To Vilify Obama for his Ability to Inspire is to Ignore the Principal Lesson of the Last Three Decades of American Politics

It's one thing for supporters of Hillary Clinton to make the case that her experience in Washington politics would make her a better president than Barack Obama. But it's quite another to actually vilify Obama's ability to inspire as a "cult of the personality" or "nothing but words."

It is particularly disturbing when serious progressive writers who should know better repeat this attack on Obama's inspirational abilities. It demonstrates a failure to grasp the principal lesson of the last thirty years of American politics.

In fact, it is precisely the absence of inspiration in progressive politics that has kept Progressives on the political defensive for decades.

That's because to inspire people, Progressives have to appeal to something much more important than endless lists of policies and programs. To inspire people, Progressives have to appeal to our values and to our vision for the future.

John Kerry did not lose the presidency because he lacked solid, progressive policies and programs. His campaign rolled out new ten point programs practically every other day. He lost because the Republicans erroneously convinced a significant number of persuadable voters that John Kerry lacked core values -- that he was a flip-flopper.

Right after the last election I struck up a conversation with a New Jersey cab driver. I asked him, "What do you think of Jon Corzine?" "Good guy, tough guy, stands up for what he believes," came the reply. "What do you think of George Bush?" "Good guy, stands up for what he believes," he said. "What do you think of John Kerry?" I asked. "Phoney... a flip-flopper," he responded.

His evaluation of these political leaders had nothing to do with positions or policy papers. The Republicans had convinced him that Kerry didn't have core values.

From 1932 until the mid 1970s -- at least in our domestic politics -- progressive values provided the dominant frame for mainstream political debate. They defined political "common sense." By 1980, the Reagan revolution had changed that -- and rightwing values have framed the American political debate for the thirty years since.

That's largely because Progressives went into a "defensive crouch." Our candidates advocated "Republican-lite" positions. We refused to debate the fundamental differences between the progressive and radical conservative values. Chief among these differences is the central question of whether we're all in this together, or all in this alone.

Often our leaders retreated to the discussion of small, incremental policy initiatives that presumed the right wing's assumptions about the primacy of "private markets" over people, and the innate inferiority of democratically elected governmental institutions compared to corporations that are in fact unaccountable to the public interest.

Beginning in 2005, our successful defense of Social Security, the obvious failure of NeoCon foreign policy, and the spectacle of Katrina -- began to change that. Progressives began to emerge from their defensive crouch and stand up proudly for progressive values once again.

Then came Obama, with his ability to inspire Americans to devote themselves to our values in a way that resonates with average people. His self-confident appeal to hope and possibility -- his "yes we can" -- have captured the imagination of millions of Americans. His ability to inspire has allowed him to simultaneously engage swing "persuadable" voters and the millions of stay-at-home "mobilizable" voters who would support progressive candidates if they could just be motivated to vote.

People want to be inspired. Inspiration is about making people feel empowered to be more than they are. They want to be inspired because they desperately want meaning in their lives. They want to be part of something larger than themselves and they want to feel that they can play a significant part in that larger purpose.

Meaning comes from being devoted to something outside of yourself -- to a cause, to a person, to a religion, to your art.

That's why "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" is so resonant -- so inspirational.

The Right has understood this need for meaning--and has addressed it -- with calls for devotion to the "Conservative Movement," to fundamentalist religion, to xenophobic nationhood.

For three decades, Progressives have often tried to compete by offering the bloodless alternative of a "policy agenda" -- and many times a timid one at that.

For thirty seven years I have devoted much of my professional life to campaigns to implement progressive policy initiatives. So I certainly agree that we need sound, bold policies. Once in office, a new president must in fact deliver on real, concrete policy.

But to change policy in a fundamental way requires more than good programs. It requires a progressive realignment of the American political debate. It requires that we redefine the value frame for American politics. And that requires inspirational leadership that proudly affirms our values.

Just as important, it requires inspirational leadership that can mobilize millions of Americans to demand the enactment of a progressive program once a new president is in place. Frederick Douglass was right. "Power surrenders nothing without a struggle. It never has. It never will." Progressives won't win legislative battles with an insider game.

