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

[fedupinBushcountry]

I agreewith you mostly but I respectfully disagree with your using a taxi cab driver as a point that John Kerry did not inspire. Sorry but you are wrong.

I was never involved in politics until 2003 when I came across JohnKerry.com and then I started listening to him and researching etc. He is the one that inspired me to be active again, he inspired me and my kids to actually act like citizens again and to actually trust a politician.

The inspiration started 4+ years ago and Obama (who I support) just grabbed hold of a ground swell that has been in the making for the last 4 years.

You also forget John Kerry was running against GWB and that John Kerry swept in the primaries as Barack is now doing.

I didn't fold up and blame after '04, I continued fighting for what was right and so did John Kerry. He is still showing his leadership and inspiration by being a fantastic advocate for Obama.

[Phytoresearcher]

I will take inspiration over lies, hope over hype, charisma over corruption, optimism over hate and fear, and inexperience over manipulation and deceit any day.

[AnotherTry]

Where were you in 2000?

[VandeMark]

Obama's Strong Psyche

When Steve Croft of 60 Minutes, challenged Sen. Barack Obama with "The only thing that you've actually run was the Harvard Law Review!" The young leader stammered "Well, I've run my Senate office and I've run this campaign." Big deal, right? Actually, a very big deal.

In less than one year Obama can count on: 700 paid employees, hundreds of thousands of volunteers, 750,000 contributors and $1,000,0000 a day in funding. Mitt Romney, take notes!

Columnists have harped on Obama's oratory. But his political instincts are just as deft. His counter punches have been brilliant in their restraint and his timing, superb. When Mrs. Clinton showed strength at the polls, Obama rolled out a surprising endorsement.

What's most impressive is Obama's deft management of his own psyche.

Croft: "Are you the same person that you were one year ago?"
Obama: "I don't think I've... gotten too secrewed up through the process" Obama chuckled, "It turns out even under this kind of stress I've got a pretty even temperament. I don't get too high I don't get too low." The even temper may be the result of a certain level of detachment. This is a trait that another political genius demonstrated amply, Ronald Reagan.

One of his habits -- exercise, is another of the 20 traits of a very distinct minority -- highly healthy temperaments. "I've held up pretty good. But I've been religious about getting my exercise", which for the lanky 46-year old is basketball.

Obama enunciated a third trait -- he did a reality check on himself before entering the race, "I had to think about this long and hard, at the beginning of this process and say, are you deluding yourself..­. And I decided you know that i might just might be able to pull it off... a year later the jury is still out but we seem to be stirring up things pretty good." Obama then gave one of his modest but knowing smiles.

[Ono4Hoopono]

Great assessment and examples of his emotional intelligence, and there are many fine examples to choose from. Just watch any time an interviewer tries to pop one on him in a sound bite trap, he is very quick witted, and is not easily knocked off balance. That is the sign of someone who is comfortable in their skin, and knows what they believe and when someone is trying to push their buttons. The fewer emotional buttons someone has, the higher their degree of emotional intelligence. Obama has done the inner reflection, and it shows. How unbelievably refreshing.

[americansheep]

Folks, temper your expectations. It's going to take 1.5, maybe 2.5 terms to undo the last eight years. We're talking about a major reclamation project. A simpler, fairer health care system, for example, might be feasable but will be difficult to pay for when the country is technically broke. All that said Robert Creamer wrote an excellent post.

[Principe]

Spot on - the idea that Obama is about to reframe America as a progressive nation is several hundreds of miles ahead of itself. Yes, he looks like the most electable Democrat, so he should get the nod, but beyond that, let's calm the hell down. Will he charge straight for the centre the day he gets the nomination? Quite possibly. If he stays more progressive, will he get his butt kicked as a liberal wierdo versus a safe pair of hands? Du-ka-kis. If he runs as a progressive, and wins, what will he actually achieve with unflagging enemies, a bankrupt government and a recession to cope with?

Why is everyone looking to the skies for Superman? He's a politician, flesh and bones and compromises and fudges and disappointments.

[Hawise]

Don't harsh their mellow. The knives will come out soon enough, the budgets will have to be written eventually, the civil service revitalized, the military fixed and rested, infrastructure repaired on a shoestring budget,the legislators' promises will start to clash with his and the fact that many of the things that he has promised are really state responsibilities will surface. Right now he is shiny and new like a freshly minted penny. He'll be scuffed, tarnished and spent soon enough.

