Obama's move to the center
Arianna Huffington has suddenly become terrified that Obama is moving to the center. She's saying it's short-sighted -- no stupid -- for his campaign to revert to traditional general election strategy.
America's undecided voters, she says on The Huffington Post, are a fickle crowd "so easily swayed (in 2004) that 46 percent of them found credible the Swift Boaters' charges that Kerry might have faked his war wounds to earn a Purple Heart."
She writes:
Running to the middle in an attempt to attract undecided swing voters didn't work for Al Gore in 2000. It didn't work for John Kerry in 2004. And it didn't work when Mark Penn (obsessed with his "microtrends" and missing the megatrend) convinced Hillary Clinton to do it in 2008.
Fixating on -- and pandering to -- this fickle crowd is all about messaging tailored to avoid offending rather than to inspire and galvanize. And isn't galvanizing the electorate to demand fundamental change the raison d'etre of the Obama campaign in the first place?
There have been interesting rebuttals to Huffington's arguments, including one by Ed Kilgore, managing editor of the Democratic Strategist.
Kilgore writes:
The two things that are pretty hard to deny are that (1) undecided "very likely" voters are indeed a disproportionately important electoral prize because winning each of them produces two net votes, and (2) most successful campaigns in a competitive environment manage to energize the partisan base while expanding it into the ranks of independents and even the other party's base. Huffington's horror at swing-voter pandering, and her manifest contempt for swing voters themselves, probably reflects the fashionable but very dubious Lackoffian (sic) belief that swing voters are cognitively confused, perhaps even stupid or amoral people who can only be appealed to by an even more strongly expressed partisan "frame."
I promise not to go off on a tangent regarding George Lakoff and his ideas about swing voters. Instead, I want to talk about Connecticut in 2006. That was the year Ned Lamont was crowned by the Net Roots as the knockoff artist of the year for defeating incumbent Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary, only to lose --badly as I recall -- in the general election.
A quick look at Connecticut's voter registration rolls tells you that unaffiliateds -- or "declined to state" voters, as NM defines it -- are the largest group of registered voters.
I lived in Connecticut for six years before departing in 2005 for New Mexico. And I admit I was shocked that Lieberman lost the 2006 Democratic senatorial primary. Incumbents rarely lose at that level. But as soon as Lieberman announced he would run as an Independent his victory appeared to be a distinct probability, not a remote possibility. Longtime reporters on the ground in Connecticut were hearing the same thing.
We weren't prophets. We just knew that during his 18 years in the Senate Lieberman had garnered support among some Republicans and had always scored well with unaffiliateds. In addition, he had substantial support from blue-collar residents who lived in certain cities where trade unions still have a presence, the so-called Reagan Democrats.
Now, let me say, it's been two years and one can argue that a lot has changed in the U.S. But the last time I checked Connecticut is more moderate to progressive than New Mexico -- it's a pretty blue state by the shallow red-blue standard so many use these days. And Lieberman won that state by appealing to as many voters as possible. Yes, the Obama-McCain contest is different, and it covers a lot more territory. So if Arianna Huffington wants to preach the importance of playing to the progressive base to win the U.S. presidential election, that's all well and good. More power to her. But let's not forget what happened in Connecticut two years ago. And let's not forget that she sounds like someone who has spent a lot of time living on both U.S. coasts, but not too much time in that vast area considered fly-over territory by some.
CATEGORIES IN THIS STORY:
About Trip Jennings
Trip Jennings has worked in newspapers for nearly 20 years, including the Albuquerque Journal, where he reported on Gov. Bill Richardson, the New Mexico Legislature and state government. In addition to New Mexico, Trip has worked in Georgia, California, Florida and Connecticut where he covered a ...
Comments:
Posted 07/04/2008 12:25 with
First of all, Mr. Kilgore is incorrect in describing Lakoff’s framing concept. It’s about avoiding the use of right-wing value frames to talk about an issue. For instance, if you want to talk about the negative implications of ending the estate tax, you don’t call it the “death tax” as the Repubs and pundits have termed it. It is not about being overly partisan at all. In fact, Lakoff’s intent is to teach candidates and others how to pick off independent and Repub voters by using value frames that appeal to them and using them to demonstrate how Dem positions honor those values. Moreover, Kilgore is a well-known DLC adherent, long in cahoots with the likes of Al From, Bruce Reed, Harold Ford and Rahm Emanuel—who have been taking a beating lately because Obama won the primary season based on using the tenets of the Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy. The DLC strongly dislike Dean and all he stands for, like a strong Party structure instead of a bunch of big money bundlers running things. Clinton, who has chaired the DLC, used Mark Penn’s “centrist” strategy of concentrating only on a handful of states. We saw where that led.
Anyway, over and over, polls show that a majority of Americans support most progressive values if they are described fairly. Where they get hung up is when right-wingers manage to couch their anti-progressive and often anti-American policies in moral values language that masks what they are really doing. Lakoff encourages Dems to speak about personal values in connecting with voters, rather than reciting laundry lists of positions on policy (as Hillary did). It’s about language and presentation to get what Democrats stand for across to ordinary people. Hardly a combatively partisan stand.
Secondly, the conventional wisdom is that Lieberman won his Senate race mostly because CT citizens—including many Dems—didn’t want to lose his considerable clout due to his seniority. Think Pete Domenici, who was supported by many Dems not for his increasingly right-wing voting record on many issues, but because he could bring home the bacon and gave NM clout on a number of committees. Not surprisingly, after witnessing Lieberman’s beyond the pale support for all things BushWar, recent polling in CT shows that if the Senate election were held today, Lamont would win by a healthy margin.
Thirdly, since when is defending the Constitution and rule of law considered a left-wing progressive issue? It is an American issue, and it’s on that basis that criticism has exploded over Obama’s sudden conversion to the very right-wing frame that things are so scary in the world today that we dare not protect civil liberties and privacy rights or hold our corporations accountable when they break the law. In my view, Obama hasn’t been moving to any “middle,” he’s been falling into the habit of using right-wing frames to justify his weakening, increasingly mushy positions. He apparently believes that this will help him avoid the caustic voices of the right and their pundit cohorts, but he ignores the fact that this kind of distorted screeching will continue no matter how he votes or changes his positions.
Another example of this so-called “moving to the middle” is Obama’s silly criticism of Wesley Clark’s entirely creditable and reasonable assertion that combat experience or time as a prisoner of war doesn’t necessarily provide a person with the kind of discretionary powers and leadership abilities that make a good president. Clark’s position isn’t a partisan one; it’s merely stating a common sense view, yet Obama felt compelled to lash out at him while using the kind of talking points employed by the right. What it does is make Obama look weak and afraid to defend his supporters—something that is not in any way popular with the so-called middle.
Finally, the “middle” so sought after by so many is really a collection of mostly uninformed or poorly informed voters who generally don’t pay attention to indepth policy analyses or other wonkish debates. Many of them vote for candidates because they “like” their personality traits. Many don’t vote in anything but presidential elections. They aren’t necessarily stupid, but they are usually uninterested in the inner workings of politics, inside baseball or the fine points of policy. How Obama’s recent actions on things like FISA and Clark will make a dent with these voters is beyond me. They’re not even paying attention yet. But what they will take in will be the headlines blaring about Obama’s “flip-flopping” and his evident fear about keeping to his values now that the general election is at hand. At the same time, he’ll piss off the Dem base and activists he needs to win. That’s smart political strategy?
Mark my words, the right and the punditry will brand Obama as soft on terror and a weeny no matter what he does now. And if he keeps backing off from his original positions and statements of his values, he’ll also face charges that he’s a weak leader without a backbone. Double jeopardy.
Posted 07/07/2008 11:10 with
Right on, barbwire! I agree – I have long been waiting for Democratic candidates who will truly stand up for the progressive ideals that are the hallmark of this party.
We have had enough of the neo-con “vision” that has turned out to be nothing more than an adolescent fantasy of world domination – and a disastrous one, at that.
