Hypothetical: if Obama represents a fundamental national political realignment. Should it happen?

[Perky]

One of the results og the three OP limit is that it tends to make you think a lot more rather than blurt things out. I have been trying to dig deeper into the incredible attractiveness of Obama’s change message and some thing have occurred to me that I would like to have an intelligent discussion about.

Yes clearly, he has substantial African American support and that should ultimately not surprise anyone. Yes clearly there is an anti-Hillary undercurrent and at some levels he has simply had arrived on the scene at the right moment and was the beneficiary of that support.
I understand that in some quarters, Obama is viewed as a neophyte, a charlatan or a chameleon; Mongering hope without the capacity to deliver. Believe me; I understand the argument, even when stripped of the eagerness and (cough cough) earnestness of Senator Clinton’s supporters.

But none of these completely rational objections can explain the fundraising phenomenon or the huge crowds he attracts.

He is attracting youth, and GenXers in astounding numbers, He has begun to win white men handedly; He scoring great gains with Indies; the last three primaries show him leading among women for the first time. He is leading in all age categories; in all income groups. He is winning in the south and thes west and drawing substantial support in every part of the country with he exception of the industrial midwest. And here on DU we have been treated to anecdote after anecdote about people who are strong republicans or even deeply prejudiced saying they like Obama…even voting for them.

18,000 in Boise? There are people here who can’t stand it and it making there heads explode.

It occurs to me however that there is something deeper at play. I think there are substantial signs that this is not simply about the man giving the message, but it is more about the message itself. The evidence is overwhelming that there is something going on that has never been seen before in American Politics. While some would argue that he is the product if not the creation of the internet and 24/7 news, I think that is too simplistic. It is not simply generational or Clinton would continue to rack up wins. His message is not simply about hope. It is about transformation. But still deeper it may well be about realignment.

There can be no doubt that his oratory soars, but it does not explain why it sustains us in flight.
What I am curious about is whether or not Obama is the instrument of American hunger for an actual political realignment. The likes of which we have never seen in our history.

Think of it. It’s the rumbling of a Perfect Storm.

We are about to conclude (thank God) the end of the worst presidency in US History. 70% of the population hates him intensely. Hey hate his Wars; they are dubious about FISA and Gitmo. They are weary about the economy and a host of kitchen table issues. And they clearly want change.
The GOP is profoundly fractured and scandalized. The GOP caucus in the house is in disarray. 29 members are retiring; The RNCC is lagging behind the Dems at a 10-1 clip. And it looks like there yet another scandal brewing around its financial reporting just when it time to start doling out money to potential candidates.

And while they will ultimately coalesce around a 74 year old war hero, clearly two-thirds of the party simply does not like him. But if you look back over their entire primary season, there was nobody who was going to emerge and unite the party. No one ever came close. They have no leader.
And despite high hopes after we took back the house and the Senate. No one is happy about their performance on any important front.

And forgive me but on our side there is deep reluctance about Hillary, not because she is not competent, but because she is viewed as polarizing for both republicans and democrats alike. Perhaps unfairly, the nation thinks of Hillary Clinton and thinks of two things: Health Care and Whitewater.

In the current political environment there should be little doubt that she could win, but there are real doubts about her ability to lead the country as a whole once elected.

And there in lies the issue. It occurs to me that what America wants...once you get passed the punditocracy is some one who can lead all of us. Someone who can turn the page. 2/3rds of the GOP does not think McCain is able to do that .and in every section of the county where it has been tested, 60% of the voters in out elections do not think Hillary is able to do that. So if it comes down to those two… It would seem that half the country will hat the president from day one and 60% will hold their collective noses.

Barack Obama clearly taps into veins of anger and angst and frustration and weariness of more of the same across the board.

It occurs to me that 70% of the population Thanks to George Bush really does not like the GOP message anymore…It occurs to me that there anointed messenger is going to have a devil of a time convincing the middle to take another four years of the same both from a message and funding standpoint. But is also occurs to me that Hillary is probably unable to pull GOP leaning moderates and Indies fully into the dem column either.

I honestly think that should it wind up being Hillary vs. McCain in the fall that he would be able to win the presidency as an independent even though I am equally convinced he would never contemplate it seriously.

But what occurs to me in that very idea, and I would think to many thoughtful DUers, is that she could actually pull that off….and that begs the question.

Is what he embodies, to the extent that is seems to be a movement that crosses red-blue lines, transcends race, gender, all too many political fault lines. Strong enough to be transformed into a new political balance.

Could he be the guy to grab hold of the middle 60% of the country and actually get some things accomplished?

There was a debate on DU a couple of years ago that contended that two-thirds of the nation was actually liberal they just did not like the labeling and were ignorant of what they were. It certainly suggests that the GOP has done a great job with tar and feathers and we have done a lousy job at defining ourselves any other way.

It seems to me that if the hypothesis is correct and a third more independents and moderates could be drawn into a new amorphous coalition that it begs a very important question. If the opportunity exists to redefine what it means to be a democrat by a message that resonates to the disgruntled as well as the disenfranchised is that a good thing to go after or is it too hazardous to what we have historically stood for even if we have been unsuccessful?

I would be happy to take on objections to points in the hypothetical but please respond with cogent aregemnt and questions rather than barbs and zingers. I want this to be a solid discussion rather than a flamw war. I know some of you are frustrated that you can't spew in your own OPs the way you used to...but please don't use this as your outlet...Thanks

[JVS]

1. It's teh APOCALYPSE!

[Perky]

2. Ummm thanks I think

[niceypoo]

38. Alignment based on what? 2 word slogans?

[DJ13]

3. Obama just came along with the right message at the right time

.....that and he's the best campaigner I've ever seen. :)

Across the spectrum of labels, conservative, liberal, moderate, progressive, penguin (just seeing if you're paying attention), the American public has come to see how traditional politicians (Hillary, McCain), with their traditional policies to solve our ever worsening national problems, are at best inept, at worst outright liars.

They are hungry to end the infighting thats seems to happen only to divert attention from the screwing were all getting from Washington, and Obama'a message seems to be the only chance weve had (or will have again for a long time..) since JFK.

[Perky]

4. Sois this an opportunity to permanently grow the progressive coalition

or does this risk losing to many people who are deep bluein that it could change the heart and soul of the party but install what could be a larger democratic majority?

[DJ13]

6. Yeah, I think it becomes a true progressive coalition

Much like the Southern Democrats that became conservative Republicans under Reagan, and have remained Republicans for nearly 30 years.

Of course if Hillary wins the nomination all thats thrown away.

They wont vote for her as she represents the traditional politicians that the voters want to get away from.

[Sapphocrat]

9. Honest answer. Not an Obama bash.

Perky, I don't recall your age, so I don't know if you remember the anti-Carter backlash that led to the phenomenon known as "Reagan Democrats."

I do not see picking up disillusioned Repubs and indies as the seed of a permanent coalition, progressive or otherwise. I believe it is an anti-Bush backlash; aside from the first-time "youth" voters, I perceive this to be a temporary movement of "Obama Republicans" -- who will, by 2012, 2016, or even as early as the 2010 midterms, return to voting a straight Republican ticket.

As to the risk of loss: I think the Dem Party is losing some lifelong blue-dog Dems. How many remains to be seen. Speaking for myself, the Obama phenom leaves me in the cold. Leaves me cold, yes, but more than than, leaves me in the cold. And I know I'm in more company than anyone wants to admit.

No, not sour grapes. Just an honest answer based on what I see. And it's not something I relish, in the least.

[Perky]

16. The Reagan analogy is interesting

He grabbed ouher white Dems (evangelicals-social conservatives) largely on the issue of abortion abd the GOPhas held them ecer since. But quite honestly that leg of the GOP trias has splintered on the war and on global warming.
And as I said in the OP the GOP has reache indelogical metldown in that subabttanitl portion of the base do not like the presumptive nominee. I thnk the split over there is far deeper than the Kennedy Carter Schism of 1980

I understand the sense that Obama might not be able to hold the coalition together...but as I look to the politcal horizon.. I do not see anyone who can bring the GOP together. Huckabee and Romney certainly can't and unless McCain rolls the dice on someone like the governor of South Carolina and they win the white House... It seems doubtful to me thathis running mate whoever that is....is going to fare much better in 2012

It alos seems to me that Obama is far better positioned to provide longer coattails down ticket.

