Loading ...
Right-wingers and Left-wingers need to wake up. The election of Barack Obama has rendered irrelevant your outdated ideologies.
A funny thing happened yesterday. An elder family member of ours, who voted for McCain-Palin and can be described as quite socially conservative, said to us, “You know, I think this Barack Obama might be OK.” She said it with sincerity, optimism, and a smile. Later that day, we caught a bit of Countdown with Keith Olberman, in which the Left began to express doubts about Obama’s cabinet picks, such as keeping Gates at Defense, along with his broader policy plans. Then we flagged this piece on AlterNet: Watch out for Obama’s Team Selling Conservative Policies as Progressive Politics.
It’s incredible how quickly things can…change. Obama hasn’t even taken the oath of office, and already he’s changing people’s minds.
The election of Obama represents a major shift in attitude toward American politics. We’d go so far as to call it post-partisan. The two-dimensional, left-right politics of the past are no longer sufficient or relevant. They’ve been rejected, specifically by the 80-million-strong Millennial generation, who truly won this election. This is a new era. If you want to be a part of it, and you want to keep up and have a voice, you have to come to terms with this new dynamic. Just as it’s no longer black versus white, it’s no longer left versus right. It’s not that simple. Obama represents a new mental model. It’s politics in three dimensions.
Hillary Clinton is a prototypical Democrat. She’s the Democrat’s Democrat, complete with all of the baggage. Obama, on the other hand, is a Democrat in name only. He is something altogether different. He didn’t reinvent or reinvigorate the Democratic party. His was not a victory for the Democrats. It was a victory for post-partisan politics. If he could have been elected as a third-party candidate, he would have. If the Democrats were the party that had screwed things up for the past eight years, Obama could have just as easily run as a Republican. His is not an allegiance to party but to the heroic ideal of what it means to be an American. (It should be noted that liberals evidently now prefer the term “progressive”. Sorry, but traditional liberal thought is no more progressive than traditional conservative thought is “compassionate”. It’s a nice attempt at rebranding, though.)
The AlterNet piece by David Sirota is clearly part of the old mental model. The piece is grounded in this idea of the left-right spectrum with a mythic center. Is the country left or right of center? Will Obama govern from the center-left or the center-right?
How about neither?
Sirota and his ilk fail to acknowledge the third dimension, where an individual can hold policy positions from both sides of this otherwise false choice. Where they can choose neither side and carve out their own, unique positions that have no party affiliation. This is not just Independent. It’s beyond that. It’s where the principles of reason and pragmatism trump dogma and ideology. Where we look at the facts and circumstances and make informed decisions that make sense. That is how Obama is governing. It’s why he chose Clinton for State and to keep Gates at Defense. It’s why he’s drawing so much from the former Clinton administration while considering many Republicans for key positions.
The Left wants to say that this doesn’t represent “change”, as if they expect Obama to wantonly de-Bushify Washington. That’s what was done in Iraq after the invasion. If you recall, the de-Baathifiation of Hussein’s regime was the single biggest blunder of the war (following the invasion itself, of course). It just made no sense because a lot of those people were not entirely loyal and were the only ones who knew how anything worked.
In terms of gauging policy, though, this outdated idea of the left-right spectrum can come in handy. This is our rule of thumb: if the left hates it and the right hates it, it’s probably good policy. Otherwise, this mode of thought and outlook has outlived any usefulness it may have had.
When it comes to rebuilding the Republican brand, the party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt will be well advised to consider this new political reality. Even Arianna Huffington acknowledges that we need a strong Republican party to balance the power. Today, there’s scarcely a party to speak of, much less one that has its own identity. As we move into the era of three-dimensional politics, where the Millennial generation is sure to have a considerable say in who gets elected, we have a few suggestions for the Republicans.
1. Get back to basics. Despite the fact that a Democrat won 53% of the popular vote, the country is fiscally conservative. This stands to reason, as no one likes to waste money. Bush, however, has been anything but fiscally conservative. Tax breaks are fine so long as you can afford them. Small businesses and entrepreneurs are the backbone of our economy. The free market works, provided there are rules and they’re enforced. Government has a vital role to play. Acknowledge that. But also realize that hypocrisy will always be exposed.
2. Sideline the religious right. Yes, Palin, this means you. The Republican party has been largely undone by this zealous and fervently ideological minority that helped elect Bush…twice. This voting block should be relegated to the equivalent status of the Green Party on the Left. Think of them as your crazy uncle who you only have to see twice a year for holidays. You can count on their support because they have no one else to vote for, but they should not be leading the party…lest you wish to be the permanent minority party. The sooner you realize this, the sooner the Republican brand can recover.
3. Tap into the more progressive and secular conservative thought leaders and make that your foundation. These include many of the people who ended up supporting Barack Obama: Colin Powell, Christopher Buckley, Christopher Hitchens, Meg Whitman, and Peggy Noonan to name a few. The hopes of the Republican platform rest with them.
