This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1Doug1943
The December issue of Prospect magazine (the best political journal in English, in my opinion, for both left and right), has a very interesting article by Michael Lind on President-elect Obama. It's interesting not just for what he says about Obama, but also for his take on American liberalism and conservatism.
Lind's Up From Conservatism (he is an apostate from our movement) was my choice for a liberal book for a reading program we started here about a year ago (for very slow readers). Because he knows both sides well, and is relatively immune from cant, he always has pertinent things to say.
Lind's Up From Conservatism (he is an apostate from our movement) was my choice for a liberal book for a reading program we started here about a year ago (for very slow readers). Because he knows both sides well, and is relatively immune from cant, he always has pertinent things to say.
2jmcgarve
Lind may be right that the Obama program will be "small bore" at a time when high caliber weapons are needed. The problem is that the white working class has become so utterly conservative that the Democrats have had to rely on their cultural constituencies (antiwar activists, gay rights, church/state separation, environmentalists, and so on). That was still true in the 2008 election. The middle class voted for McCain.
Lind has said elsewhere that the Democrats should not rely on their cultural constituencies, unless they want to be a permanent minority party: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/08/15/newer_deal/index.html . Lind argues that the white working class can be recaptured by the Democrats to resurrect the New Deal coalition, by focusing on economic issues. Maybe. Others (I am thinking of Bill Bishop in the big sort) have argued that political motivations for this group are "post-materialist", meaning that the cultural issues trump the socioeconomic questions.
Obama's health plan is indeed "small bore". And his economic team is dominated by neoliberals, which is very disappointing.
Lind has said elsewhere that the Democrats should not rely on their cultural constituencies, unless they want to be a permanent minority party: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/08/15/newer_deal/index.html . Lind argues that the white working class can be recaptured by the Democrats to resurrect the New Deal coalition, by focusing on economic issues. Maybe. Others (I am thinking of Bill Bishop in the big sort) have argued that political motivations for this group are "post-materialist", meaning that the cultural issues trump the socioeconomic questions.
Obama's health plan is indeed "small bore". And his economic team is dominated by neoliberals, which is very disappointing.
3lriley
It's an interesting article. Without a doubt Bush had problems admitting and then correcting his mistakes. Well it's not something unusual you see that in lots of people. Best not to have that quality in your highest elected official though. We've gone down some roads much further than we needed to. Both Bush's were weak presidents but particularly the son who did a very bad impression of Ronald Reagan.
Obama is going to move from the idea of hope he still represents to many people to something more tangible. He's coming up to bat and he's going to have to lead and not just people who supported him but those who didn't as well. Without a doubt we have huge problems but he has struck me as someone much more practical than his soon to be predecessor. I'm not altogether that jazzed about some of his cabinet choices--in particular the economic ones. I expect to see that ability to improvise on the go that Lind alludes to. I'll be disappointed otherwise.
What interests me as well is the direction of the parties. There was a shift in 94 and now there is a shift again which started in 06. The Republican party has to figure a way to take back control of its message from the religious right and radio talk show hosts in order to de-marginalize themselves. It seems to me the most powerful conservative voices are not people who have to think or worry about being elected. Those religious and radio voices are like a choir without anything but an anti-oppostion direction--simply railing against the opposition. They need an elected leadership that is reasonable, that stands for something and that can stand on its own two feet. They have been decimated in the North, Northeast and the Rustbelt and they are losing ground in the South as well. They need to get their act together.
Obama is going to move from the idea of hope he still represents to many people to something more tangible. He's coming up to bat and he's going to have to lead and not just people who supported him but those who didn't as well. Without a doubt we have huge problems but he has struck me as someone much more practical than his soon to be predecessor. I'm not altogether that jazzed about some of his cabinet choices--in particular the economic ones. I expect to see that ability to improvise on the go that Lind alludes to. I'll be disappointed otherwise.
What interests me as well is the direction of the parties. There was a shift in 94 and now there is a shift again which started in 06. The Republican party has to figure a way to take back control of its message from the religious right and radio talk show hosts in order to de-marginalize themselves. It seems to me the most powerful conservative voices are not people who have to think or worry about being elected. Those religious and radio voices are like a choir without anything but an anti-oppostion direction--simply railing against the opposition. They need an elected leadership that is reasonable, that stands for something and that can stand on its own two feet. They have been decimated in the North, Northeast and the Rustbelt and they are losing ground in the South as well. They need to get their act together.
4Doug1943
What makes history interesting is that it is never really possible to figure out just how much great events and momentous developments which signal sharp turns in human affairs -- like the victories of Communism, Fascism, the New Deal, post-war European recovery, the Chinese Revolution, the Islamic Revolution -- stem from profound social changes grinding slowly away below our line of vision -- Marx's Old Mole -- and how much they stem from extraordinary personalities -- Lenin, Hitler, FDR, Churchill -- who just happen to be in the right place at the right time -- or deeply inadequate ones (no names here) who find themselves at the summit of power and are thus able to do mischief, perhaps in a less dramatic way.
It's been obvious to me for years that the world is facing huge upheavals -- no great insight this -- whose outcome will in part depend on the human qualities of those in power.
Liberals who are deeply unhappy with Obama are pretty demanding folks. I wish the conservative movement had their problems.
It's been obvious to me for years that the world is facing huge upheavals -- no great insight this -- whose outcome will in part depend on the human qualities of those in power.
