The Hard Work of Realignment -- It's More Than Just Hope

One of the enduring mysteries of this presidential campaign has been the uneasy doubt expressed by a few on the left about Barack Obama's overtures to many on the right. Their doubt is shrouded by suspicion as well: If Obama isn't actually in bed with Reagan Republicanism, he at least wants to be. The "proof" of this speculation -- the cynical contortion of what Obama objectively said of Reaganism into something he didn't say -- was, as we know, happily propagated by the internal opposition.

Nevertheless the doubt is indeed mysterious, if not downright puzzling. It overlooks not only Obama's far-from-conservative campaign positions and his nearly pristine liberal record in the U.S. Senate, but most of all the commonsensical political need to build, expand and even create coalitions.

Probably the most exemplary forerunner of Obama's bridge-building strategy was that of FDR's in his first presidential campaign. The left has forgotten, it would seem, that this original New Dealer, this great Keynesian, this almost singular procreator of the modern welfare state campaigned on the ineluctable wisdom of maintaining a balanced budget.

Yet whatever the leftie doubters believe today, there is no doubt that Obama's strategy of accommodation and inclusiveness is taking a painful toll on the opposition's ranks. Those he is peeling off from Republican regularity -- "Obamacans," the Illinois senator calls them -- are, as Mark Barabak of the Los Angeles Times wrote yesterday, "part of a striking phenomenon this campaign season."

"They are blurring -- for now, at least -- the red-blue lines that have colored the nation's politics for the last several years." Said one interviewee in the L.A. Times article, titled "They're Republican red, and true blue to Obama": "I don't feel like Obama is condemning me for being a Republican."

And that, my friends, as John McCain would say, is less the result of any ideological accommodation than, simply, of brilliant politics.

Being a relative newcomer on the national stage, Obama not only saw the opportunity to frame himself before the opposition could, he possessed the foresight to actually do so. Most pols throughout a prolonged and contentious primary season pander exclusively to their base. Obama indeed kept one partisan eye open, but he cast the other on those he would need in the general, and he has done it with unparalleled finesse.

The list of celebrity converts is already long and growing. "Susan Eisenhower, a GOP business consultant and granddaughter of President Eisenhower, has endorsed the Democratic hopeful" and "Colin L. Powell ... has hinted he may do so as well." Former Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee has signed on, and even McCain's media strategist, Mark McKinnon, "says he will continue to back the Arizona senator but will step aside rather than work against Obama."

Naturally these notables, having smelled the extreme likelihood of an Obama presidency, could just be blowing with the wind. Partisanship means little when you're in the market for future favors. Hence it was the less notable interviewed in Barabak's L.A. Times piece who were of more intriguing interest. Such as Johanna Schneider -- "a former GOP staffer on Capitol Hill" -- who, "convinced that fellow Republicans have lost their way," said, "I just feel this is a tremendous opportunity to open politics up to a new generation. And I believe that Barack Obama is a genuine transformational candidate."

What's overlooked by the doubters is that Ms. Schneider's attitude did not just materialize out of some vague, "empty," pointless sense of hope, as some of the doubters' instigators would self-interestedly have you believe. It was, rather, carefully and brilliantly cultivated. And, given enough cultivation, it could change the face of partisan alignments for a generation to come and ensure the dominance of progressive politics.

The realignment's essential key is that Obama has not only framed himself, but that he's engaged in systematically reframing American interests.

"Very rarely do you hear me talking about my opponents without giving them some credit for having good intentions and being decent people," as U.S. News & World Report quoted Obama, cited in Barabak's piece. "There's nothing uniquely Democratic about a respect for civil liberties. There's nothing uniquely Democratic about believing in a foreign policy of restraint.... A lot of the virtues I talk about are virtues that are deeply embedded in the Republican Party," as they are in the Democratic.

Just as -- when stripped of their partisan rigidity -- is "repealing Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy" or even "expanding the government's role in healthcare"; once, that is, it's shown that these are measures founded, after all, in the traditional American ideal of community.

