On Message
I really appreciate the tremendous job that President Bush has done. He has succeeded where Reagan and his father, not to mention Bill Clinton, had failed, and achieved the ultimate political accomplishment of our time. That’s right, he has brought the Democratic Party together and caused it to articulate, for the first time in two generations, a triumphant and affirmative liberal vision for America that sounds like America.
By being so objectionable and offensive to Democratic values on every conceivable level, Bush has raised the stakes and challenged dusty-thinking establishment types to raise their eyes from single-issue mania to the bigger picture. It’s not enough to simply rage at Bush’s arrogance, incompetence and ideological wrong-headedness. It’s not enough to pick around the edges at the various policies that assault the principles of individual Democratic constituencies. Bush’s threat is so organic and so total that the only possible response is to return to first principles and proclaim the basic liberal ideals that are embraced overwhelmingly by the American public: ideals of community, pragmatism, global responsibility, opportunity and faith in progress that most of us imagined scarcely even needed defense.
Democrats didn’t used to be shy about proclaiming these values, but from the late 1960s onward, the party became so preoccupied with the agendas and ideologies of narrow interest groups that it abandoned the larger field to opponents whose big-picture ideology was much better defined and articulated. Maybe Reagan’s policies didn’t enjoy much support (they didn’t), but people related to someone who stood for a Big Something over people who stood for too many small things. Clinton won twice, but not on traditional Democratic values. He prevailed over weak opposition with sensible policies wrapped in a big, sticky ball of charm, and had the benefit of governing in good times. He could certainly be inspiring– as evidenced by his fine speech on Monday night – but during his Presidency, he rarely governed as a visionary, probably because he perceived that he wouldn’t be successful if he did.
The greatness of George W. Bush, as his supporters will tell you, lies in his uncompromising commitment to ideological principles. Amen to that. His unique combination of rigidity and incompetence in a time of grave peril has done more to discredit extremist illiberalism than anything that liberals themselves ever could have done. Partisans for both sides like to characterize America as a “conservative country” or a “liberal country,” but the fact is, they’re both right. Comparably few Americans identify totally with any one ideology. They pick and choose the ideas that line up with their values, giving priority to individual needs or community needs as circumstances merit.
Yes, there are probably about 40% of Americans who would vote for Bush if he came around and set fire to their houses. Some of them have a financial stake in Republican policies, some are principled devotees to ideologies or theologies that align better with Bush than with his opponent. But most have an emotional investment in the divisive identity politics practiced so shrewdly by Karl Rove and the GOP strategists that they are beyond the reach of reasoned political discourse or appeals to ordinary experience (and of course, there are such creatures on the Left as well, but unlike conservatism, liberalism does not make a ideological fetish and partisan virtue out of unquestioning loyalty).
Fortunately, demographics are such that they can only win if the rest of us are asleep. In low-turnout elections when most people perceive that there is little at stake, this lumpen faction can be decisive, or at least make the race close enough that it can be tipped to the Right by other means. Bush, through his staggering and spectacular misleadership, has woken us up, and now the Democrats have risen to the challenge by offering a compelling, inclusive and optimistic alternative.
It’s a pity that the networks did not see fit to carry Barack Obama’s keynote address last night. This impressive young man, not yet elected Senator from Illinois, perfectly captured the tone and vision that Democrats have been groping for since Mario Cuomo delivered his “City on a Hill” speech at the doomed 1984 convention in San Francisco. In passages such as this:
…Alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga: A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper -- that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. "E pluribus unum." Out of many, one.
…Obama presents us with a liberalism not of weakness or soft-minded idealism, but of inclusion and strength in community. He refutes the false promise of “rugged individualism” as the answer to every problem, and he does it in the language of faith and values, touching the decent, generous spirit that animates people not held in the grip of ideological fanaticism.
In conclusion, Obama built to a crescendo of positive energy:
In the end, that's what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope? John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope. I'm not talking about blind optimism here -- the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don't talk about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. No, I'm talking about something more substantial. It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too. The audacity of hope!
Audacity indeed. Obama does not shy from stinging criticism of the hollow and false vision of fear, but his opposition is not negative. It’s not “whining.” And it’s not weak. Whatever your political orientation, you can’t help but admire this young man’s stunning ability to crystallize the issue, or his soaring gifts as an orator. If you haven’t seen the speech, it’s probably out there somewhere, and you will certainly be hearing about it in the future.
It remains to be seen if the candidate himself can live up to the promise of this vision and cast his candidacy as an affirmation of hope over fear, of generosity over stingy and infantile self-centeredness, of strength in community over divisiveness. Honestly, it pains me that there is even a doubt. But whatever the failings of Kerry as a candidate, it can’t be said that the Democrats are not offering a compelling, coherent and unflaggingly hopeful alternative to the confrontational paranoia of Bush and the Republicans.
10:22:18 AM 
|
|
