The Potential Progressive Mandate*

by: David Sirota

Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 14:00


I appeared on CNN's Larry King Live last night to discuss both the state of the campaign here in the swing state of Colorado, and the potential for a massive progressive election mandate on Tuesday. You can watch the clip here.

In the final weeks of this campaign, John McCain has been telling America that this is a contest between his own neo-Reaganism and Barack Obama's supposed socialism. And the result is McCain not only losing ground in traditional blue states, but also in traditional red states like Colorado.  

David Sirota :: The Potential Progressive Mandate*
Obama, of course, is no socialist - far from it (and I've worked for Congress's only self-described socialist, so I have some firsthand idea of what a socialist is and isn't). And his aides, like Cass Sunstein in today's New Republic, are defensively making that point all over the place. But, as I told Larry King, that doesn't really matter in the shaping of a mandate - what matters is the choice the voters are being told they are making when they walk into the voting booth. And the one thing Republicans have done well in this campaign is portray this election as contest between two differing governing philosophies.

In that success, of course, the Right has set up a McCain defeat not merely as a loss for one candidate in one election, but a larger rejection of conservatism itself. As The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder wrote:

"It might be dangerous for the Republican Party to elevate the stakes for this election to a death match between competing ideologies.  If Barack Obama's victory is as decisive as it is shaping up to be, the Democrats can justifiably claim that conservatism itself has been rejected as a political and governing philosophy. In the closing weeks of the campaign, as the Republican ticket continues to run against the very idea of progressive politics, they are sowing the seeds of the post-election realignment narrative...Obama has been talking about the larger GOP governing philosophy for a while now, but until recently, the race hasn't seemed like as much of a referendum on Republicanism; it's been more of a referendum on the Bush years. What changed? The GOP went all in on an ideological war." (emphasis added)

Put another way, progressives may have very substantive concerns with some of Obama's positions on issues like NAFTA, the bailout, etc., and the media may cite polls showing many Americans don't call themselves "liberal" - but because the GOP has framed the election on such extreme ideological grounds, the mandate that would come out of an Obama win would be way more progressive than Obama's own policy platform. It would be as progressive on many issues as the public already is (despite whether people call themselves "liberal" or "conservative").

This is the point of a new Institute for America's Future Op-Ad in today's New York Times - the point I and Bill Scher made in a series of posts last week (here,  here, here and here) about how McCain is making the election a referendum on Reagan conservatism. And in doing so, he is creating a larger and more expansive economic mandate for a potential President Obama than Obama himself ever aspired to create for himself (though granted, Obama has occasionally put the race in ideological terms). In short, John McCain's message during the stretch run is creating a mandate that - if Obama wins - makes America safe if not for full-fledged socialism, then at the very least, for aggressive progressivism.

Whether a President Obama would seize that mandate is an open question - one far less important than the more bottom-up question of whether that mandate would embolden the progressive movement to pressure a President Obama to reach farther than his own more incrementalist impulses may initially lead him to reach.

Our national religion may be presidentialism (ie. the worship of presidents as gods who hand down change to the masses), but American politics has always been the other way around. Electoral mandates create popular pressure and expectations that force presidents to embrace the change they may never have embraced. That McCain is forging this mandate for a President Obama is certainly ironic - but it's also an undeniable reality.

*The word "potential" will be removed if Obama wins on Tuesday. At that point, it WILL be a progressive mandate.


Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
In the beginning of Clinton's term (0.00 / 0)
my understanding is that Clinton sat down with Greenspan and Greenspan read him the riot act about doing something about the deficit.  Also, I think Clinton felt the popular pressure from the Perot vote to do something about the deficit.  Now, I wanted to see alot more stimulus out of the 1993 budget plan.  But, overall, I think the 1993 budget set the framework for the realignment of priorities and regardless of the GOP taking congress, it was the pull of Clinton's plan that got us to the solid economic footing we were on in 2000.  It helped make the 2001 recession fairly mild even with the horrendous 9/11 attack.  
I hope that there will be the public pressure for solid health care reform and true energy independence through energy diversity, instead of the oil centric policies of the last 100 years.  This election isn't about the deficit the way it was in 1992 but for certain something will have to be done about it.  I hope Obama will get the progressive space to implement his plan as he envisions it and hopefully it'll become even more progressive, making the necessary investments America must make.

we should be repeating this: "McCain has made this a referendum on conservatism" (0.00 / 0)
so that we can drive the nail in the coffin on November 4th.

