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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
From Obama's victory speech last night (and not attributable to Deval Patrick):
It is going to take more than big rallies. It's going to require more than rousing speeches. It will also require more than policy papers and positions and Web sites. It is going to require something more, because the problem that we face in America today is not the lack of good ideas. It's that Washington has become a place where good ideas go to die...
... because lobbyists crush them with their money and their influence, because politicians spend too much time trying to score political points and not enough time trying to bridge their differences so we can get something done.
(APPLAUSE)
The problem is that we haven't had leaders who can inspire the American people to rally behind a common purpose and a higher purpose. And this is what we need to change today. This is what's hard, and we know this.
"Leadership, more than anything else, is about mobilizing people into action. People take action when they feel empowered -- when they are inspired."
Thank you, thank you! These words should be repeated on a daily basis to Hillary's supporters... it's not because "she's a woman", or that she does not have enough "experience", that her campaign is not working these days. Hillary and Bill simply are not inspiring enough voters with their same ole game of "politics as usual."
We are not electing the president of Toast Masters if you want inspiration go to San Francisco and attend a Sunday service at Glide Memorial Church. I want someone who will not parrot right wing talking points about Social Security, Universal Health Care, and Unions.
I am from the Toastmaster crowd and a few of their tips could help Hillary right now.
Every good politician- should take/have knowledge of public speaking and Toastmasters is great place to start. She will not get to doing the things she wants, without appealing realistically to the people who can get her there. Kudos for Toaastmasters!
http://manchestersquare.blogspot.com
Obama has tapped into a deep vein in American culture, the need to believe in ourselves again. When he says "we are the change we have been waiting for", he melts himself into this gathering force and any competitor who trivializes that impulse in effect tells his growing numbers of supporters...you do no count, what you beleive in has no merit, your are immaterial to the process of governance. That in turn locks into a deeper sentiment that is at the bedrock of the American experience, goverment of the people, by the people and for the people. Obama is the first politican in a long time who has invited the people to the table... nothing is making for a more historical elction than that. Competitors, beware of how you fight this candidacy, lest your critique also singe his supporters.
villifying not because he inspires but because Obama is an empty suit!
I am a democrat, have been all of my voting life, yet this year I will vote for McCain because I want a person that has experience in the ways of Washington.
Fancy slogans don't do it for me..you'd think this country would have had enough of "on the job training" with George W Bush.
So you are willing to throw away all the democratic party ideals to put in a politician that in part of the problem with our government? Experience like Mccain and Clinton has equates to entrenchment that does not know how to do anything else other that what they have been doing for the past 30 years.
Just compare how Obama has run his campaign compared to other candidates. His campaign has been superior and proof that he has the best management skills of the whole group. He has shown himself to be a superior strategist, which is a skill that we are going to need in these times. His legislative record, his civil rights work, and his keen knowledge of grassroots organizing has been dismissed by his opponents but if you do the research you will find that he has dealt with issues as non-proliferation, veterans issues, government transparency, comprehensive immigration, Senate ethics, military appropriations, child protection in regards to toxins, and much, much more.
If you are ready to throw away your democratic principles for someone who embraces Bush and all he stands for, that is your right, but it doesn't make sense.
do you know ANYTHING at all about someone before you dismiss them as "an empty suit?" Try reading his books, or go to his website, or read a Washington post article about his legislative achievements. or got to the library of congress website thomas.loc.gov and look up the bills he has sponsored.
then compare that to your candidate-- he stacks up against any of them in the most important area that guarantees all others...he has fought to instill some INTEGRITY to government.
Once again it looks like we will get the leader we deserve. A guy who looks good, talks good but has no acomplishments whatso ever. Mr. Creamer compares Obama with Robert Kennedy and I have heard comparisons with JFK in regards to his inspiring hope and energizing the base and comparing that with what the Republicans have done. Picking candidates who look good and sound good. That has worked out well. 8 years of incompancy. People seem to forget that JFK had years of experience first as a congessman then as a senator before he was elected. RFK worked for the justice department for years and had 3 years as his brothers sounding board in the White House. What does Obama have? Few years as state senator then 2 years as a senator, and now he is ready to lead the free world? You know, democracy is a great thing but when you vote like it is popularity contest, then we all lose. People are not voting with their heads but with their hearts. They did that during the last two elections and we ended up with George W Bush. How has that worked out for everyone? A bad war, a bad economy, and a world that no longer respects us. Definitely, lets vote for someone else who promises the world but by all indications doesn't know how to deliver it. With all that is going wrong with the world, lets definitely try out the guy who is going to need probably 2 years just to learn the job. Thats a great idea, just because he talks pretty, he has promised us change. How will he accomplish it? Oh I know, everybody is just going to roll over for him. The lobbist, the beauracracy, the Republicans, his fellow Democrats, they will all roll over and let him make all these changes, whether they like it or not. We are so screwed.
