On President Obama & 2012

[H2O Man]

I would like to share a couple of thoughts on President Barack Obama, and the upcoming 2012 election. These comments are not intended to be either pro- or anti-Obama; rather, they are some ideas about what he represented to this country in 2008, and how his experiences in office compare and contrast to two other recent Democratic Presidents. My intent is to serve up some food for thought, in hopes that there may be a range of responses ….. offering different interpretations of the basic premises that I am offering here.

Let's start with a basic in the study of sociology, having to do with “authority.” There are generally three distinct types of authority within groups of people, although there can definitely be degrees of overlap within them. The first is “traditional”: this is found first in early societies. It may be best illustrated in the context of tribalism, where leaders were identified based upon personal ability. Hence, one individual may be recognized as the most capable hunter, and thus enjoy the status of “leader” on hunts. Another may be the most skilled in dealings with other groups of people, and be the leader in that area. Traditional authority remains in effect in many ways in our modern world.

The second type is bureaucratic authority. We see this in both the political and business world in modern society. The person in a position of authority may, or may not, be the most capable in the field. But they are “boss,” and can exercise a rigid authority over those “beneath” them. Everything from school systems to industry to government to the military are typically run on bureaucratic authority.

The third type is charismatic authority, where one individual appears to have unique gifts of leadership that result in their being recognized as leaders. The most gifted of these may be the prophets of traditional societies, and/or the rabble-rousing martyrs within bureaucratic societies. The less gifted in modern culture tend to be fads and are absorbed by the larger society.

Throughout his adult life, leading up to his 2008 election, Barack Obama's authority was largely charismatic. Like Martin Luther King, Jr., he definitely had overlap with the authority of systems, or bureaucracy. King went to the university setting to become a minister; Obama to become an attorney. Martin considered a career in teaching to get away from the hectic life of the top civil rights leader in America; Obama's experience as a professor of law enhanced his ability to become president. Yet the primary characteristic that differentiated Barack Obama from other community organizers and professors was his personal charisma.

The political machine centered in Chicago that helped Barack Obama become a state official, then US Senator, before his astonishing election in 2008, recognized the power of his charismatic authority. Indeed, his record of accomplishments and experience in government could not have justified his being favored over some of the other candidates in the democratic primaries. It was the combination of his obvious intelligence and his uncanny skills in communicating the strength of hope that attracted the support of so many Americans.

The fact that is did become the first black president in this country is, by definition, proof of his charismatic authority. So, too, is the intensity of the hatred that a segment of Americans, who we can identify as the “Tea Party,” direct towards him. And I want to be absolutely clear that I am not talking about those people who simply disagree – often strongly – with the positions he takes, the policies he endorses, or the tactics he uses. No, I mean those people who would approve of his actions if they were proposed by a Sarah Palinite, and who oppose him when it would clearly be in their best interests not to.

The Tea Party hatred for President Obama is actually rooted in traditional authority. They openly express their suspicions that “he's not one of our tribe.” The depth of their paranoia can be viewed in the group-think delusions, such as the nonsense about his birth certificate or his religious beliefs.

The Tea Party is also hostile to the bureaucratic authority of the “systems republicans,” though obviously not to anywhere near the same extent as towards Obama. The recent debt ceiling crisis shows that they view the systems republicans as being too comfortable with Obama. In many ways, this dynamic could lead to a split among republicans similar to when Barry Goldwater became the republican candidate in 1964.

The Democratic Party also has a potential for a very real split. It may be unlikely to threaten President Obama's re-election at this time, yet it has serious implications. For a growing number of Democrats, it appears that one of two things has happened: first, that Barack Obama was a very charismatic candidate, who is unable to deliver leadership within the bureaucracy of DC; or, second, that he is a capable politician, promoting a centrist agenda that is in harmony with the systems republicans.

It might be worth looking at the presidencies of two important democratic Presidents, Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter. Discussions about Barack Obama frequently compare and contrast him to these two. Also, when some forum members express hopes for a primary challenger to President Obama, his supporters often use LBJ and Carter as examples of the damage that primaries can do.

LBJ was, by definition, an anti-charismatic specimen. His pre-presidential political career in Washington is a great example of bureaucratic authority. Johnson's powerful leadership in both the House and Senate is legendary. The stark realities of the vice presidency were a humiliating experience for him, causing one associate to call him “a bull who was castrated late in life.”

The events that led to his becoming President allowed him a unique opportunity to pass “Great Society” legislation that could have resulted in his being ranked among the greatest Presidents in our nation's history. But two things prevented that: foreign policy, specifically the war in Vietnam; and his personality.

It's one thing for a leader in the House or Senate to lie to others in Washington, before November of 1963. But when Johnson – a notorious bender of the truth, lied to various members of Congress, in order to advance his political goals as he had while in the House and Senate, a curious thing happened. Reporters who talked to several Congressmen and/or Senators were able to document and report the many lies of LBJ. When a President loses that level of trust, it becomes increasingly difficult to act effectively as a leader. Their authority is damaged beyond repair.

Thus, right or wrong – and history shows wrong – LBJ was to lose the ability to justify his leadership in engaging the nation in the war in Vietnam. And it was those dynamics that resulted in Eugene McCarthy and then Robert F. Kennedy's challenging him in 1968.

Carter's rise to the presidency was based largely upon a curious combination of authority types. He had the modern traditional authority of a member of the tribes of southern Christians; he had the bureaucratic authority of military, business, and state political experience; and he was packaged in a way that made him appear – when compared to Nixon and Ford – somewhat charismatic.

His presidency was greeted with the extreme hostility of the systems republicans outside of political office. More, there were factions within the Democratic Party, and Carter was either unwilling or unable to bridge those divides. Also, circumstances beyond his control, including issues related to foreign affairs, allowed the media to portray him as ineffective and weak. That combination resulted in the primary challenge by Ted Kennedy.

While LBJ risked losing the primary contest, he would have defeated Nixon in a one-on-one contest in '68. And though Carter “kicked (Kennedy's) ass” in the primary contest, he lost to Reagan in the general election. For many years, Carter was apparently shocked that as shallow a candidate as Reagan beat him. Yet, along with the CIA's “October Surprise,” one must recognize the power of the media in making the Gipper appear to be a charismatic leader. In real life, Reagan was a mean, obnoxious, and unintelligent creature; in reel life, he was the republican messiah.

What will happen in national and global politics between now and November of 2012? One can only speculate. We live in strange and dangerous times. I do not take anything for granted.

Thank you for reading this. And, no matter if you are pro- Obama or not, so long as you are a Democrat and/or member of the Democratic Left, I hope that you are giving this election season serious thought. More, I hope that you are getting out there and working to advance your values and beliefs.

Peace,
H2O Man

[Ruby the Liberal]

1. Wow. Just wow.

This was eye opening and enlightening on so many levels, I still don't think all of it has sunk in on a first read. You have taken so many concerns and confusions and tied them all up into a concept that finally makes sense to me. Off to read again.

k&r

[H2O Man]

13. Thank you.

The idea for this essay came to me earlier today, as I watched my daughters and friend build a large bird-feeding system out at The Pond. I came in and zipped it ff rather quickly, before I forgot what I had thought about -- which happens more and more frequently as I age.

I surely appreciate that you took the time to read it, and especially that you thought it worth taking the time to respond to. That means a lot to me!

[olegramps]

49. The only thing wrong with Obama is that he won the presidency.

Anyone who was going to inherit the Bush legacy was bound to fail especially when the Republicans were determined to be obstructionists. When one party is willing to sacrifice the nation because of their hatred and they control the House how can a president succeed. Sorry, but these categories don't impress me in the least. Its simple, the wealthy against the working class and at the present time the wealthy have gained the upper hand when the working class bought the propaganda that spews daily for every major media source hook, line and SINKER. It will change when the working class realize they have been blued, screwed and tattooed and threaten a revolution. If the Democrats lose the Senate and the presidency the end of this fiasco could be near.

[mmonk]

2. My problem with equating the past with the present in the case of Obama

is the ideology (though the Republicans took theirs from Reagan in the election against Carter). With Obama, I don't see fundamental structure change in the political debate or economic debate that would issue in what is needed to avoid needless domestic suffering. So I'm not sure how to fight. This comes from fighting alone. That leaves a movement as some sort of answer for the future but I'm at a loss as to how long it will take and at what point it is forced from the people.

[H2O Man]

23. I think that

what you said speaks for many people, including a significant segment of the DU community.

It's funny -- kind of, anyhow -- this reminds me of when, in 1980, my brother and I were at one of my brother's co-worker's home, to watch a boxing match. It was a strange evening, not one that I'd ever care to repeat. There were perhaps a dozen people there. About half wanted to watch the undercard, before the main event; the other half wanted to watch "Rocky" on another channel. Not only do I like to watch real boxing, and have never watched Stallone's fantasy flick, but it was an important co-feature bout.

More, I remember at one point, listening to some of the others debating the upcoming Carter vs Reagan bout, er, election. One fellow sitting near my brother was expressing his great admiration for Reagan. My brother said that Reagan was a buffoon. The fellow said, "Oh, so you like Carter!" My brother responded that no, not liking Reagan does not equate to liking Carter. (My brother was on the extreme end of the extreme left.)

I can confidently leave it to you to identify if the pro-Reagan/ "oh, you like Carter!" fellow wanted to watch real boxing, or fantasy.

[mmonk]

26. It's funny. Though I've done a lot of leg for the Democratic Party

in my state in the past and worked tirelessly for different Democrats that have won in the past, I've never put as much time in a presidential election as I did with Obama (including attending speeches by both President Obama and Michelle Obama). Here I am 3 years later and looking at the landscape with bush's tax cuts still in play and Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the table along with triggers to cut domestic programs further. I'm shell shocked and embarassed to see all those I convinced to vote for him. I know some of it isn't his fault but I know what could have been avoided that landed us here. None the less, it's a strange feeling.

[Bluenorthwest]

66. I am so offended by this crap I could scream.

So a Democrat is one who prefers bloody fights as entertainments? A Republican like well made love stories?
I can not believe that I am reading this from an educated man. Are you? You judge others because they want to watch a film that you have not seen, but still have strong opinions about? That is called prejudging. Both the work and the people. Small minded. And you seem proud of it.
You think Rocky is just like a boxing match, only 'fake'? What tripe.
Tired of the violent imagery in your Obama promotions and your bashing of art and culture.

[H2O Man]

69. Gracious.

Yes, I plead guilty: when I go to watch a boxing match, I want to watch a boxing match. Not a fantasy. If you prefer Rocky, that wonderful. Good for you. I prefer the art of boxing.

