Winning to Change or Changing to Win: Obama and the Progressive Dilemma

"Sen. Barack Obama is risking his brand as a political reformer, according to reports today in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. In recent weeks, he has moderated or changed positions on a number of politically-charged issues, leading to criticism from demoralized Democratic activists and charges of "flip-flopping" from conservatives." Obama Undercuts his Brand

"The harsh reality is, Barack Obama can and will tack towards the center on issues that are important to progressives during the general election. We can argue until we're blue in the face that this is not a smart thing to do, and by extension, that the country is ready for real progressive leadership, but Obama will do what he wants to do. Unless we are willing to actively work against him, we have no leverage." Jason Rosenbaum, The Obama Problem

After a sad week of listening to the hiss of air leaking out of the Obama balloon, we perceive the horns of the progressive dilemma. On the right horn, there is a strong and familiar argument for pragmatic cynicism: barring a world-historical event (or the well-manufactured simulacrum of one) it is likely that -- if only the Democratic Party avoids indulging its penchant for self-immolation -- the political landscape will be much changed in January 2009. With comfortable majorities in both houses, the Democrats in Congress will no longer have an excuse for inaction. For example, Joe Lieberman, no longer control of the Senate in his hand, will be forced to skulk off to embrace the minority status of the caucus he deserves. President Obama will start sending non-apocalyptic judicial nominees to Senate confirmation, the Department of Justice will once again be populated by folks who have read the constitution, and regulatory agencies now either supine or acting as apologists for the rapacious practices they were established to police, will begin again to regulate. We should, therefore, be patient.

Taking this wizened approach, we can write Obama's rightward lurch off as just politics -- as just doing what he has to do to get elected, or, more clear-eyed and less cheerful, we can, as Jason Rosenbaum argues, shake our heads and bide our time for a fight to come. We can say, yes, our office holders, and even our nominee, are mired in a broken system, but, when the Republican bogeymen and bogeywomen are gone -- in just a few short, summer months -- the political scene will shift. The blue dogs will be the new Republicans and we, the people, will hold the newly elected feet to the fire. This is by no means an unlikely scenario. With the coming vacuum on the right, incumbent and unresponsive conservative Democrats will have to begin looking over their left shoulders -- just ask Al Wynn.

Given the risk of undercutting such a change of scene, and severe consequences should John McCain become president, actively working against Obama is certainly not an appetizing option. Without that option we have, as Rosenbaum says, no leverage, and with it, we face irreversible disaster.

This accommodate-and-wait strategy, however, may leave us impaled on the left horn of our dilemma. What if pragmatic cynicism, the old game of moving to the "center" (no matter how clumsily) to win a general election is, this time around, based on false assumptions? What if the old politics are now also bad politics? The assumption that fuels the strategy of taking your base of support for granted and courting the so-called center assumes that 2008 will see another in a series of very close elections. The assumption is that if 47% of the electorate will vote Republican no matter what and 47 % will vote Democratic no matter what, the 6 % in the middle -- perhaps the most oblivious 6 % of the electorate -- will decide the winner. What this assumption does is project the state of the senate onto the country at large. But is it wise to imagine and pander to the swing voter as a sort of collective Lieberman darting erratically across the aisle with the key to majority control clutched in his bony hand? Is it answerable to the facts?

This trimming strategy is grounded, I think, in expectations of very low voter turn out. Take for example the Reagan "landslides" of 1980 and 1984 (Voter turnout in 1980 Presidential Election; Voter turnout in 1984 Presidential Election). In 1980 and 1984 about three out of four registered voters -- or slightly more than half the voting age population -- actually cast ballots. Reagan received 58.7% of the votes cast. These numbers suggest that he conservative tide voting in 1984, when Reagan won 49 states, represented about 60 % of the roughly half the voting age population that actually voted: 54,455,472 out of a potential 174,468,000 votes for a landside victory of approximately 31% of the voting age population. In 2004 56% of the voting age population and 72.9% of registered voters turned out. Doubtless there are other ways to work these numbers and other sources that will provide somewhat different numbers, but the basic point holds: American Presidents can and have been elected with large mandates by a minority of the potential voters.

