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

[argeec]

So Lakoff thinks that you can tell if someone is empathic and caring by listening to a speech or looking into their eyes.
That's Dubya's method too. He decided Putin was a good guy by looking into his eyes.
I think it takes more than that - it takes detailed discussion of ways and means.
And if you don't know much about the issues, the lazy way out is to look into their eyes.

[pointpetre]

Long ago, I told the Clinton people to stop asking me for money. I really could not conceive of Hillary getting nominated. Eventually, I was happy that we had three strong contenders in Obama, Clinton and Edwards. I could support any of the three.

I do not buy Lakoff's vision of what this is about. I'm 62 old and Bill Clinton is the only President I've seen with a modicum of integrity combined with a spine. I was too young when Truman was President to know if he was like that. Eisenhower hid too long in the face of Joe McCarthyism. He held back until a woman from Maine and a radio-TV journalist had the guts to speak out loud what McCarthy was. JFK makes Bill Clinton look prim and proper in his sex life, and Kennedy held back in timidity from the challenge of the Civil Rights movement. LBJ knew that Vietnam was a deadend but was too much a coward to clean up the mess and face the consequences for the nation's sake. Nixon gave us Nixonian. Ford was a toady who became a corporate board rubber stamp. Carter was a sleaze who told Federal Workers he'd sign the Hatch Act revision that Ford vetoed, then he told Congress in secret not to send him a revised Hatch Act because he'd have to sign it. Reagan as a unifier? Give me a break. I was never so alienated from a President until Junior Bush. Reagan is Iran-Contra-Scam and blather about make-believe welfare queens. Senior "out of the loop" Bush denied his own culpability in Iran-Contra, and his Wille Horton campaign was fecal to the max. Junior Bush was the worst. Bill Clinton was the best. Google Bill Clinton and Promise Keeper. That was integrity and honesty on a level the others couldn't imagine. The media will try to destroy Bill and Hillary. They may succeed, but the Clintons will never surrender. They have true grit.

Give me back the Clintons. I'll settle for Obama, but I want the Clintons.

[tstreet]

Obama has been in the Senate for three years now. Even though the Dems now have a majority, the Republcians have stifled them at every turn with a record number of filibusters. Remember how they used to demand up or down votes.

The Republicans have zero interest in working with the majority party. And what has Obama done to change this while in the Senate. No doubt he is respected, but was does it all mean, anyway. They have their interests, mostly corporate interests, and will stick to it, come hell or high water.

As long as the Senate is not cloture proof, they will dig in their heels if any Democratic President tries to implement her/his agenda. Both Hillary and Obama are perfectly capable of compromise but neither one will have the ability to fundamentally change what is going on. It is always easier to stop progress than to obtain progress.

That is why the Republican party must be crushed. If Obama is going to transform the country, he better start now.

[KenArnold]

As usual, George's insights and clarity of expression are phenomenal. Thanks!!!

[tstreet]

I will wholeheartedly support either candidate. As far as I am concerned, these are both people that will move America in the right direction, although not as far as I would like.

Who will be able to do a better job? I don't know but I don't see any evidence that either candidate will challenge the basic hegemony of the corporations in this country.

I also see no evidence that either candidate will do much to redistribute income or do much to address the incredible imbalance between the super rich and everything else.

I could go on. Regardless, however, there will be a 1000% improvement.

If we quit bickering, however, we will lose the next election. I hear people say they will never vote for Hillary but will vote for Obama.
That's it. Let's just all just shoot ourselves in the foot because we don't like Hillary.

If we want to spend the next 100 years in Iraq, we should definitely vote for McCain just to show our contempt for Hillary.

I guess we learned nothing in the last eight years.

[Zephyruster]

The horse race feeds the media and starves us. Watch it like you would any other for- profit made for TV/newspaper survivor show, and then ask yourself IF how they got here matters. Who were they before the makeup was put on?
My major concern is a govornment of corporatism (and so goes the media). I'd rather have a President who was a CONSTITUTIONAL lawyer than one who was a CORPORATE lawyer. That's the difference. That's how I'd frame it, George. Thanks.

[Bocababs]

Hey..the Philadelphia Inquirer endorsed Obama. So...take that New York Times...

[tstreet]

While I cringe at thought of standing up for George Bush, will McCain use a picture of Obama sitting down while Bush is stating that we are having success against Al Qaeda? Hillary is thinking ahead to the general election.

