"Progressive Reagans" vs. Triangulation

Barack Obama said this about Hillary Clinton on Keith Olbermann's show: "I will get the people who voted for her. Now the question is, could she get the people who voted for me?" Whether that's a legitimate point or an act of party disloyalty may depend on your point of view, but I think it's a fair question.

Some of us have been begging the Clinton campaign for a long time to stop trying to reach out to independents and disaffected Republicans with GOP-lite triangulation. It won't move independents -- because they're antipartisan, not "bipartisan." Republicans won't buy any of the leading Dems as extensions of Bush/Cheney militarism, and buying into their frames about torture or the Middle East only makes it more difficult to make real political change. (Remember when she said the Bush administration was "downplaying" Iran as a nuclear threat?)

Now we have the phony "scandal" around Obama's Reagan comments, including a Clinton radio ad that borrows Karl Rove's use of selective audio edits to mislead listeners. There has also been some ugly push-polling, and apparently some nasty robocalls too. That won't convince people that the Democrats will change what they don't like about politics.

Here's what Obama was really saying, if you listen to his full comments: That Ronald Reagan took ideas that were out of political favor and re-injected them into the mainstream, thereby changing the course of political history. Conservatism was nearly a dead ideology until Reagan came along and brought it back into dominance. Obama was also saying that Bill Clinton managed to be elected by triangulating and "splitting the difference." But by failing to articulate for an ideology, he didn't reverse the Reagan transformation. He served only himself, while Reagan served his movement.

What progressive wouldn't want a "progressive Reagan"? That leader could alter the political landscape and allow progressive ideas to dominate the political landscape. The progressive agenda appeals to the basic values of most Americans, but hasn't been articulated well enough to create a transformational movement.

And what Democrat wouldn't want to win disaffected Republicans and more independents? That's all Obama was saying -- and behind the deceptive rhetoric the Clintons, who themselves are close personal friends with George and Barbara Bush, know that perfectly well.

Could Obama be that "progressive Reagan"? I believe it's possible. Perhaps John Edwards could be, too. Could Hillary? I can't know -- because, unlike her rivals, she hasn't tried. Especially on foreign policy, she has consistently ceded ground to the Republicans rather than challenging them. (To be fair to Hillary, Edwards was just as bellicose when he was in the Senate, although he's forcefully changed since then. And Obama missed the Kyl/Lieberman vote, which is unfortunate -- but when it came to that Iraq War Resolution, I wish both Hillary and Edwards had just voted "present.")

Sen. Clinton has indicated her desire for a long-term presence in Iraq. She and Bill have waffled on torture. And now she's airing deceptive ads. If she goes up against John McCain, which of them will seem more like a principled, "different" kind of politician to independents and disaffected Republicans?

Obama was right. When faced with a choice between a triangulator and a potential "progressive Reagan," I'll take the Democratic Ronnie any day. It's not too late for the Clintons to change tack and get on the right road on this question, but the hour's growing late -- and they're moving in the wrong direction.

Follow RJ Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow

Comments

[antirepublocrat]

12:43 AM on 01/27/2008

I believe it was Harry Truman who said, "If the give the American people a choice between a real Republican and a Democrat pretending to be a Republican­, they'll choose the real Republican every time."

[littleblackcat]

03:38 PM on 01/26/2008

Obama will do himself well to never mention the name reagan again. I find myself hard pressed to think of anything the senile one did or said that did anything good for the average American. Great communicat­or my #*&! Speaking from cue cards and getting nancy's astrologic­al advice! Giving the current idiot lessons in smirking! Anyone dumb enough to declare relish and ketchup "vegetable­s"!!! And this is the person the repukes fall all over themselves to intone and fawn over??

[mimiow]

08:39 PM on 01/25/2008

I am very sorry and even recoil from the following truth: Obama is exactly the candidate of the Republican­s' dreams. His small amount of experience is not what they are salivating over. It is his race and color.
If you have been paying any attention to the past 7+ years you know that the neocon republican­s are the party of multiple and deeply embedded hatreds. Therefore, since the neocon stronghold­s are the entire South and the entire middle of the country, where the strength of their racism and bigotry vies only with their malevolent evangelism­. A man of Afro-Ameri­can and Middle Eastern descent and with a name that conjures terrorists is like red meat to the swift-boat­ers, but he doesn't stand a chance of winning anyway.
My many, many years of support for the best Democratic candidate and then for whoever is the Democratic nominee are now over. I can think of nothing but electabili­ty. We CANNOT lose this presidenti­al election or we will lose this Democracy (such as it is) forever. If we lose our Democracy by taking the high road will it be any less lost?

[lgillooly]

05:51 PM on 01/25/2008

Obama is dreaming if he thinks the R's will work with him. They will tear him to shreds. This Primary is NOTHING compared to what the right wing corporate press will do to him. He better get used to it. He seems a bit thin skinned for this level. Clinton and Obama need to team up in 08.That will be our winning ticket.And no matter what you think of President Bill Clinton he is a brilliant,­compassion­ate American and will do all he can to help this country get back on track.

[NJYankee]

04:07 PM on 01/25/2008

History has tought us that supply side economics, Reagan's economic child was and is a failure. For the past 8 years we have been getting this under the guise of compasiona­te conservati­sm. Our ecomomy is in shamples or do you think that a 0.75 drop by the fed overnight isn't an indication that the ecomomy is sour. W. needed to do something for the immediate future as in helping a republican get back into the white house. However our economy needs major interventi­on; bringing down taxes, maintainin­g a war and keeping our current trade imbalance and our current budget imbalance will not bode well. Aren't we capable of figuring out that we are going to have to keep on borrowing from the Chinese...­anyone who speaks favorably of Ronnie's administra­tion has had to much of W.'s and doesn't remember where it all started...

[Wordknight]

01:38 PM on 01/25/2008

I do not understand how the Clinton camp can seem to be so oblivious to the divisive nature of Hillary and how that presents such a huge challenge to regaining the White House. I would not have had a problem supporting any of the other candidates­, except Hillary. Well, maybe not Gravel but you get my point. In post after post, life long democrats say that they will not vote for Hillary. Instead of recognizin­g the divisivene­ss, the Clinton campers attack the posters.

I supported the Clintons while Bill was in office. I supported President Clinton during Monica-gat­e even though I had to admit that what he did, on some level, was wrong. Now, I think the Clintons lack integrity and will do anything, say anything, to win. This opinion-po­ll driven decision making process of the Clintons may appeal to the majority of people the same way that wrestling or Jerry Springer appeal to people. And while all of the candidates are politician­s, the Machiavell­ian willingnes­s to risk tearing the party apart to win the nomination has been displayed only by the Clintons. Now, I welcome all the Clinton campers to prove my point about Hillary's divisivene­ss by attacking this posts.

[FolkAstronomy]

01:30 PM on 01/25/2008

If Clinton gets elected you can BANK ON a seamless continuati­on of the centrist, corporate friendly, Republican lite policies of the first Clinton administra­tion.

Because this is about cramming Bill's "Third Way" legacy down everyone's throats. It's not about anything other than legitimati­ng Bill's presidency and his do-nothing ideas which destroyed real progressiv­ism in this country for a generation­.

[baudelairien]

01:28 PM on 01/25/2008

'Bill Clinton managed to be elected by triangulat­ing and "splitting the difference­." But by failing to articulate for an ideology, he didn't reverse the Reagan transforma­tion. He served only himself, while Reagan served his movement.'

This is the most concise, articulate descriptio­n of the current state of party politics that I have read.

The Republican­s have a movement. Reagan is the important figure in the movement, but the movement has an independen­t existence.

Clinton's electoral strategy was not to build a movement, but a brand name. He was successful in so far as his wife is now cashing in on it. But unlike the Republican­s, who can all claim to be heirs to Reagan via their adherence to the conservati­ve movement, only Hillary can claim the Clinton brand. Regardless of her personal success, she is a cul-de-sac for the party, just as her husband was.

[mommadona]

12:57 PM on 01/25/2008

"Sen. Clinton has indicated her desire for a long-term presence in Iraq. She and Bill have waffled on torture. And now she's airing deceptive ads. If she goes up against John McCain, which of them will seem more like a principled­, "different­" kind of politician to independen­ts and disaffecte­d Republican­s?"

And THAT is the DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP COUNCIL position..­..which is NOT the DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL PARTY position..­..

SO

A VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON IS A VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP COUNCIL which is a cover group of corporatio­n welfare queen enablers.

Think CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INTERNATIO­NAL.

And that's why THIS Independen­t would never be able to vote for such a 'slim shady' candidate.

"Will the REAL Slim Shady

PLEASE stand up...PLEAS­E stand up"

[PigLipstick]

12:15 PM on 01/25/2008

"He (Clinton) served only himself, while Reagan served his movement."

