What Lurks Behind the Obama Wave?


While Democrats of all kinds are humming along in upbeat fashion toward what they hope will be a triumphant return to the White House this fall, there's a very underdiscussed facet of it:

WHO exactly is on board in this wave toward hopeful victory and what exactly are they expecting?

While it may seem like a simple answer...especially to many Democrats...., it really isn't. Projection of the individual voters' tastes may be obscuring their vision of what an Obama presidency may look like in terms of policies. I, as a libertarian, harbor no illusions that my tepid preference for Obama over McCain in any way translates into a likelihood that Obama will do my bidding. For me, it's a calculated and pragmatic choice based on trade-offs as well as an understanding of the machinations of government and process. But this isn't really about me or other people like me. It's about the hodge podge group of people known as "Democrats". And Democrats, while they may share common principles, are extremely diverse in the details. And the devil is always, as they say, in the details.

The strand of Democrats that I find particularly depressing, dim and unwittingly masochistic is what is called the "Social Democrat"...or more precisely...what I call the National-(istic) Communitarian Social-(istic) Democrat. It is a group full of contradiction and..strangely enough...rife with illiberalism that rivals the likes of Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter. It is, at the same time, a caricature and a very real wing of the party. It is an ideological basket case that wants what the frightening fruition of its vision could never deliver and hates what its vision inadvertently and indirectly does deliver...while never realizing its role in the worst of the reality it despises. It is a desire for control that wreaks uncontrollable havoc which then begets more desire for control and continued havoc like a dog chasing its own tail. It desires an inclusion that causes and demands a want for exclusion. It wants the benefits that come from the antithesis of what it wants while claiming them as their own creations...all while seeking to destroy that very antithesis in the name of yet other values that are not borne from what it seeks. In short, its murky and compromised sense of true liberalism, of any kind, has a very, very low threshold...after which point it's extremely illiberal in an effort to keep what it has unsustainably gained and fend off the side-effects of what it has unwittingly wrought.

With that intro, we come to an article by Matt Welch from Reason which takes a look at what some in the Obama camp are fancying and cooking up for their seemingly imminent reign. The strange thing is that Obama does not really strike me as one of these National Communitarian Social Democrats. But that may not matter unless he fights and breaks rank with these types of Democrats once in power...like Bill Clinton did at times and on the major economic issues.

Matt Welch sums up an article by Michael Lind promoting the vision of this wanna-be-ruling wing of the Democratic Party as such:

eject the social liberalism and "liberaltarianism" of the "McGovernite" Democratic era of Carter and Clinton and failure, and re-embrace Franklin Roosevelt's "It's the New Deal, Stupid" approach.

...and in full blown up-the-ante fashion I might add by not only rejecting the value of social freedoms and choice but also by welcoming social conservatism into a big tent based unabashedly on economic populism. The marriage of William Jennings Bryan populism and the FDR-style command-and-control state capitalist dirigisme, if you will.

Says Lind:

to create an updated version of the New Deal, the Democrats have to treat economically liberal social conservatives as equal partners, with their own spokesmen and leadership roles in the party, not just as a handful of swing voters brought on reluctantly at the last moment. Conversely, Rubin Democrats and other economic conservatives should be invited to join Grover Norquist and the Club for Growth in a free-market deficit hawk party...

OK, then. I must say, if THAT were to become the new Democratic Party and the GOP became the direct opposite of it, I think I could finally join a party with good conscience....provided the war hawks went blue as well. Hillary's base would finally a have majority. ;)

Does this vision for a new coalition have legs? I certainly hope not.

National Communitarian Social Democratic views that would persist or even intensify include:

unwitting support for increasingly bigger and more corrupt government, taxes, bureaucracy, special interests, fascistic corporatism and labor strife along with even less subtle hostility to open immigration, economic flexibility, free trade and TRUE diversity (not the fake one many Marxist college professors in "area studies" shove down people's throats).

Whatever Obama's faults, he is at least a true Modern Liberal of sorts, IMO. A true modern liberal at least shares many goals and aspirations of their classical liberal forerunners....even though the methods and priorities may differ slightly or greatly. I can live with that. I can also have many a fruitful conversation with such liberals. Such liberals should be wary of these illiberal Democrats with which they make common cause.

The battle for the GOP seems to have been won by Neo-Con/Nanny-State Conservative coalition with principled and tolerant small-government moderate types and libertarian-leaners shoved to the side. While I'm no Republican and never would be, I regret seeing the GOP become even more hostile to my values than they already were. The battle for the Democrats is at hand and it's happening. Liberals should beware lest your counterpart of the Neo-Cons takes control and moves the part even further away from liberalism....of any kind.

--

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Thanks for the advice (#110260)
by Blue Neponset

I find it odd that you hold the Democrats up to a higher standard than the Republicans. You write off the Republicans as a lost cause and then tell us how much you dislike a vocal yet not powerful faction of the Democratic Party. Why is it that the fanatics on the far Right (who have taken over their party) are dismissed and the fanatics on the Left (who don't actually have much power) are the problem? I don't get that.

Re: Expectations of Obama

This Democrat expects two things from Obama if he is elected: 1) competent governance and 2) a serious attempt to overhaul the health care in our country. If Obama does those two things he will be a much better President than the last two.

--

But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie

It's not a matter of holding anyone to higher standards (#110265)
by John

It's a matter of looking at the Dems as a fractured group getting ready to take the WH and thus have a ruling majority.

What complexion of the party will win out as time goes on? How will it evolve while in power?

These questions matter. If you look at the GOP in 94 and compare it to today, they don't really resemble each other all that much. They clearly took a path catering to neocons and so-cons to stay in power. This wasn't something that was totally obvious in 94.

It was obvious to me (#110283)
by Blue Neponset

The Repubs of 94 are effectively the same as the Repubs of today.

The contract with America was rolled out in 1994. Among its authors is the current House Minority Leader, John Boehner. Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld had held cabinet positions in previous administrations. The Moral Majority had its heyday in the 1980's.

Who did the so-cons and the neocons wrest control of the Republican party from in 1994? It seems to me they were the Republican Party since the 1970's if not earlier.

The fact that the Democrats have a big tent is a credit to them. It doesn't mean they are fractured it just means they have a broad base of support.

What complexion of the party will win out as time goes on? How will it evolve while in power?

The Dems have control of Congress right now. They had the Presidency eight years ago. The Democrats have been and currently are in power. I don't understand why you think there needs to be intra-party fight for power. Fighting amongst ourselves is a defining trait of Democrats.

Taking the best ideas from inside and outside the Party is the best way to govern. I expect Obama to do this. If he does he will piss off everyone a little bit. That won't change the complexion of the Party though.

--

But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie

I don't believe a return to Great Society liberalism (#110270)
by Jordan

is even possible at this point. What folks don't seem to have realized is that the Reagan Revolution was a huge success: people never much liked paying for the welfare state, and those folks convinced the country of some very good reasons not to.

Unfortunately, the GOP and the Democrats appear to have learned two very different lessons from the shift in affections away from entitlement federalism. The GOP has basically become Grover Norquist's party, domestically speaking -- they've backed themselves into a stringent orthodoxy where NO tax is a good tax, NO regulation is good regulation, NO federal agency is good unless it's tied to the defense industry and/or GOP pork. I'm speaking in terms of campaign politics here, but no GOP candidate in the country right now can afford to be seen as advocating or "soft on" taxes or regulations. The Reagan Revolution has become the Reagan Inquisition.

Whereas the Democrats by and large have learned some painful lessons about how entitlements and other gov't endeavors can backfire, especially "social justice" type legislation. To be sure, there are some who are stuck in the 1960s, but they are a dwindling force in the party. It would take another Great Depression to make large-scale socialization-type policies electorally feasible again.

So here's how it nets out. GOP candidates are boxed in by their own Norquism. Promoting even modest government programs or expenditures or tax increases is political suicide. Democrats, on the other hand, are in reformist mode. "How can we make government work better?" is their mantra -- smaller, leaner, more effective, more pragmatic. It's a far better, more realistic approach to current problems (insanely expensive healthcare, energy concerns, spiraling deficits, a fubar military policy, etc.) and it's what people are in the mood to hear.

Now of course this is all on a highly abstract level -- in practice all the usual corruption, stupidity & institutional inertia apply, but for my money (and it is my money), the GOP are the real profligates.

If Democrats at their worst are tax-and-spend liberals, Republicans at their worst are borrow-and-spend war hawks. A quick review of history suffices to show what a dead-end street war debtors tend to travel down. But governments that reinvest in their own people and communities? Not so bad.

--

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH

You're kidding, of course. Reagan was a colossal failure. (#110272)
by BlaiseP

Reagan led this country on a drunken toot. Reagan left Bush41 to deal with the hangovers and clean up the beer cans on the lawn and the vomit on the carpet. Riding the rivers of vast melting glaciers of capital in the Savings and Loans, (Carter's fault), Reagan's glow of cheer was the ruddy face of a drunken sailor. Though in fairness to drunken sailors, the sailors actually run out of cash and have to make it back to the boat. Reagan was one of the worst presidents in modern history when his domestic policies are considered.

Lowering confiscatory taxes is always a good idea. The only reason things went as well as they did during the Reagan years was not due to the tax cuts but eating the seed corn of real estate capital.

Presidents often benefit from the deeds of their predecessors. In like manner, they get the blame for things they didn't do. Clinton's domestic success was the result of Bush41 and Gore opening the Internet to civilian traffic. Clinton backed NAFTA, a Bush41 initiative. And as with Reagan, the benefits of deregulation were only false cheer.

All justice is social justice, by definition. Everyone likes the idea of repealing bad law, removing inefficiencies from markets, abolishing irrelevant bureaucracies, getting people off the public dole. But as with airline safety regs, these laws were written in blood. More importantly, a law without an enforcing bureaucracy is no law at all.

Bush43 will leave office in a cloud of bad feelings, blamed for this and that by the Sabbath Gasbags. The country has no such illusions: we know it's Congress who enacts these laws. As bad as Bush's poll numbers are at present, Congress' numbers are worse.

I'm not talking about the President himself, (#110273)
by Jordan

but the sea-change away from Great Society entitlement federalism he precipitated. That certainly worked, insofar as it permanently changed what people expect from the federal government. Reagan's actual economic policies were a disaster (to say nothing of Iran-Contra and other Cold War boondoggles). He invented the borrow-spend model of federal accounting.

--

Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH

Reagan was spokesman for AMA when Truman wanted heath care (#110275)
by BlaiseP

for all Americans. Reagan was a nasty corporate shill, trying to equate national health care with Communism. He put out this diatribe on an LP record. It was scare tactics and completely untrue.

The Great Society as initially envisioned was very different than what got passed. LBJ's Congresses made it a prison for the poor, when it just didn't have to be. The simple economic fact remains: the poor are a net drag on the budget. They fill our prisons, drag down real estate prices, their hungry children eat subsidized lunches, often the only decent meal they'll get all day and it's not a very good lunch at that.

What exactly was so bad about the Great Society? I'll tell you: when you subsidize poor women and children without fathers in their lives, you'll get more of same. The hideous transmogrification of Johnson's original vision for the Great Society was the product of a class of Scrooges, deeply opposed to the idea, who turned what could have been a GI Bill for the poor and turned it into pork for the erection of Soviet-style housing blocks re-segregating the poor into high-rise ghettos.

Maybe I'm just old enough to remember what things were like back then. I despair of trying to resurrect the ideas of the era, an era when Reagan was spying for McCarthy and shilling for the AMA.

While everyone natters on about the Prez race, Congress is also (#110266)
by BlaiseP

up for grabs. The Dems look poised to take larger margins of control in the Congress. I'm not sure the Executive is the branch to watch for trends: too many Conservative Dems in the Senate will put the kibosh on all this Social Democrat stuff you Libertarians fear.

link to the original (#110248)
by Micky Love

to create an updated version of the New Deal, the Democrats have to treat economically liberal social conservatives as equal partners

What is the justification for this? Are you willing to explain or defend it?

