« Romney To Speak At Council For National Policy | Main | For Social Security Fix, Are Taxes On The Table For Giuliani? » Political Meme Watch: Where's The Obama Who Inspires Us?26 Sep 2007 09:50 am Joe Klein has been here, and today, the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus takes charge of this meme. The question about Obama is not "where's the beef," Mondale's famous putdown of Gary Hart's "new ideas." It's: Where's the audacity? But Obama is not a policy radical, never was. He's a process radical. Comments (8)
But where's the radical change in process? All the major candidates have endorsed some public financing scheme for federal elections. Most Democratic Congressmen are in favor of greater transparency in the legislative process. We all know that Obama's gripe against PACs and lobbyists is a political stunt with no real policy or process significance. I understand mop's points above, but with all do respect, how revolutionary are online "fireside chats"? They would just be repetition of administration talking points... online! As useless as the current weekly radio addresses by the parties or town hall events attended by no one under the age of 65. Obama has played himself up to be a revolutionary candidate and, until this point, he's gotten a free ride by the press and the Dem establishment. He needs to prove himself over the next few weeks to slow the Clinton media machine's effort to derail his campaign, or else he's done for. 
Agree. Marc tosses out the "process radical" line without support. I'm not a Barack Obama expert, but I've read most every word published about him in the last six months. I have seen nothing to indicate that he is a process radical beyond the fact that it is unprecedentedly radical to run for the Presidency two years removed from a part-time gig in a statehouse. "Where's the beef" would actually be an apt phrase for Clinton to reprise should Obama ever draw blook and force her to abandon her relentlessly positive message of smiling Democrats united in 2008 (which is, itself, a powerful counter to "divisiveness").
The charge that obama is not radical enough is, quite frankly, retarded. The measure of a policy is not how it works on paper, it is how it works in real world, how it accounts for the political realities of the day--who has the money, who has the bullhorn, who is willing to pander, who won't, and who will compromise on what issues. Unpassable legislation is not politically radical. An idea that you can't explain is not politically radical. The very fact that the guy is running at all, and running seriously is probably the most radical thing anyone on either side has accomplished so far. i am sure his rivals would love to hear a firebrand, it's an ied they had laid along his political track. Look what happened when he suggested we talk to dictators--they called him "naive" even though most people basically agreed with him. and look how quickly they rolled out the response albright had her talking points printed up before the debate was even over. and dodd? he wants to be president? for what, so we can send them all back to vote for the next war. hillary may be a machine, but aside from her husband (who is peerless), obama has more raw talent than any other pol in the field for 2008. the dems are completely crazy to kick him to the curb. trust me all the state legislators who toed the line are going to wish they hadn't. no radical enough? how bout only making promises he can keep--that's pretty radical.
I'm not a Barack Obama expert, but I've read most every word published about him in the last six months. I have seen nothing to indicate that he is a process radical beyond the fact that it is unprecedentedly radical to run for the Presidency two years removed from a part-time gig in a statehouse. Just look to his current primary strategy and the process radicalism should jump right out at you. Obama's whole campaign is based around our "broken politics" in which "it's not just enough to remove George Bush" (as he's said repeatedly). He's essentially laying partial blame for our current national woes on the Democrats (at least in so far as they have helped create this broken system), a criticism that is pretty spot-on but likely won't endear him to too many primary voters. Clinton's campaign, however, rejects this "the process is broken" theme and instead insists GWB is the problem and she, with her long resume of effectively fighting Republicans, is the solution. Being bold enough to partially (and correctly) blame Democrats for Washington's problems in the middle of a primary campaign should be seen as pretty darn bold. His legislative record on transparency and ethics reform (see "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act") doesn't hurt either.
Ok, full disclosure. I am not a cynic. I actually believe that the Constitution is this nation's greatest contribution to world history. I believe that the founding fathers were right to be skeptical of the benefits of political parties. I am not blind to the fact that if a small group of vested interests want to maintain its status it will do what it can to manipulate the electorate--either by suppressing turnout of one segment or another, or bussing supporters to the polls. I also believe that America's chief strength is in its power to renew itself--to bring in new ideas, new blood, new groups into power. I fear for the future of our nation if the country does not renew itself--ideologies become fixed, property relations become fixed, political coalitions become fixed, and those who have power become more ingenius in how they protect it and more certain that they are entitled to do so, and those who do not have power are left to live on with continually depreciating resources, lower salaries, higher prices, fewer options. Obama's core message--and I have heard him deliver this in person--is that in order to renew itself America must get involved, that no one (republican or democrat, rich or poor, black or white) should be barred at the door. Does anyone really believe that there is any other way out of Iraq? Any other way to extend dwell time? To lower taxes? To protect 2d amendment rights or ban torture? I am my brother's keeper--there is no more radical process than that. The liberal-conservative divide is a broken political phenomonen and only a social movement will change it. So I challenge anyone who has posted here who argues any different to tell me who has articulated a more radical vision than that (maybe Ron Paul?)
Process radical is exactly right. Requring interrogations of murder suspects to be videotaped in order to admit their "confessions" at trial - this is all about process. He did that in Illinois by getting the cops to endorse it, which is jaw-dropping. And more recently that co-sponsored bill requiring that where govt. money is spent be put on the internet, that's all about process. And it was co-sponsored by some right wing Repub, as I recall. He wants power for the people, Hillary wants it for herself, because she thinks she knows best. That is the vibe I get. The very strong vibe.
Marcus faults him for not being Republican enough in his tax policy. Uh huh.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Nobody in the press seems to care about corruption, even though there's no question that Obama leads and is truly radical in terms of process-reforms to limit corruption
He's talking about online "fireside chats", so regular citizens can have weekly/monthly discussions with the highest up of government officials. Making available all the details of federal spending, of election fundraising, significant restrictions on who can lobby and how they can lobby and what role (a very small one) money can play in the process.
But again, the press isn't interested in those stories.
As you correctly note Ambinder.
Posted by mop | September 26, 2007 10:07 AM