Many thanks to Scott for consistently writing the most articulate and thoughtfully progressive posts on the site. It makes me really happy to see a perspective clearly honed through Asian American activist and grassroots politics applied to the national political field.
As far as the anti-Obama (He's trying to be a Messiah) comments: Did you not read this article? How is Obama messianic? His strategy is based in classic grassroots organizing--fomenting change through rallying together community members to demand change. And yes, that often relies on charismatic, sometimes even forceful leadership--as anyone who has dealt with, or worked with organizers can tell you. But ultimately Clinton's and McCain's campaign's rely on the classic, top down model of government--a style which depends on the elevated few.
Hm. Which model really sounds like it comes from a deluded messianic complex? Don't confuse charisma and the willingness to give disillusioned people hope with the misguided belief that one is the Messiah. When you really look at it, the only reason people aren't calling McCain or Clinton deluded saviors is because they peddle top down methods without the hope. And it's because they don't have to. We've got plenty of that already.
Two Ways to View Change
After 11 consecutive losses, Hillary Clinton renewed her efforts to win the March 4 primaries by declaring, "It's time to get real about how we actually win this election." It would be all too easy to mock her sentiment. Clinton's call to "move from good words to good works, from sound bites to sound solutions" smacked of an effort to spout some good words that would make for a good sound bite. Her criticism of Barack Obama for offering nothing more than "change you can Xerox" came across as a canned line fed to her by a campaign operative. And as Clinton desperately searched for a winning tactic, we were left wondering whether the "real" Hillary was the one proclaiming she was "honored" to share the stage with Obama or the one two days later shouting "Shame on you, Barack Obama!"
Yet, if you look closely, the real Hillary has been there all along. Her most consistent trait has been her total allegiance to the niche-marketing and service-delivery model of politics fashioned by her key strategist Mark Penn. As I was preparing this column, Arianna published her analysis detailing how Obama's emphasis on big ideas has tapped into the voters' desire for "real change," upending Penn's "microtrend" approach. Building upon her insights, I want to highlight how Clinton and Obama represent two very different visions of change and how they symbolize two dramatically different directions for the future of American politics.
We first need to understand who Mark Penn is and where he came from. As a strategist, he has been as pivotal to Hillary as Karl Rove was to George W. Bush. Penn became Bill Clinton's PR strategist in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal and has been at the forefront of Hillary's campaigns since her 2000 Senate race. Promotional materials for his book Microtrends note that "Mark Penn was dubbed the most powerful man in Washington you've never heard of by The Washington Post."
But Penn established his reputation first within corporate America, where he is still one of the most highly sought out consultants in the business. Among his impressive roster of clients, he counts Microsoft, Texaco, and Monsanto. (Indeed, he has continued working for his corporate clients while billing the Clinton campaign for millions.) Penn is the CEO of Burson-Marsteller, an international PR giant that purchased the firm Penn launched as a Harvard undergrad in 1975. The company's website boasts that "Mark has been called 'Master of the Message' by Time Magazine; 'The king of polls' by the London Times; and an 'incandescent intellect' by the New York Times." Writing for the Nation in May 2007, Ari Berman noted that "Penn invented the concept of 'inoculation,' in which corporations are shielded from scandal through clever advertising and marketing."
The description to Penn's book lays out the basic "microtrend" premise at the core of his marketing strategy: "The nation is no longer a melting pot. We are a collection of communities with many individual tastes and lifestyles. Those who recognize these emerging groups will prosper." Penn's ability to effectively measure consumer wants and meet consumer needs in a highly specialized manner has enriched the coffers of companies like AT&T. Generating mountains of poll data to support his assertions, Penn is convinced that politicians must employ a similar niche-marketing strategy. As he told the New York Times during Hillary's 2000 campaign, "We have this Balkanization of issues right now, where there's no single dominant issue. So in a lot of ways you reach people in little slices."
