Frankly, I don’t find all that much to get upset about in the Chris Bowers Open Left post to which Lambert refers here. Okay, the post has a slightly condescending tinge to its tone, but why shouldn’t Democrats be proud that now more than ever the Democratic base looks like America? Bill Clinton himself once noted the same, and pledged that his administration would too, one pledge among many, many that Clinton kept.
While I’m on this subject, I want to remind everyone that neither any particular African-American nor the African-American community as a whole needs to apologize for voting for an African-American candidate for President, or any other office, for that matter. Black folks have been voting for white folks for decades now. And it isn’t as if Obama got their support automatically. It was only when he convinced many of them that he was viable, and presented a vision they obviously found inspiring, as is true for a large swathe of the electorate, that they have flocked to him. So, we are not talking about identity politics here. Remember, it was Obama who has been running as a post-racial candidate, for which many of us here at Corrente criticized him, rightly so, in my opinion.
Back to Bowers. It’s this stunning post that should be the focus of our incredulous ire, although I do realize that in Lambert’s majestic takedown, of Matt Stoller’s chilling foray into Obama triumphalism, this Bowers post is mentioned along with the fact that Bowers starts with an admiring nod to the Stoller post.
In his post, Bowers is imagining/predicting what kind of changes in Democratic governance we might be seeing from an Obama presidency. Fasten your seat belts.
Cultural Shift: Out with Bubbas, up with Creatives: There should be a major cultural shift in the party, where the southern Dems and Liebercrat elite will be largely replaced by rising creative class types. Obama has all the markers of a creative class background, from his community organizing, to his Unitarianism, to being an academic, to living in Hyde Park to shopping at Whole Foods and drinking PBR. These will be the type of people running the Democratic Party now, and it will be a big cultural shift from the white working class focus of earlier decades. Given the demographics of the blogosphere, in all likelihood, this is a socioeconomic and cultural demographic into which you fit. Culturally, the Democratic Party will feel pretty normal to netroots types. It will consistently send out cultural signals designed to appeal primarily to the creative class instead of rich donors and the white working class.
I’m not even sure what that means. Who the hell are the creative class?
Many of my friends, all of them like me, unabashed, unrepentant, unbowed, unapologetic old-fashioned liberals, are academics; in fact, I’m almost the only one among them who doesn’t have an advanced degree. However, I’m the only one among them who has ever done any community organizing. That also means that I’m the only one who has ever had much contact with genuinely poor folks, both white and black, and the only one who has counted among her friends, woman and families trying to bring up their children on public assistance.
Lambert already highlighted this paragraph, but it’s worth quoting again; yes, it’s that cluelessly awful.
Policy Shift: Out with the DLC, up with technocratic wonks. My sense of Obama and his policy team is overwhelmingly one of technocratic, generally less overtly ideological professional policy types. We should see a shift from the more corporate and triangulating policy focus of the Democratic Party in the 1990’s, and see it replaced by whatever centrist, technocratic policies are the wonkish flavor of the month. It will all be very oriented toward think-tank and academic types, and be reminiscent of policy making in the 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s. A sort of “technocratic liberalism” that will be less infuriating than DLC style governance, but still not overtly leftist.
What seems to continually evade the notice of Obama supporters like Stoller and Bowers is that most of what they have to say about Obama and the direction he will take the Democratic Party could have been said about Bill Clinton and the DLC in the late eighties and early nineties. What were Al From & co but “technocrats, think-tank and academic types.”
Even more off the Stoller/Bowers radar screen is the fact that in 1992, Bill Clinton did not run a DLC campaign. Yes, he has remained a loyal member of the group, as he has of other constituent and policy and power broker groups in and out of the party, but he has never limited himself to DLC ways of thinking and speaking.
One instance: Bill Clinton ran a frontal campaign against Reaganomics, and his critique was based on the entirely liberal/progressive issue of the lack of fundamental economic justice during the Reagan/Bush years, which Clinton used the word “fairness” to describe. Clinton combined that critique with technocratic, wonkish fixes to correct the neglect during the previous 12 years of such issues as health care, rents in the middle class security net, the lack of investment in infrastructure, and the over-reliance on market solutions to all problems, particularly as regarded job insecurity.
What is it about these younger “creative class” types that causes them to remain so completely clueless about the fifties and sixties? It is true that liberal and left think-tanks reigned supreme during this period; it was to these experts that most media people turned for information, Most of the think-tanks were academically based, and since academia is more liberal than it is conservative most of them leaned left, nor was there much counter-balance, since the right hadn’t yet figured out that it needed to build a parallel structure separate from the academia itself.
But change in the sixties was a bottom up phenomenon, which the Democratic Party could barely keep up with, whether it was the civil rights movement, Mario Savio and the free-speech movement, or the anti-war movement, or the anti-nuclear movement. Remember, these movements were mounting a critique of essentially liberal institutions - like Savio at Berkeley, where the critique was pointing out that this famously liberal campus had entirely too many decidedly illiberal, corporate connections; the military-industrial complex, anyone?
Call me a boomer if you want, even though I was a war baby, but damnit, history matters, and knowing what went on before you got to the scene is important. “Technocratic liberalism?” Wasn’t that what was meant by “the best and the brightest?”
Bill Clinton’s message in 1992 was not that different from Obama’s. The Clintons didn’t see themselves as divisive figures. They didn’t intend to govern by partisan means. It was a centrist Republican like Bob Dole who signaled right from the beginning of the Clinton presidency that Republicans did not intend to treat Clinton has if he had any legitimate right to be President. And with the help of a press which had become increasingly controlled by the increasingly right-wing messages of the Republican party, that is precisely what they did for the next eight years, using the levers of governmental power in the most narrowly partisan way, to attack the Clinton administration, falsely, as far-left, corrupt, feckless, and un-American.
Have either Stoller or Bowers looked at the income statistics recently? What is it - 80% of Americans, which means American families, who make less than fifty thousand dollars a year. Or maybe it’s even less than that. Readers?
Apparently it isn’t income that makes you part of the creative class? What about small-scale organic farmers? What about suburbanites? All of us have more than one identity, for heaven’s sake.
I think it’s fine if the Democratic Party doesn’t have to depend on the South. But write the South off? What about all the black folks who live there? What about the miners in West Virginia; what about the ex-textile workers in the Carolinas? What about the Latino populations who work in those industrial food production factories, plucking chikens, and God only knows what else?
And what the hell does this mean?
# Coalition reorganization: Out with party silos, in with squishy goo-goos. In addition to a shift in culture and policy focus, I also expect a different approach to coalition building. A long-standing Democrats approach of transactional politics with different issue and demographic silos in the party shift toward an emphasis on good government (goo goo) approaches. We will see lots of emphasis on non-partisanship, ethics reform, election reform instead of on, say, placating labor unions, environment groups, and the LGBT community by throwing each of these groups a policy bone or two. Now, the focus will be on broad, squishy fixes that are designed to appeal to several groups at once. George Lakoff wrote about this a couple months ago.
Throw a policy bone? Global warming is of concern only to environmental groups? Is that what’s being said here? Isn’t the whole point of a unity approach to find the common themes that unite different perspectives.
I don’t know anyone among my friends who doesn’t think that election reform is a first order need, whether they are academics, working class blacks, and remember, there are a lot those folks around, or rural farmers with their own environmental concerns. Let’s just hope that the many congressional Democrats who are flocking to Obama will do a litle better in the coming years about doing something about an electoral system that makes it too hard to vote, and impossible to be sure that all the votes will be counted accurately.
As a final note, let me only point out that we, or at least I, have no idea how much of this is actually coming from the Obama campaign. But both Stoller and Bowers and so many other Obama supporters are beginning to make me regret my own vote for Obama.
Checking the links for this post, I noticed that Turkana takes on Bowers at The Left Coast; had I known, I don’t think I’d have bothered, he does such a first-rate job; check it out here.
Front page
Leah, are you trying to goad me into commenting :v)
I mean, really…
I’m sure it’s completely possible that the orchestrated campaign of (post-racial and completely unrelated to identity) racism smears against the Clintons that began between Obama’s disappointing performance in NH and the SC primary, where he began his string of winning about 90% of AA votes, had nothing to do with it.
Maybe it didn't
Yes, among the African-American creative class, who have made themselves part of the smearing of the Clintons, not all of course, but it’s certainly true of those who are in the media and those who can get media exposure. On the other hand, Bill’s appearance at an African-American church out here in south-central LA was a huge event, at which he received nothing but love.
But Obama is also getting the black working class vote, and I don’t think many of them believe the smears against the Clintons. On the other hand, I do worry about a permanent schism developing, without some genuine gestures of reconciliation, which it appears isn’t going to be happening.
I’m not saying that some non-creative class black voters weren’t fooled by the smears, but I believe they are prepared to reunite with the rest of the party and especially the Clintons - it’s Edward Kennedy who seems to be carrying a grudge. Can’t believe that one. Hillary isn’t worthy of Obama’s lofty ideals? And Kennedy’s? All of us have forgiven a lot that we’ve found out about both JFK and Teddy Kennedy. Ted Kennedy has been a great, liberal Senator, but it was Bobby whose ideals are the model for most of us - and didn’t his kids mainly go for Hillary?
That I don’t think a lot of African-American voters fell for the smears doesn’t in any way excuse those who made them.
The money quote from Turkana's response
“If Bowers intended to explain exactly how the Republicans should run against Obama, he couldn’t have done a better job. Paint Obama as an elitist, and you scare away the moderates. Paint him as also too broad and squishy, and you scare away the liberals.”
This encapsulates my misgivings about the Church of Obama. When you have supporters saying that those on whose backs the party has been built are no longer real voters who deserve a place at the table, you can count me out. When you hand out broad and squishy rainbows and sunshine and tell me not to be cynical, you set off all of my bullshit detectors.
Honestly, do I think Obama will be a better president than GWB? Yes, but I resent mightily the notion that I should buy a pig in a poke.
It's kinda like puberty, I guess ...
I’m a boomer, but I’m on the tail-end of the boom. But now what I see makes me grin, because I remember when I was 16 or 17.
Every generation thinks it’s just invented sex.
Every generation thinks it’s inventing politics.
Every generation thinks it’s discovered justice, and is inventing ways of bringing it to fruition.
Every generation — even the generation that grew up with the Depression and the generation (and yeah, they’re two separate ones, just like the “boomers” are actually two separate generations) that grew up in/right after World War Two, thinks it has answers its parents are too stupid to see.
History matters.
Knowing what went on before you got here is not just important, it’s vital. Otherwise you’ll fall into the same traps, make the same mistakes, create the same imbalances, become a casualty of the same unintended consequences.
It’s not just politics. It’s single-moms in junior-high.
So long as we let people beat us down with “morality” that we don’t answer with real science, so long as we let people beat us down with “racism” that we don’t answer with real work to end poverty and shore up education, infrastructure, opportunity — and so long as we let ourselves be distracted from the lack of real prophets among those dedicated always to profits — we won’t get anywhere except exhausted on the treadmill.
BTW, Leah,
My aforementioned quibbles notwithstanding, this is a typically interesting analysis.
Oh, and here’s where I teed off on the “Bubba” post, as well:
http://www.correntewire.com/creative_cla…
(Preemptive note to BIO: Commenting ain’t posting. I really am done.)
But where are the puppy pictures?
I know Leah wants them…
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"Majestic takedown"
[lambert blushes modestly, bows]
I don’t care all that much about Stowers (or is it Boller?) needing a paper towel because “We elected the black guy.”
Except to point out that if I, or any Hillary supporter or other uncreative person said “You’re electing a black guy” the howls of outrage would be instantaneous, the wankfest would continue for days, and would make its way out to the mainstream media, to be discussed and dissected by talking heads 24/7, where it would morph into a discussion of why Hillary should quit.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Leah, I had a similar reaction
to Bowers post, but you said it so much better than I could. My consolation at this point is that Obama does not read blogs.
Candidates don’t just acquire cults, they build them. This is very unsettling to me. But I have made my peace with the fact that Obama will be the candidate.
On a happier note, it looks like the Dems will pick up a congressional seat next week in Mississippi of all places.
