Senator Obama is now trailing Senator McCain in many national polls. In fact, his national popularity has been falling ever since he received the nomination and made a decision to move toward what the pundits describe as "the political center."
In the last few months Obama managed to demobilize the millions of young people and centrist Republicans who had momentarily allowed themselves to believe that Obama's idealism represented something so new in politics that they would overcome their own dis-interest in politics and transcend their own skepticism and even reach out to others. Their energy, instead of being understood as the key to electoral victory, was marginalized as the Obama handlers pushed him to be "realistic" and buy the same boring strategy that has lost most Democratic candidates their elections in the past thirty years: abandon your base and put your post-convention energies focused on an elusive "center" that barely exists.
The choice of Joe Biden, the foreign policy chair of the Senate who had resolutely refused to allow anti-war voices to testify before his committee at the outset of the Iraq war and who has been as dull and mainstream of the inside-the-beltway crowd could hope for, was only the crowning blow to the people who had been the energizers for the Obama camp
. But there had been others: the capitulation to AIPAC and the most reactionary elements in the Jewish world rather than a strong affirmation of the Israeli peace movement perspective on the conflict, the emphasis on how Obama would increase military presence in Afghanistan rather than putting forward a challenge to the militarism that had led us into the fantasy that acts of terror can be stopped through military domination of other countries (his victory in the primaries had been won by representing himself as the candidate of the anti-war sentiment in the country, and it was that which made it possible for him to beat Hillary Clinton who resolutely refused to apologize for her having capitulated to the militarist reasoning); his vote for a bill that extended the power of the president to wiretap on national security grounds (though he had previously promised to oppose it); his capitulation on off-shore drilling while failing to unveil a visionary plan to solve the global environmental problem); his embrace of a Supreme Court decision that banned the city of Washington from imposing gun control; and his distancing from the netroots that had supported him from the beginning.
To understand why these betrayals of his core constituency made a big difference in how he is perceived, particularly after Senator McCain did the opposite by choosing as his running mate an obvious soon-to-be-darling of the Republican's core constituency, we need to understand the psychodynamics of American presidential campaigns. There, the first thing to know is that the issues are rarely the issue. What counts much more are two things: the level of hope versus the level of fear, and the degree to which the candidate seems to understand and care about the well-being of the people whom s/he is seeking to lead (or what we might call the elitism factor).
Anyone hoping to end militarism and create social programs to reduce poverty, provide universal health care, and address the global environmental crisis is going to face the charge from the media and the political Right that they are "unrealistic" and "naive." Few Americans have the background to understand the details of the programs being presented, and so the tendency of many liberal and progressive politicians to focus on the details feels like technocratic noise that people quickly turn off. What people need to hear is a plausible account of why it is possible to hope for a world in which people can take care of each other and trust others enough so that we don't have to militarily dominate the world.
To do that, Obama needs to address the source of our fears, and to put forward a visionary program (I've suggested a Global Marshall Plan to end both domestic and global poverty, provide adequate education and health care, and repair the global environment) that rests explicitly on a rejection of the fear-oriented policies of the Bush/McCain team. Some of Obama's most loyal supporters imagined they heard that from him at the DNC, but most of the country did not come away excited by some new vision that would provide a fundamentally new direction for American domestic and foreign policy. But to the extent that Obama instead tries to fight on the same terrain as McCain (who is going to do better at wiping out all those evil people in the Middle East) he loses, because if the world is as fearful as the Right claims, then people will choose a genuine militarist, not a lukewarm one. And if that is the nature of the period in which we live, then many will move to the Right, because that's where the social energy is going, and that reinforces the most fearful part inside themselves.
Moreover, switching from being the candidate of the progressives and the visionaries to the candidate of the political center is understood by many people as a transparent manipulation based on the assumption that Americans are too distorted and stupid to embrace what Obama really stands for, so the only way to win their votes is to pretend to be a mild-mannered centrist. Thus the elitism charge seems to stick, because "if he can't trust Americans to hear his real ideas, the ones with which he made his political career as a progressive in the Senate and in the primaries, then why," reason many Americans, "should we trust him, since he obviously shares the general elitism of the liberal world, an elitism that expresses itself in the assumption that if we don't vote their way, it's only because we are stupid or evil. and big fans of some kind of fascism or repression?"
