Barack Obama: The Democratic Reagan?

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.

Comments

[MagisterLudi]

Barack Obama: The Democratic Reagan?

More like Democratic Mondale, Jesse Jackson and Ron Paul rolled into one.

[Democrab]

There's one main difference between Reagan and Obama, Reagan got elected president.

[Pneumaticus]

What trajectory you are on? Be careful, it might be habit forming.

[jrterrier]

If Obama is the Democratic Reagan, I guess that explains why I find him so full of hot air and dangerous. How many of those out-of-breath speeches can he read from a teleprompter before the rest of you can recite them from memory.

argh.

[ginnypoo]

Everytime someone says Obama is like Reagan....I wonder does that mean he's getting senile, does that mean he can no longer hold his head still, does that mean he naps during meetings, does that mean he gives a good speech, does that mean he looks good in suits and jeans, does that mean anything at all? I have my own memories of Reagan, I remember thinking i wish he was my uncle he seems nice, but he seems so out of it. He was a nice, sweet, kind man, but he was in the beginning stages of a disease that takes years to diagnose, and I wonder why would Obama even for a moment be flattered by the comaprison?

[peaceandfreedom]

While the Clinton social agenda during their tenure in the White House may have been progressive or liberal in the very broadest terms, their Economic positions were moderate Republican through and through--NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, repeal of Glass-Steagall, deregulation of the financial sector etc. Therefore I think it is fair to say that calling Hillary a "Clinton Republican" is an accurate assessment of her economic agenda and a true reflection of what we could expect to see if she is elected.

[JackWOrf]

And what is this ABSURD myth that Obama will be so palatable to mainstream America? I think that you're smoking something. If nominated, the Vast Rightwing Conspiracty will create a straw man MONSTER named OSAMA BIN HUSSEIN who is only slightly less scary than a Tyrannasaurus Rex.

This straw man monster wants us to get out of Iraq because he is secretly a MOSLEM FUNDAMENTALIST! Just look at his NAME! He is a relative of both Sadam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden!!!

He wants to make America WEAK because he HATES AMERICA. If he did not hate America, then why did he never Americanize his name.

And once in power, he will DESTROY America. He will destroy Christianity and everything good that it stands for. He is obviously a secret Moslem. Just look at his name.

He HATES America! And he will force the integration of your schools, your neighborhoods. The gangs will invade your neighborhoods and rape your lily white children. Your children will start reciting rap music.

If you think that Hillary is divisive, you ain't seen nothin yet. This MYTH that Obama is going to bring America together is HILARIOUS.

Obama is showing signs of being yet another John Kerry. Remember how great John Kerry looked when he was nominated? And then how did he look after the Swiftboating, and the windsailing and the flip-flopping, etc.? They will DESTROY Obama.

The only HOPE that the Democrats have of winning is a Clinton/Obama ticket. But, alas, the Democrats are probably too DUMB to realize that.

Read more of this (S-Word) at jackworfjournal.blogspot.com

[JackWOrf]

So which is he? Ronny Ray-Gun, JFK, or Jesus H. Christ? I've never seen so many people drooling over someone who deserves it less.

I thought that Obama's Reagan comment was a brilliantly slick put-down. It contained SEVERAL separate insults to Clinton, and at the same time it was presented like Obama was making a fair-minded "observation". And then Obama turns to the Clinton's and says, "Gosh and golly, that mean old racist bully BILL is picking on me! Boo hoo."

1. He brutally lumped Clinton with Nixon. This was a subtle reminder that they were both impeached.

2. He associated Clinton, a sometimes brilliant idea man, with the mentally constipated Nixon.

3. Targeting Clinton's boomer supporters, Obama cleverly associated Clinton with the single President that was most virulently hated by all Boomers.

4. Obama failed to acknoweldge that Clinton's administration was probably AT LEAST as transformative as Reagan's.

Obama did not mention Clinton's obsession with developing the "information highway", and improving America's infrastructure, which has served us very well into the much vaunted 21st century.

5. Bill Clinton created 22 million new American jobs. Ronald Reagan began the destruction of America's industrial base and it's exportation to Cheap Labor Land.

6. Bill Clinton's administration took America from stagnation to a booming economy. It was taking America to world technical superiority, until Bush began giving it away to India and China.

Yes, Reagan was "transformational". Reagan DESTROYED American Democracy by removing high taxes on billionaires. The billionaires have now become multi-billionaires, thanks to Ronny Ray-gun, and Democracy has become a JOKE. It has become a totally corrupt dog and pony show where the mega rich can buy whoever and whatever they want.

There was good reason for Bill and Hillary to be INFURIATED by Obama's "innocent" little Reagan "observation".

[Nutcase]

Well, I knew a Democrat and neither Clinton nor Obama is a Democrat.

cognito ergo populistae

[hope4theflowers]

are you suggesting Obama will pander to the right more than Hillary?I dont agree if so...what else does coalition mean but compromise.Who has compromised more?Hillary voted for the war and sold out to health insurance cabals.

[StephenDedalus82]

The fact that Obama is CONSTANTLY being compared to "great" figures from the past is all the evidence I need that he is a mere projection of people's hopes and desires. He makes a good speech, and that's all they need to get titillated. But to compare him to Reagan, JFK, MLK, Lincoln, and everyone else but Jesus himself, is very disturbing to me. Hillary doesn't need to be a projection, she's a real person, she's a historical figure in her own right. Obama supporters are very much jumping the gun by making their hero out to be some mythic creature. He hasn't done anything yet.

This blog sure is ramping up the Obama love prior to Tuesday. It's getting a little too saccharine. If you want a comparison based more in reality and less in fantasy and fortune telling, Obama is this year's Gary Hart.

[Xpionage]

Yes he able to pull more than Democrat Grandmas to the voting polls.

[apresdeluge]

Whoever thinks that Obama is going to get a large percentage of Republican votes is going to be very disappointed. His issue of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants alone will kill him at the polls among Republicans.

[MPCarr]

I like Obama. I would vote for him if he was a conservative. He is likeable, optimistic, confident.

But whether he will rise to the historic level of Ronald Reagan and his legacy, only time will tell.

[Phaedrusnyc]

I really wish there were a rule forcing every blogger who cites Obama's senate statistics to stick in the phrases "against Alan Keyes, who never lived in Illinois before running, and who entered the race 86 days before the general election." I think that really puts Obama's "miraculous" performance into a bit more perspective, since even someone who ISN'T regarded by members of both parties as a crackpot would have a hard time running as a carpetbagger after the previous candidate dropped out due to a sex scandal.

Yes, I'm probably going to vote for Obama in the primary, but honesty is a tonic, don't you think?