you seem to be attacking a straw man here. (4.00 / 1)

Biden isn't saying we need to share a common ideology. Obama has never said that either. I have pasted the staw man below.

"However, working toward everyone sharing the same political philosophy scares the living bejesus out of me."

---

by: odnarbssagib @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 21:34:32 PM UTC

I don't think this is what they're saying... (4.00 / 1)

I'm not sure it's anyone's philosophy that we should all think the same thing and have the same political philosophies.  In fact, Obama, at least, has gone out of his way to emphasize this... Something to the effect of "While we may have differences, I think we have far more in common" or "I will always listen to what you have to say", etc...

Even his most recent statement that I read today seems to suggest this:

"Two years from now, I want the American people to be able to say, "Government's not perfect; there are some things Obama does that get on my nerves. But you know what? I feel like the government's working for me. I feel like it's accountable. I feel like it's transparent. I feel that I am well informed about what government actions are being taken. I feel that this is a President and an Administration that admits when it makes mistakes and adapts itself to new information, that believes in making decisions based on facts and on science as opposed to what is politically expedient." Those are some of the intangibles that I hope people two years from now can claim,"

Quote found on Andrew Sullivan's page.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 21:39:57 PM UTC

I agree with you. (0.00 / 0)

I'm surprised this is even an issue. Their statements are very easy to interpret. Not sure how someone could not understand the point...

---

by: odnarbssagib @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 21:42:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I also agree. (4.00 / 1)

Not to mention Obama statements such as "We should disagree without being disagreeable" and the like.

A lot of people here seem to be deliberately misinterpreting this rhetoric to fit these new "Obama's really center-right" and the like narratives.

In reality, this is the exact same rhetoric Obama's been using since his 2004 convention speech--while we may have our differences, we have much more similarities, and we should work together despite our differences.  This has been made clear a countless number of times, by Obama and his surrogates, in those four years.

You may disagree, but if you do, argue with the real meaning of the rhetoric, not this totalitarian creature you created.  I mean, really, you think Biden's suggesting we should all think alike?  Does anyone even think that's possible, much less desirable?

---

by: DavidN @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 23:13:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Two Americas (4.00 / 1)

Edwards' campaign concept (not solely his, to be sure) of two antagonistically positioned economic classes in America offers another useful distinction to preserve and reiterate, particularly when it is increasingly apparent that beyond paying lip service, the "blue" category in large part no longer supports progressive ideals, but rather does in fact maintain much in common with the goals of the right-center and neoliberalism.

---

by: md @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 21:45:06 PM UTC

Don't worry, I am not a liberal (4.00 / 5)

Obama's bipartisan, reaching across the aisle, beyond ideology rhetoric is code to reassure centrist and right-wing voters that he is not a "traditional" Democrat--i.e. not a liberal.  

---

by: Robert Lasner @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 21:54:20 PM UTC

if that's what he wanted to do -- (0.00 / 0)

reassure right wingers he wasn't a liberal, it would be much smarter to implement centrist policies, rather than the liberal wet dream he's offering

---

by: odnarbssagib @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 21:56:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

liberal wet dream? (4.00 / 1)

Do you mean that Obama is pro-science and infrastructure?

---

by: md @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 22:02:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No policies have been implemented yet (4.00 / 3)

so, one cannot say which end (or center) of the political spectrum these may come from, or placate.

Can you provide one example of a "liberal wet-dream" that Mr. O has promised to pursue in his Administration? I can't think of one, off-hand.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 22:05:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Too early to tell (4.00 / 5)

It is too early to tell if Obama's policies are going to be a "liberal's wet dream." His cabinet certainly isn't.