This Matt Welsh "article" is nothing more than a cut & paste from somewhere else. Why don't you link to the original?

--

Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just

All you had to do was click through to the reason article (#110255)
by John

and the link to Lind's article was right there. sheesh.

an updated version (#110261)
by Micky Love

to create an updated version of the New Deal, the Democrats have to treat economically liberal social conservatives as equal partners

I read the original article, thank you very much, and still don't understand how the Democrats will have to treat economically social conservatives as equal partners. Any chance of you fleshing out this bald assertion, provided you agree with it?

It's strange that the article doesn't mention that in order to pass the New Seal, FDR needed the support of racist Democrats from the southern states and therefore had to ease off on supporting anti-lynching laws etc. Who is going to be the sacrificial goat this time around?

--

Nothing resembles virtue more than a great crime. Saint-Just

Well, that's Lind talking, not me (#110264)
by John

I don't see why I need to "flesh that out". And if you read the article, I think it's clear that I don't agree so I don't really see what you're getting at with your line of questioning.

Sorry, Mick.

"Welch," Micky (#110251)
by M Scott Eiland

And watch your tone. There's no reason not to phrase a request to a fellow Forvm commenter for a link politely, particularly on the first attempt.

--

I hate to do this but.... (#110259)
by Blue Neponset

...if you want to be a tone monitor you should practice what you preach. Correcting someone's spelling isn't exactly a polite observation on the internets.

--

But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie

Reversion to the mean (#110243)
by Spartacvs

and to slow but deliberative progress on all fronts, that's all I want.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

Recent Diaries
Links

Conservative
Liberal
Moderate/Mixed/Non-Partisan
Non-Political/Reference

Related Sites -

Polisci Applied (Aaron)
Intrepid Liberal Journal (Intrepid Liberal)
Obsidian Wings (Bird Dog)
Open Hand/Open Eye (locutas)
Red State (Bird Dog)
Swords Crossed (brendanm98)
Wagster Speaks (Wagster)
WatchingAmerica (BlaiseP)
The Social Pathologist (TSP)

Foreign Affairs -

Abu Aardvark
'Aqoul
American Footprints
Council on Foreign Relations
CSIS
Democracy Arsenal
Intel Dump
The Fourth Rail
The Head Heeb
War and Piece

Politics -

Ace of Spades HQ
Andrew Sullivan
Balloon Juice
Belgravia Dispatch
Captain's Quarters
Crooked Timber
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical
Daily Kos
Democracy Arsenal
Eschaton
Firedoglake
Glenn Greenwald
Global Guerrillas
Hugh Hewitt
Instapundit
Jawa Report
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Liberals Against Terror
Matt Yglesias
Michael J. Totten
Michelle Malkin
Moon of Alabama
New America
OxBlog
Patterico
Political Animal
Political Wire
Publius Pundit
QandO
Reality Based Community
Talking Points Memo
The Agitator
The Belmont Club
The Corner
Truman Project
Winds of Change.net

War -

Counterterrorism Blog
Iraq the Model
Jihad Watch
Small Wars Journal Blog

Economics and Business -

Angry Bear
Brad DeLong
Daniel Drezner
Mahalanobis
Marginal Revolution
Roubini Global Economics
The Big Picture

Science and Tech -

Bad Astronomy
New Scientist
Real Climate
Science Blogs
Scientific American
The Panda's Thumb

Legal -

Balkinization
Conglomerate
Ideoblog
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Overlawyered
ProfessorBainbridge
ScotusBlog
Talk Left
The Becker-Posner Blog
Volokh Conspiracy

Sports -

Baseball Crank
Baseball Musings
Baseball Reference.com
ESPN.com
NFL.com
Only Baseball Matters
The Sports Economist

Books, Film and Music -

Amazon.com
Internet Movie Database
All Music Guide

News and Aggregators -

Asia Times
Boingboing
CNN
Digg
English Russia
Fark
Los Angeles Times
Memeorandum
MSNBC
Politico
Poynteronline
Slashdot
The New York Times
The Washington Post

References -

Wikipedia
Your Dictionary