The NYT’s David Brooks has an interesting column today comparing and contrasting Barack Obama and John McCain. I’m not entirely sure if it’s a good column, but it’s interesting.
Obama emphasizes the connections between people, the networks and the webs of influence. These sorts of links are invisible to some of his rivals, but Obama is a communitarian. He believes you can only make profound political changes if you first change the spirit of the community. In his speeches, he says that if one person stands up, then another will stand up and another and another and you’ll get a nation standing up.
The key word in any Obama speech is “you.” Other politicians talk about what they will do if elected. Obama talks about what you can do if you join together. Like a community organizer on a national scale, he is trying to move people beyond their cynicism, make them believe in themselves, mobilize their common energies.
His weakness is that he never breaks from his own group. In policy terms, he is an orthodox liberal. He never tells audiences anything that might make them uncomfortable. In the Senate, he didn’t join the Gang of 14, which created a bipartisan consensus on judges, because it would have meant deviating from liberal orthodoxy and coming to the center.
How do you build a trans-partisan coalition when every single policy you propose is reliably on the left?
I’ve heard this criticism before, from quite a few media personalities, and it’s never seemed to make any sense to me. To be an admirable Democrat, one has to, according to Brooks, reject some of the party’s beliefs. Which beliefs are worth rejecting? That doesn’t matter, just so long as you disagree with the party on occasion. Otherwise, you’re “orthodox.” It seems like a lazy way of praising “mavericks.”
But I was especially struck by the argument that Obama “never tells audiences anything that might make them uncomfortable.” Really? I always thought one of Obama’s selling points was the exact opposite.
It’s one of the things I first noticed about Obama’s style — rhetoric aside, he doesn’t seem to pander to anyone. I’m reminded of this Karen Tumulty piece from a few months ago.
When a questioner at a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, wanted to know whether he would cut the military budget to make room for other priorities, Obama answered, “Actually, you’ll probably see an initial bump in military spending in an Obama Administration” to replace the equipment that has been depleted by the Iraq war and build up the size of the active forces. When a teacher asked him about the No Child Left Behind law that is so unpopular with educators and their unions, Obama agreed that it “left the money behind.” But while he endorsed higher pay for teachers, Obama also talked about “the things that were good about No Child Left Behind,” including more accountability. By then, his listeners were shifting in their chairs.
Regarding Social Security, the social program enshrined like no other in the theology of the Democratic base, Obama has said he is open to such politically heretical ideas as upping the retirement age and raising payroll taxes to shore up the system. Before black audiences, Obama regularly condemns violent and misogynist rap lyrics and chastises African Americans for disenfranchising themselves by not voting. In March, Obama caused some consternation among Jewish leaders by saying, “No one is suffering more than the Palestinian people.” Given the chance to disavow that comment during a debate, Obama merely clarified it, saying the fuller context included an assertion that this suffering was the result of “the failure of the Palestinian leadership.”
There was also this item, from a few years ago.
Before his audience, Obama told a fortyish man worrying about taxes that government will have to do more to help the middle-class, not less, and that limiting taxes shouldn’t be his narrow political priority. He told a white-haired woman peace activist who criticizes Israel that the Palestinians are in the wrong, and then when this appears to encourage a pro-Israel man, tells that guy that the Israelis are far from perfect, too. Obama was measured throughout; he tends to come off as an expert and wonk, an earnest, hopeful policy nerd.
A group of older black women asked, humbly, for vague assurances that he would redirect federal housing policy to emphasize low-rise, rather than high-rise, projects — most housing advocates think low-rise buildings would be easier to police and maintain, and encourage more neighborly interactions. The grandmas were throwing him a softball, hoping only for a signal that he was open to their concerns, that he would side with the experts. Obama was having none of it. “Low-rise isn’t going to solve all your problems,” Obama said sternly. “I’ve worked in the projects, and, let me tell you, low rise has problems of its own.” The particular lady who had asked the question looked rebuked, and there was a surprised wince in the church: Did he really just say that to a bunch of trapped-in-the-projects grandmas?
Obama “never tells audiences anything that might make them uncomfortable”? Has David Brooks been watching the same candidate as the rest of us?
For that matter, I also think Brooks is missing the point of Obama’s appeal. The columnist asks how Obama can build a “trans-partisan coalition” with a liberal policy agenda. Actually, it’s pretty simple: make the liberal policy agenda sound good to a broader audience, by stressing hope, change, and a sense of common purpose. It’s not about ideology, it’s about an ability to present liberal ideas in a new, more compelling way — one that makes progressive policies palatable to centrists and reasonable conservatives. What’s more, it seems to be working pretty well for him.
Post Script: Brooks’ piece added one anecdote that’s not to be missed:
Obama’s great skill is his ability to perceive and forge bonds with other people. Everybody who’s dealt with him has a story about a time when they felt Obama profoundly listened to them and understood them. One of mine came a few years ago.
I was writing columns criticizing the Republican Congress, but each time I’d throw in a few sentences slamming the Democrats, subconsciously trying to make myself feel good. One morning I got an e-mail message from Obama that roughly said: David, if you want to critique us, fine. But you’re just throwing in those stray sentences to make yourself feel good.
I felt like a bug pinned down in a display case.
Obama aside, I’ve long assumed that columnists like Brooks do this, with unnecessary pox-on-both-houses pieces. It’s encouraging to see Brooks admit it.