Obama: Hope for a Change

Seems like everyone has advice for the Obama campaign. Democrats grouse in the New York Times that he better start putting "meat on the bones" of his hope and change rhetoric. Paul Krugman sensibly calls for some passion on the economy. Even Mark Penn, fresh off his incandescent performance in Hillary Clinton's run, agrees, sort of.

With Democrats racking up double digit leads in party ID, and what Republicans call their "brand" debased, McCain is running basically even with Obama in the polls. No wonder folks are starting to get worried.

This isn't time for hemlock. Imagine if, a year ago, someone had bet you that a black anti-war candidate named Barack Obama, barely three years into national office, would be running neck and neck with John McCain for the presidency. Not many of us would have put our money down. That said, there is significant cause for concern.

Part of the reason that McCain is still in this race is that, to date, the campaign has been almost entirely a referendum on Barack Obama. The Obama campaign has been focused on reassuring people that they should feel comfortable voting for a young African American with a funny name. The McCain campaign, once Rove's minions took over, has been focused on scaring people from voting for what they paint as the inexperienced celebrity with a funny name and a mysterious past. Obama's campaign foolishly discouraged support for independent expenditure committees. No one is really talking about McCain. Obama wins a race that is a choice; he could lose one that's simply a referendum on him.

And this is part of why people think Obama hasn't really said anything beyond "hope and change." In fact, he's put out detailed policy papers on all range of subjects, readily available on his web site. He's devoted many speeches to detailing different policies. But he's done very little clear contrast with McCain -- and it is the contrast -- the contesting of ideas and direction that gives a sense of passion and of substantial differences.

People -- most of whom will only start paying attention with the conventions -- want to know what he is for. Not what his policy positions are. But what he will stand and fight for. Where his steel is. And how that relates to the challenges they face. None of this is helped when he retreats on issues like trade or flips as on the wiretap legislation. But none can be determined without drawing a forceful contrast with McCain and taking him on.

McCain, of course, is a perfect setup for contrast, since he's offering mostly more of the same Bush policies that have proved so calamitous -- more top end tax cuts that have generated the slowest growth in sixty years and contributed to Gilded Age inequality, more corporate trade policies that have hemorrhaged manufacturing jobs and left us dependent on the kindness of Chinese central bankers, more billions devoted to the debacle in Iraq, etc. John McCain, same old, same old.

So why hasn't Obama gone after him? Why haven't we seen some populist fire so clearly in order?

Part of this is surely self-restraint. Obama, the essence of post-modern cool, wants to avoid appearing to be "an angry black man." And he clearly sees that as central to what has contributed to his remarkable success.

Part of this, I suspect, is a strategic choice. Obama had the same test in three primaries against Hillary (Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana): convince white workers that you understand their plight and that you will fight for them. He failed it in each occasion.

Now this is a brilliant and remarkably talented leader, both thoughtful and skilled rhetorically. He is not a person who flunks tests. So I suspect he chose not to pass them because he had another strategy in mind. Seeking to assemble to a broader suburban, upscale, independent, young, disaffected Republican coalition, he may have decided that a more populist posture would cost him as many votes as it attracted.

If so, this is a mistake. Obama is winning about 75% of self-described Democrats. He's doing fine with women, including former Hillary supporters, contrary to all the posturing. He's got to consolidate older and white working class Democrats. They want to know whether he will stand up for them. And they have good reason to be suspicious. It's not simply race, although that is surely part of it. Obama is the epitome of an urban professional, a man whose success, education and life sets him apart. Ask Al Gore and John Kerry, the resulting cultural suspicion would apply even if he were white.

On the other hand, showing folks that he would fight for them won't alienate the broader, new coalition that he's trying to assemble. Women, the young, independents, older Americans, disaffected Republicans -- all are concerned about the economy, all think we're deeply off course, all are looking for a dramatic change. Putting an edge on the contrast between his policies and McCain's would help, not impede, assembling that coalition.

Moreover, Obama needn't abandon his cool to bring some heat to the campaign. He simply needs to use his rhetorical gifts to sharpen the contrast between McCain's old and failed agenda and his own.

For example, McCain has sought to make trade a centerpiece of his campaign, even stumping in Mexico and Canada in support of NAFTA. Obama should take him up on this -- but he needn't imitate the populism of a Bernie Sanders or Sherrod Brown, as successful as that is, to make his point. McCain is frozen in an old fraudulent debate about free trade against protectionism. Obama should dismiss that as a fool's choice.

