Washblog

The most important lesson I've learned from getting involved in actual, partisan politics (rather than political theory) is that emotions matter. Humans are busy creatures and even if they have the time, not all have the inclination to look deeply into policy. Besides, they know instinctively that change requires consensus and leadership. They look for politicians who can bring the intangible qualities to bear that foster trust, enthusiasm and hope.

I wish Senator Obama had a full suite of Progressive policies like the New Deal that I could read in detail and discuss and dissect. But frankly there is a good reason he doesn't. Krugman asks:

So what good did Mr. Clinton's message of inclusiveness do him?

...... Mr. Clinton may not have run as postpartisan a campaign as legend has it, he did avoid some conflict by being strategically vague about policy. In particular, he promised health care reform, but left the business of producing an actual plan until after the election.

Well, first of all, legend has nothing to do with the idea that Clinton ran as a "postpartisan" "third way" candidate. It had everything to do with Iraq-war-supporter and veteran loser Al From's DLC and the short-sighted strategy of "triangulation".

Politics is best understood as a battle of "define or be defined". Clinton's triangulation was a successful effort to redefine a Democrat as more conservative. He was vague about his health care proposals because this issue had already been defined by conservatives along with (short-sighted) doctors and the insurance industry in the most hysterical, Cold-War terms. Nobody could pretend to be even slightly conservative and  even breathe the words "single payer".

I agree with Krugman when he says:

those who don't want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don't want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s -- a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy -- are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can't bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1).

The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn't one of them.

But I disagree that Obama's "rejection" of health insurance mandates will somehow kill the project. We are still suffering the hangover from DLC cowardice. Democrats have not yet remembered how to stand up to the right-wing media machine. I'm sure that's why John Edwards felt the need not only to sign onto, but help author the Patriot Act when he was a Senator.

By rolling over in their DLC style, the Democrats allowed many issues to be defined for so long, in the most hysterical of terms, that it is a long fight to move the debate back in our direction. To realign, you have to convincingly rise above the other side. But you also have to deal with the politics as you find them.

Franklin Roosevelt, the great creator of public programs and ultimate champion of Keynesianism, campaigned against Hoover's high deficit spending. He then proceeded to spend more and in more ways than Hoover could ever have imagined. Thus he campaigned, in a sense, against the specifics of his own program. But his genius was communicating his intent to give America hope and a "New Deal".

As Arthur Ruger points out, Roosevelt was the communicator, the salesman, the champion of the a renewed American confidence.

There will be a great deal for a Democratic President to do and most of it will be pretty boring (but important) stuff. What the nation needs is to feel the importance.

What candidate is best at making us feel that?