[SKayum]

But here's the thing. If you go back to that cab driver and ask him what he thinks of Obama, he will most likely say that he's a true inspiration. He'll say it with conviction but he'll also say it with the same kind of "proof" that backed up his belief that Kerry is a flip flopper and Bush is a good, tough guy who stands up for what he believes.

It's all rhetoric. It's all freaking rhetoric.

And a true inspirational leader doesn't fucking tell you he's inspirational.

[Herrington]

Less than a third of Boomers even knew, weren’t of age to know, what was happening when JFK was assassinated. But the electricity was in the air. We inherited the expectations. MLK and RFK kept it alive. In some ways, I can imagine that the sixties would have been just more of the same without a national figure that pointed to a higher path, to the possibility of a world that made the heart swell with expectations.

Many years have passed and many have never know a reality of leadership. To the vast majority of Americans, it has been Nixon to Bush 2. Each party grinding away in secret, and sometimes openly, at the agenda of the opposition. Or it has been your boss, brandishing authority to beat you into grit teeth enthusiasms for yet another business objective. This is the world you know.

When the story book values on which we are weaned are all grown up, and show themselves in the character and demeanor of someone, anyone, on the street, in the line at the bank, on the job, a cop or even a criminal that draws a line of decency that will not be crossed, it lifts you. When they appear, out of nowhere, and they capture the imaginations of these millions that were given to believe that this is what life should be like, we falter? Do we so fear ourselves to be wrong that we lose the opportunity to be right?

[JackTar]

All politicians have learned from Karl Rove: Go after your opponent's strength. Who gives a damn whether that opponent is the best thing for America? Tear his or her ass down.

The difference with the Democrats is they don't really know how to do it. Karl would slay Obama's oratory with one phrase: He's a flim-flam man. Or a carpetbagger (that would get the Southern idiots riled!).

[skycontrol]

The Hillary & “Bill in a China Shop” show is in freefall.
There are two stages before political irrelevancy.
First the politician becomes the object of derision and then they become the object of pity. That is where HRC finds herself.
Hey, call me silly, but doesn’t her campaign remind you of the war in Iraq.
Bush was fixated on winning Baghdad, thinking that constituted victory and gave little thought to the aftermath.
HRC was fixated on winning Super Tuesday, feeling confident that she would have it wrapped up by then, so why bother with the caucus states.
Bush thought that the Iraqi people wanted democracy but what they really wanted was security.
HRC thought the American people wanted experience, but what they really wanted was change.
Bush thought that since he had the support of the Chalabis the support of the Iraqi people would follow.
HRC thought that if she had the support of the Rangels and Youngs, she would have the support of a core constituency.
Both Bush and HRC can be faulted for hiring people based on loyalty and a distant, secondarily, competence.
Neither Bush nor HRC can be accused of admitting to error.
Neither can be accused of humility.
Both feel that if you are not with them, you are against them.
Bush calls his enemies evil.
HRC threatens to “demonize” those who question her wisdom.
All of this is so old school!
Well a political Tsunami is sweeping across this land and I am reminded of a Dylan line, “Something is happening here and you don’t know what it is, do you Mr. Jones!”

Skycontrol 02/20/08

[Pneumaticus]

This mushroom of support for Oprama smacks of groupies gone wild.

[Kenkap]

Finally,
Someone who understands. Bravo Robert Creamer! For a long time I wanted the Democratic Party and Progressives to understand the need to reframe the narrative. That mythic thinking and ability to create vision were central to success.

I am a storyteller and a folklorist and Robert Creamer has hit the nail on the head squarely. For all of you who don't get his point, who think about Obama as "airy fairy", you have missed Obama's greatness in his ability to reframe the entire process. A man who says "we must also change the MIND SET that lead us into this war" understands the crucial role narrative plays. I have been waiting for a Progresive leader to get this for years. Obama understands how to forcefully move us out of the Republican fear mongering narrative. Which Clinton is still mired in (voting for Iran's guard as a terrorist organization).

BTW, for those of you that think Obama is not ready on "day one", guess whose plan, derided months ago as stupid, just worked in Pakistan? As reported in todays Huffpost issue.

A guy who has put this kind of field operation together is very savvy. If he wins the nomination, he will grind McCain to dust.

Bet on it.

[Herrington]

Very well said. It is the argument that needs to change, because as it has been cast, nobody wins. It takes brilliance, but more, to see that and effect a change in it. The more, is the character to not fall prey to prolonging the same game.

You may have seen it in your own life. There are people that want to solve problems and those that are vested in the existence of the problem. I have seen it over and over as an engineer. Some people are afraid to complete a project because that means they are out of a job. The only way to progress is to change the terms of the problem and push past a stalemate.