Obama’s message of hope is what Americans are longing for; we are ready to begin cleaning up the mess the Bush administration has made of the U.S. and the world. But it won’t happen if Democrats try to out-Repub the Republicans. Arianna Huffington is spot-on in her editorial, and I hope & pray the Obama campaign gets THIS message.
Posted 07/07/2008 20:15 with
Thanks for your comment. It’s obvious you took a lot of time and effort to respond to my commentary.
But there are some things I don’t quite understand. You say Obama is co-opting “very right wing frames.” Perhaps you meant to say “less progressive,” or “moderate.” For you to say that he went from progressive to very right wing implies that he covered vast amounts of acreage, but I only see a day trip, not a around-the-world tour.
So that leads me to my first question: Do you know what the “very right wing” looks like?
If you think Obama’s speech on the role of religion-based groups in government-financed programs was embraced by conservatives, go ask the Family Research Council or Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention for their take. I’m not sure they’d get your take on the situation.
Here’s Richard Land quoted in the NYTimes about Obama’s pitch, which would prohibit religious groups from considering religion when hiring people to work in government-financed programs: “If you can’t hire people within your faith community, then you’ve lost the distinctive that is the reason why faith-based programs exist in the first place,” said Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Also, I encourage you to read Peter Steinfels’ On Beliefs column that ran in Saturday’s New York Times. It’s interesting, and it takes a step back from the fray to examine the issue.
Furthermore, your suggestion that Obama is co-opting right-wing frames, especially in the issues related to religion-based groups, can be viewed as ceding religion and all it stands for to conservatives whether you meant it that way or not. That, of course, plays into the over-used and incorrect stereotype that liberals and religion never mix. You ever hear of Jim Wallis of Sojourners.
As for the FISA bill, the sticking point appears to be whether or not to grant immunity to the telecoms. The bill itself restores the FISA court’s authority, does it not? Obama said it in his response:
The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I’ve said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility
So your contention that Obama is somehow moving to the opposite end of the political continuum in America seems a little overwrought. Those are nuanced positions, not total giveaways. Obama and his advisers probably realize that taking toward the middle after having to appeal to Democratic primary voters—who are more liberal than general election voters—is smart politics because McCain is already cultivating that group of voters, and has been for years. And Obama and his advisers are probably saying to themselves it’s better to be in the real game rather than dreaming of the pre-season game victory that is the primaries.
Which brings me to my next point. The language you use to describe the middle is interesting. You say … “the “middle” so sought after by so many is really a collection of mostly uninformed or poorly informed voters who generally don’t pay attention to indepth policy analyses or other wonkish debates. Many of them vote for candidates because they “like” their personality traits. Many don’t vote in anything but presidential elections. They aren’t necessarily stupid, but they are usually uninterested in the inner workings of politics, inside baseball or the fine points of policy.”
I know you didn’t intend to, but your description of people who inhabit the middle is almost condescending. They “aren’t necessarily stupid,” you write. Thank goodness for that.
What’s more, the world you lay out here by implication is nearly Manichean in its simplicity—there are the righteous (the progressives), the evil ones (conservatives) and for a little complexity, you throw in the great ill-informed masses whom the left and the right are fighting to lead to enlightenment or to perdition.
With that worldview, you seem not to acknowledge any middle ground populated, in part at least, by individuals who truly think about things or who pay attention but struggle because they are wrestling with complexities. Yes, there are people in the middle who are ill-informed, but I have personally experienced people on the left and the right who are woefully ill-informed because they only listen to people who agree with them, leaving them to exist in the modern version of Plato’s cave or—for a pop cultural reference—the Wachowski Brothers’ Matrix.
One last thought: As for Obama taking to task Wesley Clark’s comments, here’s a pragmatic read of the situation. Such attacks make the Obama campaign look like any other campaign at a time when Obama is trying to persuade many people that he can transcend the politics of the last 15 years. Secondly, Clark’s questioning of McCain’s war-hero status as a qualification to be president opens up a debate Obama doesn’t want, and that is whether his experience of being a one-term Senator is qualification enough. Obama doesn’t want to fight on that battlefield.