Terms of Debate

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 19:15


In my diary yesterday, "Candidate Strength &The Party's Future: SUSA Presidential Match-Ups--A Deeper Look" one of the striking things that stood out was Obama's strength in the West and Midwest, compared to his weakness in the South-a pattern that fit exactly with the strategic advice and prognostication of Tom Schaller in Whistling Past Dixie.

On the main page of the website supporting the book, Schaller puts his case succinctly:

The South is no longer the "swing" region in American politics -- it has swung to the Republicans. Most of the South is beyond the Democrats' reach, and what remains is moving steadily into the Republican column. The twin effects of race and religion produce a socially conservative, electorally hostile environment for most Democratic candidates.

Spending valuable resources in Southern states is a dangerously self-destructive strategy that could serve to relegate Democrats to minority-party status for a generation.  Political attitudes and demographic changes in other parts of the country are far more favorable to Democratic messages and messengers. The Midwest and Southwest are the nation's most competitive regions. There are opportunities to expand Democratic margins in the Mountain red states while consolidating control over the reliably blue northeastern and Pacific coast states. Before dreaming of forty nine state presidential landslides,  the Democrats ought to first figure out how to win twenty-nine states. And that means capturing Arizona -- or even Alaska -- before targeting Alabama.

McCain may put Arizona out of reach for this electoral cycle, the maps show that neighboring states Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado are not.  Obama's strength in the West is particularly embarrasing-not to mention debilitating-to McCain.

But it's also embarrasing to Obama, since it belies his earlier rationale in reaching out to religious conservatives, and his claims to be a mapchanger by drawing unprecedented numbers of blacks to the polls, and contesting Southern states Democrats otherwise would lose.  It is not the religious conservatives dominating the South who have responded most to his calls, nor does he put more pressure on McCain there than Clinton does.  His "unique" contribution is to do what Schaller mapped out as the natural thing for the Democratic Party to do, regardless of their nominee.

As I put it in a recent comment in the discussion of that diary:

When you have a rhetoric that says one thing, but a material reality that says another, it's always best to trust the material reality first, and seek to understand why that rhetoric works within that reality.

In this particular case, my explanation of why is simple...
Paul Rosenberg :: Terms of Debate
In this particular case, my explanation of why is simple:  Obama (consciously or not) is trying to win a non-transformational election-one that does not confront the basic structures of power that, among other things, constrain the terms of political discourse.

Obama has to do this because the most unthinkable thing in the world is that liberals and Democrats should mirror the right in fighting a Gramscian war of position, building a superstructure of insitutions that struggle to comprehensively redefine social, cultural and political reality.  (See my previous diary, "The Role of Rightwing Media Watch Groups In The Gramscian War of Position" Refusing to fight fire with fire, their only choice is to dance around the fire that conservatives have built.

Obama has done this by using language that largely reflects the Versailles consensus, which admits only two possibilities: (1) When Republicans are in power, the New Way Forward is to follow their lead, as There Is No Alternative (TINA). (2) When Democrats are in power, the New Way Forward is bipartisanship, as There Is No Alternative (That TINA gal, she sure gets around!)

Yet, there is a clear paradox here, since Obama's legislative record is mainstream liberal, and this will not do for the Versailles press-which is starting to notice-on the one hand, nor will it produce anything remarkably progressive on the other.

Digby pointed to an example of the former just yesterday in "Bold Failure to Be Conservative":

I just saw the most absurd story I've seen in a while on CNN. They decided to dig into Obama's record in Illinois and they found some critics. And I know that this will shock you, but the critics are -- Republicans. Gosh, I wonder what they have to say!
    Dan Lothian: The question is, what did Obama accomplish? I went to Chicago and found out that the answer to that question lies in who you talk to. New and untested, Barack Obama started early, trying to carve out a reputation as an eager hard working Illinois State Senator. He was elected in 1996. Telling powerful Democrat Emil Jones, the man Obama considers his political godfather, to throw him into the fire. Jones: He said, "feel free to give me any tough assignments. You know I like to work hard." That work, say his critics, resulted in one of the most liberal voting records in the senate during his eight years, pushing for abortion rights, to raising taxes. But what troubles former Republican colleague, Dan Cronin who says he respects Obama and his politics skills, is that considering the presidential hopeful's campaign of bold change, his past, he says, doesn't quite add up. Cronin: There were no bold solutions, there were no creative approaches, there were no efforts to stand up to the establishment.

Gosh, what would that have looked like do you suppose? Bold efforts to slash taxes? Pushing bills to allow prayer in schools? After all, he's such an unreconstructed liberal that he actually (gasp!) was for abortion rights.

See how this argument works? Obama is presented as a shrieking hippie freak who loves abortion (the emphasis on "for" in Lothian's report is his not mine) and raising taxes. And that's also a very weak position, because he refused to "challenge" the "establishment" --- he's not talking about the political establishment, which was Republican during most of Obama's tenure. Clearly, Obama was standing up to them every time he cast one of those awful liberal votes. The problem was that he failed to properly challenge the Democratic establishment. Boldness and creativity, you see, are defined by how well they flout liberal ideals.

We can certainly expect much, much more of this in the days to come.  Indeed, we've seen plenty of it already.  Last week, from David Ignatius, for example ("Obama: A Thin Record For a Bridge Builder":

This is the real "Where's the beef?" about Obama, and it still doesn't have a good answer. He gives a great speech, and he promises that he can heal the terrible partisan divisions that have enfeebled American politics over the past decade. This is a message of hope that the country clearly wants to hear.

But can he do it? The record is mixed, but it's fair to say that Obama has not shown much willingness to take risks or make enemies to try to restore a working center in Washington. Clinton, for all her reputation as a divisive figure, has a much stronger record of bipartisan achievement. And the likely Republican nominee, John McCain, has a better record still.

McSame has a great record of bipartisan posturing, that's for sure.  But he has a canny knack of actually not really following through with much that hurts the GOP base.  Mr. "I was against torture before I was for it" is, shall we say, less James Garner than he is Slim Pickens, though to be honest, that's an insult to Pickens.

OTOH, the signature failure Ignatius cites for Obama is particularly odious to anyone who actually knows and/or cares about (dirty word alert!) substance:

But what stands out in his brief Senate career is his liberal voting record, not a history of fighting across party lines to get legislation passed. He wasn't part of the 2005 Gang of 14 bipartisan coalition that sought to break the logjam on judicial nominations....

And with that, how can we avoid recalling Glenn Greenwalds roll call of "bipartisanship's greatest hits" under the Bush Regime ("What 'bipartisanship' in Washington means"):

To support the new Bush-supported FISA law:
       GOP - 48-0
       Dems - 12-36

To compel redeployment of troops from Iraq:
       GOP - 0-49
       Dems - 24-21

To confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General:
       GOP - 46-0
       Dems - 7-40

To confirm Leslie Southwick as Circuit Court Judge:
       GOP - 49-0
       Dems - 8-38

Kyl-Lieberman Resolution on Iran:
       GOP - 46-2
       Dems - 30-20

To condemn MoveOn.org:
       GOP - 49-0
       Dems - 23-25

The Protect America Act:
       GOP - 44-0
       Dems - 20-28

Declaring English to be the Government's official language:
       GOP - 48-1
       Dems - 16-33

The Military Commissions Act:
       GOP - 53-0
       Dems - 12-34

To renew the Patriot Act:
       GOP - 54-0
       Dems - 34-10

Cloture Vote on Sam Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court:
       GOP - 54-0
       Dems - 18-25

Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq:
       GOP - 48-1
       Dems - 29-22

This is what Obama will be attacked for not enabling with all his heart and soul.

And yet, in the end, Tom Schaller is right.  Most folks out in the states where Obama is doing well really don't care a whole lot what David Ignatius thinks--or even Tim Russert, for that matter.  With the amount of money he's able to raise, Obama may well be betting that he can run circles around them, and make them seem like part of the problem.

Which, of course, is exactly what they are.  As Digby reminded us recently:

How Do We Defeat Tim Russert?

by digby

The country wants change. They want Washington to stop all the partisan bickering and they want a different tone. They want their government to be serious and deal with real problems.

Can someone please explain to me how that can possibly happen until something is done about the reprehensible political press? From tax returns to Farrakhan to footage shown by "mistake" to the endless, trivial, gotcha bullshit, this debate spectacle tonight was a classic demonstration of what people really hate about politics. It isn't actually the candidates who can at least on occasion be substantive and serious. The problem is Tim Russert and all his petty, shallow acolytes who spend all their time reading Drudge and breathlessly reporting every tabloid tidbit and sexy rumor and seeking out minor inconsistencies from years past in lieu of doing any real work.

So, in the end, there's a delicious irony about to unfold here, with Tom Schaller about to be vindicated as the Bill Walsh of political strategists, but in order to pull it off, Obama's got to treat him like Rodney Dangerfield.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Terms of Debate | 89 comments
Another well-written and elegant post... (4.00 / 2)

....sadly Paul, what I take away from this is....

We, the citizenry of America, are fucked.

There is zero chance PumpkinHaid and his suckerfish imitators are gonna change their approach. They are being well paid to go the way they are.

Obama and Clinton will spend the next period of time up to the convention doing the Repugs work for them as they follow their 'more of the same....' playbook.

Obama will have zero chance of being the next FDR; no experience and no majority in Congress. Clinton might be better as she would, I believe, carry the fight to the ReThug in Congress but without a supermajority will struggle.

And there ain't gonna be no supermajority for Dems as they don't really deserve one having done little or nothing they said they'd do.

And you can be sure McCain will point that out. Along with the 'fact' that Iraq is getting better as the latest PEW Center report on public attitudes shows. Progressives can whine all they like about the corporatist press but it's getting the job done for it's masters. Perhaps one of the Dem contenders will come out punching, The Hill has shown signs of knowing how lately, and get some push back otherwise....

And Chris can threaten to ban me and even do so but in my opinion it's even money we're lookin' at President McCain.

Not an pleasing prospect in the least.

But bad things happen when you let the corporatist press run your campaign for ya.

A name.....

John Edwards.

And opportunity lost and for what?

Senator 'Hope'.....

bleah......  

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

Chris didn't threaten to ban you (0.00 / 0)
for saying you thought John McCain would win.  He threatened to ban you for saying he was as progressive as the Democrats.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.
[ Parent ]
Res Ipsa Loquitor.... (0.00 / 0)

........glad to see someone is paying attention. What I actually said was that there wasn't any real difference in how they'd govern. That is, they'd be no more progressive than he would be. Lotta folks at my D/L meetings in Oakland are of the same opinion....

No worries just a bunch of sexist...Obama Hatahs.....

Funny though, I never open the conversation with that supposition....and that's all it can be until one of them does get elected.

But the complaint always surfaces....

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Well, (0.00 / 0)
There's always Nader, right?

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.
[ Parent ]
oh come on (0.00 / 0)
You're rationale, reasoned, so ....

Jez, don't get yourself banned over here, you know McCain is the ultimate corporate purchased guy out there.

I mean come on, he's been running around with Carly "no American has a God Given right to a Job anymore" Fiorina and he's touting retraining in community colleges (spare me, you're going to retrain people in community colleges when they have University degrees already????) and ya know, since when do community colleges teach high end trade and industrial skills?  and for what jobs?  While retraining is the ultimate joke, blow off response, even if someone got their act together to enable labor mobility within our domestic economy there are no jobs to train for.

Green jobs are not going to have training in community colleges for example.  

I mean what a blow off man, oh retraining and tax cuts.

Any Democrat, if they present anything at all promising real trade, economic, labor reforms is going to beat him hands down.  The problem is no one trusts any Democrat because they too have represented special interests all too often.
(can we all sing WTO?)

This is the real election, this primary.  There is no way McCain will win the general, none, nada.  The Democratic nominee could lift up her dress and pee on the crowd and still win.  (said in solidarity cause I know you like outrageous posts.  ;))

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
Far too drastic and bleak (0.00 / 0)
The whole thing is far too drastic and bleak. Gramsci can be forgiven given that he did much of his writing on cot in an Italian prison cell in the interwar period. But there is no forgiving such bleak pessimism in March 2008.

What do you mean no majority in Congress? Obama may not be running well in the South but he is damn sure to have some impressive coattails in many other races. We are looking at big gains in the House and a pick up of at least a few, if not several, Senators. Sure, most of them will fight tooth and nail against the majority of Dem votes but with Obaman coattails, we won't need that many crossovers.

You say this:

Obama has done this by using language that largely reflects the Versailles consensus, which admits only two possibilities: (1) When Republicans are in power, the New Way Forward is to follow their lead, as There Is No Alternative (TINA). (2) When Democrats are in power, the New Way Forward is bipartisanship, as There Is No Alternative (That TINA gal, she sure gets around!)

No, he hasn't. He has implicitly and sometimes explicitly argued that he would generally favor liberal legislation that would pass due to a mandate.

The rest I suspect you're right about: this mandate may not turn out to be achievable given his prospects in the South, which leaves us with Schaller, which in other circumstances would not be such a terrible place to be left, given the environment we find ourselves in.

You're Confusing My Post With Someone Else's Comment (4.00 / 3)
I didn't say anything at all about Congress in this post.

But, in fact, I first wrote about this before the 2006 elections, in the context that the hallmark of a true realigning presidential election is that it's associated with two consecutive House wave elections.  So, it's my feeling that by all rights we should win us another 20-50 seats this year.

If a 20-50 seat pickup is "drastic and bleak," well, all I can say is, "Hey, I'm Souxie and the Banshees fan.  Deal with it!"

As for the passage you do correctly quote, and your counter-claim, you are correct to point out that he has said this, but incorrect to say that this refutes what I said.

What I said refers to the overwhelming majority of his rhetoric, and the impression it creates.  It is why the Versailles press has been largely so favorable to him.  He has also said that he would favor liberal legislation, and his voting record supports that.  But he downplays this in general, and shows little inclination to lead in pushing the envelope.

This means that it will be up to his followers to lead him wherever it is they wish him to lead them.

And the sooner they realize that, the better.

p.s. Obama basically admitted as much when he said that Martin Luther King would not endorse any of the Democratic candidates, but instead would be leading a movement to pressure them all to be more progressive.

"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

[ Parent ]
But, (0.00 / 0)
hasn't his rhetoric also included the statement:  "We are the people we've been waiting for?"  And, hasn't his campaign talked about how people are "taking ownership" of the campaign through their small donations?  I am a lifelong cynic, but isn't it possible that he actually means what he says?
[ Parent ]
Yeah, A Little Something For Everyone To Hang Their Rohrsarch On (0.00 / 0)
It would really be nice, though, if he had something concrete and subtantial there to lay out the "cash value" of such phrases, as William James would say.

"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
[ Parent ]
"cash value" (0.00 / 0)
I would say that the rhetoric alone has value. If people take it to heart, it doesn't really matter whether he meant it or not. But on top of that, his net neutrality policy seems good, and he got that thing passed where bills are posted on the internet to give the public time to read them before the vote and to make earmarks more transparent. He's actually walking the walk in some substantive ways. His seeming embrace in practice of Howard Dean's 50 state strategy is tremendously empowering to the grassroots.

As one who favored Edwards and mocked Obama's Kumbaya-esque post-partisan happy talk, I am starting to see some strategery in his approach. Bush ran on the triangulating "compassionate conservatism" angle which had popular appeal while masking an agenda that was at odds with public preferences on issues. It's possible that Obama's tactics are the best bet in the face of the corporate media landscape. The right has succeeded in making "liberal" a bad word. There are more self-identified conservatives. And yet liberal/progressive policies win out in opinion polls. Obama's votes and positions on issues are very much in line with the majority of Americans while his post-partisan rhetoric addresses the problem that so many of the public identify with Republican conservatism based primarily on non-policy related "character"/"value" narratives. Part of the elite propaganda game is a media that is functionally retarded on substance and deals almost exclusively in horse race and personality narratives. For Obama to be called out by the media on policy sins (i.e. popular liberal positions) the media will need to be substantially retrained between now and November. Even if they can be retrained in time, they risk exposing to the public that these dreaded liberal policies are ones that the public substantially wants.

Of course, they might just let Republicans feed them their lines (as usual) and just start throwing around the dreaded "l" word with little issue specificity.