The reality is that our corporate trade policies -- of by and for global corporations and banks -- can't be sustained; they are making us increasingly dependent on the kindness of foreign creditors, like the Chinese bankers.

The challenge is a fundamental one to our society -- how do we sustain a broad and prosperous middle class in a global economy? More of the same won't get that done, as the middle class is now sinking -- despite working harder , longer and with greater productivity than workers in every other industrial country.

We need to start with a clear measure The success of this economy is not whether multinationals are profiting. Corporate profits have reached record levels, but wages have stagnated. The success of an Obama economy will be measured by whether working families are prospering, whether wages are rising, jobs are more secure, health care and education is affordable and available.

For this we need a dramatic change in course. Current trade deals are simply an expression of corporate lobbies. So no more -- until we forge a national strategy that works for working people, not just special interests. A centerpiece of this must be an Apollo Plan for energy independence, a concerted drive, creating jobs here by investing in efficiency and renewable energy, while seeding the research to capture the new green markets of the future. We need to reward companies for keeping jobs here rather than shipping them abroad - unlike McCain's profligate tax breaks for corporations which will reward them no matter where their jobs are going. We have to invest in education and training, in infrastructure and research and development so we can sustain a high wage path in a global economy -- unlike McCain's plan to lavish more tax breaks on the wealthy while cutting investments in vital domestic programs. We have to push for new global rules that raise standards for the environment, workers, consumers and small investors. We have to curb the casino financial speculation which is destabilizing the real economy, contrary to the advice of Phil Gramm, McCain's financial guru who is an officer in UBS, a bank now under investigation illegally abetting billionaires seeking to avoid paying US taxes. And we have to challenge the mercantilist nations like China that are playing by a different set of rules, putting companies on notice that that we will pursue more but balanced trade with Beijing. FInally, we have to make certain that workers capture a fair share of the increased productivity that they have produced. That requires empowering workers to organize. And it requires insuring basic economic rights -- starting with affordable health care -- that aren't at risk if you lose your job.

Can we sustain the foundation of our democracy -- a broad and prosperous middle class -- in the new economy? To meet that challenge, we can't keep digging the hole we are in. And it isn't enough just to stop digging -- although that would be a good start. We've got to chart the way out. And on that, McCain does not have a clue.

Now Obama's rhetorical gifts are far greater than mine. He can make this less abstract, develop it with stories about real struggles. But by expanding the trade question into what it is -- the question of a national strategy in a global economy, he can change the terms of the debate on the future prosperity and security of this country in a manner that McCain simply can't answer. He can draw the contrast by raising the stakes -- and summoning people to challenge the entrenched interests that stand in the way.

Krugman says what is missing is passion. Obama isn't about to become a passionate, kick ass populist rabble rouser. That's not what brought him this far. But he can challenge McCain forcefully -- on trade, on growth, on health care, on Social Security and Medicare, on national security -- in a way that grounds his argument in the struggles of working families. He can draw the contrast between his ability to mobilize the energy of people with McCain's ability to collect checks from special interests. He can show some steel, even while retaining his cool.

There are only a few times when campaigns can retool. The leadup to the Democratic Convention, when Obama got off the campaign trail, is one. The week of the Republican convention is another. After that, the race turns into a sprint, so the basic themes, contrasts, attack lines have to be in place. If Obama is going to sharpen this race, now is the time.

Comments

[pattio66]

"He's got to consolidate older and white working class Democrats." I'm a full-fledged member of the latter demographic. My local Democratic Party office has not responded to repeated e-mail and voice mail attempts to volunteer my time and talents to getting Democrats elected. If the Dems really want to consolidate white working class voters, they need to pull their heads out of their patooties and get it together. Does ANYONE really think the Republicans would ignore people wanting to volunteer?

[research]

Obama, Inspire us again!

Your great speeches won you the primary.

Don't let HRC's mockery stifle you.

[xrmychick]

what in the ever lovin' HELL does HRC have to do with this conversation? um..... NOTHING??!!??

[research]

no offense to Hillary meant. HRC scored a direct hit on Obama during the primaries with her mocking of the angles coming down etc..

Obama stopped giving his great speeches after that.

He needs to get over it.

[CitizenInformed]

Good article. I hope some Obama campaign strategists read this article. The contrasts between the 2 candidates is so huge. Obama does not need to play dirty; just state the facts about the declining middle class thanks to the US tax laws' encouragement of corp globalization. Who's really looking out for US citizens? That's what we want to hear. It's clear it's not the GOP or McCain. But who? How?

