Why Obama is (So Far) No Liberal Reagan

Obama will probably win this election, but only by the skin of his teeth. Let's face it: Obama is not the transformational candidate we liberals had hoped for.

Progressives should (and will) continue fighting for Obama against that walking bag of translucent lies, medieval dogmatism, pure free-market fanaticism, and committed incompetence that is the GOP's geriatric/benighted ossuary of a ticket. Obama, unlike his boorish opponents, demonstrates many outstanding political qualities: intelligence, a gift of gab, sound judgment, a reassuring temperament, humor, and organizational acumen. He is not the gutless Dukakis-clone that Christopher Hitchens would like us to believe. It is just too soon to freak out; to cry; to panic; to hyperventilate; to rip out our hair; to confirm that sabbatical overseas; to don sack cloth and ashes; or to break out that bottle of Jameson over an impending Dem defeat.

But it is not too early to acknowledge that Obama is not the "liberal Reagan" or the great redemptive hype that so many pundits and acolytes had presumptuously and prematurely predicted over the past year. Not even close.

Since the beginning of the presidential campaign, Obama's most ardent breast-beating believers--pundits like Andrew Sullivan, academics, and even some conservative Brookings think-tankers---fantasized that Obama would be for liberals in 2008 what Reagan was for conservatives in 1980: a transformational candidate who would not only capture a wide electoral victory by appealing to moderate conservatives, but a candidate who would usher in a political and cultural revolution, redefining the nature of American politics (as Reagan did) for decades.

Just as Reagan redefined our political culture so that liberals and liberalism (both economic and cultural) became fringe un-American calumnies, Obama was supposed to finally turn the ideological tide by discrediting (what are in fact) bankrupt conservative ideas, shaming Republicans into cultural withdrawal. In short, Obama should have turned the prevailing ostracism of liberalism on its head, brought liberals back to the center of political life from their thirty-year exile, and offered the Reagan Revolution its long overdue burial.

But Obama is no liberal Gipper. He differs from Reagan in at least three crucial respects.

First, Obama, unlike Reagan, shows a remarkable aversion to political ruthlessness.

Second, Obama allows his arrogance to dominate his pragmatic instincts. While Obama blundered in rejecting Hillary for vice president, Reagan remained pragmatic regarding his political adversaries; also a relative outsider to his party in 1980, Reagan shrewdly selected his GOP primary opponent, George H.W. Bush, as his running mate to secure the election.

Third, Obama has not provided a simple visionary alternative, as Reagan did, to the prevailing political philosophy about government.

Pundits have been spilling much ink theorizing over why this is a close election. After eight years of Bush, why can't the democratic nominee establish a substantial lead over the incumbent party? Blame has been directed to everything under the sun from the "Palin effect" to race to the Muslim miasma to Obama's lack of geographical rootedness (David Brook's euphemism for race) to the polarization of an evenly divided electorate along ideological lines to the purported conservative nature of the (entire) American electorate to the "success" of the surge and (ironically) even to the popularity of the Democrats.

Read between the lines of each of these arguments and you will find one fatalistic assumption in common: Americans are inherently conservative and Democratic politicians ignore this reality at their own peril. Only a white conservative Democrat like Clinton or Carter has any real chance of making it to the White House. If Obama cannot establish a significant lead, he is either not conservative enough or there is nothing he can do about it.

By the looks of it, Obama shares these fatalistic and self-defeating assumptions. But there is nothing entrenched, innate, or interminable about American conservativism. Instead, the blame for Obama's stagnation in the polls lies (as it did with all Democratic nominees of recent memory) with Obama himself.

Obama is still playing by the Republican rules of the game. He has done nothing to dismantle or challenge the basic conservative assumptions that dominate our political philosophy: Big government is still the enemy, "liberal" is still a filthy word, raising taxes is still the kiss of death, and a deregulated free-market is still the answer for every social ill. Can we really expect dramatic electoral shifts leftward when dominant conservative assumptions about government remain unchallenged?

Failing to discredit and vilify conservatism, Obama has not done to conservatives what Reagan did to liberals twenty eight years ago. As a result, whether Obama wins or loses, our political culture will remain the same. He has not changed the nature of this game. After this election cycle has passed, Democrats will continue to market themselves (poorly) as conservatives; "Clintonism" will continue to be the only viable road to the White House; and conservativism will go on unchallenged, unquestioned, and undefeated. This is all very disappointing since we liberals needed and still need a Gipper of our own.

With thirty years of conservative ideas about governance, economics, and foreign policy unraveling around us, Obama should be taking advantage of this historical turning-point to assert an ideologically distinctive FDR-style populism--not a vapid "post-partisan" middle-road (a strategy that indirectly reaffirms the discredited policies of the Right as viable) . Most importantly, Obama needs to shape the meaning of the historical events unfolding around us in liberal ideological and policy terms; offering a simple but inspiring vision for our future along the lines of the "New Deal" or "Great Society."

Now is the time to reclaim the dreaded L-word. Obama should invert Reagan's famous farewell that has doomed liberals for decades: The masquerade is over. It is time to say the dreaded C-word; to say the policies of our opposition are conservative, conservative, conservative.