Also, at the risk of Rorscach wishfulness, maybe he keeps these shitty conservative advisors to fool the establishment into not destroying him, and he will ignore them when in office. Talk about "the audacity of hope." But, hey! What's the alternative? Hillary praising McCain's awesome commander-in-chief-iness? That's way more depressing.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
I was responding (4.00 / 1)
to the Greenwald clipped quote from your post, which seems legit to me. But I stand corrected on your beliefs regarding the upcoming elections.

I think that Obama has downplayed his rhetoric because he knows that to some extent another he's attempting a hoodwink: he's got independents and some Republicans in love with him despite the fact that he's a liberal. Presto! A mandate is born! But he can't come out and say that: Hey everybody, I am the Great Liberal Hope who will succeed where every other modern Democratic president has failed: in passing consistent Liberal legislature. That would pretty much kill the hoodwinking right there.

[ Parent ]
Reagan (0.00 / 0)
managed to do it while delivering policies the public hated. Maybe Obama can do it delivering policies they actually want.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
nice list! (4.00 / 3)
When I hear the term "bi-partisan" I think special interest agendas that are not in the national interest and I could add a few more on such a list, such as guest worker Visas.

I think all of this is brew ha-ha.  I think there are about 3 main questions really.  One, which one will actually modify economic, trade policy in the national interest as well as US workers interests?  Two, which one will actually get the US out of Iraq and stop enabling the great industrial-military complex currently bankrupting the nation?  Three, which one will actually will break the leash most politicians are on, which super elites, special interests hold?

I think people just can't figure it out and people are so desperate for these policy changes, the one they can believe and who also presents the plan...wins.  The rest of this is political ping-pong trying to spin the voters who are getting dizzy.    I go back and forth on economic issues and many economists who I respect, who I know are objective experts, seemingly are also going back and forth on this as well.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

Hold my horses! (4.00 / 2)
You mentioned two issues that aren't specifically about trade! You did it! I knew you had it in you ;-)
[ Parent ]
and other beasts (0.00 / 0)
I'm an activist on H-1B specifically and then less so overall economics (which are party of this globalization agenda), labor.  

So, yes I am a one trick pony but do have other beasts around of grave concern to me personally.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
I Think Obama is being hurt.... (0.00 / 0)
....mightily by having another democrat hitting him.  This is masking the frustration of the country with the right, and giving natural democratic voters an alternative to Obama.  What Obama needs is Clinton out of the race ASAP so that vote has to make the hard choice between a new way forward and the old ways of Bush.

Obama has always been a much better general election candidate than a primary candidate.  Right now, Hillary is allowing people who would go for Obama in the fall to go against him.

The longer Hillary stays in the worse we do in the fall.

Brian
http://www.politicalinaction.com

Uh.... (0.00 / 0)
.....we are conducting a primary. That's where folks decide who they want to be their party's representative.

Not rubber stamp Senator 'I am the One's' messianic impulses.

If he cant' beat Hillary how's he gonna face down 'SlimeBall' McCain. What Hillary has said and done in attacking Obama so far is the playful taps of a three year old child compared to what the ReThug slime machine will do.

The last thing the Democratic Party needs is another John 'El Foldo' Kerry.

Remember how much more 'electable' he was than Dean.

Wow!

Did that work out great or what?

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Yes (0.00 / 0)
He has more votes, more states, more money, more... etc. than Dean did. He also does better amongst Independents than Dean did. I still think Dean would have been a better President, but Obama IS more electable by every objective standard, including your own (the Primary).

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
Do over (4.00 / 2)
Little off topic but now they are talking about a do-over in MI/FL with vote by mail.

This is the system in Oregon and frankly it's the absolute best system out there.  No standing in line, no problems trying to vote taking care of your kids, working 3 jobs, no intimidation, if you want to think about it, you can do your research, take your time...

seriously, beyond the fact I think they must count real votes here, promoting vote by mail is great.  It's just way more fair and gives the elderly, the disabled, the frenzied, working to death, the language impaired, it really helps enable people to vote.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

Yeah, The Only Real Problem Is The Homer Simpson Factor (4.00 / 1)
You know.  You've mailed in your ballot, and then you hear something that makes you go, "Do'h!"

Still, a real Democratic Party, that actually stands for something could cut that factor down to size pretty quickly.

"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

[ Parent ]
Do'h safeguards (0.00 / 0)
In Oregon one can also go into the local election center
and vote there and it just turns into a paper ballot but like a regular election.  The "vote by mail" is kind of misleading.  It's more paper ballots that can be mailed in, or just dropped in the election box, over a two week period.  Big fat information booklet comes with it.

They have optical scanners to do the count and it goes really fast.  Works great.  Automatic paper trail.

I've voted in both San Francisco and Oregon and I found this really useful because they have ballot initiatives and it takes a lot of research to figure those out.  SF I had to write down all of my votes before I went over to vote because of all of those corporate written things and frankly if I was presented with those cold, in a ballot box, I would have been clueless!

In Oregon you can go do a bunch of reading over two weeks to try to narrow your guess on what the ballot initiative really means.  ;)

The real issue you had better not "Do'h" on is your voter registration, but it's pretty easy to fix up until election day.  

If someone screws up and doesn't sign it or so on, they can go to the local election center and fix all of that but they cannot just go in with buyer's remorse and change their vote.  ;)

(wouldn't that be nice for those lovely last minute October surprises!)

nevermind, buyer's remorse

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
I thought the (0.00 / 0)
problem was that these aren't secret ballots. So everyone in the Bible study class gets together to fill out the ballots together, and check each other's work. Or the authoritarian in the family does likewise before dropping them in the mail.
[ Parent ]
I think you've confused 'The South...; (0.00 / 0)

..........with Utah....heh....

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
in OR? (4.00 / 1)
Intimidation can be done by simply refusing to let your abused spouse go vote.  

I believe you can go and pick up your ballot versus have it mailed and fill it out at the election center as well.  

I'm not sure of all of the safeguards but I think the issues beat the realities of someone who is disabled, busy, forgetful, cannot take off work for any reason and on and on being more enabled to exercise their right to vote.  

Take Cleveland in '04 for example.  Most of those people were poor, had kids, working 3 jobs.  How many just simply could not stand in that line for 8 hours?  How about anyone who is physically frail, has a weak bladder...I mean I don't think I could stood there in the wet, cold for 8 hours.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
The only argument (0.00 / 0)
Against vote by mail is that sometimes in poor areas the mail service isn't exactly great so there could be some room for lost votes.

But I also imagine it would be a lot cheaper to do then opening polls for a day.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Oregon (4.00 / 1)
I've lived in Oregon for the past five years and found the mail-in ballots very strange at first.  But soon I decided it was clearly the best system out there.

The return envelopes are two deep.  You sign the outer one so they can confirm who voted.  The inner envelop contains the actual ballot.

The nicest part is you can fill out the whole ballot in the comfort of your own home while you look up the details of the various initiatives and people you never heard of running for the smaller offices.

I should point out that I have never actually mailed in my ballot; I always wait until the last day.  There are multiple places where you can go drop off the ballot on election day itself.  It doesn't even matter which one you go to, since it is the outer envelope that contains the information needed to confirm the vote is valid.

I'd strongly suggest other states use this technique.

[ Parent ]
Say What? (4.00 / 2)
As an ordinary citizen without an advanced degree this post is hard to follow. But it seems to assume that movement building should be directed by expected results in the electoral college. There's a lot of politics going on below the presidential level. I don't think anyone would expect Obama to take the south. But isn't it progress if he can put Virginia into play? And even in states that are not going to provide electoral votes in November, it seems to me that it makes sense to support down ballot candidates so you're building a farm team that can help turn such states around in the future.
Another citizen without an advanced degree (4.00 / 1)
is Carville.  I note this because, for two Presidential elections in a row in the 1990s, his strategic and tactical thinking had a great deal to do with Democratic victories--even though he didn't have an advanced degree.  I agree with your  points, as does Howard Dean (hence the "50-state strategy").
[ Parent ]
Carville And Dean Have Very Different Visions (4.00 / 4)
So it's wierd trying to shoehorn them together.

But for what it's worth, I don't have an advanced degree, either.  So there!