[Bluenorthwest]

78. But I have seen a boxing match so I am qualified to give an

opinion.Why would you hold any opinion about something you have never seen? And then judge others according to that set of presumptions?
I prefer story telling, you prefer blood sport between good looking young guys. Good for you. See, we could do that all day, characterize back and forth.
You frequently make snide remarks about art and fiction while pushing your preferred entertainment, two guys fighting. I often want to send you reading lists. But I do not sit and type that someone is a Republican dolt because they want to watch NASCAR or a boxing match instead of seeing a Shakespeare 'fantasy' or some cinema. I just figure it means they like cars and fights, as many do. I can understand the appeal. I can not understand being critical of that which you have not seen.
To me, being opposed to movies and story telling and theater is a really right wing sort of mindset. I don't care if you like it or not, but it is my culture, and to trash it for not being yours is insulting.
I have never met a tribal culture that held story telling or even myth making in contempt. I have only experienced that point of view on the far right wing, in the fundie churches. The idea that one can judge without seeing and then presume meanings about others based on the presumptions about 'music by those long haired hippies' or whatever. "Why would I need to listen to it to know it is no good?" I've heard it before, just never from someone who thought they were open minded and interested in all cultures.

[H2O Man]

79. Get a grip.

I was invited to go over to watch a boxing card. I wanted to watch a boxing card. Other people there did not.

I really have never cared -- not even a tiny bit -- if a fight involved "good looking good guys." I'm a good example: I'm ugly in a nice sort of way, but I was a hell of a good boxer. I have no idea where your comment is coming from, not am I interested in knowing.

Likewise, the idea that I'm "opposed to Shakespeare et al" exists only between your ears. Like Rocky, it is not rooted in reality.

[Bluenorthwest]

83. Reality based?

You should start a weekly column of reviews of books you have not read, bands you have not heard, and films you have not seen, and call it 'Reality Based Reviews'. It could be a hit!

You said to me. "You prefer fantasy. Good for you." What would you take from that? Do you see that as respectful? Again, you have not seen the film. I'd say I prefer cinema to boxing. You say I prefer fantasy to reality. Then you add "Good for you." I don't get it. You prefer boxing to cinema. -Or I could say "You prefer bloody young men. Good for you." Do not characterize if you do not wish to be characterized. Does that make it clear to you?
I just think it is ignorant to hold opinions about things you have not seen or read or experienced.

[H2O Man]

85. Okay.

Now you've done it. Darned you.

{1} Mr. Stallone had reached an "out-of-court" agreement with Chuck Wepner, who he openly admitted was the basis for his character, but then failed to honor it.

{2} I know what gym, in what city, Stallone went to, in order to prepare for the movie. I know who he dealt with there. And I know the conflict that took place, and the end result. Do you know any of these?

{3} Stallone was inducted into the International Boxing Hall of Fame in June, a move that outraged much of the boxing community. Do you know why? Do you think that, based on the Rambo movies -- which I consider fantasy, while assuming you view as a great tribal mythology -- he should be included on the Vietnam Memorial Wall?

{4} While I have not watched the movie, I have seen enough clips of it to decide for myself if I want to suffer through any more of it. Your opinion matters -- to me -- not so much as the tiniest drop of water in the great oceans of the world.

{5} There are numerous good boxing movies. I do not include "Rocky" (1-23) as being among them. I do enjoy two of the songs from the first two, though. If you like them, whoopie for you. I'm glad that they have added meaning and purpose to your life.

{6} I boxed in 329 contests. I had a cut inside my mouth in one fight. Boxing is,as those who are familiar with it know, the Art of Self-Defense. Numerous boxers have been important figures in their cultural reality -- Muhammad Ali being but one example. Boxers are, in my opinion, the group of the most interesting, complex, kind and gentle people on earth. Thus, I am admittedly prone to taking offense to the ignorant stereotypes that the non-boxing public applies to them, be it on a movie screen, or an internet discussion site.

{7} Stallone's brother Frank is a decent guy, who appreciates boxing.

[defendandprotect]

3. You shouldn't ignore the message of 2010 from the voters on Obama/Dems -- !!

Obama is no Martin Luther King, Jr --

Any such attempt at equating them in any way would be ridiculed -- rightly so!

[H2O Man]

12. Comparing them

is distinct from equating them. I compare some of Obama's life experiences with King's, LBJ's, and Carter's. I definitely am not equating them. I think that is so obvious that it did not warrent mention.

[salib]

56. "Attempt at equating" is not absolute

And it is definitely fair to say that you "attempted to equate" the two. From your post:

"Throughout his adult life, leading up to his 2008 election, Barack Obama's authority was largely charismatic. Like Martin Luther King, Jr., he definitely had overlap with the authority of systems, or bureaucracy. King went to the university setting to become a minister; Obama to become an attorney. Martin considered a career in teaching to get away from the hectic life of the top civil rights leader in America; Obama's experience as a professor of law enhanced his ability to become president. Yet the primary characteristic that differentiated Barack Obama from other community organizers and professors was his personal charisma."

[H2O Man]

60. I don't think

that any intelligent person will exerience difficulty in grasping the difference between comparing and equating. Pretending the two are identical is curious, indeed.

[salib]

62. Wow.

[H2O Man]

67. Let's look at

another example that may be easier to understand, in case there is some actual confusion about the distinction between comparing and equating two individuals.

No thinking person would equate Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X. The two have far too many obvious distinctions.

However, there are similarities that make a comparison worthwhile. Both grew up black in an openly racist society. Both were influenced significantly by their fathers: Martin's was a minister in the same church, Malcolm's was a follower of Garvey. Both were ministers by trade. Both were very active in the area of civil/human rights. Both viewed the US's role in Vietnam in the context of race. Both were confronted with the jealousies of those who were supposed to be co-workers, but who were upset by their rise within the groups they worked with. Both were top level examples of charismatic leaders, who led organizations that were taken over (after their deathes) by assistants who were bureaucratic leaders, lacking in charismatic authority. Both were gunned down in public executions that the "official" story didn't resolve.

