Progressive Movement

Obama gave another one of his historic speeches last week in Cairo to tens of thousands of Muslims. Conservatives largely blasted the speech, some even questioning if Obama was really on America’s side since some of the speech more or less admitted America’s previous foreign policy errors in the region.

Shoot, Obama even hinted at the possibility that the U.S. could work with Hezbollah and other radical groups if they eschewed violence. Funny that a few days after Obama’s speech Hezbollah lost an election in Lebanon they were supposed to win.

But most dramatic of all was what he omitted – any reference to ‘terrorism’ or ‘terrorists’.

Wow, who would have thought that word would not come out of an American President’s mouth in a foreign policy speech until 2030? Obama certainly has dramatically shifted the foreign policy tone of the Bush Administration.

This shift in tone is highly welcome. Obama once again showed he has a grasp of using narratives and frames that his audience will accept. If you are speaking to an Arab group and state that Israel must dismantle its settlements, you immediately open them up to your message. That is one example of how Obama, by taking a more moderate and understanding tone, created the conditions necessary for his Arab listeners to even consider other messages, such as women’s rights. Not using the word ‘terrorism’ also facilitated this openness in his Arab audience.

It has effect here too, changing how we think about our role in the world and the threats we face. Rather than scare everyone with the fear inducing word ‘terrorism’, Obama used language that made the problem of violence by extremists seem like something we can deal with rationally. It also takes us out ot the ‘war’ mentality, again creating the emotional space necessary for people to think about the issue of violent extremists rationally.

Over time, if Obama continues to avoid the word ‘terrorists’, our fear will decline and the public will begin to embrace more fully the idea that we can deal with political and religious violence by cooperation, understanding, education, and economic opportunity. That would be quite welcome.

I only wished his actions backed up his language. From doubling down in Afghanistan, reinstating military tribunals, increasing defense spending, building a massive, quasi-permanent military base in Pakistan, to deciding not to release torture photos, Obama has shown he is only Bush light in foreign policy and openness. Certainly not the change we were seeking.

I am not really sure what he is afraid of, Read the rest of this entry »

Messaging, Obama, Terrorism, Foreign Policy | 1 Comment »

Yesterday New Hampshire became the sixth state in the U.S. to legalize gay marriage. New York is likely next in line. Now while I do expect Iowa voters to pass a state amendment banning same sex marriage after the State Supreme Court rules a law banning it was unconstitutional, other states, particularly in the North East and Mid-Atlantic, will likely legalize it in the next couple of years.

Not to make unwarranted comparisons, but this looks a lot like the march to end slavery. The Northern states all outlawed it, while the more conservative Southern states maintained it. Slavery, while ultimately an economic issue, was galvanizing since it was thought of as a cultural issue. Gay marriage is no different.

Will gay marriage cause another civil war? By itself no, but combined with other cultural issues like abortion, separation of church and state, and gun ownership, we could be heading for a world of hurt.

Nonetheless, equality cannot be stopped, and the Republican’s opposition to gay marriage is just another issue where they are on the wrong side of history.

gay marriage | No Comments »

As I mentioned in my previous post, the conservatives have their frame for talking about how to understand judges’ judicial philosophy – and it is the dominant frame in the public conversation.

Key progressives talking about the nomination of Justice Sonia Sotomayor this weekend, at least the ones that I caught, still refuse to do battle with Republicans over whether judges ‘make law’. Until they do, progressives and liberals will lose the messaging war over the role judges should play in our society.

On Real Time with Bill Maher, Mr. Maher did not contradict the two Republicans on his panel regarding the theory that Justices should not “make law”. Neither did Sen. Leahy on Meet the Press this week when Sen. Jeff Sessions recited this conservative mantra almost every time he spoke.

I wish progressives would have a coordinated messaging attack not on each specific judge, but on the issue of jurisprudence and the role of the courts in general. That overarching message would help them tremendously in swaying public opinion in favor of liberal judges. It would also have benefits in overcoming the public’s fear of progressive governance. That fear does hinder some people from voting for Democrats and progressives.

As I detailed in my last post, progressives’ overarching message should directly contradict the conservatives’ fear of ‘activist’ judges. Judges do make the law; that is what we specifically ask them to do. Interpreting the law, especially in Constitutional cases, is the same as making it. The Judicial branch was set up as a check and balance to both the Executive and Legislative Branches of government. Part of that balance is giving the judiciary the ability to ‘make law’ in limited circumstances.

What kind of law judges make is the real question, and by neutralizing the conservatives histrionics over judges ‘making law’, progressives should be able to have an honest debate over the merits of interpreting the Constitution from a liberal or conservative viewpoint. That is a debate they can win.

All this to say the Democrats and progressives need to get on the bandwagon and start arguing the judges are supposed to make law and fight the Republicans for control over the narrative regarding the role of judges in government.

Flaming Out

Yet, despite their lameness on this judge issue, when it comes to the specific issue of Judge Sotomayor, Democrats might be winning. Not by any merit of their own, but because Read the rest of this entry »

Messaging, Nominations, Democrats, Republicans, Racism, sexism, Supreme Court, Narratives, Rush Limbaugh, Sotomayor | 1 Comment »

So Obama has picked a highly competent, politically savvy person to serve on the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor. The Senate will confirm her, despite all the Republican histrionics. I am no legal scholar, so I will not pontificate on her virtues and failings. Suffice it to say, she was not an inspired pick, but a safe choice. Unfortunately, she is only moderately left of center, at least as many far more versed on these issues than I claim. I wish he had gone with a far left pick, but that is not Obama’s style or strategy.

I am very pleased to have a Latino woman on the Supreme Court. This appointment, similar to Obama’s Presidential win, will permanently move America in a more diverse and progressive direction. And it certainly did not hurt his standing among the Hispanic community. Combined with some of the racist rhetoric coming out of the Republican hate machine, this should help solidify the Democrats electoral success with that community.

Messaging Problem

All that is well and good, but let me tell you where I do have a beef - his insistence of repeating Republican talking points regarding judges. In his speech introducing Sotomayor, right out of the gate, he states that she will “interpret, not make law”.

This is pure conservative territory. Of course judges interpret law, but the fear that they ‘make law’ is pure lunatic fantasy by conservatives mad at decisions that support liberal policies or agendas. It has nothing to do with judges ‘making law’, and everything to do with the fact they do not like liberal decisions. No one is ‘making law’ in the traditional sense that conservatives claim.

In a non-traditional sense however, judges always make law, since every time they decide a case, that becomes the law. They are the final arbitrators of how a law is defined, and whether or not it is Constitutional. In making Constitutional decisions in particular, judges - conservative, liberal, or otherwise – ‘make law’. Sen Jeff Sessions, ranking Republican on the Judicial Committee, even agrees!

Ironically, Read the rest of this entry »

Messaging, Supreme Court, Sotomayor | No Comments »

Sometimes a week is all you need to show key difference between the two parties.

Granted, the Republicans are still trying to figure out their course of direction, but even though moderates Powell and Ridge have criticized right wing evangelical hardliners Limbaugh and Cheney for taking the party too far to the right, the hardliners are winning.

This quote by Mary Matalin, a key Republican strategist, says it all,

“When [Powell] supports Barack Obama, one presumes he’s supporting those principles and policies. Those are liberal principles and they spawn liberal policies. The road forward for Republicans is not to be ‘liberal-lite.”

With their refusal to support President Obama on anything, and Rush Limbaugh winning the propaganda battle, expect the Republicans to not give an inch on anything.

And the Democrats? Quite the opposite. Senate Democrats rebuffed Obama on closing Gitmo, one of the more popular decisions Obama made. Was their refusal to spend the money to close the prison based on principle, or because Cheney had recently hit the airwaves claiming Obama made America less safe for closing it? I fear it was the later, since Democrats usually duck and cover when they start taking flak.

Obama got in on a similar game too, flip flopping on releasing more Abu Ghraib torture photos, reversing an earlier decision to end military tribunals, and practically reciting former Pres. Bush in his Thursday speech on foreign policy.

Common theme here? All of these issues center around national security.

Apparently, Dems think they still cannot go toe-to-toe with Republicans on national security. The sad thing is that the two issues Obama flipped on were two of his more popular decisions when he took office. When will the Dems learn they do not have to run and hide every time the Repubs attack them on security issues? Obama was flying high on these decisions; the public loved him for it. That was the change they were seeking. To reverse them was pure folly and a clear misreading of the public on this issue.

Obama and the Dems’ strategy is clear - Read the rest of this entry »

Democrats, Obama, Republicans, Terrorism, Cheney, Narratives, weak on defense label, Foreign Policy, torture | 1 Comment »

The fight among the Republicans for dominance following their brutal demolition in the last two elections is in full force. One of the key fights has been between Rush Limbaugh and the Republican establishment in Washington. Rush constantly blasts them for being too soft. In Rush’s eyes, Republicans should never work with Democrats. He famously said back in February that he wanted Obama to “fail.”

Additionally, Rush has excoriated any elected Republican who dare take his name in vain, and every time the elected Republicans have come crawling back on their hands and knees to kiss his ring. So far Rush is winning.

Lately many have opined that the far-right positions and hard-line tactics embraced by Rush and apparently most of the GOP will sink in the Republicans. I disagree.

Messaging

The latest victim in this civil war, Rep. Cantor (R-VA), changed the purpose of his much publicized ‘Republican listening’ tour. Now he no longer claims it is a ‘listening’ tour. Why? Because Limbaugh attacked the tour, lambasting the idea that Republicans needed to listen. What Republicans needed to do, Limbaugh opined, was “teach”.

This fight over language gets to the heart of the conundrum Republicans are facing. If you ‘teach’, you imply that you are right and do not need to change, but the students, i.e. the public, need to learn and thus change. Likewise, if the Republicans do the ‘learning’, then that implies they need to change.

Rush does not believe hardcore conservative policies have failed; he thinks the public just does not understand the truth. Hence his statement that going on a ‘listening’ tour sends the wrong message. And on that count he is correct. If Republicans admit they have been wrong, that essentially says the Republican policies ever since Goldwater have been wrong; that the whole modern Republican brand is a lie.

Analysis: Short Term Gamble

Any admission like this will cause a mass exodus of voters from the GOP, especially moderates and independents. It also alienates the base. So in the short term, it is disastrous. This is what Rush, DeLay, Cheney, and other hard right ideologues likely want to avoid; they want to get back in power soon, and any admission of failure, bad policies, or need to regroup will prevent a quick regaining of power anytime soon.

Hence, we are seeing a Republican Party doing nothing but trying to block Obama and the Democrats at all costs. In the short term, maintaining strict party unity, playing aggressive defense, and blocking Obama’s initiatives might pay off. If things do not get better soon, Read the rest of this entry »

Messaging, Democrats, Republicans, Analysis, Rush Limbaugh | No Comments »

It has been quite a week in politics, swine flu aside. Media outlets and pundits fell over themselves trying to judge Obama’s first 100 days, whilst protesting the artifice of such a benchmark.

One thing became obvious during the week though, something that started taking shape when the whole fight between Rush Limbaugh and the Republican Party establishment started a few weeks ago. The two parties are going in completely different directions. While the Democrats, for all of their faults, move forward and seem in conjunction with the American public, the Republicans appear hopelessly outdated and clueless.

Here are some of the week’s main events, and how they demonstrate waning fortunes of conservatism vs. the waxing prospects of moderate progressivism.

First 100 Days: I have disliked many of Obama’s Cabinet appointments, particularly Geithner, for being too moderate and part of the status quo. Moreover, the strategy he employed with the stimulus bill was disastrous. In his effort to be post-partisan, he gave far too much away to conservatives up front, rather than pushing a progressive stimulus bill and forcing the Republicans to scale back the bill from a far more left wing position. As it was, the Republicans refused to recognize Obama’s good faith effort to compromise and rejected the bill, even after extracting more concessions from the Democrats. The end result is a bill whose original philosophy – using governmental spending to boost the economy – was largely negated by the cuts in the spending levels by Obama and the Republicans.

However, Obama seems to have learned quickly. He used his vast powers of persuasion and charisma to drive the debate around the budget, and despite total Republican refusal to support it, it passed without too much controversy.

Additionally, his comments regarding abortion during this week’s press conference showed his growing understanding of how post-partisanship really works. He moved past old political arguments by focusing on finding ways to decrease unwanted pregnancies, something on which everyone can agree. If he is able to move forward on this initiative and reduce unwanted pregnancies, it will make it that much more dangerous for conservatives to oppose him. They likely will, of course, and the result will be that conservatives/Republicans will find themselves even more irrelevant than they currently are. That is how you do post-partisanship. Do not capitulate in negotiations, just simply move past the roadblock by finding creative solutions that most everyone can agree upon.

Overall, Obama’s messaging seems more effective 104 days in than it did at the beginning of his term. Over time, expect him to refine this even more, giving him to power to pass significant, if not controversial, legislation.

Arlen Specter: Other than swine flu, this was the story of the week, and as my previous post discusses, clearly shows the desperate straights of the Republican Party. While bad for the Democrats in the long run, Read the rest of this entry »

Messaging, Democrats, Republicans, Analysis, Economy, gay hating, Narratives, torture | No Comments »

Sen. Specter (R-PA), is now a (D-PA). I am sure you have heard the news and much of the analysis. Whether this move is ultimately good for the Democrats depends upon whether Specter moves his politics to the left. If he does, and he is able to win re-election as a Dem., it will be a big net positive. If he is not able to retain his seat in 2010 in the general election and a Republican wins, (most likely Pat Toomey who is very conservative), then clearly that is a net negative.

I suspect that if Specter wants to win a primary election as a Dem, he is going to have to significantly change his voting record, and now that we all now know that he is a calculating political operator, no one should be surprised is he makes a strong move to the left.

But all that will become clear in the future. What liberal pundits should be shouting from their soapboxes right now is what this defection really shows about the state of the Republican Party. No progressive commentator or politician should miss this golden moment to shine a clear, bright light into the ugly soul of the Republican establishment and electorate.

Yet, I do not hear much about this. Kos did highlight this messaging opportunity, but even MSNBC tonight did not focus on it. Specter said it himself - the chances of him winning his Republican primary next year were ‘bleak’. Someone who has spent his entire political career as a Republican has a better chance of winning a Democrat primary than a Republican one. Amazing.

And why is that? Again, Specter nails it, saying the Republicans have gone too far to the right, become too extreme. They would rather have ideological purity than win general elections. A solid, if occasionally independent, conservative cannot win his own party’s primary because he is not ideologically pure enough. That says it all.

Whatever you may think of Arlen Specter and this party switch, it clearly demonstrates the small-minded, intolerant quality of today’s Republican Party. If the Republicans continue to alienate independent voices, they will forever doom themselves to minor status. It may in fact become obsolete, perhaps creating the room for an upstart Libertarian Party to take its place.

But that is not the message of the moment. Right now progressives should Read the rest of this entry »

Messaging, Republicans, Political Frame, primaries | No Comments »