Presicely why there should qualifier tests at the polls. Anyone who wants to stick a feather in the hat of the Nutjob Express after years of Republikan rule must be missing something important above the eyebrows.
A life-long democrat who is willing to vote for someone who is has changed his stance on torture, and is admittedly weak on the economy (probably our biggest up-coming crisis), is anti-abortion and committed to staying in Iraq, and at war for a hundred years is not thinking clearly.
Who are the ""serious progressive writers" who are attacking Obama?
The way things are going, there will be no choice soon, only Obama. If he wins any or all of the upcoming states our chances to have Hillary Clinton in the white house will have gone by the boards.
It's my consciousness to try in this time to learn more about Obama, because he'll get my vote in November, regardless of what anyone's opinion of him is.
I, like a lot of democrats, have had my heart set on a Hillary Clinton presidency. Now that's changed.
All the blogs that are currently being written about why we should nominate Obama will have to be changed to why we should elect him over McCain.
We've got to get a democrat into the white house, for the sake of future judges, the economy, war, the fattening of the rich and the restoration of dignity.
So you can all stop telling everyone now why they shouldn't vote for Hillary, and start telling people why they should vote for Obama.
He's now our man now. Let's go!
So right on. It is about the inspiration, not the policy details. The president cannot single-handedly enact any policy, regardless of the details. What he or she has to do is move masses, in Congress and in the nation, to support his/her policies. Anyone can hire some experts to draft a policy. The politics is in the inspiration and this is where the public sees that Obama is the winner. The Clintons have not been inspirational; they failed miserably for 20 years to move a majority of people to embrace Democratic values. Obama can do that. And that is why we need him.
I am sorry, you are so wrong. It is not about the inspiration. Inspiration is what gave us George W Bush for 8 years. Do you remember, "Compassionate Conservitism". How has that worked out for you? Let's see, under the Clintons, years of economic growth, most fighting a Republican congress. A balanced budget, the rebuilding of Social security after Reagan had destroyed it. Maybe they weren't inspirational, but they got results. Have you ever wondered why the Republicans hated the Clintons so much? It was because Bill ran the country so much better than they ever could and everytime they thought he was going to fall flat on his face, he came up smelling like a rose.Lets ask a question, when you invest money, do you invest it with the guy who gives the pretty speech or with the guy who has a track record of making his investors money but he is as dull as dishwater?Wall Street is full of guys who talk a good game but I'm giving my money to Warren Buffet.
Good piece. Said what needed to be said.
By attacking Obama, the Clintons have unmasked themselves, and shown voters that they are really nothing more than Republicans in Democratic clothing.
Bob Creamer's idealistic, and almost romantic, reviews ignore the gross reality of our current system of governing. It is money that exerts the strongest argument. Or just plain absurdity and greed.
Overheard in the Oval Office in 2010
“Mister President, we are running out of troops for our war against France. What do we do?’
President McCain smiled satisfied. He was used by now to the constant need for reinforcements on the 14 wars he was waging. Regan and Bush Jr. would be proud of him! He thought that his mandate was being the success few people suspected in 2008. The invasion of Iran had gone well, same as the annexation of Lebanon, Turkey, Greece, Malta, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. His appointment of Lou Dobbs as Secretary of State had led to an immediate solution of the immigration problem. Dobbs had arranged for the return of the entire Southwest, California, Oregon, Washington and Colorado to Mexico. The new president had solved the economic crisis by abandoning the dollar in favor of the Sino-US new Euro, backed up by Bill Gates and old Man Buffett. He declared war against Canada when they refused to extend their Health Care system to the US, but fortunately the war did not last long. Nuclear weapons are a strong argument. He avoided war against Russia by returning Alaska and convincing Australia to accept new immigration waves from Mother Russia. His wars against Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Paraguay and the Falkland Islands had ended in resounding victories. Their occupation was being handled by Paul Bremer and Mickey Brown.
He had immersed himself in a review of the victorious benchmarks of his mandate that he did not noticed the Secretary of Defense still standing in front of the desk with his steel helmet still on his head. He replied:
“Send another battalion of our Woman’s Army plus the High School troops from Rhode Island, Maine and New Jersey!”
I have to agree largely with what Mr. Cramer has said. I do think Kerry and to an extent, Howard Dean began tapping into a profound discontent in American politics.
Obama has built on it and has 'captured the wave.' Obama votes like a liberal progressive, but he's post-progressive as well. I think he's trying to move beyond binary labels like liberal and conservative which often shut down genuine debate and conversations about perplexing and complex issues.
The nation needs a serious conversation and dialogue about some kind of universal health care. The current system does not work. Free market unbridled capitalism hasn't worked, but the socialist answers have failed too. Somehow we need a new vision, a new way of constructing a new New Deal for America. The old New Deal of FDR has run its course. But, it's not an either or proposition, keep on trying to make the progressivism of the postWWII generation work or abandon it completely in for neo-liberal capitalism and unregulated corporate greed that raids the pensions of white collar and blue collar workers.
Obama is inspirational. I think he might inspire us to new heights of creative, flexible thinking as we all join to think beyond the current paradigms offered to us. It's not clear what the new paradigm will be but we're all being invited to participate and that is exceedingly powerful. I don't see him as having all the answers, but I do see him as asking the right questions and inspiring us to look together at what some of the answers and solutions might be to those new questions.
HRC and McCain are still asking the old questions and they are no longer relevant ones. They're so busy tweaking the old model of politics in the fine details that they don't see the forest for the trees. The world has moved on, but neither of them have.
Obama is the real thing and Hillary cannot beat him by attacking his cult ofpersonality.
After all. Her personality is one that moderates and conservatives detest to the point that a Clinton candidacy would be the best get out the vote for McCain possible.
On the other hand.
While Obama is not precise on details, he has shown clear enough that he is probably more liberal than even progressives.
In the general election as his policies continue and clarify to the general public that he is totally and completely and absolutely a progressive liberal. And not ashamed of it.
The moderates will abandon him in droves.
Kerry did not lose on the flip flopping issue.
Kerry lost when he said "I will give control of our military to the U.N." during the second debate.
He backpedaled and clarified what he meant. But at that moment he lost any chance with even the moderate Democrats.
In additon, lets face it. The grassroots conservatives got out a hell of a lot of votes for GWB.
The second part won't happen this election cycle. McCain won't enthuse a grassroots movement and Obama will.
But the first part will doom Obama to McCain. McCain will get the *soft* Democrats as Obama's complete progressive policies are clarified for them.
No moderate Republicans will cross over for a far left Obama, moderate Democrats will for a McCain.
Excellent piece of summing up Robert!
All leaders must have the ability to inspire people and give them hope!
Give me a break Oli! Compare Obama to Bush...your kidding right?
Looks like the McCain Camp is going to go for the "not experienced" tactic. Guess they are not paying attenion to whats happening with the Democratic primaries...Go for it I say! Go for it.
For all you who are not up to snuff with his experience...here you go. Scroll past his personal stuff if it doesnt interest you but you will find his leadership and politcal experience impressive.
copy & paste:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/g/wiki/Barack_Obama
:
America was founded by great orator/statesmen.
And we are starved for an IQ-bearing Leader.
So praise the dumbing-down you so loved,
Republicans.
We are moving on.
:
Did you mean to say an uneducated george bush who bought his Ivy degree?
Does anyone remember the 2000 race?
does anyone remember feeling any anxiety over an inexperienced george bush becoming president?
and what was the result??
Your, frankly, irrelevant, A = B = C attempt at transitive analysis is speciously filled with innuendo, unstated and incorrect premises and flawed for at least two very important reasons:
A: Obama does not equal Bush by any stretch of the imagination, either in lack of relevant, non-privileged experience, nor more importantly the kind of PERSON that he is at the core.
B: Obama would not be brining with him the same ideas, policies and ideals of the poisonous cabal of Neocons who were well known in their destructive foreign policy views, the religious right who are well know in their destructive social views and their secular counterparts, those economists who are as slavishly devoted to the "religion" of "free markets" that have continued the Reagan - Bush - Clinton policies that have dismantled progressive social policies and continued the growing threat of ultra-rich corporatists to the functioning of our Democratic Republic.
ergo . . .
C: The result will be no where near the same and can only be better.
Now if you'd like to return to the current RELAVANT point of who would be better for the Democratic Party and the nation of Clinton vs. Obama vs. McCain, please feel free.
I don't think people really have a choice who to vote for if every decent candidate has been run out of town by Obama fantasy people and the media. So if the corrupt republicans are running I guess there's the possibility they will occupy the White House again. Poor dumb Democrats.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
