Obama's vision is not consensus

by Populism2008, Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 06:59:43 PM EST

Reading the diary about Hillary's lack of a vision I reacted to the idea that Obama's vision is about creating consensus. Well, that's not the way I interpret Obama's vision after having read both his books and many speeches.

Bringing people in by being inclusive is a means to progressive goals not a goal in itself. I have never seen Obama arguing anywhere for a consensus that is not based on progressive ideas and values. The word "consensus" is also a bit misleading since it implies that everyone will agree, which is of course impossible (and Obama has said so himself in interviews and speeches).

If one sees it in the context of Hillary vs Obama then Hillary is the centrist candidates who alienates most non-liberals and Obama is the liberal candidate who appeals to non-liberals. This is why Obama talks about moving beyond the Clinton years. "Beyond" does not mean that the Clinton years were all bad, it means that we can do better than that.

And finally, about the "Reagan of the Left" metaphor. Reagan was a conservative building broad support around conservative policies/values. Obama is a progressive building broad support around progressive policies/values. People interpreting the "Reagan of the Left" metaphor (again not coined by Obama himself) as a similarity in policies is just plain stupid, or dishonest.




Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 22 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Obama's vision is not consensus (none / 0)

Yeah but he seems to admire Reagan which is troubling to me. I have never had so much Reagan from a dem prior to Obama.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:02:07 PM EST

Examples? (none / 0)

Obama has attacked Reaganism repeatedly, calling it an example of social Darwinism where people are being sacrificed for profits.

When debating the diplomatic issue he gave examples of former presidents meeting with leaders of rogue states, including Reagan.

We should get away from the childish identity game. Politics is not a sport - our team against their team. Reagan was an awful president, but Dems must be allowed to mention his name without being crucified. Otherwise we are as blind as the Clinton-hating right.


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:07:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Examples? (none / 0)

Just wanted to say I like your signature, and I admire you for having the guts to use it on a site such as this.


"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell
by This Machine Kills Fascists on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:48:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How naive... (none / 0)

Read my sig line and take a guess....


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 07:48:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

My only question ... (none / 0)

How will Obama take on rightwingers inside politics and out - how will he take on Lott, Coburn, Blunt, Limpbaugh, InsaHannity, Dobson, Perkins, and all the rest of those highly effective freaks and win?  How?

I have never heard how he will do it.  I have seen the Clintons do it.


by dpANDREWS on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:31:34 PM EST

I'm not actually sure what you're talking about (none / 0)

Win in what sense?  In a legislative fight?  What examples do you have in mind?  Bill Clinton certainly never managed to win much other than his own re-election politically-speaking.
The Clintons have engaged in verbal jousts with the right, but how much ever came of it?  We can do better than that.
Obama has never been afraid to throw a few punches.  He can campaign aggressively.  This last week proves that, if you don't know his past career.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:43:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton poverty program (none / 0)

Come on, psericks, I just walked you through how each element of Obama's poverty program came from the DLC and the Clinton administration. Obama's domestic policy director came from the Clinton administration. Clinton implemented each of those ideas while saddled with a Republican Congress.

You may not care much about Obama's poverty program, but most progressives do, and we are proud that Obama has the wisdom to carry Clinton's plans forward. Fortunately Obama, or whoever is the next President, won't have to work around a Republican congress.


by souvarine on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 10:09:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton poverty program (none / 0)

I wasn't referring to the Clintons' legislative accomplishments.  If you looked at my past diaries, I give a lot of credit to the Clintons for pushing things like the EITC.  
I was directly responding to a comment about the Clintons responding to the Sean Hannity's and Limbaugh's of the world.  I wasn't sure what he was talking about.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 10:37:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton poverty program (none / 0)

Give me a break on the lecture.


One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 10:38:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton poverty program (none / 0)

Sorry, I thought you were being really obtuse so I lectured. I still don't understand your point, but I'll assume I misunderstood.


by souvarine on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 11:27:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

All this last week showed was that Obama does not appear to care for the Democratic brand, that he is quite happy to go as far as he has because he does not have a true Democratic identity (IMO.)

If Obama were as fiery and passionate about going after Republicans as he was about making the ridiculous "Clinton = Bush/Cheney Lite" analogy, and follow up on it with gusto repeatedly, we would have a Democratic hero on our hands.  As it is, we have a guy who thinks everybody has to marvel at him and bow to his "vision," which is as foggy as a Sunday afternoon in London.

 "To know me is to love me" is not a clever, witty little ditty, but truly appears to be Obama's mojo and basis for his campaign.


by georgep on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 12:41:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah, obama hates democrats, george... (none / 0)

it's really incredibly narrow minded of you to think that hillary = democrats and democrats = hillary.  when she loses, does your democratic party fall apart?

and, quite frankly, on the issues of importance to me, there is NO DIFFERENCE between hillary clinton and george bush.  she rejects just war principles, just like bush.  she views her opinions more relevant, just like bush.  she buys into the bush doctrine of pre-emption.  she wants to preserve the presidential prerogative.  she is secretive.  etc.

when i asked for a list of bush's and hillary's foreign policy differences, i didn't get a single answer -- although i could list similarities...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 07:51:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

By creating support for (none / 0)

progressive policies among people and forcing Republicans to enact progressive legislation or face defeat.


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 07:47:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Great diary (none / 0)

I completely agree.  This is a nice concise argument.


One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:39:18 PM EST

Re: Obama's vision is not consensus (none / 0)

a) What is Obama's vision then?

b) You misunderstand why people don't like the Reagan comparison. You are in Democratic primary- to use the name of someone who is felt to be a racist and dispicable is simply dumb politics. It's equivalent of someone saying someone is similar in some good quality about Hitler. It doesn't matter what the quality is- it simply matters you are using a comparison that has a negative connotation. This has been said multiple times by multiple peop at this point. I have to assume you simply don't choose on the question to engage in honest debate. The first step to honest debate is to listen to what people are saying to you without mischaractereizing what they have said to you.


by bruh21 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 07:41:00 PM EST

Re: Obama's vision is not consensus (3.00 / 1)

Oh, I know.  My stomach turns every time someone says Reagan of the Left.  He doesn't need to make that analogy so I really don't understand his motivation.


by bookgrl on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 08:04:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's vision is not consensus (none / 0)

Anyway, I think he's more the Robespierre of the Middle.


"If [John Edwards] seems too good to be true, well, so be it; instead, you can pick a candidate who's bad enough to be plausible." - Daily Kos user Drew
by Junior Bug on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 08:40:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's vision is not consensus (none / 0)

You don't understand whose motivation?  I don't think Obama has described himself as the Reagan of the Left -- I'm pretty sure that comparison came from Andrew Sullivan.  


by Gauss Bonnet on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 06:25:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's vision is not consensus (none / 0)

Well, Hitler is a bit strong, but I used Ted Kennedy as an example in another diary.  A Republican candidate who claims that he wants to be like Ted Kennedy in the sense of seeking bi-partisanship (Ted Kennedy has crafted a lot of bipartisan legislation) would be laughed off the stage and kicked off the curb in a hurry.  


by georgep on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 08:36:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's vision is not consensus (none / 0)

I don't know.  Many republicans HAVE and WANTED to work with Kennedy.  He is a great legislator.  And one of the best on the hill to work with in a bi-partisian manner.  But the Republican Party have much more graver things to worry about than the Democrats.  They are perplexed and don't know which way to go.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 10:04:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's vision is not consensus (none / 0)

again you miss the point. many of you do- I had this conversation with an obama supporter offline.  He kept harping on Edwards not willing to compromise. He missed the point that the point is not that one never compromises, it's when you do it. Do you start off from there or end up there. My view is you end up there when you go into negotiation- you don't start negotiation with it. Same thing here with Reagan- the question isn't whether who is the Democratic President will have to work with the GOP- the question is whether that'st he smartest move in a Democratic primary especially amongst African Americans down South to use Reagan. Personally, I don't care anymore because I think many of Obama's supprters seem nice but naive, but if you want you candidate to have a shot, this political naivete isn't going to help. I do care on the level of I don't want viable canddiates burning out for dumb reasons. I believe Obama adds a lot tot he mix. I believe with some changes in strategies he would make a good president. But this deafness of why peo may not like the comparations to REagan (again regardless of your reasons for making the comparison) is one of those things that says to people you are not yet ready for prime time.  In the coming months, I hope i am proved wrong because as I said- I want the strongest canddiate to come out of theprimaries. I believe that's Edwards- but I don't see the value of pretending it can't be other candidates too.


by bruh21 on Sun Jul 29, 2007 at 10:22:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's vision is not consensus (none / 0)

1. Obama has never compared himself with Reagan.

2. There is nothing remotedly similar about the ideologies of Obama and Reagan.

3. We could need a person on the left who manages to  create support for progressive values. Call that person Reagan, or Bill Clinton, or JFK. Andrew Sullivan chose Reagan because he is a Republican writing for Republicans.


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Mon Jul 30, 2007 at 07:46:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: