For a long time, I didn't get where Barack Obama was coming from with his rhetoric, at all; his talk of unity and bipartisanship made me very uneasy. After all that I had seen of the Republicans, it seemed very out-of-touch, tone-deaf, and unproductive. I was for someone like Feingold or Edwards or Dodd, someone who I knew would stand up to the Republicans and fight for the Constitution. And yet, not only am I planning on voting for Obama now, but I now think he had the better strategy all along. Read on...
Perhaps you remember that Barack Obama is also a Kossack -- he infamously posted a diary here back in late 2005 (and later also posted a short follow-up). I wasn't sure quite what to think at the time, but I didn't like it. However, those diaries lay out his approach quite well.
First, his approach to unity isn't just more centrism:
Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more "centrist." In fact, I think the whole "centrist" versus "liberal" labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark. Too often, the "centrist" label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don't think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don't work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).
Second, when he speaks of unity and bipartisanship, he isn't saying that we should surrender to the GOP:
Finally, I am not arguing that we "unilaterally disarm" in the face of Republican attacks, or bite our tongue when this Administration screws up. Whenever they are wrong, inept, or dishonest, we should say so clearly and repeatedly; and whenever they gear up their attack machine, we should respond quickly and forcefully.
What I believe he is saying, however, is that we should be practical, positive, rational, agreeable and inclusive, to bring together all Americans who actually are willing to work towards real solutions, instead of alienating them:
My dear friend Paul Simon used to consistently win the votes of much more conservative voters in Southern Illinois because he had mastered the art of "disagreeing without being disagreeable," and they trusted him to tell the truth. Similarly, one of Paul Wellstone's greatest strengths was his ability to deliver a scathing rebuke of the Republicans without ever losing his sense of humor and affability. In fact, I would argue that the most powerful voices of change in the country, from Lincoln to King, have been those who can speak with the utmost conviction about the great issues of the day without ever belittling those who opposed them, and without denying the limits of their own perspectives.
But don't take my word for it, read it all and tell me what you think. I didn't really get it until after I saw the movement Obama has been building with his positive message and his inclusive approach. His embrace of Dean's 50 state strategy is surely a part of that -- and remember, Obama was part of the first Dean Dozen, too. That movement can be the new majority that we will need in the years to come -- a new generation of practical Americans on our side, eager to be treated like and be electing grown-ups again and vote in the people and the party with the will and the ideas to move this country forward.