  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Underestimating ObamaPosted on Feb 28, 2008By E.J. Dionne WASHINGTON—Barack Obama’s critics bear a remarkable resemblance to the liberals who labored mightily to dismiss Ronald Reagan in 1980. Reagan’s foes wrote him off as a right-wing former actor who amiably spouted conservative bromides and must have been engaged in some sort of Hollywood flimflam. Like Reagan’s enemies, Obama’s opponents concede that this Democrat gives a great speech. Indeed, both Obama and Reagan came to wide attention because of a single oration that offered hope in the midst of a losing campaign—Obama’s 2004 keynote to the Democratic National Convention and Reagan’s 1964 “A Time for Choosing” address delivered on behalf of Barry Goldwater. But surely speeches aren’t enough, are they? Yes, Obama gets his crowds swooning. So did Reagan. It’s laughable to hear conservatives talk darkly about a “cult of personality” around Obama. The Reaganites, after all, have lobbied to name every airport, school, library, road, bridge, government building and lamppost after the Gipper. When it comes to personality cults, the right wing knows what it’s talking about. But don’t worry, say Obama’s adversaries, he’ll collapse because voters won’t trust him to handle foreign policy. He’s too inexperienced and has these perilously idealistic ideas. Yes, and President Jimmy Carter’s campaign in 1980 was absolutely convinced it could persuade the country that Reagan was a dangerous warmonger who could not be trusted to keep America safe. In any event, claim the anti-Obama legions, voters will eventually be persuaded that he is nothing but a big, bad liberal. He may make sweet bipartisan sounds, but the old attacks on left-wing ideology will work this time, as they always have. The liberals who were so dismissive of Reagan similarly insisted that he represented the same “right-wing extremism” that voters had rejected in 1964 when they sent Goldwater to his landslide defeat. Yet Reagan didn’t play to type. He reached out warmly to Democrats, notably in his 1980 convention speech that was his single most effective political sally. “Everywhere we have met thousands of Democrats, independents, and Republicans from all economic conditions and walks of life bound together in that community of shared values of family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom,” Reagan declared. “They are concerned, yes, but they are not frightened. They are disturbed, but not dismayed. They are the kind of men and women Tom Paine had in mind when he wrote—during the darkest days of the American Revolution—‘We have it in our power to begin the world over again.’ ” You can almost hear the Republican crowd shouting, “Yes we can!” Reagan offered, well, change we could believe in. Still, Democrats kept telling themselves, right to November, that voters wouldn’t fall for any of this. Charisma, eloquence, idealism and hope were no match for experience, realism, prudence and predictability. The Reagan metaphor explains why Hillary Clinton was in trouble from the moment she failed to knock Obama out of the race in Iowa. During the last two months, Democrats in large numbers have reached the same conclusion that so many Republicans did in 1980: Now is the time to go for broke, to challenge not only the ruling party but also the governing ideas of the previous political era and the political coalition that allowed them to dominate public life. “This is our time,” Obama says in a short sentence full of meaning. The conservative age is as dead now as the liberal age was in 1980. Jimmy Carter, in many ways not a liberal at all, became the whipping boy for the end of liberalism. George W. Bush, no pure conservative, has come to symbolize the collapse of conservatism. “It is time to turn the page and write a new chapter in American history,” Obama says—exactly the sentiment of the Ronald Reagan who invoked Tom Paine. The frustration of the Clinton campaign is understandable. Like George H.W. Bush, whom Reagan defeated for the presidential nomination in 1980, Hillary Clinton has worked very hard, knows government from the inside out, and would clearly provide the country with a safe set of hands. The Clintonites argue, fairly, that there is no way to know if Obama can live up to The Promise of Obama. But the same was true of Ronald Reagan. In that 1980 speech, Reagan quoted a certain Democratic president who “told the generation of the Great Depression that it had a ‘rendezvous with destiny.’ I believe that this generation of Americans today has a rendezvous with destiny.” Obama is being propelled by the same sense of historical opportunity, and that is why it will be hard to derail him. E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is postchat(at)aol.com. © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: The New Permanent Campaign Next item: Obama and the Jews Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
By chez mois, March 2 at 7:56 pm # BORAK OBAMA POPPINSUm diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle ay
By chrism, March 1 at 1:09 pm # As Mr. Dionne states,”Hillary Clinton has worked very hard, knows government from the inside out, and would clearly provide the country with a safe set of hands.” To me “a safe set of hands” Clinton would provide is a preservation of “status quo”. Clearly she represents if not epitomizes “the governing ideas of the previous political era and the political coalition that allowed them to dominate public life”. And look at what these ideas and coalition have achieved domestically as well as internationally. Clinton may offer a safe set of hands, but so what. Can the ideas and the coalition which have allowed this country to slide into the bottomless tar pit will be able to pull us out of it? Even if Obama cannot live up to “The Promise of Obama”, would it be any worse than what would most certainly will be under Clinton’s hands? Yes, great many of us have concluded that “Now is the time to go for broke, to challenge not only the ruling party but also the governing ideas of the previous political era and the political coalition that allowed them to dominate public life.” We “go for broke” for we are already broke and we have nothing to lose but everything to gain - we deserve better life and the world than what the politicians like Mrs. Clinton have brought us,
By thi tran, March 1 at 6:56 am # Carl Rowes’s trick against Democrats. A large number of Diehard Republicans and Christian Fundamentalists voted for Sen.Obama in California, Oregon and for other big states like Texas… By using the Democratic Party’s Primary Election Rule which allows all voters to vote for democratic candidates, the Republican would eliminate Sen.Hillary Clinton who would capture the votes from the white, hispanic and asian male republicans who are in dismay of Bush and the current republican policies. I am disapointed of the head of Democratic party for not seeing this coming in order to have the best candidate for this election.
By chez mois, February 29 at 6:33 pm # Squeaky Clean?“Obama presents himself as a squeaky-clean politician, so the dubious association with Rezko has caused him more trouble that it would, say, anyone else in the history of Chicago or Illinois politics. To defuse the issue, the junior senator has done a good John McCain imitation: swamping critics with apologies, admissions, and candor. “This is the first time this has happened and I don’t like the feeling,” Obama said at a press conference in November. “It’s frustrating to me, and I’m kicking myself about it.” He told the Associated Press: “Purchasing a piece of property from somebody who has been a supporter of yours I think is a bad idea. It’s an example of where every once in a while you’re going to make a mistake and hopefully you learn from it.” He told the Chicago Sun-Times that he made a mistake and, “I regret it. ... One of the things you purchase in public life is that there are going to be a different set of standards, I’m going to make sure from this point that I don’t even come close to the line.” As the scandal stands, this is not Obama’s Whitewater, the Arkansas land deal that bedeviled Bill and Hillary Clinton during the early part of President Clinton’s first term. It doesn’t help an inexperienced national politician to have to admit a stupid rookie mistake before the cameras, but there’s nothing here so far that seems politically life threatening. Of course, if Rezko tells a different story to investigators or Obama’s statements turn out to be untrue, that’s it for him—you can’t run for president on your keen judgment and then show a lack of it by lying and covering up.”
By cyrena, February 29 at 9:19 pm # Re: Out of respect for this thread soGrammaConcept, I absolutely love it when you repeat yourself!! Still, I’m recording all of this for my permanent records, (including the message from The Elders at the Hopi Nation) just in case you want to take the occasional break,in “doing what you do best.” Technology isn’t a bad thing...
By Grousefeather, February 28 at 9:03 pm # Perception is realityRonald Reagan deserved to be dismissed. But, never underestimate the power of the corporate controlled media to deceive the voters and pull off one clever deception after another. Once the media is under control the rest is easy. It’s no problem to elect a totally mediocre man like Reagan, and then a jerk like Bush, and with a little marketing and manipulation, make them both look like heros. Perception is reality, and the media controls perception, so… Add Your Comment |
|
UN Envoy Heads to Burma with Urgent Relief Message
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|Comment Policy
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article