Comments

[harriscrl3]

I actually think that he will SHOCK Liberals and Conservatives alike. He may not be as Far left as liberals hope or too far to the left as Conservatives think but he may prove once and for all that NEITHER approach is the correct one and he may be successful using his own PRAGMATIC COMMON SENSE apporach NOT based on emotion or politics but base on REASON and FACTS. He will take each situation as they come and look at all sides rather than just go from the Political GUT so to speak. Maybe thats the problem leaders go from the POLITICAL GUT rather than looking at facs and looking at ALL sides of the argument. I think that is what will make Obama the UNFYING leader that he is capable of that he doesnt side with LIberals or he doesnt Side with conservatives. He has a progressive ideology but he RECOGNIZES his balance. We dont NEED a LIberal Reagan that divided the country more than unite it. We need a Pragmatist. I feel we have it in Obama. The way he apporaches things continue to amaze me and I wish Liberals would just get out of their liberal box and look at things from an objective standpoint that takes into account ALL views. I think the American poeple are moving away from labels maybe its time we do so too.

Carol

[fivecard]

I think we're jumping the gun even talking about this. We have an election to win. Let's keep our eye on the ball.

[gbtmSF]

Obama did say in a debate (and I don't know the exact quote) basically he admired Reagan for being a leader who brought new ideas and a message of change. And he aspired to do the same (just different ideas obviously). So maybe we should hold him to a higher standard.
Because I do think many, myself included, felt this was the ideal time to win back the ideological battle ground. That with all the failures, disasters and outright crimes of the Bush Administration it was the perfect time for the left/liber­als/progre­ssives to win back the hearts and minds of America. Not just grab the handful of independents needed for a victory but a paradigm shift, a mandate from the people, a sea change in politics. Well, that’s not going to happen. Now I feel that if Obama wins, voters will be simply choosing the best candidate.
Which is fine. Better than they have done in the last couple of elections. To quote Al Davis right now I am thinking "just win baby"

[gbtmSF]

For the most part I agree with you. Your jab that Hillary should have been the VP nominee came off a little bitter (I am guessing you’re former supporter). But otherwise I know exactly where you are coming from and share your disappointment. The only big difference in my view is it seems you expected much more from Obama - I never have. I think Obama is a fine, quality candidate (for many of the reasons so quickly stated early on in the post), but my only hope for him has been just one - for him to win.
Obama is not a progressive on most issues. I have known that all along. Maybe he will become the leader the country needs (and progressives want) once he is President. But all I want right now is for an end to the policies and agendas that have corrupted, divided and damaged our democracy. I am confident a victory by Obama will do just that.

[milo h minderbinder]

More Hillary whining? Give it a rest, it wasn't a blunder at all.

And Reagan was likeable and was up against a lousy opponent in Mondale, and one facing a crisis in Carter. If Reagan was running today for the first time, I'm skeptical that he could win.

[tompoe]

Americans don't tolerate corporate welfare. The bailout is corporate welfare. Republicans, as we've now determined, believe in corporate welfare. A vote for a Republican is a vote for corporate welfare. The bailout is corporate welfare, not a bailout. We fell for that line in the S&L crisis. Time to call it what it is, corporate welfare. Nationalizing our resources, starting with oil, provides the trillions of dollars needed to stabilize our financial system based on new regulatory oversight. Obama and the Democrats will now have their turn. Republicans are but a historical footnote.

[Mrrar]

Lol

I hope you post another article after the election. You will be deeply surprised, and I will be very amused.

[kRothrock]

...continued...

Great! So what will these new ideas be? Shaun, you have a great strategy prepared for what the Democrats can do once they've reinvented and reinvigorated themselves (they can undermine the linguistics of conservative politics), but what is to be done in order to get Democrats to that launching pad?

I guess I don't really disagree with your article, but I think perhaps you underestimate the problems in facing the American Left.

[kRothrock]

Great article, Shaun. Reading it, however, I did have a few questions.

You talk a lot about the Democrats' need to "discredit and vilify conservatism" and to redefine the terms of political debate in America. Democrats need to do what Reagon did, which is reinvent the Party and convince the country that they're the ones with the freshest, most promising ideological vision.

But Reagon didn't just succeed in talking about a new kind of politics, he actually endorsed policies that were new. The Republicans became the party of small government and big military.

What about Obama? The man could employ all the spinsters in the world to attack "conservatism," but he himself has got to be offering something different for the offensive to come off. Taxes? Relations with hostile powers? Wall Street bailouts? The divisions here and elsewhere are same divisions that have defined Democrats and Republicans for three decades. The debate is the same, yes because the terms haven't changed, but the terms haven't changed because the approaches are the same. There is nothing new about the struggle between "free-market fanaticism" and Keynesian economics in the American political dialogue. Americans are justifiably bored.

...continued...

[Shaun Jacob Halper - Huffpost Blogger]

There has certainly been a significant shift from the policies of LBJ to the Democrats of Carter and beyond. I agree that these policies have generally been as bland as the ideological attack on conservativism, but that just reaffirms my greater point: both in policy and rhetoric, Obama should be embracing FDR-style liberal populism.

Finally, I do not agree that "there is nothing new" about this struggle (your final sentence above). Liberalism has become toxic politically through a sustained conservative propoganda campaign. For more see Eric Alterman.

[BeeOplentee]

As a rule, Americans despise elitists, intellectuals and urbanites.

We are still a frontier society and admire rugged individualism.

It will take centuries before this mindset changes.

[histryteacher]

Your ode - as well as your lack of giving credit to - to Frederick J. Turner is quaint -
but hardly appropriate in the 21st century.
No one likes an elitist - regardless of party.
There are plenty of Americans that admire an intelligent person.
Only the GOP derides education and accomplishment.
Anti - urban? Hardly relevant to today's problems.
A frontier society? Puhleeze.
It strikes me that it is your mindset that is a century behind.