The Myth of Partisan Stasis

Them that's got shall get (0.00 / 0)

them that's not shall lose,
so the Bible says
and it still is news.

---

by: elwood @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:16:56 PM CST

god bless the child that's got his own (4.00 / 1)

We represent the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop guild.

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 14:45:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks (4.00 / 1)

You know what? I'm not really sure I have a thorough understanding of your point in this diary but that could because I'm so mad at the moment I can't think straight.

So I just want to thank you for writing a well documented, level-headed, calm and responsible diary. I have just come off Daily KOS where Kos has once again abused one of our democratic candidates with right-wing talking points worthy of Drudge. Once gain he has taken a straight-forward statement by a candidate and with ludicrous hyperbole turned it into a thing of hate and derision.

Head on over there and read "Obama Slams Gore and Kerry" and then consider cancelling your account. I enjoy many of the writers on DailyKOS so I'm not sure what I'm going to do but their leader is not worthy of his status.

Thank you Blue Hampshire for being what you are.

---

by: cjfb @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 13:33:11 PM CST

Out of curiously, what right wing talking points... (0.00 / 0)

... was Kos using?

---

by: lambert @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 19:19:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

again (0.00 / 0)

I meant to say "once again he has taken a straight-forward statement"

---

by: cjfb @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 13:35:07 PM CST

hear, hear (4.00 / 1)

Very well said, Mike - and the graphs are smart and geeky-cool.

I would also confer bonus points for the use of the term "frottage." :)

---

by: susanthe @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 13:43:05 PM CST

Yes --- (0.00 / 0)

I did a little giggle of joy when I came up with the frottage phrase -- I encourage everyone to steal it. No attribution required.

For those of you unfamiliar with the term, here it is:

http://www.urbandictionary.com...

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 14:17:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama's rightward slide (0.00 / 0)

Mike, thanks to the link (my post).

I've been watching Obama's rightward slide -- the Social Security "crisis" thing, the health care mandates thing -- with increasing dismay (the post you linked to was written well before Obama's "trial lawyer" dogwhistle), and FWIW this is my take on it:

Obama is leveraging right wing talking points (including Hillary hatred) to suck low information independents into the Iowa caucuses so they can pick the Democratic candidate for Democrats, instead of letting Democrats do it. It's a clever plan. Time will tell whether it's too clever. What I do know is that even it works in the general, it won't bring a progressive mandate.

IOW, Democrats and progressives should feel dissed by Obama becaues they are being dissed.

If this is in fact the plan, it will be interesting to see how it plays out in New Hampshire.

I'll cheerfully vote for Obama in the general, but the rightward slide is no accident, and it hasn't made me easy in my mind about Obama at all.

---

by: lambert @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 14:08:36 PM CST

Kos's comment (0.00 / 0)

You know, I was going to vote for Obama and even announced that a week or so ago. But this is a great example of why it's best to wait and see how things shake out. Not being blinded by candidate worship, it's easier to sniff out the bullshit. And you have to have your head stuck deep in the sand to deny that Obama is trying to close the deal by running to the Right of his opponents. And call me crazy, but that's not a trait I generally appreciate in Democrats, no matter how much it might set the punditocracy's hearts a flutter.

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 

---

by: Kathy Sullivan @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 14:13:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hey -- are you THE lambert? (0.00 / 0)

Of Corrente fame?

If so, really honored to have you stop by. An 8 page version of this I had ended up quoting about a fifth of your "considered harmful" post. I finally cut it down and just linked you at the top. But it was one of the best things I read last week in a week of reading surprisingly good things.

One geeky question -- there's a famous paper in computer programming called "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" by Dijkstra, which resulted in the propogation of the idiom -- was there a semi-ironic tip of the hat to that title in your own title, or am I geeking out too hard?

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 14:25:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Lambert blushes modestly (4.00 / 1)

Thanks, I was happy with that post. I feel like I condensed about five years of blogging into it -- and I felt that Krugman was correct, and that his thesis needed to be defended.

So, I guess that I am "the" lambert, though I never thought to hear that phrase -- I'm a old-school, C-list blogger, plus I'm foul-mouthed.

The answer to your geeky question is Yes, and the title was chosen with deliberation; I believe that using Conservative talking points, and the whole (vacuous) "unity" message really is harmful. If this is a watershed year, then let's run and win as progressives, and get a real mandate. The kind of politics we need demands insttitution building, as the history shows, and I think that Obama's tactics and message get in the way of that.