4. Court younger candidates. You’re now angling for the votes of 80 million young Americans–a million more than the Baby Boomers. This massive voting block needs to identify with its candidates, which means candidates need to speak their language. A candidate in his or her 60s may not stand a chance of winning the presidency for another generation…until the Millennials themselves are in their 60s.
5. Be more like Obama. He won 53% of the popular vote. You have no choice but to lure his voters to your platform. If this election was any indication, the politics of fear and division are largely things of the past, especially with the Millennials. This means running campaigns of ideas. Obama doesn’t own the notions of hope and optimism. Listen to the voters and come up with an authentic and original platform.
How is this relevant for Max Gladwell? It’s clearly a part of the heroic ideal. We can no longer affort to choose our candidates based on ideology and single policy positions, whether those are abortion, taxes, or the environment. We need to pick our candidates first and foremost based on their competence and intelligence. We need to think big picture and make compromises. The need for smart leaders from both parties has never been greater. Our survival as a nation and civilization depends on it.
Related Posts
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
10 responses so far ↓
1 ErickB // Nov 26, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Ha! So many crazy uncles…so true…
Michael Moore’s phrase ‘The Republicrats’ seems appropriate for your post.
2 Scott Badenoch // Nov 26, 2008 at 12:44 pm
This should be required reading for all Republicans. Time to start fresh, guys! Especially for those of us who used to be Repubs but couldn’t countenance the antithetical Bush disaster (spend more, do less, kill everyone) plan.
I look forward to seeing Repubs rethink themselves…and the new leaders that emerge for them. Although, I like the “post-partisan” image drawn here and hope that has some legs post-Obama.
Thx be to Obama.
3 AvangionQ // Nov 26, 2008 at 1:00 pm
What I like about Barack Obama, and what seems to be quickly catching on, is that he’s a pragmatist — I have hope that he will do what is necessary to correct this nations flaws and bridge this politically divided nation …
4 BigJohn // Nov 26, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Wouldn’t the “left-right spectrum” be only 1 dimension? Does that mean Obama governs in 2D?
Sorry, just had to point that out.
5 Max Gladwell // Nov 26, 2008 at 2:25 pm
BigJohn: Depends on how you define a “dimension”. Could also be expressed as an X and Y axis, which could be four dimensions. The overall point is that it’s a cube not a square.
6 Joe // Nov 26, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I do agree with your 5 points about fixing the GOP but I cant say I like the points you made earlier.
Your rule of thumb should be: “if corporations and big interests and the Washington machine hate it, then it’s probably good policy”. Thus far, they are pretty content with Obama’s cabinet picks.
And your analogy (about the Bathis party) does not hold I’m afaird.
People like Clinton, Emanuel etc etc, were staunch supporters of Iraq war. People like Summers, Gram etc were the architects of the financial crisis.
7 Max Gladwell // Nov 26, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Joe: I wouldn’t go so far as to say “staunch” supporters of the war. I give them no credit for caving in to the political pressure and voting to give Bush the authority simply because they did not want to find themselves on the wrong side of a popular war. That’s what they saw at the time, and it turned out to be a very bad decision, both politically and for the world.
But that error in judgment alone does not disqualify them as capable and valuable to our government. It is exactly like saying, “If you were a part of the Baath party, then you have no business in the new Iraqi government.” It’s not black or white. Pragmatists don’t throw out the baby with the proverbial bath water (no pun intended).
8 Brokekid.net » Blog Archive » Barack Obama Art // Nov 28, 2008 at 12:07 pm
[...] (via maxgladwell.com) [...]
9 Entrepreneurs: On the Importance of Focus and Targeting | Max Gladwell // Jan 9, 2009 at 12:04 am
[...] Barack Obama: The President-elect set the stage for how political campaigns will be run in the 21st century, and it has much to do with his entrepreneurial approach. The Democrats started with an ambitious and unrealistic 50-state strategy. If it were a business plan, most investors would have passed. But it worked for Obama because he was selling the universal products of hope and change. Everyone wants to have hope, and by the end of the election everyone was looking for change. But Obama didn’t start by selling it to everyone; he started with a target market of brand evangelists. These were Obama’s early adopters, and they spread his messages of hope and change (sold his products) for him. By the end, he’d convinced many Republicans (Obamacans) to endorse and vote for him, including conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan, National Review columnist Christopher Buckley (son of National Review founder, William F. Buckley), and former Secretary of State Colin Powell. It’s worth noting that it happened in this order and that each is progressively more Republican than the last. In other words, Obama’s marketing spread from the center of his target to the outer edges. Had Obama started by targeting hardcore Republicans, the campaign (his product) never would have gained the momentum it needed for a freshman senator to become the 44th president of the United States. [...]
10 Happy New Year! And a Max Gladwell 00 Retrospective | Max Gladwell // Apr 1, 2009 at 7:01 am
[...] It would further the principles of Environment 2.0, Entrepreneurship 2.0, Objectivism 2.0 and even Politics 2.0. Shaped by so many circumstances and events, Max Gladwell has now come to personify the heroic [...]
Leave a Comment