|
Most of the criticism of BO seems to be grounded in the belief that the "change" he speaks of is an overly optimistic chimera that causing his supporters to lead the Democratic Party down a path to certain defeat in the elections. They've seen the power of the Republican slime machine destroy our hopes time after time. The other day there was a popular post on DU (I'm sorry I don't have the original URL for credit) that asked a question which got to the meat of the issue.
This was my response. I decided to repost it after a 4 hour chat with my neighbor. She is a 6o+ year old widow who must work, is active in her fundamentalist church, and who voted for Bush in the last 2 elections. She has come to the conclusion that her support of the GOP has not been positive for either her, her faith, or the nation. She strongly questions whether the social issues that motivated her decision making are really things that can be addressed through government action. She asserts that the economic failures of the Republicans (jobs, health care, stagnant earnings, etc) and their cynical use of the religion have turned her unequivocally away from the Republican party. She spoke of Edwards' message regarding the emphasis Jesus placed on the poor and meek.
Initailly I thought she was pulling my leg and following Limbaugh's advice to push for Obama, but after speaking as long as we did, I simply don't believe that is the case. She argued pretty passionately against the actions of the GOP; she seemed genuinely and extremely offended as she echoed many of the criticisms of David Kuo.
There was only one qualification to her position - No way would she support Hillary. She says she will vote for Obama if he is the nominee, but if Hillary wins my neighbor says she will stay home and not vote.
Anyway, that conversation leads me to repost this. Thanks again to the person who posed the original question.
"He's an icon of "post-partisan" politics which, to me, is as ridiculous as concept as any I've ever heard. On one side we see a group of people who are consumed by greed and a thirst for power, who despise the poor, gays, women, and minorities, who'd like nothing more than to hand all the power in this country over to a handful of powerful men who'd love to forge another gilded age, who think America has the right and the duty to use everything up to and including military force to push its will on the rest of the world. On the other side you have those who believe in America as a symbol of freedom, hope, and justice. Those who would like to judge people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin or who they happen to love. Who believe women are as worthy of respect and admiration as men, and who believe that America is a more potent force for democracy and justice throughout the world as an example of such things rather than a military power devoted to spreading them through the force of arms.
How does one reconcile these two sides? Where is the path to "post-partisanship" there? Which side is most willing to compromise, and what would each be willing to sacrifice to move beyond partisanship? When I ask this question, I find myself in fear of the answer."
The answer actually is extremely simple (that doesn't mean easy) - no reconciliation is necessary.
The two sides you describe are NOT defined by their political labels of Republican/Democrat and they are NOT defined the ideological labels of conservative/liberal. Perhaps the problem is the term itself as the post "partisan" label clearly leads us to think along the lines I've just rejected. What Obama is seeking to do is reach the voters that have been hoodwinked since the Reagan era into voting against their self interests by those "people who are consumed by greed and a thirst for power". They have successfully exploited fear of "the poor, gays, women, and minorities and despair for nearly thirty years. Now we have an orator who seems to be able to reach through that armor of carefully crafted negativity and touch the part of people that recognizes the concept of fairness, justice and the golden rule.
The "base" of the traditional Republican party has traditionally been the moneyed interests that tried to install Romney as their tool of administration. The paid hate mongers lined up behind Romney yet failed totally to move over 70% of their voters in the desired direction.
The other parts of their "base" were acquired as a reaction to Civil rights legislation and the economic turmoil ensuing from loss of US control over world oil supply in the 1970s. Some of those truly are hate-filled souls that can never be reached. But it has been 44 years since the Civil Rights Act, and the generation that placed racism over all other considerations of self interest is gradually dying off. True, many of the younger generation has followed in their footsteps but to hold onto the numbers they need for control the "people who are consumed by greed and a thirst for power have had to expand the range of people eligible to be hated to include "the poor, gays, and women".
However, the colossal ineptitude of the Bush administration has laid bare the truth of this malignant brotherhood for all its members to see. The co-opted are starting to wake up (ex: David Kuo) and recognize the cynical manipulation for what it has been. Look at the protest vote for Huckabee. It shows that nearly 50% are not timidly toeing the line they are being fed.
Does this mean that the "people who are consumed by greed and a thirst for power" are going to experience an epiphany leading them to suddenly begin working for the betterment of all?
Not for an instant does Obama or this supporter believe that or make any such claim. If you actually listen you will hear him speaking to those who have been deluded into voting against their own interests through the manipulation I spoke of. As far as I can tell, he basically makes two claims:
1) The "people who are consumed by greed and a thirst for power" can be successfully opposed by reaching out to those who have been manipulated into pledging partisan loyalty that does not serve their interests, and
2) Even if they can be reached, the struggle to right our course is going to be extremely difficult.
There are still going to be those who base their political actions on hate.
There are still going to be those who fail to recognize they are being manipulated to act against their self interests.
But Howard Dean recognized the dissatisfaction that was building. He saw the disillusionment that was spreading like ripples from the center of the most corrupt power grab in this nation's history. In response and against great opposition from the DLC, he implemented
his 50 state strategy. Without that, I believe Obama would already be another also ran. Dean saw the changes in the electorate prepared Democrats to capitalize on those changes. Obama is simply the person best equipped to bring in the haarvest.
At least, that's how I interpret things.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
