LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.   Exclusive Truthdig Merchandise: Mr. Fish T-shirts and Signed Prints
November 21, 2009
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Most Read

Intelligentsia Against Intelligence

Throw the Money Changers Out of the Temple

The Afghanistan Speech Obama Should Give (but Won't)

Lipstick on a Rogue

Battlefield in the War of Ideas

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
Enough G-2 Talk Already
Despite Subsidies, Class Sizes Rise in California Schools

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
 * NEW! * Freedom’s Fight: Part II

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101
Vetting Sarah Palin

Truthdig Bazaar
God Is Back

God Is Back

by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge
$18.45

The Impeachment of George W. Bush

The Impeachment of George W. Bush

By Elizabeth Holtzman and Cynthia L. Cooper
$10.17

more items

 
Reports

Mandate ‘08: Reagan vs. FDR

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   
Posted on Oct 31, 2008

By David Sirota

So it has all come down to this.

After two years and a quarter-billion dollars worth of ads, the pulverizing election has become a steel-cage match pitting rivals against each other—and not Immigrants versus Natives, Americans versus Foreigners or Whites versus Blacks.

No, John McCain and Barack Obama have made the race’s final weeks an ideological proxy war between two presidential icons who still loom larger than them: Ronald Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt.

McCain promises to “follow in [Reagan’s] tradition and in his footsteps” while vilifying Obama as a 1930s-era “socialist” looking to “redistribute wealth.” Obama counters by invoking Roosevelt’s speeches and depicting the financial meltdown as “the final verdict” on McCain’s “failed philosophy” (i.e., Reaganism).

Mind you, neither personifies these predecessors. Obama’s moderate record is not FDR’s quasi-socialism, and McCain has renounced some of his Reagan-inspired dogma.

Advertisement

Both also ignore inconsistencies. Obama criticizes the “failed philosophy” of Reagan conservatism while infusing some of his own prescriptions with such conservatism. McCain attacks Obama’s “socialism” after voting for the bank bailout bill—the most aggressive stroke of socialism in contemporary American history.

But all that is less important right now than the duo’s binary framing. They both effectively say a vote for McCain is a vote to continue Reagan’s trickle-down tax cuts and free-market fundamentalism, and a vote for Obama is a vote to resurrect Roosevelt’s regulations and redistributions. And because this choice has been made so clear—because we know what we’re voting on—whoever wins will have a huge mandate to implement the ideology he thematically represented.

That’s why conservatives are so worried.

They see the cause and effect: As McCain doubles down on the right’s economic catechism, Obama is surging. Even in traditional Gipper territory like Colorado and Virginia, the Rooseveltian Socialist is running ahead of Reagan Reincarnate.

Conservatives’ response is a pre-emptive “ah, nah, can’t hear you!” They contend that no matter how big progressives may win on Election Day, this is nonetheless a center-right nation. Indeed, a LexisNexis search shows this poll-tested term—“center-right nation”—is lately among the Punditburo’s most ubiquitous Orwellian buzzwords. From a Newsweek cover story by conservative dittohead Jon Meacham to a Wall Street Journal screed by former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan to a Politico.com diatribe by former Rudy Giuliani aide John Avlon, the “center-right nation” phrase is being parroted with the propagandistic discipline of Cuba’s Ministry of Information.

The proof of this center-right nation? Republicans cite polls showing more Americans call themselves conservative than liberal. While that data point certainly measures brand name, those same surveys undermine the right’s larger argument because they show majorities support progressive positions on most economic issues.

Nevertheless, if Obama wins, expect more frantic talk from the fringe about how electing a black man billed as an Islamic Karl Marx obviously means our country is more conservative than ever. We’ll also be treated to hysterical assertions like those from former Bush aide Peter Wehner, who this week told The Washington Post that “it is a mistake to assume that significant GOP losses, should they occur, are a referendum on conservatism.”

But with the Bush era finely tuning America’s BS detector, repetition and revisionism can no longer cloak reality.

“As the Republican ticket continues to run against the very idea of progressive politics, they are sowing the seeds of the post-election realignment narrative,” writes The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder, adding that a McCain loss in such an ideologically polarized contest means “Democrats can justifiably claim that conservatism itself has been rejected.”

That would be the very mandate for the “direct, vigorous action” Roosevelt described in his 1933 inaugural address. Should a President Obama try to capitalize on it, he will have nothing to fear but fear itself.