Despite all the tumultuous events that have since taken place -- the contested 2000 election, 9/11, the war in Iraq, Abu Ghraib, the global consensus on climate change, the threat to civil liberties, and so on -- Penn continued to believe that voters were primarily driven by their idiosyncratic set of self-interests. Thus, the Washington Post noted in an April 2007 feature on Penn, "Penn's theory of the 2008 race has always been that after two tumultuous terms under Bush, the electorate will want change -- but not too much change. Clinton offers a perfect mix, Penn believes. She inherently represents change, as a woman, without being unfamiliar or untested, thanks to her many years in Washington."
It is not hard to see how a banal campaign emphasizing "experience" and "inevitability" ensued -- and why it was so blindsided by Barack Obama. Still, Clinton has continued to push forward with her service-delivery message. If it has accomplished little else, her refusal to step aside has given voters more opportunities to see the stark choice in front of them. "Others might be joining a movement," Hillary recently told Ohio voters. "I'm joining you on the night shift, on the day shift." Underlying her comments is an absurd premise: that working-class people seeking dignity and security have no desire or necessity to participate in a social movement.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama has been reminding voters that meaningful change can only come from below and only then if people are willing to struggle, sacrifice, and search for common ground. His vision of active citizenship runs directly counter to Clinton's passive image of voters dependent on politicians to deliver "solutions." As Obama stressed in his first electoral run in 1995, office seekers should not view "voters or communities as consumers, as mere recipients or beneficiaries of this change." Instead, he stated, "It's time for politicians and other leaders to take the next step and to see voters, residents, or citizens as producers of this change. The thrust of our organizing must be on how to make them productive, how to make them employable, how to build our human capital, how to create businesses, institutions, banks, safe public spaces -- the whole agenda of creating productive communities. That is where our future lies."
Against a typical field of mainstream Democrats, Hillary might have won handily, and we'd now be hailing the wisdom of Penn's poll-tested strategy. However, Obama's campaign has tapped into the unmet desires of millions of Americans for a more authentic and visionary politics -- one in tune with the deep national and global crises we are challenged to address in our lifetimes. To understand why we need to look past the hype and hoopla that normally defines mainstream political coverage.
Paul Ray is a very different kind of researcher than Mark Penn. Seeking to understand the values that Americans hold most dear, Ray's work digs below the superficial consumer attitudes that are the staple of Penn's corporate and political consulting. As Ray remarks on his website, "most of the surveys you hear about study only opinions that are very transitory, while values are slow changing and very deep."
This deeper study of values has revealed something quite astonishing: 36 percent of the population and 45 percent of likely voters are what Ray calls "New Progressives." They constitute the largest values-defined bloc in America followed in order by social conservatives, big business conservatives, and New Deal liberals.
Who are the "New Progressives"? Ray elaborated in a 2002 article for YES! magazine: "These 'New Progressives' are not 'the center' or mushy middle of Clinton lore. They tend to oppose corporate globalization and big business interests, and favor ecological sustainability, women's issues, consciousness issues, national health care, national education, and an emerging concern for the planet and the future of our children and grandchildren on it." (It seems likely that the percentage of "New Progressives" is even higher today.)
Such findings help to put into context the media pundits continued astonishment that "conventional wisdom" is being thrown out the window in 2008. They especially help us to understand how and why reality is changing right before our eyes. First, the "New Progressives" defy older categorizations of Left and Right. Second, while they may line up in varying degrees behind Democrats or Republicans, their more common concern is that our political system is broken and failing to address fundamental concerns. Although the "New Progressives" share overlapping values, they have yet to find common cause in electoral politics. That is why the as a collective grouping they are "nearly invisible in the mainstream press."
However, Ray stresses, "If the New Progressives were mobilized under a single political tent, they could replace one of the political parties and dominate American politics for the next generation or more." That sounds like change you can believe in.
