Barack Obama is making an interesting proposition to the American people. He’s trying to sell Liberalism to Independents and Conservatives that have rejected that philosophy for decades. And so far … it’s working.
To understand why it’s working, we have to understand Liberalism itself. In America, we equate Liberalism with a set of policy preferences …diplomacy over military action, stem-cell research, the legalization of same-sex marriage, secular government, stricter gun control, environmental protection laws, the preservation of abortion rights, etc … But in terms of core values, Liberalism is defined by the desire to provide everyone with an equal opportunity and to promote a creative and productive society.
Opposing philosophies (i.e. Conservatives) have been successful in branding Liberalism as “un-American”. Conservatives have no problem with the equal opportunity component of the Liberal philosophy. However, Conservatives believe that our society should be shaped only by the free market, the Constitution, and God – the ideas of the founding fathers of this country. When Liberals advocate an idea that they think makes the country better but has no basis in the free Market, the Constitution, or God (for example Social Security), Conservatives will often argue that the idea is un-American. Strictly speaking, they are right.
The Obama proposition is that our country as presently constructed denies opportunity to many middle and lower class families. Furthermore, the denial of opportunity is fundamentally un-American. Thus we have to build infrastructure in a way that’s not guided by the ideals of the founding fathers in order to maintain the ideal of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are being un-American either way, but one way is better than the other. Why? Because of this thing that Americans all hold near and dear … the American Dream. Making government a little bigger than it would otherwise be to preserve the American dream fits within the core values of Americans.
Thus, Obama is operating within Liberal philosophy AND he’s operating within Conservative philosophy. He’s advocating opportunity for all and he’s shaping America beyond its strict definition for some greater good. At the same time, he’s pushing the envelope only as far as it needs to be pushed to preserve the American Dream. If he’s successful, he’ll offer a brand of Liberalism than can’t be called “un-American”.
Let’s illustrate this with a couple examples.
Obama’s Health Plan
Obama argues that health care costs have risen to the point where ordinary American’s can’t afford coverage and also build a life for themselves and their families. Thus the government has to step in and insure that there is an affordable option that is available to everyone including those with pre-existing conditions.
The distinction between the Obama plan and the other Democratic candidates plans is subtle, and his campaign has taken a lot of heat from his opponents over his lack of “universal coverage”. However, in Obama’s brand of Liberalism, mandating that everyone has health coverage goes too far. Universal Health care is an idea that’s long been deemed to be un-American. However Americans accept that the rising cost of health care is swamping some families. And furthermore, American’s accept that pre-existing conditions and health care portability are further limiting opportunities. So if something can be done which solves those two problems, it won’t be un-American. It may require bigger government and Conservatives generally oppose things that make government bigger. But sometimes there are big problems that only the federal government can solve … the interstate highway system for example.
Another feature of Obama’s Liberal brand is that his programs in general will be smaller in scope than many Liberal ideas … after all they aren’t intended to make America “better”, they are only intended to make sure that opportunities are available. In fact Hillary Clinton believes that her Health care plan will cost $100B dollars while Obama estimates his as costing about half as much.
So in the Fall, McCain and Obama will argue over the relative merits of their respective health plans, but McCain can’t attack the brand … or if he does, many won’t buy into his attack. After all, the brand is keeping the American dream alive.
Obama’s Subprime Mortgage Crisis Recovery Plan
Another example of the Obama’s brand is his program to recover from the subprime mortgage crisis. In Obama’s view, the problem with the subprime lending market isn’t that middle class families are going to lose their homes. They were speculating and / or were taking too much risk and they lost their money. The problem is that people who rely on risky loans just to have a home shouldn’t get wiped out along with the speculators.
Contrast this to the Clinton plan that freezes interest rates on ARMs for 5 years across the board. Philosophically speaking, her plan isn’t grounded in the core American values and by the way … is much more expensive.
Conclusion
So the bottom line is that Obama’s program is at least palatable to the entire spectrum of political philosophies. His program is in fact, Liberal. However, it can’t be dismissed out of hand by anyone. Obama still has to convince Americans that his ideas are better than McCain’s ideas. However the argument won’t end when Americans read the brand name.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree, but I would add that both remaining democrats are also helping to re-brand liberalism by backing off of the pro-abortion demagoguery, and in general the us versus them mentality in addressing religious conservatives.
An excellent point. The "pro-choice" talk has been conspicuous by its absence. Could it be that the Democrats have finally accepted that it's politically untenable to make this issue a mainstay? Will "Pro-Choice" go the way of gun control?
There is nothing in the core values of Liberalism that makes pro-choice an imperative. Is our society "better" with abortion? At best, it's a necessary evil.
Politically speaking, anti-abortion has been used as a powerful lever to move the blue collar Catholics to the Republican side.
Practically speaking, Abortion is not a legislative issue. Roe v. Wade established that Abortion is a fundamental Constitutional right. Unless that's somehow changed by the judicial branch, there is nothing that lawmakers can do to change it.
So, the bottom line is that there is no reason to promote abortion rights when they hurt you politically and they are completely extraneous. It's surprising that it has taken this long for the Dems to figure that out.
Post a Comment