Andrew Sullivan went and saw Obama yesterday and reports that this “agent of change” may be the liberal’s answer to Ronald Reagan:
I’m still absorbing the many impressions I got. But one thing stays in my head. This guy is a liberal. Make no mistake about that. He may, in fact, be the most effective liberal advocate I’ve heard in my lifetime. As a conservative, I think he could be absolutely lethal to what’s left of the tradition of individualism, self-reliance, and small government that I find myself quixotically attached to. And as a simple observer, I really don’t see what’s stopping him from becoming the next president. The overwhelming first impression that you get – from the exhausted but vibrant stump speech, the diverse nature of the crowd, the swell of the various applause lines – is that this is the candidate for real change. He has what Reagan had in 1980 and Clinton had in 1992: the wind at his back. Sometimes, elections really do come down to a simple choice: change or more of the same?Look at the polls and forget ideology for a moment. What do Americans really want right now? Change. Who best offers them a chance to turn the page cleanly on an era most want to forget? It isn’t Clinton, God help us. Edwards is so 2004. McCain is a throwback. Romney makes plastic look real. Rudy does offer something new for Republicans – the abortion-friendly, cross-dressing Jack Bauer. But no one captures the sheer, pent-up desire for a new start more effectively than Obama.
Sully may be on to something here. Last Saturday, in one of my more depressing posts, I said that “It smelled like 1979” all over again and that all the political stars seemed to be positioning themselves for an historic re-alignment. This isn’t news to people who follow politics, of course. But in the course of explaining why I thought the prognosticators may be right about the possibility of overturning the established order, I said this:
Of course, the big difference is that the Democrats don’t have a Ronald Reagan to take advantage of the situation. Nobody will ever confuse Hilliary’s shrill denunciations with the twinkle in the Gipper’s eye when he zinged an opponent. Nor will anyone fail to see the difference between the inspirational yet empty platitudes of Obama with Reagan’s soaring rhetoric that touched something so American in people’s souls.
Sullivan thinks that Obama may be the most effective liberal advocate in his lifetime. I’m not sure how old Andrew is but those of us of a certain age clearly remember Hubert Humphrey, who could orate rings around the Senator from Illinois. And Ted Kennedy can still wow a Democratic audience with more liberal red meat than Obama tosses to his audiences.
Having said that, I see where Sully is going with this. In fact, he comes very close to what is surely going to be the biggest issue for Republicans going into the general election; how far and how fast can you run away from George Bush?
I fear he could do to conservatism what Reagan did to liberalism. And just as liberals deserved a shellacking in 1980, so do “conservatives” today. In the Bush era, they have shown their own contempt for their own tradition. Who can blame Obama for exploiting the big government arguments Bush has already conceded?And just as Carter branded liberalism in a bad way for a generation, so Bush and his acolytes have poisoned the brand of conservatism for the foreseeable future. When you take a few steps back and look closely, you realize that Bush has managed both to betray conservatism and stigmatize it all at once. That’s some achievement.
The Democrats of 1980 were stuck with Carter, an incumbent running for re-election. Not so Republicans in 2008 with Bush. Unfortunately, there is precious little a Republican nominee can do to separate himself from this tar baby. He’s going to be a presence in the campaign – the Democrats will see to that little detail. And the party is going to have to give him one of the prime time slots during convention week. (Not doing so would make more news than anything Bush will say.) But other than that, Bush will be forced into the background as Republicans will desperately try and talk about the future, trying to ignore the last 8 years of just plain bad government – bad ideas, bad management, and bad execution.
But is Obama in the best position to take advantage of this desire for change? I have seen his basic stump speech 3 times and after each presentation, I am left with the impression that there really isn’t much there. “Liberal pablum” understates what Obama substitutes for any serious fleshing out of ideas or themes. It is feel good rhetoric taken to its extreme and logical conclusion; everybody wins if you vote for me.
Forget the silly gaffes of recent weeks – although Andrew points out something that I also have noticed and is extremely troubling. That is, the “fatigue factor.” A younger man such as Obama cannot be on a schedule this far out from the primaries where he is being asked to campaign 20 hours a day. His “fatigue” must be attributed to the atrocious mismanagement of his time by his staff. And when he uses fatigue as an excuse to explain his misstatement of the number of deaths that occurred in the tornadoes in Kansas, something is definitely amiss and needs to be rectified quickly.