And you know, the people who drag their feet and generally solve nothing protest the loudest that they are the best at solving problems.

[Zipperupus]

I've been writing about this as well...wit­hout the clarity that Creamer brings to the argument. Thank you, Mr. Creamer.

We need to change the narrative in this nation. We have been a nation divided and polatized and ready to attack one another. We believe the differences are unassailable. Further, we believe that government is inherently evil but an oligarchy (free enterpirse) is inherently good. We believe that taxation is inherently evil, but market fluctuation (taxation without representation) is inherently good.

We have been gamed and conned and wedged for over 40 years. The time has come to change the narrative, and Obama is a catalyst for that change.

Example:

Obama wants to abolish the payroll cap on FICA withholdings. THis is tantamount to a tax increase. He hasn't been excoriated on this at all. He framed the debate around the preservation of Social Security and Medicare, and managed to avoid the dreaded "tax and spend" mantra. This, more than anything else, convinced me that he is the candidate for our times.

I have thought clearly about this situation for four years. I knew from the start that Hillary was the wrong candidate because she merely continues the national divisions and participates in the old big government debate that has plagued us for a generation. Hers was a candidacy that would attack the messengers but uphold the message.

I don't want to attack the messengers. Messengers are people with families. This isn't about hating them... it is about reconciliation and fixing the mistakes of a fear-based narrative.

Obama 08

[kmdippenger]

Interesting, all day long political pundits discussed the political savvy of the voters in Wisconsin. Now with most votes counted, not only has Obama received 13 -15% more votes than Clinton, but the statistics of total votes, new votes etc etc show that Obama is the reason for the huge turnout. Now I see what they were talking about in regards to the voter... Thank you Wisconsin!

[Chocolate2008]

You are welcome.

:)

On Wisconsin !

On Obama !

Go Pack Go!

[Herrington]

Go Pack, the people's team.

[patriotscholar]

I saw a post on here, can't remember who wrote it, that said, "Hillary Clinton has nothing that Obama can't learn. But Obama has something that Hillary can never learn", referring to his eloquence.

[thatvisionthing]

Not just his eloquence -- his wisdom, his instincts. Hillary wants to do things for us, to us. She's top down, a controller, a dispenser. For all that, she's never really been a leader. Arianna called her on her political instinct for "followers­hip." Keep shopping. Barack on the other hand is bottom up, he wants to involve people, give them a chance to bloom and participate and cooperate and like each other and help each other. What a relief. We are better than expectations allow us to be. We can all do more and need a chance to plug in.

[zor2008]

Tomorrow the NYTimes is getting ready to report that Former President Bill Clinton is ready to endorse his wife's political opponent, Barack Obama. Mr. Clinton will say that Barack Obama "is the right candidate who will be ready on day one to lead this country back to reality. He is the one who has come, and we are ready to go where he takes us."

Mr. Clinton had been holding off his endorsement of Mr. Obama until the Wisconsin blowout in which his fading wife's presidential bid seemed to be heading towards two simple truths: she (Mrs. Clinton) cannot win the Democratic nomination, and her political career even as a senator from New York is all but over as she and her husband face political marginality in the 21st century of American politics. Sadly, Mrs. Clinton met her political Waterloo in New Hampshire last month, when some goofy housewives fell for her teary-eyed soul-searching by propping up her delusions of electability and giving her a glimmer of fleeting hope in her own destiny during the last days of the Clinton's wheezy political machine. Give it up, Hill, it ain't gonne work.

[zor2008]

Tomorrow the NYTimes is getting ready to report that Former President Bill Clinton is ready to endorse his wife's political opponent, Barack Obama. Mr. Clinton will say that Barack Obama "is the right candidate who will be ready on day one to lead this country back to reality. He is the one who has come, and we are ready to go where he takes us."

Mr. Clinton had been holding off his endorsement of Mr. Obama until the Wisconsin blowout in which his fading wife's presidential bid seemed to be heading towards two simple truths: she (Mrs. Clinton) cannot win the Democratic nomination, and her political career even as a senator from New York is all but over as she and her husband face political marginality in the 21st century of American politics. Sadly, Mrs. Clinton met her political Waterloo in New Hampshire last month, when some goofy housewives fell for her teary-eyed soul-searching by propping up her delusions of electability and giving her a glimmer of fleeting hope in her own destiny during the last days of the Clinton's wheezy political machine. Give it up, Hill, it ain't gonne work.

[satyr9us]

An incredibly good and timely piece of writing. Kudos, Mr. Creamer.