On Partisanship: Obama Will Do What The Founders Could Not?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:15:57 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Kevin Drum effectively eviscerates a curious defense of Barack Obama's vision of postpartisanshp by historian Joseph Ellis. Kevin quotes Ellis and then comments:

Let the argument about the viability and practicality of Obama's major message go forward. But as it does, even his critics need to acknowledge that he is not a weird historical aberration. His message has roots in our deepest political traditions. Indeed, it is in accord with the most heartfelt and cherished version of our original intentions as a people and a nation.
Consider it acknowledged. But this sure seems like a backward argument to me. If even the brilliant, farsighted political visionaries who wrote the constitution and founded our country were unable to keep to their nonfactional ways for more than a few months, what does that say about the death grip that partisanship has on human politics? And what, in turn, does that have to say about Obama's apparent belief that he can overcome it?

(Emphasis supplied.) It says that Obama is either faking it, which I fervently wish, or he is a fool. The problem with even faking it of course is that it is a disastrous political strategy and disastrous for a progressive agenda. I truly hope that this Nevada result will wake him up and make him abandon Axelrod's postpartisan nonsense and really try to be an advocate for a Democratic progressive agenda.

< Latinos, Women, Democrats Win Nevada For Clinton | Obama Trying To Play Bush To Hillary's Gore >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

On Partisanship: Obama Will Do What The Founders Could Not? | 20 comments (20 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Not sure why you consistently (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:19:29 PM EST

attribute Obama's post-partisanship theme to Axelrod. From what I've read, Rouse is a key campaign advisor, and today we learn via NYT about the chief speechwriter and his methodology.

: Correction: (none / 0) (#13)
by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:05:49 PM EST

campaign manager David Plouffe

Sure he's post partisianship (none / 0) (#2)
by white n az on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:20:54 PM EST

Until he get's hammered by the electoral process which has thoroughly demonized him or if he were elected president, and the Republican's unite their message to defeat his proposed legislation.

The thing is that the mass media has been so hard on Hillary and soft on Barack that it has essentially allowed his meme's to pass through untarnised...that won't last forever.

: Hillary (none / 0) (#4)
by athyrio on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:26:46 PM EST

Poor Hillary has had to fight tooth and nail so far in her own party to win the nomiation..Obama was like the "annointed one" on the net roots and it hurt him. Noone really dug into his views...I think it is too late to change the message at this point...The democrats have heard his Reagan message

The post-partisanship schtick (none / 0) (#3)
by SFHawkguy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:26:18 PM EST

is indeed silly.

But many of Hillary's supporters are making a similar argument. They argue that Hillary is the more electable because she is more centrist. Instead of Obama's rhetorical choice of appeasement Hillary supporters argue that actual appeasement is a better strategy.

Oh wait. I forgot she knows how to fight the right-wingers and has the experience to do so. Problem is, she won't be fighting the right-wingers about liberal ideas she will be fighting the right-wingers to protect her own skin.

Get ready for more partisanship about the Clintons and not about liberal ideas.

I agree with those who opine the policy (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:32:29 PM EST

positions of Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are nearly indistinguable. So, it is difficult to call Obama more liberal than Obama or vice versa.


And I agree with those people as well (none / 0) (#8)
by SFHawkguy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:45:07 PM EST

There is not much difference between Obama and Hillary. That's why Hillary supporters are reduced to making a big deal out of Obama's rhetorical schtick. That and accusing their opponents of being sexist and engaging in Republican attacks.

I'm simply pointing out that Obama's "post-partisan" strategy is not much different than Hillary's centrist strategy--both are trying to move to the right.

I am frankly very put-off by the sniping between Obama and Hillary supporters. I think both sides are moving too far to the right and engaging in silly debates about meaningless differences.

I obviously disagree with both candidates' strategies. I think the Democrats should move to the left rhetorically as well as move to the left on the issues.

The party has decided. It has repudiated liberalism.