Liberals who are deeply unhappy with Obama are pretty demanding folks. I wish the conservative movement had their problems.
5Carnophile
One of the funny things about Obama's cabinet picks, and the furrowed brows they are generating among liberals, is this:
During the campaign people on the right were saying the reason he was vague ("Hope and Change!") was to hide his deep leftism from center-right voters. Now at least some lefties seem to think it may have been to hide his center-rightism (if that’s a word) from leftish voters. It’s still far too early to tell, but I must admit I get a giggle out of the situation anyway.
During the campaign people on the right were saying the reason he was vague ("Hope and Change!") was to hide his deep leftism from center-right voters. Now at least some lefties seem to think it may have been to hide his center-rightism (if that’s a word) from leftish voters. It’s still far too early to tell, but I must admit I get a giggle out of the situation anyway.
6Doug1943
Okay, color me naive, but I think he is an intelligent man who is largely immune from the shackles of his own official ideology, as he obviously is from rah-rah USA-All-the-way we-can-do-no-wrong ideology.
He is no conservative, sadly, not by a million miles. But there can be such a thing as a realistic liberal, as opposed to an ideology- and interest group-bound liberal, and conservatives should be able to make the distinction.
Such people exist. Gorbachev was one. He was able to transcend the totalitarian system and see reality as it was, and then draw the right conclusions. A miracie, but these sometimes happen.
In the UK, the man who talks the most sense about the terrible damage done to the poor by the welfare state is a working-class socialist MP named Frank Field . The guy actually cares about working people, which most socialist intellectuals don't, and actually knows how they really live, which most socialist intellectuals don't, and has seen what unconditional welfare does to the lower strata of the working class. So he is a dissident. He will never get power, though, because he has revealed his beliefs while still out of power.
People like this who actually get power, never do so by convincing their base of their maverick beliefs. They achieve power accidentally. Very undemocratic. Maybe Obama is someone like this. We can hope.
He is no conservative, sadly, not by a million miles. But there can be such a thing as a realistic liberal, as opposed to an ideology- and interest group-bound liberal, and conservatives should be able to make the distinction.
Such people exist. Gorbachev was one. He was able to transcend the totalitarian system and see reality as it was, and then draw the right conclusions. A miracie, but these sometimes happen.
In the UK, the man who talks the most sense about the terrible damage done to the poor by the welfare state is a working-class socialist MP named Frank Field . The guy actually cares about working people, which most socialist intellectuals don't, and actually knows how they really live, which most socialist intellectuals don't, and has seen what unconditional welfare does to the lower strata of the working class. So he is a dissident. He will never get power, though, because he has revealed his beliefs while still out of power.
People like this who actually get power, never do so by convincing their base of their maverick beliefs. They achieve power accidentally. Very undemocratic. Maybe Obama is someone like this. We can hope.
7lriley
At the end of the day if something works it works. Even sometimes the best constructed theories turn out to be impractical. I prefer the pragmatic approach. Someone who can step back and say: 'You know what? I'm going to stop this. It's not turning out the way I thought'.
Anyway my problem with the economic picks he's made stems from the relationships of at least some of them to some of Clinton's people--particularly Mr. Rubin. It's too early to say though that they're not going to make it work. I'm willing to wait and see. More than less I'm optimistic about the new administration coming in.
Anyway my problem with the economic picks he's made stems from the relationships of at least some of them to some of Clinton's people--particularly Mr. Rubin. It's too early to say though that they're not going to make it work. I'm willing to wait and see. More than less I'm optimistic about the new administration coming in.
8jmcgarve
We ought to have a discussion on the book "The Big Sort". Sometimes I think Obama must have read it. He really wants to overcome the divisions that have polarized society. I think that is the reason for having Rick Warren give a benediction a the inauguration.
I'm all for having things work. The problem with the Obama foreign policy team is that they are supportive of things that are very unlikely to work. I think the escalation in Afghanistan can't turn out well. The Karzai government has no real support and no real program. Many of the Taliban are fighting for revenge, having lost family members to US aerial bombing.
I am not surprised that Obama is a centrist. He ran as one. The vote on FISA certainly tipped his hand, and it was a bad vote.
However, there are some areas in which Obama is leaning left, esp. energy, the environment, and labor. So -- yep, we liberals probably shouldn't complain.
I'm all for having things work. The problem with the Obama foreign policy team is that they are supportive of things that are very unlikely to work. I think the escalation in Afghanistan can't turn out well. The Karzai government has no real support and no real program. Many of the Taliban are fighting for revenge, having lost family members to US aerial bombing.
I am not surprised that Obama is a centrist. He ran as one. The vote on FISA certainly tipped his hand, and it was a bad vote.
However, there are some areas in which Obama is leaning left, esp. energy, the environment, and labor. So -- yep, we liberals probably shouldn't complain.
9theoria
8>
Fortunately, Obama has written two books from which we can glean his political orientation (not to mention his actions as Editor of the Harvard Law Review). I think two other books might help to illuminate Obama's orientation to policy and governance: William J. Wilson's The Bridge Over the Racial Divide (indirectly) and Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals (directly).
Fortunately, Obama has written two books from which we can glean his political orientation (not to mention his actions as Editor of the Harvard Law Review). I think two other books might help to illuminate Obama's orientation to policy and governance: William J. Wilson's The Bridge Over the Racial Divide (indirectly) and Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals (directly).