[Billie]

it makes me cringe to hear a party calling itself a "brand." Tells you who they really are working for.

[FGAofFLA]

Krugman in the NYTimes and SensibleAmerican's post here have it right in terms of Obama's political positioning thus far. Though I'm a Democrat and a so-called "liberal media" observer, I find it astounding that, once again, the Democratic party nominee's strategy has been to take the high road (and a long vacation in Hawaii to boot -- how elitist is that?!) even while another Swiftboating book arrives on top of the Best Sellers List with a pack of lies and innuendo and smartly written McCain ads define Obama in the most unpalatable terms for those unflinchingly intellectually incurious Independents. All that's left now is for Biden to get the veep nod and start spewing forth with more of his inane policy spiels, and the Republican sharpshooters like Charlie Black will be laughing all the way back into the White House, where their guy will continue to live up to Reagan's prescient claim that "government is the problem."

[LilyMaskew]

If you spent a large chunk of your childhood in Hawaii - then it wouldn't be "elitist." Also, if "government is the problem," don't participate, don't vote - problem not your fault.

[FGAofFLA]

Look, I support Obama, and I suppose you're right to point out that, outside of this little thing we call the election process, going home to Hawaii isn't elitist, if you're from there or not. I simply was imagining how the Republicans would take such appearances (remember what they did to Kerry with windsurfing excursion) and distort them for those who don't call Hawaii home. My point wasn't that he's elitist, only that it can be made to look that way.

[xrmychick]

maybe not elitist, but certainly a stratigic blunder in light of all that was going on while he was on vacation. VACATION IN THE MIDDLE OF A FREAKIN PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN??!!!! that was ridiculously ridiculous in all its ridiculousness. i mean, really.

[Cassie129]

He lived a good chunk of his childhood in Hawaii and his grandmother who raised him is there. How is it elitist to visit your family, elitist?

[WritusMaximus]

Let's hope we don't get an October Surprise in August 2008 at, of all places, the Dem Convention!

[johnthomascook]

Like this ---

McCain -- tax braeks for big oil. Did not pay taxes for 5 years on his vacation home. Honesty is not a McCain strong point.

[DocTwain]

Part V

What are the SPECIFIC POLICY PROPOSALS that will be the weapons to defeat the enemy/end the danger?

These could include

1. creating a single-payer health care program to defeat the health care cartels and give insurance to 50 million uninsured and scores of millions more underinsured

2. creating an epoch-making Apollo program for clean and renewable energy that will free us from the stranglehold of the fossil fuel cartels, whose subsidies should be ended

3. cutting DoD power, budget, and influence by putting the State Department back in charge of foreign policy and reigning in the war cartel

4. regulating the finance cartel and changing bankruptcy and lending laws to protect consumers

5. restoring a progressive tax code and raising needed revenue by lowering taxes on the working class while raising them on the wealthy, both by raising brackets and by eliminating loopholes....

[SurrealPumpkin]

I'm confused, I thought that was what Obama was calling for.

[DocTwain]

Well, get unconfused. He opposes single payer (his position is to the right of Clinton's centrist multi-payer plan that subsidizes the private health insurance industry--­strengthen­ing the cartel instead of eliminating it); like every centrist he kowtows to the DoD and is frightened of suggesting that the war cartel is a problem (even in his opposition to the war he never said that we were led into it on the basis of lies--he only called it a mistake, a "dumb war," and he opposed any sort of accountability (such as impeachment); intimidated by the fossil fuel cartels, he is not serious about the sort of truly revolutionary change we need in clean energy; and he is not aggressive enough on tax reform. Rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the rich is not going to cut it. Our vast code is designed to punish the worker to fatten the rich. His pallid, soft, insipid centrist positions, weak and pathetic, the product of fear or corruption, do not represent a bold shift to a new dialectic.

We have to build for 2050 and 2100, not for 2012.

If you read all five parts you'll see that I argue that Obama lacks a coherent NARRATIVE that defines the enemy and makes a powerful ATTACK. He does not define a unified problem--the cartels--as Roosevelt would do. Roosevelt's masterful progressive position devastated the supply-side and free-market extremists. We need a Neo-Rooseveltian hero, not a calculating, triangulating centrist.

