Progressive Movement

Can I just say for the record that Democrats drive me crazy? I have yet to go off on Obama’s Cabinet picks, most of which I find appalling, particularly his picks for economic and defense/national security positions. But today we learn he has chosen Rick Warren, noted anti-gay evangelical, to deliver his inaugural invocation.

Now, this is just a prayer. Hardly that big of a deal. Symbolic perhaps, but Warren will not be making policy. So the outrage on the left is a bit overblown.

Clearly Obama wants to bridge a gap with evangelicals. Warren is a prominent evangelical figure. He wrote “The Purpose Driven Life” for crying out loud.

I can see why Obama thinks he needs to appease the religious right. My problem regards the fact that first of all, picking Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation will not appease many evangelicals, and second, it looks like Obama is trying to hard.

This gets to the core of an infection afflicting more Democrats. They think they have to appease the right, and when they do, it looks heavy handed. Moreover, it never works.

The right is not going to cave to Obama simply because he caves to them. The right will cave when they realize the rest of the country is leaving them behind, powerless to stop the changes coming. And Obama can leave them behind by making progressive Cabinet and inaugural invocators choices.

People change their ways when they realize they have been defeated. If you kowtow to them, they realize they have power and will then find ways to continue to flex their muscle. Democrats do not get this. They continue to believe that if they appease Republicans, then the Republicans will come to their senses and work with them.

No such luck. Politics is war, and if you give you enemies an inch they will take a mile. Want evangelicals to work with you? Force them.

Rick Warren will not gain much evangelical support for Obama, but he sure will lose a lot of support from the progressive and gay and lesbian communities. Not a good trade.

Democrats have got to learn this. But with moderates like Obama and mislead operators like Rahm Emanuel running the show, expect to see more of same. This could be a long four years.

Uncategorized, Nominations, Obama, Analysis | 5 Comments »

Just saw Quantum of Solace. I was trying to understand why the film did not seem the same as previous Bond films. Something was off and I could not put my finger on it. Finally, I figured it out. The major crime in the film, diverting water resources from Bolivian peasants for the purpose of extorting a big contract from a two-bit dictator, is not a crime for which the British or American governments would care.

Sure, Bolivian peasants get screwed, but the person being forced into a pricey utilities contract is a scumbag despot. So what? Yet, Bond, despite his government’s opposition, stops the deal. As a result, Bond’s quest seems Quixotic.

So I tried to break it down further. Who benefits from Bond’s efforts? Bolivian peasants. Who suffers? Global energy companies. That is rather odd. The bad guys in the film are a bunch of energy companies, government hi-rollers, financiers, or in other words, some of the main protagonists for globalization. They are behind large land grab schemes so they can acquire various resources, in this case water, so they can demand high prices from whomever, including governments.

So Bond stops a multi-national, globalization company from hurting Bolivian peasants against the wishes of Her Majesty. Huh? Since when is Bond on the side of the poor and against his own government? In fact, it goes further. The U.S. government is behind the plan since the globalists have hoodwinked them into thinking there is oil in Bolivia. The British government ultimately thinks so too, hence their attempt to stop Bond.

This suggests that governments do not control the real purveyors of globalization. The corporations making globalization a reality only have their own interests at heart, not the government’s. In fact, they ultimately dictate policy to the governments (cue the scene where M gets a scolding from a high ranking Minister on why the British government supports the deal in Bolivia because they need oil). If ever the two interests should not coincide, the corporate interests, the film suggests, would win out (unless we have Bond to stop them).

Further, the film implies that such corporate shenanigans will destroy our environment and exacerbate climate disruption (the desert created by the villain’s actions is a powerful metaphor for a warming planet).

Not that any of that should surprise anyone, but in a Bond film?

Let us add one more layer to this already somewhat confusing mess. Read the rest of this entry »

Analysis | 1 Comment »

The dust has not yet settled from the election and the war over the meaning of the election, and whether there was a mandate and what kind of mandate it is, has just begun.