---

by: Robert Lasner @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 22:07:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

it seems to me that this whole discussion is happening at an overly-high level of (4.00 / 2)

abstraction, and, as a result, what is truly at stake is being lost.  

what biden and obama are saying is that cultural and social "issues" should not structure our political actions to the degree that they do, and that, were these issues to be marginalized, the lines of political demarcation would shake out differently (and in a way that they would welcome).  

i don't think i would welcome this change, as it would likely happen on the backs of lgbt folks (as appears to be the case), and as it might happen at the expense of reproductive rights.  

but the point of what obama and biden are saying is not that there shouldn't be political disagreements, but that it'd be nice if one's position on "cultural issues" didn't determine one's political affiliations, at least not to the degree that it does now.  

---

by: seabrook @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 22:10:03 PM UTC

How, praytell, will this happen? (4.00 / 1)

"but that it'd be nice if one's position on "cultural issues" didn't determine one's political affiliations, at least not to the degree that it does now. "

in a two party system?  Unless both parties agree to sweep "cultural" differences under the rug, or those that see the intimate connection between "culture" and "politics" are shunted aside?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 22:17:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

i'm just the messenger.... (0.00 / 0)

i don't think i would welcome this change, as it would likely happen on the backs of lgbt folks (as appears to be the case), and as it might happen at the expense of reproductive rights.

... don't shoot me :-)  

i agree, it's basically a pipe-dream.

my point was simply that there actually is something at stake in obama and biden's comments, but, imo, it isn't what chris or many of the other commenters think.  

---

by: seabrook @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 22:30:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

consider yourself un-shot (4.00 / 1)

if that's even a word.

So, what is "at stake" in Obama and Biden's comments, in your opinion?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 22:35:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

thanks for un-shooting me :-).... in answer to your question: (4.00 / 2)

they are making a play for the democratic party to basically abandon its (at this point tenuous, at best) commitments to womens and lgbt rights, in an attempt to win over some young white evangelicals and solidify its hold on more socially conservative latino/as.

aside from being morally objectionable, it is also pretty unrealistic as a political strategy (for the reasons that you pointed out above).  that doesn't mean, though, that there aren't some significant "stakes" (it's true that this word is kind of lefty academic jargon... i consider myself called out via your scare-quotes).      

---

by: seabrook @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 23:02:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Social Issues did not used to be the determing factor (0.00 / 0)

There was a time when social issues were not a determining factor.  Kucinich was at one time pro-life but still extremely progressive and a Democrat. There are other Catholic progressives that are also pro-life in the House as well.  They are progressive on economic issues.

 Judy Biggert(R-IL) is pro-choice but no one would accuse her of being a progressive on economic issues.

 Many of what used to be described as White Gloved Republicans, were economically conservative and socially liberal.

  It is possible even for one person to be divided into both liberal and conservative depending on the issue.

 I agree with Chris.  The rhetoric that says we should all be on the same page is crazy and sends the wrong message.  I know it is a rhetorical statement but it should be more like we need to take the best of both the red and blue states and understand how that diversity  makes our country stronger.

---

by: Gibson @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 22:40:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are "social" issues the same as "cultural"? (0.00 / 0)

I'm not trying to be clever. I think culture is a different concept than society. But anyway...

..perhaps we agree if we assume these are the same. Note, I mentioned the two party system. The "White Gloved Republicans" were forced to be in the GOP because of the limitations of the two party system. Were ours a system that could tolerate multiple parties, these kind of compromises would not be necessary. The "White Glove" Party could enter into voting coalitions with other parties as they saw fit on whatever issues came down the political pike. Thus, they would feel no need to support the the GOP on issues that they do not agree.  Same goes for a putative Progressive Party, which could stay true to its core and not be expected to support "conservative Democrats", or Blue Dogs.

Of course its ridiculous to expect the two "Big Tent" mainstream parties to have members that are all on the same page because the price of admission to the tent is to accept aspects of the MSP with which one does not agree. But, that's why some call it a two party tyranny.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 04:42:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

your head a'splode (0.00 / 0)

I think you're loosing perspective.  Any real Analyzing of "glittering sounding" campaign rhetoric such as this will make your head explode if you do it for too long.  