More or less overt Republican efforts to suppress voter participation aside, it remains legitimate to wonder in what degree low voter turn out is an effect as well as a cause of the rush to the ever-rightward-drifting-center electoral strategy. I bring this up because of the record turnouts in the Democratic primaries in 2008 and because of the huge crowds Obama drew on his way to the nomination. What if, in 2008, they give a presidential election and the voters show up? What if those voters, personally distressed by rising gasoline prices and plunging real estate, an unending war, more and more obviously waged for private profit than national interest, and the crude antics of a political class that has made us a laughingstock among the nations are not of a mind to be manipulated by formulaic sound bites on hot button issues? Is it wise for Obama, who captured his fiercely contested nomination with the incantations of change and empowerment to suddenly pull up and advertise his restraint -- to court our putative national Lieberman -- with the promise that plus ce change...?

So, those of us who want, real, systemic and enduring change, those of us convinced that the status quo is crisis, must hold with one hand to the absolute necessity of an Obama victory and with the other to the possibility that pragmatic cynicism may be precisely not the road to achieve victory.

If steering a course between supporting the candidate, whose victory one believes to be imperative, and preventing that candidate from blundering by calling him continually to account for his actions were easy, it wouldn't be a dilemma. But faced with dilemma; that is, with the demand for apparently contradictory actions -- support and condemnation, unity and resistance -- we might do well to engage a different perspective. What is this election is less about the candidates than about the voters? It strikes me that the deeper dysfunction of our government is that it has become unresponsive to the voters. Benefiting from gerrymandered incumbency and a clubby aversion to real competition, our office-holders have been free to fry their fish outside the electoral kitchen -- collecting campaign funds, cultivating revolving door relations with powerful lobbies and focused on the intramural machinations of becoming powerful. For too long the voters' reaction to unresponsive government has been cynical resignation and disengagement. The enthusiasm and intensity of the Democratic primary cycle this year was, however, marked by a real and consistent jump in turn out -- to vote and to caucus. This sudden and participatory attention to electoral process, rather than the candidate it produced, may be the harbinger of change.

The antics of the Democratic Congress since 2006 ought to have shown us that change requires more than electing different individuals. As long as our office holders continue to regard remaining in office as their ultimate life goal, we have one clear path to change: we have to make them more afraid of the voters than of any of the other interests they serve. A reengaged and enlarged electorate, paying attention and determined to turn out unresponsive incumbents must take responsibility for government. Expecting a charismatic leader to do the job is a drive down the road to disillusionment, disaffection and government that perceives itself as having more important things to do than attend to our needs and desires.

What behavior follows from this realization in the current electoral context? We should neither condemn nor indulge our candidate. Rather we need to speak to him clearly. We need to tell him that we are building a movement that is not about him. We offer the next president the opportunity to be the instrument of this movement for a reinvigorated and participatory democracy, but we do not predicate our movement on his skill, his charisma or his good wishes. We are not waiting for a leader to bring us out of the darkness. We are offering a hand to one who will follow us into the light. It means resisting the myth that this election will be decided by a handful of people who, for some reason difficult to imagine, have difficulty deciding between McCain and Obama. Our message should be that we are choosing a responsive approach to the voters over a paternalistic and manipulative one. We also need to confront the fact that if Obama has to become like McCain to win, then we will, indeed, have a President who is rather more like McCain than we had hoped. There is, however, another way. We can articulate as thoroughly as possible what we want from our next president and let each of these guys try their best to convince us he is the one who will deliver it.

Comments

[Sheridan1]

You can say THIS again GED2012:
Everyone in the media seems to be oblivious, or bored, with McCain's flip-flops. Somehow, Obama changing his mind on certain issues is a bigger deal than those of McCain's, thus there is a stronger tendency to demonize Obama. And the more we, his supporters, hit him hard from all corners, the weaker he becomes in the eyes of the American people, while McCain continues having a free pass saying anything he wants without fear of being scrutinized, since he is rarely criticized by the media.

THIS IS SO TRUE. Please, be patient Obama people. McCain is the flip-flopper of all time nad it is our job to keep reminding people of his complete change of face!

[tyrdofwaitin]

Every enduring revolution is built on honesty, patience and love. Thank you Sheridan 1for reminding us of that.

[rollingdivision]

The hard fact is the vast majority of voters do not support the progressive agenda and in fact there are so many who are opposed to the progressive that he has to run away from it in the general election. Is it more important to make a principled stand and sway the majority around to the progressive agenda thereby laying the groundwork to make real enduring positive change or to just tell what they want to hear and gain power? Progressives have spoken and the answer is power! Democrats need to only look back to 2006 to see the last big lesson the voters taught politicians about power versus principles.

[research]

Obama has become so popular because he did not "triangulate".

I fear that once he took over the democratic party, he suddenly is getting all this "great" advice from Hillary, Rahm, Pelosi and the rest of the DLC DINO Blue Dogs.

Obama: your integrity is your strength, centrism will only hurt you.

Uphold the constitution. Vote against revising FISA. etc...

The democrats, Rahm in particular, Did NOT win in 2006.

The Democrats DID NOT WIN IN 2006.

The GOP lost.

Rahm conservative anti impeachment pro war crime stance had nothing to do with the GOP losing.

Don't follow Rahm et al.

[meanguy]

obama didn't become so popular because of his politics; rather, his ability to read a speech and project an aura of authenticity...it helps that this is the age of youtube and american idol...obama is famous for being well-known...it's an illusion

[research]

Ir sure didn't seem like an illusion when he spoke to the SF Chronicle staff:

sorry i CAN'T FIND THE 1 HOUR + VIDEO.

[vinny]

curious, b/c i dont watch tv, is the "fair and balanced" crowd trying to make hay out of disgruntled obama supporters yet?

[RI]

Interesting analysis, but could you break it down into 1 or 2 sound bites? Seriously though, you are asking a lot of our TV-hypnotized populous: to think deeply and express themselves clearly. In fact, I think that is what Obama is also asking of us. Even here in the lofty heights of HuffPost, the commentary generally runs to the emotional and reactionary.

Moving a bit to the center, how many centrists will Obama win and how many hard-core progressives will he lose? Has anyone done polling on that?

How many of us progressives can support someone who does not hue perfectly to our every progressive ideal? I think enough to win. But as someone who used to run a natural foods co-op, I can attest that progressive idealists can be every bit as rigid, uncompromising and out of touch with reality as extreme neo-cons.

[lovethesinner]

"... progressive idealists can be every bit as rigid, uncompromising and out of touch with reality as extreme neo-cons."

You got that right.

[Ged2012]

We progressives need a wake-up call. It isn't ONLY us who can make Obama President. We need Independents and disaffected Republicans as well. The American people as a whole. Obama has a lot of challenges to face. He has to work harder than McCain, since he is an African-American; in fact, many rednecks out there would not vote for him at all simply because of his skin color. And any mistake he commits, no matter how small, is bloated to immense proportions, especially by the media. And guess what: our REACTIVE nature whenever he commits mistakes makes the GOP laugh at us real hard.

Everyone in the media seems to be oblivious, or bored, with McCain's flip-flops. Somehow, Obama changing his mind on certain issues is a bigger deal than those of McCain's, thus there is a stronger tendency to demonize Obama. And the more we, his supporters, hit him hard from all corners, the weaker he becomes in the eyes of the American people, while McCain continues having a free pass saying anything he wants without fear of being scrutinized, since he is rarely criticized by the media. FOX News never criticized McCain, except for one moment when he used that lime green backdrop.

[AshevilleVoice]

"We should neither condemn nor indulge our candidate. Rather we need to speak to him clearly. We need to tell him that we are building a movement that is not about him." (etc)

The fragile fallacy in this argument is that there is no "we" without Obama. He has drawn a coalition unlike any previous candidate. His majority status is not built from typical Democratic liberal news junkies like us. If it were, we would have nominated Dennis Kucinich, and then lost the general election worse than Mondale/Ferraro. If you get involved in Obama's volunteer staff, you'll see a lot of formerly apoliticos. Young, idealistic smart kids, blacks who are unusually open and almost trusting, cutting edge new paradigm thinkers, visionaries, artists, musicians, organic farmers, off-the-grid old hippies, yuppies with their Woodstock dreams revived.

The movement is not about "him", but it is also not about the old "we" either. Obama has tapped a sleeping giant of American idealism, akin to what MLK stirred up in people. This, I believe, is where real change comes from. Obama is brilliant at setting priorities that speak to the hearts and minds of disenfranchised people. No one can win every issue all at once. You have to allow the process to unfold.