Of course, posting here is a transparent attempt to get the article read in New Hampshire before the vote....

And all that said, I will cheerfully vote for ANY Democrat in the general.

---

by: lambert @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 19:10:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I forgot to say... (0.00 / 0)

... that this is "the" Blue Hampshire.

After all, you're on the Kos blogroll. And that's because the state and local blogs are where it's at. You guys show a lot more courage with your friends and neighbors than quasi-pundit meme propagators/polemicists/analysts like me do!

---

by: lambert @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 19:18:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Scary, Scary Stuff. Lefties be afraid (4.00 / 1)

For those of you that suckle from the teat of "conventional politics" or as Obama said,Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes.

It is time to press the reset button on American politics.

FUCK YOU, if you don't get it or can't admit it.
Is that partisan enough for you?

In 2004, Obama said:

Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America - there's the United States of America. There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 14:31:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama is a strong liberal (4.00 / 2)

In fact Obama's voting record in the senate last year was scored as being MORE PROGRESSIVE  than Hillary's.

His health care plan and Hillary's are NEARLY IDENTICAL.  The primary difference is the individual mandate that would force people to buy a plan even if they couldn't afford it.  Look at Massachusetts experience if you need any further proof that mandates do not work and if you try to impose them without offering truly affordable insurance, you will end up exempting 20% of the population.  This is hardly universal coverage.  And the primary way to enforce a mandate is through the tax code, which, in fact, does put the IRS in the position of monitoring coverage for ALL Americans and enforcing punishment for those who can;t pay.

Rather than BIG BROTHER government ala Clinton/Edwards, Obama address the problem they are worried about head on.

Clinton/Edwards are afraid the 20-somethings wont buy insurance.  Rather than threaten to punish them, Obama takes a strikingly refreshing approach.  He will enable adult children up to age 25 to remain on their parent's policy.  This should pretty much take care of the problem.

And while Obama's plan may initially leave out 15 million. what the press has failed to report is that the Clinton/Edwards plan will initially leave out about 13 million.  These are both big numbers.

Edwards/Clinton will try to force them to buy coverage.  Obama will find other solutions to help them in a way that respects their individual liberty and freedom of choice.

I am a strong Obama supporter and have been working with his policy team for months now.  He is NOT "rightward" and your comment only succeeds in spreading false propaganda.  For goodness sake, I supported George McGovern!  My friends think I am a flaming liberal and are surprised I am not supporting Denise Kucinich.  But I think only Obama can lead us in a new direction with intelligence, integrity and dignity worthy of the Presidency.

Barack Obama is our best hope for a new face for America, a new direction that respects the rights and responsibilities of Americans and listens them to understand their problems and then finds solutions, and he will immediately restore our reputation in the world.

I am presently in Vietnam and the whole world is watching and hoping that we make the right choice in Obama.

---

by: Helenann @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 21:30:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama's rightward slide (0.00 / 0)

Obama's anti-universal health care talking points are straight from Harry & Louise. I'm glad to see other people are picking up on the rightward slide on other topics.

Before I read Daily Kos I was looking at the medthodology of the Des Moines Register poll. Obama's numbers come from a projection that 40% of the caucus-goers will not be members of the Democratic Party. (Doesn't really seem likely to me.)

If you put the Independents back to a more realistic 15%, Obama loses.

---

by: calvin @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 14:31:09 PM CST

The big problem is the second-choicers for Edwards (4.00 / 1)

Both Hillary and Obama are freaked about that. If unfettered by reciprocal agreements, enough Biden and Richardson support goes to Edwards that he's propelled into the 30s in a second round, leaving others in the dust.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 14:41:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

ya think ? n/t (0.00 / 0)

We represent the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop guild.

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 14:49:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What enrages me is that the fiscal responsibility the other side has been advertizing for so long is meaningless. (4.00 / 1)

I want my balanced budgets, damnit!

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 14:56:18 PM CST

Superiority-- (0.00 / 0)

Ever since superiority became identified with wealth (rather than race, gender, national origin, etc.) the effort to assert superiority has led to the accumulation of wealth.  And, to the extent that the inferiors can be deprived of their assets, the superiority of the elite is actually enhanced.

In other words, more poor people and more people in prison makes the people at the top of the pyramid look better.

The skewed distribution of community assets is not incidental; it's intentional.

But that's not where the real problem lies.  There was indeed a time when the accumulation of wealth was associated with demonstrated talents and enterprise and the wealth created by some was spread around.  That's no longer the case now that the accumulation of wealth is simply aimed at making the possessors appear more splendiferous.  Not only that, but the method of accumulation is unrelated to any socially useful enterprise (collecting fees from unnecessary monetary conversions), and these splendiferous entities seem incapable of doing anything useful with their wealth.  (In contrast, religious potentates who accumulated wealth were in the habit of employing skilled artisans and artists for the "greater glory of God").

George W. Bush is actually a good example, although the wealth he's accumulated and controlled was not his own.  He's a good example in that the assets have either deteriorated or been used to destroy.  The accumulation of wealth as a demonstration of superiority not only withdraws assets from the rest of the community but causes them to deteriorate.

And the final problem I see is that the pursuit of splendor can never be satisfied.  I used to think it was power they were after (which can't be satisfied either), but splendor seems a better word.

---

by: hannah @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 15:01:54 PM CST

According to Krugman's chart (4.00 / 3)

The huge upward "surge in income for the top 1% started in the mid '90s, when Bill Clinton was president. The downward slide of the lowest wage earners started a bit later, but still under the Clinton administration.

Reagan and his successors have been so successful because they  leveraged their money into think tanks, the media and framed the debate. Everything is still framed by the right, if you ask me. And from a sociological standpoint, it's very interesting because the people who have most to lose by these policies consistently vote for them.

I didn't read all of Lambert's anti-Obama tirade because I think he's trying to fit Obama's rhetoric into a preconceived anti Obama scheme. I also think that trying to out Bush Bush and to push things through without consensus will not create the kind of change needed to set this ship of state on a better course. To quote the title of an Audre Lord essay:  "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House."

Hannah has pointed out in various comments and diaries the major difference between the Dems and Republicans is that the Republicans don't mind falling into lock-step behind one ideology and the Dems won't do that. What is the perfect partisan Democrat in 2008? Also, the Republican rhetoric has been negative, divisive and aimed at our lower natures. Do we really want to ape that, even if it were possible?

We recently heard Kucinich speak, and we liked what we heard for the most part. But if the ship of state is careening out of control like a runaway train, is the best course of action to suddenly hit the brakes, or to slow it down while steering it to safety and then changing direction?

Obama is neither naive nor right-wing. He is changing the discourse and trying to bring people together. People who have identified as "independent" or even "conservative" may not agree with the neocons, either. But calling them jerks and telling them they're wrong, wrong, wrong isn't the way to win them over.

All of the "top tier" candidates in this race have money, backing from many groups with money and clout, and have made some votes, policy decisions, etc. that I don't agree with. Politics is the art of the possible. It's been written over and over on this site, "the perfect is the enemy of the good". Obama's not perfect, but he's good, and I'll take that.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 15:10:59 PM CST

There's a contradiciton there (4.00 / 1)

You talk (rightly) about framing, and how we accelerated this spread during the Clinton years -- which is part of my point. To see the Clinton administration as a major swing to the left isn't really the case. There were a lot of successes in the Clinton White House, but the conservative movement effectively still controlled the debate, and the results.

The idea that is we have more of the population behind us we'll get more done is just not true. To get votes in the House you need to woo votes, and peel them from the center. To win an election as a non-incumbent, you may need to tone down partisan rhetoric.

But that's the end of the process, the very tip of the iceberg of what's happening. What makes peeling those votes possible, what makes real change possible, is agressively pursuing it in a way that changes the debate. The great movements in this country (the good and bad) have been a result of the center moving to the fringe -- not the fringe moving to the center.

Can we do that with a leader that disparages the fringe, denigrates it's importance, and questions its motives?

Yep. We can. A strong movement trumps a weak leader every time.

Would we rather start with a candidate that acknowledges the restorative power of the fringe to the party, and understands the possibilities of success are derived largely from the efforts of that fringe and not from some mystical personal qualities?

I'd say yeah.  

