First, just like during his Iowa victory speech, at one point the crowd broke out into chants of "U-S-A! U-S-A!" I didn't watch Clinton's Nevada victory speech (had to clean because me parents were coming into town), but I don't remember that happening during her victory speech in New Hampshire. It seems as though Obama's broad, sloganeering, focus on a changed America is something that his activist supporters have really taken to heart. There is a very strong patriotic element to Obama's campaign that isn't being commented upon much.
Second, Obama puts forth one of his central arguments that change has not happened because we are bitterly divided:
[about 5:10 in] We are looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington. It's a status quo that extends beyond any particular party. And right now, that status quo is fighting back with everything it's got, with the same old tactics that divide and district us from solving the problems that people face, whether those problems are health care that folks cannot afford or mortgage they can not pay.(…)
[about 6:40 in] We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner.
The lack of affordable health care, the ongoing mortgage crisis, the lack of renewable energy, and the cost of college were caused by bitter partisanship? That just doesn't make any sense to me. The failure to pass progressive solutions on all of those areas of policy might be due to partisanship, but it is due to Republicans in the Senate and the White House staunchly opposing solutions to all of these problems. Unless one believes that Republicans oppose solutions on these issues simply out of spite and resentment from the vicious attacks we Democrats have sent their way, I have a difficult time seeing how partisanship that goes beyond one party is responsible for the lack of positive legislation on these issues.
Now, Obama supporters will claim that what he is really saying is that in order to pass solutions to these problems, it takes a much larger, working progressive majority in Washington, D.C. According to this theory, Obama isn't talking about being nicer to Republicans. Instead, he is talking about removing conservatives from both the Democratic and Republican parties in order to create a majority in Washington that won't oppose progressive solutions. This is a possible reading of Obama's argument, and one that is reasonably in line with the arguments made on this blog (remove Republicans and Bush Dogs) and with speeches I have heard form, say, Russ Feingold (who never ceases to remind people that Democrats were in charge of the Senate in 2002 when the AUMF against Iraq was passed). However, given Obama's unwillingness to talk in ideological terms (Obama rarely uses the word progressive, and never used it in either his Iowa or South Carolina victory speeches, from what I could tell), that is a difficult reading to swallow. Then again, to continue the tit for tat, Obama supporters would argue that by positioning his policies as common sense, common ground, or moderate that, since his policies are progressive, Obama is redefining the center as progressive.
Personally, I don't think it is as complicated as the arguments in the above paragraph indicate. Instead, I simply think that when he presents his argument on how he would change Washington, Obama is trapped in the larger logic of his campaign. Fundamentally, the rhetoric of Obama campaign is about the possibility of a more diverse America that ultimately only he is able to bring into being because of his diverse background. Since he is constantly talking about a broad coalition that crosses racial, ethnic, generational, partisan, regional, ideological and other such boundaries, he more or less forced to blame the lack of solutions in Washington on the lack of this coalition. To put it one way, a campaign can't have two central arguments. If Obama is staking his main appeal on the possibility of a broad, diverse coalition, then he can't blame the lack of progress in Washington on, say, big corporations. There is only room for so many ideas in a successful electoral campaign, and Obama is right that his main appeal to voters is an identity politics appeal of a changed America. Young voters, highly educated voters, African-Americans and non-Democrats all like him for this reason. As such, he doesn't really have any choice but to blame the lack of progress on the lack of a broad, diverse, coalition that "unifies" currently disparate parts of America. He knows what his main appeal is, and whatever your main appeal is needs to become the central argument of your campaign.
Obama came from academia, but a campaign isn't a format where nuanced, intellectual arguments can be made. He has to blame national division for the lack of solid legislative solutions in Washington, because fundamental he appeals to voters is as a figure who can end, or at least soften, many of our existing national divisions. One of the end results of this campaign seems to be a large, dedicated group of activist supporters who have taken a vision of a diverse, forward looking America as central to our national fortunes. While it does not place enough understanding on the role of the conservative movement in creating many of the major national problems we face (health care, Iraq, mortgage crisis, global warming), it is still a pretty positive outcome nonetheless. It should also be noted that when Obama said the status quo "extends beyond any particular party," no one applauded. So, while his campaign might be trapped in a certain logic, even his most ardent supporters are freer and a lot more partisan than the rhetoric coming from the stump.
|
