It’s morning in America. When all the dust is settled, Barack Obama will win the electoral college with more than three hundred and fifty votes, and the popular vote by almost seven million, a clear majority and a powerful mandate. In short, he’ll come close to repeating Bill Clinton’s legendary electoral routs, and secure a majority that Clinton never enjoyed (thanks to Ross Perot). This victory is decisive, and a ringing endorsement of Senator Obama’s message of unity and principled liberalism.
The question now is – what do we do with it? The short answer is, move cautiously forward. No victory is ever total, and especially when the stakes are so high, we can’t afford to rest on our laurels. History will decide whether Barack Obama becomes a Jimmy Carter or a Bill Clinton. There’s still a lot that you and I can do to make sure that a progressive victory becomes a progressive mainstream. So – Where do we go from here?
As a Majority Party
While Obama delivered our first electoral victory in 12 years, his victory emerges more from a confluence of historic events than from the fact that he’s an ideal candidate. In many ways, Barack Obama as a candidate was far from perfect. He lacked “executive experience,” had a liberal voting record, struggled to escape from conspiracy theories and rumors, and he wasn’t white. In any other year, he would have lost – or won by significantly less. Recall that just recently Obama polled below a “generic Democrat” in a matchup against John McCain. Why did we win?
Because the Republican brand is shattered. After eight years of a horrifically divisive administration, a failing war, a ruined economy, and facing only promises of more of the same, the Republican Party was simply not an option for more than the conservative mainline of America. Instead of reinventing itself with a transformative, universally respected candidate, the Republicans stuck to their guns and reentrenched themselves around his anti-intellectual, culture-war steeped running mate. The Republicans entered this race hopping on one leg; halfway to the finish line, they shot themselves in the remaining foot.
We cannot always count on the Republicans to so destroy themselves. Some of the advantages gained in this race – the perfection of the Bush ground game & its use for good, and the masterful use of modern technology to play to modern coalitions – will stick with us. We’ve learned our lesson, and we can do it again. But rarely do politicians face such a weak opponent. We can’t plan on that. Nor can we forget that our two central strengths in this election were a message of unity, and a powerful appeal to young voters, and black voters. Institutionalizing both messages within the Democratic Party will serve our party, and more importantly, our country.
As a Nation
Our party can best consolidate its gains by fulfilling its promise to change America for the better. On “soft” social issues, Barack Obama should continue his campaign’s message of principled liberalism, which set a premium on compromise and bipartisan consensus, to build support for a moderate, electorally validated right to choose, and support for gay rights by reframing the issue as one of compassion (a task he began in his acceptance speech). On “hard” issues – the economy, the war, rebuilding American hegemony – Obama will do well to lead in the example of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, by welcoming and accepting cross-party ideas and support. Surely he’s already taken the first steps there. Selecting Joe Biden proved that Obama really was interested in the idea of “a team of rivals.” If he meant what he said in his acceptance speech, it’s another step in the right direction.
Ultimately Barack Obama will be judged on results. He needs to get to work. He should tap his cabinet now, and start working now with Still-President Bush to affect a smooth transition. America can’t afford to wait a day. Nor can the people who propelled Obama to victory.
I spent election day working as an election observer in northwest Philadelphia. The neighborhood is majority black, and portions skirt the poverty line. While even pre-Obama this was overwhelmingly Democratic Country (one local handed out lists of the Democratic candidates just outside the door), turnout was incredibly high, and the enthusiasm for Barack Obama palpable. While voters talked about how their savings evaporated under Bush, grandfathers told their grandsons that, if they stay in school, they too can be like Barack Obama. Barack Obama won because of people like these. If he lets them down, history will justly judge him poorly.
Conclusion
Last night’s results give the Democratic Party a mandate for change, but they will also require the party itself to change to keep the mandate. We’ll need to become a consensus party, capable of compromise while retaining our core values. We’ll have to reframe key social questions as valence issues – “freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all.” And we’ll have to work. Hard. We’re all Americans today. Let’s make that unity permanent, and draw on it for the sake of our party, and our country.
Interesting commentary from Chris Caldwell:
The Democrats are now the partisan home of the upper crust of the American meritocracy, of the credentialled classes, the classes that believe every endeavour is some variety of IQ test. USA Today did a review of fund-raising data and discovered that Obama dominates fundraising among the leaders of ‘finance, insurance, real estate, health, communications and law’. His campaign has run through hundreds of millions more than McCain’s, and will spend a quarter of a billion dollars on television alone before this election is over….The Democratic party is the vehicle through which, after a populist interlude, the governing classes are proposing to take their country back. Obama is a restoration candidate but that doesn’t mean he has a plan.
I don’t agree with all of this but there IS some truth to it. While I think Obama has been successful in securing a huge following of young voters that saw the power of voting first hand, there are other parts of his winning coalition that are more fickle. Much was made of attracting ‘independents’ and ‘undecided voters’ but keep in mind that in years past those were called ‘swing voters’ and for very good reason. They will turn on a less-than-perfect President in a second. For that very reason Obama has a madate, but he is also dependent on a very fragile group of voters.
Obama’s team understands the lessons of the Clinton years and how over-reaching lead to the Republican take-over in 1994. My sense is that they won’t make the same mistakes there. But let’s also remind ourselves that there is so much ‘hope’ invested in Obama that it is almost inevitable that he will break some people’s hearts when faced with the realities of government.
I read a piece this morning that discussed Obama getting intelligence briefings starting Thursday morning. I would give a million dollars to see the look on his face when he begins to understand the true power he is about to inherit. At that moment he will join the most exclusive club in the world and he will forever be a different man. I hope he has the temperment to handle that.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | November 5, 2008, 2:41 pmPC,
So if I read your quote correctly, the “elites” are going to take over the US through Democrats after failing to do so through Republicans? After all, haven’t the “leaders of ‘finance, insurance, real estate, health, communications and law’” always been Republican leaning? Do the conservative pundits know this?
Posted by Philip H. | November 5, 2008, 3:17 pmI think the point he is making is that much of Obama’s succes is owed to the very ‘elite’ that working class populism rails against.
I would also make the case that an Obama victory is going to create expectations among a whole other meritocracy that will expect their ideas to be pushed hard. That group is the college professors and general malcontents that seem to be in a constant state of anger over the lack of six-figure jobs for folks with PhD’s in cultural anthropolgy or applied sociology. Much has been made of Obama’s intellectual roots trumping experience. His fellow intellectuals are going to be pretty miffed if his move to the middle is permanent.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | November 5, 2008, 3:30 pmYawn. I would like to hear your case about all these cultural anthropologists, which you don’t make but allude to, as I think the Republican elitist argument is worn out. I’m assuming you are attempting to perpetuate the cultural divide, the red vs. blue state mentality. I guess Virginia, Iowa, and New Mexico are no longer a part of your “non-elitist” America? Or do you buy Palin’s rhetoric about the “real Virginia” and the
“real America”?
This is not the time for the culture war– this is a time for dealing with real problems. Those who try to divide us by talking about “elites” vs. not are going to get caught up in partisanship. And partisanship is not what we need right now–we need real economic solutions, energy solutions, infrastructure solutions. I’d really like the proposals to be based on research or experts on the field and not just lobbyists wanting to make money. (Think Cheney’s secret meetings with the oil industry.) If that means I support elitists, then so be it. I certainly hope we have an elite military, but I guess the Bush-Cheney regime just wanted to have the military go to Iraq but not fund their battle armor properly–a non-elitist solution to commandering in chief?
Posted by Ian | November 5, 2008, 3:55 pmtoxicologists diagnosed pc with a serious kool-aid overdose.seriously since when have repubs been populist? Hint: screeching about The Gays doesn’t count. That’s just pandering to get low income voters to go against their interest.
Posted by Ames | November 5, 2008, 4:04 pmOne of us is failing at reading comprehension. My read of PC’s comment is that the Democratic position was to invoke working-class populism, while much of their success this cycle is thanks to the support of those that this populism typically rails against.
I welcome correction.
~ John
Posted by John | November 5, 2008, 4:21 pmThank you John and you are 100% correct.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | November 5, 2008, 4:26 pmAmes, I’d be curious to hear what your definition of ‘working class’ is because that is the target of Democratic populism. I think you and I have very different views of what constitutes a ‘working class’ voter.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | November 5, 2008, 4:32 pmI tend to think of the working class as it is defined by sociologists: blue-collar and clerical workers with low job security and acceptable-to-decent standard of living and a high school education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_structure_of_the_United_States#Academic_models
Posted by Kris | November 5, 2008, 6:53 pmJohn, if that’s PC’s stance I’m even more confused. PC, could you restate it? Maybe I’m jumping too quickly to conclusions and leaping over your point. But I don’t get it.
Posted by Ames | November 5, 2008, 9:10 pmI suppose there were two separate points I was trying to make;
One is exactly what John was talking about which is that Obama’s victory depended largely on the very people Democratic populism seems opposed to.
The second point is that highly educated liberals of the college-professor type are probably going to be quickly disappointed if Obama remains in the center rather than embracing their more Far left policy proposals.
Posted by Mike (PC) | November 5, 2008, 11:42 pmI hope no-one expects him to embrace far left politics; I think he distanced himself, and disappointed them preemptively, during the summer.
And populism isn’t necessarily opposed to the existence of elite, intelligent people in power: populism is opposed to elite, intelligent people exploiting the working classes. An intelligent “elite” in power does not compel the counter-populist conclusion. Otherwise you’d just have to have a dumb guy in power every time… and as we’ve seen, that just doesn’t work.
