My Obama problem does not include this

Not for a moment do I believe that Richard Lugar or Chuck Hagel will wind up in President Obama's cabinet and I don't think he believes it either.  The key words in this paragraph are such and as:

The scene is set for a tussle between the two candidates for the support of some of the sharpest and most independent minds in politics. Obama is hoping to appoint cross-party figures to his cabinet such as Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war, and Richard Lugar, leader of the Republicans on the Senate foreign relations committee.

Chris Bowers points out that neither of these guys has a voting record remotely progressive, but what sort of record would a progressive Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense have to have had?  What in fact would make a Secretary of Defense or Secretary of Defense progressive?  Progressivism has mainly been defined by its approach to domestic issues, hasn't it?

Obama isn't talking about making either man his Attorney General, his director of the EPA, or his first Supreme Court nominee.

But as a matter of fact he's not talking about making either one Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State either.  He's talking---talking---about appointing a certain type of Republican such as Lugar and Hagel.

It's kind of been forgotten, but one of our complaints against the Bush League White House and Congress is that they shut the Democrats out of everything.  No consultations, no compromises (except when compromise was just a synonym for abject surrender), no negotiations in good faith, no quarter, no mercy, no respect, nothing.

Sure, it would be fun, for about a month, to watch the Democrats get a bit of their own back.  But an eye for an eye isn't really a principle of democratic government.

Obama isn't promising to govern as a center-leftist or as a Republican Lite just by announcing that types such as Lugar and Hagel would be welcome in his administration.   He's doing what he's been doing all along with his post-partisan rhetoric, going around the Right Wing extremists and neo-con adventurers and partisan hacks and thugs who have taken over the party, to talk to Republican voters, and anyone in the Media willing to listen and capable of grasping the point, to say to them that it's safe to ignore their Party's fear and hate mongering leaders, that a Democratic President will not mean the end of life as they know it, that he will be their President too.

My Obama problem does not include this either:

"Oh, he's liberal,” he said. “He's liberal. Let me tell you something. There's nothing liberal about wanting to reduce money in politics that is common sense. There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure [our soldiers] are treated properly when they come home.”

Continuing on his riff: "There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure that everybody has healthcare, but we are spending more on healthcare in this country than any other advanced country. We got more uninsured. There's nothing liberal about saying that doesn't make sense, and we should so something smarter with our health care system. Don't let them run that okie doke on you!"

There are issues on which there are no liberal or conservative positions---or on which there ought not to be.

Again, another complaint against the Bush League GOP is their hyper-partisanship, their insistence that everything is either liberal or conservative (which has led them to paint themselves into ridiculous intellectual corners as they've tried to find the conservative take on rock and roll, movies, child rearing, and following sports), and their co-opting of values that we all share so that patriotism, going to church, even getting married have become ideological touchstones.

There are issues where the proper stand isn't either liberal or conservative.  It's simply the right and decent thing to do.

The problem has been that the Right has fixed it so that only Liberals have been left to defend the right and decent thing.

It is not liberal to make sure that our returning soldiers and Marines are treated well when they come home.  It's just that the Republican Party has made it conservative to treat them like disposable cigarette lighters.

It is not liberal to make sure that everybody in this country, including and especially children, has decent health care.  It's just that the Republican Party has made it conservative to sneer at families who can't afford to take their kids to the doctor and make people have to choose between buying their medicine and buying food.

The Bush League Republicans have poisoned and broken and fucked up everything they've touched for years and years, and one of the things they've poisoned and broken and fucked up is their own Party and one of the ways they've done that is by making their own voters have to choose between what they know in their hearts and consciences is the right and decent thing and what their hate-mongering, fear-mongering, power-mad Party leaders have told them is the right and decent thing.

I'm not sure of exactly what Obama means we can do when he says that yes, we can, but it very much seems to include doing the right and decent thing.

And it seems to me---and remember I do in fact have an Obama problem---that statements like the one about what's liberal or not are a way of assuring voters that they don't have to worry about being sneered and despised and condemned by the leaders of their own party for wanting to do the right and decent things anymore.  They can vote for a Democrat, not because he's a liberal, but because he wants to lead us all to do the right and decent thing.

The American thing.

There are two possible "post-partisan" Americas.

One is the America the Washington Village elders imagine, in which Democrats and Liberals keep their mouths shut and don't spoil any more parties by wondering what the poor people are doing tonight.

The other is one in which torture is simply an evil and there is no liberal or conservative stand on it.

As far as I can tell, Obama has not promised anything that will bring about the first kind.  My Obama problem has been that I haven't heard him say it enough times that he plans to bring about the second.  But I've heard him say it.

That's what I hear when he says he would consider appointing people such as Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar to his cabinet.

I don't hear him promising not to ruin any of the Village elders' parties.  I hear him inviting lots of people to our party.

What do people such as Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar have in common with Democrats?  The Bush League Republicans have dissed them, and marginalized them, and laughed at them, and humiliated them.  I wish they hadn't been so good at taking it but that's the past.

Obama's saying they don't have to take it anymore.  They can come over to our side.

Will they come?

I don't know.

But I know this.

Simply electing a progressive President who will spend four or even eight years governing in turmoil, trying to get one or two good and decent things done and hold off the worst of the Republican Right's agenda by appointing a few dozen judges won't transform anything.

In order for anything transformative to happen, we have to create a new and long-lasting Democratic majority because, as things stand now, it's only within that Democratic majority that a truly Progressive majority has a chance of arising.

That majority won't be created by 40 per cent of the country railing at the other 60 per cent, You have sinned!  Change your evil ways and come crawling to us in sack cloth and ashes, begging to do whatever penance we assign.

It's much more likely to happen if the Presidential nominee is heard by at least 20 per cent of the rest of the country saying, Yes, we can, and you can too, come join us.

Hat tips to McEwan and Watson who I already know think I'm way wrong on this.

_____________________

Update from Senator Blutarsky: This is funny and there's a part of me that agrees with the sentiment: No prisoners!  But if this sort of talk bothers Brad so much I wonder why he voted for Obama to begin with since Obama's been talking like this from the get-go.

Let me repeat.  The key words in that paragraph are such and as.

Update from somebody who was not a character in Animal House but should be listened to anyway:  What Rob says.

Comments

[lina]

Please forward this post to all voters in Ohio and Texas before tomorrow.

[actor212]

Obama's saying they don't have to take it anymore. They can come over to our side.

They won't.

This has been another episode of "Simple Answers to Ridiculous Scenarios"...

[Lance]

actor,

Depends on who you mean by "they." A whole lot of "they" are already doing it, that's part of how Obama's been winning.

Some will, some won't. The aim is to make the Democratic majority bigger, not to make things unanimous. Might as well be able to say to the ones who don't come over, Hey, we offered.

And like I said, no Democrat is going to be able to govern by saying Fuck you to 50 to 60 per cent of the voters.

[Victoria]

Lance, have you read Dreams From My Father, Obama's memoir? I'd be interested in your take on it. It largely dissolved my "Obama problems." He embodies of what he says; the sources are clear and, I would add, clean. Love to have a conversation here about that book. In fact, let's all buy copies via your Amazon button.

[Linkmeister]

"no Democrat is going to be able to govern by saying Fuck you to 50 to 60 per cent of the voters."

The Bush Administration has done so for seven-plus years now (for some value of "govern.")

[Lance]

Link, true enough, although it's been pretty easy for them since their definition of govern has been "SACK THE VILLAGE!"

I'm hoping that's not what President Clinton or President Obama will mean by it.

[Judith]

the GOP is not over 50% of the voters, Lance.

[Lance]

Judith, Didn't say they were, but I can see I wasn't clear.

The 40 percent is made up of Democrats and "Independents" who routinely vote Democratic. The tide is turning in Democrats' favor but party registration in the country is still close to a one third to one third to one third split--- around 34 percent Democrats, 32 Republicans, 34 Independents. But Independent means anybody who didn't register as a Democrat or a Republican. That would include Liberals and Conservatives, members of the Right to Life and Green Parties, Communists and Neo-Nazis. A lot of Independents are not truly independent, they are just more ideological and they tend to vote for the same party, election in and election out. I'm figuring that at least 7 percent of the Independents are by voting preference reliably Republican. For a long time it was more: more self-identified Independents voted Republican than voted Democratic. That's changed in recent years. But assuming the other 20 percent, the independent Independents are in play, to win a Presidential election---in a two-way race---a Democrat needs to win over at least a fifth of them. If the Democrat wants to win with a sizable enough majority to claim a mandate he/she has to win over at least that many again. And if he/she wants to win in a landslide he/she has to win over at least that many more. Or pick off a lot of Republican votes along the way.

However he/she works it, she/he has to address that 20 percent of the electorate plus the Republicans---that's the other 60 percent.

[actor212]

Lance,

I'm not convinced that a lot of the "independent" and Republican support in caucuses and primaries for Obama isn't merely a ploy by Republicans to deny Hillary a run, and that once Obama wins, his poll numbers will plummet back to around 43-44%, making him dead even with or trailing McCain.

Yes, I know, an awful lot of conservatives are upset that McCain will represent them, but it's foolish to think they'll abandon the Republican party, while we Democrats will march in lockstep. First, it's out of character for Republicans, and second, it's out of character for human nature.

After all, John Kerry was never really the man everyone wanted in the 2004 primaries, he was merely the last one standing, yet we voted for him because he was "electable".

[Phil Jamison]

On the subject of a potential Obama administration, there is an interesting project in pure democracy just getting started on the web: automated and continuously updated 'approval style' voting on VP, cabinet, and major posts. Approval style voting means you can vote for as many of the choices as you approve. The results are instantly viewable and the system is reasonably tamper proof (won't allow multiple voting from the same computer). The lists of nominees are continually expanded to include all other reasonable suggestions. Voting may be anonymous and votes may be changed at any time. The site will remain open indefinitely for follow up research or re-voting any time (also please spread the word so as to improve the sample): http://puredem.wordpress.com

[Judith]

okie dokie, Lance. I'll take your word for it. I think a Clinton/McCain contest will be interesting. Personally, I think she will be able to clean his clock so I am not all that worried.