A quid pro quo pic
++++
Where's that picture from, MJS?
Realizing that I might not like the answer…..
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Shorter Bowers
The new Democratic Party “brand” will be entirely populated with ball-less wonders who will “rap happy” while doing the lower-lip-bite Unity
Shimmy.
Count me out: I hate limp, sweaty hand-shakes.
——————————————-
Good night and good riddance!
Vast Left, I agree completely...
…about how any kind of similar sentiment would be greeted if it had come from any Clinton supporter, in or out of the campaign.
A quick observation
More and more I’m thinking that this isn’t about Obama at all. Those ideas have been floating around the Democratic Party for the past 20 years or more. This is really about the rebirth of the DLC: Obama is merely their vehicle.
What is it about these younger “creative class” types that causes them to remain so completely clueless about the fifties and sixties?
Because, like everybody else in America under 40, all they know about that era is what the conservatives have told them.
…for the rest of us
Creative Caste
I’m a creative person. As a graphic designer and marketing manager I have the jobs that would qualify me as part of the “Creative Class”.
But I have no need to think of myself as being in a “class apart” from other people.
Creative Class is a re-branding of Yuppie. But it’s not (yet) a pejorative so some Yuppies embrace it.
As Thomas Frank tries to remind people, class is about dollars and how much one income group has compared to other income groups.
What the right wing and corporate media have done is to turn the concept of class differences into “cultural” differences and tribal identities.
This allows creatures like David Brooks and Chris Matthews to portray themselves as “regular folks” because they share common cultural values with the working class, even though their income brackets are millions of miles apart.
It also allows folks like Bowers and Stoller to feel like they are in the same social category as starving artists and public school drama class teachers.
But the difference in clout, and even economic status is huge, and it is significant. As much as they may like arugula, starving artists can’t afford to shop at Whole
PaycheckFoods.A different approach, but here's Ian Walsh's take on the Obama
takeover of the Dem Party.
Libs/progressives are not going to be happy with Hopey.
http://agonist.org/ian_welsh/20080509/th…
Come on, Shystee, let's be reasonable
I can go to Whole Foods and look at the food!
True story — in my 25-cent Pork and Beans days, which the guys over at S/N find so risible, the Whole Foods in Philly on South Street was right next to th store that I shopped at. So I would go into the Whole Foods and pillage their sample trays.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Leah does Fair and Balanced
Lovely read, thanks much.
No reason to ascribe any low cause for the high percentage of AfAms voting for Obama. I have not walked in those shoes, so I should not judge. I do think, however, that after all the years of oppression it must be a great thrill to see someone who looks m/l like you get a real chance at the top of the heap. I do so hope our melanin-rich brothers and sisters, above all others, will not find themselves disappointed.
Regards the Bowers’ and Stollers and ddays of this movement, the thing I find most striking right now is their willingness to admit that they don’t have any idea at all about what Obama has for a plan, what his policies will be, what his purpose is in wanting to hold the Executive; they are giddy, almost prideful over their own ignorance.
What then was the reason behind their support? What is it they’re pleased about? Where did their critical thinking capacity go? Is this some kind of endorphin overload, literally, with all the sexual terminology, the unthinking language and adulation of infatuation, the over-the-top defensiveness of the one with whom they are newly enamored?
Puppy-love, isn’t it? That will not end well, for any of them; the typical range of duration for simple infatuation is 18-36 months; this whirlwind courtship will have a brief honeymoon, followed by bitterness, recrimination and divorce.
Maybe Clinton does win either way; if Obama takes the nomination it won’t be long before his innamorandosi have their little hearts broken, and come running back to Momma.
18-36 months...
Just in time to fuck up the mid-terms….
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
he's creating a new generation of swing voters--
that’s what i see, and what’s so wrong—no id with the Democratic party, or our only successful 2-termer in ages, or any of our signature issues, or based in the reality of politics and how things get done at all.
What could go wrong with the "just words" platform?
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/…
The Difference Is Disconcerting
How can you be so excited about a candidate - Kool-Aid levels of excitement- while repeatedly saying you don’t know what he’ll do as president? So then what the hell is he so excited about? Is it because he thinks they were able to put Obama over the top? Is it really as simple as what Chris Bowers said about the black guy winning?
Now, that thrill of simply proving you can do something is somewhat understandable if you’re talking about putting together a fantasy baseball team. If, however, you’re talking about picking the next President of the United States, I think you should at least have some fucking idea about what he’ll do and how he’ll do it. The primary season is almost wrapped up and Stoller is still “hoping” Obama will be progressive and has admitted he doesn’t know what his policy priorities will be.
I freely admit that I have been excited about the prospect of a woman become president. And having worked a bit for the Clinton campaign, if she won it would be a nice bit of satisfaction for me. But the real satisfaction is that she’s pledged to work to get universal healthcare, has put forward concrete proposals to address the economic mess we’re falling deeper into every day, and seems to know much more about how government works than the other two candidates combined. Without that, her winning would be a pretty hollow symbolic victory.
Where Leah should have stopped....
And it isn’t as if Obama got their support automatically. It was only when he convinced many of them that he was viable
you should have stopped right there, because that is all it took for Obama to gain at least 70% of the AA vote.
And it wasn’t even “viable”, it was “not an embarrassment” or “capable of attracting at least some white support.”
Obama was already at 57% of black support in SC in December, and by right after Iowa, it had risen to 69%. He wound up with 78%.
And lets not pretend that a white guy with Obama’s resume and selling what Obama was selling would get 78% of the black vote in South Carolina. We know better — John Edwards was the guy with “the speech” and a thin resume in 2004, and he got a plurality of the black vote (37%) that year, but he was also a ’favorite son’ candidate there.
The Clintons were extremely popular among SC’s black population. John Edwards was a proven vote getter in SC among AFrican Americans. And Barack Obama came out of nowhere, and had 69% of the black vote coming out of the Iowa caucuses.
In essence, Barack Obama didn’t need to do much more than be “not Al Sharpton” to get the lion’s share of the black vote.
What really sucks is that the in the black community, the Obama campaign IS the Al Sharpton campaign now.
BDB: How many people were "excited" about Bush?
And how many were shocked and dismayed at how the guy they voted for turned out?
Eerie similarities here. Obama is no G-dub, but still it’s eerie as hell.
” … we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender …”- Winston Churchill
Nothing wrong from his standpoint
If his “movement” [cough] holds a balance of power, what’s wrong with that?
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
Hmmmm
So Paul, what you seem to
be saying is that, thanks to propotional representation, the DNC purposefully putting SC early in the process (explicitly stated to heighten AA influence) (oh, and Brazille disenfranchising two swing states who threatened that influence), the Democratic Party’s nomination is nearly impossible for even the strongest candidate to win against a remotely viable AA opponent? Even one who loses every other major demographic?
My, that is what one would call “interesting” if the long term consequences weren’t so devastating. I don’t think ANY one facet of ANY political party should be handed such a blatant advantage.
——————————————-
Good night and good riddance!
removed double post
oops
BDB hit the nail on the head
I think for a lot of the Boiz, it is about demonstrating their influence. That’s why Atrios remained unassimilated, because his view of what the blogs could accomplish is different.
But for Bowers, Stoller, & Kos, it was all about making sure their guy won. They failed with Dean & Kerry, but they are on the brink of “winning” with Obama. If he wins the presidency, they will crow from the rooftops that they did it. But of course, if he fails, it’s not their fault.
Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!
I find it hard to imagine
I find it hard to imagine any administration putting out a policy paper with the words squishy and goo goo in them.
I also find it hard to imagine either Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid using those words in Congress to push through a piece of legislation.
It sounds like a New Yorker cartoon caption.
I find it hard to imagine
I find it hard to imagine any administration or think tank putting out a policy paper with the words squishy and goo goo in them.
I also find it hard to imagine either Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid using those words in Congress to push through a piece of legislation.
It sounds like a New Yorker cartoon caption.
Creative class, that reminds me of the group I was put into in college, “gifted students.” We were potential honors students who were flunking out.
Nah, I think it's Brit-speak
Like the “wets” under Thatcher. That’s why I connected it with Blair-ism
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.