As expected, Republicans who claimed Obama was a socialist now claim he won as a conservative and only has a mandate to rule from the center. Their main rationale? America, they claim, is still a center right country.

It makes sense they would say this. If the Republicans admit Obama has a progressive mandate, it clearly makes their life more difficult if Obama believes he has one. So they obviously want to spin this as a status quo election. Then, if Obama does govern progressively, they can claim he has exceeded his mandate, the sin of hubris having gotten the best of him, and that he must be taken down.

If this is all the public hears, they may well believe it, and they too will be aghast if Obama dare try to do something like universal health care, or getting out of Iraq quickly. Ultimately this will turn them against Obama, setting the stage for mid-term election disaster or a single term Presidency.

So are we a center-right country?

This is really the primary question. Even if Obama got a progressive mandate, that does not mean such a mandate would fly for very long in a country that leans conservative. Thankfully, we are not center-right.

If you look at polls regarding actual issues, the public solidly supports liberal proposals, things like strong environmental protections, fighting climate disruption, universal health care, strong public education, fair trade, nuclear disarmament/reductions, infrastructure projects, balanced budgets, progressive taxation, safe and legal abortions, and others.

The problem is that people do not identify themselves as liberals, even though their views are. This comes down to a problem of messaging, as almost all things do. Liberal has a lousy brand. Over the years conservatives have done an excellent job of making ‘liberal’ a bad word, as I have mentioned many times before.

However, the last two elections ought to show that people are souring on the ‘conservative’ brand and while not necessarily embracing the ‘liberal’ brand, are at least willing to elect those labeled as liberal by the Republicans.

Even more convincing, Read the rest of this entry »

Messaging, Elections, media, Obama, Analysis, Narratives | No Comments »

Wow, I never thought I would see it. An African American has won the Presidency. If nothing else, this should restore faith in American ideals and democracy. Not just here, but around the world. Already we have seen people all across the globe rejoice in the promise that is the United States.

We all saw it in the faces of the crowd at Grant Park, where Obama gave his speech. From the televised shots of gatherings in Atlanta, and in the streets of DC. It was if a burden of oppression had been lifted off their backs, America’s soiled history on race finally beginning to be wiped clean. True joy gleamed across their faces. Years of struggle for equality finally paid off in something real, something tangible.

And not just with African Americans. Anglo Americans tired of years of racism and disappointed by their country not achieving its full potential due to its inability to allow African Americans full participation in society, they too had a burden lifted off of their shoulders.

Young kids of all colors and creeds (except Islam, unfortunately) now believe they can achieve anything. ‘Yes I can’ they now say.

I drove down by the White House after Obama’s acceptance speech. What a scene. People yelling “Obama!”, hugging each other, waving signs, running wild in the streets. Traffic at a near crawl, horns honking, drivers and passengers waving to everyone, hi-fiving the pedestrians running down the street. Even the taxi drivers were getting in on the action.

It was as if the Washington Redskins had just won the Super Bowl.

“Not just a mere election” I opined, “but something much more than that has just happened. America has turned the page. A new chapter has begun.”

Seriously, the heart and capital of the Confederacy, Virginia, voted to elect America’s first black President. That is transformation.

We do not get to witness history in the making too often. Not on this scale. We should savor it while we can. Soon the nasty tit for tat will begin, and we will go back to our daily grind. But even if you disagree with the policies of Obama and the Democrats, something transcendent just happened. We chose hope over fear, ability over skin color, progress over regress. And for that we should be proud.

There is a brotha’ in the White House. There is a friggin’ brotha’ in the White House!

Amen.

Elections, Obama, Analysis, Racism | 1 Comment »

On this eve of the election, here are my final thoughts on the campaign messaging.

Obama

He started the primaries using lofty rhetoric and moral explanations for progressive policies. That inspired the base while pulling moderates to his side who were hungry to hear the values of progressivism after so many years where liberals hide from speaking in quasi-religious terminology.