There are very real similarities in both circumstance and personal abilities, which are worthy of comparison. Yet no thinking person would equate the two .... the only ones who might do so would be those who ignorantly believe(d) them to be threats to the system, and who only see that both were black.

DU should be a place where we can engage in thoughtful discussions which are not weighted down by concrete thinking.

[spanone]

4. k&r...

[FarCenter]

5. Interesting analysis, but I would have put Obama in bureaucratic authority camp

His progress through law school and Chicago politics was not so much charismatic as it was careful, cautious and planned.

The difficulty he has had in his first term was partly due to picking up a really bad economic hand dealt him by Bush, compounded with short tenure in the Senate and lack of leverage with the House and Senate.

[Ruby the Liberal]

8. I would have to disagree, especially when compared

to those like LBJ and Teddy Kennedy who were true leaders in the Bureaucratic sense.

Voting "present" 130 times while in state leadership (not taking a stand) and not having any legislation of note in his national Senate career doesn't exactly designate a bureaucratic leadership capability.

Charismatic is more that you can get people to listen and follow, but left to your own devices, don't have the tactical skills to make it happen. A visionary without support of those who can execute a plan is the makings for a fabulous author, but not someone who can get things done.

Too many times, people glom onto the guy with the ideas (think Rush on the right, Krugman on the left), but these people are not doers, they are thinkers. In order to bring their vision to reality, they need the support of the bureaucrats - the ones who know how to make things happen.

[mmonk]

9. I do not know his ideology or ideas.

He seems a sausage maker more adapt to the Senate and hasn't adjusted.

[Enthusiast]

39. Rush is a big thinker?

Geez, you could have fooled me.

[H2O Man]

14. One of the things

that I was hoping MIGHT take place on this thread would be exactly what you have provided -- and so double thank you.

While I disagree, I certainly both understand and appreciate your points. I tried to briefly outline parts of that position in the OP -- because plenty of solid Democrats and members of the Democratic Left sincerely believe just that -- that Barack Obama is a systems man.

Those years in college were, as you note, a serious and carefully planned move. In my opinion -- certainly not shared by the majority -- this was the period of transition for him, from a liberal community organizer who flirted with progressive ideology, to a cautious and conservative Democrat. Yet I still think that the fact that no one else with hisw education or experiencem plus no one else who is not a white male of a distinct economic class, has been President, defines him as a charismatic.Yet again, as I noted, Reagan, too, is viewed as a charismatic, although rational thought demonstrates that he was merely a puppet for systematic forces.

Fascinating topic, I think.

[pnorman]

6. "real life"vs "reel life"

Is that original with you? Excellent, but the first time I had heard it.

[H2O Man]

11. Yeah.

The thought came to me mid-sentence. I was hurrying to finish the essay to post, before serving as a taxi for my youngest daughter & her friend. Not a lot of thought went into it, but I liked the sound.

[Ruby the Liberal]

15. It is a brilliant comparison. Definitely a keeper.

[H2O Man]

21. Thanks!

The more I look at it, the more I like it. I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought, if you hadn't pointed it out!

[gateley]

7. K&R nt

[H2O Man]

24. Thanks!

[Safetykitten]

10. This navel-gazing is why we can't have nice things. He 's either a leader or not.

He's not.

He had the clear opportunity in these very difficult times to show it, and he would of been triumphant.

He has failed miserably. We will pay for his for his failures for the rest of our lives.

Oh and on edit...what you wrote although true in some respects, again misses the big point. People don't READ stuff like what you wrote. They want clear leadership and decisiveness. Like taking out Bin Laden. That's leadership. Why can't he translate that into action for the country and what's going on now? People don't CARE.

People are hurting, hungry, homeless and jobless. If Obama can't make the case that he is out for them (and this case has not been made yet) then the republicans will fill that gap paradoxically.

[H2O Man]

17. Some valid and

very interesting points! thank you!

I'm hoping that your comment on navel-gazing is about Obama. I will admit to being a navel-grazer, but prefer to leave my relationship with my beautiful wife and her outstanding abdomen out of this discussion.

As the past dozen or so OPs I've posted on DU:GD indicate, I spend a heck of a lot of time & my limited energy working on protecting the water supply from hydro-fracking. That involves, among many other things, giving speeches at rallies and various meetings, as well as writing LTTE, and doing interviews with print and television reporters. (Only one radio journalist thus far.)

I also write about this topic on DU, in large part to encourage others to get out and do their part. And I'm not as concerned if some friends are pro-Obama, or thoroughly disappointed with him. We can talk about that here, on an intelligent level -- rather than some of the more emotionally charged arguing we see on DU too often -- but still be getting off our behinds, and working on issues including the environmnt, poverty, warm and the economy.

[Enthusiast]

40. This post is useless without pictures.

"my beautiful wife and her outstanding abdomen"

I love abdomens.

[EFerrari]

75. For some people, thinking through a problem is a nice thing in itself.

:)

[cali]

16. this is a terrific OP

really nails the issues of leadership and authority.

[H2O Man]

19. Well, thank you!

I am hoping it helps put some (obviously, not ALL) issues in a context where we can have a civil discussion, even with strong disagreement, involving all the Good People on this forum.

I can dream, can't I? Ha!

[upi402]

18. kick

and rec as per typical

[hfojvt]

20. well bueraucratic authority is supposed to be traditional

That is, people are hired, or promoted, or picked for their positions of authority supposedly based on ability. There is often selection based on connections, such as my grandmother getting a teaching job perhaps because her older brother was on the school board, but she also had a state license to teach, which made her qualified by skill too. Even in the case of the finance job I did not get, although I have a master's degree in economics and the other person had no college, they might claim that her abilities were superior because she worked part-time in the department for a number of years.