Scott Kurashige is the author of The Shifting Grounds of Race: Black and Japanese Americans in the Making of Multiethnic Los Angeles (Princeton University Press). He is an associate professor of History, American Culture, and Asian/Pacific Islander American Studies at the University of Michigan.
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
This rationale within this post may explain why college educated and more affluent voters prefer Obama, while struggling blue collar voters prefer the familiarity of Clinton.
Education and a belief in your own abilities is more likely to allow voters to see the bigger picture. However, if you're barely getting by, seeing beyond your immediate situation becomes much more difficult. Ironically, only by reaching outside of your own situation can the foundations be laid to escape it.
This Hillary vs Obama thing has really been interesting. Being that I am of age to see much and to believe the message of hope, I also look for it in different ways. So, a few of my colleages, friends and I decided it would be pretty interesting to try to look at this objectively and come up with a way to review debate and give points on each candidate.
The agreement was to stay objective and to add points for message of hope in each category.
Points for each area:
National and International Security: 20 pts.
Health Care Issue: 20 pts
Authentic Experience in Making Change at a national/international platform: 20 pts.
Inspiration: 20 pts
Economy based on knowledge and awareness: 20 pts
We kept it short as possible. The points given could be up to, but not more then category points established. In other words, no candidate could receive higher then 100 points on the high end from each person. They could only think of two candidates. Hillary Clinton or Obama
total of 6 people:
2 people consider themselves Republican.
1 Swinger: (votes for whom they believe and not party)
2 people consider themselves Democrats
1 independent
No one knew how others were voting in their points until finished.
Here is the outcome:
Security: Obama 70 points Hillary: 110 points
Health Care: Obama 65 points Hillary: 76 points
Experience: Obama 73 points Hillary 101 points
Inspiration: Obama 100 points Hillary 82 Points
Economy: Obama 68 points Hillary 98 Points
Obama's total : 376 points Hillary's total: 467 points
Hillary points were over a 100 points higher then Obama's. Obama did score higher for inspiration.
I thought he might get a higher point average on that, but when discussed why not, 3 of those who gave HRC higher points said that she actually had done a lot more to convince them that her actions were in fact, more inspirational to them.
A little lesson on research methodology ... When watching a debate for example and asking friends to comment on different perceptions you are not creating an objective instrument but a subjective one since the unit of measure in question is opinions, feelings, perceptions.
Objectivity requires facts --- such as there is gravity ... or, there is a constitution (interpretations are not objective however they are subjective) ...
You and your friends (implying a cohort group or an interpretive community, collective subjectivity etc) cannot be an objective measure merely an anecdotal one ... your research instrument is flawed both as a qualitative research method and/or a quantitative one ... so your little study means about as much as me playing a drinking game to count the number of times candidates say change or experience ...
In saying that your calculations and posturing as attempting to be objective by the very nature is not objectivity it is like saying how much do you like each color shirt on a scale of 100 ... it does not make reality just opinion and opinion of a small group which cannot be generalized to your larger age cohort, social class cohort, etc etc and all those factors interanimate ... in other words what you are saying only means something between you and your friends since what your measurements are and how you determined each question asked or the units of measure chosen come out of subjective experience as do your answers ...
My question to you would be if you are in the 20 something age cohort and your experiences do not generalize to the general population of your age cohort then ... what do you think that means and if these were objective measures and then you quantified them on a larger scale (let's say a bell curve) you know what happens to measurements that are outside of the curve? They are erased ...
Did you ask them to actually name something Clinton has done for them? She's had "35 years of experience" to give voters the IMPRESSION she's been working for them. But what has she actually done? She FAILED on healthcare (how inspirational!) She voted us into a disastrous war (how secure!)
If we did not know before it was time for a change then we have certainly learned it during this election. I guess we knew on some level that the powerful ran the country, but it's been shockingly demonstrated as the powerful Clintons control the media and are intent on overturning the voters and stealing the election. This election started out being about the people taking back our government from the powerful elitist. But it's turned into whether democracy ("by the people") still exists in America. Support Obama--the PEOPLE'S choice!
Busybeez,
Sorry, but regardless of who the candidates have chosen for their campaign managers, I would still have to directly point out that Obama does not have the corner on this message of "change".
I do have some wisdom here, and I am using it. I do see where HRC would be more efficient and knowledgeble and that is very important. Now is not the time to think up a new party. Now is the time to get someone in there that has experience, wisdom and fortitude to do what we need done.
Clinton's most recent attempt to draw a contrast with Obama is "promises vs. solutions". But she's the one making the promises. The solitary promise of the Obama candidacy is that the American people are the solution.
In 1995, Obama's discussion of a societal shift in the electorate from passive consumers toward participatory producers of public policy may have been a challenging concept for most Americans to fully grasp. But in the era of Digg, YouTube, and Facebook, the practical embodiment of this participatory democracy is becoming clear. Democracy, in the abstract, is a social networking application driven by user-generated content, and no politician on the national scene understands this idea more thoroughly than Barack Obama.
Obama will make his mark on politics in the same way as Linus Torvalds (creator of Linux) made his mark on the software industry, by demonstrating that transparent, inclusive, collaborative, and meritocratic organizations produce better results with fewer resources compared to secretive, exclusive, absolutist, and plutocratic ones. The genius of our form of government lies not in the processors and their software but rather in the network and its users.
As we have seen in the software industry, the transition of our democratic process from commercial and proprietary to free and open will be gradual and not without its powerful opponents. But just as Microsoft has applied lessons from the open-source software community to their development of Windows Server 2008, politicians of all ideological stripes will be driven to embrace, reluctantly or otherwise, the emerging reality of an interconnected and engaged citizenry.
Sorry, this is not a software Company this candidates are running for, it's America. Guess what?
I want the one who will know how to get things done. Not a lipsinker.
KNOWS how to get things done? The question is not who can get things done, but for WHOM are they doing them? Why should Hillary fight for us, when the lobbyists and special interests and big business and MIC are who put her in power? She's made deals with them all through her "35 years of experience". Why am I to believe she would do things any differently now?
How to get things done, huh? How'd that healthcare thing work out for Hill last time?
If you count getting us into a disastrous war, well then I guess I concede your point.
Gooooooooooooooobama!
Let's get real, here. Obama is the republicans' "dream candidate".
Rightwing republicans are THRILLED (!!) to have an Obama [and not Hillary!] running against McCain.
Their media machine will smash Obama like a fly swatter, leaving USA with yet another republican LOBBYIST-PRESIDENT protecting the CORRUPT CORPORATE NANNY STATE FOR THE RICH.
That strategy really well for Hillary. All a negative campaign for McCain does is force the remaining independents and moderate republicans to Barack. Welcome to the 21st Century. Please leave your fear and loathing at the door.
wE WILL SEE, BE GLAD THAT YOU ARE ALIVE TO SEE ANEW REBIRTH OF FREEDOM
For every person who claims that the Republicans "secretly" want to run against Obama, there are several more who know that it has to be the other way around. The GOP isn't exactly sure how to handle Obama, whereas they've written the book on handling Hillary Clinton. Obama is the greatest get-out-the-vote catalyst the Democrats have ever seen, whereas Hillary Clinton is the best hope for the Republican GOTV effort.
Microtrends decide elections It is not big ideas, that maybe one owes a little allegiance to ,that causes us to pick our President but rather those deep heart issues that we cannot avoid. Stop the bull. Where have you been. How do you think Rove has been so successful. Why do you think he isnow steering democrats towards Obama? Why do you think McCain is attacking Obama at this point if not to get democrats to support Obama.
The other issue you left out is that electoral votes decide who is President. At this point Obama appears to be ahead in Texas and Hillary in Ohio. But the last time I looked Texas votes republican reliably, whereas Ohio is a swing state as is Florida. Neither Obama nor Hillary can reasonably expect any electoral votes from Texas if either is nominated. On the other hand Ohio and Florida typically swing and decide elections. The candidate who wins swing states has the best chance of winning the Presidential election. John Kerry and Al Gore are living proof. If nominted Hillaty wind the reliably democratic states of New York Illinois , California , Washington State, and the north eastern states etc, and she wins the swing state of Ohio and most likrely Florida. This would make her President. Obama if nominated wins the same reliably democratic states but loses Florida and ptobably Ohio. This would make McCain President.
Again Why would Rove and McCain be focusing so much diatribe on Obama at this point if not to bolster his image and poiht out their opposition to him therefore boosting his stock among democrats. Do not be fooled young people ,use your wits. Vote Hillary
Look beyond the hoopla and hype and what is left to see?
a BELIEVING.
An insightful and interesting piece, Professor Kurashige. It's so nice to finally get some badly-needed intelligence about the real inner workings of the impending political realignment that Obama is in process of engineering, and just what makes it tick. It certainly explains why so many of the pundits and other traditional talking heads are so clueless about what's happening...
So in other words, might we say:
Hillary = Politics 1.0
Obama = Politics 2.0
extenzs
Barack Obama offers a false dichotomy--voters as consumers of change, or voters as producers of change. The dichotomy is false because in truth voters are both producers and consumers of change--as are the "politicians and other leaders" whom Obama distinguishes from the "voters" (again, as if the terms "leader" and "voter" were absolute antonyms). The dichotomy is also false because it depends on a concept, "change," that not only is undefined but also is presumed to be the "product" of some single entity ("voters" or "leaders") rather than, say, a continuous process in which everyone is always participating. Having set up his false dichotomy--his thesis and his antithesis--Obama inserts himself as synthesis, as resolution of the inauthentic conflict. HE will MAKEvoters productive, employable, and so on. But Obama's rhetoric, despite its claims to be in service of communitarian principles, is authoritarian in its structure as well as in its diction and tone (both of the latter give voice, in his rallies, to assumptions of religious authority--of the politician as a mediating figure, a priest--that also underlie his argument). The resulting cognitive dissonance is something that certainly disturbs me about Obama. And because I think Obama is shrewd enough to choose and produce exactly the effects he wants to evoke in his listeners, the dissonance has a troubling visceral quality, too. If Barack Obama wants to be a U.S. Senator, that's up to the people of Illinois. If he wants to be President of the United States, I'm glad I have at least some kind of say.
Isn't a dichotomy terribly Cartesian. Certainly philosophy and social theory have gone way beyond the either/or ... I think that you would be better served by examining the discursive ... your post actually makes little sense ... the notion of consumer and producer ---- are you using a vulgar sort of Althussurain model? In which both the consumer and producer are overly determined? If. the producer and consumer are overly determined then are you saying there can be no agency? And this critique would have to be leveled against the system which brought about its emergence not an individual actor ... there are lots of assumptions in your posting without well philosophical, cultural social semiotic or philosophical perspective ... it is a jumble of I do not know what so in order to have a better sense of what you are attempting to say and I know you are trying to say something even if intuitively because of your odd religious allusions, illusions is something I may disagree with help me understand who it is your are trying to base your model on or are you just trying to create something with some sort of academic merit? It makes no sense ... it would make better sense if you could explain how your arguments are framed who are the theorists you use and what is your unit of measure
Your feigned melancholy and pedantic screed is an argument in favor of repealing free speech: just because you have an inherent right, there are times when you owe your Country silence.
Free speech, by definition, can't be "repealed." But I can tell that you sure wish it could, so thanks for illustrating my earlier point about authoritarianism.
Then, what you are saying is that it ought not be in the constitution? Because by your definition if it cannot be repealed it has no need for inclusion ...
It is sad you feel you must say you are sorry that you are a man.
