Unearthing the real difference -- because there is one, and it is profound

Barack Obama's underlying, fundamental vision of a post-reactionary nation is being buried amidst the rubble of all the tactical warfare. The two surviving campaigns have devolved into a "he said, she said" silliness designed by one to stun the base into a near-apathetic state of resignation -- when in doubt, whenever baffled, in the event of any fence-sitting, just go with the old and familiar. It's a safe and known quantity.

To date, this unprogressive pushback of divide and conquer -- especially through the tedious recourse to balkanizing identity politics -- has taken a toll on the progressive alternative -- inclusion -- although there are welcome signs that the alternative itself is now pushing back and may, in fact, score something of a cumulative victory by Tuesday. That, of course, remains to be seen. But whichever the outcome, it will command the soul of progressivism for years to come.

Meanwhile, the fundamental governing visions that underlie the two campaigns are, as mentioned, getting buried. For all the punditocracy's observations on the two candidate's striking similarities on various and specific policies, there is a profound difference going largely unnoticed. And at the risk of sounding clicheish, that difference is indeed between the unlimited possibilities of the future and the accepted constraints of the past.

The difference in its fuller presentation, however, is soundbite unworthy. It's unsexy, and far less fodder for the Battling Bickersons of network political talk shows than C-span.

Or, perhaps, the New York Times, which this morning has made at least a decent attempt, in an interview with Obama, to sketch the difference.

To appreciate it, one must first remove one's partisan hat. In the long run, and at its core, it's not about one candidate over another, or one ideology over another, or one party over another. It is, rather, about the broadest possibilities of a broad, philosophical pragmatism mixed judiciously with the idealistic; much along the lines of the pragmatic progressivism of FDR (who, by the way, issued repeated appeals to rank-and-file conservatives during the economically troubled '32 campaign).

Three lines from the Times' interview with Obama encapsulate well what has been so clinically entombed by all the campaign raucousness: "Although Mr. Obama’s economic approach comes wrapped in his conciliatory rhetoric, it is in some ways more aggressive than that of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton"; furthermore, "Mr. Obama praised the Clinton administration for reducing the deficit and setting the stage for the ’90s boom. But he said Mr. Clinton had failed to halt a long-term increase in income inequality" -- which, down the road, threatens America's democratic viability as much as its globally idiotic adventurism.

Overcoming that failure is what lies at the heart of Obama's philosophical approach. But we can't get there from here. The "here" of divisiveness in which we've been stalled for so long will only act as a continuing and sturdy obstacle to fundamental change.

Forget who said it and concentrate instead on these words themselves recently spoken by another: "We’ve got to be really clear that this is a struggle, and this is just not a moment where everybody will see the world the way it should be seen and come together to solve these problems." I'm not entirely sure what those words were meant to convey, but they drip with the mindset of constraint -- of limited possibilities, of more and deeper divisions, of endless and compromising battle.

Obama, on the other hand, "also talks about overcoming special interests, but he proposes to do so by changing the terms of the debate, energizing disaffected voters and forging a new majority in favor of his programs." (Again, see FDR).

What a difference attitude makes. "Changing the terms of the debate" -- reframing, that is, the whole bloody mess of it.

"He would start, he said, by trying to turn the discussion about taxes into an advantage for the Democrats during the general election campaign this year." In his words: "We have to disaggregate tax policy between the wealthy and the working class or middle class. We have to be able to say that we are going to at once raise taxes on some people and lower taxes on others. This has been one of the greatest rhetorical sleights of hand of the Republican Party, and it has been a great weakness of the Democratic Party."

One piece of advice, Barack: Start by banning words like "disaggregate" from your vocabulary when speaking to the press, hence the public. Other than that, you have landed on a profound, possibilities-changing approach that is light years ahead of the "here."

Yet it's getting buried in the rubble. And that's a damn shame, because it represents a fundamental restructuring of progressivism's promise.

Add to these domestic musings Obama's philosophical preference of "soft power" over hard -- which is to say, the profitable international politics of inducement and persuasion over the costly, neocon ham-handedness of others; of "attraction rather than force" -- and you begin to see an agent of "change" with profound, global implications as well.

For the genuine progressive, is this really a dicey contest of ideas?

****

to P.M. Carpenter's Commentary -- because, to be blunt about it, things are rather desperate here. I am not, as some readers have assumed, of the professorial class who lives off the fat of the ivory tower, though I do hold a doctorate in American political history. Rather, I am but a typically impoverished public scribe who relies on a substitute-teaching income as a too-meager base for this daily column. I therefore must also rely on you, the regular reader, to supplement the production of what you regularly enjoy, or, on occasion, become enraged at. The purpose is merely to stimulate thought and challenge the conventional. So, if at all possible, please click the button above and make a contribution. And then enjoy. Thank you -- P.M.

Comments

[Realist]

I agree that Barack talks a great line, but can he walk it?

I recall the fabulous speech he gave at the 2004 Democratic Convention and felt that he had great potential, but his record as a US Senator leaves me unsatisfied. His vote to approve Condi as Sec of State got me to wondering just where his loyalties lay, and his vote to block amendments to the draconian bankruptcy bill got me to wondering if he'd forgotten the population he's now attempting to reach with his campaign.

While I'm not a resident of Missouri, I still want Barack to Show Me that he's the real deal and not just another opportunistic Democrat who will play ball with the Republicans just to get ahead - like his current opponent did.

[Zee]

Realist, Obama is already on board with the Republicans for "fixing" social security. The Real Deal? It's his TALK line that scares me. He's already way past "playing ball" with the Republicans and singing Kumbaya with them and holding hands and saying there's only "One America" and promoting the dreamy Reagan myth against the "excesses" of the civil right era. The only thing left to wonder is whether his One Amerikkka schtick is Orwellian or whether it's the flip fuzzy side of the Rovian meme "they're all the same" that originally peeled all the young voters away from identifying as Dems. I suspect the latter, but it doesn't bode well.

[Zee]

pm, the only thing being buried here is that the Bobby Kennedy family is supporting Hillary. Even last night Jon Stewart falsely stated that the mantle of both Kennedy's is being passed on to Obama. And they keep expressing wonder and surprise that it was Caroline's KIDS who forced her to support Obama. What a surprise. Obama's Youth Cult strategy is working and instead of being a mom, Caroline's being a buddy. If Caroline and Teddy want to dishonor JFK, that's their business, but the Bobby Kennedy clan is standing by the Democrat. And if you want to try to tar FDR go ahead. But no one can have it both ways. If Obama wants to be "conciliatory" to thugs to the point he signs on to the Reagan myth and romanticizes Reagan's racist Southern strategy, he's only going to antagonize the Dems with memory and in the end dilute the progressive movement beyond recognition.

Remember the last time the MSM anointed a "uniter?" That alone should wake some people up. Even Jon Stewart is on board, lying about Bobby Kennedy's "mantle."

[GRL]

Obama's foreign policy approach is off to a bad start if he's taking sides in the Kenya situation. His ties to Odinga, opposition leader, may be only tribal--but it has also not been denied that he is Obama's cousin. Calling Odinga from NH and praising the opposition was a bad move, particularly since it is known that some of Odinga's supporters are part of gangs tied to Taliban elements and are responsible for much killing, including the incident when 50 people were burned alive in a church. Then there is Odinga's push for Sharia Law. While the current president is no prize, Odinga isn't either. (Ironically, the two rivals worked together in the past to get the current president into office.)

Obama has now called for cooperation between the opposition and the "elected" government, but there is now much fodder out there for the GOP make hay with.

Taking sides like this reminds me of Bush and his destruction of the US image as the "honest broker."

[Mike R.]

Perhaps it should be noted that Ethel is the Kennedy most qualified to pass on Robert's "mantle," and so she did.

[Mike Finnigan]

I don't think the Obama campaign's invokation, despite his suppoter's protests to the contrary,, of the name "Reagan" without including the words "murdering, racist, liar" in the comment, or his use of the Republican playbook's "Harry & Louise" ads is indicative of any "vision of a post-reactionary nation."

[Mary]

Agree, Mike.

At every turn, what Obama SAYS and what he allows his staff to DO , are not the same. And that speaks volumes.

Obama's economic advisor is FOR privatization of Social Security. It's why Obama is playing the SS panic game.

Obama's choices on behalf of Goldman Sachs (credit card interest rate cap vote--Obama against the cap), his BIGGEST contributor, says something, too. A Goldman Sachs lobbyist quote about Obama: "THIS is a man we can work with. "

Obama's choice to give the young, chic crowd an OUT on univeral healthcare is pandering, too. He wants no mandate, only a mandate on children---but has little understanding that the "no mandate" screech will do NOTHING to lower prices for all.

Obama wants drivers' licenses for illegal aliens, and brags that he helped Uncle Teddy write the very legislation 66% of Americans are against.

NY Times story today shows EXACTLY what Obama's about: Nuclear industry company Exelon leaked hazardous materials. Obama made GREAT SPEECHES about it, but when all was said and done, he CAPITULATED to the industry, and they got "voluntary" regulation (sounds like Bush) instead of mandatory. The differenc between what Obama said in speeches and what he got done in legislation are night and day.

He's not ready, even if journalists like PJ like him better than Clinton, and whine falsely while the media favors him without scrutiney.

The last time PJ tried to convince us who was the most "likeable," we got 8 years of George W. Bush.

And the more one studies Obama's actual record, the more he seems unable to stand up against strong corporate interests.

No thanks.

[Mary]

"Post-reactionary????"

That must be why Jesse Jackson Jr, Obama's campaign chairman, came out THE day after Obama's huge New Hampshire loss, and on national TV, claimed the Bradley Effect, suggesting that the only reason Hillary Clinton won was because the New Hampshire voters were "hidden racists."

That must be why Jesse Jackson Jr THEN said, "We didn't see any tears from Hillary after Katrina," suggesting Hillary didn't care about Blacks.

We ALL know who really used the racist card to whip up the Black South Carolinian votes.

I don't see that a "Post-Reactionary" at all.

I see that as desperate, cheap, and tawdry.

NOT uniting or "post" ANYTHING.