It's not too late to repair this, but Obama would have to reject the wisdom of the inside-the-Beltway talking heads and become once again the Obama that spoke for the possibilities of the 21st century, the Obama who momentarily this past Spring brought hope to millions of young people who now have returned to their cynicism and despair after his various capitulations.
http://www.tikkun.org
Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun and national chair of the Tikkun Community/ Network of Spiritual Progressives.
People are invited to subscribe to Tikkun magazine or join the interfaith organization the Network of Spiritual Progressives-- "both of which can be done by going to www.tikkun.org
Basically an accurate assessment. My only criticism of Rabbi
Lerner's essay is the implication in the final paragraphs that the idealism associated with Obama's primary campaign is "what he really stands for."
Actually, that was all just campaign fluff to gain the nomination. That's why it was always so vague ("Hope and Change"). The "real Obama" has never uttered a word that challenges the standard American doctrines of militarism & corporatism. He was well aware that the moment you start talking like that, you get marginalized, like Kucinich, Nader, or others further to the Left. So he appealed to the idealism of his young followers by subtly hinting that he privately opposed these standard doctrines -- but never actually saying so. And the moment he got the nomination, he abandoned that act, which was never more than cynical posturing, anyway.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1210 comments)
on Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 11:47:47 AM
Obama's not losing ground because he's moving right, he's moving right in order to have any chance of winning. The country is basically center-right, and for Obama to continue the far-left mantra that barely got him the nomination would be political suicide.
But no, I'm pretty sure Obama is indeed a far-lefty at heart. He was far more comfortable presenting that argument than he is in his new position, which is a necessary postion.
by
Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 707 comments)
on Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 1:04:24 PM
neither left nor right. Besides the simple fact that those 'leanings' exist only in the half- brains of the media and in the imagination of some unfortunate characters on opednews there is the simple fact that most of the US people. sorry, cannot distinguish between their right hand and left hand much less between ideologies. The country is using the mantra ' I am honest until proven otherwise' and the powerful elite encourages that by flattering all the stupid to death. In this country the strife for winning counts because people like to be entertained and they like success. Thus if Obama shows his desire to win and fight for what he really is he has a chance. Otherwise he has none and he might as well ask McCain to put him instead of Palin.
No, Obama is not leaning to the ' base'. It is his party does not want to win. By doing that it is 'leaning to the base' of its role in the power game. The question is if Obama as a leader of the party could overcome its inertia and galvanize people to the agenda which is not ' left' at all, just healthy.
by
Mark Sashine (53 articles, 19 quicklinks, 249 diaries, 3571 comments)
on Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 2:17:09 PM
I think you've read my previous cites of polls asking people what they consider themselves to be. For decades, people have been answering 2:1 that they're conservative over liberal. That points to a center-right nation, and it has nothing to do with the media.
Other evidence: Foxnews has roughly twice the audience as CNN, in total viewers.
Conservative talk radio is hugely more successful than liberal talk radio.
Obama has been moving right, and you can bet that's due to polling data saying most people are further to the right than he is, or least the "he" he presented himself to be in the primary.
Voters reject tax increases when they are given a chance to vote on them.
A recent poll I can't find right now said that a pretty good majority, as I recall, favor private solutions to government solutions to problems.
Candidates who are honest about their liberalism, or expose themselves after being elected once (Mondale/McGovern/Carter) lose in landslides.
That's just the way it is in this country. There may be a leftward trend on certain specific issues, but on the core issues more people side with the conservative stance. It only makes sense. It's the way they basically live their lives, and the way they raise their families.
by
Alan Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 707 comments)
on Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 3:49:58 PM
I hope you are smart enough to understand that people ALWAYS answer what they are expected to answer. If you give them the incentive, like 'tell me you are a liberal and I will give you $100', i am sure they will oblige. People do not raise their families in ' conservative' or ' liberal' way. They raise their families the way they can per their characters. Those characters are cultural rather than ideological, like a person who was, say used to gritz would try to keep it in his/her family. But it is as far from real ideology as China is from the US. Bottom line- they do not think about that at all. But if you line them up and ask them they will try to blend and do what they think would be good for them. I can assure you that our Dick Cheney would become a Communist, a member of the Politbureau in a blink of an eye if only he considers it to be useful for him. And Bush can become a Moslem in a second, considering that he is already most likely circumcized. The real ideology same as real religion needs hard work. Our folks are neither religious nor ideology-prone. They are average and they think only from time to time.
