It Can Be Done
I have noticed a few sites comparing the Senator Obama to President Reagan, and sources calling Senator Obama “a liberal Ronald Reagan.” (In terms of government spending some of you may find that description redundant.)
Senator Obama’s New Hampshire “Yes We Can” speech reminds me of a common theme/connection to Ronald Reagan. President Reagan kept a sign on his desk in the Oval Office that said “It CAN be done.” Reagan also used this theme/mantra occasionally in speeches.
Invoking Reagan the same way he invokes JFK and MLK might be a useful for Senator Obama. It speaks to their shared unifying capacity, optimism, and ability to speak to all of America. More importantly, it serves as useful reminder of how historically greatness in a President is fundamentally tied to being a great communicator. It also may reinforce the sense some primary voters may have that Senator Clinton would at best be a competent but divisive President, but that Senator Obama has the potential to be the greatest president of our generation.
Comment by Chris on 10 January 2008 at 2:59 pm:
If Obama wins, I wonder how you’d define an “Obama Republican.”
Comment by kofi the i too believe in hope; vote for me! on 10 January 2008 at 10:29 pm:
I’ve been reading about and listening to Obama. I understand he’s very big on change and hope. As an apparent supporter, Augur, may you’d be able to describe how Obama will create change and how he will create hope cause so far, despite all I’ve read, I haven’t seen a whisper regarding that.
Comment by J. Prescott on 11 January 2008 at 10:25 am:
Kofi -
How Obama creates hope is easy. He opens his mouth and sweet honeyed words pour out which sooth the soul and, if you listen long enough, will allow you to obtain spiritual nirvana.
Obama, in his infinite wisdom, knows the power and effect of his words. Why do anything, when you can just talk about it. Poverty? Talk about it and let people be sustained by your words. Middle East? Get all the leaders together, talk to them, and watch them win the nobel prize for peace as they give up war. Cubs haven’t won in a 100 years? Have Obama give a pep talk, and watch them have a perfect season.
Substance and action are for lesser men. All Barack Obama has to do is talk, and world peace will break out in three years, four at the outside.
Comment by Brian on 11 January 2008 at 11:19 am:
What nonsense. Obama, just like every other candidate out there, has a long list of substantive policy proposals. Go to his website. Read them. Disagree with them? Cool, that’s great. But it’s just silly and stupid to say there is less substance there than for any other candidate just because in ADDITION to those policy proposals he makes sweeping and inspirational speeches, which, by the way, DO INSPIRE PEOPLE TO TAKE ACTION (see Iowa’s voter turnout).
Augur actually has this exactly right: Obama has the potential to be the liberal Reagan. Kofi is right that by and large Obama’s policy proposals aren’t that dramatically different from the policy proposals of other liberal Democrats. Ronald Reagan’s policy proposals weren’t all that different from other conservative Republican proposals either, though. The sweeping change that Reagan made possible, however, is that he was a successful enough President that he shifted the entire political spectrum to the right. And the sweeping change that Obama has the potential for is to shift the entire political spectrum to the left, unifying a majority of Americans around progressive principles.
Maybe that’s not what you want. Okay. But I think it’s pretty clear that he has the potential for doing it, and I think it’s pretty clear that that would entail substantive change in America.
Comment by tet on 11 January 2008 at 1:39 pm:
I do hate to point this out (actually, that’s a lie, I love pointing this out) but the Bubonic Plague in Europe in the 14th Century was a “change.”
“Change” in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing, and for the largest part of the history of humanity on earth, it’s spelled death and destruction. It is the mark of a generation that feels totally safe because they were not allowed out of car seats until they were eight that they would embrace change, per se, as a good idea out of the box.
I will admit, for certain, that a President that tells the American people that their dreams are possible is a good thing, and really helps with morale. Men like JFK, Reagan, FDR and the English Churchill helped their people in times of crisis by doing just that.
However, I find virtually all of Obama’s stated plans to be repugnant and dangerous from the standpoint of individual freedom. I find it extrememly ironic that it would be a half-black man who would lead us deeper into the slavery of velvet, government-dependency chains.
Keeping the morale benefit in mind, to me the ideal situation (but not a very likely one at all) would be for him to be faced with a veto-proof opposing majority in both houses of Congress. That way we’d get the benefit of his speeches and nothing would happen for at least two years.
Tom Trumpinski
Comment by Brian on 11 January 2008 at 3:51 pm:
Tom,
Your argument, I think, is where honest debate has to take place. Obviously there’s plenty of room for disagreement as to whether the particular content of the change Obama is proposing would be good or bad for the country, and obviously you think it would be bad and I think it would be good. What I’m trying to point out in response to Kofi and J. Prescott is that their argument, and the argument that is being made by the Clinton campaign, that Obama is just “all talk and no action” is a pretty dumb argument. The fact is that ANY President, if given the opportunity, will do things. It’s not a crazy argument that Obama’s skills as a politician will create more of an opportunity for him to do things than would be created for other candidates. It’s also not a crazy argument that Obama would help Democrats get elected down-ticket, whereas Clinton would hurt such efforts, and that a strong Democratic majority will create a greater opportunity for Obama (and the Congress) to do things. I can respect the opinion that the things Obama would do would be bad things. I can’t really respect the opinion that he just isn’t going to do anything except make good speeches.
Comment by J. Prescott on 11 January 2008 at 7:19 pm:
Brian -
First of all I did my due diligence on Barack Obama. I went to the website. About a month ago. I know all about his policies, and I read his “Blueprint for America”. I disagree with some of them, agree with others, and unimpressed by all of them. So don’t assume I don’t know what I am talking about.
Second of all, I am so glad that I am not drinking the Kool Aid, because it is not necessarily the case that everything that is happening is because of barack obama. You know, there is, currently, an unpopular president in office, and maybe, MAYBE, the desire to get him out of office is a reason that people are flocking. And before you start quoting pundits and polls, two words: New Hampshire.
Third, I wouldn’t follow Clinton anywhere, much less on her opinion on any political candidate; not without significant evidence. So don’t include me with her.
Next, my doubts come from my disbelief that he can achieve what he wants based on his strategy. His blueprint does not in anyway discuss how he is going to actually accomplish any of these things. He just says, he is going to do it. For example, his health care plan states all of his functions, and what it will provide, but he doesn’t say how he is going to fund it. When he does say how he is going to fund aspects, surprise surprise, its businesses that pay and he doesn’t address how this new burden would effect business growth.
Hilary Clinton, who again I would never vote for, at least discusses the fiscal aspects of her plan in their particulars, as well as how it would effect specific individuals. Again, she did more than talk about something, she at least made some attempt of making specific plans, something I have yet to see obama.
Finally, I am a rather cynical individual, so trust me when I say I am not holding Obama’s speeches against him; his speeches don’t really do anything for me. And before you say you pity me because I don’t see the “beauty” that is Obama’s message, like you did when I questioned the value of “No Country Old Men,” believe when I say I could care less for your pity or you sense of “beauty” and importance. He is not doing special, nor saying anything new, thats why it doesn’t effect me.
I am not saying he is not a good candidate. I am not saying he wouldn’t be a good president. But I refuse to give something to him that he has yet to earn or even show that he is capable earning. So far, he is just talk, which is fine. He is still a candidate. But to all the Kool Aid drinkers, the expectation and shameless adoration should be racheted down.
Comment by kofi the obama promises to remove the troops from iraq within 16 mo.s; and send them all to pakistan on 11 January 2008 at 8:11 pm:
I find it interesting Brian is lecturing anyone about doing ‘due diligence’ on a candidate, considering his previously revealed ignorance regarding his candidate’s foreign policy approach (especially since its “largely why [he] support[s] Obama over Hillary”).
Comment by Brian on 11 January 2008 at 8:32 pm:
J. Prescott,
First of all, I wasn’t assuming you don’t know what you’re talking about, I was assuming you’re reacting the way a lot of people do when they make an effort to be reasonable and objective and “not drink the Kool-Aid” in the face of a politician who is particularly gifted in superficial ways: go into the analysis assuming it’s all style and no substance, and let your desire to be or appear objective push you too far in the other direction to the point that you have an irrational distaste for the candidate precisely because he or she is appealing in superficial ways.
Second of all, I don’t even know why you’re countering the argument that “everything that is happening is because of barack obama” since nobody made that argument. Of course we have an unpopular president, and of course the country is in a place where any Democrat is well positioned to assume the Presidency in 2009. That’s why I think any leading Democratic nominee is electable against any Republican nominee, and that most conceivable match-ups are not only winnable for the Democrat, but easily winnable. Again though, this is a common reaction to a candidate like Obama: assume that because his supporters actually like him instead of just finding him acceptable that those supporters think he is God Almighty, can do no wrong, and that all good things must be attributable in some way to him. I know few people who believe this about Obama. I certainly don’t, and have never in any suggested such a thing, so stop with the straw men.
Third of all, I’m including you with Clinton only because you are making the same substantive sorts of arguments that she is making in this particular arena. No real need to be offended.
Fourth of all, you’re close to making a valid argument when you say that when he says where funding for certain initiatives he’s proposing comes from, “its businesses that pay and he doesn’t address how this new burden would effect business growth.” That seems to be a nod toward a substantive disagreement with a policy proposal of his, in which Obama thinks that placing a bigger burden on businesses is a good idea and you think such a burden would affect business growth in such a way that would not make the initiative worth it. As I said to Tom, that sort of disagreement is a place where honest debate can take place. It is not, however, the case that Obama does not (at least, to any less degree than any candidate does) acknowledge the costs of his proposals. Off the top of my head, there was a moment in a recent ABC debate when Bill Richardson was talking about energy policies and a cap-and-trade system and argued that the benefits and efficiencies of such a policy would be so great that consumers would not have to bear any costs, and Obama specifically asked the moderator for time to speak so that he could disagree with Richardson and say there WOULD be costs for consumers due to such a system, but that asking consumers to sacrifice in this area is necessary. He DOES say how he will fund his health care plan (a combination of contributions from employers who do not provide health care to their employees and repealing the Bush tax cuts), which is largely the same way every other Democratic candidate will pay for their health care plan. If you don’t find it convincing from him, okay, but I don’t see why you find it more convincing when it comes from other candidates.
Finally, I again was never arguing in favor of support of Obama because of the “beauty” of his rhetoric, nor do I pity you for not appreciating it (and by the way, the comment about No Country for Old Men was a joke - lighten up a little). I DO, however, think it’s easy to see that an awful lot of people find him to be a persuasive guy, the same way an awful lot of people found Reagan a persuasive guy. And therefore I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that Obama has the potential to use his persuasiveness as a tool in his arsenal to make change, the same way Reagan did. I don’t think it’s controversial to say that Presidents who are popular among the American people have an easier time getting things done, nor do I think it’s controversial to say that Obama is a popular politician and has the potential to be a popular President. Therefore, I don’t see why it’s incorrect to say Obama’s popularity would help him to get things done, in addition to the stronger congressional majority he would have to work with as compared to a candidate like Clinton.
Ultimately, my position is this: you and Tom and Kofi all probably have very good substantive arguments for why Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians should not support Barack Obama for President, and indeed, very good arguments for why such people should be fearful of an Obama presidency. I don’t think you stand on very solid ground if your argument is that, whatever your political persuasion, you should not support Obama because he wouldn’t get anything done. I don’t see any evidence for that, and indeed I see a great deal of evidence to suggest that he is the sort of gifted politician who can get a lot of whatever the hell he wants done, and Obama clearly wants a lot of things to get done (largely the same things every Democratic candidate wants to get done).
Comment by Brian on 11 January 2008 at 8:42 pm:
Kofi,
I wasn’t ignorant of Obama’s statement on Pakistan, I just think that’s not a good reason to think Obama is more hawkish than Hillary. What Obama said was that there are conceivable circumstances in which, if Pakistan was unwilling to cooperate in the pursuit of terrorists, American forces would take that action themselves. I see absolutely no indication that Obama is itching for a military conflict with Pakistan, and the one statement that Obama made that Tom brought up simply does not convince me otherwise. That’s not ignorance, it’s disagreement. I DO, however, think that various things Hillary Clinton has said regarding her judgment on the war in Iraq that indicate to me that she does not think she made the wrong choice when she voted to authorize military force against Iraq. I also look at her advisers and see a significant number of people who not only supported the war in Iraq, but who were formative in building the case for war. Those things concern me, and they seem to indicate that there might be a fundamental difference in the way Obama and Clinton perceive the use of military force and the waging of war. Disagree with that position if you want, but whatever faults you think there are in the analysis, they are not due to a lack of due diligence.