home

The Politics of Contrast Triumphant

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 09:02:07 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Todd Beeton, I take my opportunity to associate myself with the remarks of a Nobel Prize winner:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Both candidates ended up running some version of a turn out the base election. It just so happens that this year the Democratic base is much bigger than the Republican base.

. . . PAUL KRUGMAN: I was critical of Obama early on for this notion that we were going to be bi-partisan, it wasn't going to happen...

STEPHANOPOULOS: You wanted a base election...

KRUGMAN: ...and here it is.

Indeed, here it is. Events have provided Barack Obama with the opportunity for a progressive mandate. Let's hope he takes that opportunity.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< 3 Weeks Out: The Polls And LV Screens | Monday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Politics of Contrast Triumphant | 56 comments (56 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Congratulations to Dr. Krugman (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by KeysDan on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 09:18:15 AM EST
    It would be a wise move for Senator Obama to bring him into his top tier of advisors during these final, critical days before the election. In addition to his political savvy, Dr. Krugman is a real teacher, possessing an ability to make complex and complicated economic and financial issues understandable. Moreover, it would, in my view, be a good idea to move simultaneously Austen Goolsbee down several notches in the tier of economic advisors.

    Hope springs eternal... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 09:32:23 AM EST
    but my reality based cynicism usually stomps on it and kicks it to the curb.  

    Parent
    I don't think critics are ... (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 09:33:04 AM EST
    allowed in camp Obama.

    Parent
    Is anyone following what Brown is doing... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Salo on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 10:21:54 AM EST
    ...at Number 10?  There's a big column in the NYT about him praising his financial policy.

    Parent
    Seems to me (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 12:00:39 PM EST
    from the brief clip of his speech I heard on NPR this morning, that he is stepping into the leadership gap left by people's distrust of GWB and USA economic policy. He sure sounds a lot more reassuring than Smirky McChimp.

    Parent
    This is also ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 10:31:14 AM EST
    a fun article on Brown's recent "comeback":


    Why the crisis puts a spring in the Prime Minister's step -
    A re-energised Gordon Brown has been given a second chance to persuade the voters to respect him and listen to him

    I always thought Brown had the makings of becoming a truly great PM. Maybe the crisis will give him that chance.  And Cameron might rue the day he made the PM for life joke.

    Parent

    now if only Obama would stop (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 09:18:55 AM EST
    running that stupid "golden mean" healthcare ad. . .

    Yup, I think this is (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by dk on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 09:29:43 AM EST
    definitely the most recent example of why BTD is, sadly, not going to get what he hopes for.

    Obama is promising the American people, now, that he will not develop, and will actively fight against, progressive health care reform.  I just don't see how it could get any clearer than that, unless he is setting himself up to prove himself to be a liar after winning the election.

    Parent

    There is no hope at all that Obama (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Pepe on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 10:49:24 AM EST
    will ever be a Progressive. He let us know that long ago. Even wrote a letter to us saying so. I don't understand how some can keep wishing for something that is clearly not to be. Sadly Obama will cement the Democratic Party in the center in a worse way than Clinton ever did.

    Hillary is no pure Progressive but she would have been more left in domestic policies than Obama will ever be. Not afraid to not toe the line in policy either like HOLC for instance.

    Obama/Biden? Progressives lost this election plain and simple.

    Parent

    Oh, drat... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Abbey on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 11:45:15 AM EST
    ...and all this time I thought we were winning.

    "No hope at all"?

    Parent

    What's behind door #3? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    With Obama, that's how I feel.  I know Barack Obama is not John McCain.  That's the only thing I am certain of.  

    Parent
    That would be a switch... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 10:06:29 AM EST
    usually politicians lie to the people, and do the bidding of big business.

    Imagine one who lied to big business and did the people's bidding...That would be something!

    Parent

    I think Harry Truman came close to that. (none / 0) (#12)
    by tigercourse on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 10:13:47 AM EST


    Parent
    Our last great president, imo....n/t (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 10:17:15 AM EST


    Parent
    Of course, (none / 0) (#29)
    by bocajeff on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 11:24:23 AM EST
    He was reviled by a vast majority of the population (from both parties) when he left office...