Asked and answered.
by
Mark Sashine (53 articles, 19 quicklinks, 249 diaries, 3571 comments)
on Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 7:23:16 PM
Williams's view that the country is centrist and Obama must avoid being characterized as a leftist to be elected goes to the question of political leadership. My view is that leadership, by definition, means that one brings people along to your direction. It could hardly be called leadership to estimate where the electorate is and fashion policy in accordance with that estimate! If one argues that a pol does this so that he can gain office and then lead people according to his own views, the argument is not believable. He then comes into office with no mandate to do what he really would want to do and would find the opposition so much more vigorous. The strategy of "do what you must to gain office, first" is good only for someone who really has little commitment for changing the nation's course. It is only good for a pol-pro who wants only to advance his own cause, not the nation's. This, I fear is Obama.
by
goedel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 4:24:29 PM
Comment from Ratings: Rabbi Lerner's op-ed is a good summary, I think, of what has been a losing strategy by Barack Obama since he achieved command of the Party delegates.
One thing I would like to see more information and discussion about that Lerner mentions: the "handlers" who have been steering Obama's campaign, how were they selected? Did he select them personally, or did he rely on an associate to do that? If so, who? Whom or whose interests do these handlers represent? What are their resumes?
In any case, Obama is responsible for the advice to which he listens and for choosing his advisers. It would be very helpful, though, to understand the workings of the Democratic Party to have the answers to these questions.
by
goedel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 4:05:20 PM
Obama is not losing. Any idiot who believes the daily MSM polls that show a dead heat deserves what they get. The idea that McCain has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected is just asinine. All the W bumper stickers here in Orange County, CA have disappeared and Obama stickers are popping up. I dare the pollsters to back their figures up with hard science. They can't.
by
daveys (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 176 comments)
on Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 4:32:38 PM
Picking someone to watch your back, who threatens you if you don’t, disrespects you, lies about you, play dirty tricks on you, and can’t get over that you got what she wants, is a losing proposition.
by
Hargrove (14 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 24 comments)
on Saturday, September 13, 2008 at 1:14:41 AM
I tend to agree with your argument, but am surprised that you included Obama's stance on the Supreme Court's ruling on the Second Amendment. As a Constitutional scholar, Obama would be certain to know that the Founders meant the Second Amendment to retain the individual right to bear arms. Additionally, I am concerned in this era of eroding rights when anyone with progressive credentials starts picking and choosing which rights we should retain. This certainly weakens any argument that Bush's abrogation of the Bill or Rights in certain instances is an unsustainable position. There are, after all, constitutional methods for changing the Constitution if you do not like the Second Amendment.
by
W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 387 comments)
on Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 5:41:56 PM
Obama is not behind. Obama is not losing. Why do we automatically accept the poll numbers when the polls work for the same oligarchs as the media pundits and all the news hacks on TV? I think Obama is still winning by a large margin. I automatically ASSUME they will be fudging the poll numbers to 'manufacture' the opinion they want (they = oligarchs).
by
jeff rock (5 articles, 1 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 92 comments)
on Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 5:59:07 PM
First may I say you have beautiful smile. If only America had such a smile.
For the rest, hey, when you're right, you're right. For my part I have been writing pieces trying to get even "centrist" Americans, and of course the progressive core, not only of the alleged Democratic Party, but also of (what's left) of our Constitutional Republic to do anything and everything (email to EVERYONE YOU KNOW) to "light a fire" under this man.
I also intend, indeed, maybe later tonight, to discuss what may be an Anchilles Hell in the Palin insanity. Of late, she's starting to make negative comments about other religions, e.g., Catholicism. It may be that her fundamentalist arrogance is simply unable to not attack other religons. She said something very ambiguous about the Jewish faith a day or two ago, so this may be where we can hold her accountable as a vulgar religious racist. Anyway, to whomever, please watch VERY carefully for religious slurs.