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 16:05:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ben Smith: Kucinich sorta endorses Obama (4.00 / 1)

Kucinich sorta endorses Obama

An unexpected twist from the Kucinich camp:

Kucinich Urges Supporters to
Back Obama on Second Iowa Ballot

For Immediate Release - Tuesday, January 01, 2008

DES MOINES, IA - Democratic Presidential candidate and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich opened the New Year by publicly asking his Iowa supporters to vote for him in the caucuses this Thursday, and suggesting that if he did not make the 15% threshold, their second ballot should be for Senator Barack Obama. "This is obviously an 'Iowa-only' recommendation, as Sen. Obama and I are competing in the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday where I want to be the first choice of New Hampshire voters.

"I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice this Thursday, because of my singular positions on the war, on health care, and trade. This is an opportunity for people to stand up for themselves. But in those caucus locations where my support doesn't reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change."

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 15:11:01 PM CST

So much for fear mongering (4.00 / 1)

I guess the left isn't afraid of Obama.

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 15:13:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't be naive (0.00 / 0)

Decisions like this are based on poll crunching, not ideals.

Edwards and Kucinich pull from the same set of voters -- a weak Edwards in Iowa benefits Kucinich in NH.

Or does Obama's new political paradigm not allow simple observations like that?

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 16:09:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why did Susanb leave the campaign ? n/t (0.00 / 0)

We represent the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop Guild, the Lollypop guild.

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 16:12:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

susanb (0.00 / 0)

had personal reasons for leaving. Personal being the key word.

My leaving doesn't change the fact that I'll be voting for DK on January 8.  

---

by: susanthe @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 16:53:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Don't be naive (4.00 / 4)

Dennis Kucinich is a true progressive who for a lot of years has walked the walk.  If Kucinich, who knows that he does not stand a realistic chance of doing well in either Iowa or NH, is prepared to urge his Iowa supporters to back Obama, you folks who are only talking the talk should think a little more deeply about what Kucinich is saying.  He is saying very clearly that he wants change, and that if he can't be the person to bring change, he is urging you to support Obama because Kucinich believes Obama WILL bring change. The Kucinich statement is pretty clear to me.

---

by: wantowin @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 16:36:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The war (4.00 / 1)

It's the war, stupid. (Remember, "It's the economy, stupid")

Barack Obama was against the war before it started, as a candidate for US Senate was speaking out against it... DK realizes that he is the only other person other than himself that has not changed their position on Iraq.  

Feeling hopeful since 2004...now "Secretary" of the New Boston Democratic Caucus

---

by: Kelly Nordstrom @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 17:38:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Been thinking about it today (4.00 / 1)

while shoveling and sledding and shoveling again...

The war vote will be a major differentiator should Obama make it to the General. A Unique Selling Point as a marketer might say.

While Edwards has apologized there will be awkward moments trying to nuance that explanation

Clinton's votes come across more hawkish than I like.

If we do not eat him first, in a sound bite driven general election Obama has the best answer to the war vote question. " I voted against it. Next question please."

Hope > Fear




Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 20:41:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And talking about it, too (4.00 / 1)

We had a fire in our back yard, roasted hot dogs on fresh-cut green sticks, ate them in the snow and then ate toasted marshmallows and s'mores afterwards (again in the snow).  I seemed to get out of shoveling duty, but it was a great New Year's Day.

Our family friends that came over are also Obama supporters and we talked about another friend who's still undecided between Clinton and Obama... came down to the whole, voting for who she thinks can beat a republican and who she thinks is the best candidate...

When I think about a general election debate, unless it's Obama or Kuccinich (I'm not really sure on what Richardson's position on the war was in winter 02-03) at one of podiums, there's no distinction between our candidate and theirs.  I think that will be a huge problem.

Why is it with the surge "working" we seem to all have stopped talking about the war???

Feeling hopeful since 2004...now "Secretary" of the New Boston Democratic Caucus

---

by: Kelly Nordstrom @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 22:08:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Our hot dogs... (0.00 / 0)

we actually ate them in hot dog rolls, not in snow... :-)

Feeling hopeful since 2004...now "Secretary" of the New Boston Democratic Caucus

---

by: Kelly Nordstrom @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 22:09:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

First Edwards & Obama (0.00 / 0)

Now Edwards & Kucinich.

Graphically, I get:{Obama - Edwar}..{ds-Kucinich}

There is merit to your point.

As Kucinich doesn't have much to "give away" in IA, I will maintain that his "realignment" is better suited for shitting on your efforts to stain Obama's movement, then it is to screw with Edwards.

Although, if I recall, there is no love lost between Edwards and Kucinich.

I guess we do reap what we sow. Blessed are the partisans.

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 16:57:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well thanks for giving some ground (0.00 / 0)

I'm open to other interpretations, but my best guess still is that it's a move to weaken Edwards.

I've actually been rather shocked to see how it is suddenly Edwards as the one to be stopped by all the campaigns. How weird to see so little coverage of Edwards, only of people reacting to Edwards --

Anyone can win, and they're all fine. But if it's Edwards by a mile it's bad for everyone (except Edwards).

And the McClatchy second choice poll says the second round favors Edwards by a mile. Everyone is going to try to dent that.  

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 17:12:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

not a troll (4.00 / 1)

My daughter was pulling at my arms, she hates for me to be on the computer and I must have clicked "0" instead of "4"... I would not want anyone to think there was dissent in our ranks!

Feeling hopeful since 2004...now "Secretary" of the New Boston Democratic Caucus

---

by: Kelly Nordstrom @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 19:22:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Looks tactical to me (0.00 / 0)

A "good for one time only" "recommendation" -- the word "endorsment" is not used -- in a state where Kucinich has no organization?

Forgive me if I don't regard this as burnishing Obama's progressive credentials in the way his fan base seems to feel is now necessary....

---

by: lambert @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 19:13:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Your entitled (0.00 / 0)

I have no use for your views, but you spit it.

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 19:59:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

DK could have remained (0.00 / 0)

silent on the matter. The fact that he spoke of it means something. It may mean little but it means something.

Hope > Fear




Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 21:06:06 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree (0.00 / 0)

And will repeat once again -- Kucinich needs a weak Edwards. Obama is the best not-Edwards to use to do that -- his supporters can go over there w/o bad taste in mouth, but an ascendant Obama is not going to mess with Kucinich's game plan.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:52:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Retread Diary Alert (0.00 / 0)

An earlier Diary:
Obama: The Era of Post-Partisanship Politics
by: Sleeping Giant Stirs
Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 17:04:26 PM EST

Some counter Krugman yum-yums for those with a sour taste in their mouth from all the trash talking.
I am guilty, as well, but lack a clear vision of how to effectively counter the Clinton/Penn Thought Jamming scheme being deployed here on BH. -SGS

IS OBAMA A SHREWD PROGRESSIVE OR A SELLOUT?

...Barack Obama's call for bipartisanship (or post-partisanship) has drawn skepticism from some establishment liberals like New York Times columnist Paul Krugman , who accuse the Illinois Senator of being a "naive" and "anti-change candidate."
-snip
Matt Yglesias of The Atlantic summed up the appeal thusly, "He says he's not one of those liberals, he doesn't call people 'wingnuts,' he understands the conservative point of view, blah blah blah, and then here comes his agenda of tax hikes, tons of new spending, ambitious carbon emissions curbs, less invading of other countries for no reason, gay equality, etc. And, remarkably, you keep seeing conservatives eat it up, discerning something incredibly 'new' and 'exciting' in a combination of conventional liberal policy views with vaguely conciliatory rhetoric." Those in this camp believe Obama could be a Democratic version of Ronald Reagan. Think: Obama Republicans.

Other liberals, like Krugman, are suspicious of Obama's inclusionary rhetoric.
-snip

The American Prospect's Mark Schmitt, one of the most astute observers of American politics, has analyzed both of these arguments and, in the end, sympathizes with Obama.

"Perhaps we are being too literal in believing that 'hope' and bipartisanship are things that Obama naively believes are present and possible, when in fact they are a tactic, a method of subverting and breaking the unified conservative power structure," Schmitt writes. "Claiming the mantle of bipartisanship and national unity, and defining the problem to be solved (e.g. universal health care) puts one in a position of strength, and Republicans would defect from that position at their own risk. The public, and younger voters in particular, seem to want an end to partisanship and conflictual politics, and an administration that came in with that premise (an option not available to Senator Clinton), would have a tremendous advantage, at least for a moment."

In this reading of things, bipartisanship isn't just a feel-good sound-bite. It's a means to actually bring change about.

Posted by Ari Berman at 12/21/2007 @ 2:06pm

Sleeping Giant Stirs :: Obama: The Era of Post-Partisanship Politics

This is where I thought I was, circa November 2006. -SGS

Radical center
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The terms radical center or radical middle describe a third way philosophy as well as an associated political movement. Followers of this philosophy claim to improve understanding by simultaneously affirming both sides of apparently contradictory issues, whether that be disagreement amongst Left-Right politics or other disagreement or dilemmas.

Philosophy
Various groups have adopted "radical center" as a term to describe a third way philosophy which includes their belief that, in affirming the core principles involved on both sides of a dilemma, the dilemma or disagreement can be rendered moot.

The terms Radical Center and Radical Middle are often used interchangeably, although the former more often refers to a political movement or current and the latter to a political philosophy. The latter use reflects an emphasis on epistemic virtue, by resolving false dilemmas -- i.e., finding the excluded middle.

Politics
The political application of radical center philosophy is represented by a cluster of loosely related terms and movements: radical middle, radical centrist, responsive communitarian, third-way, etc. As a relatively grass-roots movement, especially in the United States, there is no definitive statement of radical middle politics. A primary recurring theme, however, might be the idea of "sustainably improving choices." This is reflected in the goals of various radical centrist groups, which they describe using language such as:

-Maximize citizen choice, individual empowerment, and overall human potential
-Facilitate greater involvement in the political process (e.g., through referenda)
-Being of concrete help to those in the developing world
-Emphasize epistemic virtue, so that politics are grounded in objective reality
-Build character by promoting conscious moral choices
-Expand community by people creating value for each other in reciprocal relationships
-Possess a foundation of traditional values and Common sense
-Enlibra, which presents itself as the productive middle approach to environmentalism  
 

SGS is Jack Mitchell of Lowell, MA. The symbolism of the "sleeping giant" is based on my HOPE for America.

---

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 21:06:37 PM CST

Not trash talking (0.00 / 0)

Actually what I assumed we were having was a pretty high-level discussion about what politics is, and how we got here.

YMMV.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:00:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Why do I bother to blog, (0.00 / 0)

when Atrios says it better than I can all the time?

Against the Democratic Party

In his own subtle way, running against the party - at least to the extent that it's part and parcel with the Village in general - has long been Obama's message. But he's also long been good at blurring just what that meant, wink wink nudge nudge suggesting he was running to its left even as he used rhetoric which suggested he was running as David Broder's love child.

That's exactly it.  What turned me off to Obama long ago was the bi-partisanship frame, but as I get to know him more and more I hear lots of wink wink nudge nudge.

I don't know how else to explain it but the way Atrios put it.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 21:42:59 PM CST

+1 (0.00 / 1)

And then when you call out the "wink wink nudge nudge" you get long explanations about what Obama "really means." Tiresome.

---

by: lambert @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 22:03:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The question is (0.00 / 0)

How did the Repubs do this with Georgy boy?

Because that's what is being said above -- that we should ignore his rhetoric and see a stealth candidate.

So how did they let their base know W. was with them while talking this purple state stuff?

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:57:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I suspect it was easier for W (0.00 / 0)

since McCain was his only real oppositition, and he was more to the center in 2000, so W. got a free pass as the conservative candidate while playing up the "compassionate conservative" bollocks to the country at large.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 05:23:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ahhhh. Simple answer, always the best. (0.00 / 0)

I'll tell you the other way though, now that I think about it. When your movement is the core of the party, the party blessed candidate can be trusted to be movement.

You trust that all those insiders backing W. have had the necessary conversations.

In the Democratic Party, being the party favorite means something else.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 06:39:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Frottage ?...so much to learn, so little time (0.00 / 0)

Appreciate Lambert's broad view of the damage done by Reagonomics and neo-conservatism. Couldn't agree more, but don't believe the flexibilities of campaign rhetoric should be seen as significantly weakening the fight.  On the other hand, bipartisanship can be important.

How about considering a partially bi-partisan point of view ?...the bipartisanship that covers events beyond our "water's edge". This morning I listened to pundits say that Iraq has receeded from the news due to the post-surge drop in violence.

That's it ? Dead issue ? What about the ineffectiveness of Maleki to be more than the mayor of the Green Zone ? What about the prospect of an Iranian aligned, oppressive, fundamentalist government under Muqtada al Sadr ? What about the 4 million largely Sunni refugees that are in camps or foreign slums but not in their homes ?  Bush's policies have created chaos in a region we spent 50 years trying to stabilize. No longer worth notice ? Oil supply isn't of interest to anybody but Humble and Haliburton ? The people we went to war to save, no longer deserve attention ?

I see a bipartisanship as the only viable means of adressing these problems in a timely manner. Bipartisianship I believe thwarted the attack instincts of Bush and Cheney regarding Iran. The Biden Amendment to the Defense Spending Authorization Bill (passed 75-23), the Iraq Study Group, and the unanimous Senate approval of Petraeus and Crocker are manifestations of the ability of bipartisianship to start correcting the administration's misdirection.

The President does not seem to be capable of helping. He's  responding to the crisis in Pakistan with "deer-in-the-headlights" policy statements while referring to World War III in a "doo-doo happens" tone.  While disagreeing with them on other issues, we could use the help of Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel, and John Warner in confronting this mess and taking steps to avoid World War III.

Granted that's the short term. The debate is centered on the long term.  Couldn't agree more with, Mike, and those that want to reverse the drift of the last 27 years...Yahoo !...the cavalry has come !...at last !   Will the selection of a particular candidate out of a field of good candidates be the "make or break" difference in achieving a Progressive agenda ?  To me that case has not been made.

Personal experience indicates that,while not my favorite flavor, a centrist candidate is not the most direct threat. The greatest danger is that the Progressive ranks will doze off and thin out after Bush leaves the White House.  Anger will cool. Raising  progressive children, getting jobs with green corporations, living in communities that emphasize life style will drain reforming energy.... it happened to the majority of the 60s radicals, could happen to you. (apologies to those of you that will fight on and the 60s rear guard still fighting on this blog)

The good news is that the 2008 election will be a great opportunity to reverse America's slide. A strong candidate pulling in strong Congressional majorities is a realistic possibility. None of our candidates are supportive of Reaganomics or Neoconservatism. If we win and we win big...it's dustbin time for those agendas. Try to win big, you will probably never see a better opportunity to do so.

But what do I know ? ... "Frottage"?..cottage cheese from France ???

---

by: fjm @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 18:30:18 PM CST

I think maybe we have irreconciliable differences of opinion (0.00 / 0)

But this from Stoller sums it up for me:

In 1980, Ronald Reagan showed that he was willing to unify America, to change the way citizens thought about their relationship to their government.  Only, he was no centrist, he unified the country against liberals.  To start his campaign, he picked a fight against the civil rights movement, and the first thing he did in office was to illegally crush a union.  That is how you realign, through aggressive divisive persuasive arguments and actions.

I think we think too short term. Reagan was not popular in 1982. But in 1984 he won in a landslide, and by 1988, even in the midst of scandal, he had moved politics so much to the right that the battles of the 70s were moot.

Compare that to Clinton, who chased the center. But in 2000 we were having the same arguments as 1992. Good government is just not enough.

That said, it's not like you put the presidency on progressive autopilot -- there is a strategy to it. Clinton picked a couple of fights in the first 18 months, but they didn't necessarily gel.

I think you pick fights where there is broad public support (Iraq withdrawal, health care) and then you use those issues to pigeonhole the bad-faithers on the right, and to get the good-faithers to come along.

And yes, before we get into the "bulldozer" conversation again, that is a simplification, but the point is to unify the country against the far right, so that the moderates have to disassociate themselves with them forcefully (not in this Charlie Bass way). You unify the country by splitting the Republican party, and you do that by going after what they stand for hard.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 21:33:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Iced Cream Causes Crime (0.00 / 0)

To suggest that partisanship contributes to a healthy economy and that picking fights with people of different views is the best way to win, simply because you have a couple examples of it working, is logically juvenile and short sighted.

I thought this was a Blue, as in Democrat, message board and not a book club meeting about Ann Coulter's 'How to Talk to a Liberal'.

We've been divided as a nation for long enough. Now, when someone who doesn't run with a 'us v them' mentality steps to the plate and is inspiring hope in the future, people want to call him names, and claim that unity will never prosper.

Well that kind of negativity is tiresome. Perhaps we need some more explanations of what change 'really means' so that people will actually get it.  

Obsessed is just a word the lazy use to describe the dedicated.

---

by: Justin Credible @ Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 13:05:11 PM CST