Friday, February 01, 2008

How Obama and Clinton Plan to Implement Change

George Lakoff wrote yesterday at the Huffington Post about the differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. He lays out how each candidates plans to implement bold, progressive change. He says it comes down to values.

Obama understands the importance of values, connection, authenticity, trust, and identity.

But his vision is deeply progressive. He proposes to lead in a very different direction than Reagan. Crucially, he adds to that vision a streetwise pragmatism: his policies have to do more than look good on paper; they have to bring concrete material results to millions of struggling Americans in the lower and middle classes. They have to meet the criteria of a community organizer.

The Clintonian policy wonks don't seem to understand any of this. They have trivialized Reagan's political acumen as an illegitimate triumph of personality over policy. They confuse values with programs. They have underestimated authenticity and trust.

Lakoff then look at three major areas that divide the Democratic party and shows how Obama plans to accomplish dramatic change and implement progressive policies.

This nomination campaign is about much more than the candidates. It about a major split within the Democratic party. The candidates are reflecting that split. Here are three of the major "issues" dividing Democrats.

First, triangulation: moving to the right -- adopting right-wing positions -- to get more votes. Bill Clinton did it and Hillary believes in it. It is what she means by "bipartisanship." Obama means the opposite by "bipartisanship." To Obama, it is a recognition that central progressive moral principles are fundamental American principles. For him, bipartisanship means finding people who call themselves "conservatives" or "independents," but who share those central American values with progressives. Obama thus doesn't have to surrender or dilute his principles for the sake of "bipartisanship."

The second is incrementalism: Hillary believes in getting lots of small carefully crafted policies through, one at a time, step by small step, real but almost unnoticed. Obama believes in bold moves and the building of a movement in which the bold moves are demanded by the people and celebrated when they happen. This is the reason why Hillary talks about "I," I," "I" (the crafter of the policy) and Obama talks about "you" and "we" (the people who demand it and who jointly carry it out).

The third is interest group politics: Hillary looks at politics through interests and interest groups, seeking policies that satisfy the interests of such groups. Obama's thinking emphasizes empathy over interest groups. He also sees empathy as central to the very idea of America. The result is a positive politics grounded in empathy and caring that is also patriotic and uplifting.

For a great many Democrats, these are the real issues. These real differences between the candidates reflect real differences within the party. Whoever gets the nomination, these differences will remain.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sounds like a very unobjective, anti-Cinton blog to me. I thought Hillary had a great point when she said it took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush and it might take a second Clinton to clean up after this Bush. The economy was in alot better shape when the first Clinton was in office than it is right now, and with the economy in the shape it is now, I don't think it would be a good time to roll the dice on an inexperienced canidate like Obama who is trying to get elected selling pipe dreams.

Unknown said...

Anonymous coward says:
"I thought Hillary had a great point when she said it took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush and it might take a second Clinton to clean up after this Bush."

Huh? How is this a "great point?" You slam Obama for "selling pipe dreams" yet you're impressed by semantic slogans and catchy word plays?

Get a clue.

desmoinesdem said...

I don't find this convincing at all.

What I see in Obama is someone ready to sacrifice progressive principles if it benefits the Barack Obama movement.

If he's behind in the polls, he will send out a "Harry and Louise" style mailer using right-wing talking points to attack a universal health care policy.

If he is in a hole politically and an anti-gay gospel singer can help him, he will stand by while the singer tells a cheering crowd that being gay is a choice and God can cure you.

If he has Oprah coming to help him, he will book an event in the biggest arena (despite the picket line in front of it) rather than in a slightly smaller arena.

I don't fully trust Clinton either, but one thing I do know about her is that if she were elected, she wouldn't feel the need to genuflect to the DC pundit crowd who love "bipartisanship" as long as that means Democrats enacting Republican policies.

Can't say I have the same confidence about Obama.