I don't know why Carter would be so confident. Myself, I was surprised that Carter beat Kennedy after the media spent three years trashing him. But Carter had barely beaten Ford in 1976 and Reagan had barely lost to Ford in the 1976 primary. I thought Reagan was a heavy favorite going in.

And you hinted at racism, but again, I disagree. As Vonnegut wrote "Ideas on earth are badges of friendship, friends agree with friends in order to express friendship and enemies disagree with enemies in order to express enminty." That is the same reason why some people here will embrace trickle down Reaganomics from Obama whereas they reject the same arguments from Bush. Another quote whose source I never wrote down said "If you dislike somebody, the way they hold their fork will infuriate you, but if you like somebody, they can dump a plate of spaghetti in your lap and you will laugh."

Of course, the enmity itself could be based on race, but it is just as likely to be based on partisanship as is shown by the attacks on Clintons, Gore and Kerry.

Also, I would say that charisma was not the only factor, that race was too. The county where I live is 84% white according to wiki, but the caucus that gave a 2/3 majority to Obama was 60% black. From where I sit, Obama doesn't have 1/5 of the charisma of Jesse Jackson. What he has, instead is M$M approval. Unlike Jesse, or Howard Dean, Obama was deemed as 'electable'. Partly that was because of the things DU now hates him for - his centrism and bi-partisan rhetoric. Where Edwards spoke of the Two Americas to draw attention to Harrington's "The Other America", Obama spoke of "one America", one nation, under Wall Street with Liberty and Justice for those who can afford it. Just pay no attention to the starving children in the robe of the Ghost of Christmas Present.

So I would say Obama is more of a bureaucratic leader picked by TPTB, than a charismatic leader, although like Georgie-Porgie before him, he is a good looking guy, and that counts too in our politics.

[H2O Man]

22. While bureaucratic authority

indeed has traditions, it is not a tradition form in sociology.

Following a repulsive leader like George W. Bush definitely helps. While Carter was officially running against Ford, it was really Carter versus the stain of Nixon.

[Raksha]

73. That brings back an old memory...

during the 1976 campaign my liberal friends referred to Gerald Ford as "Nixon's Revenge."

Re "Following a repulsive leader like George W. Bush definitely helps. While Carter was officially running against Ford, it was really Carter versus the stain of Nixon."

[Me.]

25. Chapter 1?

[Hydra]

27. By your definitions

President Obama has all three types of power in spades.

He has a Charisma that can move nations.

He has Traditional Authority that speaks for itself. Whether coached or not, he understands the issues and the forces involved intrinsically.

He also has the Bureaucratic Authority. Note how many people automatically think of him as "The only Adult," both in DC and among the normal people.

In short, he's a force of nature, and man who can do the impossible. He has it ALL.

Too bad he's a Republican. He probably realized that he'd never win the nomination as a Republican, so he choose the other side to join. Mostly due to that racism you mentioned.

Even given that racism, I disagree with what you said about the teabaggers. They would be doing the same thing if the Dem President was White, Christian and supported all of their policies. It's because they are being told by their handlers what to think.

Remember how Obama is a "Socialist"? How they want to "Keep Gov't out of my Medicare"? The Teaparty isn't a party. It's a group of low information extremist Republicans funded and media supported by the Kochs and others, in order to take the anger everyone felt when the "jobless recovery" was pulled off and keep it directed AWAY from Democratic or Socialist solutions. Sadly, it worked.

[Enthusiast]

41. Nice post. And accurate.......nt

[kentuck]

28. I think the closest analogy to Obama is the Carter Presidency...

He lost the base of the Party and Kennedy challenged him in the primary. Fortunately for that race, and some since, Democrats are more hesitant to challenge the leader of the Party now than then.

With Carter, they he had collapsed from running and then there were the "killer rabbits". The media was very effective at making him look weak and incompetent when he faced the great Raygun. His attitude was very similar to Obama's in that he wanted to do what was right for the country regardless of his Party affiliation. It was impossible then and it is probably impossible now...

[mmonk]

29. Nothing compares to today.

Both parties have adherents to Reagan's philosphy. Without challenge we will only continue heading in the same direction, just different speeds and degree.

[kentuck]

30. Who's going to challenge?

I see no one on the horizon.

[mmonk]

31. I see no one either. Looks like we'll have to watch the disassembling

of the few progressive things left. Our only option in the immediate future is to create a system within the system for our sustainability maybe through networks of cooperatives and non profits.

[Enthusiast]

42. Nice observation.

I couldn't agree more.

[cstanleytech]

34. You do realize thats what the GOP stated there goal was to do to him

even before he took the oath they were invoking carters name and comparing him to obama.

[uponit7771]

50. ...and the left did to Carter what it's doing to Obama now, throwing baby out with bath water

[H2O Man]

51. Not true.

It was not "the left" that abandoned Carter in 1980.

[H2O Man]

54. ......

At first, I thought I'd just let the "the left abandoned Carter" business go. But because it is such an obviously untrue assertion, perhaps I should address it.

Anyone who is even mildly familiar with the 1980 election knows that it had nothing whatsoever to do with "the left." Rather, Reagan's victory can be attributed to a single, specific democratic subgroup, known as the "Reagan Democrats." These were the conservative democrats, and absolutely, without any question, NOT "the left."

[cstanleytech]

58. Regardless who "did it" then or now the point is its still helping GOP

fulfill their promise.

[H2O Man]

59. Divisions in the

Democratic Party definitely help the republican party to promote their agenda. Thus, it is important to be accurate in identifying those divisions within the Democratic Party. Making false claims cannot, in any way, help in this area.