"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

[ Parent ]
Right (0.00 / 0)
Me either ( I don't count a JD, which is more like a 3-year holding tank--no thesis, no defense, etc.).  So, I should amend to say that "Carville, Dean, and Rosenberg are all great Democratic strategists who do not have advanced degrees."  Which is not to say that you have the same vision as Carville--just that your strategic analysis is "on point."
[ Parent ]
Advanced degrees (0.00 / 0)
I'm a huge believer in education, but relatively unimpressed with formal education.  What matters is what you learn; all the rest is there to conveniently divide people into appropriate categories.

The best thing college provides isn't access to professors, but to other people interested in the same subjects.  Anyone can read the books without taking a class.  As long as you can find people interested enough to discuss the subjects with you, you can learn as much as the formally educated.

[ Parent ]
Electoral College Focus--Not A Fair Assumption, Though I Can See Where It Comes From (0.00 / 0)
I've written about these topics a lot, coming at them from different angles, so the mere fact that this post follows one that dealt with the electoral college should not be taken to mean that's the only--or even the most important--connection.

Indeed, it never crossed my mind that someone might make that assumption.  I thought--erroniously, as it turns out--that it would be pretty clear that my main focus here is the contrast between elite media discourse and where the people as a whole--in all their diversity--are at.  The electoral college is important, of course, for electing the President, but we all know that the Democrats need a much bigger mandate to pass progressive legislation than Republicans need to pass a reactionary one.

And beyond that, my concern long has been for much bigger stakes--for bringing about an epoch-changing political realignment that will change the course of politics for the next 30-40 years.  See, for example, my multi-part diary, Three Waves and a Wall

As far as Virginia goes, it's part of the natural evolution that Virginia comes into play.  It's been trending that way for some time.  It seems that Clinton retards that process, but it's not clear that Obama advances it particularly beyond where it would otherwise go had the nominee been someone else aside from Clinton.  In contrast, I think it's probably a very good bet that he's advanced the process in the Midwest and to a lesser extent in the Mountain West.

"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

[ Parent ]
Count me extremely unconvinced (0.00 / 0)
The whole of this seems to be that the South is utterly beyond reach.  That requires accepting a number of questionable premises.  First, it requires defining "the South" in an extremely limited fashion.  Is Virginia the South? North Carolina?  The Blue team could very easily take the former and could at the very least put up a meaningful fight in the latter.  

Those alone seem to explicitly deny the idea that "Most of the South is beyond the Democrats' reach, and what remains is moving steadily into the Republican column."  

Moreover, as some other commenters have pointed out, this also all suggests that presidential politics is all that matters.  However, there are Congressional races, Governorships, local elections, and so on, many of which are entirely contestable.  Sure Obama isn't going to win Georgia, but it's still a minor victory if he pulls in an extra 10% thanks to turnout and motivation.  Especially if that result helps to mobilize and unite Democratic (and black, in particular) voters in a way that can pave the way for more effective organization down the road.

That stuff all matters.

Not Beyond Reach (4.00 / 2)
This is a common misreading.  The South is easily offended, and it's managed to convince most of the rest of us to share its narcissistic worldview.

But all that Schaller and I are saying is that (a) the South is not a swing region, it's a Republican region, and (b) it makes no sense to build your national political strategy around trying to appeal to the other side's base.

That means that you support the local politicians there in developing their own local, state and regional strengths from below, while focusing your primary national outreach elsewhere.  It also means that you go after the outer South at the national level--such as Virginia and Florida--before you go after the Deep South.  But the one thing that you do not do is tie yourself into pretzels trying to be something you are not.

Now, as someone who leaned toward Edwards (even though I didn't endorse), I just think it's silly for folks to claim that I'm anti-South.  It depends very much on what kind of South, and I'm all in favor of doing what we can to support progressive forces their in transforming it.

I am not for transforming the Democratic Party to try to win the social conservative southern vote.

"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

[ Parent ]
Um (0.00 / 0)
"This is a common misreading."

It was a quote.

[ Parent ]
Don't confuse him with facts, or quotes (0.00 / 0)
Just go along for the ride.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Schaller Is Talking About National Presidential Strategy (0.00 / 0)
in that quote.  And in that context, that quote is completely non-controversial.

The misreading comes in how you present it--the context you create for it, first in how you misread it for yourself, and then in how you re-present it here.

"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

[ Parent ]
I'll repeat: Um (0.00 / 0)
So here's our conversation.

1. I posted, contesting the truth of the quote which claims it's "beyond the Democrats' reach."  

2. You responded by saying "Not Beyond Reach - This is a common misreading."  

3. I point out that your subject line is directly contrary to the quote I included.  

4. You accuse me of misreading again.

I'll point out again, then, that the quote YOU linked to claims the South is "beyond reach."  If you think it's a "common misreading" to declare it "beyond reach," maybe you shouldn't quote people who clearly say that it is.

Setting all that aside, it's still obviously incorrect.  The quote says "Most of the South is beyond the Democrats' reach, and what remains is moving steadily into the Republican column."

This is clearly not true in Virginia, which turning more purple by the day, or North Carolina.

[ Parent ]
My Disadvantage (0.00 / 0)
Is that I've actually read Tom Schaller's book, which is an attack on 20+ years of deluded conventional wisdom that says Democrats have to win back the Bubba vote.

You're selectively reading his most in-your-face attack on that conventional wisdom.

I've also read the entire statement that quoted above, including the part that says, "The twin effects of race and religion produce a socially conservative, electorally hostile environment for most Democratic candidates."

Most, not all.  You have to read things in their full context.  Unless, of course, you're Karl Rove.

Schaller attacks the CW about the Bubba vote, arguing hard that that is not simply wrong, but stupid.  It makes about as much sense as the GOP trying to win the Northeast lesbian vote.  (After all, they've got Mary Cheney.  How hard could it be?)

So he says, "Forget that. The South is Republican, and the more we try to win there, the more we lose our identity, our soul, and our appeal to people elsewhere.  The new swing regions are the West and Midwest, and we're got tremendous opportunities there, if we simply concentrate on those populations, rather than chasing after Bubba."

That's his argument in a nutshell.

Now, look at the South objectively.  Clinton won a number of Southern states in his two elections, but Gore, also a Southerner, didn't win a single one--not even his home state.  And Bush did better throuhgout the South--even winning Florida without any shennanigans when he ran for re-elction in 2004.

Of all the Democratic candidates this year, John Edwards was the only one who could have escaped the "most" category in Schaller's statement says, "The twin effects of race and religion produce a socially conservative, electorally hostile environment for most Democratic candidates."  And for that reason, a presidential campaign that devotes scarce resources to the South, rather than the West and Midwest is being strategically foolish.

That doesn't mean spend nothing in the South, as I've said repeatedly.  The logic of supporting the nurturance of local, bottom-up party-building is something I support across the board, and Schaller isn't talking about this in his argument.  It's the local folks who must fight for, and establish a foundation on which the national Democrats can run without running away from their base.  For the most part, that foundation already exists in the West and Midwest--or is well on its way to being established--but this is not the case in the South.

"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

[ Parent ]
Alright (0.00 / 0)
If you think it's a poor quote to represent the point, maybe you should stop using it.

But thanks for calling me Karl Rove because YOU didn't include the whole context.

Jesus.

[ Parent ]
Transformational elections... (4.00 / 4)
Transformational elections happen between elections. Not during them.

Campaigns are transient, short term, tactical enterprises. Opinion-shaping institutions must be longer-lived. I think that's obvious, and for those who disagree, I think the Right taught us the truth of it. Reagan surfed the post-60s cultural counter-revolution, with a little help from Opec and the Ayatollah. Bush and Rove surfed the even bigger wave of corporatism's unholy alliance with the religious right.

Candidates are captive of context, and context is established well before elections take place.

Obama can't win or lose the South, liberals lost it and conservatives won it. That's Schaller's point, and it's a good one. A combination of race and Christian fundamentalist extremism left it a very unswinging place. Liberals lost it long before Reagan, by the way. Those of us who grew up fighting conservative Southern Democrats still have the scars.

What a president can do is build toward a transformation once in office. Bill Clinton failed to do this. I believe there is a better chance that Obama will be a transformational president than Hillary. Just my belief.

1938, Wasn't It? (4.00 / 1)
Liberals lost it long before Reagan, by the way.

Or 1838.

Or 1738.

I get them confused sometimes.

"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

[ Parent ]
Coulda sworn.... (0.00 / 0)

....on muh ma's stack o' Bibles it was 1964.

And it was one of the best things 'liberals' ever fukin' did.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Amen (n/t) (0.00 / 0)


I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.
[ Parent ]
Take your pick on the century (0.00 / 0)
I am sometimes frustrated with people here in Texas who ask, "Why can't Texas Democrats regain their old working majority?" As if we would want to, since its largest voting bloc was racist.

We got lucky, sometimes, and elected socially progressive "conservative Democrats" who were not racists. LBJ was one of them. So was a man I worked for, former Lt. Gov. Bill Hobby. Hobby was as smart and big-hearted as any officeholder I have ever known.

I wish I'd left my preference out of the above comment. Dammit. Because the larger point you are making is far to important for me to have risked distracting the thread. Hope that doesn't happen.

[ Parent ]
Come on, let's not forget Ann Richards! n/t (0.00 / 0)


Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
I helped run her race in '90 (4.00 / 2)
I haven't forgotten. But t was the political equivalent of a one-night stand. Texans turned back to the roots of their Bush after the glow wore off.

By the way, Texas is not the Deep South. One of interesting things is, we are about half a 25 percent a Western state, 25 percent a Deep South state, and 50 percent an urban state. Using political culture theory, we are about 25 percent western individualists, 25 percent southern traditionalists, and 50 percent...what?

The big cities break into thirds:  a third like regular progressive liberals of the northeast; a third individualist, and a third southern, usually bigoted, traditionalists.

Play with the numbers. The South might end here. We could do what the national Democrats are doing:  build a coalition of individualists and progressives, and trap the Southern bigots in a barrel.

[ Parent ]
Monkeys....... (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
slight tweak (4.00 / 1)
Glenn, I absolutely agree with your general point, I just think the interesting thing worth mentioning about Texas is that, after the next re-apportionment (in which Texas is predicted to gain 4 seats), is we're likely to see the first state in the Union with about 1/5 to 1/4 of its population be in Latino-majority (not just plurality) areas. Everything south and southwest of the line from Corpus to San Antonio to El Paso (including these cities, all of which are Latino majority right now), which should account for 7 or 8 CDs out of a predicted 36, will be Latino/Hispanic/Mexican-American majority districts. Nuevo Texas, or Tejas, is some combination of socially conservative, traditionalist, western individualistic, bi-lingual, and Democratic-leaning, whether its in the bigger cities of Corpus or San Antonio, or the border towns of Laredo and Brownsville. Totally unique demo as far as I can tell, although some of the south/west Texas terrain that is Latino majority will look familiar to southern rural Arizona and New Mexico.

I'd also analogize for people that don't know Texas: Houston is similar to LA; Dallas to Atlanta (although Dallas is not quite majority black); Austin to Berkeley or Seattle or Portland; and Ft. Worth ... maybe Kansas City comes somewhat close.

I agree with the rest of your descriptions, I'd just tweak the percentages as 20-25% Neuvo Texas, 33-40% urban (Houston, Dallas, Austin), 15-20% Deep South, 5-10% plains/Western, and 15-20% western individualists.  

[ Parent ]
Boy, Howdy! (0.00 / 0)
Houston is similar to LA;

Even took away our #1 most polluted spot for a few years there!

But, do they really have Guatemalan Thai restaurants?

"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

[ Parent ]
Dunno (4.00 / 1)
But you could probably find chicken-fried Thai! :)
[ Parent ]
Ha! (0.00 / 0)
That one made me laugh at 12:09 a.m. EST. Thanks!
[ Parent ]
Important tweak (4.00 / 2)
Ron, you are right. And I should have included something in the comment above. I've done a little thinking on this, and Hispanic culture is trans-cultural as far as traditional political culture theory (Elazar) goes.

The other way I've looked is through George Lakoff's moral/metaphor analysis, which grows from the mapping of family organizational styles -- and metaphors which represent them -- onto political culture. Here, too, Hispanic culture is decidedly "biconceptual." It's both strict and nurturant, in George's terms.

It's my opinion (untested) that unlike many biconceptuals, who may be authoritarian at home and egalitarian in politics, or the reverse, Hispanics tend to be, to some degree, both strict and nurturant in in all cultural spheres. Please forgive my apparent essentializing of some monolithic Hispanic culture, which does not exist. I am shorthanding, and I don't want complex cultures or their particular individuals to disappear in my shorthand.

These terms (strict, nurturant etc.) point to ideals. They are pointers to conceptual trends, not actual ideal states people achieve -- a strict parent there, a nurturant parent over there.

[ Parent ]
I hope you write about this in the future (0.00 / 0)
My perspective was more from an academic/sociological perspective. Well, and a personal one -- I lived in Texas for 13 years during my formative adult experiences, and spent a lot of time roaming around the edges of Nuevo Texas.

But you've done organizing and politicking in them there parts of Texas, and I would love to hear your perspective on how these political culture theories connect to what you've seen on the ground, and on how messaging to and organizing in these communities and pressing progressive change differs from in other parts of Texas.

It's obviously something that Barack's campaign didn't figure out, because they got wiped out in those parts of the state. I'm still curious as to why the spread was so severe.  

[ Parent ]
I agree with this (0.00 / 0)
The other way I've looked is through George Lakoff's moral/metaphor analysis, which grows from the mapping of family organizational styles -- and metaphors which represent them -- onto political culture. Here, too, Hispanic culture is decidedly "biconceptual." It's both strict and nurturant, in George's terms.

Except that I don't think that is Hispanic tendency; it's a Catholic tendency.  At least that is my Catholic personal experience.

[ Parent ]
'S funny (0.00 / 1)
.....this thread mirrors in many ways our discussion today at my D/L, Oakland meetup. Every person in the room was an Edwards supporter so now we are casting around trying to make up our minds about the 'leftovers'.

I had brought Paul's map for folks to look at and that provoked a lot of discussion.

It was clear to all that the dumb ass Kumbaya on the part of many that either of the Dem nominees are shoeins is utter bullshit. McCain will be no pushover. The conservative rats, trapped in a corner as they are, will fight like the rabid vermin they are. He will not be easy to beat! Sorry Paul, Chris...that's just the way we see it....and that's what the current maps, Paul's and others...see PEW  center, show.

As to who would be best The Hill or Senator Hope....

Opinion was mixed but there is a trend towards Hillary. The rabid sexism of the corporatist media and Obama's implicit acceptance of same along with the 'experience' factor seemed to be pushing towards Clinton.

Now....

You Obama freaks can STFU for a moment. He got his kudos but the idea of him having big 'coattails' was regarded dubiously. And nobody was thrilled with either his 'empty vessel' campaign nor his lack of experience.

There you have it.

A thumbnail sketch of 15 folks thoughts today in Oakland on the primary.

We are holding on to Paul's map and intend to follow the fight with interest and support the nominee; but....

We don't have a dog in this fight. So have at it folks!

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Agreed (4.00 / 1)
I was going to post a comment saying what you just said, but it would be redundant now. FDR didn't transform the country in 1932. He did it in 1933-1945 (and then Truman during 1945-1952), through his policies, not through his or his party's electoral wins, whose real importance was making those policies possible.

Just as Reagan did in 1981-1989, via his aggressive promotion of conservative policies, and not in 1980 or 1984, which merely made this possible.

There's really no such thing as an ideologically transformative election. Such transformations happen over a much longer and deep scale, both before and after enabling elections, via policies, laws, court rulings, and the determined and prolonged efforts of outside groups such as think tanks, the media, activists, etc.

Clinton could have done this, and perhaps tried at first, half-heartedly and in undisciplined and unsystematic fashion, but failed. I sincerely hope that Obama will try to do this--and realizes that for a lot of us, it's half the reason that we're supporting him (the other half being that we think that he's more likely to beat the other side AND govern well).

We'll see. But first there are these pesky little nomination and general election thingees to get through. God I hate democracy sometimes--it would be so much easier for a tyrant to push through all these transformative democratic reforms! ;-)

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
I Disagree, Somewhat (4.00 / 1)
There are ideologically transformative elections... it's just that they don't determine the content of the transformation, only the content of what's turned away from, and the necessity of transformation.

