So how might the Obama theory of change work?

[Adelante]

The American Prospect has a long subtitle to this op-ed by Mark Schmitt: Perhaps we are being too literal in believing that "hope" and bipartisanship are things that Obama naively believes are present and possible, when in fact they are a tactic, a method of subverting and breaking the unified conservative power structure.

Schmitt recognizes that tactic as one that has evolved in the sphere of non-profits and philanthropies (he first heard of Obama in this context) in relation to what methods, what process, what change theory, most effectively leads to the desired change. He says this particular primary is not about ideology or electability, but about what is the most productive way of using power to effect change. He does a basic summary of the Edwards change idea of breaking the power structure and Hillary's of working the power structure, which is also worth reading, but the piece is really about Obama.

So how might the Obama theory of change work? I'll give two answers, one entirely mundane and one a little cosmic. The mundane answer is just congressional math. The most important fact about the next administration is nothing about the president's character or policies, but simply how many Democratic Senators there are. To get health care passed in 2009, we'll need 60 votes in the Senate. There won't be 60 Democrats. So a Democratic president will need to, first, get within range by bringing in Democratic senators from Arizona, Colorado, Virginia, and several other red-trending-purple states. And then, subtract the total number of Democrats from 60, and that's the number of Republicans you'll need. If that number is two or three, almost anything is possible. If it's five, it will be much harder. If it's eight, impossible.

This is the math of bipartisanship. It's not a matter of sitting down with thugs like John Boehner and splitting the difference, but winning over just a few Senate Republicans from outside the South. And if the number is small enough, that's entirely possible. This is not 1993, when the Republicans could see that a majority was just around the corner, and the conservative takeover had given it a coherence and enthusiasm. It will be a party in some internal crisis after losing both houses of Congress and the presidency in short order, and the sense of a "party establishment" will be weaker. There will be an effort to hold the party together in united opposition, but the ties holding a Senator Snowe, Voinovich, Grassley, Lugar or Specter to a strict party line -- as they contemplate retirement, legacy, and their own now-Democratic states -- will be much weaker than in either the Clinton or Bush eras.

Obama's approach is better positioned to take advantage of this math. First, I think (though if I tried to prove it, I'd be relying on useless horse-race polls) that Democratic Senate candidates in red/purple states will do better with Obama's national-unity pitch at the top than with Senator Clinton. I worry about the Senate seats in Colorado (where she polls poorly) and Arizona with Clinton at the top of the ticket, and I think the opportunity to take out Mitch McConnell in Kentucky would be lost. And after the inauguration, I think that opposition to Hillary Clinton will remain a galvanizing theme for Republicans, whereas a new face and will make it harder to recreate the familiar unity-in-opposition.

Now for the cosmic explanation: What I find most interesting about Obama's approach to bipartisanship is how seriously he takes conservatism. As Michael Tomasky describes it in his review of The Audacity of Hope, "The chapters boil down to a pattern: here's what the right believes about subject X, and here's what the left believes; and while I basically side with the left, I think the right has a point or two that we should consider, and the left can sometimes get a little carried away." What I find fascinating about his language about unity and cross-partisanship is that it is not premised on finding Republicans who agree with him, but on taking in good faith the language and positions of actual conservatism -- people who don't agree with him. That's very different from the longed-for consensus of the Washington Post editorial page.

This paragraph I found particularly interesting:

The reason the conservative power structure has been so dangerous, and is especially dangerous in opposition, is that it can operate almost entirely on bad faith. It thrives on protest, complaint, fear: higher taxes, you won't be able to choose your doctor, liberals coddle terrorists, etc. One way to deal with that kind of bad-faith opposition is to draw the person in, treat them as if they were operating in good faith, and draw them into a conversation about how they actually would solve the problem. If they have nothing, it shows. And that's not a tactic of bipartisan Washington idealists -- it's a hard-nosed tactic of community organizers, who are acutely aware of power and conflict. It's how you deal with people with intractable demands -- put ‘em on a committee. Then define the committee's mission your way.

Full article:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_theory_of_change_primary

[Bitwit1234]

1. Like this

CRAP CRAP CRAP...Because he sure as hell doesn't know what he is doing.

[madrchsod]

2. i thought you did`t like obama...

what a well thought out reply.

[Adelante]

3. I actually logged out just to see the well thought out reply

Same old crap crap crap.

My Ignore list is always right ;)

[babylonsister]

4. Do you think 'ignored' actually bothered to read that great article?

:rofl:

[Exultant Democracy]

7. Oh 'ignored' there you go again.

[killbotfactory]

5. Another thread about this was started last night

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3874913

good article.

[calteacherguy]

6. The first thing that came to mind when I read this is one of my favorite Wes Clark quotes:

Watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrTG_amtrhA

[BootinUp]

8. This is not really different

than how Bill Clinton operated. In fact, I told my mom several months ago that Obama reminded me of Bill. But I believe Hillary has the same ability to advance the common good through reasoned dialog.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. Quite true, but the Republicans have degenerated a lot since '92

Levels of outreach that were merely quixotic in the 1990s are suicidal today. The Republican movement is a full blown fascist movement today.

