You may be jumping the gun (4.00 / 5)

Granted, an Obama victory would be strong evidence that you CAN defeat a Bubba coalition.  But it wouldn't prove that such success is inevitable.  

Key data points:

1. On paper, the ivy-league educated, black Obama is the antithesis of the Bubba candidate.  In reality, he has had his share of Sista Souljah-esque/anti-"The Left" moments, although generally not on racial issues.  (To his credit, he has also had his moments of pushing back against the identity narratives.)

2.  McCain has a lot of serious weaknesses as a candidate that are largely unrelated to conservative identity politics:  He's short.  He's old.  He's inheriting Bush's economy.

3.  McCain's failure to demagogue on immigration issues hurts him with the Bubba vote.

Given a more inspiring GOP candidate, a less inspiring Dem candidate, and a better economy things would be a lot different.  I wouldn't stick a fork in conservative identity politics for at least another 8 years (the younger generation seems impervious to this stuff)

---

by: space @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 16:41:27 PM CDT

These things are true but (4.00 / 3)

McCain is running a pretty traditional GOP campaign, railing against "elitists" like he was Geoerge Wallace with his "pointy-headed intellectuals" and his sub rosa "Obama wants to take your white daughter" images, soon to be followed by "Obama wants to kill your unborn child" images.

Obama held a fundraiser in SF last night that netted $7.8 million.  The focus was a $14,000 a person outreach aimed at Asians and Pacific Islanders.  He was unabashed about his international and multicultural background.  It also had a lot of Silicon Valley types.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 17:05:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well caught tangent and connection. (4.00 / 2)

This is an amazing article, partly because it drives these insights. This is an article about us, and the end of a era in American electoral politics. It isn't the end of bad policies, or the loss of working class white power, nor would we want it to be. Policies have lost one set of factors pushing them in the wrong direction, there are and will be others.

Also working class white males will benefit enormously from alliances with working class organizations for example, and in alliances with working class white females. I cant wait to see some these bear fruit.

It means that the dog whistle racism, identity backlash and cultural norm tests will not drive policies in the same way. The next analysis might be, now that bubba is not the prime swing vote, where is the swing vote going to be in 2012 and 16?

Thank you Chris Bowers again. This is another in a series of well written insights about the changing nature of American politics.

It is not the, (pardon me now) stupid left crap of "they aren't as progressive as me so I'm not playing" bovine fertilizer that permeates far too much discourse.

It is one thing to know and regret the power of bubba politics, to work to find ways to minimize it's effect, and it is another to rail in impotent self important outrage about the ones who have dealt with it for generations. We really do need to stop psychologically killing our fathers and calling it political discourse.

I am filled with hope that the change Mr. Bowers so eloquently and singularly describes, is actually coming to pass, as it appears to be. What was once called the end the of the southern strategy will be replaced, and we will need to adjust. The class contest behind that outward strategy is not going away. Obama is brilliantly, has brilliantly, worked to create, and benefit from, the change happening. He did it in the primary, and is still working to build a new Democratic Party alliance in the General. This may be progressives moving toward governing for a long long time, but it will take more that gloating and angry demands to let a new consciousness develop to match the electoral shifts.

What does progressivism look like when it isn't reacting to the right winning again.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 18:32:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Backlash (4.00 / 1)

Chris, I have a comment/question on this passage:

"In order to solidify their support among the white, blue-collar, nonliberal, nonurban swing voters described above, conservative Republicans from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush employed a series of identity-based "backlash" narratives against a diverse array of minority demographic groups who were scapegoated for the problems the swing voters faced: liberals destroyed traditional culture and humbled America before its enemies. African-Americans used affirmative action to take jobs they didn't deserve and created a national plague of crime. Immigrants illegally took American jobs and public services without even bothering to learn our language. Homosexuals destroyed families and threatened to convert your children to their lifestyle. Non-Christians forced Jesus out of public places and declared war on Christmas. All of these rhetorical strategies pitted a majority of voters (the religious, the white, the middle class, the straight) against some minority."

I think you correctly identify the backlash politics that the right used to gain power over the last 40 years. But I would argue that the appeal to the archetypal swing voter is not the only theme that unifies the seemingly disparate anxieties that conservatives have exploited. (Those anxieties being religious, cultural, linguistic, territorial, economic, racial, and more.) I would suggest that the common theme uniting these various anxieties the right exploits is NATIONALISM. Take a look at the definition of nationalism at Wikipedia. Couldn't one also argue that nationalism is the central organizing principle of movement conservatism?

---

by: astrodem @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 16:44:45 PM CDT

It's both (4.00 / 1)

Backlash plays on resentments, nationalism makes the person feel a part of something bigger. It was a formula used to great effect in Europe in the last century. It appeals to people who feel lost and small and anxious by giving voice and legitimacy to their grievances and then enlisting them in a great and noble cause for the Fatherland.  Or the Party.  'Nuff said.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 17:21:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Apparently, Obama is the biggest celebrity in the world for D&D players... (0.00 / 0)

Sorry for the off-topic here, but the level of disdain for Obama's SUPPORTERS from the McCain camp is off-the-hook.  Check out this response to the fake Cross-in-Dirt story being brought up:

"It may be typical of the pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd to disparage a fellow countryman's memory of war from the comfort of mom's basement, but most Americans have the humility and gratitude to respect and learn from the memories of men who suffered on behalf of others."

Wow... I realize this is just another play on the hatred that Conservatives have for the "latte-sipping" crowd, but seriously... Obama supporters are now all a bunch of D&D players who live in their parent's basement?  Shouldn't the media be all over this?

Imagine if Obama's campaign sent out a press-release like this:

"It may be typical of the pro-McCain war-mongering hicks to disparage a fellow countryman's patriotism from the comfort of his and his cousin's barn, but most Americans have the humility and gratitude to respect and learn from the experiences of men who have made everything for themselves and lived the American dream."

Would this not cause just about every pundits heads to explode simultaneously?  And how is this much different than what McCain's camp actually said?

---

by: leshrac55 @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 17:09:40 PM CDT

And btw... this should be an ad... (4.00 / 1)

Let MoveOn or another group do it... but someone should absolutely run an ad saying that McCain made up his cross in the dirt story.  This is exactly the kind of "controversial" ad that the media loves to cover and it'd cut directly into McCain's "war hero" theme by saying that he'd even lie about his time in captivity to garner votes.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 17:13:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not saying it, just asking if (0.00 / 0)

Just pointing out the circumstantial evidence.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 17:23:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And btw... this should be an ad... (0.00 / 0)

Let MoveOn or another group do it... but someone should absolutely run an ad saying that McCain made up his cross in the dirt story.  This is exactly the kind of "controversial" ad that the media loves to cover and it'd cut directly into McCain's "war hero" theme by saying that he'd even lie about his time in captivity to garner votes.

---

by: leshrac55 @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 17:13:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Rorshach tests (0.00 / 0)

The fact D&D even occurred to them to mention seems to betray some vaguely unusual things about their campaign internals. Something on their mind, perhaps?

So which edition do you like more, John? 3.5 or 4?

---

by: mcc @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 17:24:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What a joke! (0.00 / 0)

I haven't played D&D for years.  Now I play GURPS.  And Mom lives across town.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 17:31:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is a very good article (4.00 / 4)

Even though the ideas aren't new since I've read you since your multi-part Kos Diary on reorganizing the Party.  But everything is pulled together very well.  I hope it gets you a deserved wider audience.

Another very good article on the infrastructure and party-building side of the Obama campaign by Dana Goldstein and Ezra Klein at the Prospect explains what the ideas and actions behind the Obama infrastructure are. It should also give folks here a boost. Sample:

If Barack Obama is, in some ways, the accidental beneficiary of the long-delayed strong-party opportunity, he is also succeeding because he, and the party veterans who surround him, understand the moment's promise and consciously chose a strategy capable of fulfilling it.

Their approach has amounted to picking sides in what has been an unusually bitter battle over the correct strategic direction for the party. In 2004, John Kerry ran as the nominee of an impoverished, regionally fractured Democratic Party. The Democratic National Committee was still headed by a Clinton loyalist, Terry McAuliffe. Though Howard Dean had run a revolutionary primary campaign, using the Internet to mobilize grass-roots support and attract more small donations than ever before, the party's Beltway apparatus seemed more frightened than inspired by his example. In the meantime, congressional candidates across the country were forced to compete with one another for the attention and resources of the DNC, which was working off of a small list of swing states targeted by Kerry's people and McAuliffe.

snip

Dean saw things differently. As an insurgent candidate in 2004, he had outraised the scions of the establishment with ease, riding an enthused base to a huge cash advantage. His comportment at the DNC reflected his residual trust in that base: If the party spoke to its supporters, the money would be there. Dean was proven right. The party picked up 31 House and six Senate seats in the 2006 midterm elections, and many 50-State skeptics became supporters.

Among those watching was the Obama team. Obama's field operation essentially implemented a 50-State Strategy modified for the primary season. So in part, it was no surprise that once he clinched the nomination, Obama chose to keep Dean in place as DNC chair, even as he merged the DNC into his own campaign. The two men have been remarkably in sync. "I am proud of the fact that we're the first campaign in a generation to run a 50-State Strategy," Obama told the Netroots Nation convention in Austin, Texas, in a taped statement. "Not a 50 percent-plus-one strategy, but a 50-State Strategy made possible by the volunteer activism and organizing you and others have made on the ground and support by Governor Dean's efforts at the DNC."