So in practical tems I think he has a shot at a solid eight years and s more solid Dem congress for the first six years.

The question is what would keep the Obama coalition togther beyoud the first six years? What would tear it apart?

[KittyWampus]

21. your comment is flawed, you ignore the "grassroots" local efforts by GOP during those years

the Far Right began by having people run for dog catcher and working their way up into government.

During those years, the Left essentially allowed it's infrastructure to wither and die

And it's telling that a Clinton supporter would ignore that major trend. Because the Clinton's played a large part in the destruction of the party infrastructure.

Hell, Hilllary STILL probably doesn't get why it was stupid to not put resources in all 50 states.

So the coalition that Obama may be forging now probably WOULD fall apart under your candidate's watch.

Obama, on the other hand, understands grassroots/community efforts because he did it on the streets of Chicago. And he understands the need to run nationwide and not marginalize oneself and ones party from the get-go.

[jasmine621]

14. Please tell me what is "progressive" about Obama. What do you mean

by progressive? Is this just more words that really don't mean much. Progressive would be someone like Kucinich. Obama is far from it.

[Perky]

15. How manu progressives. besides, Kooch ran for president in 2008?

How would you define progressive?

[ozone_man]

32. Gravel and Edwards to an extent.

Only Gravel and Kucinich can really be called true progressives. Edwards took the populist progressive torch and ran with it, but there wasn't enough traction, not enough money to compete with candidates funded by the corporations. The country is not yet ready to accept a true progressive, but they may a few years from now.

Obama running as an Independent might win, but I'm not sure what that would mean for progressives like me. He is a corporate centrist, probably less liberal than Clinton, at least by social measures. In foreign policy he seems to be less of a war hawk, so that is hopeful.

Whether he runs and wins as a Democrat or Independent, I would hope that he would move in the progressive direction. Less authoritarian and less conservative. That means bring the troops home, end the perpetual state of war that we are in. Cut back on the military industrial complex, in favor of sustainable economy and green energy development, good affordable education, and single payer health care, end NAFTA and rebuild our manufacturing capability.

I'm afraid that he might be all hat and no cattle, as Clinton says. He is a brilliant orator with messianic speeches, but will there be a follow through when he gets into office?

I hope as many do that his present corporate centrist position is a means to gain the presidency and that he would change course once in office. That is probably naive thinking, but that is part of the hope and change that progressives voting for Obama feel, but which he doesn't talk about.

What we really need is a change in our political system to a parliamentary democracy away from this two party system. An independent win might lead in that direction. The two party system as it stands promotes centrist candidates beholden to the corporations and military industrial complex. No anti-imperialist candidate is ever electable, so things never change much.

Whoever takes office will be confronted with the worst economic problems since the Great Depression, so that is going to be the focus. The good part of that is that there will be a chance to reshape foreign and domestic policy, sort of a New Deal for the 21st century, to get our priorities straight. A New Deal that includes the environment.

[Perky]

36. .

[Perky]

42. .

[theHandpuppet]

22. Yeah, I found that confusing as well

Obama is far from what I would consider to be a progressive.

[Perky]

25. Who's progressive in your view?

[theHandpuppet]

35. Of the initial candidates in the primary

Kucinich is the only one I would consider a true progressive.

[TheDoorbellRang]

39. The penguin party -- everything is black and white to us

Ha! I was paying attention. :D

[jkshaw]

5. Thank you Perky,

a very good, thoughtful post. I, too, can feel the need for a transformed politics, something I've never felt in my fifty-some years of voting every four years in a presidential election. As a product of my generation, I feel Obama is this era's FDR, that he will be the inspiration for great change in the United States of America. I don't care if he's not an economics wonk, or an expert in foreign affairs and so on, those arguments don't touch me. What I'm sure of is that he will be charismatic enough to gather the very best we have around him and inspirational enough to have them engineer great things -- which is exactly what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did in the 1930s.

[Perky]

8. Thanks

Let me ask a question. You have seen a lot of politics in your lifetime. seen politicians come and go. I do not think there has been anyone like Obama in US history. I think the times are certainly not as dire as the Great depression of WWII, but there are parallels.

Do you think given everythin you have seen that if it was Hillary vs McCain that Obama could run as an independent and win? I think he has the momentum and the amabition and the money and the message. I really do not think he would ever do that.

I think howver due to this perfect storm we face he could actually win a third party challenge.

To me it is the mere existence of the plausibility that engenders the question can the Democrats realign the electorate for a generation to come if Obama is the nominee? ANd as importantly will we we let him?

[jkshaw]

10. Perky, you raise an excellent question,

a question that has never occurred to me. And you know what? I think if he had stepped in as a third party candidate he would have brought the nation along with him. One could say then that he'd be a cult figure for sure, but what in the world is wrong with being drawn to such an inspirational man? What's wrong with seeing the possibilities as you have?

Yes, I believe he is unique. FDR was a godsend to the nation in 1933. He was not as rich as Rockefeller, as the song goes, but he was wealthy. Half of his family looked upon him as a traitor to his class. He was wealthy, yes, but he felt deeply the problems of the American people at that time. He gave them hope. His message was as much about hope as Obama's is.

But Obama is an African American, a member of a class that was, a mere sixty-some years ago, even barred from being in the same regiment as whites in the army. FDR was an inspirational speaker but Obama is a beacon for young people in this country and not only for the hyphenated Americans. Obama is a champion in all the senses of the word, a paladin.

[Mojorabbit]

7. I think there is a lot of truth

in your post. The country is in a funk and wants something to lift them out of it. These past eight years have worn most of the country down. '

There will be a lot of challenges for the next president though.
We are deep in debt and the economy has tanked. Add the war and there will not be a whole lot of money to initiate a lot of programs unless the next prez is very innovative.

Boldness will be called for and there will need to be a govt consensus to get it accomplished. Perhaps people are ready for some boldness which he seems to project. Something different. I don't know if either of them can get us over this hump. I hope they can.

[Perky]

19. well said

[VotesForWomen]

11. if he represented any 'fundamental re-alignment' he would have been out of the race a long time ago.

[Perky]

12. Could you elaborate

[jasmine621]

13. Look who is supporting him. You call this a fundamental change?

I don't think so. He has charm, intelligence, and arrogance. I think he needs a little more than that to bring about a seachange.

[calico1]

34. I agree. Plus he is going to be so knee deep

in the catastrophe that Bush will leave behind, I don't think there will be much room for seachanges. Actually, the next President, whoever it is will have their work cut out for them. If it ends up being Obama he will be the least experienced of them all dealing with one of the most difficult times. I hope he has the sense enough to choose and rely upon more experienced and wiser staff.

[Perky]

44. I agree on the wise staff piece

Richardson at State
Napolitano at Justice
Bob Graham as VP

[Perry Logan]

17. Obama may represent America's leftward shift. Too bad so many of his fans are dufuses.

[Perky]

18. Not the substance I was looking for.. but thanks for the comment

[jkshaw]

37. It's doofuses

[End Of The Road]

20. It's way too soon to know.

"Hope" doesn't put food on the table, unfortunately. If Obama, even if through no fault of his own, cannot deliver in his first four years, he's history. The American people are fickle. You might be right, but only time and circumstances will tell.

I must quibble (just a little) with your use of "fundamental" in your subject line. From what I've been able to garner, he's drawing numbers of Repubs and Indies because they can't stand McCain. If the Repubs had been able to field a candidate with a little more youth and charisma, I'm not at all certain they would have given Obama a second look.

[theboss]

23. I think people are just exhausted by triangulation and Rovian politics

Has the last 16 years of politics been fun for anyone?

[Perky]

26. Rove certainly in the poster boy for wedge politics setting red against blue but

there are cetainly some less appartent element of that on our side as well...

I upect there is a middle60% that could be brought together to win the election... the challeng is that you may not hav that 60% with you on every issue once you win.
and the challenge is alwasy how do you get them back on the next front you open.

[theboss]

29. Bill Clinton was master of "50 percent plus 1" before Rove was

The difference is that Clinton often garnered the 50 percent plus one by going against his base. Rove did it by feeding red meat to his base.

Both approaches are ugly, cynical, and ultimately destructive. Once in a while, you need to bear down and score an ugly victory. But Clinton and Bush made this approach a way of life.

[K Gardner]

24. Most excellent, Perky. And also, think of how this huge wave of support, grassroots enthusiasm

and activism will inherently FORCE a retooling in D.C. This new and energized populus WILL call, will protest, will write letters and WILL make their voices heard. The stale and decomposing bodies in the House and Senate can no longer ignore the voices by labeling us "activists extremists" or "fringe elements". The voices will be heard from one coast to the other and throughout the middle of this country. Most of these old school politicians are shaking in their proverbial boots right now. The faces in D.C. will change by necessity and demand. A new age is about to Dawn in America.

[Armstead]

27. I think it may be more of a restoration of a coalition

First off, I hope you'll take a look at this post from yesterday. It elaborates on this somewhat:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4590787&mesg_id=4590787

-----------------

As to your specific question, I believe that history can be viewed as a pendulum in terms of basic "left" andf "right."

We tend to go too far in one direction, and then things eventually get really bad, and the pendulum begins to move back in the other direction. Apart from the diehard liberals or conservatives, those who are in the middle -- or non-ideological -- tend to go in the direction that is prevailing. That creates coalitions.

Reagan came along at a time when conditions were ready for a swing to the right, because things had gotten so bad. Liberalism got blamed, and Reagan captured that and used it to create a new coalition.

Now we are reaping what was sown, and things have gotten so bad that the pendulum is beginning to swing back in a leftward direction.

In these swings coalitions get created which are not always a natural fit. In its heydays, the Democratic Party was based on a coalition that had included people who might be economicaly liberal, but socially conservative. These broke apart when the pendulum swing occurred.

Likewise for the GOP coalition. It is now beginning to fracture.

I think -- although he got shit for it -- Obama does have the potential to be another Reagan. Someone who both reflects and leads something larger. It's too soon to tell whether it will hold, but it is the opportunity for the Democrats to restore the position the party once had as a coalition from center-to-left.

[Perky]

30. We lost Blue Collar Dems and southern Dems to Reagan

I do not see us getting those elements back.....It may well be that that coalition is not growing and their sons and daughter are taking a decidedly different path which rather than being progressive might better be defined as pragmatic.

[Armstead]

31. Progressive is pragmatic

One of the problems the left half of the spectrum has fallen into is the notion that there is a difference between progressive and pragmatic.

Policies like the minimum wage, anti-trust, economic regulations, etc. are bopth progressive and pragmatic. They ultimately -- for us average schmucks -- are a lot more pragmatic than conservative policies that serve the interests of the rich and powerful.

What we need to do is to make that connection publicly.

[Medusa]

28. The old way is NOT working

our country is in shambles and both parties have helped lead it there. We have a Speaker of the House who refuses to fight the Repugs even when she's got a majority vote. I personally don't want to see another 8 years of bitter party in-fighting or partisan bickering. It's time to really, truly let go of what we'd done in the past and carve out a new way of getting things done in this country. And it CAN begin here and now. Or we can cling to the past and it will be more of the same when we need it most.

And yes, I do think the American public, the majority, are simply as sick of it as the rest of us.

[elixir]

33. Interesting reading...

[Psyop Samurai]

40. Don't know how well this addresses your thoughts...

...but, imo, at this point we have no choice BUT to roll the dice. We have no choice BUT to get on the bus.

Hopefully, we can harness the groundswell, and steer the country to a more progressive consensus.

Thanks for the thoughtful discussion.

[Perky]

41. I think he is a slam dunk against McCain

Age and the war wouldbe big issues.

What I worry about is the 527s

[TexasObserver]

43. Yes, we have a incredible opportunity to revive the party and claim majority status.

We have been hanging by a thread for a long time, and this is our chance to bring into our party the youth and center that we so desperately need to have majority status. There's a wave afoot, and it harkens a more liberal and progressive America.