I am not minimizing how awful they were in 1992, but everyone can agree that whatever they were, they are ten times worse now.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. Unfortunately, Senator Obama is wrong to believe there is an idealogical core to conservatism on a

national scale. What this article describes is just peachy on a small scale where there are a few individuals on the other side with convictions or a coherent philosophy.

In the big game for all the marbles, however, those conservative convictions and philosophical stances are window dressing. The Republican objective is to steal everyone's money and give it to a few rich people. They would say they were communists if it helped them to steal everyone's money and give it to rich people. There is, ultimately, no intellectual or moral core to modern conservatism.

Notice that the method described here is exactly what was supposed to end the Iraq War. Republicans of good will in the Senate would slowly be added to the Democratic side, vote after vote, until we reached the necessary sixty votes.

We have heard about that process for a solid year now... all the inside the beltway pundits said it was obviously what would happen. Except it didn't happen, and it will never happen. Senator Obama seems to have no concept that the modern "conservative" movement is a fascist movement devoid of conviction.

In practice, the Democrats were merely duped into watering down bill after bill in hopes of attracting these mythological Republicans of good will. And all they did was provide face-saving measures for a handful of Republican Senators facing tough re-election fights in anti-war states.

The modern Republican party is a fascist movement and a national brand name. Even the best-intentioned Republicans ultimately stand with the party line because the party is all they have. (Note that Hagel, the only actual anti-war Republican Senator, s not running for re-election.)

Sure, they will pretend to engage in serious issues based argument. And then they will dump a zillion dollars of "Harry and Louise" ads on you.

Like Lucy with the football, the Republicans will gladly pretend to engage in serious discussion insofar as it serves the vanity and political objectives of a few blue state Republicans. But somehow at the end of the day the football is always going to be pulled away because the Republican party is nihilistic.

Everyone comes to Washington full of the practical lessons of local politics. Then they get burned enough times by the opposition to realize that national party politics is not a contest of ideas, it is a war. And, like all wars, is full of double agents and disinformation campaigns.

There is indeed a lot of Bill Clinton circa 1992 in Senator Obama's approach. In 1992 the Republican party was awful, but not nearly the overt fascist movement it is today. Bill Clinton was elected President before "The Republican Revolution." Before the rise of Limbaugh and Gingrich. Before the open theft of a Presidential election, the utter dismantling of the Constitution and the elevation of a monkey to the status of Uber Fuhrer.

After 1994 Bill Clinton compromised with the new mad-dog Republicans time and again. And what did he gain by it? He was impeached over nothing.

That's the real game.

Those who think the national entity of the Republican party has anything to do with ideas are like the stock 1950s science fiction movie scientist who wants to communicate with the aliens because anyone with such advanced technology must be friendly. (That scientist always ends up being disintegrated or eaten.)

After another eight years in the US Senate, Senator Obama will come to understand that.

[avrdream]

11. VERY nice analysis, K & H.

I agree.

[BootinUp]

12. I would just point out

that the main reason Republicans have not defected in the Senate is that the insurgency is burning itself out to some degree. The situation in Iraq has changed, not for the better, but in a way that has reduced the violence, for now.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. A fair point about today, but doesn't affect the argument much

If the efficacy of such out-reach depends on a situation becoming more and more clearly a political disaster for Republicans then it's not the out-reach that's doing anything.

It's kind of like saying, "I could lift this block of cement if I was on the moon." We all could!

When the Iraq War was more clearly a political liability we were not able to reach 60 votes. You can reach 58 votes because the ass-covering of a few individuals doesn't swing the vote. Being the 58th vote doesn't really hurt the Republicans much. Being the 60th vote does. I never thought we would get to 60 because the Republican party wouldn't allow it.

It's like the Clinton tax cut increase in 1993. It was always going to be a one vote margin because nobody wanted to vote for it unless they had to. But that doesn't mean it was really that close. Plenty of Dems who voted against it would have been forced vote for it if their one vote was decisive.

A lot of Senate pugs voted to convict Clinton to pad their resumes, but would not have cast a decisive vote to convict. Both parties game this stuff out... who needs a certain vote in their district versus who has a safe seat.

I feel that the Republicans played us to get some meaningless anti-war votes on record for Sunnunu and Snow and Smith. But there's no way any of those three would have been the 60th vote. It's a game, and we were badly out-played.

We would have been better served by not trying to compromise, and sticking the blue state pugs with unpopular votes. It was going to play out the same anyway.

[BootinUp]

14. The example is not the best

for an analysis of the effectiveness of outreach. Outreach is another way of talking about political compromise. It has always been clear the Dems would not cut off funding. The only solution for us was to keep the pressure on until the repukes defected from Bush. And they would not defect if the situation could be argued to be improving.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

15. question

do you think Obama's office ever gets racist letters/emails? do they ever get questions about his muslim or christian background? do you really think he's ignorant about the far-right people in this country? i'm sure he's already received death threats, so I think it's a little much to say he has no concept about the far-right. the conservative movement is very fragmented, so it serves no purpose to blend them together and make blanket statements.