The article explains to an extent how the youth vote found its home in the Dem Party, while Chris explains how they and the rest of the coalition of the despised joined up.  

At last there are more of us than there are of them, and even if we don't have more money, at least this time we seem willing to part with it, and with our time.  I only hope it is all enough, because if it is, the consequences will put us in a better place than at any time since 1964 to make some progressive changes.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 17:17:39 PM CDT

Good stuff (4.00 / 1)

If you consider the efforts that the Obama campaign is putting into voter registration and GOTV, plus the possible polling undersampling of cell phone-only young people and minorities, plus the enthusiasm gap between Obama and McCain supporters... It seems very possible that, no matter what the polls are saying just before the election, Obama will do much better than they would suggest, maybe outperforming them by more than 5%. I'm not predicting that, and I certainly wouldn't bank on it; but it's easy to imagine it playing out that way.

(By the way, cf. David Axelrod saying yesterday that he's more concerned with voter registration numbers than poll numbers in swing states right now. So we know they don't think the polls are telling the whole story.)

---

by: Chachy @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 17:29:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Trifling correction: (0.00 / 1)

Obama was NOT a college professor.  He was a guest lecturer.  Big difference.

---

by: Querent @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 17:30:18 PM CDT

According to the University of Chicago (4.00 / 6)

He was a professor:

The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track.

---

by: mcc @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 17:47:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's a really good article (0.00 / 0)

You've said most of it here before, but it's really pulled together very nicely. This is the sort of analysis that first brought me to this site. Thanks!

---

by: Chachy @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 17:32:26 PM CDT

Great Piece, And Great Contrast (4.00 / 2)

with this really retro-looking (and empirically-challenged) piece by Michael Lind at Salon, "The Newer Deal", arguing for a return to economic populism (which I favor) on the false theory that:

Today's Democrats and Republicans bear little resemblance to the pre-1968 groups of the same name. The pre-1968 Republican Party was based in the Northeast, Midwest and West Coast -- the very areas that are the base of today's "blue state" Democrats. The pre-1968 Democrats were the old Jefferson-Jackson alliance of white Southern Protestants and Northern urban Catholics, plus a big chunk of Northern Progressives, many of them former Republicans. Today the Republicans are a white working-class party based in the South and much of the West with a libertarian Wall Street wing. The Democrats since the 1970s have been an alliance of college-educated white professionals from the North and West with blacks and Latinos.

Of course, the Dems still beat the Reps in the white working class--it's the upper-middle-class and higher whites that have turned majority GOP.  But Lind loves him some tired old narratives of his own.

Quite a contrast with your reality-based article.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 18:01:40 PM CDT

This strikes me as nit-picking (0.00 / 0)

Pre-1968 (really, pre-LBJ signing the Civil and Voting Rights Acts in '64 and '65) the Republican Party -- the party of Lincoln -- was DEAD in the South for obvious historical reasons.  

I've long believed that it was much more likely that the GOP would be the first party to embrace civil rights reforms. The flip-flopping that Lind describes is sort of a historical political oddity that resulted from LBJ's leadership on that issue.

You can quibble over exactly how much of the White working class vote the Dems kept, but the basic narrative that Lind describes is essentially true, notwithstanding it being "tired and old".

---

by: space @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 22:08:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not At All (0.00 / 0)

Look, everyone knows that the GOP has become a Southern-based party, and no one's disputing that.  But the rest of what he says is simply false.

Even in the South, the GOP's strength among whites remains heavily skewed toward the well-off, as I showed last October in my diary, "Class Still Matters Among Southern Whites". In short, the "working class plus Wall Street" formulation is simply false.  (See, also, Larry Bartell's "What's the Matter with What's the Matter with Kansas" [PDF].)

Heck, Lind doesn't even seem to distinguish between party membership and voting in presidential elections, which is one of the most crucial features of the post 1968 era.  As I've noted numerous times, this is the first era in US history characterized by a dominant pattern of divided government, with only a few years in which one party or the other controlled both houses of Congress and the White House.  Part of the reason is that Congress tends to be a much closer reflection of party ID.  It's hardly identical, of course, but the GOP never came anywhere near to parity in party ID until after 1994.  And even today, Dems continue to do quite well in Southern state legislatures where they are swamped in presidential elections.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:31:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Rise of the intellectual black culture (0.00 / 0)

I think this election could be described as the rise of the intellectual black culture.  Obama removes almost every bit of stigma that the intellectual black culture currently has in politics.

And likewise the current black people in power are getting replaced or strongly challenged by intellectual types.

Obama had a lot of trouble winning early in his career for precisely that reason.  But I think thats pretty much gone as now Obama is the symbol of an intellectual black man untainted by slavery or even that much racism.  (Which MLK was too precisely because he could speak such a message of optimism and forgiveness in those times but getting shot kinda ruined that image)  In this election its the white man who is the bubba and the black man who is the intellectual.

In other words it is the multiracial women intellectuals whom will probably become the symbol of the democratic party because they can appeal to the socially conservative hispanics and blacks while getting crossover white and women votes.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

---

by: TerraFF @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 19:19:39 PM CDT

the other way to look at this (4.00 / 1)

"In other words it is the multiracial women intellectuals whom will probably become the symbol of the democratic party because they can appeal to the socially conservative hispanics and blacks while getting crossover white and women votes."

or, they will be rejected by both sides.  So a key question is what conditions allow rejection and what conditions allow acceptance and even leadership by a disempowered person among other groups?  For example, why did Black women and White men and demographics that neither candidate was a member of vote the ways they did in the Obama / Clinton primary?

---

by: dr anonymous @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 20:29:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Black Intellectuals Have ALWAYS Played A Leadership Role (4.00 / 2)

Precisely because blacks never owned much of anything, their leadership has always skewed intellectual, at least since the emergence of folks like Frederick Douglass and the independent black church.  Until quite recently, black capitalists had virtually no leadership impact, quite unlike the white world.  While most of tha leadership has come through the church, the contrast between the intellectualism of black church leadership vs. white--particularly in the South--has been quite striking.  

This continues to this day, as the foolish attempts of pundits like George Will to characterize Obama as diferent from Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, because he talks about issues is belied by a simple google search.  It's white politicians who talk about race in terms of caricatures, and black politicians who talk in terms of complex relationships of race, class and specific issues, such as homeownership, predatory leanding, environmental justice, etc. in ways that are far more intellectually sophisticated than comparably-placed white political figures.  And this is not even to mention the role of the black artistic and literary intelligensia, which has been undeniable since the days of the Harlem Renaissance.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 05:50:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good piece Chris (4.00 / 1)

I chuckled at this:

As the first nonwhite presidential nominee in recent American history...

Are you hedging your bets about Harding?

If you're right (I have no specific objection to say you are wrong), then I could see the Republican party splintering severely into a center-right and far-right as the former tries to win elections in the new demographic reality which will cause the latter to break away.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 19:26:56 PM CDT

some curious questions and constructive criticism (4.00 / 2)

what about structural analysis of political economy? It's plausible to me that just as with the New Deal/civil rights coalition, when the dominant coalition has "too much" power, it could focus on meeting the needs of its constituents, have fruitless wars and make other decisions that were damaging both to its political stabililty AND the economy (read: capital).  downplaying this is a mistake in understanding what triggers the beginning of realignment imo.

what about class? The realignment you're talking about is plausible, but to what extent are the elites of disempowered groups being allowed into the American elite at the cost of the working class as a whole (including among disempowered groups), at least for now?  I don't think the economic populism that has emerged has yet found its way into the Democratic party (Edwards was closest) and I don't know when it will happen  (maybe in the next four years).    

Can the Democrats build a coalition based on pluralism without a more radical core that opposes at least the effects of all social hierarchies, including class?  Otherwise, how will the coalition of the disempowered that will outlast the fear that people have of the craziness of the Republican rightwing.  This is important because the coalition you discuss is not homogeneous.  the interests of various members of this coalition can diverge without a coherent understanding that progressivism means fighting disempowerment on multiple grounds combined with respect for other people, not just winning policy victories.    there is xenophobia by 1st generation Americans against undocumented people; there is racism by racial minorities against other racial minorities; there is homophobia by straight people, including Asians and Latinos, against queer people; there is sexism against single women among Asians and Latinos, etc.  All these divisions and many more can be exploited if there isn't an undercurrent of values that is still in formation.

In the interests of the tolerant pluralism you're promoting: some of the generalizations need a bit of nuance; for example, Filipinos and Floridian Cuban Americans as groups have tended to vote Republican, unlike many other "Asian" or "Latino" subgroups.  Also, I really would have liked to see more mention of LGBT people since they're a frequent target of Christian fundamentalism along with women and Muslims.

Finally, even if all this happens, and a new understanding of "the nation" is reflected in or buillt by the Democratic Party, how will any of it stop the U.S. from engaging in dommination of the rest of the world?  And what would an alternative look like?

---

by: dr anonymous @ Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 20:24:14 PM CDT