Thomas wrote:The same is true for Obama's whole rhetoric about "hope" and "change". It's also a bull-crap issue, and it has very little to do with the way he would run the government if elected.
I disagree.
I dont know if I buy into the theory myself - I'm not quite sure how feasible it is. But there's clearly an underlying theory or philosophy of government to the way Obama weds the issues of government, and an electorate imbued with activist hope and an active willingness to push for change. It's not just pretty talk that's said because it sounds good.
Obama has been asked: you say you want to bring everyone to the table, talk with everyone, on health insurance reform for example -- but whence this notion that you can negotiate in good faith with these people? Isnt it more realistic to recognize them as the entrenched adversaries from the start and prepare your battle from there, bipartisan spirit be damned? This is much of the vibe behind Camp Clinton's critique.
But from what I understand, how Camp Obama conceives of a negotiation process that brackets everyone but nevertheless will not need involve an endless watering down of the proposals, is that there will be a strong role set aside for bottom-up organising, civic pressure, community-based lobbying. Mobilising the voters (or viewers, see FreeDuck's C-SPAN example) to become players in the game themselves. And bring down the opposition with a kind of pincher-like pressure, from the top down by the President and a Democratic majority in Congress, and from the bottom up by actively engaged, organised citizens.
This is a philosophy that stands in marked contrast with the Hillary world view, in which voters seem to primarily be
objects - people whose assent needs to be won once in a two/four years by hook or by crook so the executive will have the leeway to push her way through.
The Obama vision comes, from what I get, from his background in community work and activism, but also has a fairly extended theoretical background that's been built over the past couple of decades, in an alternate universe to the traditional power politics practiced in DC. I'm not much of a political philosopher, so dont ask me to explain properly. It's all way over my head. It's just that I read a handful of longer articles that explored this in some depth.
Do I think this alternative vision of how to achieve the goals of progressive politics is feasible? Realistic? E.g., how mobilisable is the American people as a social force, not just during the scandal-filled elections, but as a sort of continuous mass lobby for better policies?
I would have been extremely sceptical a year ago and still am sceptical, but I have to admit that the way Obama is built his campaign, focused on instilling political commitment on a mass base rather than just courting for votes, is impressive. He's largely succeeding, building an army of committed volunteers who are not just doing it because the union told them to, or because they are hardened party activists and would support any nominee, but because they really believe that here's a rare opportunity, a cause they believe in.
But how sensitive are the kind of power players that will be standing in the way of progressive policy to grassroots pressure? I mean, so you show the negotiations on health insurance on C-Span. The idea is, I suppose, to dangle the geeky equivalent of an
Idols type mechanism: millions are watching you, you have an opportunity to ingratiate yourself by coming up with constructive ideas; whereas if you do the traditional intrigue and blockade, they will be looking to vote you off the island, one way or another. Does a health insurance honcho care? Wouldnt you just gets lots of grandstanding instead?
Again, I'm totally out of my depth here, and so I'm just picking up on one example that I can easily imagine, and perhaps it's not the fairest. In short, I think it's definitely worth a try - why not, it should be a nice change from the mere power politics of cynical manipulation, which sees voters only as flocks that need to be herded once in a couple of years. But do I think it'll work? Mmmmwwaah..
But that's where the hope and change talk comes in. In order to invest people into a cause and make them willing to devote real time and energy to it, you dont just need to persuade them that they
agree with you - I agree with lots of things I wont make the time for to do something about. You need to get them emotionally invested in it, by persuading them that, yes, there's a real possibility to change things this time, yes, they have the power themselves to help that bring about, and yes, they will be listened to. You need to instill the kind of passion that the Republican conservatives successfully inspired in evangelical voters for two or three decades. You need something like MoveOn, without the radicalism and on a much larger scale.
But the justified cynicism of massively disaffected voters stands in between the current situation and a place where you could mobilise civil society on a greater scale. So the talk of hope and change is conceived here as a real strategical tool, not just as flattery words to please people. Whatever you think of the merits and feasibility of this whole philosophical foundation of this part of Obama's campaign - and again, if I am understanding it all correctly, I'm fairly sceptical; I'm afraid it'll all turn out to be pie in the sky and we'll end up wishing America had just elected a ruthless strategic operative like Hillary - just "bullcrap rhetoric" all this "hope" and "change" stuff is not.
Wow. And I thought Foxy had built the Golly Green Giant of Strawmen. Where the hell did you get the idea somebody thought Obama could do that? (Surely not what you quoted, right?)