Posted by Ames | November 5, 2008, 11:52 pmI would argue that Democratic populism is opposed to anyone at the top, regardless of education or intellect. Basically, if you’re a CEO, you’re the bad guy.
As to Kris’ definition of ‘working class’ that’s pretty close to mine. ‘Working class’ is defined today more by education and skill level than by the nature of the work. Today’s ‘working class’ are just as likely to work in a call center as to be driving a forklift. The reason I bring this up is because I think Democratic-style populism works against these people by directing their frustration at those above them, rather than encouraging them to gain skills to become more marketable.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | November 6, 2008, 8:40 am“The reason I bring this up is because I think Democratic-style populism works against these people by directing their frustration at those above them, rather than encouraging them to gain skills to become more marketable.”
Mike,
I disagree. I think the Democrats want those folks to succeed, hence the insistence on stronger public education, and making a college education more widely affordable and hence more widely available. What Democrats do rail against, however, is the notion that everyone with skills can always simply climb the ladder to the top. You have to have a job to climb to, and be paid a competitive salary once you get there.
Democrats rail against CEO’s and other business leaders because too often those folks don’t make it possible for more individual skills and more individual marketing to create upward mobility. If they were interested in such things, they wouldn’t send manufacturing jobs overseas. Instead, corporations would keep their operations here, and pay the higher salaries that more skilled workers rightly demand.
And all of that has nil to do with taking money to fund a campaign for president.
Posted by Philip H. | November 6, 2008, 9:45 amPhillip,
I think we have a real difference of opinion on the responsibility of CEO’s with regards to employing low-skilled workers. A CEO’s #1 job is to make money for his shareholders. Everything else is a secondary concern. So the decision to ship jobs overseas becomes easy when you look at costs. With my company, for example, payroll expense is the largest thing that depletes our profit. We are constantly looking at ways to cut heads or hours.
What I have a real problem with is this liberal / Democratic idea that the best route for a low-skilled workers is to either A) Go to college or B) Agitate for higher wages. I’m a much bigger fan of C) B ehonest with them and tell them to learn a trade in a field that can’t be out-sourced and which will make them more marketable and able to earn a higher wage.
College is great, but it isn’t for everyone and it’s not as solid a guarantee of future wealth as it once was. Skilled trades are in high demand right now and a person can learn one for a fraction of the time and cost of a college education AND often make more money than a graduate with a freshly printed liberal arts degree.
The biggest obstacle to the upward mobilit of low-skilld workers are in fact low-skilled unions which lie to them and liberal populists who direct their frustrations towards the wrong people.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | November 6, 2008, 10:20 amIt’s important to also remember that low-skilled workers’ biggest competition is not CEO’s… it’s low-skilled workers in other countries.
Posted by Mike (PC) | November 6, 2008, 10:21 am“It’s important to also remember that low-skilled workers’ biggest competition is not CEO’s… it’s low-skilled workers in other countries.”
Mike,
Exactly my point – if, as you suggest CEO’s make the corporately responsible decision to offshore low skilled work (as well as skilled work, production, graphic design, etc), then how will further training in skilled trades garner any opportunities for upward mobility here in the US? Granted, we can’t offshore the person who comes to my house to maintain my heating system, but we can, and have, offshored the draftsman who used to draw architectural plans in house. Dwell had an interesting story several issues back about how many large design firms now ship their work to India. How does someone who comes out of technical college trained as a draftsman compete in that environment? How does an electrical engineer, who could make a living designing computer circuits, compete for a job in Asia against someone who’s salary is 25% of what the US salary would be?
Posted by Philip H. | November 6, 2008, 11:21 amPhillip,
The only way you can prevent offshoring is to put tariffs or heavy tax penalties in place. If that happens companies will pass their increased costs on to consumers. That’s just simple market dynamics.
The only to protect yourself in a global economy is to find a job that cannot be off-shored. Skilled trades that require hands-on work cannot be outsourced and companies across the US are begging for trained machinists, welders, etc. I see more hope for skilled trades than I do for a lot ‘working class’ jobs.
Posted by Mike (PC) | November 6, 2008, 11:52 amHi,
I am writing concerning the so call Canadian multiculturalism which is biggest and hypocrite “bull s…” I thik Canadian must learn from the USA by voting a non White as president In Canada no executive position is for non white the governor general is a dummy function and this the only position that is occupied a black woman. Can you believed nobody is talking of having a black mayor in Toronto.In Toronto cameraman of TV station have the art of filming a non white in a crowd just to show their so call multicultural bla bla.None of the political party is ready to represent minority as it should be, we still white MP in minority riding it’s remind me the colonial time in Africa and India when the white soldier on his horse followed by foot by native troops
I will asked everybody to read the book by Neil Bissoondath “Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada”before answering me.
Long live the USA
Posted by Robert | November 8, 2008, 7:35 pm