Losing Hope?

The Obama campaign is squandering that most rare of commodities in politics: belief.

Back in 2006, Obama gave a speech in which he observed that "America is desperate for leadership. I absolutely feel it everywhere I go. They are longing for direction and they want to believe again." This phrase is perhaps the key to understanding Barack Obama's appeal during the Primaries.

Obama was "other", not racially, but politically. He defined himself in opposition to the familiar faces of American public life: anti-Clinton, and anti-Washington, he offered people the vision of a "new politics". This new politics was centred not on a policy agenda, but on the figure of Obama himself, and his ability to inspire a generation who are looking for something, or someone, to believe in.

The importance of this idea to his campaign cannot be underestimated: the banner across his campaign website reads, "I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington. I'm asking you to believe in yours." The very essence of the Obama candidacy is that Americans want to "believe again," and that he offers them that opportunity.

It is the extraordinary success of this "audacious" strategy, born out of Obama's own understanding of the contemporary American psyche, which makes his move to the centre so surprising and so potentially damaging.

The electoral calculation is both traditional and transparent: the campaign can move to the centre ground, where most voters are located, safe in the knowledge that their base are going to come with them because they are Democrats to the core.

In doing so, they aim pre-emptively to blunt Republican lines of attack on national security (FISA, Iraq), on social issues (abortion, death penalty, faith based initiatives), on trade (NAFTA), and foreign policy (Jerusalem, Iran).

But in these manoeuvres, the Obama campaign is applying conventional electoral wisdom to a candidate whose very appeal to voters is based on being unconventional.

So it is that the latest polls from Newsweek and Rasmussen show Obama's lead evaporating at precisely the same moment people perceive him to be less liberal and more centrist. This, and the disappointing fundraising figures should come as no surprise: he is undermining the very premise of his campaign.

He was winning over independents and inspiring the young, not by showing that he shared their views on abortion or trade, but by offering them an end to the "old politics" of political expediency.

As he said on Super Tuesday, "I want to speak directly to all those Americans who have yet to join this movement but still hunger for change. They know it in their gut. They know we can do better than we're doing. They know that we can take our politics to a higher level. But they're afraid. They've been taught to be cynical."

A candidacy built on the desire to "take our politics to a higher level" cannot afford to let its supporters get too cynical. Obama needs to have the courage of his conviction that America is "ready to believe."

Now, John McCain is probably too old, and angry, and bald, and Republican to win this election, whatever Barack Obama does. His positions on abortion, Iraq, and health care alone should make even the most reluctant Democrats get out and vote. The unpopularity of Bush, alongside rising gas and grocery prices, and the decimation of the housing market should hand the Democrats the White House.

But the Obama campaign cannot afford to lose its way.

Because if the Democrats are going to win in November, Obama needs to maintain the "enthusiasm gap" we read so much about. Without public finance, he is also going to need the continued financial support of his small donors. And faced with the possibility of losing some traditional swing states, he is going to need record turn out among young voters and African Americans in states that have recently trended Republican.

Every shift of position makes those things more difficult to achieve for a politician who has based his candidacy on the idea that Americans "want to believe again."

Comments

[tommybones]

Simon,

Obama is not "moving to the center," he is moving to the FAR RIGHT. Every time someone bases a criticism on Obama's "move to the center," they are undermining their own argument substantially. What could be wrong with a "centrist" position, after all? The criticism falsely makes it seem like Obama, ever the "pragmatist," is merely looking to unite the country, when in reality these new positions cater to the far right wing, who rule this once-great nation.

Since when is defending the 4th amendment of the Constitution a "progressive" issue, which one can "pragmatically" move away from? Since when is granting retroactive immunity to lawbreakers who violated the 4th amendment rights of millions of citizens a "centrist" position? Since when is granting sweeping new eavesdropping powers to the executive branch a "centrist" position? Since when can one consider backing an horrific new FISA bill based on misleading, faulty and outright dishonest and easily refuted reasons be a "move to the center"?

His real reason for backing this monstrous bill? To complete the cover up, which protects corrupt DEMOCRATIC leadership (like Pelosi, for one) who are knee-deep in the 4th amendment violations. It would be refreshing for the mainstream media, as well as alleged "progressives" on this site to stop falling for the "centrist" propaganda. Thank God for Glenn Greenwald:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

[harriscrl3]

I so disagree with this assessment. First of all if you think that the majority of Americans are concerned about civil liberties particularly at the expense of terrorism well you are way ahead of the majority of Americans who are still a country thats afraid of terrorism and is suffering economically.

Let me remind you of a couple of polls who do you trust more to handle Iraq its Dead even. When they ask what percentage wants teh war to end its over 2/3rds. See you know what the problem is with those on the left they think that Obama isa White Man with the name John Smith who is a charsmatic speaker and have years of experience. Well he is NOT. Americans DO NOT want fundamental changes as those on the left think and when they do they sure as heck dont want it from an AA guy with the last name Obama.

It beffuddles my mind how blind Progressives are to issues of race remember that little fact. You think Obama has weakened because he is moving to the center WRONG. Obama is weakened because he clarifies his position on some issues and shifted his prosition on Fisa and the media used it as EXHIBIT A as to why you can't trust an AA with the last name Obama.

WAKE UP LIBERALS. I thought you were smarter than this.

Carol

[tommybones]

I'm "losing hope" that any of my comments will actually make it onto this particular thread.

[itmaybetoolate]

The good news is that those who voted for Obama are predisposed to vote for him in the general election (or risk cognitive dissonance). The bad news is that Obama's shift to the right can give them a legitimate reason to vote for a third party (if available), thereby reducing their cognitive dissonance. He walks a thin line.

[tmckly]

No please stay to the left, so us simple minded people know who you really are, and as we clutch are bible and guns, we will be crystal clear on who to vote for.

[justobserve]

People are arguing about the FISA bill destroying the 4th amendment. What would the Supreme Court say? Congress can't pass bills that are un-constitutional, can it?

[tommybones]

The lawsuits have already been filed. We'll see.

[itmaybetoolate]

Yes, Congress can pass any law it wants. However, it can be challenged and the SCOTUS can declare it unConstitutional. That is their role. The ACLU has already challenged the law in a NY court. It can now be judged, a ruling can be made, and it can be appealed up to the SCOTUS who makes the final decision.

[EmJay144]

"the campaign can move to the centre ground, where most voters are located, safe in the knowledge that their base are going to come with them because they are Democrats to the core."

That premise has sparked a lot of dialogue about what those unhappy "progressive" Dems will do if this trend continues. The assumption is that since they couldn't stand the thought of President McCain, then they'll absolutely vote for Obama. Even disregarding the availability of third-party candidates, how many of these disenfranchised people (the Hillary supporters, the ultra-progressives and the thousands of youngsters) will simply pack up and not vote at all? Are there really enough Reagan Democrats left over to cover the spread, and can he woo them sufficiently in time? That may be the most damning thing of all to Obama's move-to-center.

[fourex]

"... Obama's lead evaporating at precisely the same moment people perceive him to be less liberal and more centrist."

Promoting or condoning warrantless domestic spying is not centrist but far right.

[mosh]

Precise and to the point. Bravo.

[SaltySaltillo]

Fourex, do you even know what FISA Amendment Act of 2008 changed from the existing status quo? Or did you read a 10 word summary somewhere and think you "get it."?

[mosh]

I hope an Obama advisor reads your post and takes it to heart. It describes precisely what made (and might still make) Obama the candidate of hope and change. Without that, he is just another Washington pol trying to get elected.

And given their abysmal performance in Congress, as a party the democrats have little otherwise to recommend them.

[jackie4444]

Your second point is one too often overlooked, mosh. The Dems won a lot of races in 2006
ONLY because Democratic votes were supplemented by an outpouring of votes by disgusted Independents and disenchanted Republicans, who were expecting immediate improvement,
even if in small degree. Instead of using the opportunity the voters gave them to demonstrate they could do a BETTER JOB, the Dems were content with a change of power for its own sake, took an attitude that might be summarized: "haha, they like us better, how its OUR turn to be in charge", continued with 'business as usual", and in two years have accomplished nothing
of note, with a distressing tendency to shill for GWB and his agenda. I'm confident that none
of that has escaped the notice of the 2006 cross-over voters. If Obama wins it will NOT be because he is a member of the Democratic Party but in spite of it. And that's a shame, because
he would be in a much stronger position if he could point to party accomplishments during those
two years.

[KSH]

Are we seriously back to poll numbers? I will wait to see what happens. I will vote and the thousands of voters that just got registered to vote this year will vote and we will see. The left or the right does not run this country. The center does.

Obama 08

[JanSP1971]

If I lose hope I have to then believe the American voters have blinders on. I would have to believe they can't see the price of gas, they can't see people standing in line to get their money out of their bank, they can't see the For Sale/Bank Owned signs all around them, they can't see the empty factory's and businesses all around them. I would have to believe that most of the American voters are in the 1% of America that has grown wealthier under GWB and his boys, that the Amercan voter lives in a little bubble and doesn't see or doesn't understand or they just don't care about what is going on all around them. I would have to put the blinders on myself, put the bubble up over my home and NEVER get involved again and NEVER vote again.
So NO I am not losing HOPE. I know we are a better country then what some think we are, I know we care about our neighbors and we have taken the blinders off and come out of the fog of fear GWB/MCCAIN and his boys want us to continue living in. We will keep HOPE alive and vote in record numbers in November and show the world that AMERICA is back!!!!!!!
OBAMA IN 08

[ashenthorn]

Please. You can feel whatever way you want on the issues but really - Obama's lead is evaporating? There are 2 daily tracking polls. Last month, the race was tied according to Gallup tracking and Obama had a 3 or 4 pt lead according to Rassmussen tracking. Today, it's reversed (Tied in Rassmussen and Obama up 3-4 in Gallup). Where's the news?

Newsweek published a poll outrageously weighted with democrats and declared Obama up by 15. A month later, duly chastened, they ran a poll outrageously weighted with republicans (Obama up by 3). Was the headline "We Screwed Up"? Nope. It was "Is Obama Losing his Luster?"

[Simon Woods - Huffpost Blogger]

I agree absolutely that the first Newsweek poll was an outlier, but within their data was a worrying statistic on independents, who had shifted from leaning Obama to leaning McCain.

My thesis is basically that the conventional tactic of taking centrist positions to appeal to independents may be misguided. Support for Obama was never about policy but about the perception of his conviction.

His campaign consistently vilified Clinton as the ultimate politician, "willing to say anything to win", and he risks losing support if he appears to become very thing he defined himself against.

[ashenthorn]

"My thesis is basically that the conventional tactic of taking centrist positions to appeal to independents may be misguided. Support for Obama was never about policy but about the perception of his conviction."

I'm not quite so sure that Obama is doing the conventional tactic of running to the center. In fact, I think that as the campaign goes on, he will be running back to the left. June and July isn't election time, but it is "organization time" for groups that will be running turnout operations in the fall. George W. Bush was positively *beloved* by right wing religious groups that organized for him and drove unprecidented turnout for him in November. McCain? Not so much. Obama is trying to muddy the waters by talking about his religion - not necessarily to win the votes of these people, but to forestall them from organizing enthusistically against him since they're already predisposed toward ambivalence about McCain.

[PumaAnn]

The fact that McCain is so close now is astounding. I read today that the Republican Party is energized, and they are raising money fast. 39 million for the convention.

What has the DNC raised?

I believe it's next to nothing, isn't it?

I also read that Independents have now shifted more to McCain than Obama, but it remains unclear if that's going to stay that way. But given that McCain had a rough week, it's a strange number to see.

The Independents undecided may end up for McCain, since McCain wins polls about who is more prepared to be commander in chief by landslide numbers.

[ashenthorn]

"The fact that McCain is so close now is astounding."

It's not astounding at all. The polls are much closer than "unnamed democrat" vs. "unnamed republican" for 3 main reasons.

1. The democratic candidate is black, and named "Barack Hussein Obama" - that won't change.
2. The democratic primary was extremely close and contentious and hardcore supporters of Hillary Clinton are reluctant to express their support for Obama. (This will somewhat fade after the convention, and whether this translates to actual withholding of many votes in November remains to be seen).
3. John McCain has a carefully and meticulously culitvated public image of being a tough, straight-talking independent maverick - an atypical republican who routinely goes against his party leaders. If one only reads liberal blogs, he's "McSame - the third Bush term", but this caricature of McCain has not (yet) been accepted by the electorate. I suspect McCain's support will partially collapse after the debates - he looks bad, looks old, and makes lots of mistakes.

[mosh]

The 'low information' voters I come into contact, those voters who barely pay attention to electoral politics but vote on their 'gut' or 'instinct' or some might say 'inherent 'prejudices' are voting McCain for the very reasons you point out. The less information they have the more likely to cast a vote for McCain. Obama needs to get their attention somehow or change their entrenched 'prejudices'. How that is done beats me, but it definitely isn't moving toward republican positions on the issues. That won't work. Obama cannot hope to out republican McCain.

McCain definitely benefits from the ignorance of the electorate who are just not interested in politics - and there are probably more of them than of us.

[larmarch5]

Bama's Fisa vote took all the "O" out of my ObamaO8. I'll be sending my money to the ACLU and Dem senatorial candidates looking to take away a Rethug seat. I'll still vote for Bama, but won't be making calls. I'll still refute the lies rethugs circulate on the web. If he loses, he can thank the chumps that advised him on FISA.

[Relax08]

Sad because you don't really understand the FISA vote. People like you took the steam out of Obama, he had nothing to do with it. You really don't understand him at all. Sad sad sad.

[justobserve]

Agree! It's amazing that nowadays some people are saying their constitutional rights are violated even though there is a requirement of a FISA court to sign a warrant where there was none in the old FISA. Just look around and they can see we don't have the absolute rights without compromise. The Republicans have nothing in their candidate to win so they have to divide and conquer based on the old-aged method: fear.

[mosh]

What - do you have some inside track into Obama's soul? I wrote Obama a protest about his FISA vote on his website and got his canned reply about 'compromise' and keeping us safe from terrorism, blah blah blah. Boy, was it not persuasive.

Remember the old adage - actions speak louder than words? What do you know about Obama that 'we' just don't get? Because it is sad sad sad to see so many people mindlessly accept the trashing of the fourth amendment for political expedience. That's what's sad.

[DXP]

I've never understood why people would buy Obama's PR lines in such an unthinking manner. His history in the dirty politics of Chicago, his Cheney energy vote(!), his odd stances on abortion, his deception about his finances makes him a very typical politician and not a very progressive one. Clinton was way more progressive. So this is what we are stuck with now and it is becoming more obvious he is a major panderer and blows around in the political breeze. AIPAC FISA, death penalty, gun rights, campaign finance, speaking spanish, and his relationship with the DNC.... this should not be new news. So you got duped by an infatuation....it happens.

[Relax08]

Absurd. Clinton more progressive. What the heck does that mean. She is a closet Republican.
Obama was not nominated because of his progressive stance. He was nominated because of his capacity to bring people together which is exactly what he is doing. And bringing people together does not mean that he his going to be your man on every issue or even a majority of them. If you want just a Democratic candidate you should have found yourself another Al Gore or John Kerry.

[justobserve]

The primaries are over so get over your wish for your candidate, Hillary Clinton. Voters have spoken: Obama is the man for Democrats.
If you can't accept the majority's will, it's even harder for the majority to accept your minority's wish. If you are true Dem, focus on your aim: a Dem win. If you are not, just let yourself be used by the others for their campaigns to deny Democrats the WH or you may wait forever for a candidate who agrees with you, and only you, in every issues to win.

[meanguy]

my aim is the best possible candidate being elected president...i could care less about some stupid 'party loyalty'...save that for the totalitarian regimes of the right and left...we've all seen what blind allegiance to 'the party' leads to...either stalag or gulag...

[mosh]

I think Simon is trying to explain just that phenomenon in his post - to explain this infatuation with Obama. And I think he does a good job.

An Obama advisor should take what Simon says to heart because if Obama cannot win in this climate - and against a hack like John McCain - that would be - - - well, that would be a reality no progressive wants to contemplate.

[hudsuckerproxy]

During the Democratic primaries, rhetoric such as "take our politics to a higher level" and "ready to believe" was vague enough to appeal to voters from across the political spectrum (ready to believe in what exactly?): it did not come with a guarantee that Obama would adopt the progressive agenda. Dennis Kucinich or John Edwards would have been safer bets on that front.

[Relax08]

Ready to believe that a President has to lead all people, not just their political party. The people complainging about Obama just want a partisan fighter and he's not going to do that. Sorry.

[justobserve]

Agree! Let them vote in a Commander-in-Chief who doesn't know what country is not in existence or had been divided into two countries for decades.