Now, some of what's turned away from may come back, or persist, but it must do so in the framework of the transformations that get carried out after the election.

"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

[ Parent ]
There you go again... (4.00 / 1)
Splitting philosophistical hairs just to prove a point...

;-)

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
I clip the split end (0.00 / 0)
I am most concerned to weaken the expectation that candidates can or should carry all the burden. They take advantage of movements that precede them.

It's not that elections can't be signals of potential transformation. Voters do turn away from the past in some elections, and they signal their hope for something new. In this sense, 1932 was transformational.

I think I'm caught up in the term. The Exodus was transformational, and I wouldn't argue that the term be reserved for the crossing of the Jordan River.

[ Parent ]
I'm Thinking Largely In Terms of Realigning Elections (0.00 / 0)
It's my view that the shift from one party system to the next is the most transformational kind of event that the political system as a whole goes through.  Obviously, the two most indisputable of these--1860 and 1932--were linked to vast transformations of society whose roots went far, far beyond the political sphere, much less the "conventional" party-oriented political sphere.  But Jackson and Mckinley's elections were also rooted in forces that were cultural, social and economic beyond the realm that politics normally reaches, and Mckinley in particular shows that transformation to need not be any part of the picture just to win such an election.

I think there's a profound difference between such elections and the elections of merely charismatic leaders.  Such leaders may excite the electorate, but more on an individual basis--even though it may be hundreds of thousands, or even millions of individuals, there is still a difference in kind between exciting a million individuals, and transforming the political relations between them.  I know that Obama, for example, is fixated on the former sort of phenomena, which I regard as basically superficial from a systemic point of view, however intense it may be for individuals.

If we want to do things like avoid the worst of global warming, make genuine progress toward a world in which terrorism recedes from prominence, and eliminate the sort of grinding poverty that offends our moral sense, then that will take the kind of structural transformation that goes far beyond the individual experiential "transformation" that so-called "transformational leaders" deliver.  This is not to say that what they do is not real.  It clearly is.  But it is qualitatively removed from what I am talking about.

Now, clearly, there are great transformation that take place that are not directly related to realigning elections--or are related to them in strange and contradictory ways.  The seven-decade struggle for womens' suffrage culminated in a great transformation that had no discernable relationship to any realigning election, for example, while the Civil Rights Movement and Feminist Movement went so far beyond the bounds of the ossifying New Deal party system that they resulted in a backlash de-aligning election instead.

So, all in all, the lesson seems to be that realigning elections come along quite regularly, reflecting something one might call the natural metabolism of the body politic, but there is nothing fore-ordained about how the transformation of the party system that they inevitably bring will fit into the larger sweep of cultural and social evolution.  The party system can greatly assist and support the new directions that the culture as a whole embarks on, or it can largely abandon those new directions, leaving those who seek them out to wander largely on their own.

Such has been the case since 1968, I would argue.  And now we have a chance to change that.  Obama clearly does speak to that desire, albeit not from a place of what I would regard as great historical clarity.  He is still, it seems to me, a prisoner of the very confusion he would promise to lead us out of.

Which is why he needs his followers to lead him.

"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

[ Parent ]
Still a prisoner (0.00 / 0)
...a prisoner of the very confusion he would promise to lead us out of.

And that's why a sense of the tragic is necessary to an authentic democratic politics.

I might argue that the two leaders whose elections you reference, Lincoln and Roosevelt, understood this better than any other president did. (Thinking back on the world in my lifetime, who else but Havel has had this uncanny sense of the tragic? I don't know.)

It's a mistake to rely on any leader to execute the transformation for us.

I think we're saying the same thing, but I'm not certain. The transformations of 1860 and 1932 were historically elongated, if you will, with causes pre-dating the elections and much work to be done long after them. That's obvious, I guess. It's why transformations fit narrative so easily. Exodus to Joshua at the Jordan is really not a bad example.

It's an interesting question whether cultural narrative form itself constrains transformational possibilities. It does, I believe,  in just the same way frames constrain thought and action. Narratives are frames, and the world will come, reciprocally, to fit them. I'd stop way short of a determinist thought here, because the effects move both ways.  But the "Exit: Determinism" highway marker is in site.

I restate the bit about time and transformation to focus upon the work that must be done before leaders are chosen to push the barrow, and all the work that must be done after those leaders are chosen to help get the barrow out of the ditch they push it into from time to time.

I'm trying to resist the notion that the election itself, the campaign and the chosen candidate, can be a transforming event. I don't think it can. Maybe in retrospect we can organize our history texts around the dates.

This leads me to applaud but resist Obama's promises and charisma, while making a choice that the odds are a bit more favorable that we might get the better of just these few years. He might, just might, be an ally. Three "mights" ought to be qualifier enough.

This is unimportant to our discussion, but Clinton doesn't feel like an ally. I've had many encounters with the Clintons in the 1990s, and with Sen. Clinton in the 2000s that reinforce this feeling. Others have had much different and more positive experiences, and I respect that.

Still, I don't recommend we rely on either candidate to be transforming. We'd better do it ourselves.  

[ Parent ]
Obama Would Shake Things Up More (0.00 / 0)
and the maps I showed in the previous diary show movement with Obama v. McCain in the direction that Schaller identifies as the path of least resistence.  So that's two positive openings.

I'd like to have a whole lot more, but that doesn't seem to be an option, right now.

"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

[ Parent ]
Not entirely fair (0.00 / 0)
to call Obama's Southern strategy a failure just yet.  What's made SUSA so much more accurate than other pollster's this cycle is their ability to build new turnout models to catch on to the relative enthusiasm of both candidate's supporters.  They recognize that the electorate is fluid right now, and so they don't stick to tired assumptions (like other pollsters do) that turnout in 2008 will closely model turnout in 2004 or  2000.

But that's not the case with these GE matchups.  It's way too early to start predicting turnout in any meaningful way, so SUSA doesn't even try.  The makeup of the electorate in every state they poll is identical whether the nominee is Clinton or Obama.  Obviously that does not reflect electoral reality, and by definition it can not reflect the liklihood of increased black turnout in an Obama-McCain matchup.

For instance, Obama frequently cites MS as a state he could potentially put into play.  The SUSA poll, however, shows him losing 54-41, with McCain faring slightly better against Barack than against Hillary (whom he beats 51-41) because he does significantly better among whites in the former contest.  But both polls show black voters composing just 33% of the electorate despite being nearly 40% of the population as a whole.  For this reason, one could reasonably assume that every Southern state is at least a few points more favorable for Obama than SUSA suggests, as long as one accepts the reasonable assumption that Obama would draw more blacks into the electorate than Kerry did or Clinton can.  

Often Contesting South an EXCUSE to Go More Conservative (4.00 / 4)
As a Southerner, I've noticed over the course of my life that the Democrats who would rather the party be more conservative emphasized the significance of the South.

They were using the purported value of the South as a mechanism to leverage power from the more progressive / liberal / labor parts of the party.

Now, when it comes to questions of rationing resources, I agree with Schaller completely that you have to emphasize the fight where you can.

And I also agree that we no longer allow the conservative Democrats to try to dominate the party's agenda by over-selling this 'Southern' (and note that they usually only mean Southern white) approach.

However, there are two reasons you do what you can -- within whatever bounds of scarce resources -- to fight and campaign in the South too:

(1)  A candidate like Obama, and the party in general, can help turnout, attention, etc. to boost Democrats elected to Congress and at the local level.

(Let's not forget how many Democratic House members come from African American communities in the South.)

(2)  You show the moral principle that no one gets abandoned, that you fight the g** d***** Republican thugs and thieves where ever they are, no matter how much they outnumber you, that we're not afraid of them and that their bullying only goes so far.  

On a more practical level it means you don't let right wing rhetoric and ideas go uncontested anywhere -- because the last thing we need is the stupid portrayal of liberalism as something that's only for certain parts of the country and not others where people are all happy being suckered and being idiots.

I happily leave it to others to work out how to do that balancing of (1) & (2) with resource management for the general election.

50 State Strategy vs. Southern Conservative Messaging (4.00 / 1)
I think everyone agrees that we need to run hard in every state come the general election.  But that's different from creating messaging to attempt to attract white southern conservatives.  

Saxby Chambliss, worse than disgraceful; he's reprehensible.  
[ Parent ]
Yes, But... (4.00 / 2)
There's a further point here, which is, this is a strategic decision. If you had infinite resources, then you would have no choices to make, spend everything everywhere.  But you don't. So you spend most where you are most likely to get a return--and Schaller argues, above and beyond the messaging questions, that this is not the South, especially the Deep South, but the West and Midwest.

Furthermore, if you look down-ticket, the evidence is surely there, as well.  It's there in Kansas, and we saw it again in Illinois last night.  Those are two Midwest House seats we wouldn't have won in 2004.  And those seats are easier to win, with less fragmenting of our national unity, than seats in the South--at least the Deep South.

Obviously, money for local party-building is a very different matter, and I am totally behind supporting this, 100%.  Our long-term key in the South is homegrown populist progressives, and we should do everything possible to nurture their organic emergence. But this is quite a different subject than national campaigning.

"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

[ Parent ]
It's an excuse but.... (0.00 / 0)
It's not completely wrong.

I've argued in the past that the Democrats function sometimes as a coalition rather than as a unified party.  Two of the coalitional partners could be described as progressives and populists.  Who are the populists?  I suggest that they include some voters who resemble politicians like John Murtha or Ben Nelson.  What does solidifying a progressive-populist coalition entail? Emphasizing areas of congruence (Iraq, health care) and compromising on other things, that being cultural issues, where the populists are by and large more conservative than progressives.  Where and how to go about it is up for debate, but Howard Dean has used the work of pollster Cornell Belcher to suggest that Democrats need to target more "values voters," prescribing that more Democrats need to talk about faith. I suggest that you flip the DLC/Lieberman formula.  Instead of a socially liberal, pro-corporate, hawkish orientation (an artificial grouping of positions which resembles no one I know in real life), any sort of compromise should hold fast on economic justice and responsible foreign policy, while being not-as-liberal on social issues (which resembles plenty of people I know in my Midwest-based life).  To that extent I say that, yes, the Democratic Party as a whole needs to be more conservative than its progressive wing.

I haven't read Schaller's book yet, but if he wants Democrats to focus on areas such as the Midwest, then these culturally conservative, economically populist voters, labeled as "Reagan Democrats" when they abandoned the party in the '80s, are a necessary component of expanding Democratic power.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Calling Ben Nelson a populist... (0.00 / 0)
That's a really interesting point.

I've never put him in that category. I worked on his campaign in 2006 and that never occurred to me.

I'm going to have to ponder this.

phat

[ Parent ]
He's not a huge populist (0.00 / 0)
But I'd lump him in with populists.  Perhaps populist-leaning would be a better description.  Not sure if you're doing it, but it's a mistake to think that populist has to be a firebrand like William Jennings Bryan giving his "Cross of Gold" speech.  That's falling for the framing of populists as "angry".

Whether or not you think the term "populist" is accurate for Ben Nelson, do you think that it is accurate to describe the people who like him and vote for him?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
I honestly don't know. (0.00 / 0)
Being so close to his election and Nebraska politics I think it's hard for me to come up with an opinion.

He certainly isn't a firebrand, that's for sure.

I honestly don't have any idea how to categorize Nelson.

If I didn't live in Nebraska it might be easier.

He certainly is popular. I'd almost consider him a genius in knowing what it takes to win elections as a Democrat statewide in Nebraska.

To be honest, I don't know that there is much of anything resembling populism in Nebraska anymore. The popular sentiment concerning politics in Nebraska is so vague and misunderstood that it's difficult to compare to any other state, I suspect.

Nobody would have ever expected (except myself and a handful of other people) that the death penalty debate in the US would  find a center in Nebraska. But that does seem to be happening.

Nelson may seem predicable, but really he's not. I think Nebraska is just as unpredictable.

Again, I honestly don't know.

phat

[ Parent ]
I Hear The Ever-So-Faint Echoes of "Strawberry Fields Forever" In This Comment (0.00 / 0)
Could that be the secret of Nelson's success?

"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
[ Parent ]
Now I'm most definitely flummoxed. (0.00 / 0)
Do me a favor and send me an e-mail explaining that comment. I really would like to know your take.

Oddly enough, "Penny Lane" started ringing in my head as soon as I read your comment. I had to reach for "Strawberry Fields". That likely doesn't mean anything, just an odd observation.

I actually do think I might have an understanding of Nelson's success. But I really can't pin it down. My suspicions will likely be confirmed, or not, in just a few weeks.

The problem I have is that there has been very little done in Nebraska, in public, in terms of study of Nebraskans' opinions. I know a lot about what voters think in the context of elections. But I don't know much in terms of other study.

You can send me an e-mail at this address:

phat-ass@thinkheavyindustries.com

phat

[ Parent ]
Dude, I Can't Explain (0.00 / 0)
And I'd do no better in email than I would right here.

It just started hearing "Strawberry Fields" the same way you started hearing "Penny Lane."

And, now, of course, I'm hearing "Can't Explain."

Please, God, let "Boris, The Spider" be next.

Ah! There is a God!

Creepy... crawly... creepy... crawly,
Creepy, creepy, crawly, crawly,
Creepy, creepy, crawly, crawly...

"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

[ Parent ]
Reach (4.00 / 1)
Maybe I haven't paid close enough attentions, but I don't remember Obama reaching out to religious conservatives.  Your quote:
But it's also embarrasing to Obama, since it belies his earlier rationale in reaching out to religious conservatives . . ..
 

Obama supports civil unions; he wants to repeal the don't ask, don't tell policy in the military; he opposes a constitutional ban on same sex marriage; and he supports a woman's right to choose.  He's not reaching out to religious conservatives with those policies.  He did reach out to people of faith, but that's different from reaching out to religious conservatives, unless you consider all people of faith to be conservative.

What's your support that Obama's reaching out to religious conservatives?


Saxby Chambliss, worse than disgraceful; he's reprehensible.  

He's made many speeches doing just that. (0.00 / 0)
Have you herd of teh Google?

Here's a quote:

Such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when the opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people, and join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.

We first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people believe in angels than do those who believe in

evolution.
This religious tendency is not simply the result of successful marketing by skilled preachers or the draw of popular mega-churches. In fact, it speaks to a hunger that's deeper than that - a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause.

Each day, it seems, thousands of Americans are going about their daily round - dropping off the kids at school, driving to the office, flying to a business meeting, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets - and coming to the realization that something is missing. They are deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough.

They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They're looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down a long highway towards nothingness.

I don't know about you but I'll thank anyone who wants to be President to keep his assertions about the religious needs of the people carefully locked up in their heads.

I am so NOT down with this sort of rhetoric....

And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down a long highway towards nothingness

that I'll just shut up now so as to not offend the delicate ears of those who believe....

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Read some Michael Lerner (0.00 / 0)
and you'll see that the above quote has little to do with reaching out to religious conservatives and far more to do with reconnecting progressive politics to communities of faith and our underlying moral/spiritual values.
[ Parent ]
Yes, Heard That One, But . . . (0.00 / 0)
This is the exact speech I had in mind when I said, "He did reach out to people of faith . . .."  But as I said, that's different from reaching out to religious conservatives.  There are plenty of prgressives and moderates who are religious.  I don't see any issue with trying to get them to vote for Democrats.  

Saxby Chambliss, worse than disgraceful; he's reprehensible.  
[ Parent ]
I don't want to rehash this (4.00 / 1)
but he clearly created a false dichotomy between being religous and being secular. The two terms are not mutally exclusive, but he tried to act at least in 2005 or 6 (cant remember the date) that they were. Intellectually he's a very smart man, and he left open this definitional hole through which one could drive a truck through, including religious conservatives, but left room for you to say "but thats not what he meant." There should have been no abiguity. I will give him props for recent speeches regarding gay issues in front of black conservative Christians, but to say he hasn't had a mixed message at the very least seems to miss what he has said.
[ Parent ]
In Fact, He Used Fairly Standard Rightwing Frames (0.00 / 0)
and was severely criticized for it.

