better yet, where are all the people in Obama’s district that have continued to work on and to carry through on all those new ideas that he initiated there? Or if not the ones he initiated then the ones he motivated them to do for themselves. I don’t see it but then I don’t live in Chicago so maybe I missed it.
A massive voter registration drive is one thing. Translating that into real accomplishments is quite another. Somehow I don’t remember reading how the 13th district of Chicago became a model for the state? Or how the community there sloughed off city machine politics and was transformed by their inspirational senator. He did turn up to vote and voted the right way most of the time but where are the transforming ideas that he initiated in Illinois?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