    Parent
    My favorite part was when Krugman ... (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 09:30:18 AM EST
    corrected Stephanopoulos' Freudian slip earlier in the show, when he had said "partially privatize the banks" when he meant "nationalize."

    I also liked how Krugman casually tore apart all the nonsense George Will was spouting.

    For the Next 22 Days (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by The Maven on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 09:35:45 AM EST
    I think there's little question that Obama keeps pushing the politics of contrast and running more towards the Democratic base than to the center, or at least that's my hope.  Thus will he achive a strong victory.

    But how he then chooses to govern beginning on January 20 is another matter altogether, as I believe he's far more likely to use this national crisis as a reason to rule from the center, with policies designed to attract more than a few Republicans -- both in Congress, where their numbers, though further diminished, will still be significant, and in the wider sense as well.  David Broder may be singing Obama's praises, much to our discontent.

    We must also keep in mind that the larger Democratic majorities in the House and Senate will not automatically translate into progressive majorities, as a considerable number of the new Dems will turn out to be a lot more "Blue Dog" style than we might have liked them to be.

    Of course, with events on the ground changing so quickly, trying to predict how anyone will govern more than three months from now is a fool's errand (would anyone have guessed in July or early August that the Bush administration would embrace nationalization?), which is why I so happily put in my two cents.

    If Obama has a serious brain in his head (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by sallywally on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 09:42:25 AM EST
    he must be grasping that his whole premise of "postpartisanship" was unworkable hooey. And his economic views, too.

    Of course, maybe he could spin the postpartisanship as getting the Repubs on line with a (relatively) serious progressive agenda.

    I don't hope very intensely for that, but if he doesn't respond in some way to the fact of Gore and Krugman (not to mention Carter and MLK), I see him as a bit W-like in terms of stubbornness.

    I agree - put Goolsbee way down in the structure.

    Parent

    One of the major reasons I (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by litigatormom on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 11:14:47 AM EST
    supported Clinton over Obama during the primaries was because I thought her health care plan was superior to Obama's. Obama's is better than McCain's, of course, but that's in large part because McCain's plan is really geared towards enabling insurers to gouge people even more than they already do. Obama's plan, IMO, was the product of an attempt to reassure Republicans that his health care plan was less "radical" and not "socialized nationalized medicine."

    However, I do not think that Obama is a stubborn man, and I do think that given the turmoil in the economy, he may well be open to re-thinking his health care plan. After all, we are now talking about nationalizing much of the banking industry. As people find themselves in the middle of a recession, providing universal health care that truly lowers costs will be an important step in allaying the public's fears about the financial consequences of a serious illness -- fears that have only grown in the past month.

    Additionally, since the convention, Obama has embraced Democratic values much more than he did during the primaries, and has been more willing to explicitly criticize Republican ideologies and policies. He is not, and is unlikely to become a progressive; his inclination is to be conciliatory. There are benefits to that approach; I think his refusal to sink to John McCain's level in responding to McCain's false attacks  has impressed voters. In the midst of a financial maelstrom, his calm has been reassuring.

    I hope that Obama will reconsider his health care proposals once he is in office. I think now more than ever universal healthcare is urgently needed to protect the public health as well as to allay their concerns about the diminishing value of their homes and savings. He would do well to take advice from Krugman on that score. Krugman's book, "The Conscience of a Liberal," is a powerful analysis of why universal health care is an essential tool in preserving the economic security of the middle class as well as poor people.

    Parent

    It's difficult to say (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by lilburro on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 12:38:27 PM EST
    what's going to happen with healthcare.  The Obama/Biden leadership is difficult to read.  This ad suggests Obama is going to keep running to the right of what I want from him.  See:  Plain Dealer Blog.  Really, that's nothing less than simplifying, then demonizing, better healthcare ideas.  

    But yesterday in Scranton Hillary and Joe Biden hit the issue of healthcare hard.  Biden at least has conceded a lot of ground to her as an authority on the subject.  They're barely trying to take back that issue from her.  

    Here at least is a place where vague hopes have some concrete basis (iow, Hillary's closeness to this campaign) - it is possible they will cede the issue to Hillary and allow her to take control of the healthcare bill they wish to pass.  

    The transcript of Hillary's remarks is here.  Nobody rips apart Republicans with such aplomb.

    According to the Republicans in this new global economy, America can't win unless most Americans lose. It makes absolutely no sense, but that is truly what they believe. That's why they ignored the home mortgage crisis until it became a financial crisis.



    Parent
    Hmmm ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 11:29:37 AM EST
    He is not, and is unlikely to become a progressive; his inclination is to be conciliatory. There are benefits to that approach;

    There's also the chance of him becoming an economic Neville Chamberlain.

    Parent

    I'm not sure what you mean (none / 0) (#34)
    by litigatormom on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 11:46:57 AM EST
    Are you saying he will sell us out to the Republicans? Let them have Social Security/The Sudenland in an act of appeasement, and then let them overrun the rest of the economy?

    I don't think so. I think he will be less progressive than I would like, but I do not believe he is a crypto-Republican.

    Parent

    Agreed -- that's a program (none / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 11:55:22 AM EST
    'way too big and noticeable to be bargained away behind the scenes, and not the sort of thing a centrist will do -- especially not one who will, like any first-term president, focus on winning a second term.  

    It's second terms that tend to be so interesting.  

    Parent

    Think about it for a second ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 12:06:47 PM EST
    who would you appease in an economic crisis that would show you're not a progressive?

    (Hint:  Republicans is not the answer.)

    Parent

    yes indeedy, (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by cpinva on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 10:09:12 AM EST
    there is presently a huge opportunity for a progressive mandate. the pity is that the democratic party didn't choose one for its presidential ticket.

    granted, obama's not as whacked out as mccain, but don't seriously delude yourself into thinking he's some kind of real progressive.

    real progressives don't vote to give the gov't more power to poke around your private life, without a warrant or probable cause.

    real progressives don't vote to confirm a retrograde, legal nutjob as chief justice of the supreme court. they just don't.

    come talk to me when the dems actually put a real progressive on the ticket, and not just by contrast to the latest looney tune the republicans have nominated.

    Obama didn't vote to confrim Roberts. (none / 0) (#13)
    by tigercourse on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 10:15:41 AM EST


    Parent
    No, he didn't ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 10:25:20 AM EST
    but he defended people who did:

    I was deeply disturbed by some statements that were made by largely Democratic advocacy groups when ranking member Senator Leahy announced that he would support Judge Roberts. Although the scales have tipped in a different direction for me, I am deeply admiring of the work and the thought that Senator Leahy has put into making his decision. The knee-jerk unbending and what I consider to be unfair attacks on Senator Leahy's motives were unjustified. Unfortunately, both parties have fallen victim to this kind of pressure.

    This may have confused the OP.

    Parent

    Man, unless people were sending Leahy (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by tigercourse on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 10:31:40 AM EST
    death threats, that was a silly thing for Obama to say. "How dare anyone critisize Senator Leahy for making a mistake!"

    Parent
    Triumphant? What did we win (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 10:12:05 AM EST
    already?

    Palm Sunday. (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 10:51:20 AM EST


    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 12:30:44 PM EST
    We did.

    Parent
    What we won was . . . "yes"? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 12:34:56 PM EST
    Well, I'll go put my yes in the bank -- and look forward to adding to with all the yes I save on health insurance.  And I'm glad to know that a lot of yes boosted my retirement funds and property value back where they were.  

    Whew, yes, I can! feel better now.

    Parent

    Post partisanship (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by bocajeff on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 10:20:18 AM EST
    It's easy to be post-partisan with huge majorities in congress...

    I'm not holding my breath...The last two times the Dems have had the Presidency and both houses of congress were Jimmy Carter and the disastrous (politically speaking) first 2 years of Clinton.

    But all this is really silly when you look at history. America tends to change political parties after 8 years anyway. Throw in high gas prices and an economic meltdown and the Dems win easily. You can say all you want about political theory but it's really that simple.

    Sad but true... (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 10:29:44 AM EST
    I wish this election could be won on vision, leadership and sound policies but it seems it will be won largely on mere circumstance.

    Parent
    Sure wouldn't make for an interesting (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 10:38:12 AM EST
    blog though.

    Parent
    Actually it would, (none / 0) (#31)
    by bocajeff on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 11:28:05 AM EST
    We could focus on things that actually help from the community on up instead of waiting for the government help on down...

    Reminds me of what is being done with micro-loans around the world...

    Parent

    The ground shifted underneath our candidate (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 10:35:07 AM EST
    Will he keep up with it, or try to move the playing field back to where he is most comfortable?

    It will be interesting to watch.

    Maybe the airheads at CNN (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 10:46:15 AM EST
    will listen to the Nobel Prize winner (and BTD).  Wolf Blitzer and the best political team on television keeps telling me about those "all important Independent voters".

    Politics Of Contrast? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Pepe on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 11:17:14 AM EST
    More like politics of Opportunism.

    We all know Obama was running a terrible campaign when it came to the economy (which showed he doesn't have a clue how to straighten it out). Then the financial meltdown gave him something to hang his hat on and even with that he has not been committal in how he sees the future and how to fix it.

    Our economic future will remain in the hands of those who screwed it up in the first place just as it has been for the last several weeks.

    Hey... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Abbey on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 11:51:32 AM EST
    ....welcome back to the Obama bashers.  It just hasn't been as much fun without you.

    Let's win the election before we start complaining about what Obama will or will not do.

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 12:29:35 PM EST


    Parent
    But to get a progressive mandate... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by lambert on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 12:55:36 PM EST
    ... you have to ask for progressive policies, yes? It's not enough for advocates to say that you're progressive.

    Advocating HOLC in his forthcoming "middle class rescue" speech would be a good way to do that.

    That's not to say that Obama won't get a mandate -- and FDR did, as my Obama supporting friends remind me, often, run on balancing the budget -- but it will be a mandate for "change" and Obama the person, not progressive change.

    Forgot to say... (none / 0) (#64)
    by lambert on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:34:07 PM EST
    ... nice way to ignore the point of the comment, too.

    McCain tries to steal HOLC, but from Obama? Nada. You don't defend that, of course -- because you can't.


    Parent

    So sad... (none / 0) (#69)
    by lambert on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 03:29:35 PM EST
    "Monomaniacally" like Nouriel Roubini, Yalies Jonathan G.S. Koppell and William N. Goetzmann, and Howell Jackson (the budget Dean at Harvard Law) -- as anybody who clicks through can see. Why do you even try?

    But I guess in your circles, being able to throw around a word like "panacea" really adds to your cred.... Good luck with that.

    Parent

    The Progressive illusion (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by OldCity on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:17:25 PM EST
    that many of you are under mystifies me.

    I'm a staunch Democtrat, but one who is under no illusion that traditional "progressivism" will ever take hold in America.  Ain't gonna happen, and is certainly not a governing philosophy that's congurent to Democratic (party) ideals.

    There's a substantial difference between endorsing some "progressive" ideas, such as universal healthcare, better financial regulation or attention to global warming, and actually being a progressive.  True progressivism requires the essential diminishment of Federalism.  That is not going to happen.  The public doesn't want it.  Not only that, it's impossible to imagine widespread support on the state level for national candidates that want to curtail state authority over myriad items.  

    If you mean "liberal", then say it.  Because really, reading these posts, that's what I see being demanded.  And that's cool.  Naive, but cool.  I'm as lefty as they come, but this (presumptive) victory is not some triumph of liberalism.  It's a reaction against the war policy of the administration and the sequelae of poor regulation of the markets.  It's not a wholesale endorsement of a far more centralized, stronger federal government.  The population is not breaking down the door to advance civil rights or reform immigration or to allow for transfer payments to undocumented workers...none of that is out there.  

