Conventional wisdom today is that Barack Obama is the new JFK. Yet, that comparison underestimates the magnitude of what Obama is trying to accomplish. While Obama may remind many of JFK rhetorically, they differ in a very fundamental way that reveals itself in their policies: Kennedy succeeded by moving the Democrats from the left to the center, whereas Obama is trying to create a new progressive movement by moving the center to the left. In that way, what Obama is trying to do is more like what Ronald Reagan did for the Republicans -- create a new majority founded not on centrist ideas, but core party beliefs. Now, that is audacious.
There are obviously some legitimate comparisons to JFK. Like Kennedy, Obama excites voters, exudes hope and is a master orator, somehow able to crystallize what voters have been thinking but other politicians have not been saying. Obama is also handsome and fit, with an attractive wife and adorable young children. However, these similarities mask significant differences. Kennedy was not a party loyalist, and in particular, on foreign policy he took a very aggressive anti-communism position that challenged the standard liberal orthodoxy that had led to Adlai Stevenson's nominations in 1952 and 1956. It is easy to forget as we wax nostalgically about Camelot that it was JFK who perpetuated the myth of the missile gap with the U.S.S.R. as a strategy to outflank the great red-hater, Richard Nixon. While he has become a hero to the left in death, in 1960 the true liberals -- those who saw themselves as descendants of Stevenson and Eleanor Roosevelt -- viewed him with great suspicion.
Thus, while most Democrats don't want to admit it today, if ever there were an heir to Kennedy, it was Bill Clinton. Clinton followed Kennedy's centrist approach in 1992, attempting to carve a third-way and distancing himself from the party's left. Recall that Clinton had his 'Sister Souljah" moment in order to intentionally separate himself from Jesse Jackson, that he promoted free trade much to the chagrin of unions and that he took on the great liberal albatross of welfare by promising to end it, as we know it. Clinton was trying to forge a new centrist approach that borrowed from the left and right, and as such, the true liberals of the party distrusted him and his Democratic Leadership Conference. Like Kennedy in 1960, true liberals jumped on the Clinton bandwagon not because he embodied their policies, but instead because they were tired of losing and had nowhere else to go in the general election.
Obama, on the other hand, is not trying to forge a new, centrist approach, a third way or a policy of triangulation. Unlike John McCain, who has broken with his party on core issues, like immigration, global warming, torture, and campaign finance, Obama has shown no similar independence from his party, and in fact, he embodies the liberal-end of the party -- a quick exit from Iraq, new and expanding government programs (his website is a veritable laundry list), reversing the Bush tax cuts, revisiting free trade agreements, strengthening unions, aggressive action on global warming, and on and on. Rather than running away from the base, like McCain has done, and as JFK and Clinton did, Obama has been running to the base, and in return, the base has increasingly rallied around Obama, as demonstrated by his endorsements by the furthest left factions like Moveon.org and Ted Kennedy. What is remarkable about Obama is that he is not trying to move the country to the center, but instead, he is trying to bring those in the center to the left.
In this way, Obama is more like Reagan, who did not try to move the country to the center, but found a way to the move the center to the right. The power of Obama for the left is that he is able to make what seems like extremism in the mouth of others, somehow inviting, to the center and to independents. This was the beauty of Reagan as well. Reagan did not compromise on conservatives' core beliefs to win votes; instead, he used his message of hope and renewal to bring disaffected voters to the right. If you listen to Obama that is what he is promising as well ... a new majority but committed to core liberal ideology. Moreover, Obama understands that his vision requires every last Democrat and thus, like Reagan, he operates by the principle of not speaking ill about another Democrat, as demonstrated by his fealty to the questionable status quo in Illinois. As Peggy Noonan recently reminded readers, even JFK reached a point where he could not endorse a hack Democratic Governor from Massachusetts, whereas Obama has yet to define where that line needs to be drawn for him.
If it is an Obama-McCain race, each will offer a very different but important choice for independents. McCain's promises freedom from blind party allegiance, and cooperation and compromise across party lines on major issues as a means to ending gridlock in our nation. Obama, alternatively, promises a new liberal movement that would rival the conservative movement launched by Reagan and that would require compromise from the Republicans but not Democrats. Both are equally difficult. McCain's approach requires constantly moving alliances and coalitions depending on the issue, something often viewed as slippery and something party loyalists -- Democrat or Republican -- do not tolerate. For Obama, his vision of a new majority based on core liberal beliefs has not been tested in a general election against a serious Republican candidate. During his senatorial run in Illinois, he faced the laughable Alan Keyes and to date, Hillary Clinton has absorbed the body blows from the right and talk radio as the agent of the liberal agenda. With her out in a general election, Obama will come to embody that agenda, and his challenge will be to convince independents and centrist voters that he is John Kennedy while Republicans portray him as a tax and spend liberal, or as that other Kennedy, Teddy. If Obama can he do that, he will be the Democrats' Reagan, and if he cannot, he will be another Stevenson.