"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
[ Parent ]
In the interest of elevating the level of discussion (4.00 / 1)
here and elsewhere, I would implore you (and everyone else) to at least find a direct quote from someone that you wish to criticize as opposed to constructing these straw-men that you can then proceed to criticize.

I don't remember Obama ever saying that his strategy ws focused on the South and religious conservatives. His statements on the role of faith and spiritual values in politics practically plagiarize Rabbi Michael Lerner, a solid progressive who has been pushing this kind of stuff for years. It's a much bigger question than reaching out to religious conservatives in the South; it has to do with reconnecting progressive politics with communities of faith and with the underlying moral and spiritual imperatives that guide our actions, consciously or not.

As to the larger question of Obama's actual record of reaching across the aisle, his argument from the beginning has not been about centrism per se, but moreso about inclusiveness, tone, and persuasion. Obama conveys the sense that he will honestly listen to all perspectives, not just progressive/liberal ones, and exercise independent, non-ideological judgment as to what makes the most sense. Moderates, independents and even some conservatives like that. As a progressive, I'd like to hear that from a conservative also, and maybe there are some who are to an extent like that (Chafee? Spector?). He will also set a tone where the goal is not to "win" politically against your opponents, but instead to chart the best course for the country. He's also persuasive -- he convinces people that the progressive answer is the right one.

It turns out that his voting record is solid liberal/progressive. It comes as no surprise to me that an open-minded, thoughtful debate would lead to progressive solutions. That's why I'm a progressive! Not because I like the sound of it, but because I believe that those are the right answers. Not always, but more often than not. Now if the "other side" comes up with something that seems to work better, well, then I'm going to be a conservative (if only with respect to the issue in question).

But back to my main point, it just doesn't do much for the discussion if you don't have enough respect for the reader, the topic and the candidates to at least criticize actual direct quotes, instead of straw-men that you've constructed. Please, for the good of us all, engage in this debate in the fair and honest manner that I know you are capable of.

Spare Us The Lecture, Okay? (4.00 / 1)
(A) My gloss on Obama's orientation was neither arbitrary and ungrounded, nor was it the centerpiece of my analysis.  These things have been discussed frequently before, in these pages and elsewhere.  There is no obligation to always begin every story with the Adam and Eve.

(B) Even posts repleate with direct quotes lead to furious disagreements about what they actually mean, that can readily lead away from any sort of constructive dialogue about larger issues beyond the role of one particular poltiician.

(C) Thus, your condescending lecture about my lack of respect for others is duly noted as a classic case of projection on your part.

Finally, having been bashed, lectured and hectored by Michael Lerner back in the 1980s, I would strongly advise you not to play him up in these parts.

It's bad enough that Obama's tight with Jim Wallis.  There's only so much sanctimonious self-righteous I can take before I start telling folks how I really feel.

"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

[ Parent ]
I gave you a 4 (0.00 / 0)
At some point in order to have a real conversation you have to call a duck, a duck.  
[ Parent ]
I am sorry (0.00 / 0)
I discovered Michael Lerner back in the Hillary Clinton guru days. Michael Lerner is someone very important to me because he was willing to say that both the Israelis and the Palestinians were wrong. In other words he represented a decent left. He also talked about observances such as keeping Shabbos in a way that forced me to think that they were still relevant to the 21st century. As I learned more I moved past the Tikkun mindset and I am now very sympathetic to independent minyanim as ways of accomplishing the same things.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  
[ Parent ]
Great Michael Lerner remark (0.00 / 0)
From the same period: he goes to these Reform congregations and they say they are not interested in rituals because they want to be a social justice organization. Well, then, BE a social justice organization instead of a social club! End anti-Reform rant.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  
[ Parent ]
Well, In LA, Circa 1989-1990 (0.00 / 0)
Tikkun put on a conference for progressive Jews in LA.  There were tons of Jews (secular and religious) in attendence, and though no poll was taken, I'd say probably 90% or more would be willing to say that both the Israelis and the Palestinians were wrong.  (They're killing inocents on both sides.  How hard is it to say that's wrong?  Sheesh!)

Well, there's lots of annoying and/or outrageous things that Tikkun staff say during the conference. I mean lots, and the elevator/lobby talk is all tidbits of these details.  It's pretty obvious that a majority of attendees are not impressed with the Tikkun folks overall, though many of the other panelists got high marks.  Three things happened that I still recall vividly all these years later.

(1) A woman got up during one session Q&A, and said, "I belong to a wonderful organization, Democratic Socialists of America, and it does nothing in the way of political organizing, while the right does nothing but organize." And the Tikkun staffer said, "Well, maybe that's a good thing.  Maybe instead of organizing the people and telling them what they should think, we should just let the people decide for themselves what to think."

(2) At the concluding plenary session, Lerner got up to read a statement that was to be issued on behalf of the conference, which included the remark that we were all "strong Zionists," which drew vociferous objections.  Obviously, we were not all strong Zionists.  What's more, we were strong Americans who didn't exactly cotton to the notion of someone drafting a statement in secret to be issued in our names.  Not a lot of happy campers in that room, let me tell you.

(3) During the conference, there were, of course, literature tables and the like.  New Jewish Agenda did not have a table--something about being told they were too late, or something--but they were collecting names, and told me they had been given permission to do so.  Between sessions, they left signup sheets on tables with others who were sympathetic, and toward the end others had left, so they had a table all to themselves.  But, at one point it was left unattended, and their signup lists disappeared.  They were furious, and virtually positive that Tikkun had just made off with them, as they had drawn increased attention as the conference wore on and more and more people got pissed with Tikkun.  They never could prove anything, but Tikkun didn't even try to act concerned about it.

So, in short, not impressed.

p.s.  It doesn't help that I don't think Michael Lerner is the center of the universe.

"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

[ Parent ]
Lerner and the level of discussion (0.00 / 0)
I'm definitely not here to defend Michael Lerner. He's a Zionist, and I am most definitely not. I happen to think it's absurd that he can't bring himself to endorse Barack when it's clear that Barack's whole campaign has been based on the "politics of meaning" that Lerner's been advocating.

I really don't know what relevance your discussion of this conference that happened nearly twenty years ago has to the question of whether or not Barack Obama has based his campaign on being able to win over Southern religious conservatives to his cause. I cited Michael Lerner to make the point that the faith and values discussion that Barack has brought to the table is much more directed to progressives than it is to conservatives.

Yes, he has reached out to black evangelicals, in the South and elsewhere. But to say that is the basis of his campaign is kind of a stretch. Every politician and social movement looking for support in the black community has to deal with the church -- it's been that way forever.

But WRT my "lecture", you seem to think that we should just accept your assumptions because you stated them before here and elsewhere, and there's no need to go back to "Adam and Eve." Well, that's the problem -- I don't accept your assumptions. You say things about Barack that I believe to be inaccurate, and that's why I'd like to see sources to back up your statements.

How would you like it if I started a post with, "Paul Rosenberg argues that Barack can't win because he's black, and I disagree and here's why?" Assuming you don't believe that (I actually have no idea one way or the other), you'd be right to challenge me to produce quotes of you saying that, and if I couldn't, you'd be right to criticize me for lowering the level of discussion by making false statements about someone's positions.

Sure, there are certain things that are obvious and that don't need to be quoted: Barack stands for hope, "change we can believe in", bringing in new voters, appealing to independents and moderate Republicans, changing the tone of the political debate in Washington, the mainstream progressive Democratic policy platform, grassroots political organizing. But beyond these generalities, I think there's a lot of specifics about Obama's program which are still very much in question, and so I any discussion of the same ought to begin with actual quotes from the candidate or at least his website.

[ Parent ]
Has Obama claimed a southern strategy? (0.00 / 0)
Perhaps somewhere Obama has claimed a southern strategy, but I haven't seen it.

Personally, I never expected Obama to dip into the hardcore evangelical vote.  What I do expect, or at lest hope for, is him to get some of the next layer out, those that are sympathetic to causes of the hardcore evangelicals, but also care about other things like the environment, energy and so on.

The Southern Strategy (4.00 / 1)
historically has been a Republican strategy started by Nixon (blacks, guns and defense) later updated to things like gays. I don't think anyone is saying there is a problem with reaching out to evangelicals. it's a matter of how not whether.
[ Parent ]
Terms of Debate | 89 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox