Obama the centrist. Or not.

[Terry in Austin]

With the election won and speculation turning to what the new presidency will be like, we hear a few admonitions to the effect that "Obama's not a progressive, he's actually a centrist."

I respectfully disagree. I don't consider Obama to be a centrist, nor much of any other kind of "ist," for that matter -- with the possible exception of "pragmatist." Or maybe "humanist." Obama is a game-changer, certainly, and I believe that the change represents a basic shift away from ideology to more of a focus on practical outcomes.

We've endured twenty-five years of divisive politics, with ideology acting as the club that pounds the wedges. Like anyone else stuck in an abusive relationship, we've come to accept the terms of it as somehow "normal." By now, it seems natural that we assume a political spectrum along which various points of self-interest locate and identify themselves.

From such a premise, it follows that political action and governance will consist largely of finding ways to aggregate a number of these self-interest groups into a power base sufficient to ram through some agenda or another. This gave us "triangulation" and "the constant campaign" that lasts throughout the term of office. Bush, Rove & Co. took the constant campaign idea to its absurd extreme.

In all this ideological maneuvering, however, outcomes are all but forgotten. In assuming only various kinds of self-interest, governance in the public interest fails.

Obama's great appeal is the possibility of a return to governance where outcomes matter, where there's a recognition that we're all in this together, where all points of view are taken seriously, if not always reconciled. It marks the return of a simple, yet essential criterion for democratic governance: the greatest good for the greatest number.

One kind of politics seeks to defeat the opposition; another seeks to reconcile the differences. I suggest that the latter is more suitable for effective governance, for achieving the greatest good for the greatest number. It also seems to be Obama's basic approach.

I have to admit I would prefer that Obama showed more signs of waving the progressive banner. But I also think he has something very interesting to teach us: namely, that waving a banner of any kind tends to be divisive, and if you get everybody to the table and let them show their best, you can still arrive at outcomes that are fair, sensible, empowering and humane -- the outcomes that most progressives would, in fact, deem most progressive.

[Captain Hilts]

1. You also just described the way Bill Clinton governed. He gets fried here for being a DINO. nt

[Mojambo]

3. Clinton didn't reconcile the differences. He adopted the opposition's position. n/t

[wyldwolf]

7. then Obama's policies do the same.

:shrug:

See my sig line? Those are Obama's words.

[Mojambo]

11. We haven't seen Obama's policies yet. n/t

[wyldwolf]

12. They were laid out in "Audacity of Hope"

[Captain Hilts]

18. We saw him do a 180 on FISA and DC gun ban. nt

[wyldwolf]

4. exactly. If we we use policies to define "centrist," then Obama is a centrist - a Clinton centrist!

[stillcool]

9. What of Obama's policies are you...

defining, and in what way are you comparing them to Clinton? Do you have to wait until Obama is President before comparing his policies, and ways of governing to Clinton? Is there someone else we should be comparing Obama to today?

[wyldwolf]

10. no, because he laid out his policy positions in "Audacity of Hope"

[stillcool]

13. So you are comparing what he wrote..

in his book to the 8 year Presidency of Bill Clinton, and you have concurred that Senator Obama will be a cookie cut out of Bill Clinton?

[wyldwolf]

15. why would I NOT believe what Obama wrote?

He compliments Clinton's third way approach to politics. He takes conservative's side on a few things. His disses '60s era liberals. He expresses approval of the 90s welfare reform. He advocates private social security companion accounts, free market capitalism, the global economy, and slams single issue advocacy group's influence on Democratic politics... ALL things the DLC have been touting for almost 20 years.

[stillcool]

21. Did I say "Believe"?

No I didn't. You are comparing the policy and the governing style of the President-elect Obama, prior to his even being sworn in..to President Clinton? Some of his philosophies might be similar but that is no basis on which to compare that which hasn't happened yet.

[Terry in Austin]

5. Hopefully, I was describing the opposite

It was Clinton that gave us triangulation. I think we're having trouble pigeonholing Obama because he doesn't fit the same old molds.

[wyldwolf]

8. actually, FDR gave us triangulation. Tell me a three major issues Obama differs from Clinton on

[Terry in Austin]

16. Don't get me wrong. I'm a great fan of Big Dog

I just think there's a basic paradigm shift going on here. YMMV.

[wyldwolf]

17. there's a major paradigm shift going on here

[Captain Hilts]

19. FDR absolutely triangulated - even when he didn't have to. Just for sport.

In his professional and personal lives.

[NeedleCast]

2. Well Said, Recommended

[dkofos]

6. That all depends on where the center is perceived to be.

[JerseygirlCT]

14. Very well said! nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. DLC politics as usual is not "change".

Not that I expected much change with a centrist candidate.