From Robert Reich:
"The President's centeredness, calm, and dignity inspire trust but also suggest a certain lack of combativeness, a reluctance to express indignation, and an unwillingness to identify enemies -- resulting in a tendency toward compromise even at the early stages of controversy."
TW: I finished recently Thurston Clarke's "Last Campaign" about RFK's brief and ultimately tragic '68 primary campaign. RFK was an odd mix by 1968. One part passionate defender of the poor and minorities and fervent opponent of the Vietnam War. On the other he was able to make a strong connection with the blue-collar working class that many in the Democratic party at the time were starting to lose and ultimately lost in droves in the form of the Reagan Democrats of the 1980's and beyond. Many George Wallace voters were RFK supporters.
RFK did not have the "Volvo driving, latte sipping" Dems, they were firmly with Eugene McCarthy. He did not start out with the support of the old Dem party bosses (i.e. Daley Sr. etc.) but with his primary victories he was perhaps on the verge of getting their support over Humphrey (the party bosses had one primary interest- winning the general election, policy be damned).
How did RFK bridge two seemingly different groups? Foremost, his personality. He was regarded as tough, very tough. He had accumulated his bonafides going back to his days on the staff of Joseph McCarthy, continuing through is anti-mafia work in the late '50's, through his attorney general days in JFK's administration. The Wallace voters perceived RFK as someone who substantively leaned left but in form was sufficiently tough that the Wallace crowd perceived that he would not sellout their interests in pursuit of more liberal goals. They also believed RFK would be tough internationally whilst working the U.S.'s way out of Vietnam for instance.
Obama does not yet have these tough bonafides. Obama won on the backing of the "Volvo driving, latte sipping" Dem elites, minorities and those pissed off about W. Bush. How can Obama build some "tough" bonafides?
There is a reason POTUSes like foreign policy, it is the area of governance where the POTUS has the most discretion. One of Obama's most heralded moments as POTUS was when a couple of Navy Seals put a circle into a Somali pirate's forehead. Obama did not have much to do with it, but it was under his watch and indirect order. Folks for better or worse like that stuff.
Obama's presidency though is not currently and will not likely be anytime soon (barring unforeseen events) about foreign policy. It is about domestic policy where the negotiation and triangulation rule. Obama's opportunities will be relatively rare but not extinct. Reagan made his big symbolic play with the PATCO air controllers strike. Where can Obama make a move?
The financial industry is a potential area. Regardless of Wall Street machinations I believe most Americans sense something is rotten there. What specifically Obama can do is not immediately apparent to me. But should he make a move I believe it would pay off broadly to assist his leverage in all areas of legislation. Obama needs a notch for his holster.
Another area would be the public service unions or trial lawyers. Both are ripe for reform. But sequencing is important, taking on his own party's core constituencies should not be his first move.
Obama will never be progressive enough for some on the left but he must gain more traction with the middle in order to build his street or more specifically his "main street" cred.
"The President's centeredness, calm, and dignity inspire trust but also suggest a certain lack of combativeness, a reluctance to express indignation, and an unwillingness to identify enemies -- resulting in a tendency toward compromise even at the early stages of controversy."
TW: I finished recently Thurston Clarke's "Last Campaign" about RFK's brief and ultimately tragic '68 primary campaign. RFK was an odd mix by 1968. One part passionate defender of the poor and minorities and fervent opponent of the Vietnam War. On the other he was able to make a strong connection with the blue-collar working class that many in the Democratic party at the time were starting to lose and ultimately lost in droves in the form of the Reagan Democrats of the 1980's and beyond. Many George Wallace voters were RFK supporters.
RFK did not have the "Volvo driving, latte sipping" Dems, they were firmly with Eugene McCarthy. He did not start out with the support of the old Dem party bosses (i.e. Daley Sr. etc.) but with his primary victories he was perhaps on the verge of getting their support over Humphrey (the party bosses had one primary interest- winning the general election, policy be damned).
How did RFK bridge two seemingly different groups? Foremost, his personality. He was regarded as tough, very tough. He had accumulated his bonafides going back to his days on the staff of Joseph McCarthy, continuing through is anti-mafia work in the late '50's, through his attorney general days in JFK's administration. The Wallace voters perceived RFK as someone who substantively leaned left but in form was sufficiently tough that the Wallace crowd perceived that he would not sellout their interests in pursuit of more liberal goals. They also believed RFK would be tough internationally whilst working the U.S.'s way out of Vietnam for instance.
Obama does not yet have these tough bonafides. Obama won on the backing of the "Volvo driving, latte sipping" Dem elites, minorities and those pissed off about W. Bush. How can Obama build some "tough" bonafides?
There is a reason POTUSes like foreign policy, it is the area of governance where the POTUS has the most discretion. One of Obama's most heralded moments as POTUS was when a couple of Navy Seals put a circle into a Somali pirate's forehead. Obama did not have much to do with it, but it was under his watch and indirect order. Folks for better or worse like that stuff.
Obama's presidency though is not currently and will not likely be anytime soon (barring unforeseen events) about foreign policy. It is about domestic policy where the negotiation and triangulation rule. Obama's opportunities will be relatively rare but not extinct. Reagan made his big symbolic play with the PATCO air controllers strike. Where can Obama make a move?
The financial industry is a potential area. Regardless of Wall Street machinations I believe most Americans sense something is rotten there. What specifically Obama can do is not immediately apparent to me. But should he make a move I believe it would pay off broadly to assist his leverage in all areas of legislation. Obama needs a notch for his holster.
Another area would be the public service unions or trial lawyers. Both are ripe for reform. But sequencing is important, taking on his own party's core constituencies should not be his first move.
Obama will never be progressive enough for some on the left but he must gain more traction with the middle in order to build his street or more specifically his "main street" cred.
No comments:
Post a Comment