Our Dime Understanding the U.S. Budget

---

by: dmineau @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 22:16:32 PM UTC

Red and Blue (4.00 / 2)

I think that what Red and Blue nation means in this context is a country so divided that we joke about splitting the country in half and cannot work with people on the other side even on issues we agree with.  It isn't an argument for lack of diversity it is an argument for lack of division despite diversity.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

---

by: Luam @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 22:40:25 PM UTC

Red and Blue are Ethnicities (0.00 / 0)

Chris Bowers:

"Red" and "Blue" don't refer to ideology at all.

These are physical, geographic regions that vote for their own candidates.  Social conservatism, religious fundamentalism, hyper-traditionalism --all of these are the characteristics of places in America where the majority populace believes it is the victim of (past military and) current cultural hegemony.

It's North and South, with the low-population, high-homogeneity isolated farm states lining up with the Confederacy.

It's why we've had to run a Southerner for the Presidency for the past 30 years to even have a shot at it.

We ignored it in the non-"y'all saying" parts of the country because we don't have "Northern accents".  Our regions represent the norm in popular culture.  We voted for Democrats and Republicans --until very recently, that is.  

What makes the total Blue-ing of the North East so remarkable is that we've finally figured out that Republicans don't represent us, and that they represent the people who don't like us, have their own bizarre ethnic stereotypes of us, and are far more aware of their own ethnic homogeneity than we are.

In some parts of the country, Republican means "Southern white Christian Confederate loyalist", and Democrat means "other".  These are ethnicities, like "Sunni" and "Kurd".

Barack Obama and Joe Biden seem to understand this better than you do, Chris.  I think that they're wrong, and that the way to these people's hearts and minds isn't to shower them with federal largess in the hopes that they'll stop passive-aggressively fighting the War of Northern Aggression, (see http://www.eschatonblog.com/20... but that's a problem with liberalism in general.

These people don't believe in the federal programs we implement to help them.  They're so terrified of losing their majority statuses in their own states that they'd rather take a chance on their own wealthy keeping a smaller tax burden than let that money possibly go to those other, non-white, non-Southern communities.  They don't trust the federal government because it's not their people in charge. They'll keep electing warmongerers and Dr. Strangelove military fetishists until the day that they can feel no cultural pain from having lost the War Between the States.  They're perpetually at Culture War in order to keep their culture from being marginalized and ultimately disappearing like Jim Crow and the Antebellum before that.  

They're a different country.  They feel oppressed by us.

Obama/Biden are fantasizing about some mythic WWII period in which Americans "came together" to defeat totalitarianism.  They're forgetting that the Armed Services were kept segregated in order for that to happen.

I don't know what the solution is, just like I don't know how Kurdistan can be integrated into a Greater Iraq.  I'm just very surprised at an incredibly bright and perceptive man such as yourself being so off-base on this one, Mr. Bowers.

---

by: stuart_zechman @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 22:46:06 PM UTC

Shorthand (0.00 / 0)

maybe this is obvious, but hasn't this species of rhetoric evolved out of various analyses about how people with different political beliefs were becoming isolated from one another in terms of geography, religion, etc. ? I hate the shorthand version, though.

It scares me too that anyone hints at shutting down vigorous political debate. But how much debate is there? It also scares me to think how many millions of conservatives are out there, not knowing any liberals/lefties at all, and genuinely imagining us as evil people. (And to a lesser extent, the same may be true in reverse.) Talk radio has a hold on a whole bunch of people who should be voting for democrats, but have been persuaded that we're all evil. Isn't the solution provided by people like Tester: unabashedly progressive policies with a pinch of bipartisanship mixed up with common-sense? If it's done right, I think the tone should be: "cut the crap, this is the best solution to our problems, and I'm going to try to get the Republicans to help, because we all know this is the right thing to do". This is a message to voters about why you are doing what you are doing. Done wrong, I think this tactic comes across as a suck-up message directed at Republican politicians themselves. Biden's comments strike me more as the latter than the former.

