When one considers all the recent polling in Iowa and New Hampshire, there’s at least one unmistakable trend: a gap in the support from independents. Barack Obama enjoys solid support among Dems, but is in position to possibly win early contests thanks to support from independents. For Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, it’s the other way around.
With that in mind, Matt Yglesias raises an important point, which I hope he won’t mind if I quote in full.
John Judis and Ruy Teixeira take a look at the demographic and ideological characteristics of self-described independents and their potential role in the presidential election. It’s clear that the post-partisan rhetoric from Barack Obama that’s annoyed a lot of bloggers has tremendous appeal to this segment of the electorate. And though I, too, find it annoying I think you have to agree that if he really does manage to use this kind of rhetoric to mobilize an unprecedented number of independents to go caucus for the first time on behalf of a candidate who was right about Iraq from the beginning, backs ambitious new programs on climate change and media reform, big new regulations on health insurance companies and new subsidies to people who have trouble paying for insurance, etc., etc., etc. that that’ll be a pretty impressive achievement.
It’s always worth recalling that George W. Bush talked the talk about repudiating the harshness of Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay. That duped the brain-dead press and they, in turn, helped dupe a substantial element of the public. But the policy agenda from Bush was always very right-wing, just as Obama’s platform is quite progressive.
This touches on what I think is one of the Obama campaign’s more compelling selling points — he’s giving Dems the policy proposals they want (universal healthcare plan, excellent energy policy, ending the war in Iraq, cancellation of Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy, net neutrality, etc.) and giving independents the tone they want (“agree without being disagreeable,” “bring people together,” “working with those we don’t agree with”).
For all the palpable frustration and exasperation, Obama may very well be in the process of pulling off a pretty neat trick: selling a very liberal agenda to a large group of people who aren’t even close to liberal.
Allow me to over simplify things to an almost comical degree. Obama, or any Democrat for that matter, has a choice as to how best to pitch progressive ideas as a presidential candidate:
Choice A: Republicans have proven themselves to be reckless, incompetent, and incapable of governing. They seek to divide, bankrupt, and undercut America, while trashing our institutions and ignoring the rule of law. The way to get the nation back on track is to elect a Democratic president with a progressive policy agenda. If Republicans balk, we’ll ram it down their throats, to the benefit of people nationwide.
Choice B: Partisan politics has gotten out of hand, and there’s simply no need to keep having the same ideological fights over and over again. It’s time for a Democratic style of politics that brings in independents and reasonable Republicans who are willing to work with us to make a difference on the issues that really matter, such as universal healthcare, ending the war in Iraq, combating global warming, fiscal sanity, making college more affordable….
The funny thing is, Dems who embrace Choice A and Dems who embrace Choice B can agree with one another, wholeheartedly, on matters of substance. On policy, they want the exact same things, and have practically the same ideas as to how to address the issues. The difference, of course, is style and tone. Choice A is perceived as “partisan” — it rallies Dems, and drives independents away. Choice B is perceived as “bipartisan” — it annoys Dems, and brings independents in (not to mention the media establishment, which eats this stuff up).
In the current race for the Democratic nomination, Obama seems to be taking a risk — use bipartisan rhetoric to achieve partisan ends. His agenda isn’t moderate; his tone is moderate. But as Mark Schmidt recently noted, this appears to be a means to an end.
Of course, there are multiple moving parts here. Using Choice B offers the opportunity to win a general election with a big mandate. It also runs the risk of undercutting party building, watering down the brand, and creating unrealistic expectations about what’s possible.
Food for thought.