As far as other similarities with Reagan, there is no denying the soaring notes of optimism present in his speeches. Sully noticed too:
At a couple of points in his speech, he used the phrase: “This is not who we are.” I was struck by the power of those words. He was reasserting that America is much more than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and Katrina and fear and obstinacy and isolation. And so he makes an argument for change in the language of restoration. The temperamental conservatives in America hear a form of patriotism; and the ideological liberals hear a note of radicalism. It’s a powerful, unifying theme. He’d be smart to deepen and broaden it.
This is no “blame America first” liberal. Conservatives should note that this line of attack will fall flat as Obama clearly sees America as a force for good in the world. But Andrew points up the most dramatic difference between Obama and Reagan; “restoration” vs. redemption.
The Reagan campaign of 1980 had elements of both a political campaign and crusade. It was a quasi-religious movement with its overarching theme being redeeming America from 50 years of liberalism. The idea that America had sinned and needed to recant its apostasy was a powerful force in bringing Reagan the political re-alignment he sought.
Can Obama capture some of that magic? Right track/wrong track poll numbers over the last few years have been historically high as far as America being on “the wrong track” under Bush. But those numbers were high in 2004 also and Kerry failed to break through. There must be something else afoot among the electorate that would act as a catalyst to propel someone as liberal as Obama all the way to the White House. A loss of faith in America itself would fill the bill, but I don’t see that anywhere at the moment. People have simply lost faith in Bush and the Republicans – a not inconsequential development but something the Republicans could rectify relatively quickly. A Guiliani or Romney candidacy would alter the face of the party at least temporarily and give hope to some of the more moderate elements in the GOP.
Andrew is no doubt in thrall of Obama’s delivery and magnetism. I was too when I first heard him. But rather than grow on you, the more you listen to what the Senator has to say, the more you realize how little there is to recommend him as far as concrete ideas and even definitive themes attached to his candidacy. Not quite an empty suit but certainly a lot more style than substance.
It is still an uphill battle for Obama to capture the Democratic nomination. Comparisons to Reagan notwithstanding, it appears that even with “the wind at his back,” as Sully says, he will have to sharpen his message and flesh out his programs and themes if he is to overtake Hillary Clinton and have a shot at the White House.
8:43 am
Randy Andy Sullivan has nothing of use to say. He said that Kerry was the conservative candidate in 2004. Just let him marry his boyfriend and he will go away. Obama is an empty suit, can you imagine if Dan Quayle made the “10,000 people were killed in Kansas” statement that Obama made? Also nobody with names like Obama and Huckabee are going to be elected President. By the way if Hilary had Bush’s economy i.e. low inflation, low unemployment – they would be carving her face on Mt. Rushmore in a heartbeat.
12:05 pm
George Bush had concrete ideas and programs. All in all, I’d rather take a flyer with Obama’s rhetoric, decency and charisma than chance another conservative.
What’s the worse he could do? Increase government spending wildly? Allow porous borders and illegal immigration? Start a war that he can’t win or figure a way out of? Cause gas prices to go up? Cut inspection of food and make a lot of people sick with contaminated vegetables? Create a convoluted, costly new entitlement program for senior? Oh, sorry. That’s seven years worth of conservative policies and programs.
2:02 pm
rick—
I’m not certain what Bush state Obama flips to the Democrats. And now that he is one of 14 Democrats to vote against the troops while they are in harm’s way, he will inherit the same problems Kerry did in explaining this kind of vote in language other than “I wanted to appeal to kooks and moonbats to get nominated.”
Obama has a bigger issue he isn’t looking at, namely, that he doesn’t come off as holier-than-thou. If Barack Obama turns into St. Obama, the “magic negro” kind of attacks will stick.
ed—
I fear you misunderstand someone who compromises their principles, versus those who have opposite principles. The Democrat Congress will not cut the prescription drug program no more than they will scrap Ted Kennedy’s No Child Left Behind bs. Instead—the want to complete government’s takeover of the health care market, raise taxes, appease terrorists, and implement tariffs that will make goods more expensive for Americans.
Despite the mistakes Bush has made, I look a the Dem agenda and say no thanks. The era of Gephardts and Liebermans is over—today’s Dems are owned by leftist anti-American hardliners. Granted, the Republicans have their own crop of hardliners, but they have a few moderates like Romney, Giuliani, and McCain. And Fred Thompson, who while is more conservative, speaks in sensible tones, as opposed to the shrill Ann Coulter-Bill O’Reilly bile we hear every day.