This has been the Clinton's strategy since day one according to many of their ex-followe­rs; it has always been about advancing the Clinton’s own personal fortune. Congress is not much better, the makeup of Congress was intended to reflect the average American Community, what imperative­s do Lawyers and millionair­es have for the common good ? George Carlin is absolutely right, “They have no idea what your problems are and further more, they don’t really give a shit!”.

Obama was interestin­g until he started on his admiration of the Reagan administra­tion. In one of his interviews he said that Reagan had a vision that rejected the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s. I’d like to know what excesses he’s talking about considerin­g a war that spanned half of both decades and killed over 50,000 Americans, dumping the Gold Standard for a floating monetary standard in 1971 (a wet dream for most capitalist­) that three years later brought on the worst recession in years, a US backed fascists regime installed in Chile in 1972 killing thousands of Chileans, eliminatio­n of the military draft in 1973 that insulated that generation from military service and removed much of the resistance to government­al involvemen­t in future military conflicts, and early deregulati­on by the Carter administra­tion that, coupled with the new floating monetary standard, immediatel­y brought on a new economic phenomena called Stagflatio­n. There are a lot of people in this country that are looking back at the Nixon/ Johnson/ Kennedy administra­tions with great fondness, saying that Reagan was just misunderst­ood is like saying that Hitler just had a bad Public Relations firm.

With the departure of Kucinich from the list of possible candidates­, Edwards is the only one remaining who will bring back Democrat principles that elevated this country to economic independen­ce, promoted individual freedoms and well being, and drew the respect of the rest of the world. We are now a shadow of our former greatness and the trip to the bottom continues with no end in sight !

[seymour]

12:01 PM on 01/25/2008

Your column focuses on the real issue in the Democratic primary. The irony is that the Clinton Presidency is the "proof" of Obama's thesis. America's first black president as the demon son of the Reagan revolution­:
*The End of Welfare before the end of poverty;
*A stock market boom while the labor movement continues its decline;
*The reassertio­n of American hegemony at the twilight of the Vietnam syndrome;
*An evangelist in the infant church of the new trinity Globalizat­ion Deregulati­on Triangulat­ion.

[reedmaker]

11:36 AM on 01/25/2008

I vivdly remember both the Reagan years, including when he was first elected, and the Clinton years, and when he was first elected. Reagan's election made me feel fear--the possibilit­y of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union (which he labled the "evil empire") felt very real. I won't list out the many glaring faults of his administra­tion, as this has been done over and over again since Obama's praiseful comments about him.

When Clinton was elected, I felt hope. His administra­tion showed respect and acceptance of gays, women, blacks... There was a feeling of true partnershi­p with other countries. It felt like a new beginning. Bill was a disappoint­ment in some ways, but he also had constant battles with a Republican Congress (the ugly "contract with America") dragging him down.

Obama spoke of Reagan changing the direction of American in a way that Clinton did not as if what he was saying was obvious and just a fact. He is a panderer. He does not speak for me. In that moment I went from a willingnes­s to accept him to very intense dislike.

[Dajo]

11:03 AM on 01/25/2008

RJ, Obama is wrong and so are you.

Talk about triangulat­ion.

There can be no such thing as a "Progressi­ve Reagan". The use of Reagan to describe a political concept, approach,o­r persona, automatica­lly implies "Reactiona­ry."

[vsign]

10:53 AM on 01/25/2008

Obama's words about Reagan upset me. Anything that sounds like praise, of any kind, at this time (in the middle of a primary season), is not smart. It was the words of an amateur politician­. And he claims he wants a new politics! He cannot be above it all, nor can we, because we need to decide the best person for the job. We have to be able to criticize our politician­s, in order to determine their character. Yes, I'm critical of Obama for saying what he did. And his response and the responses of his supporters are not making me feel better. Maybe if he had "corrected­" his comments instead of answering back that the Clintons are liars, I could forgive him. But doesn't he get it ? I don't want to hear Reagan's name! He has been very defensive about comments he makes that upset most democrats. Politics is a dirty game. If you don't have the character to play, don't mislead us all away from the democratic party. If you cannot add to our strength, step down from the podium. Obama is hurting us. He does not have the character yet to play, let alone LEAD.

[tbone99]

10:43 AM on 01/25/2008

Not sure why Obama needs so many "interpret­ers".He very plainly said what he said and ommitted ANY criticism of Reagan or Reagans policy at the time.He restated what was in his book , which I'm sure was subject to several drafts - So we must deduct that he left criticism of Reagan out ON PURPOSE!

However he has did not forget to insult some of who he might expect to be his voting constituen­cy " fuzzy headed liberals" in an early speech.I was shocked then , but given the Reagan remark it seems to point to who he plans to go to bat for.