The atrocious coverage of our political discourse continues.
This was not an episode of Real World: Myrtle Beach. This was not even personal.
There was a single, important point being made by Barack Obama, which Hillary Clinton spent the night trying to muddy.
It was, what kind of leadership do we want in 2009? Do we want a transactive leader, someone who approaches each issue as a separate battle? Or do we want a transformative leader, one who changes how we think and constantly reminds us of the underlying cause?
Bill Clinton was a transactive leader. He had to be. He was a product of his time, and his time was the high point of the Nixon Thesis of Conflict, of High Reaganism. Building on the earlier work of Gary Hart and Michael Dukakis, working through the Democratic Leadership Council, he created an AntiThesis to the Nixon Thesis, and negotiated compromises which pushed things along in what he thought was the right direction.
Ronald Reagan was 
a transformative leader. He pushed themes, not
details. He pushed ideology, assumptions, myths and values. He did this
consistently, from the first time he spoke on behalf of General
Electric in the 1950s, through his last acts as President in 1989.
Consistency is both a strength and a weakness in a transformative
leader. We can argue about the impacts of Reagan’s transformation in
our political system all year. (I don’t like it.) No one can argue that
it’s real. If it weren’t Bill Clinton wouldn’t have spent nearly his
entire political career learning into that wind.
Most of our leaders, at a time of crisis, have been transformative
in nature. Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt. Each
redefined the political landscape, what it meant to be "left" or
"right," right or wrong.
Nixon was the exception. Nixon was a transactional leader. He had
spent his entire career before 1968 leaning against the New Deal
Thesis, seeking first direct confrontation through McCarthyism, and
later seeking to moderate it as Eisenhower’s Vice President.
This decades’-long struggle changed him. It also brought his hatred,
his paranoia, and his contempt for opponents into the heart of movement
conservatism, from which it was never removed, from that day to this. Despite
everything Reagan tried to do with his smiling, his warm voice, his aw-shucks manner, or his emphasis on themes
over details, despite all of it, Nixon’s paranoia became central to the
Thesis of Conflict, and it remains so even today.
Reagan’s well was poisoned before he got to it.
So the questions we have for the Clintons, questions only we the people can answer:
- Have you really changed? Are you still transactive leaders, as you have been your entire careers?
- Has leaning into the wind changed you? Hillary keeps talking about
"fighting for 35 years." Is that what we’re in for now, a fight?
There are also questions for Obama:
- What exactly is the Thesis you’re trying to get across. In
simple words, please. Is it compromise, or consensus? Are there values
there other than bonhomie? - Do transactive leaders have any place in your transformative era?
On this blog I have laid down our previous Thesis, what I take to be
our next Thesis, and have indicated that I think Barack Obama embodies
that Thesis more than anyone else. I believe that Hillary Clinton is as
hated by the right today as Nixon was by the left 40 years ago, and
that there’s likely nothing that can be done about that.
I have supported John Edwards but I’m a realist. If it’s a choice
between just Obama and Clinton, I’m with Barack, and now I know why.
Maybe you do, too.
Obama has something about him that really is attractive and is hopeful. I am only concerned that if he gets the Dem nom, then he will lose to the republicans because he will be completely and utterly open to their attacks. He is protected right now under the democratic wings, so he can get away with not talking about his past substance abuse, but he won’t be protected when the republicans come after him. My fear is that this protection he is enjoying is going to ruin any opportunity we democrats have of winning in November. The republicans have already gone after Mrs. Clinton because they believe that she would be tougher to win against, but with Obama’s history, I don’t think he will overcome the blatant attacks about his youth and he won’t be able to cry foul or get them to stop by saying they are being negative. They will pounce on such a tactic as weak and not strong enough to stand up to criticism. He is going to have to make a choice on how best to handle those attacks and keep the focus on the issues and just being present won’t cut it. Mrs. Clinton is currently seen as too tough and part of the establishment, but the republicans know that her toughness will be far more formidable than Obama’s, I think he gives them an Ace in the hole and we won’t elect a president who has substance abuse in his past— not the way the republicans will present it and expose it. Our past President barely got by, by saying he inhaled… Edwards is all but out now…
Obama has something about him that really is attractive and is hopeful. I am only concerned that if he gets the Dem nom, then he will lose to the republicans because he will be completely and utterly open to their attacks. He is protected right now under the democratic wings, so he can get away with not talking about his past substance abuse, but he won’t be protected when the republicans come after him. My fear is that this protection he is enjoying is going to ruin any opportunity we democrats have of winning in November. The republicans have already gone after Mrs. Clinton because they believe that she would be tougher to win against, but with Obama’s history, I don’t think he will overcome the blatant attacks about his youth and he won’t be able to cry foul or get them to stop by saying they are being negative. They will pounce on such a tactic as weak and not strong enough to stand up to criticism. He is going to have to make a choice on how best to handle those attacks and keep the focus on the issues and just being present won’t cut it. Mrs. Clinton is currently seen as too tough and part of the establishment, but the republicans know that her toughness will be far more formidable than Obama’s, I think he gives them an Ace in the hole and we won’t elect a president who has substance abuse in his past— not the way the republicans will present it and expose it. Our past President barely got by, by saying he inhaled… Edwards is all but out now…
Bryan, did you forget W Bush’s extensive history of substance abuse? Not only was it widely known that he did cocaine, he is an admitted alcoholic with a DUI on his record. The Republican’s backing of W gives Obama excuses for every attack angle. Bush had drug history and he had no foreign policy experience. What can someone say about Obama that couldn’t be said about W in 1999? If Obama were to get the Dem nod, he wouldn’t loose the national election on any substantive issue. Of course, that doesn’t mean the Republicans can’t attack him. If they could take out McCain in 1999 by implying he sired a mixed race baby, think what they can do to someone who actually was a mixed race baby! With something as obvious as race, there would be little point in getting into drugs other than using it as code for a racist attack (ie drugs = typical urban black guy).
Bryan, did you forget W Bush’s extensive history of substance abuse? Not only was it widely known that he did cocaine, he is an admitted alcoholic with a DUI on his record. The Republican’s backing of W gives Obama excuses for every attack angle. Bush had drug history and he had no foreign policy experience. What can someone say about Obama that couldn’t be said about W in 1999? If Obama were to get the Dem nod, he wouldn’t loose the national election on any substantive issue. Of course, that doesn’t mean the Republicans can’t attack him. If they could take out McCain in 1999 by implying he sired a mixed race baby, think what they can do to someone who actually was a mixed race baby! With something as obvious as race, there would be little point in getting into drugs other than using it as code for a racist attack (ie drugs = typical urban black guy).