Beyond Personalities-- Is it possible to "reframe" our individual view of modern politics?

[Armstead]

This is kind of philosophical and speculative. But it is something I was thinking about last night while watching Obama's speech after Bill Clinton's speech.

The primaries are often cast as a contest of individuals. Do you like Hillary, Obama or Edwards best? Which one would be the best candidate?

But it is much bigger than that.

We all (myself included) tend to lock ourselves into a worldview as it applies to politics. And that determines which candidate best represents that.

I'll be honest and say that my own is locked into the hope for a restoration of the image of a diverse but solidly and unabashedly liberal and progressive Democratic Party that fights for those basic values on both a symbolic and specific level. A Grand Coalition of the decent and open minded.

The type of people who embody that include Paul Wellstone, John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, Dennis Kucinich, Hubert Humphrey, Dick Durbin, Marcy Kaptur, Sherrod Brown, Barbara Boxer, Barbara Lee, Shirley Chisholm, John Conyers, Jesse Jackson, Tom Hartman.....and many others.

That, I realize is a very wide ranging bunch, from mainstream moderate to what is called "far left". They aren't all perfect. (LBJ and Humphrey sullied themselves with Vietnam.)

But they all have one thing in common. They represent(ed) at their core a commitment to something clear and important -- Economic and Social Justice. With some exceptions, I feel I can fundamentally trust that they are (were) supporting a liberal/progressive belief in rectifying the excesses of the markets, providing support and opportunity to both the poor and the middle classes. They believe(d) that goivernment and the public sector is a necessary check and balance to the tendency of economic and political power to accumulate in a few hands. They support(ed) civil rights with no hedging. For the most part they also believe(d) in civil liberties.

In my own framing, while this spectrum is broad and I don't agree with everything they might do (or did), they represent a Democratic Party that is pulling in the same basic direction both ideologically and practically.

That's the framework of politics I grew up with and still hold. And it still exists in many quarters of the Democratic Party.

However, I've also seen that eroded and weakened and diluted and, in some cases deliberately attacked, by a brand of dominant Democratic politics that is not "moderate." Instead it is a brand of Democrat that is sending those basic set of values and principles off course. It has been steering the ship to the right, away from those core values. It has been collaborating with the CONservative ideology of the GOP and the corporate sector.

And a result, IMO, being a Democrat is no longer a reliable indication that someone shares my basic core beliefs. It is not the same as differing more moderate or to the left about degree or speed of change and reform. Instead it is a lack of trust that a Democratic leader shares the fundamental goals and values of a liberal and progressive vision.

So my underlying framework for contemporary political life (including the current and upcoming election) is always a desire to see a much more reliable commitment to the fundamental principles of liberalism and progressive populism.

That framework is why I identify most closely with the message of Dennis Kucinich and why I support John Edwards as the closest version of that in a mainstream package.

It's also why I am opposed to Clintonism.

And it's also why I am somewhat baffled and skeptical -- but hopeful -- about Obama. I certainly am not immune to the inspiration and optimism he projects. I certainly agree with his belief in building a larger coalition as the backbone of the Democratic Party.

But I also do not sense the clarity and core committment to the basic vision of liberal and progressive politics of those others I named. I'm skeptical because where the rubber meets the road, Obama may just be Clintonism in a newer package.

Watching his speech last night made me wonder if I'm just being a rigid old fart. Maybe I AM one of those "boomers" who are still stuck in the 60's. Maybe I'm being short-sighted, and don't see how the brand of liberal/progressive politics I believe in needs to be modernized.

Obama certainly did project a different image of the Democratic Party, as an amazingly intelligent, youthful, bi-racial politician with an inspirational and uplifting aura.

But still, I just don't have that core sense of trust that he wants to take the US in the same direction I believe it needs to be moving.

I honestly don't know. That's why I mentioned the question of re-framing. I believe we need to get back to some fundamental principles that have been lost over the last 30 years... But perhaps people like me need to open our minds more. Maybe we need to view modern life in more complex terms -- or in different terms.

It's a dilemma that Obama, as a strongly potential nominee and standard-bearer, is raising in teh larger sense of what a truly liberal/progressive coalition means these days.

[Armstead]

1. Kick

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. a thoughtful post

and one I agree with wholeheartedly. I think the difference between the Dems like us and those other Dems is in outlook. We see the importance of helping everyone better themselves. Personally, I see myself as a citizen of the world first, and as part of the whole of humanity, which is interconnected; what happens to one eventually effects us all. We are facing the most serious challenges that has ever faced humanity right now. Not only does the next President have to clean up Bush's mess and restore our standing internationally, he or she must also face the environmental crises. Ice melt, hotter summers/lack of potable drinking water could trigger mass evacuations, mass starvation, and massive unrest. Couple this with more and more countries having nuclear capability and the world-wide economic upheaval that is only now starting, and it makes you wonder who in their right mind would even want the job.