[timbyrnes]

Pretty clear that Obama needs to develop some basic principles on which to make decisions and then make them. This crap of shifting with the popular swings is not what leadership is all about. People are thirsty for someone who can teach them and lead them. They are looking for someone who can help them transcend narrow self interest and work for something greater.
Obama can do this but seem content at this point to pander to the bland middle ground.
I'm hoping that he will develop some fire and some energy. I'm guessing that he may be biding his time so he can come from behind with a burst of energy after the convention.
I kept waiting for Kerry to fire up in the last election but it never happened.
I hope this is not more of the same.

[nomobull]

oh please stop projecting McCain behavior on Obama

[Chbronze]

Make sure he brings his teleprompter.

[Rjmartinelli]

For McCain?

[DocTwain]

Part IV

The master narrative Obama needs is the _progressive_ narrative. He needs to channel Roosevelt, in both energy and rhetoric.

What is the PROBLEM?

The problem is the systematic economic squeezing of the working class (including the middle class and the poor) in order to shunt all growth to the wealthy, with an ever- and exponentia­lly-wideni­ng gap.

Who is the ENEMY/what is the CAUSE of the problem?

The enemy is plutocracy. Control of all of our major policy areas--from foreign policy to health care to energy to taxation to trade to budget--by the industrial cartels (the war, fossil fuel, private health insurance, pharamaceutical and finance cartels) and the ultra rich who own them (who take care of themselves through the tax code). It is supply-side lies and cartelist fallacies.

What is the SOLUTION?

To fight the cartels and to restore policies that bring broad prosperity to all Americans instead of squeezing 95% of Americans to aggrandize the rich.

[rwe]

you use the phrase rhetorical skills... America is fast realizing that is all he has

[nomobull]

so now you speak for America. not

[DocTwain]

Part III

McCain has a clear master narrative. It is: "Voting for Obama would be a disaster: vote for me in order to prevent disaster." He is successfully making the election a referendum on Obama. All he has to do is raise enough doubts and he wins.

That is not an inherently strong narrative. It will be be victorious, however, if Obama fails to offer any master narrative at all. "Hope" is not a narrative. "Change" is not a narrative. And "voting for McCain would be a disaster," is not strong enough. Obama does not want to define McCain _personally_ as the enemy--which is precisely what McCain is doing to him. Obama can and must do better.

Obama needs a master narrative that will clearly define a critical problem--a danger facing the American people, a danger that unites all the little problems in one connected story, that clearly defines the enemy/the cause of the problem, and that pushes specific policy proposals--the _weapons_ against the enemy--to bring about the end of the danger and victory for the American People.

[DocTwain]

Part II

The Bush Administration understood this basic principle of persuasive argument and sold the Iraq War to the American People by clearly defining the problem in a simple narrative (Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator who possesses biological and chemical WMD, is aggressively seeking nuclear weapons, has direct ties to al-Qaeda, and will certainly either attack us and our allies or give WMD to terrorists to attack us or our allies). Bush clearly stated the problem/identified the danger (he did this through carefully orchestrated lies), aggressively defined the enemy, and pushed a specific policy solution: unilateral preventive invasion, even without UN approval. He got his mandate, even from Democrats in Congress.

Obama lacks all of the essential elements of a successful persuasive argument. Although he talks about various problems, he does not connect them in a master narrative, and in fact has no narrative at all. The resulting lack of coherence is made worse by his treatment of "policy," which ought to be the carrot, the incentive, not some kind of text-y excrescence relegated to web sites and the tiredest segments of stump speeches.

[nomobull]

and McCain doesn't even acknowledge there is a problem.

[DocTwain]

Damn. I can't reply to my own post. I guess I have to sign up for Off the Bus.

[DocTwain]

"People -- most of whom will only start paying attention with the conventions -- want to know what he is for. Not what his policy positions are. But what he will stand and fight for. Where his steel is. And how that relates to the challenges they face."

Borosage, you write as if there is necessarily a disjunct between a candidate's policy positions and what a candidate is "for"--as if these two things are necessarily at odds, as if policy must compete with "message" for voters' attention and approval. That is a centrist fallacy. The two must be united to create a powerful trajectory: a mandate. Message is not enough. A _master narrative_ is needed, culminating in a specific call to action. That action is not "vote for me": it is "vote for me so I can do THIS." It's the elemental problem of rhetoric: define the problem or danger, identify the enemy/cause of the problem, posit the solution. The narrative defines the problem and identifies the enemy. The specific policy proposals are the punchline, the weapons of the people to defeat the enemy, to end the danger, to solve the problem.