In 1993 we had a Democratic President and Democratic Congress, but we lost the battle for universal health care. What we needed then, and what we need now, is a massive national mobilization to pass universal health care, change our labor laws, enact campaign finance reform, provide universal access to higher education and preschool, end global warming and change our foreign policy.

Leadership, more than anything else, is about mobilizing people into action. People take action when they feel empowered -- when they are inspired. They will not take action simply because they are "convinced" we are right. They will take action when they are motivated by inspiration to be a part of an historic endeavor.

Inspiring leadership is not just "another quality" that would be "nice" to have in a president. And it is certainly not to be assailed as a "cult of the personality."

America needs inspiring leadership to re-establish the preeminence of progressive values; to define a progressive vision for its future; to mobilize Americans to enact a progressive agenda -- and most importantly -- to convert this historic opportunity into generational progressive political realignment.

No one knows for sure what either a Clinton or an Obama presidency would mean for America. But I believe that Barack Obama presents us with a candidacy more likely to provide the inspirational leadership that we need, than any politician since Robert Kennedy's quest for the White House ended that June night in 1968.

Comments

[billsowlesforjohnmccain]

"Congress shall make the laws..." That was written somewhere. Inspiration is one thing but persperation is another. Any President is going to have to work with the Congress to make change..otherwise it's all nonsence.

[AnnaList]

Not only did Hillary Clinton vilify Obama's ability to inspire, but her "selective indignation" about her Healtcare Plan mandate apparently, was delayed. During the CNN debate, Obama clearly stated that her mandate does not require the government to provide health insurance, but her mandate forces the individual too purchase insurance under a yet to be defined, penalty. Obama's response to Hllary's outburst was that it appears to have been tactical. Well, ofcourse it's tactical, but is makes Hilliary Clinton look like she is either on medication or that she is schizophrenic. If neither is correct, then will the real Hillary Clinton, please stand up.

[HaveaBud]

I think you mean corporate progressive values. That is what Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton offer. Values bottled with the seal of approval by Corporate America and sold with hope and change.

[trinity29]

Clinton is more aligned with corporate and lobbyist values than Obama is. I think Obama understands the complexity of the influence corporations have on our everyday lives. So to implement changes, he is proposing new laws (his expertise), and mobilization of different people in Washington to create a different political will.

[Herrington]

Creamer, I could not agree more. Bill Clinton used to drive me nuts with his magnetron powered talking point compass. No matter what question was asked of him he wound up reciting the talking points. It was like Rain Man was running for President. He got elected. And now everyone does it, yes, even Obama.

Talking points do not show mastery of a subject, they show the ability to recite what your campaign team has given you to say. Give me, I long for, a person in politics that can give a straight answer to a question and expand on it, rather than set off smoke and chant a homily. Its like your bank"s automated phone answering system is running for office. Press 1 for poll tested things I say about immigration, press 2 for things I say about taxes¦

That"s what lost Kerry the 2004 election. He was afraid to, or rather more likely counseled not to, bring the same passions to the campaign that he brought to Senate Committee hearings on Vietnam in his youth. He lacked authenticity in 2004. And if you do not believe in what you are saying, odds are long that anyone else will either. Its an exercise, calisthenics rather than the full strapped up game.

Obama has blended passion and message into a good political product. He shows enough passion, takes enough risk, to demonstrate that he is not an automaton like Romney or Clinton. So the Republicans picked the one man on their side who is not an automaton to run against Obama. Picked McCain because they know us better than we know ourselves. This election is going to be interesting. We might see some candidates go seriously off script.

So CHANGE has already happened. It has happened because the voice of wisdom, the voice of the people, demanded a CHANGE IN TONE.

[atp2007]

Who had more government experience than Richard Nixon, Dick Chaney and Donald Rumsfeld, LBJ? And who has less experience than Abe Lincoln (one term in Congress), FDR (considered a political lightweight), Harry Truman (little known Congressman), JKF (young Senator), Bill Clinton (small state governor), Ronald Reagan (actor considerd a joke as governor). And who but the ones who could inspire succeeded?

[Superfelo]

This is a tremendous analysis of the political situation, in our country, for much of the last forty years. We take no exception to any of the statements. We got lost in the purer than thou, kind of politics, of the so-called "progressive left" represented by Ralph Nader and his ilk. One "Naderite" told me that America needed to be taught a lesson, and that is why Ralph Nader ran. It seems to us tantamount to saying if we "shock and awe" them, they will surrender. We have news for you geographical locations, under one name, does not make the people that live there of one mind. Nader"s lesson was an expensive one, in terms of lives and wasted treasure, and we learned that we do not need to have, someone, like Ralph Nader playing a spoiler"s role. Mr. Nader, no one invited you to this party, please get lost. If America wanted the extreme, Denis Kucinich would the front runner. Thanks.
We are sorry to say, Barack Obama knows what he is talking about when he says, that, we, as Americans, need to learn a second language.
The rest of the world does.
Europeans, Russians, everyone else speaks English, but we can only say "amigos" when we want the Latino vote.
Truly, a person cannot consider themselves educated, until they have mastered another language, and can have a fluent conversation with people of other countries.
Barack Obama is mostly right on, on a lot of things, maybe that is why we want him as our president.

Enough said.

It is time we stood up for something.

Yes, We Can!

[Zeusthunderbolt]

I came to see a politician speak, became part of a movement that swept the country and threw out the corrupt republicans, and following a dynamic and charismatic leader who talked to nations, we started practicing what we preached and world became a little more peaceful.

Do not write so many hopes and dreams or you will be call delusional. Let me try: I hope and believe that WORDS INSPIRE, A Decent man called Obama will lead the Democratic Party to victory. We will gain 61 seats in the senate, and under president Obama's inspirational leadership, and Hillary Clinton's solutions for our problems, we will once again be a great nation where we take care of the sick, educate our kids and everyone will have a shot at the American dream.

[research]

Great article! Thanks!

The DLC.ORG centrist corporatist conservative half of the dems was formed in response to Raygun's popularity. These New dems learned that if you want to be popular you need to have conservative values. They didn't notice that RayGun was exceptionally Inspirational, so the DLC Dem ran Al Bore and nerd Kerry. Don't get me wrong, I like all Gore and Kerry and nerds in general, but these dlc dem candidates most obviously failure was the failure to inspire.

[oogabooga]

It figures that slow-witted NeoCons who worship one of their own (Bush) would berate someone who speaks clearly yet articulately and makes himself and his positions understandable - and in an appealing way.

[Mandelay]

Sir, you have not been reading much of the commentary of "the cult." The only person being continuously vilified is Sen. Clinton ... repeatedly ... by the members of "the movement" and columnists in the press. If they feel so strongly that this is the way to conduct themselves on many a blog, then it speaks loudly about what kind of people they are and what kind of candidate they support. John Kerry's candidacy may have been a preview of this Democratic contest. He didn't lose on his policies. He lost because he was so boring. To make sure that didn't happen again, we now have Obama. It doesn't matter what he's saying. We don't want substance. We made that clear in the last election. We want flash. Well, we've outdone ourselves this time. Watched the debate repeat on CNN Saturday evening and caught something that made me laugh. Obama's answer to the bi-lingual question which Hillary answered in a very straightforward, specific way. Obama said he thinks Americans should learn other languages, as if it were a new idea. I am 56 years old. My high school and college education required me to learn/continue learning a 2nd language. My choices back then were Spanish, French and Latin. I chose French. Plenty of my friends chose Spanish and a few picked Latin. My point? Americans have been learning 2nd languages for a long time. We just choose to not speak those languages after we're done with schooling. You need to not only learn the language (which we do in school) we need to speak and live in those languages if they are to be of any use. Now, Sen. Obama, press 2 to continue in Spanish and nevermind that you did not answer the question in the context of these times.

[newunderground]

Position papers and clodly logical arguments may persuade YOU and your like minded upper income overly educated latte siiping egghead friends, I myself appreciate a logicical left brained argument. However much you ( or I) might wish it to be so,most people do not make electoral decisons that way. The Conservatives have understood this for 30 years. Bout time our guys got a clue.

[dartagnan]

"The only person being continuously vilified is Sen. Clinton ..."

Oh, really. Check out this video of Her Highness sneering at Obama and his followers: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/24/hillary-clinton-mocks-bar_n_88194.html

[swanky]

yea - but she's SUPPOSED to. You finally got a candidate to fight for herself, and decided it's not what you wanted. That's why we'll lose-again.