However, once he won the nomination, he slowly started to speak in more detail about issues. His convention speech deftly blended issues, vision, and moral values. I feel he would have kept on that path, except he got hit hard a few weeks earlier with McCain’s celebrity ad. So while the Republicans were having their Palin/convention day in the Sun, Obama retooled the tone and messaging of the campaign.

Without anyone noticing the shift, he started almost exclusively talking about specific issues and policies, dropping the high language and bringing the issues down to the regular person’s understanding and experience. He appeared more serious and thoughtful, less preacher like. The debates drove this home, when he scored three victories against McCain by his demeanor alone, but added to his dominating performance by avoiding the tit-for-tat with McCain on useless mudslinging. This gave him more time to get detailed about his plans, making him seem erudite and thorough.

This was done solely to undercut the McCain line of attack the Obama was not ready. He showed in the debates he was. But rather than directly respond to McCain’s attacks, in a he said, he said sort of way, Obama simply demonstrated that McCain was wrong. Absolutely brilliant.

Moreover, he pivoted away from his more progressive language and embraced more centrist, post-partisan language. This is not unique for campaigns to do in general elections, but it stands in stark contrast with McCain, who went further to the right.

Obama’s VP pick also showed his way of dealing with the experience charge. Many progressive blogs wanted Obama to pick a ‘reinforcing’ VP rather than the ‘balancing’ pick of Joe Biden. But Obama knew he had to mollify people’s fears over this experience, so he went with the experienced Biden. This demonstrated Obama’s ability to make a thoughtful and serious choice.

The message discipline has been tight. Most recently, Read the rest of this entry »

Messaging, Elections, McCain, Obama, Analysis | No Comments »

Alright, I will be honest, I was underwhelmed by Obama’s 30 minute advertisement. As I mentioned in my previous post, he did not directly address the differences between his economic/tax philosophy and McCain’s. I will reiterate, I do not think we can transform this country fully into a progressive nation until we convince average Americans that liberal tax and economic policies are superior to conservative ones.

The imagery of the ad, the stories, the people shown, the over arching focus, show that Obama made this ad to appeal to middle America. It was a bio piece really, designed to cut through the clutter of negative ads and campaign rhetoric and redefine to people who Obama is and what he wants to do.

Case in point, he did not mention McCain once. All the negative attacks on Obama from McCain just ignored. Clearly Obama wanted a feel good piece, reassuring people he wanted to help hard working, middle class, values voter Americans. I think he did that okay, although it may not swing too many his way. By itself I think it maybe stopped the bleeding from McCain’s tax attack, and maybe it shored up some working class Democrats in some mid-West states. But I am not sure it did more than move the margins maybe .5% in his direction.

On the other hand, he brilliantly segued this piece, ending with a live speech in Florida, to a later speech with Bill Clinton. So just as the pundits were ending their pontification on the 30 minute ad, the live appearance of Obama and Clinton started. Hence, any talk about McCain’s response to the ad was cut short and Obama once again dominated the news cycle.

So great campaign craft by Team Obama, but what about the content of this joint stump event? Nearly brilliant.

Here is where Clinton and Obama layed out the progressive vision on economics. Here is where they criticized conservative, trickle down economics as hurting the middle and lower classes. Here is where they explained how working from the bottom up helped everyone, including those at the top.

The best line of the night came from Clinton, when he mentioned that his Presidency oversaw the creation of more millionaires and billionaires than Bush’s. This directly contradicts McCain’s claim Republican tax policies will make everyone rich. Only by tapping into the innate conservative notion that everyone has an inner rich person waiting to bust out can progressives persuade the majority of the public to embrace liberal economic philosophy.

In other words, the key motivator with many Americans is wealth. The difference is how to get it. By focusing on making people wealthier, Read the rest of this entry »

Messaging, McCain, Obama, Taxes, Analysis, Economy, conservative populism | No Comments »

Obama has his big 30 minute prime time TV special tonight. Not sure what is going to be in it, but we will find out soon enough. And it could not come at a better time. Of course, that assumes he addresses head on the issue that is giving McCain a badly needed lift in the polls. Taxes

In my previous two posts, I discussed the issue of conservative populism. On the one hand, conservative populism rallies people around cultural issues, people who feel their conservative values are under attack from urban, popular culture and the general progress of civilization. On the other, conservative populism stokes fears of taxation, that ‘big government’ will take people’s hard earned money away and give it to those who did not earn it, or to some special interest project that does not deserve it.

