Barack Obama: The Democratic Reagan?

The not-so-subtle subtext of Obama's remarks were that while the category of "Obama Republican" is potentially sizeable, the very notion of a "Clinton Republican" will forever remain oxymoronic.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

A gaffe, someone once said, is when a politician tells the truth. By this definition, Barack Obama's provocative remark that "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that... Bill Clinton did not," qualifies as a quintessential gaffe. For however unwelcome this observation may have been among many Democrats, the truth is Ronald Reagan did transform the character of American politics, building a new majority coalition and fundamentally altering the terms and tenor of public debate. In pointing this out, Obama was implicitly suggesting that he -- not Hillary Clinton -- was best situated to be the Democratic Ronald Reagan.

On the face of it, the notion of Obama as a Democratic Reagan seems implausible; after all, is a black liberal from Chicago in any position to construct a new and broad-based governing coalition? Yet Obama's political appeal should not be underestimated; in his 2004 campaign for Senate, he won an astonishing 40 percent of Republican votes; in comparison, Hillary Clinton (also running against an unusually weak Republican opponent) won only 20 percent of Republican votes in 2006.

More recently, in all four of this year's Democratic presidential primaries, Obama has attracted substantial numbers of independents, beating Hillary Clinton among these voters by margins ranging from 10 to 24 percent. And of those Republicans who voted in the Democratic primaries in the two states for which data are available -- Iowa and South Carolina -- Obama won by 44-10 and 37-20, respectively.

Keep in mind what made the Reagan coalition possible: in 1980 and 1984, roughly one Democrat in four voted for Reagan (the famous "Reagan Democrats"). To govern effectively, a new Democratic president will also need some Republicans to cross over. The not-so-subtle subtext of Obama's remarks is that while the category of "Obama Republican" is a potentially sizeable one, the very notion of a "Clinton Republican" will forever remain oxymoronic.

Though profoundly different in politics and ideology, Obama and Reagan have much in common: personal magnetism, an unflaggingly optimistic spirit, a talent for inspirational rhetoric, and -- not least - sheer likeability. A Pew poll released this month showed that 56 percent of potential voters had favorable views of Obama, compared to 33 percent with unfavorable views -- a 23-point margin; for Hillary Clinton, the figures were 52 to 44 percent - just an eight percent difference. In presidential elections, the more likeable candidate usually wins - a troubling prospect for Clinton if her opponent is John McCain, who enjoys a favorability rating of 55 - 31.

Frustrated with Obama's relatively moderate positions on health care, the economy, and Iraq, many progressives have reassured themselves that his current positions are merely strategic. But this is a serious misreading of the essential character of Obama's project: to build a new majority by genuinely incorporating the concerns of independents and Republicans. Obama's goal is not just to win in November, but to obtain the kind of sweeping popular mandate that will permit him to put his agenda into action.

This is a bold strategy, and it may fail. But as Democrats contemplate the risks of attempting to transcend the Red State/Blue State divide, many of them remember that the 1990s were a political disaster for the Democratic Party, notwithstanding the considerable policy accomplishments of the Clinton administration. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, Democrats held 57 seats in the Senate and 255 in the House. By 1999, these numbers had dwindled to 45 in the Senate and 211 in the House. No Democratic president in 80 years had presided over losses of this magnitude.

It is perhaps because of this history that so many prominent Red-State Democrats have endorsed Senator Obama's campaign for the Democratic nomination, among them Senator Nelson (Nebraska), McCaskill (Missouri), Conrad (North Dakota), Johnson (South Dakota) and Governors Kaine (Virginia) and Napolitano (Arizona). Overall, 41 percent of Obama's endorsements for Senators, Governors, and members of the House of Representatives come from Red States, compared to just 17 percent for Clinton. Well aware of the depth of hostility toward Hillary Clinton in many parts of the country and fearful of "reverse coattails" (the harm that an unpopular presidential candidate does to party members running for lower office), they have embraced Obama in the hope that his likeability and appeal among independents and Republicans will help the ticket in their states.

To be sure, the differences between Obama and Clinton on matters of policy are relatively minor. Nevertheless, the two candidates have fundamentally different visions of how to reach the White House and how to govern once there. Both offer viable strategies for winning the presidency. But for those who hope to bring an end to an era of bitter partisan division and to elect a president capable of winning the broad popular mandate required for transformative change, Obama is clearly the stronger candidate.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot