Years ago I read a biography of the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy in which the author wrote about Kennedy attending a liberal Democratic meeting on the West Side of Manhatten. After listening to them bicker among themselves for a long time, Kennedy, who had been invited there to talk about supporting a reform candidate for Judge of the Surrogate's Court, told one of his aides that he thought that his father had been right about liberals all along. What he meant by that was that his father believed that liberals demand too much perfection from candidates they support, and when they don't get it, they stop supporting them.
Flash forward to the 2010 special election in Massachusetts for the seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. On the political blogs there is a lot of talk about whether liberals such as Jane Hamsher of Fire Dog Lake would rather have Martha Coakely lose then win. The reasoning goes that a victory by Brown, who is a very conservative Republican, and who is dedicated to stopping the health care bill, would actually be beneficial. Their thinking goes that the defeat of a bill they see as too corporate friendly would then lead the Democrats to somehow get together and pass a much more liberal bill, say, one that had a public option.
Here's my take on this issue. The defeat of the health care bill won't result in a better bill, it will result in no bill. Democrats like Nelson, Lincoln, and Bayh won't come for a more liberal bill, they will take the position that the status quo is what they should support. Why? Because they are not going to be persuaded that the loss of a Senate seat in Mass. means that people want a more liberal bill. They are going to think to themselves, "If freaking Mass. voters don't want a health care bill, then the residents of my state, which is far more conservative, don't want a health care bill."
I saw this in 1980, when liberal friends of mine supported first Kennedy over Carter and then John Anderson over Carter. What did that get them? Eight years of Reagan. Then in 2000, people like Nader said there was no difference between Gore and Bush. What did that get us? Eight years of Bush. Now, the same types are saying that there is no difference between Obama's health care bill and the status quo? What will that get us? More of the status quo.
If you are against this health care bill, and there is plenty of things I don't like about it, then this is what you are for:
1. Continued discrimination based on pre-existing conditions;
2. Continued caps on medical insurance benefits, which will result in more Americans going bankrupt;
3. The unavailability of medical insurance to the approximately 31 million people who would be covered by this plan; and
4. The continued deaths of 44,000 Americans per year because they don't have health insurance, according to a study from the Harvard Medical School.
That's your choice. The choice is not between some hypothetical health insurance bill that is never going to get passed, the choice is between the current bill and the status quo. That is what is at stake on Tuesday in Massachusetts.
Showing posts with label Bobby Kennedy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bobby Kennedy. Show all posts
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Friday, March 30, 2007
Reader Submission: Transcending Race in Presidential Politics
By now, we all have heard the standard line about Barack Obama: he transcends race and represents a new multicultural identity for America. Such talk is idealistic, to say the least. Obama can indulge his fantasies about creating a new America, but presidential campaigns- and presidential administrations- are not about reconfiguring society. Racial politics, even when it supposedly transcends old racial identities, rarely produces a good outcome for democracy. Whether its inspiration is liberal or conservative, the politics of identity usually leads to the politics of exclusion and stereotyping.
Most of us appreciate why Sen. Obama’s supporters are drawn to him. His eloquence and easy charm create a kind of charisma that has not warmed Democratic hearts since the days of RFK. Bobby Kennedy’s post-JFK liberal idealism was so powerful precisely because it remained untainted by the messy problems of governing. The re-born liberal Kennedy never had to soothe the anxieties of white working-class Democrats fleeing “urban” problems. He did not have to account for the failures of many of Johnson’s Great Society experiments.
In other words, Bobby’s passionate liberalism was never put to the test. He died a martyr, and like all martyrs, he is revered and admired. But politics is a dirty business, like it or not, and a victorious candidate’s liberal idealism cannot survive a presidency intact. Sacrifices will be made, promises will be bent, if not broken, and voters will be left disappointed. Even Roosevelt, Truman, and John F. Kennedy did not have perfect progressive records. If Obama succeeds in winning the nomination, let alone the presidency, his more left-leaning admirers will have their hearts broken.
Of the Senator’s star qualities, one of his most admired is the one over which he had no control in acquiring- his unique racial heritage. For liberals, his family background is a burst of fresh air. In a society dominated by a much-maligned club of “old white men,” Obama’s non-traditional ethnicity is a refreshingly positive change in the political status quo. Of course, many Democrats and progressives are old white men, or are married or related to them. And in some cases white men, old as well as young, achieve good things for the country. After all, Sen. Sherrod Brown is a mature white male, and Gov. Ted Strickland is as white as they come. The original American liberal heroes were such famous old white men as Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt. Conservatives are not the only folks a little too preoccupied with the race and ethnicity of their candidates.
As for the very liberal crowd gravitating around Obama, their fascination may begin to diminish as soon as their candidate has to spend more time and energy placating traditional African-American leaders, activists, and rank-and-file voters who aren’t so happy with his non-traditional background. As it stands in the Democratic Party, liberal whites are fonder of Obama than are blacks, who tend to support Hillary. It’s not exactly news that Barack’s takes on social issues are at odds with black church conservatives. Many black Democrats wonder: Can Obama truly relate to inner-city concerns and the historical problems faced by Afro-Americans? Put a different way, they ask: “is he one of us?”
Other black Democratic figures may not possess the charisma of Obama, but they do have something a lot more important- political street cred. It remains to be seen if Candidate Obama, the half white, half Kenyan-American raised by his white Caucasian family, is “black enough” for skeptical black Democrats while not being “too black” for suburban white liberals. As it turns out, liberal racial politics is just as troublesome as conservative racial politics.
