Inspiration into Action

Andrew Sullivan picks up on a theme that has been floating around for a couple of days: that support for Obama has become a self-reinforcing orgy of wish fulfillment, all hype and wonderful feelings. His response is to note that Obama is no dreamer, but a "coolly rational" pragmatist. I agree, would add that Obama doesn't just give a great speech; he knows how to turn the inspiration into action. The great oratory is the icing on the cake, but there's a solid foundation underneath it. Obama didn't win Iowa because he can get a crowd fired up; he won Iowa because, once he got the crowd fired up, he had an organization in place to focus the energy of the people. This was very much my experience in California. We had a huge grassroots operation that made hundreds of thousands of phone calls. The man did extremely well on Super Tuesday in places like Idaho and Alaska. Why? Because he had people there months ago. This is the benefit of being a community organizer: you understand the importance of building an organization. It's not just enough to energize people; you have to have a structure to channel that energy. And it becomes a self-referential experience: you generate some energy, which gets harnessed by your organization. That makes the organization stronger, which allows it to harness and focus ever more energy. The energy from the reaction creates the vessel that contains it.

Thus is the world changed.

Decisive Issues, Part III: Moral Authority

Moral authority is one of those things that change with perspective. One person's heroine is another's shrill harpy. It's also one of those things that is very hard to earn, but very easy to lose. It's recognizable in part because of the absence of something else, namely self-interest. People recognized as having moral authority are often exhorting us to act against our own - and, usually, their own - best interests. Saints inspire to put aside our differences and recognize what we have in common with others (I'm listening to Jesus Christ Superstar while I'm writing this). Saints don't make it politics very often because politics is where come to fight for our own interests first. Of the three candidates I am evaluating, Barack Obama takes the "common ground is the best ground" approach. Each has a unique claim on moral authority: John McCain has seen and survived the worst that human beings can inflict on each other and has consistently challenged the bizarre tendency in conservative circles towards supporting and even demanding the use of torture. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have survived and prospered as an African-American and a woman in contemporary America, and each can claim to have won through to their current positions despite the obstacles of racism and sexism in America. Each can also claim to speak for a group previously underrepresented in this country. The presence of either in the White House would go a long ways towards healing ancient wounds.

Here are my comparisons:

McCain v. Obama: These guys are ideological opposites, but have some interesting political similarities. Both are at once insiders and outsiders. McCain is the son and grandson of Navy admirals, i.e. he's very much steeped in military tradition and history, but he occasionally challenges his party's orthodoxy and establishment. Barack Obama, as an African-American, is something of an outsider (fortunately less so now than when he was born), but he's a graduate of Columbia and Harvard Law. Like McCain, he sometimes takes on sensitive topics in his party. For example, he recognizes and argues against homophobia in the black church. Neither McCain nor Obama demonizes the opposition, and each makes an effort to break out of the politically convenient but restricting rhetorical straitjacket of using euphemisms and nuance, the kind of language that earns politicians as a class their reputation for lying. Neither is always successful, but each makes the attempt to be honest when possible. Which honesty occasionally gets both in trouble.

Both are adept at using humor to defuse tensions when confronting difficult situations. Both have financial scandals in their background, although McCain's - being part of the Keating Five - is much more significant than Obama's, working with the developer Rezko. And both have strong track records on ethics and campaign finance reform. One difference between them is their emphasis on working with the opposition. McCain can work with Democrats. He can go beyond partisan differences, but does not place much emphasis on it. That may be a function of where the base of the Republican party is right now - purity is more important to many conservatives than compromise. Obama, on the other hand, has made resolving differences a core part of his campaign. This doesn't play well with some progressives - Kos accuses him of not running as a Democrat in the Democrat primary. But Obama challenges Democrats to think beyond their own self-interests. Advantage: Obama

McCain v. Clinton: Up until about a year ago, I would have figured out a way to call this even. I would have dismissed all of the minor scandals during the Clinton Administration as products of that infamous "vast right-wing conspiracy." Heck, a couple of months ago I would have argued in favor of Hillary’s ground-breaking role as the first woman president.

But a couple of things have changed the equation. Substantively, I thot her mailer in New Hampshire questioning Obama’s pro-choice credentials – despite his 100% approval rating from Planned Parenthood – was beyond the pale. I realize that politics can be hardball, but that kind of behavior diminishes her moral authority, and with it her ability to enact her agenda if she is elected. And then . . .