We've had socialism for 75 years (0.00 / 0)
warts and all.

Reviewing 4 Decades (4.00 / 2)
This is the 10th Presidential election that I have been eligible to vote in - 40 years of watching politicians get elected, some that I supported, most that I didn't. I look back to my college days at Northwestern where, as a Freshman from the Northeast, I entered as a Republican from a Republican family, but where I changed into a Democrat with a profound interest in what a vote for a candidate actually meant.

I said I came in as a Republican, and that is true. My family supported Nixon against Kennedy and it was a particular shock to me when Kennedy won. I recall having discussions with one of my English teachers at the time (a guy from England, actually) who explained to me why the Europeans were in favor of Kennedy and saw this coming from a mile away.  I'll admit that I didn't see it at all.

My mind started to change around the time of Kennedy's assassination. I think most Americans, Republican or Democrat, felt like someone had kicked them in the teeth as Americans. I graduated the next year and was off to college in the Fall of '64 having, for some reason, an interest in Goldwater.

What college in the sixties did for me was get me involved in the Civil Rights movement... not something I was involve in at my 99% white New England prep school.  It was there, in Chicago, that I became aware of Lyndon Johnson's commitment to equal rights (I will admit, his stance on Viet Nam was not something I was willing to support. I couldn't vote in that election anyway... and when Johnson did not go for a second term, primarily to seek peace in Viet Nam, I was a Humphrey supporter in the first election I could vote in.

You may recall that 1968 was the year that Nixon implemented his "Southern Strategy" as a technique to win... alienating black southerners from white southerners in tremendously subtle ways: for instance, encouraging blacks to register as Democrats to vote as a way of scaring racist whites into leaving the Democratic Party and joining the Republicans. We have spent 4 decades with the Republican south because of these racist beginnings, and, with the exception of Jimmy Carter, a southerner himself, Democrats pretty much kept out of the south (except Florida) when campaigning.

One of the things that is becoming apparent with Obama's "50 state campaign" (grown from the 50 state push Howard Dean instigated in the congressional elections to go after Bush's control of Congress) is that the south may not be solidly Republican any more. We are looking at states like North Carolina and Virginia with a changing face. Even Georgia is moving more to the left, even if it does not make it this time.

Hopefully, we are going to get to an America for Americans and away from the racism of recent Republicanism.

As a prep for writing this I visited the GOP site (gop.com) and the equivalent Democratic site (democrats.org) and compared their campaign techniques and coverage of issues. You should do the same. In each you will find all the support information for their respective candidates. But in their discussion of opponents you will find a very different scene. What little there is about McCain at the Democrat site is concerned with the issues: war, economy, health care... that's what I expected. At the Republican site, as opposed to issues, I found all the slime in a section called "Meet Barack Obama": Reverend Wright, his good friend Tony Rezko, his other good buddy Bill Ayers, how as a "Socialist" he's going to redistribute the money as he sees fit, etc. etc. If I were to read it to find Obama's actual stand on the major issues, it would not be possible.

As I said at the beginning, I have been through 10 Presidential elections where I could vote. This one has had the dirtiest campaigning I have seen... and it comes from one side primarily. With any luck, the right will learn from this if, and when, they lose, and come back to issues that effect us all.

Under The LobsterScope


My liberal buddies are so jumping the gun on this one! (0.00 / 0)
With all due respect, I believe people need to take hold of themselves.  While it is hard not to get excited about next week, I do not share all of the enthusiasm about the demise of US conservatism.  Holding aside the fact that the election has not yet taken place, I would list the following as reasons to remain sober:

1. Obama himself was tied or losing to McCain when Lehman Bros. imploded.  After AIG, Fannie/Freddie, et al. followed Lehman to the gutter, the polls shifted dramatically.  This does not indicate an ideological shift among voters.  Instead, it simply shows that, consistent with history, voters blame the incumbent party for economic distress.  The same thing happened to Carter and Bush I.

2. Obama has not demonstrated to me that he is, in fact, a "progressive."  He wants to end the war - but so do most people with good sense at this point.  He wants to expand health care, but that was a radical idea in 1992, not today. He says he won't try to repeal NAFTA. And he voted with Scalia to reinstate the death penalty in sexual assault cases, despite the horrible racial discrimination that existed in those cases before the SCT invalidated it.  He sided with Scalia again and commended the Court for recognizing an "individual" right to bear arms sufficient to trump a ban on handguns.  That does not strike me as progressive.

