Running For President, Not Party Chairman

One of the more depressing, repeated ideas I've seen in the past year or so have been the swipes at Democratic candidates - mostly Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama - for supposedly being insufficiently partisan. That is, attacks on them for acknowledging some Republican person or idea as something other than the embodiment of all known evil. Right now some folks are trying to make the argument that Sen. Obama is betraying liberalism by comparing the incremental progress of the Clinton era versus sweeping change as embodied by Reagan.

Some are even trying to downplay Reagan's popularity. Come on. I don't like Reagan, what he stood for or his legacy, but it isn't many world leaders that have had a national outpouring at their passing like Reagan did. He pulled some vile stuff, but in a historical context, it just makes you look silly to say that Reagan wasn't well liked. For goodness sake, he's the last U.S. president to win election in a landslide. Sure, he did it using fear, the southern strategy, etc. A lot of people believed in his rhetoric and its because liberals try to minimize the importance of that emotion and "gut" feeling to the electorate that has led to so many electoral losses.

But the heart of the matter is, these people aren't running for chairman of the party - an explicitly partisan position. Speaking as someone who is proudly partisan, I dearly do not want another George W. Bush. Bush has governed as a Republican fighting for Republicans and as a result we've got a division in this country that is only superceded by the divisions we felt over the civil war. It is simply not a healthy way to run a democracy, and the presidency is weakened when it is seen as no more than a partisan institution.

This isn't to say that the candidates should be non-ideological bowls of mush. Because a huge part of the job for the next Democratic president will be about pushing the party's ideals, selling progressive solutions to the American people. But we're fooling ourselves if we think the path to that is the partisanship of the Bush regime. We'll just be trading one brand of gridlock for another. What's the point then? Just having a Democratic president is not good enough if the very real ills of the world aren't addressed.

If Barack Obama is going to be pilloried as a betrayer for simply acknowledging the tactical superiority of Reagan - and not endorsing a single one of his policies - then we're in for a rude awakening.

Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but I see the presidency as serving many roles: among those is leader of his party, but also he or she is our national leader - our representative as Americans regardless of our party affiliation or lack thereof. Ultrapartisanship is welcome in the party chairmanship, and even to some extent in the legislative bodies, but it minimizes the office of the presidency as George Bush has to make it all about sticking to the party 24/7.

Follow Oliver Willis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/owillis

Comments

[Dajo]

I have one simple comment to make regarding this matter:

I would never praise Hitler for anything , nor would I praise Reagan for anything.

Every time any politician does so, they lose a bit of my respect in my eyes.

[research]

RayGun stole the election by committing treason. Raygun's gang interfered with Carters official negotiations to free the hostages. The hostages were released and Iran started getting weapons as soon as Raygun was in office.

Oliver North was chief operation manager for the rescue mission, where the USA's best soldier forgot to put the sand screen on the helicopters. Sure. Secord and bunch more of the Iran Contra gang were also part of the "rescue".

[NeilFiertel]

When Reagan was president it seemed a horrid error to have elected this stupid puppet but in the end the USSR crashed and burned due to the economic/military pressures put against them by Reagan's puppetmasters. Well done in that instance..Lest it be said that I support anything the man said or did, no I did not and in any case I speak of it from a foreign but friendly nation to the North. It is odd that people saw him as granddad. I saw him as a total reactionary but by accident I think, the US managed to catalyze the dismantling of Red Fascism and so I tip my hat to the old guy but mostly to the lucky moves made in the shadows. Sadly one cannot say this about the monstrous loss of civil rights pretending to be anti terrorist moves on the part of your present government. At least Reagan knew his country was strong and he did not need to flex its muscles in threats, invasions and spying on his own loyal people. I do hope that the next administration will overturn any law that corrodes the wonderful Bill of Rights and the US Constitution and puts America again in the forefront of free nations instead of a country now listed in the watch list for countries that torture. The US today imprisons more of its own people than any nation on earth and that includes China. Its warlike posturing is sad and not welcome. Whoever wins the election I hope it is a good and honest leader who will bring the US home and make it once again a nation of democracy and freedom both in its borders and also one that PEACEFULLY promotes its philosophy abroad with aid and not the gun.

[Janelynne]

Ronald and Nancy Reagan threw the greatest State dinners with tons of movie stars, like a neo-Gasby generation of glitterai and grandeur. When communism was truly in its "death throes", Reagan seized the photo op in Berlin. And when Reagan passed away, the GOP imagined a funeral that was modeled after and rivaled the heroic state funerals of JFK and Lincoln.

Reagan's real legacy underneath the Hallmark made-for-television movie was far darker. What Reagan stood for and what he actually did, set the stage and made the template for Dick Cheney's America.

When Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, they fought for more manpower to manage air safety. Reagan would forge the model for Bush's justice department: Fire the dissenters. Katrina: Let them make do.

Reagan created the largest national debt that the USA had seen in its the entire 200 years. The money went for "Star Wars", named after a movie, for nuclear warheads, for artifices of war. Reagan embraced the Military Industrial Complex that Eisenhour had warned against, and dispensed big contracts to big GOP supporters. Those contracts would inflate prices and drive up the profits. Smaller unfavored competition was frozen out. Reagan made an orphan of education, healthcare, and all things heretofore that supported the prosperity that stood for what it means to be American. The GOP would disparage FDR's social security program as "socialist", and started to divert the piggy bank to more favorable things. Gore would later call for a "Lock Box" for the social security fund. But the press, tied into the Military Industrial Complex, would mock Gore by repeating the footage ad nauseum. The message got tossed out with the bathwater.

Reagan's legacy is one of trickle down "Reganomics": help the rich get richer, and the money will trickle down to the middle class. Give the oil companies government subsidies, and the American people will get trickled down relief at the pump. Give the bankers free reign, and Americans will all get houses. As Paul Krugman said yesterday in the NY Times, all the adult supervision went out the window.

[research]

It's a WRESTLING MATCH!

It's got the MOD SQUAD lineup. Newly converted to Kucinich's lifelong gospel of populism, Edwards, the Liar...er lawyer, blocking the Kucinich votes, Hillary , Queen of the Clinton Dynasty, first female president, wow, then Obama the multicultural man, brings the heartfelt renditions of Hope and Unity. Of course the rethugs race is more colorful then clowns in a phone booth!

All Dem candidates are thick with the PNAC.info and DLC.org crowd and credo: “we have a big military stick, and we're going to use it” ...to make the world safer!!! of course, what did you think I meant.

So If you like the constant maximum use of war, invasion and occupation, like the military funded corporations do, why then you'll just love our three DLC.ORG candidates.

Meanwhile Kucinich plays the fool, the only candidate appealing to our intelligence and enlightened self interest, not just our heart strings. He really had no choice in the way the media cast him. Only the Media Barons get to choose the candidate's roles. Like a wrestling match, the “loser” can win over the audience like Dennis does, but unlike the wrestling matches, Kucinich got kicked off the stage, because the Media Barrons don't want to give up the POWER that BushCo has given the Media Conglomerations The DLC.ORG lackeys did as told.

[edzeppelin]

Thank you Willis, well said.

[TellingTruth2Kooks]

My, my, my...
How is it that Liberals claim to be so educated, and yet fall for the same Karl Rovian Tricks?

This is why you lose elections outside of your base areas, as someone mentions "Reagan" and you take it as the Verbal equivilent of a Two-Fisted Middle Fingered, Facial insult!

So what if Obama takes a Huge Side Step to the Right? According to CNN's Delegate count, Hillary has already bought all those ones she needs to win the Nomination, with the rest of the Dog & Pony show in these various states, just to rally the Little People to the polls, (and grab a few shekels wouldn't hurt either).

But I Suspect that Obama is taking the Advice of Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh, and following their lead on how to talk to the Moderates & the Independents, because if he can keep the Youth vote, and get most of the Center, Hillary will really have to Dig Deep into her Treasure Chest to finally pay him off come Convention time!

Which will turn out badly for Hillary, as Her 50% negatives are too large to overcome.

[ErieCanaller]

We've just barely survived seven years of a likeable guy with no executive experience. How has that worked out? We do NOT need another president whose only ability to govern consists of a messianic complex.

[bronceye]

Reagan did change the direction of America. King GeorgeI pardoned him for it. Faux news canonized him for his crimes. Why didn't we get the names of the people who sold ronnie's drugs?

[wrabbitt]

Come on people did you forget that Reagan was an actor? Of course he was a great speaker,he could remember his lines well! HRC and. Obama have a large job ahead of them, to renew the Americans faith in government,to show that fair elections are an American right. And that lobbyists money don't make them change course from their promises. Hey, look there goes Elvis.

[Pometacom]

What Oliver said.

Thank you.

[realityrules]

I hope that's what he meant. Anyway, he's got plenty of time to clear it up, let's see if he does.

[MegMcNichol]

I agree with Willis. Well said.

[TheKiddy]

The mainstream press and The Huff Post among others have missed something very big here. In comparing this moment and his candidacy to Reagan (and at other times to MLK and JFK) and inviting potential followers to "join the movement" (and to ignore his moderate to conservative policy views) Obama is revealing the deep truth about his campaign and his view of himself as a Messianic leader. But what we really don't need is a Morning in America, and a President who is worshipped in spite of his politics. Morning in America got us the mentally ill being shipped from state to state to sleep on grates or under bridges like the 200,000 veterans of Iraq discussed elsewhere on Huff Post and brought to national attention by John Edwards, a true progressive candidate. Morning in America got us supply side economics.

What Obama is revealing is that regardless of his politics he brings the religion of blind optimism. I would say that is pretty dangerous. While the press gives him a by, Obama the Messiah is getting major support from the nuclear industry. What movement then are we being asked to join? This is scary and the press, including Huff Post, is not doing its job. And it does matter when a Democratic candidate compares himself no matter how modestly and quietly and reasonably to Reagan, the man who smiled while destroying the safety net, and is still admired as bringing a new day to America.

[rbrooks]

Obama is making all the noises of a centrist and a pragmatist. We’ve seen enough of that particular form of cynicism and betrayal in what was formerly known as the Democratic party. Unbelievable that anyone would attempt, with a straight face, to sell the con that we can "work together" with the predators that have come so close to destroying our constitution, our security, and our economy.

The next president will face - in any meaningful confrontation with the corporate establishment that Bush and the Clintons work for - total warfare. Inspiring rhetoric can rally the country, but, as we have learned so well and so often from the Clintons, a leader betrays the cause and the people he has rallied to it by coming to the fight with the intention to compromise in the interest of “unity.” Announcing that intention can only be a signal from Obama to the corporate establishment that their rule will be safe in his hands.
I don't want a uniter. I want a leader. I want a president with passion and courage, the power to inspire the people of this country to reclaim our government from the looters and murderers who now control it - and the willingness to lead the fight.
John Edwards has been clear and explicit about his proposals, and genuine in his concern for the hosed citizens of this country; he has launched a courageous challenge to the corporate power structure - which means that the corporate-controlled media will never let him near the nomination. Still, in a saner and luckier world, I believe he would be a decent, civilized president.
I will not, under any circumstances, have a vote for Hillary on my conscience.
Obama is an appealing presence, granted. But he puzzles me - why would he parrot Republican talking points? What is that? ignorant? Right of center? Smart chess? How are we to know? Why should we trust a man who says he reminds himself of Ronald Reagan?