    Obama is going to offer balance.  He's certainly going to have a liberal bent, but I think he's seen the damage that extremism can wreak, and how it can, eventually, derail a party and a government.  So, you should expect him to be measured.    

    Anything less than ... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:42:29 PM EST
    a bold progressive (I'd go so far as to say Left Wing) policies will result in a failed presidency.

    The Righter Wingers and the Centrists have had their try, and they've driven the country into a ditch.

    Let's return to the FDR-like policies that made this country the envy of the world.

    Parent

    You keep using that word. (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Farmboy on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 01:57:18 PM EST
    I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Progressive movements, and the various progressive agendas, have been an integral part of this country since the 19th century.  They are rather firmly entrenched in all parts of our society.

    Progressivism is not an illusion - unless you're confused about the meaning of that word as well.

    Parent

    You mean Republican Progressivism (none / 0) (#49)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:06:09 PM EST
    a la Fighting Bob La Follette in the 1890s?  

    Parent
    He spoke for a movement that held some values (none / 0) (#51)
    by Farmboy on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:39:56 PM EST
    that we would see as progressive, yes.  There have been many progressive movements, on the right and the left, Republican and Democratic.

    The common denominators of those movements are what we still to this day hold to be progressive values. Issues of the day, such as entering into WWI or seeking a weakened federal system in response to a silver/gold currency valuation, do not define the movement as a whole.

    Parent

    Actually, the programs (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:07:33 PM EST
    put in place, the more liberal programs, came as much or more from the Populists and the Socialists -- but I think you know that. :-)  

    Parent
    Yeah, great, (none / 0) (#52)
    by OldCity on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 02:45:16 PM EST
    but what sort of progressive issues do you want pursued?  

    If you read what I wrote, you'll see that I agree that certain progressive ideas should be pursued, and will be.  That's different from adapting a wholesale "progressive" agenda.  the progresive movements advocated much more than than narrowing the gap between classes (via healthcare, for example), and liberalizing the social agenda.  The progressive movements demanded a much more powerful central government.  Now, we've already seen what happens when an executive commandeers powers not previously contemplated...a true progressive wouldn't have any problem with that.  

    So, acknowledge the fact that you're in favor of the liberal ideas advicated by progressives, the more draconian ones, not so much.  "Progressive" isn't just a tag line for "liberal"...I don't think it means what you think it means.

    Parent

    I never claimed that liberal and progressive (none / 0) (#54)
    by Farmboy on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:00:29 PM EST
    are synonymous - that's your straw man that you like to knock down.  

    I do however rather doubt that you know what I'm "in favor of."  I'll "acknowledge" that.

    Parent

    The reason I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by OldCity on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 03:49:35 PM EST
    is that you didn't say, which was the leading question.  

    Which Progressive ideas do you favor and which do you think aren't good?  You enumerated some of the more out of date ideas which really aren't relevant to this era.

    It's not a "straw-man" (such a ridiculous phrase.  whenever anyone doesn't agree, they just throw that out, like it means something) to state that people co-mingle the two philosophies all the time.  They are different.  You acknowledged THAT, at least.

    There's been a peculiar adoption of the word.  I'm allowed to have issue with that, since certain Progressive ideas would be very bad for this country.  It's not illiberal, for example, to state that increasing the strength of the executive is a bad idea - though that is a particular tenet of American Progressivism.  So stop tagging my argument as a "straw-man".  The issue is complex and deserves more valid discussion.  Merely wishing for a "progressive" candidate doesn't carry any specificity whatsoever and certainly doesn't explain what you mean.    

    Parent

    I couldn't agree more, with one addition. (none / 0) (#60)
    by WillBFair on Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 07:09:07 PM EST
    I've found that progressivism means living the ideal in one's life: serving the poor, planting trees, riding the bus, etc...
    Expecting the government to heal the Universe, with such powerful opposing forces out there, is hopelessly naive.

    Parent
    some last minute (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 12:02:51 AM EST
    mccain supporters are forgetting you are limited to four comments a day on this site expressing your criticism of the Democratic ticket.

    The Politics of Contrast Triumphant | 56 comments (56 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment