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

[mmerose]

Excellent, Mr Creamer. A main theme of the Bush regime has been aggressively to exclude and to disempower the People. In that context, just the core message from Obama including the word "We" has substance, and is a key distinction from the Clinton message, "I can." Obama says a mouthful when he states the goal of "changing the mindset" that got us into Iraq. The secrecy, sophistry, inability to admit error, and "stay the course" mentality of the Clinton approach are very much a continuation of the Bush philosophy.

I also think we should be paying more attention to the DLC, the Clinton brainchild based on the idea that closer coordination with corporations and their money would level the playing field between the Democrats and the Republicans. This expresses a valuation of power for power's sake, and the use of money to manipulate the People, not to inspire them.

In an extension of this argument that being inspirational is a bad thing, Chris Matthews was advising the Clintons to attack Obama as "Mr Perfect" a few days ago. Are we really supposed to worry that Obama would be more acceptible if he were a more boring speaker, if he were shorter, if he had just managed the top fifty of his law school class instead of making Law Review Editor? The old saying, durned if ya do, durned if ya don't comes to mind.

The corollary, of course, is exhorting people to vote for Clinton because she's not too outstanding. Great.

Meanwhile, one observes the evolution of the Clinton theme from starting that "conversation with America" to "words are cheap." I think that illustrates an underlying absence of meaning, indeed.

[Thatcher]

The American people (and the world) want to feel more positive about the USA. Whether you agreed with Ronald Reagan or not - he was a person who inspired confidence in America and America, for the most part, felt it was on the right path. Same with JFK, FDR and Bill Clinton.

Whereas, no matter what your feelings were for Nixon, Carter, Bush (both of them), LBJ - for the most part, America didn't feel they were on the right path.

Part of all this was their administration of the office of the Presidency. But, in large part, it was due to their personalities and their ability to inspire. All Presidents make mistakes, all falter, all have obstacles. It's what they do with them, what they do to move past them, what they do to empower Americans and the world that people perceive them as greater than those who have come before them.

If you want to see how someone will manage the country - look to how they are managing their campaign. Is it unifying, is it empowering, is it uplifting in nature? Or is it old-style politicking, back-room deals, bend your opinion to fit the situation?

To borrow from Reagan's successful campaign advertisement - "It's morning in American" ... if we want it to be.

[Pyrum]

Hitler inspired people, too. Now I'm not saying Obama is another Hitler, but I am saying the ability to inspire people alone is not an indicator of a great leader. If a political figure's oratory skills are not backed up with honesty, integrity and a genuine desire to help their fellow citizens, then that figure IS "nothing but words" and that's exactly how I see Obama.

[Thatcher]

Pyrum - what in Obama's life points to the opposite of what he is talking about in his speeches?

And I am not saying that either McCain or Clinton are the "great evil", either. Everyone has their vision on what the country should be. But I am asking specifically (since you brought it up) what in Obama's past points to your opinion that his speeches are empty promises and that his background doesn't support his speeches.

[Pyrum]

Obama voted in favor of reauthorizing the Patriot Act and funding the Iraq war. Obama is a Council on Foreign Relations member and a 32nd degree freemason. Obama was a relatively unknown rookie Senator when he threw his hat in the ring and was embraced by the mainstream media and immediately given "top-tier" presidential candidate status. Obviously, his strings are being pulled, and not by the average American voters he's so effectively "inspired."

[truesoccermom]

Obama has the intellect, the judgment, and the integrity to go along with his ability to inspire. We can't ask for a better leader.

[denicast]

You guys stop bringing up Hitler. Just stop. You know its an unfair comparison, but you still bring it up. Just stop it.

If you bother to do any research maybe and just paid attention a bit more, you will realize that it took a lot more than oratory skills to accomplish the things he has done. He has run the cleanest, well-run campaign in my lifetime. His legislative record involves government transparency, ethics, and election reform. He has real life on the ground experience in grassroots organizing. Grassroots organizing is tough and being good at it requires a genuine desire to help people.

You are welcome to see what you want to see, or whatever his opponents want you to see. I chose to base my support on reality.

[Heartlander]

I agree that the progressive movement needs inspirational leaders. Does the ability to inspire the general populace, however, inevitably translate into ability to lead the national government in progressive directions?

[mmerose]

Yes, because a big popular vote win still counts for something, no matter how much our "democracy" has
faded. It is not "just words" that the inspirational candidate will also boost the vote for the legislators needed to implement change.

Only a very mediocre person, who somehow was still inspirational, would then be unable to execute the leadership part. Is there anything mediocre about Barack Obama?

[Heartlander]

Ronald Reagan was judged to be "inspirational" yet he, in my opinion, was a President who failed to use his popularity to implement any changes to put the country on a more united path. George W. Bush was a more "popular" candidate than his Democratic rivals, yet he has been a highly divise President.

I suppose that "popular" and "inspirational" Democrats are not, in general, immune from the same phenomenon. I have no idea if there is anything mediocre about Obama. It seems to me that what has propelled his campaign is his oratory and ability to inspire. I have tried to learn about his career in Illinois politics and in his short time in the US Senate, but his record does not seem to me to be all that clear.

[MPeter]

The Clintons have shown America just how evil they can get. They are a merciless, corrupt and crooked couple that will go down the gutter to win. Seeing how puffy and pink they can get with anger because Obama is brilliant and inspiring should give us reason to think again why we want these people back. They are a tired, old and angry bunch that will only send America down the abyss. Stop them before they kill off whatever is left of this country. We cannot survive another depressing and divisive administration after Bush.

[BadChristian]

Some communities in the United states are used to being told that our experiences don't count, because we're just the "mob" in mob rule. That's why we have the electoral college. It's not new.

Some baseball players are like ty Cobb and Joe Jackson, some aren't in that league.

But, we don't want to accuse suburban and rural people of having developed a sense of entitlement to the urban centers, or ignoring places like the ninth ward, while crying crocodile tears for places in other continents... It might suggest that certain communities are less equal, because they're not privileged to the "Networking" of other communities.

It ain't what you know, it's who ya' know, that makes a great American. Just ask the "Super Delegates." They'll tell you all about it.

[AnotherTry]

But it is nothing but words. And the cult of personality fits because of how the MSM has decided Obama good, Clinton bad.

[consultant55]

I guess everyone should stop reading, because according to you, it's just all words.

[Pyrum]

AnotherTry is right, it IS just all words. If that bothers you, maybe you should stop reading.

[editrix66]

No, I think so far the voters have made choices in this matter. HRC has lost 8 states in a row. But the MSM is pretty incompetent, and their reporting is not all pro-Obama. They have allowed her charges of "empty rhetoric" and "inexperience" to go uninvestigated. All the media does is pontificate. Why don't they analyze what the 35 years actually mean? (So it's ok to go back to when she was 25 years old, but Obama is supposed to only count his U.S. senate term as "experience.")What is the real difference in their healthcare plans? I think the media has been faulty in reporting both sides of the campaign. They are excited about the horse race, but that is all they want to report on. How much time was spent on that stupid "plagiarism" charge, HRC's crying in New Hampshire? Yes, both of these issues will have enormous impacts on the country.