[kentuck]

70. In regards to the divisions within the Party...

We can vilify them and issue ultimatums or we can seek to resolve the differences. I would think the latter might be more helpful?

[H2O Man]

71. Certainly.

This raises a perhaps obvious question: is it more or less likely that differences can be resolved if people have an accurate or inaccurate understanding of very real events? For example, the idea that "the left" abandoned Carter in 1980? Is there an advantage to pretending this is true? Or might there be an advantage in an accurate description of "Reagan Democrats"?

I would think that accuracy might be more helpful?

[kentuck]

74. I think that some may assume the "left" abandoned Carter because...

Teddy Kennedy primaried him and weakened his support with some Democrats, if not the left. Carter never forgave him for that, I have read.

But it was a new bunch of voters, conservative Democrats called "Reagan Democrats", that caused the most damage to Jimmy Carter.

[H2O Man]

77. That may very

well be. This is why DU, when approached correctly, is valuable. For example, my OP allows people the opportunity to voice opinions, and/or ask questions, about what really happened.

Ted Kennedy was a liberal. A darned good liberal, at that. He did, of course, have some personal flaws. But he was a great US Senator -- certainly much more talented in that arena than either John or Robert. One can speculate on if his abilities might have translated had he ever been elected President.

The Reagan Democrats were not actually "new." A mere eight years previously, a large number of moderate- and conservative Democrats had voted for Nixon, over George McGovern. More, as the OP discusses LBJ, it is fair to bring in the dynamic involving southern Democrats who began changing to become republicans .... as LBJ noted, his bills on Civil Rights would lose the south for our party. These types of changing dynamics never are completed in a single election cycle; they are on-going.

I think what really annoys me about some of the responses on this thread, though, is where a few people actually disagree with me. I can't tolerate that level of arrogance! We simply cannot heal the wounds that are infecting our party if THAT dynamic continues to fester.

[noiretextatique]

65. it is important to know that centrist democrats helped the GOP by voting for reagan

because some people here keep blaming "the left" for reagan's elections. as a leftist, i can assure you that i would never help the GOP and certain would never vote for a GOP candidate. unfortunately, not all DEMOCRATS share my resolve. more democrats voted for bush than nader, for example.

[cstanleytech]

81. Must of us share one belief though and that is

that most of us believe letting someone like Palin, Perry or one of those other fruitcakes win the whitehouse would end up really screwing most of the people in the country even worse.

[noiretextatique]

82. i agree...and i am sure some democrats will vote GOP too. eom

[noiretextatique]

64. thank you...i am so sick of this tired meme

it was so-called "centrist" democrats who voted for drank the koolaid and voted for reagan.

[DesertFlower]

32. great post. nt

[McCamy Taylor]

33. Very thoughtful. Recall that Hillary was called a "racist" when she suggested that MLK had the dream

but LBJ got the job done.

I think perhaps you overestimate LBJ's unpopularity. He was extremely unpopular with the young men of my acquaintance who were vulnerable to the draft. He was extremely popular with Blacks (not of draft age) and with anyone for Civil Rights. I recall his retirement from public office differently, too. By 1968, he knew the Vietnam war had to end. He decided not to run so that he could concentrate on ending it. Kissinger, who was doing the negotiations for him, stabbed him in the back, because special interests such as Brown and Root and the nation's oil companies wanted that war to continue, and because Nixon offered him a job to do it.

LBJ was an idealistic protegee of FDR. He was able to charm a lot of people. J Edgar Hoover apparently thought the world of him, despite his liberal tendencies. I think the nation distrusted him because he was not young and handsome like JFK, and he became president when JFK was killed in Texas. At least, that is the way I remember things.

You definitely under rate Carter's charisma. Hunter S. Thompson did a piece on him when he was still governor of Georgia. You should read it. And recall that Carter, like Obama, was compared to Jesus Christ the savior when he was running for office. I think that the folks who selected Obama to be the place holder between Republican presidents chose him precisely because he is and was so much like Carter. Even his campaign speeches were lifted from Carter. Remember the "A Leader for a Change" campaign? That was not Obama.

But history is a tricky thing. We all remember it differently, and we rewrite it constantly.

[H2O Man]

46. Your post led

to an early morning e-mail from my Auntie, who -- along with my late uncle -- were active participants in the effort to build the Great Society. It was through them, and one of her cousins, that I have had access to information about Washington in the mid-60s that goes well beyond what other people here have read in books and articles about that era. After my e-mail response -- that you and I are not friends, and that I had not read your response on my OP/thread, she called me on the telephone. In a very real sense, such is the nature of Irish-American women of her generation .... though I suppose I should probably still thank you for prompting that call. (So much for the claim that only the "lunatic left" reads DU. My Auntie still maintains a direct contact to one member of the US Senate, a fellow who grew up next door to her, and who I used to easily strike out when playing baseball on my visits to see my cousins.)

"We are closed in, and the key turned on our uncertainty," my Auntie likes to say, quoting Yeats. Was not my essay a call for civil discussion, even among those who disagree? Specifically, even those who disagree strongly? Okay, okay, said I. I'll read the post. And did, as our phone sits upon the same desk as my computer.

Polls at the beginning of 1968 did show that LBJ was popular among likely Democratic voters, she asked me to tell you. Even when McCarthy's clean-cut kids were working in New Hampshire, all of the public and private polls suggested he would win only about 12 to 15% of the vote. In the finals 48 hours, a private poll for the White House suggested McCarthy might get up to 20% of the vote -- which was viewed as a very bad thing for LBJ. And, as history documents, McCarthy got more than that: while LBJ still "won," he had less than 50% of the Democratic vote (27,243/ 49.5% vs 23,280/ 42.4%), and with the actual cross-over votes counted, it was 29,021 to 28,791 -- a mere 230 vote difference in one of the most conservative, pro-Vietnam war states in America.