In effect, Obama is merely encouraging the "others" to look past how their daddies and granddaddies may have voted, and therefore why they began voting as they did. He is merely encouraging them to look deeper, to identify their and our common interests, and recognize that those interests come with no inherent partisan label.

Obama's considered strategy should be no mystery. It's just smart politics, and of vast realignment potential.

Comments

[neoconned]

I don't care about Obama's comments concerning the dimension of Reagan's influence on the American scene. Any student of history can easily discover the veracity of that statement - even if they didn't live through it.

My problems with Obama and his voting record is that when putsch came to shove, his vote went along with Bush's desired outcome. Sure he has had some very liberal and prgressive ideas, but talk is cheap. It's the walk that counts.

[CLP]

Hillary caved into the bullies on immigration (specifically, drivers licenses). As a white, native born Anmerican, this is my #1 issue. My adopted family is from Mexico, and we need the reforms that have been talked about. Obama has held firm. Hillary did not.

[chris bearde]

Then there was there an overlooked US President who was an apsolute master of making things work in government through relentess cojoling and conning of both parties. His name was Lyndon Johnson.

[Zephyrbag]

PM, you're becoming my favorite blogger. Not just good ideas, but you can write. Framing the issues to include Republicans is sound and smart. The degree of awakening among members of both parties is variable (some D's still support Hillary), but the big awakening is yet to come--namely, that degrees of difference between left and right are not as important as the difference between top and bottom, and that the divine (I'm an atheist) dwells in all of us. Everybody embodies the potential to transcend the reptilian, dominance-driven parts of their nature and open themselves to respect and compassion for all. To remain on top, the corporatists need unending war--between peoples, religions, the two parties here in America. Divide and rule is the oldest political game. But now time is running out, and education takes a lifetime. As the Beatles sang--risking ridicule--"all you need is love."

[Hotrod]

PM,
On target, as usual. Too bad that Edwards rhetoric wasn't as good as Barack's is. Either way, we will need to hold any so called "progressive" candidates feet to the fire or they will backslide into the corporate comfort zone. The history of the world has always been the epic struggle between the have nots and the Predator class.

[RubyGlare]

1 of the 1st things that needs to be done is strong-arming the weapons-makers into peacetime uses for their technology; it will be very difficult to do this, since they are very wolf-like. I have some ideas, load daisy-cutter bombs with fire-retardant foam/gel & ship them to every state with large forests. Remake the railroads to compete with airlines, take railcars from railroad museums if you have to for the short term. Pull all sewege lines away from our rivers/lakes/streams & upgrade the power plants to burn that sh#t. Mass produce electric cars for the southern U.S.

[Cugel]

"given enough cultivation, it could change the face of partisan alignments for a generation to come and ensure the dominance of progressive politics."

I'd love to believe that, but there's a SOLID REASON why "progressive politics" has been crushed for a generation, and it has little to do with branding failures.

The U.S. economy has become fundamentally a permanent WAR economy and Republicans do better at stirring up the fear and hysteria needed to support an immense and ever expanding military budget. They also support corporate profit taking at the expense of workers and the environment.

Thus, Wall Street prefers Republicans. And, given the media consolidation the only voices heard on the mass-media are voices from the right.

There is NO papering over these cracks. If Obama comes in and tries to deal with any of the fundamental problems facing the country: massive deficits due to military spending and tax cuts for the rich for example, how long do you think his "Obamican" supporters will stay with him?

And how long will it be before the media starts howling that he's "just another liberal defeat-o-crat" if he tries to actually bring all the troops home.

The reality is that unless there is a firm commitment to total war against the Republican party and their corporate allies there will be no progress. That's unfortunate, but they won't permit anything else.

It will take a LOT of dynamite to blow up the present rotten structure of American politics. Playing "nice" with the Republicans won't work. I doubt if it will even carry him to the election. He'll have to change tactics under withering assault from the right.

[t-bone]

As the Beatles sang--risking ridicule--"all you need is love."

Posted by: Zephyrbag

They also wrote "Your lovin' gives me a thrill, but your lovin' don't pay my bills; just give me money".

Oh, and "Happiness is a Warm Gun. Yes it is"