And then there’s the big dog, Bill. Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve started to realize why conservatives don’t like the Clintons. And, at the end of the day, the man lied about sex. That is a stain that can never be erased. I’ve dismissed the importance of that before, but I’m having a harder time doing it now. So in terms of moral authority, McCain vs. Hillary, McCain wins. Decisively. Advantage: McCain

Decisive issues, Part I: Electability

In the interest of greatly simplifying things, I am going to boil the race down to three issues, and evaluate the three leading candidates (Hillary, Obama, and McCain) on them. I am assuming at this point that McCain will win the Republican nomination. I am going to dedicate one post to each issue.

The issues are:

1. Electability.
2. Experience.
3. Moral authority.

First issue, electability. Which, for me, translates to three things. 1, who can win over independents? 2, who can mobilize their base, and 3, who can win over voters from the other party?

McCain has a clear appeal to independents. He's not particularly popular among some establishment Republicans (Tom Delay apparently still holds a grudge), but, come election time, they will vote for him. Whether or not he wins over Democrats depends on his opponent. Many Democrats are starting to turn against Hillary, and would consider voting for McCain instead. However, against Obama, Democrats would mobilize for Obama.

Hillary does not appeal to many independents. Some will vote for her because of fond recollections of the 1990's, which is a good reason - the 1990's were great, from many perspectives. However, against McCain, she will have to fight for them. She has started to lose many Democrats because of how she is running her campaign, and, unfortunately, because Bill is not campaigning very gracefully. She will not get many Republicans, if any.

Obama has a few issues with the base, but they are minor. Some progressives have issues with how liberal he is, and his comments on Ronald Reagan. Countering that, however, he can count on mobilizing the African-American vote, and possibly inspiring many people who otherwise would not vote. So he is overall positive with the base. He is attracting droves of independents, particularly among young people. This may make a difference in California, where independents can vote in the Democratic primary, but not the Republican one. And some Republicans are expressing support for him. Against McCain, it's not clear how much Republican support he can win, but the possibility is there. Here, McCain's experience may be an advantage.

This is how it stacks up:
McCain-Hillary: McCain mobilizes Republican base, wins independents, and possibly some Democrats. Advantage: McCain.

McCain-Obama: Both mobilize their base, both compete effectively for independents, both compete for members of the other party. Advantage: Neither. Tie.

Let's get started

For my first blog post, some background. I've been interested in politics for as long as I can remember. Particularly Democratic, liberal, progressive, change-the-world politics. I've been involved off and on for many years - I've worked on campaigns, hung around lots of political activists, made my opinion known to lots of people.

As of now, January 2008, I'm volunteering for Barack Obama. I believe him when he says that he can bridge gaps between political parties and ideologies. I also like the fact that he seems to enjoy the game of politics, and can respond to his opponents with a sense of humor. That's a great quality, in my book.

I think Hillary would probably make a good president. She's smart, disciplined, hard-working, and, in the end, I think she's trying to do good things for the world. But, like a lot of people, I just can't relate to her all that well. Which is somewhat surprising, because I was a big fan of Bill. I even worked for him back in 1992. I was on the Transition Team; I answered his mail. I didn't follow through and get a job in the administration, but I'm glad that I can say that I worked for Bill Clinton in 1992-3.

But having said that, one reason I'm not supporting Hillary is that I have been very disappointed in Bill Clinton's performance during this campaign.

I still think Bill Clinton did a lot of good work to update the Democratic party. I remember resenting all of the right-wing attacks on him. But by the time 2000 rolled around, I have to admit that I really didn't mind that Bill Clinton couldn't run for reelection. He did some good things, his time was over, it was time, as a certain organization's title says, to move on.

I was relieved that I didn't have to think about any of that ever again. It was water under the bridge.

I was relieved that I would never again have to worry about whether or not it was worth it to defend Bill Clinton.

But unfortunately, it looks like the answer to that question today - whether or not it is worth it, now or in the future, to defend Bill Clinton - is no. The Clintons' behavior in Nevada - when the teachers' union sued to block caucuses from being held in casinos - was both wrong and idiotic. Neither Bill nor Hillary was directly involved, but it clearly was done for their benefit. And then Bill Clinton tried to deny it. What fools does he think we are? That was embarassing.

I ask myself the question: do I really want to see Bill Clinton in the White House for another four or eight years? The answer is, most unfortunately, is no.