---

by: lachlustre @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 22:47:17 PM UTC

Turn Back Hate (0.00 / 0)

Demonstrate your opposition to Pastor Warren's hateful rhetoric by turning your back on him as he delivers the invocation. You can show your support by signing our petition at TurnBackHate.com.  

---

by: astrodem @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 22:47:27 PM UTC

Wrong (0.00 / 0)

Red state, Blue state. I know it is just rhetoric.

And you(or anyone) will keep being disappointed if you thought that was just campaign rhetoric. Oh and comparing unifying the country to fascism is ridiculous and deceptive. You know why you don't want unity? because you probably want your specific ideology imposed on everyone without their input. You cant do that if there are compromises and reaching out.That is closer to fascism imo.

Oh and other than the last 20 years, elections were usually bipartisan (with lots of landslides) this new partisan demagoguery really started with bush who lost the PV but won. and it should end with him.

---

by: LeftPoint @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 23:00:09 PM UTC

I don't think it will ever be a reality... (0.00 / 0)

I think its more the ideal that many feel should be what we are shooting for.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 23:39:37 PM UTC

Biden's sentiment makes sense if you accept the premise (4.00 / 1)

The premise, which is almost universally accepted amongst the political media, is that politics is somehow more "polarized" and "divisive" and "disagreeable" than it ever has been in the past. If I believed this to be true, maybe I'd be sympathetic about reaching out to the other side or whatever (as stupid as that sounds).

But of course it is a myth. I don't see how anyone could look back at our history and think that now is a uniquely rancorous era. Just working backwards off the top of my head, think: Clinton impeachment, government shutdown, Willie Horton, "welfare queen," Watergate, Vietnam, the draft, Chicago 1968, Southern resistance to desegregation, McCarthy, Jim Crow, labor unrest, Reconstruction, a CIVIL FUCKING WAR, and so on and so forth. Compared to all that, things look positively lovey-dovey nowadays. But hey, bloggers use the F-word a lot.

---

by: Jason C. @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 01:10:52 AM UTC

Competition is Good (0.00 / 0)

So we've got competition between Red & Blue America.

Good thing. Blue America would be winning if we would stick to some Blue principles rather than steer to the mushy center.

Or let's put it this way - you can wade into the muck if you know who you are. Otherwise, you're just a bunch of muck.

Democrats have a Brand. But all this diluting the brand only favors Republicans, who know how to promote and deepen a brand. The work that guys (hey, where's the gals?) at OpenLeft have done helps develop and deepen the Democratic Brand, even if it's not the only part of the Party.

But if we can accommodate gay-bashing assholes without a fight or asterisk, even giving them star billing in the process, what kind of Democratic brand is that? Nixon didn't go to China to give Mao a cabinet post. He just said marginally, "We can work it out...carefully". But there was an agenda of what kind of movement was required and desired on the Chinese side, movement that led to the reforms of Deng Xiao-Peng. Had Nixon let Mao speak to Congress, promoted the Cultural Revolution as just another way of looking at things that fit in our big tent, told dissenting Republicans to "just get over it (tm)"?

---

by: Desider @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 03:53:30 AM UTC

If competition is good (0.00 / 0)

why limit our political system to only two parties? More parties means more competition and more participants.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 04:44:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Go ahead (4.00 / 1)

Get another party in there. I don't make the rules.

---

by: Desider @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 17:55:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We do have different political philosophies (0.00 / 0)

But it is not just the Village which makes the range of those philosophies so narrow that Americans can be said to have only one. It is because we have a shared commitment to the values of the Constitution even if we prioritize them differently that even conservatives like Fein were able to see how radical were the things that Bush and Cheney were doing to us. We also have a shared interest in not letting government get too big and intrusive.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

---

by: 4jkb4ia @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 14:56:02 PM UTC

Why? (0.00 / 0)

You quote yourself as saying this: "it simply isn't healthy to keep analyzing campaign rhetoric as though it demanded academic discussion."