Hopefully, many of us won’t have to wait until Election Day 2008 to figure that out. Especially as Hispanic and immigrant influence grows in national politics, many Democrats need to reconsider their definition of pro-minority liberalism. For too long, Democratic advocacy of minority rights has been limited to adoption of the African-American establishment’s agenda. The candidacy of Barack Obama may represent a change in the racial attitudes of Democrats, or it may be a temporary giddy infatuation after years of rule by the very non-inclusive Republican Party. Either way, it’s not in the best interest of the Democratic Party to keep racial politics alive and thriving.
Economic opportunity, equality before the law, and protection of individual liberty are not the passionate causes that they once were, which is particularly strange in this era of globalization and global human rights abuses. Addicted to their fetishes of diversity and multiculturalism, nominal social liberals are diverting the party’s focus from traditional economic issues in favor of pet causes springing from identity politics. As an honorable public servant, Obama deserves better than to become the poster child for the crowds pushing hollow multiculturalism.
Barack Obama may have transcended race in his own life, but America still has a mighty long way to go. It can be argued that the Senator’s background is a challenge to racists and Old Guard activists who want to pigeonhole people into neat little categories. However, nominating him will generate more negative than positive results. In the end, elevating a candidate because of his race and political inexperience does not serve the interests of equality, unity, and good government. For all its progressive hype, Obama’s campaign is yet another example of America’s political obsession with cultural identity. ___________________________________________________________________
Article submitted by kjohns. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of MCDAC or its members.
Most of us appreciate why Sen. Obama’s supporters are drawn to him. His eloquence and easy charm create a kind of charisma that has not warmed Democratic hearts since the days of RFK. Bobby Kennedy’s post-JFK liberal idealism was so powerful precisely because it remained untainted by the messy problems of governing. The re-born liberal Kennedy never had to soothe the anxieties of white working-class Democrats fleeing “urban” problems. He did not have to account for the failures of many of Johnson’s Great Society experiments.
In other words, Bobby’s passionate liberalism was never put to the test. He died a martyr, and like all martyrs, he is revered and admired. But politics is a dirty business, like it or not, and a victorious candidate’s liberal idealism cannot survive a presidency intact. Sacrifices will be made, promises will be bent, if not broken, and voters will be left disappointed. Even Roosevelt, Truman, and John F. Kennedy did not have perfect progressive records. If Obama succeeds in winning the nomination, let alone the presidency, his more left-leaning admirers will have their hearts broken.
Of the Senator’s star qualities, one of his most admired is the one over which he had no control in acquiring- his unique racial heritage. For liberals, his family background is a burst of fresh air. In a society dominated by a much-maligned club of “old white men,” Obama’s non-traditional ethnicity is a refreshingly positive change in the political status quo. Of course, many Democrats and progressives are old white men, or are married or related to them. And in some cases white men, old as well as young, achieve good things for the country. After all, Sen. Sherrod Brown is a mature white male, and Gov. Ted Strickland is as white as they come. The original American liberal heroes were such famous old white men as Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt. Conservatives are not the only folks a little too preoccupied with the race and ethnicity of their candidates.
As for the very liberal crowd gravitating around Obama, their fascination may begin to diminish as soon as their candidate has to spend more time and energy placating traditional African-American leaders, activists, and rank-and-file voters who aren’t so happy with his non-traditional background. As it stands in the Democratic Party, liberal whites are fonder of Obama than are blacks, who tend to support Hillary. It’s not exactly news that Barack’s takes on social issues are at odds with black church conservatives. Many black Democrats wonder: Can Obama truly relate to inner-city concerns and the historical problems faced by Afro-Americans? Put a different way, they ask: “is he one of us?”
Other black Democratic figures may not possess the charisma of Obama, but they do have something a lot more important- political street cred. It remains to be seen if Candidate Obama, the half white, half Kenyan-American raised by his white Caucasian family, is “black enough” for skeptical black Democrats while not being “too black” for suburban white liberals. As it turns out, liberal racial politics is just as troublesome as conservative racial politics.
Hopefully, many of us won’t have to wait until Election Day 2008 to figure that out. Especially as Hispanic and immigrant influence grows in national politics, many Democrats need to reconsider their definition of pro-minority liberalism. For too long, Democratic advocacy of minority rights has been limited to adoption of the African-American establishment’s agenda. The candidacy of Barack Obama may represent a change in the racial attitudes of Democrats, or it may be a temporary giddy infatuation after years of rule by the very non-inclusive Republican Party. Either way, it’s not in the best interest of the Democratic Party to keep racial politics alive and thriving.
Economic opportunity, equality before the law, and protection of individual liberty are not the passionate causes that they once were, which is particularly strange in this era of globalization and global human rights abuses. Addicted to their fetishes of diversity and multiculturalism, nominal social liberals are diverting the party’s focus from traditional economic issues in favor of pet causes springing from identity politics. As an honorable public servant, Obama deserves better than to become the poster child for the crowds pushing hollow multiculturalism.
Barack Obama may have transcended race in his own life, but America still has a mighty long way to go. It can be argued that the Senator’s background is a challenge to racists and Old Guard activists who want to pigeonhole people into neat little categories. However, nominating him will generate more negative than positive results. In the end, elevating a candidate because of his race and political inexperience does not serve the interests of equality, unity, and good government. For all its progressive hype, Obama’s campaign is yet another example of America’s political obsession with cultural identity. ___________________________________________________________________
Article submitted by kjohns. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of MCDAC or its members.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)