The problem with Obama's goo-goo appeal

Like most people to the left of center, I'm excited about the potential of Barack Obama. One can't help but be inspired by his personal story, especially after reading Dreams of My Father. And he's bringing people into the political process at a remarkable rate. My sister recently went to a rally in Oakland, CA with 10,000 people. 10,000! In early 2007!

But substantively and politically, the problem is that Obama's appeal is still rooted in a goo-goo approach to politics. Most people who are supporting Obama, going to his rallies, etc. have no idea what he stands for besides opposition to the war in Iraq. As Andrew Ferguson wrote in the Weekly Standard, the issue chapters in The Audacity of Hope -- while undeniably well-written and thoughtful -- are stuffed with equivocation and conclude in vague Democratic boilerplate:

On one practical issue after another, at the end of long, tortured passages of chin-pulling and brow-furrowing, after the unexpected praise for Ronald Reagan and for the genius of the free market, the disdain for identity politics and for the overregulation of small business, there's never a chance that Obama will come down on any side other than the conventionally liberal views of the Democratic party mainstream. It turns out that much of his on-the-one-hand judiciousness is little more than a rhetorical strategy.

Instead, most of Obama's appeal comes down to his call for a new politics that is less cynical and polarized -- a vain hope. Bill Clinton and many other politicians have called for such a change, and none have succeeded. The underlying structural forces that promote polarization are unlikely to relent. And more importantly, polarization is a two-sided phenomenon. Calling for depolarization once you are president is, in practice, a call for the opposition to go along with your initiatives -- as in President Bush's call to "change the tone" (see All the President's Spin for more). It's an absurd promise that no candidate can deliver on (though Bush briefly claimed victory at "changing the tone" when his sky-high post-9/11 approval ratings silenced the Democratic opposition).

And as Ron Brownstein points out in a very smart column in the Los Angeles Times (via Tyler Cowen), Obama's appeal mirrors that of the reformer candidates who have traditionally lost Democratic primaries:

Since the 1960s, Democratic nominating contests regularly have come down to a struggle between a candidate who draws support primarily from upscale, economically comfortable voters liberal on social and foreign policy issues, and a rival who relies mostly on downscale, financially strained voters drawn to populist economics and somewhat more conservative views on cultural and national security issues.

It's not much of an oversimplification to say that the blue-collar Democrats tend to see elections as an arena for defending their interests, and the upscale voters see them as an opportunity to affirm their values. Each group finds candidates who reflect those priorities.

Democratic professionals often describe this sorting as a competition between upscale "wine track" candidates and blue-collar "beer track" contenders. Another way to express the difference is to borrow from historian John Milton Cooper Jr.'s telling comparison of the pugnacious Theodore Roosevelt and the idealistic Woodrow Wilson. Cooper described the long rivalry between Republican Roosevelt and Democrat Wilson as a contest between a warrior and a priest. In modern times, the Democratic presidential race has usually pitted a warrior against a priest.

Warrior candidates stress their ability to deliver on kitchen table concerns and revel in political combat. They tout their experience and flout their scars. Their greatest strength is usually persistence, not eloquence; they don't so much inspire as reassure. Think of Harry Truman in 1948, Hubert Humphrey in 1968 and, in a somewhat more diluted fashion, Walter Mondale in 1984 and John Kerry in 2004.

The priests, whose lineage runs back through McCarthy to Adlai Stevenson, present a very different face. They write books and sometimes verse. They observe the campaign's hurly-burly through a filter of cool, witty detachment. Their campaigns become crusades, fueled as much by inchoate longing for a "new politics" as tangible demands for new policies. In the past quarter of a century, Hart, Bradley and the late neo-liberal Paul Tsongas in 1992 each embodied the priest in Democratic presidential politics.

...Hillary Clinton has firmly positioned herself as a warrior. She wowed the firefighters' convention not through eloquence but passionate declarations of shared commitments. "You were there when we needed you, and I want you to know I will be there when you need me," she insisted. Her campaign already views non-college voters, especially women, as the foundation of her coalition. Her stump speech, centered on a promise to represent "invisible" Americans, targets the economic anxieties of blue-collar families.

Obama's aides resist the collar, but in the early stages, he looks more like a priest. He's written two bestselling books. Like McCarthy, Hart and Howard Dean, he's ignited a brush fire on college campuses. His initial message revolves heavily around eloquent but somewhat amorphous promises of reform and civic renewal. He laments "the smallness of our politics … where power is always trumping principle."

What Obama needs is to get out of the Tsongas/Hart box and engage in a serious debate over policy with Hillary and John Edwards. Soon. It will change his profile and engage downscale voters who don't care so much about process.

Comments

[Mike P]

People keep saying the man isn't doing legislation...that's wrong. He's not doing "sexy" legislation. As the post from Obsidian Wings WAY back in October of 2006 shows, Obama is doing what legislators should do...he's legislating!

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html#more

[Dave White]

I have to agree with Mike P. This argument that Obama is heavy on rhetoric yet light or non-existant on substance has really become the "Al Gore claims he invented the internet" media story line on Obama. It's lazy and off the mark.

More thoughts here.

[Lettuce]

Most people who are supporting Obama, going to his rallies, etc. have no idea what he stands for besides opposition to the war in Iraq.

Most people?

Do you have some sort of poll to back that up? And, if you do, does it matter? Did "most people" who backed BUsh understand what "compassionate conservatism" was going to be, after they found out, did they care?

[kth]

What Obama needs is to get out of the Tsongas/Hart box

Please stop reading the stuff you are citing, as it is only making you stupider. Barack Obama is a once-in-a-lifetime political talent, with only JFK and Ronald Reagan as his peers. That doesn't mean he should be president, it merely means that comparisons with the likes of Paul Tsongas are utterly preposterous.

[Seth Kramer]

Most people who are supporting Obama, going to his rallies, etc. have no idea what he stands for..

Now take that clause and replace Obama with Giuliani.

It's that time of year. Realisitically it's way too early for most non-wonk types to have developed a terribly informed basis for their candidate preference.

[karen]

"Duke Boy" is right about the downside of the "goo-goo" appeal, but Obama is doing the right thing. Why take a hard stance on the issues this early in the race when they are going to be attacked by the pundits? He is doing himself a favor by letting Hilary and Edwards take the majority of the criticism.

[Petey]

"What Obama needs is to get out of the Tsongas/Hart box and engage in a serious debate over policy with Hillary and John Edwards. Soon. It will change his profile and engage downscale voters who don't care so much about process."

I don't think Obama has any chance whatsoever to get out of that box in this particular election cycle.

His appeal right now is so deeply rooted in "beyond politics" rhetoric that I don't think he can possibly make the switch in the next 9 months.

Add to that the phenomenon of downscale Dems traditional reluctance to go with a new face, and I think it's a lost audience for him in '08.

[bill and ted]

obama is trying to become the first black president because he sees an opportunity to do so right now. that's it. his ideas about the war are bullshit. it frankly doesn't matter that he opposed the war in the illinois state senate. what matters is that he continues to fund the war again and again, and he refuses to make a pledge to get our troops out of iraq even by 2013, pulling the mainstream ploy of banking on the ignorance of the american people to perceive a candidate capable of "supporting the troops but not the war," meanwhile murdering a million iraqis and squandering the monies of our generation. his stupid belligerence regarding iran (leaving all options on the table) is a political machination that is so violent and ill-founded i wouldn't vote for him simply on that principle. but his unquestionable pandering to be seen as not black---his support for the Death Penalty, for christ's sake, and his refusal to move forward with slave reparations strikes me as racial treason. i can watch the obama girl video on repeat, but i don't buy this guy's marketing.