Terrorism is still a very big deal with the American people.

Maybe Obama can continue to move forward through the general election without having to worry about that nasty thing we called politics. But given the fear meme that has been successful over the years, color me skeptical.

Obama speaks against the politics of fear. I agree with him. But this may come back to bite him.

[BeeTee]

Thank you for this excellent piece. I wish all the undecideds could read this.

[clifwest]

It really does not matter what any politician says regarding his or her goals. It is what will happen to those goals once they are presented to Congress. We have all seen what has happened to the aims and goals of a sitting President once they reach the floor of Congress and the infighting begins. Until we begin to send representatives to Congress who are more concerned with the welfare of our nation and less concerned with their own personal ambitions, the process will continue as it has for many years. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[jcheadsup]

Like a steam iron Mr. Lakoff has ironed out the issues. Thank you.

[IngeniousGirl]

ok third time, check out Judical Watch home page for truth on Hillary's real views on health insurance reform.

[IngeniousGirl]

In newly released docs on HRC 1993 Health plan verbatim quote follows. Think about what this means to all of us ordinary Americans. I am going to put this in lower case and abbreviate so hopefully it gets posted.

A Confidential 1993 Memor from Jay R.D-WV to Hillary Health Care Reform Communications, which criticizes the Task Force as a secret cabal of Washington policy wonks that has engaged in choking off information from the public regarding health care reform. The memorandum suggests that Hillary Clinton use classic opposition research to attack those who were excluded by the Clinton Administration from Task Force deliberations and to expose lifestyles, tactics and motives of lobbyists in order to deflect criticism. Senator R. also suggested news organizations are anxious and willing to receive guidance [from the Clinton Administration on how to time and shape their news coverage.

What do you think

[colette]

Bravo, Mr. Lakoff!

And Huffington Post, please put a link on this site to the ABC news report about Hillary Clinton's six years of loyal service on the board of Walmart, during which the company actively, and loudly, villified unionization, failed to give equal opportunity to its female workers, and launched a big "Buy American" program though most of their merchandise was made elsewhere (including Bangladesh sweatshops).

I'm not a Hillary-basher, and have mulled over supporter her for months. But I object to her pious rhetoric about what a champion of the people she's been all her life, given the facts. She is quoted as saying "she didn't know" Walmart was indulging in such practices, and now denounces them. A lame excuse for a board member who showed up to those meetings, as you can see in the clips......And an excuse that sounds a little too much like "I didn't know" about how bad an idea invading Iraq was.

How come someone like me, with far less access to the facts, knew and she didn't?

[DoctorDoctor]

And the last emperor promised to be the "uniter" but turned out to be the "decider". good grief.

you're undoubtedly right that exactly HOW we achieve the (common) policy goals of the candidates is probably considered too boring by the mainstream media, so they won't air discussions involving the process each candidate intends to employ to achieve their stated goals. Sure wish they'd pinned ole W down a little. Being FOR "family values" is fine as long as your definition of "family values" has something to do with my definition of "family values". It might have been nice to pin that down BEFORE we had to vote for someone who thought "supporting family values" meant helping corporations avoid difficulties with things like unions, minimum wage, health care and health delivery systems.

And then there's the national energy policy Cheney set in secret with secret participants and which has been so very beneficial to us ordinary citizens.

NO -- ASK THE PARTICULARS -- YOU'RE NOT A "POLICY WONK", YOU'RE SIMPLY TRYING TO AVOID MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE TWICE. I WANT TO KNOW HOW ANY OF THE REPUBS PLANS TO BUILD A 2,000 MILE FENCE 35 FEET HIGH. I WANT TO KNOW IF IT'LL BE MERCENARIES IN TOWERS WITH GUNS "GUARDING" OUR BORDERS. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT DOCUMENTATION I'LL NEED TO LEAVE.

Astonishingly, I don't get a sense that you-all understand that it's essential to have the democratic party take control away from the repubs. hoping there are enough voters out there who intend to vote who will let neither gender nor race be a factor in their decision is pretty naive -- or pretty disconnected. as the fella said "you don't know that you don't know what you don't know".

I suspect we're about to enjoy 4 more years of republican hypocrisy, in which the rhetoric and the substance of the party's position bear no relationship to each other. Just like 2000 and 2004, as soon as the election's over, the electorate will be pushed aside for the reality of a really bad platform. sigh. fool me twice shame on me.