[pservelle]

I am a proud blogger-mouth for Obama; have been since early '07 (google pservelle). I am a " wouldn't join any organization that would permit me to be a member" kind of person. So I am a decline to state voter. Like a large number of Obamanites, I approve his stratagy of not working from a single playbook, be it from the Democrats, the Progressives, the organized of whatever persuasion. You see whats more important to me is the willingness to look anywhere for ways of making this country as good as it can be. I hope (and believe) that as President, Barack will not be beholden to anyone, including me.

[Nonamnesiac]

This is a debate I've heard all my life, and I'm an old fart.

Pressure must be maintained on Obama or he will not feel it necessary to govern as a progressive. He should not be given a pass.

What progressives miss is there is an absolute need for a clear, progressive position to be put forward institutionally by a relatively serious organization that will not compromise with electoral politics in order to get funders of war crimes (like Obama) elected. The failure of the left to maintain such organizations has permitted the debate to move so far to the right that what was the right center only a few decades ago is now considered left. So people like Obama become identified as left when they are actually right-center.

It also helps the Obamas of the world for the clear left to vigorously attack Obama. When Obama gets attacked by what is a clear left organization, it gives him cover to move to the left. But when nearly all of the so-called progressive organizations are thinly-guised fronts for the Democratic Party, their refusal to push what all know is both the morally correct and progressive position and hold Obama accountable means that Obama does not have any pressure or argument to which he must respond. If he does, he looks radical.

[JimR]

I think it would be political suicide to assume that most Americans are ready to embrace a progressive agenda. What they want is "Not Bush." Most may decide McCain is close enough if they perceive Obama as too liberal.

[MoeB]

YES! This is why democrats won the majority in 2006. NOT because people were so pro-democrats. They were ANTI-Bush at that point. Let's not forget that McCain got the nomination because he resembled Bush the least. And even with his own flip-flops, McCain is well received by moderates and independents, and let's not forget MSM.

Further, people are acting as if he has thrown out all of his agendas.

[vinny]

i say liberals are more energized and will win the day if obama can get them to the polls...

i will be sitting on the couch, unless obama takes tangible actions toward the restoration of our freedoms and holding those who engaged in fraud, deceit and destruction during this war accountable...

restoration and accountability...

let's see what you got obama... remember it was the anti-war crowd that allowed obama to overcome clinton, now what do we get???

[Zeje]

I'll be sitting on the couch too -- and I know many others who feel the same way. Obama is all talk and no action. I didn't believe this before -- but now I do.

[strifeknot]

That spineless attitude will guarantee you defeat.

[Cathexis]

Assuming a rightward shift is necessary strikes me as overly cynical and, ultimately, legitimizing Rightist positions. If a Center-Left position is best, we should promote a Center-Left position. We can be open to compromise, of course, but compromising before we start guarantees responses that will be more to the Right.

[texanna]

From Obama to his supporters as he leaps over the wall -- "Thanks for the help up, see ya!"

[Lemeritus]

Feels that way, doesn't it?

[jmpurser]

It is that way. Thanks to his "run to the right" ploy the entire nation has to decide exactly who he's lying to.

[jmpurser]

I think the "dilemma" faced by Obama and his supporters (I'm on of them) can be best described as a corollary to Laurel Thatcher Ulrich's truism that "Well-behaved women rarely make history." And politicians who are likely to win elections are unlikely to actually change anything worth while in the system that got them elected.

Obama is starting to look like he's VERY likely to win this election.

[pundit27]

Yes, and the more likely it seems that he will be elected, the more conservative he becomes in his public pronouncements on a host of issues. And the well-made point of this post, that a substantial majority of pro-Democratic electorate is no mood to equivocate on what it deems necessary areas of change, even more so than in 2006, means that he will lose significant percentage points of support if he continues to bend to the right -- not to McCain but to renewed apathy and cynicism among the millions of would-be first-time and second-time voters that he has gained a measure of trust from in the past six months. So, as suggested, BO and his advisors need to be reminded clearly: only a multi-racial record turn-out of young voters will win him the White House, and the surest way to lose that potential advantage is to resort to sit-on-the-lead, hunker-down politics as usual. If he plays the current scoreboard, Obama will surely go the way of the Lakers -- to resounding defeat.