In the end, it may take someone who is willing to sacrifice themselves politically to achieve the greater goal of saving the nation. The only one of the candidates who I knew would be willing to do this is Kucinich, because he has done it before. Right now, I just hope he holds onto his House seat so that he can continue to fight for us another day. But what of the other candidates? Would any of them be willing to sacrifice their careers for the greater good?

[Armstead]

3. Good question

A deeper question is whether it is possible to demonstrate enough leadership to turn things in the right direction on these and other matters by actually getting a majority to support what is necessary.

Or is a form of political suicide required to do what is truly right?

Clinton wasn't willing to either make such a sacrifice or demonstrate the leadership to help pull the country in the basic direction of what would be the right things to do.

On the otehr hand (despite his awfulness on the Vietnam War), LBJ made a major sacrifice with Civil Rights legislation, acknowledging that he had probably lost the South for the Democratic Party by doing what was necessary.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Yes, I agree

It may or may not be a form of political suicide to do what is truly right. But one way to get more of the public on your side is to communicate effectively with them. FDR was a master at this. By starting his fireside chats, he was able to keep a majority of Americans on his side as he reinvented the US. On another thread where you and I both posted, a DUer made the point that you don't have to "like" a candidate to vote for them. Now that I think of it, I would disagree slightly with him. The President has to be "liked" to the extent that it enables him or her to persuade the public. Few people knew FDR, but his artful use of the radio (starting each chat with the words, "My friends")made him feel like a friend or neighbor who wanted to help them out. I think this "likability" is still needed today--and if a candidate reached out to the citizens, treating them with respect and asking them to help out, I think they will respond--if they perceive the candidate as someone who truly cares about them.

[Armstead]

15. Likability and/or Grit backed by substance

Likability can be useful, but what I believe is most important is committment.

I like Obama. My main question regarding him is his committment to the thread of Democratic liberal and progressive values referred to in my original post above.

I actually like the Clintons, but I strongly object to what they have and have not done with their personal popularity over the years. They did not use it to really lead the country in any significant direction. In fact, their popularity helped to gloss over their support for contradictory principles.

LBJ, on the other hand, was not very likable. But he was persuasive, and he used those persuasive powers to place poverty in the forefront of issues, and to push Congress to do something about it.

I guess what I'm saying here is that personalities can be applied in various ways. What matters is whether a politician is committed to the original principles of liberal and progressive politics, without waffling or backtracking from them.

[sam sarrha]

5. Stealth Thread....

[Armstead]

12. Please explain -- I thought it was quite open

[leftstreet]

6. Excellent post, you rigid old fart.

:)

Most of us old farts CAN'T reframe our views to fit the modern latte-liberal grab of the Dem party. And unfortunately we just keep dropping out of the voting process altogether. Which certainly benefits the one party system.

[Armstead]

7. Well, at least I do drink latte sometimes

I guess that makes a latte-drinking old fart

[Enrique]

8. It seems to me the party is going back to the left

I think it goes in cycles, and that it's headed in the right (correct) direction now. And I don't see much difference among the big three in regards to this. I'm very skeptical about your saying Edwards is significantly different than the other two, although I guess you didn't say it very strongly.

[leftstreet]

9. How do you see the party "going back to the left?"

:shrug:

[Enrique]

10. I think Al Gore nicely personfies it

he was a very conservative democrat, a founder of the DLC. As recently as 2000, he chose Joe Lieberman as VP and it wasn't particularly controversial among the party rank and file.

Now, Al Gore, who supported the Gulf War, is an antiwar leader, and has said he supports single-payer health insurance, and Joe Lieberman is hated by dem rank and file. DLC is a dirty word now, not so a short time ago. Class issues are a core theme of the democratic primaries, largely thanks to John Edwards, who also was recently a DLC star.

[Armstead]

11. The difference is the issues he's emphasizing

Edwards is the only candidate who is saying unambiguously that corporate power has become so dangerous, and that it needs to be brought back down to size in order to remove it as an obstacle to solving many otehr problems.

He's also the candidate who has zeroed in on poverty as a major problem in America.

The degree to which he is emphasizing that -- and not trying to play nice with those who have abused their power -- is what seperates him from the rest IMO.

[Enrique]

13. I know his rhetoric

I just don't believe it. I don't picture John Edwards taking office and bringing corporate power down to size. Sorry, I just don't see it happening. What I picture happening is Edwards being a conventional Democratic president, the difference being that he will have a lot of explaining to do to the more credulous progressives when he disappoints them.

I think rhetoric is somewhat important, and I am glad a populist message is part of the primaries, but I don't think progress happens by us voters taking progressive rhetoric at face value. The three candidates are roughly similar. The important differences are the ones between the parties.

[Armstead]

14. I believe he means it but I also recognize that progressives may need to...

...keep his feet to the fire.

But beyond Edwards' fate individually, he has brought out a basic set of facts that are obvious, but which have also been tragically ignored for too long by the Democratic Party overall.

[Tatiana]

16. KICK for substantive discourse n/t