Wouldn't it be better to honor yourself as not the sort of man you are so ashamed of?
Otherwise, you allow the same subordination to unworthiness for your sex that you find so offensive toward women.
I do agree that it's a new party. Being a registered Democrat, I rather resent that.
He's run a third-party candidacy under my party's name.
The good news is that I won't have a problem in not voting for this new party in the Fall.
Were you a Democrat before the DLC took the reigns from the progressives? You have no idea what you are talking about ideologically Obama is clearly positioned within the Democratic norm ...
Yes, it is good news that you will not vote ... I am beginning to believe in an informed and literate voting populace as oppossed to an idiocracy
Obama's not even clearly positioned in the political norm. He's a preacher and this is a religious movement. It has no basis in reality.
As a non-American watching from the touchline, this concerns me too.
Will-he nill-he, Obama is attaining a degree of messianic status. His is a "Sermon-on-the-Mount' approach - 'the meek shall inherit the earth' is a great soundbite and obviously has mass appeal but the message was very light on how that was to be achieved and two millennia later it still hasn't been.
There are two problems with Messiahs - one is the degree of latitude their supporters are prepared to give them. GWB sees himself as a messiah and that justifies many of his actions both to him and to those who stlll share that delusion. The other is the backlash from the mass when their faith and hope is (inevitably) unrealised. It led to the original Messiah being crucified by popular demand. In modern politics it can lead to the destruction of the Party the messiah came from.
If Obama gets the Presidency the expectations on him will be huge - far more so than on HRC. If he fails to meet those expectations the backlash could destroy the Democratic Party. So what might he be prepared to do to meet those expectations? Another signing-statement dictatorship?
HRC is safe. No-one expects anything of her but that she'll do her best. People are beginning to look to Obama to pull off miracles - in Iraq, with the Economy, for Middle America. Maybe he could do it. It's a risk though. Risks are exciting. To end with the ancient Chinese curse - may you live in exciting times.
See ya! Hope you do well voting against your self interests. Maybe you'll be better off staying home.
Masochism claims another pusillanimous soul! AnninCal: your psyche just refuses to tell you the extent of your problems should you not jump on the 21st Century's reality bus. Which cadaver will float your boat, then, Nader or McCain?
Bagger suggest that you stay home.... I can only add the article "the" and make it " better off staying at the home". If, however, you do decide to go to the polls, get a ride, those green paper slippers have no tread wear.
Hey, Savanarola, you have a thesaurus! Too bad you don't have a dictionary. If you did, you could look those big words up before you use them. You could look up "mixed metaphor," too. And other terms.
You know, I believe it was Richard Nixon who last said Americans have to sacrifice. Really!
This the most fatted, spoiled country in the world and still we have the audacity to hope for even more.
The Bible was written by Jewish committees. Not by the people whose names appear on the books.
The committees were men naturally, because women didn't have the right to dictate policy.
They did their job well these committees and the male monks and "transcribers" that followed the original committees for years after. They made sure the woman was put in her place in society, in the home and in the eyes of the believer and in the clergy. Ask any Christian. Ask John Hagee, Pat Robertson or Pope Benedict XVI or James Dobson. Or, just ask just about any man.
Ask most baptist women and they'll swear to the same, that women are subservient and inferior.
You want change? Break the mold of 2000 years of male dominance, war mongering and hierarchic arrogance.
I personally think that women are awesome in their gifts of perception and powerful decisiveness.
You can say what you want about Obama or McCain. Hillary blows them both out of the water.
Oh, and yes, I'm a man, sorry.
Why does this always turn into "man vs. woman"? I don't care about Hillary's sex. If she would have voted against the war I would vote for her. She has consistentyl voted with the right and I consistenly vote against those that vote this way. Nothing to do with her sex. She seems like a fine person but consciously I cannot support her. McCain seems more of a liberal than Hillary.
Posted March 2, 2008 | 04:30 PM (EST)