"Moreover, Obama […] like Reagan, operates by the principle of not speaking ill about another Democrat."
Of course, the line is drawn not only at Hillary but at the entire Clinton administration. That's targeting a lot of other Democrats. The Obama slogan "Change We Can Believe In" has only one target, and it's not Bush. TPM reports that the Obama campaign sent out flyers in Alaska, and possibly elsewhere, denouncing the Clinton administration for the responsibility of losing the party's majority in Congress. And in his post-Super Tuesday spin, the candidate himself, claiming to still be the underdog despite his almost 3-to-1 advantage in January fund-raising, said he is up against a two-decade-old Clinton "machine."
Of course others will have to point out that his own campaign is being run by consultants who have served in this supposed machine, KP&D Message and Media, whose roster of "clients" has included Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, and of course the Obama himself a mere 3 years ago.
Underdog? No, just ordinary political dog.
But to be specific, you write:
"If you listen to Obama [...] what he is promising [is] a new majority [...] committed to core liberal ideology."
I have never heard Obama articulate anything like an "ideology" or a political philosophy, and in this he indeed is not like his political hero Ronald Reagan or the Republicans of the 1980s, aka "the party of ideas", to which he alluded in his interview with the editors of the Reno Gazette-Journal. If he had an ideology, he would echo more the populist language of an Edwards. Rather, Obama is a committed pragmatist: As he stated regarding his approach to the use of war as an instrument of foreign policy, he believes in "what works". His gift is to present rather standard fare on the Democratic menu for temporary fixes to national "problems" in rather vague but inspiring rhetoric. The Reagan era Republicans had the guts to suggest there were profound structural problems in American political and social life that required revolutionary changes. Now that was the kind of change that people could really believe in!
Why would Obama supporters rip the author or sueco appart? It's the reason I'm voting for him tomorrow. He captures progressive values in a way that inspires.
I thought us Democrats were electing someone who fit in line with our values: using common sense, not waging (or voting to authorize) dumb wars, someone who cared about kids and families, and the plight of the poor in this country. That is Barack Obama.
It's funny how you say that Barack only votes on party line: except he was vehemently against the war in Iraq, while the other democrats weren't. He is for driver's licenses for illegal immigrants for the purpose of public safety, and he is for not mandating healthcare coverage even though he would be heavily attacked by his opponents for it not being universal.
He is for owning guns, another issue that is tricky with liberals...
...oh whatever. You'll see in Barack Obama whatever you Hillary supporters want her to see him as.
the corporations have "allowed" Obama and Clinton to proceed because neither is threatening their profits. Since all Honest candidates have already been excluded, everything from now on will be game fluff to win the election.
Obama and Clinton, cannot propose eliminating the health insurance companies for fear of what all that health insurance money could do to them. That goes for any and all other, perceived anti-corporatist proposals.
For instance pot legalization. Or ending war as a continuing welfare system for the war profiteers.
Don't expect to get what you vote for.
I'm going to vote democratic and hope for the best.
You have brilliantly compensated for your inaugural post.
This is one of the key Obama changes that more need to grasp: his governance strategy.
Can he pull it off?
I don't know.
I do believe that he is the only one who has a chance.
Which entirely depends on the answer to another, similar question:
Can WE?
I've never seen a campaign that doesn't care if it smacks down the core party members.
Kennedy endorsement of this doesn't surprise me.
It is actually not clear what Obama is trying to do, except get elected President. He wants to invite Ahmadinejad to a meeting one week; bomb Pakistan the next. While he opposed the war, his economic positions have been endorsed by Paul Volcker {see Bonddad}. So he's probably a pretty mainstream, centrist kind of guy.
This is not to say you shouldn't vote for him, since it was not obvious what FDR was trying to do before he got elected in 1932. Also, Hillary is not clearly better. But let's not get carried away by our enthusiasm, since it seems to me there is a good chance we will feel burned once he is elected