The Defeat of Absolutism

Here we are on the day when the actions of a 100,000+ Iowans may go a long way in deciding the future of our nation. Its been an interesting journey up to this point, and there have been a few surprises out there...chief among them (for me at least) has been the antipathy towards Sen. Barack Obama by a great deal of liberal/leftist bloggers. From some of their statements, its almost as if we are watching two entirely different campaigns. Take for instance, this comment by Markos Moulitsas on DailyKos:

Obama has made a cottage industry out of attacking the dirty fucking hippies on the left, from labor unions, to Paul Krugman, to Gore and Kerry, to social security, and so on. People think I was being ticky tack with the Gore thing, and in isolation it would've been but a minor non-event. But it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for me, yet another in a pattern of attacks against Democrats and their constituencies. He is the return of Bill Clinton-style triangulating personified.

Let me get this straight. A union (which had previously denounced Health Care mandates) spends money on TV ads attacking Obama for not at this time supporting health care mandates, and Obama points this out...he is therefore "attacking labor unions". Yes, they also referred to this Union backed 527 as a special interest...I'm sorry, I support the rights of union members to organize and collectively bargain, but its silly not to admit that labor unions with PACs, lobbying arms, and 527's aren't also special interests. Perhaps not all special interests should be considered equal (in this sense, equally bad), but you could still support the reduction of influence outside groups have on elections, even unions, while still supporting every cause that the labor unions do.

As for attacking Paul Krugman, it is Krugman who has dedicated his column space to attacking Barack Obama, not the other way around; should Obama be blamed for Krugman not liking him...really? I've touched on the Gore and Kerry bit before, and as for Social Security, admitting there is a problem there does not mean we are going to concede defeat on the issue and adopt Republican privatization...despite what your "framing" books may say.

I think that is where the antipathy comes from; framing and partisanship. On the framing thing, the left has slowly been moving towards the idea that as a Democrat, you must always use the proper frames when discussing issues. For instance, you can't use the word "crisis" in the same sentence as "social security" or else the boogie man wins. In 2005, Sen. Obama wrote an open letter to the folks at Daily Kos, touching a bit on this matter:

Our goal should be to stick to our guns on those core values that make this country great, show a spirit of flexibility and sustained attention that can achieve those goals, and try to create the sort of serious, adult, consensus around our problems that can admit Democrats, Republicans and Independents of good will. This is more than just a matter of "framing," although clarity of language, thought, and heart are required. It's a matter of actually having faith in the American people's ability to hear a real and authentic debate about the issues that matter.

Obama's style of politics, which was not created for this election cycle but has been consistently there throughout his career, throws many of the fiercest partisans off guard. Some believe that in order to win on issues, we must hate and demonize our opponents...why? Because the Republicans did it. Maybe so, I can't say they are absolutely wrong until we try it another way. And if Obama's approach could work. An approach that attempts to bring in those from the center, even the center-right, while still sticking to core progressive principles; wouldn't that make the policy victory all the more sweet?

I got involved in politics not because I wanted to destroy the other side, but because I felt there were problems with this country that weren't being addressed. For me, its hard to hate the Republicans because I consider so many of them my friends. Whether it be in the blogosphere, with Nathan Moore, Bob Krumm, Ned Williams, or Adam Kleinheider; or in my personal life with friends and family whom I greatly enjoy debating issues and politics with, but in a way that focuses on the ideas, and not the person. I believe most Republicans are genuine, good hearted people who just happen to be wrong on the issues (I do believe I'm right on most issues, if I didn't, I wouldn't hold those opinions), and that is how I try to approach arguments and debates.

I truly believe that Barack Obama can stick to his progressive principles while still reducing some of the bitter partisanship in Washington...perhaps this isn't framing the issue right, because we are supposed to say that it is all the Republican's fault, but even if that is true, sometimes it takes a bigger man to end a dispute that wasn't started by him, but now includes him. In his 2005 letter to the Kos crowd, I think Obama summed pretty well his philosophy and approach to political debate.

My dear friend Paul Simon used to consistently win the votes of much more conservative voters in Southern Illinois because he had mastered the art of "disagreeing without being disagreeable," and they trusted him to tell the truth. Similarly, one of Paul Wellstone's greatest strengths was his ability to deliver a scathing rebuke of the Republicans without ever losing his sense of humor and affability. In fact, I would argue that the most powerful voices of change in the country, from Lincoln to King, have been those who can speak with the utmost conviction about the great issues of the day without ever belittling those who opposed them, and without denying the limits of their own perspectives.

I urge my fellow liberals and Democrats not to buy into the politics of cynicism, but to instead believe that we can once again emphasize our common bonds, instead of simply exploiting our differences.