[rplevy]

Yes! So true.

[moderationsmuse]

I have looked at Obama, and though I disagree with just about every idea I've heard associated with him, have considered voting for him. He seems intelligent, which suggests to me that he would abandon the more syrupy aspect of his rhetoric once he faced the reality of leading the country.
However, perhaps I'm mistaken. If he is the genuine "progressive" that many here at Huff Po take him for, then I'll vote for McCain. Four years of fantasy land is not my idea of desirable change.
I will sit on the fence a while longer.
As for Hilliary, I will always be thankful for the way Obama is taking her out of the race. She is neither a "moderate" or a "progressive." Hilliary's cause is Hilliary. If she wishes to pretend to be the Senator for New York, fine. But she'd do herself and the rest of us a favor by retiring somewhere. Eight years of the slimy Clinton ethos was more than enough.

[wilhelmR]

You talk about "fantasy land" as if Mccain's 100 year War is not. What will Mccain do FOR YOU? Nothing. He expects the Market to do it for you such as foreclose your home, lose your job to India or China, take a hit on your Stock Portfolio, reduced the crime rate, get better schools for you and your family, and so on. C"mon "my friend," didn"t you know that we don"t live in a Free Market Economy but on a Mixed Free Market Economy? That is Economics 101. McCain and the Republican Party keep preaching the "individuality" of the people to solve all our problems with the exception of Defense. However, those ideas are for the "Old West," or the beginnings of the Industrial Era. Nowadays we have China making PCs (Lenovo or the IBM Brand) and other IT hardware in Alliance with India building Software, Russia allied with China building a Gas Pipeline that is already thousands of miles long across Europe, ME, and Asia. Yes, we do have Google but so do the other countries that can buy the services or own stocks through YOUR Free Market and their Sovereign Funds. So, you tell me that isolated individualism can conquer the NEEDS of the COMMON GOOD that requires billions of dollars in Research? Those are the causes that got us the ARPANET, backbone of the Internet, and not "individualism and creativity of isolated people."

[research]

Your either a republican or suffering from Stockholm syndrome if you think Progressive populist governments are fantasy land. FDR proves it can work in the USA. Those fantasy oriented Europeans progressive populist governments are kicking our ass, in every measure but weapons.

You are so phony! You are just a rethugs trying to infiltrate and disrupt the dems.

Typical Rethug Deceiver.

[Zeusthunderbolt]

Respectfully, I would like to know which one of his ideas you do not like.

Giving Tax breaks to companies who create jobs in America.

Increasing teachers pay so it attracts more intelligent worthy individuals.

Expand the congressional health care plan to all and creating a big enough pool to make it possible for all people to buy those with no exclusion for preexisting conditions, and making healthcare portable.

Making health care portable so we are not tied to our jobs enabling us to realize our potential in a true capitalistic way.

Try to negotiate with world instead of trying to bully the world and hence making even the Europeans call us the biggest threat to world peace.

Provide consensus building leadership, so that the Russians, Chinese and Indians do not feel compelled to form an alliance to protect the rest of the world from American tyranny.

Try to make college more affordable.

Inspire us to serve our country and rise above our selfish no fulfilling motives of making money.

Try to decrease the influence of Lobbyist (idealistic goal and probably unattainable as Senator Obama explains in his book with brutal honesty).

Try to bridge the gap between Democrats and Republicans by emphasizing our common themes rather than dwelling on the differences.

Try to keep Medicare and social security solvent unlike the republicans who want to eliminate them ( under the slogans of privatization, budget busting, and have deliberately got us there by busting the budget, warmongering, overspending on defense so people would have no choice but to voluntarily accept the cuts )

Try to prevent the country from becoming the slaves of faceless corporations, serving ever more powerful billionaires.

Try to bring together and start a dialogue between the religious and secular elements of society ( not by giving in and start praying more but by conveying that it was the Baptists on whose insistence the separation of Church and State was added in the constitution )

Redefine Liberalism as a noble desire to work towards a common ideal of taking care of each other as demonstrated by social security, police service, fire departments, Medicare, unemployment insurance, retraining programs, and adding means to make college more affordable, working towards eliminating homelessness ( not a minority only issue anymore but middle class issue now that millions loose homes, veterans with PTSD and brain injuries homeless ), reinstating a new GI bill, funding the VA hospitals better . To the cynics I say YES WE CAN just like we will be able to afford another 100 years of war if McCain in elected.

So sirs please enlighten us all and do tell us which one of these positions do you no agree with????????????

[moderationsmuse]

Some of the things you expect Obama to fix are beyond the reach of a president -- and should be. So, even if we both end up liking Obama (I did say I was sitting on the fence), we are not likely to see the long list you present fulfilled.

Attracting better people into teaching is not a problem that presidents have created, and they are not likely to fix it. The problem isn't money (teachers are actually rather well paid). The mediocrity of the teaching profession is a direct result of teacher certification (a process that dumbs down their requirements), teacher union rules and other non-federal aspects of the profession.

Ditto for "making college more affordable." Colleges are ripping people off. I visited a local university recently looking for a language textbook for French. The text being used in the French 101 class was $90 used. I was in shock (even though I've known for sometime based on other indicators that college was reaching the point of diminishing returns). I can go to Barnes and Nobel and get a wonderful French grammar for under twenty bucks. So why can't the university locate texts for their students that cost less than $90? And that's just one text for one class. One soon realizes that it would be cheaper simply to go to France.
"Try to prevent the country from becoming the slaves of faceless corporations, serving ever more powerful billionaires." Huh? Is Obama going to make it illegal to become a billionaire in the largest free market country? Would you have the billionaires move elsewhere? And what does it mean to say a corporation is "faceless"? That doesn't even make sense. There's a CEO, he or she has a face, is usually rather well known, etc. And a large corporation employs and benefits thousands of people who also have faces. (This is the fantasy land element peeking through.)

I started my comments saying I liked Obama generally. I like his intelligence and candor and optimism. I do think, as you do, that he might be the mediator figure that the country could sorely use. Notice how my comments were greeting by things like "right-wingers" and "rethugs," etc.? You see, those folks are not interested in compromise with partisans from other parts of the political spectrum.
If I should decide that Obama is a stealth candidate for the sanctimonious lefter-than-thou crowd then McCain will have my vote. But actually Obama seems to be the real deal. I'm keeping an open mind.
Wish some of the friends here at Huff would join me.

[dartagnan]

Fantasy land? I would say believing, as right-wingers do, that tax cuts are the answer to all problems at home and permanent war is the answer to all problems abroad is living in fantasy land.

[Billie]

This whole cult of personality thing is pretty funny, especially coming from a country that absolutely worships celebrities and sports stars and is glued to American Idol. We have cult movies. We have cult murderers (Charles Manson). We have cult religions. Marketers are probably conniving as we speak to manipulate the cult thing into a new money-making trend scheme. You can either be a part of a sophisticated crowd that "gets" something and be in a cult of awareness. Or you can be brainwashed, controlled and manipulated. Anyway, regarding the Kool-Aid drinking, I'll take a glass of mine laced with hope over a glass laced with fear & anger any old day.

[WESLEYA17]

I know that some of you remember the Berlin wall and it was torn down. That wall did not keep people in or out. So why do people keep thinking that it will work here in America to solve our immigration problem please stop and get realise we have been looking to Europe and the far east for investment and not developing our own backyard. If this country had done the things that we did for Europe after World War II and Asia,we would have a Hemisphere That would be the Economical power that would rival the world.Both Mexico And Canada and The USA have enough resources to be the most powerful economical force to sustain there on people in there own countries. But no we here in the United States has looked south to Mexico as a cheap vacation and cheap labor and not as a partner to work with to better our hemisphere. So wake up both countries fight together for a better lifestyle for us all.

[AlphaDoc]

Thank you for an excellent post, Mr. Creamer. I must say that I've been extremely pleased to see so many Americans rising to the call of inspiration, standing ready to participate in rebuilding the nation while sharing in the responsibility for their lives and for their country. While there are some who appear to be caught up in irrational gender or race-based loyalties, those who will choose to vote Republican, third party, or who will not vote at all if "their" candidate doesn't win the nomination, I'm hoping most will stand for the good of the country and support the winner of the Democratic race. And I'm hoping that will be Senator Obama.