As I have written before, nothing makes me happier in politics than being attacked, because you know by the reaction you are getting that you have hit paydirt with what you are doing. When Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) took the ideas from my book The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be and used them in a floor speech in Congress, and the reaction from far-right-wing Congressman Steve King from Iowa was a bitter, rambling tirade about socialism, I knew we were winning the argument. And yesterday, when my post about the July 4th holiday being the embodiment of the progressive values of equality and democracy, three different conservative bloggers (here, here and here) saw fit to attack. That's a very good sign.
What bothers these conservatives so much is the idea that progressive values are at the heart of the American idea. They love wrapping themselves in the flag, and going on and on about the founding fathers, and really hate the idea that anyone else might lay claim to that history. Their arguments- that the issues were very different then, that classical liberalism has a different definition than modern liberalism, that American revolutionaries must have hated big government because they hated King George, etc.- mask the fact that the fault lines in American history, from 1776 on, have always been about expanding equality and democracy, and that progressive-minded thinkers have always been for that, and conservatives have always been against it.
Conservatives have always argued that tradition should be revered and change should be feared. They have always argued that too much democracy is a dangerous thing. They have always opposed expanding the idea of equality- to blacks and women and the poor, to immigrants and migrant workers, now to GLBT individuals. They have always argued these things, and they still do. And progressives from Jefferson and Paine to those of today have always fought for more democracy, more equality of opportunity, more investment in regular people as opposed to giving everything to the elite and letting them run things.
When Abraham Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address, he argued that this nation was "dedicated o the proposition that all men are created equal" and that our government was founded on the idea that it should be "of the people, by the people, for the people." His speech stirred great controversy at the time with conservatives outraged at the idea that, as the Chicago Times editorialized, Lincoln "misstated the cause for which they died and libel the statesmen who founded the government." Those ideas of equality before the law and equality of opportunity for all of us, of government of, by, and for the people instead of government of, by, and for the wealthy elites have always been progressive ideals, and will always be opposed by conservatives.
Assuming all goes as we hope, and Obama is our next President; we have bigger Democratic margins in the House and Senate; it is my belief that Obama will either be huge success or a massive failure (not to put too much pressure on you, big guy). I think our problems are just too big, and the decisions Obama and the Democrats in Congress have to make are just too monumental, for there to be any middle ground. Either Obama's going to come out of this mess looking like he saved the country from disaster, and go down as another FDR or Lincoln, or he's going down in history as the Presidents who preceded FDR and Lincoln and failed- James Buchanan or Herbert Hoover- awash in massive problems they were unable to solve. For the sake of the country, the Democratic Party, and the progressive movement, we'd all better hope it's the former.
The difference will be whether he pushes to be, and succeeds at being, a transformational President, or whether he goes toward what Digby calls neo-Hooverism: that sense that we need to be frugal, cautious, slow, careful, and all other things center-right. Massive problems cannot by solved by halting half-steps, crisis cannot be resolved by too much caution.
The latest "bold move" by the McCain campaign is to tout their unkown, untested VP as actually being "more experienced" than Barack Obama--in a desperate attempt to salvage their long-time theme of questioning Obama's experience. And they've found a wonderful way to do it---with the qualifier of "executive experience", which, of course, Palin also got as mayor of Wassalia.
There are only two or three dozen things wrong with this argument. But I'd like to present just one. If you accept this argument, just look who else Palin is better qualified than:
2 years in US House; no other elective office
6 year in US; 8 years in US Senate
12 yeass in US House; 12 years in US Senate
4 years in US House; 22 years in US Senate
A patently absurd argument, no? So just watch the Republicans run with it for all their worth.
In a diary yesterday, Digby highlighted this passage from Obama's acceptance speech:
For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.
Well it's time for them to own their failure.
After which, Digby commented:
I think this is the key to the case and when I heard it, I stood up and cheered.
I know that point is not very hopeful or very uplifting and it won't be the biggest selling point among swing voters. But there were plenty of those things in the speech. This is the case against conservatism that people need to hear in this country if we hope to move ahead. (Remind me to relate my convention story of trying to convince the 19 year old "independent" that his tax burden wasn't the reason he couldn't afford college. People have been brainwashed.)
Boy howdy on the brainwashing front! How many different times and different ways has deregulation wrecked havoc on our country? The S& L crisis. Enron & the manufactured energy crisis of the early 2000s. The sub-prime mortgage meltdown-just to name a few of the greatest hits our economy has taken from the deregulation delusion. And yet, no many how many disasters it causes, somehow deregulation itself is never to blame!
I too, was particularly thrilled to hear Obama speak this line. And yet, I wondered to myself, what will it take to really make it happen?
A question has come across my inbox today, and as I am wont to do I began to answer my email friend (who I've known, by the way, since we both posted on the John Edwards blog). More or less 100 words into the reply it occurred to me that this was a question best answered in front of a larger audience.
The question? My friend is having trouble committing to Obama.
Why? I'm paraphrasing, but it would be fair to say that the sudden emergence of Obama's "handlers" was a factor...and although it's not in the note, I suspect the fact that Obama has "tacked to the center" recently on various issues is part of the problem as well.
It's a great question...and in an effort to provide a great answer I'm going to offer a few words of my own-and then I thought we might reach back a bit into history and see if there might be something we can learn.
Having come to the metaphorical tee and taken the first shot, let's head down the fairway and see where that ball might be...and where we can get it to go.
Jeremiah Wright is a bad, bad man. He said mean things about America, how God should punish America. Nobody says that.
Nobody except Thomas Jefferson, Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and John Hagee.
Yup, all sorts of people say God should (or already has) punish(ed) America. The only difference lies in just what they think we've been doing wrong....
12 yeass in US House;
4 years in US House;