This led to two White House meetings between LBJ, some of the top advisors, and a number of mid-level administration officials, to discuss two closely related topics: the war and the upcoming elections. My Auntie says that neither of these meetings has been detailed in a meaningful way in any of the major LBJ biographies. Perhaps the single most important thing that resulted from them was Joseph Califano being tasked with going to New York, to get a more accurate measure of LBJ's prospects in that state's upcoming primary.

At the same time, things were going dramatically downhill foor LBJ in Wisconsin. It wasn't simply that McCarthy might beat him there, it was that the AFL/CIO's COPE had not even tried to fulfill their pledge to help run the campaign's headquarters across the state. In the head office, only two people were actually working: Leslie Aspen, an "expert" on Vietnam, and Kenny Birkhead, from Agriculture. Kenny had brought in an Assistant Secretary to stuff envelopes, which shows how empty the office had become.

In response to your point about black support for LBJ, my Auntie wants me to point out that on one hand, you are correct: the only district in Wisconsin that LBJ was expected to win had a high percentage of both black and Polish-Catholic voters, who traditionally supported LBJ. However, at the headquarters in that district, there was only one black man -- a state official who's name she has forgotten -- working there in the final week. He would walk out in frustration.

Califano's reports showed that LBJ would not carry New York. Keep in mind that another Democratic candidate had entered the primary contest in that final week, before LBJ made his announcement that he would not be running for re-election. And that was the one man that LBJ was least interested in doing battle with, even with all the advantages of being in the White House.

As I noted in my OP, LBJ would almost certainly have defeated Nixon in a one-on-one contest in November of 1968. But he wasn't going to have that option. History had turned against his belief that he, as President, was somehow True America. He wasn't, of course, and that is why many good, loyal Democrats, from Goodwin to Moyers to my Auntie, all reluctantly concluded that they could not support him any longer. As I've stated numerous times here over the years, I find LBJ to be one of the most fascinating case studies in America's political history .... a combination of great strength and great weakness. The sad truth is that he suffered from a severe psychological break-down in his final monmths in office, a frightening reality that has been well-documented in the writings of numerous Washington insiders.

Finally, I see that your initial response is now edited. My response will remain the same; it comes from my Auntie, through me. Again, she and my uncle were there.

[Major Hogwash]

35. Just another . . brick in the wall.

This is an excellent op-ed. It's an extremely well-written, well-thought out opinion piece with some historical background to back up the main premise and it's not too much this way and it's not too much that way, but pretty friggin' neutral.

I think that's why most people here are skipping around it.
It makes them think.

History does repeat itself, and we all know that.
Yet, if the people in this country can't remember how the mainstream media screwed President Carter back in 1980, then we are pretty much doomed.
I not only remember how bad the media went after President Carter in 1980, but how they joined in with the Republicans making villains out of liberals. Making fun of us, acting like we are the bad guys in this movie.
And that was more than 17 or 18 years before there was even a Faux Snooze channel.

Back in 1968, Johnson couldn't fight the rising tide to get rid of him. After TET he decided that it was it, and threw in the towel. Hubert Humphrey was labeled as "a fraud" by the hippys who went to the DNC convention and said he would rubber stamp the Vietnam War and keep it going.
No one will ever know if Humphrey would have kept that war going because "Nixon's the One" became the chant of the day -- and boy did we screw this country up by letting that sonovabitch into the White House!!

So now, less than a year and a half out from the next election, some unions are making noise about having the Democratic convention in North Carolina. They say it is a "right to work for less" state and that we shouldn't support states like that. Okay, I can see their point. But, there are 23 "right to work for less" states in the United States, so that kind of narrows it down a bit for us, don't it?

Maybe Wasserman-Schultz can change where we will hold the 2012 DNC convention between now and next summer. I think it might be the kind of change we need to make. I also think that we should wait until after Governor Walker's recall election in Wisconsin is over next year, in February I think, before we make the decision to change where we will hold the DNC. And after Governor Walker is recalled, Wasserman-Schultz can make the announcement that we are going to change which state we are going to hold the DNC in and state that we, as a party, decided together, to change it to Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Not only as a show of support to some of the unions who are concerned about holding the DNC in North Carolina, but also to show support for the working men and women of this country. To stand up for the middle class. To have speeches at the convention that are populist in nature and accepted in Wisconsin instead of pooh-poohed in North Carolina. I think it would be a good idea to hold off on making this announcement until later next year, but I think it would be a sign of change that we can believe in when our constituents within our own party aren't happy about where it is to be held. I know the site was picked last year, but so what? We can start a petition and get the damned thing moved. We can do it ourselves.

We're Democrats.
We can get anything done once we put our mind to it.
We built the Hoover Dam, for crying out loud.

Let's see the Republicans point to something they built.
Oh, yeah, Wall Street.
Whoop-dee-freaking-doo!

[Enthusiast]

44. Damn!

I would love to see the convention moved. Great suggestion. I'm not sure those 'in charge' have enough humility to allow this, however.

[Major Hogwash]

84. We will never know if we don't try.

I think they would be open to making a change if they saw how many people were upset by the convention being held in North Carolina. All we need is a petition to send to them asking them to move it to friendlier confines. I'd do it, but I don't know how to start a petition.

[JDPriestly]

36. Obama has the misfortune of becoming president at a time of

a great shift in our national psyche.