John McCain has found his voice the last two week on precisely this leg of conservative populism. It is a leg he had avoided all campaign, and even in the first few weeks of the financial crisis, he ignored this key conservative principle. Now he is not, and his language and populist fervor is catching fire in the conservative community.

You can see this in the polls now. McCain’s numbers are up; Obama’s are relatively unchanged. Conservatives and right leaning independents are coming home to McCain.

I am actually glad this is happening, and hope that Obama tonight uses this opportunity to tackle head on the conservative populist notion of taxation. It is the one area the Democrats have not tackled head on.

Why? Because the conservative notion on taxation, that the money you earn is yours and yours alone, makes intuitive sense to most people. You have to explain to people why the government needs taxes. You do not have to explain to people why their money is theirs.

Conservatives embrace the outdated American notion of self-reliance. None of us are self-reliant anymore, modern day society and economics do not allow it, but it is still an iconic American value. Progressives have a far more community, societal view of the world, and to them it makes sense that the government has to do things for the good of the people, that we cannot build roads for ourselves, for instance. As such, the government needs to tax us to get the money to provide the entire country and society with certain things beyond our individual control.

Can Obama make that sale? I think he can, and he needs to. Otherwise, he could lose the election on this issue alone. Still unlikely, but if he can show America that it is indeed American to tax the rich in order to provide for those things that benefit us all and ultimately give us a better chance to become rich, then he should win in a landslide.

If he does not, then he will not have changed the political landscape all that much. We will come out of this election as divided as before. What we need is a political realignment, and until Democrats embrace progressive taxation, we will not get there.

Elections, McCain, Obama, Taxes, Analysis | No Comments »

In my previous post I discussed the myth of conservative populism as embodied in the idealized form of Joe the plumber, even though the actual Joe is neither a Joe nor a plumber, nor someone on the verge of owning their own business.

What I did not mention was the fact that in order for the poor and working class folks to support conservatives, they must believe that taking their money and giving it to the rich will benefit them in the long run. Without this component, the myth of conservative populism largely fails (the cultural part remains). After all, a policy is not populist unless it purports to directly help the majority of the population. So conservatives have to tell the poor and middle class that trickle down economics benefits them.

However, the conservative economic agenda does not actually work for the working class, and over time, they will figure it out and not vote Republican. As such, since conservatives cannot usually win over enough of the public on the merits of their economic platform, the Republican elite must instill fear about progressive economic solutions to scare enough voters to vote for the Republicans and against their self-interest.

Republican scare tactics and racism

And that is exactly what we are seeing from McCain/Palin over the last few weeks. The charge of ‘socialism’ is a blatant attempt to scare voters away from Obama. Further, this attack is designed to raise latent white fear over blacks. Who was Reagan’s poster child for welfare? Black inner city mothers with four kids, living off the largess of hard-working whites. When Bush the Elder ran the country, they added ‘crack-addict’ to the description.

The movement away from Democrats after the 60s, especially in the South, was largely driven by LBJ’s policies about helping poor blacks and his support for civil rights.

Democratic economic policies are aimed at helping the less well off, and the less well off were, and are, largely minorities. ‘Socialism’, while primarily used to elicit a connection between liberal economic polices and Communism, also became code language for ‘helping blacks’. And if there is one thing white, conservative populists do not like, it is having their money go to help poor black people.

Conservative populists fear that others, especially immigrants, will take their money from them, or more specifically, prevent them from becoming wealthy - hence, some of the downright brutal anti-immigrant positions by many on the right. Conservatism, by its very nature, wants to maintain the status quo.

But that is not all. Read the rest of this entry »

Elections, McCain, Analysis, Racism, conservative populism | No Comments »