Harold Ford is a joke. His pandering, flip-flopping and sizzle-to-steak ratio are all legendary. But in the end, his politics are unremarkably neo-liberal, with nothing special to distinguish them. Take away his black skin, and he'd be a dime a dozen. Which reminds me of a certain President I know, who has either reappointed or replicated George W. Bush's team on national security, economic policy, and education, and Bill Clinton's team--at best--on most other top issues.
With Obama's resume, there's no doubt that he's a very smart individual. But with the great financial meltdown there's no doubt that tons of smart people can get together to do very stupid things. So the question is, "What purpose is Obama's intelligence devoted to? And is the end result going to be smart or stupid?"
The answer I propose is simple, perhaps too simple, but I think it serves as a good-enough first approximation: His intelligence is devoted to being a smarter version of Harold Ford. Okay, a lot smarter version of Harold Ford. But still, Harold Ford.
If you want a less-simple answer, then I'd say he's trying to be Booker T. Washington for 21st Century America. Booker T. Washington is not a prominent historical figure today, but when I was in high scholld back in the 1960s, he was one of just two black figures to appear in my American history textbook. The other was George Washington Carver. And yes, it seemed as weird to me then as it does writing it today. Even though the were presented in a way that made them seem even more alike than their names and the timing of their lives suggested, I recognized a significant difference. Carver was a remarkable scientist/inventor whose work helped save Southern agriculture in the wake of widespread soil depletion from cotton monocrop agriculture.
Booker T. Washington, OTOH, was an accomodationist educator and author who preached economic development within the framework of segregation. He was very popular with northern philanthropists. Significantly less so with Northern blacks, who soon grew quite frustrated with having their tune set by the "sensible" limits of what was politically possible in Dixie. This is not to say that Washington did no good. He did a lot to improve the conditions of blacks in the South--but he did it under the delusion that it was leading to eventual political equality, once blacks had "proved themselves" to the racist white power structure of the South, something that was never going to happen. What's more, he emerged as a national figure (with his 1895 "Atlanta Compromise" Speech) at precisely the moment when segregation was being politically consolidated--at precisely the historical moment when black acquiescence was most valuable to the Southern power structure.
So, too, today, when Republican rule has culminated in every conceivable form of disaster, Obama comes along to preach the virtues of accomodation with the purveyors of sweeping and systemic failure, and all of their failed philosophies and schemes: the failed deregulatory philosophy, the failed trickle-down economics, the failed war on terrror philosophy, the failed standardized testing and school privatization philosophy, etc., etc., etc.
And so I have to ask, in all seriousness: Is Obama just a (lot) smarter version of Harold Ford? Or is he something more? Because if he is something more, I'll be damned if can see it.
If you've been watching election returns on the cable news networks this season, chances are that you've seen a lot of Harold Ford. Ford began his stint as a political contributor with Fox News in 2007, making the switch to MSNBC in March, 2008. Since that time, he's been quick to offer advice to Barack Obama and Democrats across the country who seek seats in the great blue wave of '08. But just who is Harold Ford to be shaping the current? In his ten years as congressman from Tennessee, Ford established a reputation as ready to break with progressives, his party and/or basic common sense.
Once one of Anne Coulter's "favorite Democrats," Ford has been relatively sequestered to leadership of the centrist DLC. Having failed in bids for House Minority leader in 2002, US Senate in '06, and by some accounts DNC Chairman, Ford seems to be losing the competition with progressives for leadership in the senior party.
Ambitious as they come, Ford will no doubt continue to inject his presence into the general election campaign. However, it will ultimately be up to Democrats to decide where Ford goes next. In the meantime, progressives would benefit to ask what the Big Bend stater's dubious record on issues like abortion, alternative fuels, campaign finance, domestic partnership, domestic spying, immigration, Iraq, prayer in public schools and trade means to opening a real progressive window.
What would you say of a politician running for Congress who failed denounce something like this attacking her opponent:
Typical Republican, right? Well, almost. Typical Harold Ford protege, actually. A corporate lawyer after his own heart.
The minister who put it out--who lives well outside the district--works with a group that's in league with the Traditional Values Coalition. And Emily's List is supporting her, more on the basis of her ovaries than her anything else--given her non-existent pro-choice credentials.
In 2006, local blogger David Holt reported: "When asked about abortion, she said the she doesn't support abortion but that the government should stay out of it."
That's an Emily's List candidate nowadays???
In sharp contrast, her incumbent opponent, Rep. Steven Cohen ranks in the TOP 25 according to Progressive Punch.
The attacks are motivated by Cohen's race, his religion, and the fact that he supports hate crime protections for lesbians and gays. His enemies clearly have no place in the Democratic Party. But Emily's List is in bed with them! And Black Agenda Report--in the person of no-nonsense Executive Editor Glen Ford--is all over this, as you'll see on the flip.
Harold Ford on Republican Chris Shays, who is facing a fierce challenge from Jim Himes:
"There is not a better Congressman in Washington than Chris Shays," said Ford, to a crowd of about 600 Fairfield University students and community members.
Rep. Lincoln Davis says he's planning a run to become Tennessee's next governor, despite reports of Harold Ford Jr.'s interest in the race, according to a story in the Chattanooga Times Free Press.
Davis, who represents Tennessee's Fourth District, served as Ford's campaign chairman during his unsuccessful 2006 Senate bid against Republican Bob Corker.
"I've made up my mind to run for governor," said Davis. "I don't think (Ford) is going to run because Lincoln Davis is going to run. I would imagine that if I'm in the race, he'll step aside."
But an adviser to Ford and the head of the Tennessee Democratic Party confirmed that Ford is "seriously considering" a gubernatorial run to succeed Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen in 2010. Bredesen cannot run for a third term.
OK, so Lincoln Davis likes to refer to himself in the third person. Also, I would be lying if I said I cared all that much over who was Governor of Tennessee. I mean, I care a little bit, but mainly it is a local campaign that does not affect me and where I have no particular hopes for progressive governance statewide in the short term.
Personally, I hope that Lincoln Davis runs and wins. It would certainly be an effective means of freeing up is swing congressional district (R +3.2 in 2004) for a non-Bush Dog to take over. Much the same happened when Harold Ford ran for Senate, freeing up his heavily Democratic House seat (D +15.7) for takeover by a progressive (Steve Cohen). The Ford Cohen exchange added about half a seat for progressives in Congress in actual voting power. If a non-Bush Dog can take over Davis's seat, that might mean progressives pick up a quarter of a seat.
Bush Dogs like to run for higher office, and do so on a regular basis. This is quite unlike progressives, who pass up 18 point leads (see #6 in the link) and large cash on hand advantages in order to stay in the House. The open seats created by these vacancies are a key location for progressives to target. If we can't encourage progs to run for higher office, at the least we can start to mop up on House seats. Looks like in 2010, we will have one more opportunity to do so, and a long time to prepare.
Between the Markos/Harold Ford Meet the Press thing (hard to call it a debate when Ford was trying so hard to not debate about anything) and Glenn Smith's great post here, it's been hard not to think about the DLC this weekend. So I decided to finally write something about them.
I've been slow to do that for a number of different reasons, most of which relate to my insider-y-ness. I've always preferred focusing on positive ways we can build the progressive movement, rather than worrying about what the DLC is doing. And I much prefer beating up on Republicans than on Democrats, even Democrats I don't agree with. Although I line up on the opposite side of them on a great many issues, I have a more nuanced view of them than most netroots members. But Glenn's post and Ford's attack of anti-war Democrats and the anti-Semitic attack on Meet the Press stirred me to write something.
Oh God, now Ford is kissing his ass, congratulating him on his activism. And he's trying to talk unity. What an asshole.
...Markos has said 'it's not about him' but about millions of passionate activists.
...Ford is now talking policy, a clean energy future and health care. Ford does not want a fight, and is talking about 'merging factions'.
...Markos and Ford both agreed that fighting the war on terror. Oh good, finally they are slashing at each other about John Breaux, tax cuts, and the war in Iraq.
...David Gregory is saying that the base is very liberal, and he's going to let Ford respond.
...Ford is now saying that the DLC is anti-big money and an anti-establishment group. He's going down the litany of Clinton's accomplishments. And Ford says 'we're not going to win if you and I are arguing with each other'.
...David Gregory is now asking about Iraq, and that the Democrats aren't advocating for a full withdrawal. He also asks about gay marriage.
...Whether it's three months, six months, or a year, getting out of Iraq in terms of polling is semantics.
...Markos is slashing at Clinton, saying that Clinton never won more than fifty percent of the vote. And he keeps coming back to the fact that Ford would be a Senator if his political strategy.
...Markos criticizes Ford for going on Fox News and attacking Harry Reid. Ford then goes after Markos for his site being antisemitic and a forum for Cindy Sheehan.
...Markos talks about Clinton being able to speak to activists even though he criticizes her, while Ford keeps emphasizing a 'merging of factions'.
I'm going to enjoy tomorrow's Meet the Press with Markos debating Ford, but in all honesty, it doesn't really matter who does a better job. There are millions of people behind Markos, and there are a few narrow special interests behind Ford.
Glenn Smith wrapped up what the DLC is really about, so if you want deep insight, read him. If you just want to mock Harold Ford, below is his concession speech from 2006, and here are some of his fear-mongering pandering church-y commercials throwing around the God word like candy to a suicidal diabetic. At the time these were considered teh awesome. They probably still are. Anyway, here's Ford conceding a race to a Republican in a year when basically no other Republicans won. I look forward to watching tomorrow's debate on the future of the Democratic Party.
STATE BLOGS