The crash of 2008 revealed a fault-line of enormous dimensions not just in the financial sector but in our entire society.

We are divided not just by race but by class.

Obama has attempted to deal with the new reality in our country with the concepts and tools of the old reality. And of course those who are sensitive to the earth-shaking events that we are experiencing, are unhappy with the fact that he is acting and making his decisions based on a reality that we know no longer exists.

In that way also, he is like LBJ and Carter. Both of them served at times of fundamental change. And neither of them was able to recognize that a change was occurring. Neither was able to just relax and allow themselves to be moved with the change.

Similarly, Obama is resisting. He cannot allow himself to see the injustice of continuing with the cruel, heartless policies of his predecessors. Too bad. He is a nice guy. But then, there was never a more moral, "good" person in the White House than Jimmy Carter. And look what happened to him -- because he couldn't move with the earth as it moved under him.

By the way, on edit, great OP.

But there is no fighting the trend of history.

People feel frustrated by the lack of opportunity in our society, the lack of respect for privacy and are just barely starting to fight back.

Presidents do not lose elections because they faced a strong primary challenge. Presidents face a strong primary challenger when a sizable group of voters in their own party think that they should or are likely to lose an election. That was true of both Carter and LBJ just two examples of presidents who faced primary challenges.

[alsame]

45. Great post, very true. k&r nt

[Horse with no Name]

76. Thank you. This cannot be said enough.

"Presidents do not lose elections because they faced a strong primary challenge. Presidents face a strong primary challenger when a sizable group of voters in their own party think that they should or are likely to lose an election."

A POTUS that is doing the job that they were elected to do will NOT be primaried.

[truedelphi]

80. + My household. n/t

[BackToThe60s]

37. Recced to Read Later

I've been awake most of the night and am now seeing quadruple.

[democrank]

38. President Obama is not a leader.

He sits back, waits to see how far he has to bend for Republicans, then begs to be included.

[uponit7771]

53. So you think there's no such thing as congress either? elections have consequences....

[pinto]

43. Kick

:kick:

[malaise]

47. A fabulous post

Rec the Waterman :hi:

[Mosaic]

48. I've been a critic, but I now support him

We all know how he has failed us, how any repug alternative would be far worse. And never forget the operatives, and fakers that troll these blogs and boards trying to get you to vote repugnant. Give your full support to him again, remember the good things he has done, minimize the bad. I believe he will do great things in his second term, I no longer believe he is a closet repug, and remember to try to ignore the concern trolls who will try to fool you either to stay home and not vote, or worse vote for a backman or parry.

[myrna minx]

52. .

:kick: I need time to ruminate on this thoughtful essay.

[Javaman]

55. Wonderful post...

very well written and clearly defined.

I have enormous respect for your writing.

Cheers!

[Armstead]

57. Great Post. Kudos. One response: Is Obama a charismatic middle manager?

I think Obama is a hybrid of styles that are both an advantage and disadvantage.

He might be a hybrid of those authority styles. A Charismatic Middle Manager.

He has similar charismatic gifts as King. However his goals and ends may be very different.

King was driven by the quest for social and economic justice as the goal. Everything he did was directed to that, and the details were in the framework of that.

Obama may have those values as his backdrop personally. But he seems to be more of an Advocate for Process for its own sake.

Thus, while King basically set out a clear goal as his message, Obama uses his charisma to advocate for process. That may explain why he is always advocating for "compromise."

Put another way, King basically said "I will not rest until every American has equal rights and society gives everyone equal opportunities and protections."

Obama, on the other hand seems to say "I will not rest until our system is oriented to compromise and the opportunity for all views to interact."

I dunno. It's big subject.

In any case your post gives a lot of food for thought.

[salib]

61. Interesting and enlightening post.

Thanks.

I motivated me to create my own:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1743827

[LongTomH]

63. A very insightful, thoughtful and thought-provoking post.

And, I might add, one that started a very thoughtful - and mostly civil discussion.

What I really like about both your post and your response is: You haven't given up on the hope for positive change. A lot of people on this board seem to have done so, and that's a tragedy!

[Butch350]

68. I'm seriously tapped out on the hope and change shit!

Now it's just a fight to survive!

[Horse with no Name]

72. Great post.

From some of the research I did early into the Obama candidacy, there was A LOT that disturbed me.

First of all, he has led a very tactical approach to winning. Each step was measured. He kept his eye on the prize. Every movement in his entire career was planned out. Everything in his early history was about winning, and the fact that he was WILLING to take credit for things that he hadn't done was pretty disturbing, but also fit the pattern of someone who had an agenda and would do "whatever it took" to complete their mission--even at the expense of taking credit where it really wasn't due.

That is the pure definition of a consummate politician.

And here is where I get really disturbed.

I believe he is authoritarian, but I also believe he is a very smart man and that he knew enough about human nature to know that a conservative authoritarian man would never have a shot at the Presidency after the debacle that was Bush. So he changed his packaging.

He transformed himself to be the charismatic persona that was craved by the progressive side of the caucus because he knew after Bush, ANY hint of authoritarianism was going to cause a huge rift in his support. His speech pattern was developed to give the impression of the MLK charisma and he also mimicked some of the mannerisms of Reagan. There is no doubt that these were successful tactics. His campaign speeches were filled with flowery rhetoric that would appeal to the progressive caucus...and lord knows after Bush, we all needed something hopeful to cling on to.

So, while I wholeheartedly agree with your analysis, the only thing that I think it lacks is the understanding that who he was perceived as and who he was during the campaign were really two different things. He just knew what would be marketable and what wouldn't be.

[AlmostUlyanov]

86. K&R