And may I suggest we totally drop all the beauty queen stuff. Who cares what she won on lost and focus ONLY ON SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES -- especially since Obama is starting to look like he was bought off by the illites. One wonders how palatial his home will be after he loses this election.
by
W. Christopher Epler (Bill) (248 articles, 52 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 589 comments)
on Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 8:36:47 PM
If this election were only depending on "substantive issues", wouldn't Hillary be the nominee? She was much more specifc on her plans before the nod went to Obama and where is she now?
by
Mike Kimball (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 65 comments)
on Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 10:00:52 PM
This article is likely correct; however, it really seems to be advising Obama how to behave to win, i.e. manipulate the voters. If Obama is now saying things he believes, then is the writer advising him to lie; or does the writer believe Obama is lying now and needs to tell better lies? Most likely, the writer, like many of us, has no idea what Obama really believes.
What has turned me off to Obama was his acceptance speech. He talked for an hour about what "America" is him, and not once mentioned "liberty" or our constitution, when proposes to replace the most lawless and anti-liberty administration in our history. In addition, there was a report in the NYTimes in which another speaker at the convention who did mention these in the draft speech text had it pulled by an Obama staffer, this reported by the person giving the speech.
A candidate who can not talk about the importance of our liberties, especially one who taught a class in constitutional law, just is not getting my support. So I'll go with a third party candidate or write-in "None of the Above".
It is increasingly clear that there is ONE major party: the Corporate Power party, with Republican and Democratic wings, whose relative fortunes are of no real interest to me.
by
bhwhite (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments)
on Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 10:09:51 PM
''One thing I would like to see more information and discussion about that Lerner mentions: the "handlers" who have been steering Obama's campaign, how were they selected? Did he select them personally, or did he rely on an associate to do that? If so, who? Whom or whose interests do these handlers represent? What are their resumes? ''
I was wondering about that myself, given the fact that BO's campaign is incredibly inept--you really have to work hard at being so bad. On the Republican side, we know about Schmidt and a few others; roughly, this is the team, or at least the trainees of the team that won in 2004, they are just applying again the same approach, the same''Goebbelsian'' principles, and like in 2004, it works.
On the Dems side, one has the feelings that, even if the people in the team are not exactly the same as in 2004, their approach has not changed at all; those guys have not analyzed seriously why they failed 4 years ago, have not understood yet that the Republican propaganda machine cannot be dealt with with old recipes and politics as usual. And so far, the result is the same as in 2004.
by
francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 361 comments)
on Friday, September 12, 2008 at 4:10:43 AM
... there's plenty of room for you idiots to see the show.
And that's what it is, a show, and that's what you are, an idiot, if you're buying into any of this clap-trap. And I don't care if you have a title in front of your name or initials behind it, if you're doing anything but calling for an end to this charade you're as dumb as the '"powers-that-be" take you for.
I'm sorry, I just can't be nice anymore when it comes to dealing with people that still buy into this dog & pony show we refer to as our election process. If you're still nuancing why either of these two shills for the New World Order are doing what they're doing, you're a moron.
Let me make it easy for you idiots that still argue over where these phonies are and where the American people are on issues.
Neither of these candidates gives a crap about you. They don't represent you. They don't care what you think or feel. They don't even care whom you might vote for because the election is a farce from start to finish and you'll be voting on machines that have already determined the vote, and what the machines can't overcome various election fraud will.
The American people when asked about issues in a manner that isn't tainted to sway them to any particular answer is more progressive, however those companies that take polls are as corrupt as the MSM in bending things to a preconceived notion, so your opinions coming from polls are as much bull as the election process itself and any opinions formed from them to justify any conclusions can only be made by the most naive, gullible or stupid among us, of which there seems to be plenty.
It doesn't make any difference which one of these pathetic excuses for candidates makes it as POTUS, other than to play with our emotions one way or another, because their polices aren't ours and they don't work for us.
Think - when this election started there were a few candidates that garnered the most attention, not from the media, but from people, that actually talked about real issues and topics that resonated.
What happened to them?
The MSM pundits immediately went to work first ignoring them, than ridiculing and marginalizing them, and telling us whom we're suppose to be interested in. And they keep feeding you crap until most of the sheeple started repeating the phrases like hypnotized parrots until some started writing inane articles about why this candidate is doing what and voicing comments as vapid as vapor.
We're not a nation of total fools, but there are enough of them to make it appear as such.
Obama is set-up to make it close because that's how the "powers-that-'be" keep us at each others throats instead of focusing our attention on them and it makes for a good show.
Recently a poll was taken (I'm sighting this poll because it's so simple) in which both candidates and "none of the above" was featured, "none of the above" won with 64% of the vote.
