Enemies and Naivete

Recently, my friend, fellow Obama supporter, and Obama staffer, Amrit Mehra passed along this LA Times piece by Jonah Goldberg of the National Review. As Amrit put it, this piece "encapsulates [Sen.] Clinton's underlying argument against Obama," i.e. that change doesn't happen by bringing people together, but rather by fighting it out. There is something to be said for this adversarial strategy for solving our country's problems, but, I believe, there is more to be said for Obama's "theory of change," especially in light of where we are as a country today and the nuance of Obama's politics of inclusion. Read Godlberg's brief piece, and then my response below...

I am not sure Sen. Obama or his supporters (including me) are right about our theory of change, but I do know that unlike Goldberg's argument implying that Democrats and Republicans are enemies (e.g. by comparing them to Superman and Lex Luthor), we are not. Being opposed to each other, even if consistently and passionately, does not make enemies of the two major parties. Even if Goldberg is correct that "Democracy is about disagreement, not agreement," surely democracy is also about compromise and inclusion, not rigid ideology and division.

At a practical level, 55 percent of the Senate, the House, or the electorate does not deliver universal health coverage, solve climate change, or intervene in Darfur. One might sensibly respond, "Well, that's why you have to fight it out and win elections." I couldn't agree more. But governing and winning elections, contrary to what Karl Rove might have you think, are probably not best tackled the same way. Throughout his campaign, Sen. Obama has been articulating how he hopes to govern. That said, Is there any evidence that Obama's message undermines the ability to pick up more Democratic seats? Not only would Sen. Obama possibly be the strongest Democratic nominee, but recent endorsements from Democratic Senators and Governors and purple and purplish red States suggest that Sen. Obama could begin in earnest to build an expanded majority in Congress. He is not merely relying on working with Republicans and Independents elected to Congress. He is also relying on working with Republicans and Independents throughout the country to, among other things, elect Democrats.

I have to wonder, as Mark Schmitt has suggested, if people taking Sen. Obama too literally. Does anybody really believe that Sen. Obama hopes to get 80 percent of the vote? On the other hand, how easily we have forgotten the decades past when Democrats amassed massive "working majorities," to use the term Obama is now utilizing, reflecting his genuine understanding of what is and isn't possible, and what it takes to achieve bold political change. Those historic Congressional majorities included some Republican and significant Independent support to create much of the progressive change we take for granted today. At the end of the day though, as Sen. Obama surely understands much better than critics give him credit for, those were, at their core, Democratic majorities. None of this is to suggest Sen. Obama is more partisan than Sen. Clinton or Sen. Edwards. Rather his strategy is to fundamentally undermine the ability of Republicans to hold on to the non-ideological allies in the middle who they need so dearly. That a move towards that great tradition of Democratic governance seems so naïve to many older Americans, and inspiring to many younger Americans suggests to me, in part, that many younger Americans, with some hope, are actually the ones who truly understand the scale of the problems facing America, while many older Americans fail to see how paralyzing today's politics has become vis-a-vis the great challenges of our time.

[I should note that I genuinely believe that Sen. Clinton and Sen. Edwards would each be an exceptional president, but I have volunteered for and contributed to the campaign of Sen. Obama.]