2:42 pm
Well said Bowden.
What I don’t understand, is why doesn’t the senate just have a straight up/down vote. Are you FOR the troops, or are you AGAINST the troops. Clearly, the democrats would vote AGAINST, every single time. Might as well have a straight up/down vote for freedom too while we’re at it. I’d like to know where my senators stand so I know who to vote against.
Ah, Senator Obama, you voted not support our troops, AND you voted against freedom? You won’t be getting my vote, that’s for sure. It’s very simple. There will be no “magic negro” running my country anytime soon.
I can tell you one thing for certain. When I talk to my marine friends fighting in Iraq right now, they sure as hell know who is for them and who is against them. They are also looking very forward to their (twice) extended tours.
5:24 pm
I’d give Obama a 1 in 3 shot at the nomination.
And seriously folks, the democrat nomination process is essentially going to decide who the next president is.
6:27 pm
Bottom line is this. Hillary Clinton wins the Dem Nomination. No question about it. If Obama doesn’t concede to her prior to the Dem Convention, he’ll simply end up as another suicide victim in a car in a Virginia park. No note, no reason, no more interference.
You didn’t really think he asked for Secret Service protection because of a threat from a regular citizen, do you?
5:49 am
Saturday Morning Links…
A fine day for the beach, but I am going to Rhode Island this morning for a couple of days of sailing. Duke group mocks Group of 88. Here’s their newspaper piece.Tawfik Hamid on how to end Islamophobia. Exactly.New York’s Bravest lowering standards…
10:59 am
No, Hillary will not necessarily win the nomination and no the Dem candidate will not necessarily win the White House. Remember how the msm had all but nominated Howard Dean and how Gore then Kerry were supposed to beat Bush?
Many Democrats cringe at Hillary’s high negatives. She’s shrill and unpersonable. They know that if they nominate her the right will resurect all the Clinton-era scandals again and again and again and….
Finally, just because the public isn’t happy with Iraq doesn’t mean they want a return to Carterism. Not a single Dem candidate has a credible foreign policy, and Edward’s recent speech on military policy shows how out to lunch he is. Obana is another Carter. Hillary, we all know, would starve the military of funds for her big-government programs.
11:45 am
Affability, especially from a candidate seeking to become the nation’s first African American president, is definitely an asset, but being able to present your case well only lasts for so long if there’s nothing there to back it up. That’s what happened in New York back in 1989, when David Dinkins defeated Rudy Giuliani to become the city’s first African-American mayor.
Dinkins wasn’t as polished before the cameras as Obama is, but he had an affable personality that calmed many voters who might have been wary of voting for a more aggressive black candidate (the election came two years after Al Sharpton burst onto the scene with the Tawana Brawley incident). But when it came to actual governance, there wasn’t enough substance there (or, in the end the will) to make the changes that the city needed, and he ended up losing narrowly to Giuliani in his re-election bid.
Obama does seem to be a little quicker on the uptake than Dinkins was to recognize problems, but he also faces a hostile primary race against Hillary and Edwards that is more likely to expose any lack of substance before he has a chance to get the nomination (though it’s hard to picture John Edwards beating out any candidate with a pulse based on him being the candidate of substance).
1:07 pm
As a [fill in your favorite derogatory term] centrist I don’t see why you people are down. No Democratic candidate is a slam dunk with us and it is the [insert derogatory term ] middle that determines election. If you want to win the first step is to tone down the insults and stick to common sense solutions to problems [with out denigrating the other side]. Reducing the size of government was what I thought I was voting for when I went for Bush in his first election, but obviously the Republicans had another idea in the form of Rove spending his way to election victories. Get back to your roots and this time stick to them and the Republicans can win, but you have got to cut out the partisan shrill to be taken seriously. Worry less about what the left is doing and more about what the right is not doing and the elections will take care of themselves.
4:56 am
obama is no Ronald Regan as was stated in that famous debate. I’m afraid if he comes close to catching up her he will disappear in a most mysterious way. People who cross the clintoons have a habit of doing that.
4:29 pm
The first question JFK was asked when he announced his candidacy was “will you accept the vp spot?” Obama may have a lot of problems, but being non-specific [which might bother us wonks as vagueness] is not going to hurt him with people thirsting for change.