Your link doesn't seem to lead to this quote, so I'm unsure of the original context, so I'll take it at face value.

Isn't this yet another genteel-sounding form of STFU?

We're living in the age of "get over it."

Absolution from prior statements and actions is an inexhaustible get-out-of-jail free card for those with power.

Don't we need more accountability, rather than less?

A blanket amnesty on campaign bullshit can't be the stuff of a reality-based politics, can it?

Isn't lying one's way into a job in which one can then lie one's way into a war the sort of thing we ought to stand against?

---

by: vastleft @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 14:57:16 PM UTC

Stoller, Jefferson, Nixon (0.00 / 0)

Nearly a year ago (January 3) Matt Stoller wrote a nice diary entitled "The Bi-Partisan Virus in Iowa."  The question Matt asked was why, when Republicans have been ultra-partisan for the last 20 years should Democrats even try to play ball?  The answer seemed to be a huge cultural push within Iowa for bi-partisanship despite everything.  Obama clearly tapped into that big time.  At the time, a big question was whether this was something just geared for the Iowa market or was it a core value held by Obama.  It is looking more and more like a core value.

Non-partisanship was a big principle for George Washington and just about only George Washington although he pretty clearly was a Federalist at heart.  Washington, after all, had both John Adams (VP) and Alexander Hamilton (Secretary of the Treasury) (Federalists to the core)and Thomas Jefferson (the founder of the Democratic Party, then called the Democratic Republicans.

After a highly partisan term in office, Adams who had squeaked into power was edged out by Jefferson.  Jefferson, nonetheless, was nearly denied the Presidency when the "tie" with his VP, Aaron Burr, led to the office being decided by the Federalists in the House (one vote per state).  Jefferson made it and Adams after making a series of late appointments to judgeships hightailed it out of town, ostentatiously skipping Jefferson's inauguration.

Jefferson's speech following a partisanship only matched (if at all) by the elections of 1824,1860,1876 and 2000 was a call for principled bi-partisanship.  We aren't getting the framework from Obama.  After mentioning that freedom of religion had been secured, Jefferson declared, "We are all Republicans.  We are all Federalists."  Then he set out the terms under which this was true.  We all believe in a Democracy with Republican levers of power in which the rights of the minority are guaranteed despite the possible wishes of the majority.  Among those rights was the right of labor.  Government "shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."

The Republicans are not offering Jefferson; they are offering Nixon as perfected by the Bushes and their minions of hate, Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.  They will not agree on any core principles, guarantee civil and human rights, guarantee the rights of labor, or do any of the other neccesities to be part of that compact.  They will thwart the will of the majority through deception, fraud, voter intimidation, the courts, the levers of government when they control them and their special buddies the media and the Washington establishment.

The cure all to that is not blind bi-partisanship.  It is good governance.  Within four years, the Federalists were badly wounded and within 20 they were gone after hanging around as a regional party for a time (New England).  Never again would they elect a President, control Congress or control the nation's discourse.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 17:53:26 PM UTC

Red and Blue (0.00 / 0)

The goal is to change the us vs. them mentality that pervades our political thinking, where "we" are liberals rather than Americans, and "they" are conservatives.  The ideal situation desired is where "we" includes all Americans.

I think that this is NOT the ideal situation -- to me, "we" includes all people, not just Americans -- but that's a different point altogether.  We should consider the Evangelicals our brothers, for instance.  The trouble is that they don't make it particularly easy on us, with all their gay-bashing and such, but the goal here is for everyone to consider everyone else as part of the ingroup, not having divisions between "real Americans" and everyone else like Sarah Palin mentioned.

---

by: mauro7inf @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 20:07:16 PM UTC