David Sirota is a best-selling author whose newest book, “The Uprising,” was released in June. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America’s Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network, both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota.

© 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc.


Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By cann4ing, November 3, 2008 at 1:31 pm #

Cyrena, the Phenix screed was unworthy of your repost.

Report this

By cyrena, November 3, 2008 at 6:46 am #

By Phenix, November 1 at 11:57 pm

Phenix, this is a FALSE statement:

“..Obama voted against capping usury interest rates on credit card.  He believes that interest over 30% is just fine…”

He DID NOT vote against this. Hillary Clinton voted against this cap. (as did gramps McCain)

This is also a FALSE statement..

“He is a pro-war pro-corporate candidate.”

How do you get “pro-war” from ANYTHING Obama has been saying the past 7 years in respect to ‘war’?

THIS is the *only* correct part of your post…

“Obama is not the messiah people.”

No. He isn’t the messiah, and that’s damn sure NOT who/what we’re needing to perform the duties of the President of the United States. We need a President that is NOT *ANTI-American* and who actually is willing and able to lead a united population. We DON’T need a flippin’ ‘messiah’!!

That is unless a messiah could somehow prevent people from lying (like you’ve done in this post) or cure ignorance. I don’t believe that is possible.

Report this

By Phenix, November 2, 2008 at 3:57 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Only a deluded liberal would attempt to compare FDR and Obama.  Obama is a neo-liberal candidate.  His advisors are all neo-liberals.  Rubin, one of his most important economic advisors, is an architect of this disaster.  We all know that this has happened under Bush but the Democrats helped create this frame.

Obama is an enabler of the rich and corrupt.  Take a look at his voting records and his running mate.  Do you really expect him to take on the debt err credit card industry and big banks?  Obama voted against capping usury interest rates on credit card.  He believes that interest over 30% is just fine.

Obama is not the messiah people.  He is a pro-war pro-corporate candidate.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 1, 2008 at 2:05 pm #

It is amazing how the McCainiacs have turned vice into virtue—blasting Obama’s statement that a progressive income tax helps to “spread the wealth.”

Forget for a moment that the idea of a progressive tax structure came from the guy McCain claims is his hero—Teddy Roosevelt. Forget also that the Bush regime has presided over the greatest redistribution of wealth in history—redistributing the wealth of the middle class to the wealthiest one percent so that the gap between rich and poor is now the greatest it has been since 1928—the wealthiest 400 Americans having added $600 billion to their net worth over the past 8 years.

Ask yourself: What is the opposite of “spreading the wealth”? Anyone?

The opposite of “spreading the wealth” is “hording the wealth.” In their twisted minds Ebenezer Scrooge was doing fine so long as he remained a miser. It was only when he became a “spread-the-wealther”—sharing his wealth with charities, making sure that Tiny Tim survived that Scrooge became the “evil Socialist”—or so goes their twisted “greed-is-good” logic.

Report this

By Albanius, November 1, 2008 at 2:06 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

FDR, too, campaigned on a moderate program, but with a commitment to address the crisis and the real problems of the common people. He governed far to the left of his campaign.

The question now is whether on Nov 5 Obama will switch gears, from Jackie Robinson coolness under fire to New Deal boldness. 

IMO the situation, the mandate, and energized progressive movements will compel Obama to govern far to the left of Bill Clinton, even with some of the same crowd - Rubin et al - advising him.

Report this

By EF Milone, November 1, 2008 at 1:44 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

I agree with David Sirota’s conclusion that if Obama wins, it will be apparent, given the antisocialist diatribe of the McCain campaign, that “conservatism” as the Republicans seem to define it will be discredited. On the other hand, as he also suggests, the pragmatic, cautious (dare I say conservative?), consensus-building Barack Obama is not Franklin Roosevelt, so unless the country does indeed totally tank, we will probably not see the equivalent of the CCC, WPA, PWA, TVA, etc., except maybe for a full-court press on ending the oil addiction, which he has made his chief goal.  But, if a full-court press is needed to restore the economy, perhaps this time the Supreme Court will not be able to shoot down every solution that he can come up with. 
Incidentally, although some may consider Reagan a comparable figure to FDR, in this old-timer’s view, Reagan, who was in fact a strong supporter of FDR when he still had his marbles, was by accident in the presidency when the USSR imploded. If the end of the Cold War required something intelligent of Reagan to occur, it would never have happened.

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!







Number of characters remaining: 4000

Notify you when others comment on this article?


Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.


Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

 
 

 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.