Obama and the American Lefts: Part I

[NQ Note: We are pleased to present another essay in two parts by a brilliant political strategist who blogs under the name “Sam Copeland.” Sam is an expert in political persuasion and worked at the highest level of the Clinton campaign. We plan to publish part II tomorrow morning.]

Will Rogers famously said: “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.”

The inauguration of a new President is a good time to take stock of the current disorganization of the Democratic Party.

Bud White has it right: there really are two Democratic Parties.

The American left is split into two groups – a leftist wing that tends towards socialism and pacifism and a centrist wing – an All-American Liberal wing – that supports a liberal version of capitalism and a strong defense.

The centrist All-American Liberal wing supports free trade but wants it to be fair trade too. Free markets are important for economic well-being, but government has a role in checking abuses and, in an oft-forgotten phrase from the progressive era, regulating combinations in restraint of trade. The federal government should be lean and efficient and not bloated (the leftist view) or non-existent (the neo-con view).

Government spending is about investing in the future of the nation to stimulate economic growth and to enhance citizen well-being. Governments are instituted to protect the right to life, liberty, and happiness of every man and woman. Foreign policy follows the edict of Teddy Roosevelt – walk softly but carry a big stick.

This split in the American left goes back to at least the era of FDR and Truman.

For example, Truman was flanked on his left in the 1948 election by FDR’s former Vice Presedent Henry Wallace. In the late 1960s, the book The Greening of America codified this split as the New Left of the radical ‘60s left – which emphasized consciousness raising and symbols of change – and the Old Left of the New Deal era which emphasized more concrete economic and policy changes in support of the workers’ middle class.

Today, the leftist wing of the Democratic Party is represented by Reid, Pelosi, and Dean whereas the All-American Liberal wing finds its champions in Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Barack Obama became the selected nominee of the Democratic Party by appealing to the leftist-wing. He told the left-wing specifically what they wanted to hear about Iraq (it was wrong and we will withdraw on timetables), vaguely what they wanted to hear on economics (a hope message long on rhetoric and short on specifics), and most importantly satisfied their social identity needs to be seen as different, unique, radical, and special. Although Obama received a half a million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton, he could depend on his champion Howard Dean to manipulate the Democratic primary rules so that those votes weren’t counted in places such as Florida and Michigan.

Senator Obama became President Obama, thanks to George W. Bush. The election was close until the economic meltdown. This meltdown was the fruit of Bush’s insane neo-con economic policy. The political fall-out was a complete rejection of the Republicans at the polls by an angry American public.

Now, a funny thing happen to Barack Obama on the way to his inauguration. He became a Clintonista! During the primaries, he ridiculed the economic policies of Bill Clinton. By the end of the general election, he was claiming to bear the mantle of Clinton-nomics. Once elected, he appointed Clintonista after Clintonista to high government office, including the top Clintonista to the top spot – Senator Clinton to be the Secretary of State. The former President, who Obama’s wife once called a racist, became a co-chair of his inauguration. In contrast, Howard Dean, expecting a cabinet-level appointment, was thrown under the bus along with other leftist-wing supporters who hoped for policy-making positions in the new government.

I must admit my surprise at what I have seen. As Clintonista after Clintonista was appointed to government positions I couldn’t believe my eyes. In hindsight, I shouldn’t have been so surprised. Obama’s rise to power – from neighborhood to state district to state and now to nation – has been marked by his development of a loyal band of supporters who help him win at one level only to be discarded as he sets his eyes on a new political prize. Obama moves from one political position to another with ease. He has advanced 7 different positions on the Iraq war** and, save for Bill Clinton, no one seemed to notice or care. Bill Clinton was called a racist for his efforts. Obama’s tendency to throw supporters under the bus should serve as a warning to Clintonistas in his administration.

Why this transformation? Your guess is as good as mine. A friend of mine who isn’t heavily involved in politics offered what is as good an explanation as any. When he watched the Chicago media event staged just after Obama was declared the winner of the Presidential election, he noted that everyone was smiling save for Barack Obama. It was as if Obama was thinking, “Oh shit, now what?” Obama has never been in a real position of leadership in his entire life and now he finds himself in the most demanding leadership position in the world. What to do? Well, you go and find the people who actually succeeded in running the country and put them in charge. Those folks happen to be Clinonistas.

If you are a centrist All-American Liberal, how you perceive this transformation of Barack Obama depends on whether you are a pessimist, an optimist, or an engineer.

The pessimist sees the glass as half empty and says, “We should and could have Hillary Clinton in charge.”

The optimist looks at the half full glass and says, “It could have been worst. Obama could have put the Howard Deans of the world in charge.”

The engineer looks at the half-full/half-empty glass and asks, “Why does this glass have wasted capacity? Why isn’t Hillary Clinton in charge?”

Now that Obama has shown Clintonista tendencies, the answer to the engineer’s question should concern him greatly. His political success depends on it! The answer can be seen in events that happened in the early part of the Clinton Presidency, which I will discuss in my next post, Obama and the American Lefts, Part II.

** Obama’s 7 positions on the Iraq war include: (1) early opposition in 2002; (2) as a US Senate candidate he called for a surge and said withdrawal on timetables would insult our troops; (3) as a US Senator he took the mainstream Democratic position of complaining about the war but continuing the funding unlike true progressives such as Feingold who tried to stop the funding; (4) at the beginning of the primaries, he took the same position as Hillary Clinton of smart withdrawal – doing the diplomatic work so we could withdraw our troops; (5) gaining no political traction with position #4, Obama called for withdrawal on timetables in 16 months; (6) receiving the nomination, Obama said he would leave residual troops in Iraq to fight al Qaeda; and (7) as the general election wears on Obama says he will listen to his generals about withdrawal from Iraq.