As a most disappointed voter for McGovern (none / 0) (#10)
by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:47:35 PM EST

back in the day, I'm not sure a truly liberal Democrat is electable in the GE.


And that's why (none / 0) (#12)
by SFHawkguy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:57:57 PM EST

Democrats have given up on liberalism and voted for Hillary. They don't even have the courage of their own convictions anymore.

Hey, I too once shared your opinion. I thought Bill Clinton's third way strategy was the way to move our country to the left over the long-term. And it was actually not a bad strategy during the 90s. But now it is a disasterous strategy. It has been the last two presidential elections and the last 8 years. But hey, let's make one last push for this 3rd way politics and double down on our losing bet.

Democrats have now been so cowed into believing that their core convictions are wrong that they don't even make the sales pitch anymore.


: I thought Clinton gave it a good try at the (none / 0) (#14)
by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:07:43 PM EST

Dem. NV LV debate. I applaud her speaking out of Iraq and just wish she would back up her words with action.

He sure sounded like a fool in the (none / 0) (#5)
by MarkL on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:31:40 PM EST

interview clip from Reno.
I think the evidence is pretty strong, based on his writings and speeches over years, that bipartisan Obama is the real deal.

: Voting "present" on abortion issue in (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:33:54 PM EST

IL Senate underscores your point, despite claim Planned Parenthood recommended he vote this way.

Change to what? (none / 0) (#9)
by koshembos on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:47:24 PM EST

The post, pre or bi-partisanship is Obama's message because he has nothing else to run with. He cannot run as a Democratic centrist because Hillary does, he cannot run as a real progressive because he isn't one and Edwards had the better ideas first.

His change message fits his style: it's vague, means little (and most decided that it's bipartisanship) and he is good at selling ice to the Eskimos.

Democracy is about conflicting ideas; it's about people, organization, industries and communities represented by lobbyists; it's a competition. Post partisanship is a UFO; it appears only when no one has a camera and only in small cities. It's nonsense and worse; it's garbage.

if post partisianship is a UFO (none / 0) (#11)
by white n az on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:54:01 PM EST

Then Kucinich owns the meme.

Besides being a believer in UFO's, even his own party disowns him which for all purposes makes him non-partisan


: UFOs gaining supporters in Texas. (none / 0) (#15)
by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:08:26 PM EST

Additional point (none / 0) (#17)
by koshembos on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:34:46 PM EST

Post partisanship was practiced, vehemently, by the communist party in the Soviet Union. Everyone was united behind the party since it was always the best for the people and the country.


Obama Loves Reagan (none / 0) (#16)
by talkingpoint on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 06:27:10 PM EST

Obama love for Reagan is sure to make him look bipartisan., but all though the Reaganites and corporate america really loves Obama, they still won't vote for him in a general election. Anyway, can we call a Reaganite a liberal?

What I think (none / 0) (#18)
by chemoelectric on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 07:59:48 PM EST

What I think is that Obama has the civic-affairs comprehension of an exuberant young man half his physical age; he is underdeveloped socially. He is, therefore, in a sense, a fool, but perhaps when he is twice his current age he will have the wisdom of a 40-something.

: Re Obama's civic affairs comprehension, (none / 0) (#20)
by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:43:21 PM EST

I really wonder what the average is for 40 year olds educated predominantly in the U.S. public education system.

Democratic Delegate Race (none / 0) (#19)
by ElectoPundit on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 09:21:04 PM EST

Yeah, it looks like Huck is finished. The GOP race now looks like it will come down to Romney vs. McCain. I give advantage Romney... economy & immigration & change vs. experience and a hero.

I've done an analysis in a spreadsheet of the Democratic delegate race that people might find interesting. It's what I believe Obama needs to do to win the nomination, state-by-state, must notably winning California. I'll have the Republican race up tomorrow on my blog.

http://electopundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/democratic-delegate-race.html