I have been busy with work the last few weeks, so I have not been able to really explore the Presidential campaign’s various up and downs, but have at least been able to pick up Obama’s conservative drift ever since he got the nomination.

On some level this should happen, as the general election is a more moderate affair than a primary.  On another level though, this tactic has disserved the Democrats for years, and if you look at most Republican general elections, they do not move to the middle nearly as much as Democrats, preferring instead to stay true to their talking points.

As a result, Republicans have better brand identity and have functioned more efficiently as a party since they demand greater loyalty and ideological purity.

Their success I believe largely informed the Democratic move to the right, that and the fact that clearer conservative vision, narrower focus, and stricter discipline helped transform what was largely a liberal populace into a decidedly conservative one.

At least in the public’s mind’s they were conservative.  Polls for years have shown the public is largely progressive on a myriad of issues.  They just were not voting that way.  In essence, they were liberal they just did not identify themselves as such.

The Democrats, however, took the wrong lesson from this and moved the Party to the center, rather than try to readjust the public’s perception of liberalism and the Democratic Party as a whole.

Obama in the primary seemed to understand this.  He was using religious language and style to describe the moral underpinnings of progressive vaules – a key failure with previous Democratic candidates.  He spoke of post-partisanship and a need to move beyond typical Washington gridlock, essentially convincing people that progressive values are beyond politics and what Washington would embrace if it moved beyond partisanship.

Brilliant, and was largely effective.  However, what Obama seems to have forgotten is that partisan, progressive primary voters do not need to hear this message, independent and moderate general election candidates do.  He is unfortunately embracing the failed tactics of previous Democratic candidates by moving to the middle, not moving the middle to him.

His capitulation on the FISA bill seals the deal.  There was no real need for him to embrace the bill that essentially writes away our civil liberties for generations and gives Bush a free pass for breaking the law, especially since he earlier attacked previous, but very similar FISA bills so vehemently.  He must mistakenly believe that he will lose votes in the general if he votes against the bill or better yet, try to filibuster it.

If that is his motivation, then he is doing exactly what he claims politicians in Washington do, and that completely obliterates his key message:  that he is an agent of change.

Why did Obama all of a sudden forget how to message?  I truly believe him to be progressive, despite much of his recent rhetoric.  However, if he does not understand now that fighting for key progressive issues that almost everyone embraces (particularly out West where he is campaigning now) will help move the needle towards progressive identification, will he as President?

If he does not fight now, will he fight once elected?

This is quite serious, since only by making the middle realize they are truly left will people begin to identify as progressives.  And until that happens, any political gains made by progressives will be temporary.

The other option is that since he has had to fend off increasing attacks on his patriotism (he now wears a flag pin on occasion), he is wary of seeming too left-wing.  Again, bending to the right’s ridiculous attacks does nothing to further his messaging or cause.  Either way, he seems to have lost his way on the messaging front.  Let us hope he gets it back.

5 Responses to “Big Mistake, or Playing Us for Fools?”

Obama’s rhetoric since “winning” the nomination has shattered the unfounded optimism I was beginning to feel about politics in this country. I think I was even starting to catch Obamamania. There is little chance of that now. I’m returning to my tried and true feelings of cynicism and apathy. I think Obama drew a lot of support from people like me, but perhaps he is right to calculate that he will gain more from the “center” than he will lose from the more progressive spectrum. I don’t know. Many of those upset with the last few weeks will still vote for him because it’s the only reasonable choice. I fear many may also just stay home. (I’m fighting with myself about being in that second category.) I also wonder if this will significantly affect his grassroots fundraising. Maybe that too will be offset from gains from more establishment sources. In 2004, I really thought the Democrats could not possible screw this up, and they did. I’m beginning to fear it can happen again - when it seems even more difficult to do so.

Too bad Obama’s grassroots supporters didn’t get behind Dodd instead.

I like the idea that Obama should move the middle to him. I guess it is more difficult and riskier than for him to move to the middle as he has been doing. Sounds like the game plan of a typical politician: Do what you have to do to get votes.

I don’t think it’s only about the voters anymore. What about the lobbyists, & PACs that he’s already made buddies with as a Senator and then as a presumptive nominee?

And it isn’t just rhetoric. Obama’s FISA vote was a direct act showing his contempt for our constitution AND for enforcing federal law. But won’t he see the light once he became president? I’ll let you do all that wishin’ & hopin’.

I say, Obama had to vote the way he did on the FISA bill because he’s part of the system. It isn’t votes from citizens he’s concerned about with the telecom immunity, it’s the fact that the lawsuits and other repercussions from the flagrant violations of law committed by the Bush administration and the big telecom companies. That scandal is enough to take down not only the telecom companies, but should be enough to take down the Bush administration. Obama, no different from current congressional leadership, are not thinking along those lines and have no desire to enforce federal law against their fellow politicians nor against their major media contributors.

I don’t know what message you guys got, but I got Obama’s message loud and clear: business as usual in the military-industrial-media-Congress complex, if and when Obama becomes president.

I still think we’re better off with him than McCain, so you’re crazy to consider staying home if your state is close or a toss-up.

This is quite serious, since only by making the middle realize they are truly left will people begin to identify as progressives. And until that happens, any political gains made by progressives will be temporary.

“I just don’t follow this logic. The entire plan is predicated on the notion that Centrists actually like liberal policies but just don’t know it. If the last 20-30 years of American politics has shown us anything it’s that no one has ever won a national election while running on a true liberal platform. That is why the Democrats must move to the center every 2 years. It was no different in 2006. The Democrat take-over of Congress was not built on a liberal agenda but on moderate candidates securing victories in centrist districts. Those are the kinds of places where a Nancy Pelosi could never get elected and I believe they represent the majority of America.”

Source

Actually, polls consistently show the public supports progressive/liberal solutions, like universal health care. Yet, they do not vote for candidates who espouse those views. Why? Because conservatives have poisoned the word ‘liberal’. Compounded with the fact that Democrats do not know how to talk about their issues to a public that considers themselves moderate, and you have the situation you describe.

In 2006 the Dems won with a variety of candidates, including strong liberals like Shea-Porter and McNerney in very conservative districts. In Presidential terms, no Democrat has won a straight up campaign against a Republican since Carter. Clinton won only because of Perot. Centrist policies do not win elections. Standing up for your convictions and convincing people your policies are mainstream, not making your policies mainstream, wins elections.

Seriously, Bush in 2000? Extreme policies, but was perceived as a moderate, “compassionate conservative”. Brilliant marketing. Bush did not move his policies, he moved the middle to his policies. Dems need to buy a clue.

Something to say?