"Progressive Reagans" vs. Triangulation

[ProSense]

RJ Eskow
BIO

"Progressive Reagans" vs. Triangulation

Barack Obama said this about Hillary Clinton on Keith Olbermann's show: "I will get the people who voted for her. Now the question is, could she get the people who voted for me?" Whether that's a legitimate point or an act of party disloyalty may depend on your point of view, but I think it's a fair question.

Some of us have been begging the Clinton campaign for a long time to stop trying to reach out to independents and disaffected Republicans with GOP-lite triangulation. It won't move independents - because they're antipartisan, not "bipartisan." Republicans won't buy any of the leading Dems as extensions of Bush/Cheney militarism, and buying into their frames about torture or the Middle East only makes it more difficult to make real political change. (Remember when she said the Bush Administration was "downplaying" Iran as a nuclear threat?)

Now we have the phony "scandal" around Obama's Reagan comments, including a Clinton radio ad that borrows Karl Rove's use of selective audio edits to mislead listeners. There has also been some ugly push-polling, and apparently some nasty robocalls too. That won't convince people that the Democrats will change what they don't like about politics.

Here's what Obama was really saying, if you listen to his full comments: That Ronald Reagan took ideas that were out of political favor and re-injected them into the mainstream, thereby changing the course of political history. Conservatism was nearly a dead ideology until Reagan came along and brought it back into dominance. Obama was also saying that Bill Clinton managed to be elected by triangulating and "splitting the difference." But by failing to articulate for an ideology, he didn't reverse the Reagan transformation. He served only himself, while Reagan served his movement.

What progressive wouldn't want a "progressive Reagan"? That leader could alter the political landscape and allow progressive ideas to dominate the political landscape. The progressive agenda appeals to the basic values of most Americans, but hasn't been articulated well enough to create a transformational movement.

And what Democrat wouldn' t want to win disaffected Republicans and more independents? That's all Obama was saying - and behind the deceptive rhetoric the Clintons, who themselves are close personal friends with George and Barbara Bush, know that perfectly well.

Could Obama be that "progressive Reagan"? I believe it's possible. Perhaps John Edwards could be, too. Could Hillary? I can't know - because, unlike her rivals, she hasn't tried. Especially on foreign policy, she has consistently ceded ground to the Republicans rather than challenging them. (To be fair to Hillary, Edwards was just as bellicose when he was in the Senate, although he's forcefully changed since then. And Obama missed the Kyl/Lieberman vote, which is unfortunate - but when it came to that Iraq War Resolution, I wish both Hillary and Edwards had just voted "present.")

more

'TRIANGULATION'

An Obama supporter and ex-presidential candidate himself, former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley said Bill Clinton is conveniently ignoring his own presidential past of "triangulation," adopting some Republican ideas in order to get re-elected in 1996.

"It was indeed in the Clinton administration ... that the whole concept of triangulation took place, which means appearing to be Republican to enough people to get elected, and that's what happened," Bradley told MSNBC.

more

Let's move on from the Clinton presidency and not look back

Triangulation = DLC

[rodeodance]

1. There is a certain Snuggness in Obama's comment that is a turn-off.

.......Barack Obama said this about Hillary Clinton on Keith Olbermann's show: "I will get the people who voted for her. Now the question is, could she get the people who voted for me?"

[ProSense]

2. Here:

Obama Gains Momentum In S.C. (as one voter rejects the politics of "dirty, odd things")

[jackson_dem]

3. Obama isn't a triangulator?

:rofl:

[ProSense]

4. That's your response? "Obama is too"? n/t

[jackson_dem]

5. I don't defend triangulation, whether Obama does it or Hillary does it

[ProSense]

6. Obama's record is far more progressive than Hillary's, and you

forgot Edwards. I know, he has changed.

[jackson_dem]

7. Why are you changing the subject? Obama is a triangulator

[ProSense]

8. Subject is still triangulation, but I take it you're finding the truth uncomfortable? n/t

[jackson_dem]

9. Obama's record being like Hillary's erases his instances of triangulation?

[jpgray]

10. No progressive would want to be a progressive Reagan. He was all false marketing and platitudes

He used superficial image marketing to cover up his unpopular policies, corruption, and crimes. He represented the final death knell for political campaigns being about policy, and that is inseparable from his success. Without that marketing approach, Reagan would never have been such a success. Just talking about "hope" and "change" and exploiting disapproval for the current administration would not have won the presidency for him alone. Lots of unsavory actions and bald misrepresentation are what truly sealed the deal.

[ProSense]

11. "Without that marketing approach, Reagan would never have been such a success."

The operative word in your point: success.

The operative word in the OP is "progressive."

That's the point: success and progressive.

Nothing to object to there.

[jpgray]

12. Reagan = "success" in your mind? In that case your argument is unReaganful with me.

Just "success?" Seriously? There are a lot of lessons to be learned from Reagan's success, all of which would argue for a progressive to avoid emulating him in any way whatsoever. His rise to power was effected with means contrary to all progressive values.

[avaistheone1]

15. I couldn't agree more. Reagan was a poor example for Obama to choose.

[ProSense]

17. This is your comment: "...Reagan would never have been such a success." n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. You are being deliberately obtuse.

We want a candidate who can be as successful a progressive as Reagan was a successful troglodyte.

The dichotomy is successful progressive vs. successful regressive. And Reagan WAS successful in overturning decades of progressive thought, underminding the New Deal and the Great Society. To disastrous effect. If Reagan had been UNsuccessful at what he did, we would not have Bush today. We need to overturn his success with progressive success, and reestablish America as the progressive nation is has always been.

Because Reagan used the media and Wall Street PR companies well, are we supposed to NOT use the media and Wall Street PR firms? So how do we get our message out? Samizdat?

Reagan appealed directly to the public's baser nature. We need to appeal directly to the public's BETTER nature. Do EXACTLY what Reagan did, flipped 180. He ran on division, fear, and hatred - we need to run on unity, courage, and tolerance.

You cannot deny that Reagan changed things. Dramatically. We need someone who can change things just as dramatically, in the other direction. Something Clinton failed to by, with his triangulating and ceding to the republicans on trade, gay rights, the economy. He made incremental changes here and there, and even those had extraordinary results - 6 years of continual economic growth. Imagine if he had dones something as dramatic as Reagan has - such as Universal Single Payer Health Care. He would have been a god. He'd be deified today, intstead of vilified for a blowjob.

OK. :rant: Off.

[avaistheone1]

13. I have read and reread Obama's comments and I have come to the conclusion

Obama was pandering to conservatives to get votes when he invoked Reagan. Reagan was no progressives, and rolled back Democratic achievements some 50 years.

[ProSense]

16. " Reagan was no progressives, and rolled back Democratic achievements some 50 years."

Would you say that's transformational?

Who said Reagan was progressive?

[OHdem10]

14. Pretty soon we will have 60 % of voters who do not vote--

as usual mainly Democrats.

[ProSense]

18. Kick! n/t