If this election were to be anything it should be made a protest by us to those powers-that-be and we should all march into our respective voting places and throw a slip of paper in their faces with "none of the above" written on it and tell them they can verify that!
Because other than that we've all already lost no matter who "wins" this farce.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 1687 comments)
on Friday, September 12, 2008 at 9:11:43 AM
Exactly right. There's not a nickels worth of difference between the two; both will continue to militarize our country and only listen to big business, not the people. I was involved in the Ron Paul campaign, and you are right about that too. One of the few candidates who actually spoke up about our declining rights, and whether we need over 750 military bases around the world, and about sound money resonated with so many people; but the treatment he received by the MSM made it easy for many people to dismiss him as a kook. Meanwhile, every time we got together as a Ron Paul group and went out and talked to people, waved signs and bullhorned a busy intersection, the respone we got was overwhelming. Just the fact that over 10,000 enthusiastic people showed up at the Campaign for Liberty in ST Paul last week shows where the real heart of the people is: with someone who tells the truth, no matter what it costs them.
by
wxman2001 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 117 comments)
on Friday, September 12, 2008 at 11:02:16 AM
To Read Mr M's posts when it comes to this type of topic....
I read the article and the comments and it is all about what nuanced argument needed to be put forth, but wasn't, (for whatever reason)... How Obama was not negative enough, How Obama was not positive enough... Meanwhile, many of the same people making these comments ALREADY KNOW the truth, and that is the fact that OBAMA is beholden to the same corporate entities that McCain will be saying "YES" to..
On one one of the other threads I brought this up, and someone asked me.. No, he DEMANDED that I provide evidence that he is beholden to special interest, so I did, and he never responded... Does truth hurt THAT much?
Obama wants to have a National Police Force that is as well funded as the US Military... (paid for with what..) Why, on earth, would we need a national police force??? Oh, and take notes.. McCain said nothing against this idea.....
The real question we must all ask ourselves... How in the WORLD is it that people STILL believe that voting republican or democrat will bring about ANY CHANGE AT ALL???
too many people have stopped / never started getting it....
by
steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 669 comments)
on Friday, September 12, 2008 at 9:56:28 AM
I basically agree with Rabbi Lerner that Obama has lost steam, at least in part, because he has recently turned to the "center" apparently for political reasons, instead of standing firm for his idealism and vision. I think this was because he is following the advice of his campaign strategists, who do not have his idealism or his vision in their own hearts but who have joined his campaign principally because they thought they saw an opportunity to float to power by becoming part of a successful Presidential election campaign team and whose principal idea of winning an election is always to move to the "center". On the part of Mr. Obama, however, it might be awfully difficult to not listen to the so-called campaign expert strategists who have had "experience" in these matters and who probably insist that it will be suicidal for his campaign to stick too much to idealism and vision in the general election, as opposed to the Democratic primaries, because they, the campaign strategists, probably don't really care about the political agenda so much as about winning itself. But what is important for him and his campaign team to realize is that it is critically important to have a base of core supporters who are truly energized, even if they may not necessarily constitute a majority of the general electorate. See what has happened with McCain's choice of VP candidate Gov. Palin. Her views represent those of a rather small rightwing minority with extreme views, principally the Evangelicals. And yet, by energizing the small core supporters of the historical Republican voters, who had been at best lukewarm toward McCain, the Republican ticket has become so much stronger and viable practically overnight. In contrast, during the last several weeks, Obama has conceded and compromised, as Rabbi Lerner says, on issues critical to his core supporters in his effort to appease and accommodate the voters who probably will not vote for him anyway. What is even more ominous is that his campaign has begun to “respond” to the polls, rather than lead the debates and speeches on issues, by changing the sharpness of his rhetoric depending on the weekly or daily polls.Thus, his campaign has now lost any flavor of a “crusade,” at a time that many, many voters feel that the country needs nothing short of a crusade.After all, however, what he does in this campaign will reflect his real political skills and, most importantly, his ultimate idealism, vision and ambition (in the most respectful sense) for what he wants to do for his country and for his fellow citizens. If he ultimately fails because he falters and all of sudden becomes wimpy in his rhetoric and vision, that would not be because of his advisors but because he is himself unsure of what he is trying to do and why he is doing it.
by
Nathan Nahm (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 64 comments)
on Friday, September 12, 2008 at 11:48:34 AM
