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

[ShelHoroPrincipledProfit]

Very perceptive--I think you hit on a lot of why Clinton is such a divisive figure. I don't think she could win against McCain, even with Ann Coulter endorsing her.

I just blogged about your column and the Coulter thing, at http://principledprofit.com/good-business-blog/coulter-id-campaign-for-hillary-vs-mccain/2008/02/02/

[broadbrush]

Has anyone seen a breakdown on the time for each candidate. Wolf Blitzer should get a new job they let them go on and on and don't cover the ground necessary

[Timma]

The problem with Clinton is that it doesn't matter what the so called issue is. The Clinton tactic has always been to define the issue - And if you can't define the issue - which HIllary supporters are beginning to realize isn't as easy with Obama as they had hoped - then just change the issue. First it was experience, then it was race, and then it was gender vs. race, etc., etc., etc.

Simply put Clinton will be Bush lite with more smarts. She'll have a ready made political enemy to look valient in her efforts as she tries to appear as change agent. Clearly she's not.

She's too entangled with the political machine to be the visionary leader so sorely neeeded. Cinton is unable to distance herself from her long standing ties to money, greed, power, and politics - and that my friends isn't an issue she can change.

OBAMA 08!

[GnitenGoodLk]

Hillary Clinton would be a devastating loss for the Democratic party come November. She has done nothing substantive for NY in 7 years in the Senate. She is a power-broker, that's it. She voted against the Democratic party to authorize a criminal war, and again to allow Bush to proceed without oversight on Kyl-Lieberman.

I strongly believe she did this on the pre-text he would help her get into the WH when his term expired. That is why she won't admit it was a mistake. She is bound to her devil deal. The tragedy of Iraq is on her hands, and her best explanation was "I didn't know" and "Bush was like a brick wall, wouldn't answer my questions.­" Tell that to the soldiers' families she sent there to die. She helped create a disaster. She IS a disaster. We, as women, can do better than Hillary Clinton.

[Dajo]

"""To Obama,...p­rogressive moral principles are fundamental American principles­."""

No they are not. They are fundamental only to Liberals not Conservatives. Conservatives reject progressive principles, conservatives are the antithesis of progressive.

I really believe Obama thinks he will win over a good number of Republicans and Conservatives. His judgment on this issue is flawed.

That is one of the reasons I am Supporting Hillary Clinton in the Primary

[Mariel]

It seems neither candidate talks about Cafta or Nafta, and CNN does not ask questions related to those.

Huckabee believes CAfta and Nafta were a mistake. He would prefer we WORK (bring home our jobs) rather than simply taxing the rich to keep the poor dependent on welfare, and the rich still in control of the global economy.

What I just said was simplistic, but it gets at the core of what is missing in the debate between Hillary and Barack. They sound great, inspirational, nice tonight even to each other....b­ut where in their discussing is the prosperity brought about by returning our jobs and our money to America?

Probably John Edwards had a lot to say about that too, but he didn't get much play on CNN. So I didn't hear him on those issues.

Bill Schneider did say Huckabee won the Republican debate. That's easy to do up against the "front runners" of the Republican party.

[bayareawwk]

I am a long time reader of HuffPo but this is the first time I am actually commenting on anything.
While I will get behind any person on the democratic ticket, I think that Al Gore's absence from this race greatly diminishes it. I still harbor the fantasy of a brokered convention with Al Gore as the compromise candidate. That would do more to right our severely damaged image in the world than almost anything else. He has made the right call when it was he unpopular choice(Climate Change, Gulf War I and Gulf War II)
Much as I want to get on the Obama bandwagon, I am nervous about yet another "visionary" president with a lack of attention to detail. The other presidents who match this description are Reagan and the current bozo. I am not saying that Obama will be either but I worry that he'll be the democratic version of a Reagan, or worse still #43.
Hillary Clinton, warts and all strikes me as a pragmatist and an executive with an attention to detail. The Clintons are famous policy wonks. We really need a leader who will sweat the details. Furthermore, all the political war wounds and battle scars that they have earned will be needed to counter-act the GOP machinery and actually do comething.
I value Clinton's various failures, including the health care fiasco in 1994 and they lessons any smart person (and even their worst enemies will not accuse Clinton of being dumb!) learns from their failures.

[Chaotician]

I have read his books and I have many concerns about his discussion of building consensus. I do not want to work with the Christian Right, the George Fascists, the GOP Dead-Enders, etc.; however I have been open to and willing to give Obama the opportunity to lead the nation. I have not heard this idea of seeking a shared values approach to reaching consensus rather than the idea of doing so my compromising these values. I seriously doubt that the folks I oppose, as a former Republican I might add, will ever have any values worth noting that will in agreement with a moderately liberal Democrat.

I am willing to reread his story with this idea in mind!

[autumnal]

The only thing the loser wing of the Democratic Primary can win are Democratic Primaries.
.

Looks like the Loser wing REALLY wants Obama, and I'm sick of losing, and near sick of the Democratic Party's willfully losing.

[Wordwrangler]

Exactly. Why I now choose Barack to the Future instead of Conciliatory HillaTory.

[flyingbee]

I Have read BO book: Dreams of My Father. I plan to read his other book: The Audacity of Hope. I have it in my Library. BO, based upon what he has "wrote" in his book, has not a "clue" about the values, real hard cores issues that americans struggle with from day to day. Ronald Reagan was a "good" oratorical speaker, so is BO. Ronald Reagan had a way"with words", so do BO. Yes, he made people feel good about america, so do BO. But, for most black people, (not all) he was a president in denial, so is this candidate, BO. I have live three scores and ten and I have never seen so many people being "sucked" in by words; good looks; etc., But time will tell, just as it did with Ronald Reagan, so will it be with BO. BO said that he would be willing to talk to Iran. You must remember that BO father, during his lifetime was a "devout" muslin. There are some "muslins" that believe in american policies. May I suggest to you. read "Dreams of My Father" and you will learn a lot about Barack Husseien Obama.

[gabbyone]

JFK gave us all the inspiration, all the right words, wonderful vision, but quite honestly he wasn't that great in governing. He was heads above Obama in intellectual depth, world experience, 11 years in the Congress, but it was RFK, the more pragmatic person, who many, including his family think Hillary is like, that pulled JFK's butt out of the policy debacles. Inspiration clouds the actual work that needs to be done. I think Obama will
probably win but I don't think it will be long before people realize he is ineffectual beyond that and they will turn on him. JFK is larger than life because he was so horribly killed.
America will make a great mistake if they listen to Ted Kennedy who was very young when
his brother served and is living off the myth
of JFK's greatness. Go back and read the real
accomplishments of JFK, the world can't wait
8 more years while the US is emeshed in inspiration, we need a issue oriented worker this time....Cl­inton is that person.

[pdshanny]

And right after we elect Obama the Republicans will grab our hands and we will go dancing through fields of daylilies over the hill into the future. Give me a brake! The Republicans will not unite under ether candidate, but I think they will eat Obama alive for breakfast. We had a President like this before. He was just full of the spirit of the lord. He was Idealistic and a very good man. He was Jimmy Carter.

[LindainSFNM]

Oh you sure are showing an incorrect bias.

First of all, apparently you aren't paying attention to Obama himself and everything he says.

I'll touch on the first stand out and obvious. You are injecting your own beliefs...­with your "feelings voting" and not factual.

Obama says he doesn't believe in Idealist policy and bold visions. He said he belives in compromising. Where you all started adding in to what he always claimed he opposed, I have NO idea. But this was and has been Obama's entire method. Compromise, don't look for idealism. Work WITH THE CORPORATIONS AT THE TABLE making policy....­...ie George W Bush.

You seem to be talking about another candidate.

[Arleang]

Heck, I have voted absentee already. I voted for the honest one. You probably know who I mean.