I'm okay, you need to be transformed
Who would have thought that Arianna Huffington and I spent our weekends in similar pursuits? Although admittedly the cars, houses and wardrobes probably differed. Both she and I discussed Senator Obama's recent gallop to the center with a number of people. In her recent post on HuffPo, Ms. Huff enumerates the error of Senator Obama's ways in attempting to make himself more palatable to the mainstream voter or as she so eloquently puts it
Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle is for Losers .
Now I admire Ms. Huff. (I'm not sure I like her but I doubt that she would like me - and being liked is such a namby pamby goal anyway.) She has an M. A. in Economics from Cambridge and has built HuffPo into a multi-million dollar blog all while being an extremely attractive, articulate and sometimes funny woman. I on the other hand took 20 years to graduate from the University of Tennessee and lost my home to foreclosure. Also, when it comes to specific qualifications for writing the afore linked to blog post, AH has been a two time loser in politics as well as totally shedding her political skin to find new life as the Queen of the Far Left. Neither of which should be held against her. The best lessons learned in life are often gleaned from loss and I myself am currently undergoing a political molting.
As for her advice to Senator Obama - how is it that so many politically astute people were unable to see until now that there is nothing - absolutely nothing - different about Senator Obama other than the color of his skin? To be honest, though, I can imagine their disappointment in finding that he is your average (well not average, he is a damn spot smarter than most pols) politician - no better, no worse. I have to admit though that even I am a little disappointed in how quickly he has turned on his transformational self and I knew from Day One that he would. Throughout the campaign he has been less a visionary and more a mannequin on which one could hang the clothes in one's political closet. Anyway, that's for Senator Obama, his handlers and his disciples to discuss - the fish I'm frying concerns the disdain in which Ms. Huff and so many "progressives" hold the center of American politics.
I agree with AH that one should not heave ho bedrock principles in order to pander to the electorate yet I am puzzled. Do Ms. Huff and her far left cohorts not realize that many of the people that they say they want to help with their "progressive" agenda are the same people she holds in such low regard? She writes of a Midwest devastated by economic changes and yet she speaks dismissively of the 46% of undecided voters who found the charges of the Swift Boaters credible. Does she not know that many of those people are one in the same? Devastated by economic changes and vulnerable to diversionary 527 ads? Am I reading her post correctly when I find that she would have Senator Obama just write these people off his list? When the Senator's adherents speak of his transforming the country, leading us all to the post partisan Promised Land, do they mean that only those who disagree with him need to be transformed, that only those who drink from the cup of Obama will be allowed to cross over into the political Land of Canaan? All this time I thought all of us were in need of some kind of transformation, that post partisan meant getting beyond being on the left or on the right.
As a daughter of the South, I grew up hearing the admonition that certain types of behavior were "unbecoming". Being sullen was unbecoming, being catty was unbecoming. Well, I find the idea that anyone to the right of Arianna Huffington is unworthy of being dealt with is unbecoming the Democratic Party, just as I found the idea that anyone to the left of George Bush was a looney liberal was unbecoming to the Republican Party. I'm no fan of Senator Obama. Over the weekend I had a discussion with my son about how BO has changed his position on as many issues in the last week as John McCain has since 2000. Still, I do think that one has to be elected and to govern not as the President of one segment of the population but as the President of all the people; that may not be progressive but it is politics and politics to paraphrase John Buchan is still amongst the best and most honorable professions.
I believe Ms Huffington does realize that the voters who bought the Swift Boat charges and the voters devastated by NAFTA are largely one and the same. In other words, these are the people Obama described as economically neglected by Washington and therefore “bitter”. The difference is that Obama was attempting to explain to West Coast supporters how to understand these voters so as to better convince them to vote for Obama. AH is in fact urging Obama to write these voters off.
AH clearly believes these voters are not worth winning because they are, if not exactly stupid, then too swayable for their own good. It’s pointless for Obama to court them because they can’t see that he only wants what is best for them. Obama should, therefore, ignore them, build up his base and win the election so he can do what’s best for them - because he knows what that is even if they don’t. So, yes, we do all need to be transformed. It’s just that some like AH have already drunk from the cup of Obama and some will have it poured over their heads.
I agree it’s pointless for Obama to attempt to win these voters but for a different reason: they’re smart enough to know when they’re being patronized. To win over these voters, Obama would have to consistently present himself as not patronizing. Since I believe he is patronizing and - worse - doesn’t know that he is, I’d say the odds of Obama being able to win over these voters are slim and none - and slim’s leaving town.
More generally, I think AH is correct in urging Obama to stay left rather than slide right. What Obama has to offer is his claim to be a different kind of politician, one who says what he means and means what he says even when it’s not what voters want to hear. Even if his particular positions didn’t resonate with swing voters, they were supposed to be impressed by his forthrightness and vote for him on the issue of character. By moving to the middle, he tells swing voters he doesn’t have any more character than any other politician and is gambling they will like his positions enough - and hate the Republicans enough - to decide character is overrated.
Even worse, by moving to the middle he demotivates his most enthusiastic supporters. Democrats will probably still vote for him but the tidal wave of new voters and newly enthused voters that was supposed to guarantee him victory will realize that he’s just another politician and won’t provide him with money, volunteers, and votes in the numbers he needs.
Reply to this
Thank you for your comments, Elise. As always you bring a slant to the conversation that aids my thinking. You may very well be right about Senator Obama having a better chance if he presents himself as above politics and stays well to the left of center. Still, I believe that he has never been above politics and he will move to virtually any position that puts him closer to being President. Governor Palin - for all her lack of experience - is, I believe, going to school the Dems in cultivating their base. It's just that I was hopeful that maybe this election we could get beyond having our elections hijacked by the extremes on both sides.
I know, though, that you are right when you write that he can't sway the voters he needs by patronizing them although - in my opinion - he speaks down to virtually everyone.
Reply to this