3. Many of the new Democrats in the House will be almost indistinguishable from Republicans.  Some of those red-state Dems are pro-life, pro-prosecution, free-traders, and anti-affirmative action.  I don't expect them to endorse anything wildly progressive.

4. Blue-state California provides a great "litmus test" for how even the bluest Democratic regime could operate. Obama will win Calif. by about 20 points.  Yet, California voters are waging a very tight battle over same-sex marriage.  Many gay rights activists believe the anti-gay measure will pass -- despite the blueness of the state.  This simply shows that even in the most liberal jurisidictions, Democratic voters are divided on social issues.  When you move across the country to Alabama, Mississippi, etc., you will see even greater support for conservative causes among Democrats.

5. I am still waiting for people of color, gays and lesbians, poor people, and women to say that conservatism is DEAD.  I doubt many of them will.  Does social vulnerability or privilege shape people's viewpoint on this issue?

Here's more analysis.  Enjoy!

http://dissentingjustice.blogs...

http://dissentingjustice.blogs...


Things Don't Happen Overnight (0.00 / 0)
But that doesn't mean there aren't watershed events that change much, much more than they seem to, even as they have many more antecedents than most folks see.

American's have looooong been far more liberal in their political attitudes than they are in how they vote.  That's because conservatives have poured everything they have and know into politics as war, while liberals/progressives have not.  Thus, the most significant thing missing from your analysis is the reckognition that this election is a lagging indicator of where people's values are.

Still, it's good to have you saying these things, because your fundamental point is sound--far too many people don't realize how much work is left to do and how privileged they are not to be catching the worst of the hell that's out there being paid for the incredible damage conservatism has done.

"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 disagree with... (0.00 / 0)
I do not agree that this election is a "lagging indicator of where people's values are."  Why? Because the election represents so many things to so many different people -- and reflects how wonderfully you can market yourself if you have tons of money (and a somewhat supportive media).  During the Democratic primaries, Obama seemingly represented the highest level of leftwingism to progressives since the days of the Radical Republicans during Reconstruction.  To many young people, he meant not having a "Bush" or "Clinton" in office.  He was simply "change."  To moderates and Independents, he is the answer to Bush, whom they started out liking, but whom they hated in the end.  To blacks he is a symbol of progress, not necessarily the demise of racism.  To many white liberals, he is the demise of racism.  Obama's supporters enthusiastically view him in such different terms, that it is difficult to say that he reflects mainstream ideology.

Finally, younger liberals seem to associate warfare exclusively with the Republican party, but historically, the good old Democrats were the warmongering politicos.  The Cold War was fought during periods of the New Deal and Great Society dominance, and FDR fought WWII and sent Japanese Americans to prison camps under false pretenses (and racism).  The Cold War actually ended with Reagan in office.  So, I am not truly impressed with the Republican = warriors, Democrats = doves rhetoric. Besides any good historian will tell you that people are complex.  FDR did a lot good domestically, and many people view WWII as a "just war."  But he is guilty as can be with the internment situation.  And while liberals love to bash LBJ and hold Kennedy up as a progressive icon, due largely to Vietnam, LBJ actually did more on his own to advance a civil rights and social welfare agenda than Kennedy ever embraced.    


[ Parent ]
The biggest mistake (0.00 / 0)
that Obama could make is to assume that Americans are dying for a progressive agenda. The real truth is that the voters this year are reacting to a tsunami of anti-Bushism. In the mainstream Americans hold many different positions on most issues. The rejection of Bush and his conservative doctrine was built upon his administration's demand for strict adherence to single mindedness. Win at all costs was the mantra that ruled the Republican party. Whether it was gerrymandering in Texas, politicizing of the Justice Department or just plain lying to the public, the GOP folded to White House agenda. It was a perfect example of absolute power corrupting absolutely.

Obama is attempting to refashion a new coalition of the middle-left. The demographics of a changing population are well suited for that approach. He stands as a President who is not only thoughtful, but also pragmatic. As such, I am confidant that he isn't intent on replacing one lock step administration with another. Progressives will get the majority of their agenda in time. But it will take time to undo legislative policies enacted by the conservatives and a judicial bench leaning far to the right.

My suggestion is to accept the new direction and urge for your policies but be willing to understand that compromise is an essential ingredient as the Obama presidency tries to make the changes that a solid majority of Americans seek.  


Donate to Open Left








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
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search