Change Won in Iowa (by Jim Wallis)
Last night, Iowa voted for change - dramatic change – in American politics. Democrat Barack Obama won decisively, and Republican Mike Huckabee won almost miraculously. John Edwards, the second place winner in the Democratic caucuses, continued the theme of change in his speech last night. And in her speech, third place candidate Hillary Clinton made the case that experience makes her the best person to really make change in Washington. Change won.
Despite being outspent 15 to one, former Governor Mike Huckabee came from nowhere to virtually crush Mitt Romney and every other Republican front-runner in Iowa. In his speech, Huckabee announced "a new day in American politics." He said the Iowa results showed that it "wasn't about who raised the most money but who raised the greatest hopes and dreams and aspirations for our children and their future." And "hope" was the overwhelming theme of the victory speech by Barack Obama, who said that hope is "the bedrock of America" and that the Iowa results showed that hope has "beaten back the politics of fear, doubt, and cynicism. In remarks one commentator called "soaring," Obama said, "We are choosing hope over fear, we're choosing unity over division and sending a powerful message that change is coming to America." Edwards said, "The one thing that's clear from the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won." Huckabee said, "Their choice was clear - it was a choice for change."
Barack Obama, of course, is an African American who won what news reports called an impressive victory in a state that is 95 percent white. He won overwhelmingly with a new generation of voters by calling for a new kind of politics in the U.S. that would overcome the partisan deadlocks and ideological battles of the present and find real solutions to social problems. Mike Huckabee combined social conservatism with economic populism in a new kind of Republican agenda that none of the party's establishment supported - but the grassroots did. Interestingly, Obama and Huckabee both called for bipartisan cooperation. Both talked about moving past both the left and the right. Obama and Huckabee said it's not about them but about their supporters who want change. Huckabee said it's "not about the ruling class but a serving class." Obama said, "They said this day would never come. …They said this country was too divided and too disillusioned. ... We are one nation, we are one people, and our time for change has come." Both Obama and Huckabee said that it's time to move beyond the bitterness and division. Obama called for a "coalition for change that stretches through red states and blue states" and Huckabee called for virtually the same thing. The Republican insurgent said that we need "to give our kids a better future, to give this world a better leader, and we join together tonight for that purpose." Edwards said later on the Larry King Live show that the results showed "the huge momentum toward a change candidate."
I believe that the results in Iowa show how hungry the country is for dramatic change in U.S. politics, even in Middle America. Nobody had anything good to say about the leadership of the present administration.
But the forces arrayed against real change in the U.S. are most formidable. Politics is unlikely to be changed merely from within - no matter who wins, and no matter now sincere they are, we will not see significant change unless, and until, we have a real social movement for change from outside of politics. And those kind of social movements usually have spiritual foundations. That movement has already begun and building it is now our primary task.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Interestingly, Obama and Huckabee both call for bipartisan cooperation.
Don't want to sound cynical, Rev Wallis, but I distinctly remembering George W Bush saying the same thing back in 2000. One of the prominent features of his campaign was his constant reminder to us of how well he worked with the Democratic leadership in the Texas legislature when he was governor.
To cut through the partisanship and polarization in Washington is going to take far more than words, whoever finally wins this contest. I hope for the best, but history doesn't give us much reason for optimism.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 4, 2008 12:20 PM
I would not put too much stock in what happened in Iowa. Historically - it has not been a compass for the future of the election. Not to say that it is not interesting to watch. I still believe that there is a strong possibility that we will see an Edwards v Romney run off. (I could be wrong)
personally - I don't think it will be BHO or the Law and Order Guy. Light-weights in my book.
Huck - could be but I don't think he can pull it off.
HRC - she looks good in the bully pulpit but has too big of a Billy anchor that I believe will hold her down.
I don't think we can tell much from Iowa - too many unknowns and other states make a big difference.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 4, 2008 12:32 PM
Wallis seems to take his agenda here and transforms it to Obama's . I don't believe this is capturing the change that OBama is talking about .
One can sense he is one of us . He understandswhat it is like to live with the rising costs of fuel , the jobs being shipped over seas. He aLSO
Posted by: Mick | January 4, 2008 12:35 PM
Great Obama receptance speech . He is able to identify with the average American I believe .
I think Wallis makes a mistake by saying he is promoting his agenda , what I like about Obama is he appeals to all of our agendas. A United America , one where people who worry about jobs being sent overseas are heard , corporations who receive huge tax cuts but do show no loyalty to this country , . Hope and a listening ear to people who have to figure out in their budget what they will go with out to pay for the extra cost to pay for filling their car full of gas so they can get to work . The middle class is still important to this country when you listen to Obama , The rising health care costs , and of course why I liked him was is positive message of hope .
And most of all , to stand up for Americans ,not this rhetoric we need to feel ashamed for who we are , what we have done , its hope for the future . Hope for the world .
Have not liked a guy this much since Bobby Kennedy , have not felt as good about a leader since Reagan .
Nothing wrong with that , and being let down from the leaders of the GOP who forgot who the important people are , and the democrats who appeared to make sure I felt unimportant , it was a welcome change in politics.
How he governs Don perhaps is reason for caution , but optimism , I don't know Don . I think the American people are ready for some change , the dems in Congress and Bush in the WhiteHouse has left us with little hope or unity .
All of America's answers do not neccessarily have to come from one camp , perhaps its us just us living more in the same camp ?
Posted by: Mick | January 4, 2008 12:51 PM
Don (Don | January 4, 2008 12:20 PM) is quite right about Bush's continued claim to being bipartisan in the 2000 presidential election. What a disillusionment those of us who believed him were in for!
As much as the obnoxiously amorphous campaign rhetoric can make "hope over fear" sound rather devoid of content, there actually IS substance there. The current administration has sold a foreign war, loss of personal liberties, and the open use of torture all using fear as the justification. It's okay to abandon these things... the alternative is worse!
But Obama has demonstrated that he's a competent man interested in the details, one who does seem willing and able to engage in the quotidian grind of making politics produce something slightly worthwhile. He's smart, he's practical, and he's complicated--complicated enough to see that it might be worth being good (not torturing) even when it's not easy.
If Obama can win the nomination, I think the substance and complexity he has are capable of taking him to the White House and creating some real possibilities for the restoration of America's morality.
Posted by: Nate | January 4, 2008 1:01 PM
Huckabee winning a state in which he led in the polls is miraculous? Sounds like something he would say. Huckabee and Obama's Iowa victories were predicted weeks ago.
"To cut through the partisanship and polarization in Washington is going to take far more than words"
Can I ask why it is so important to breakthrough paritisanship and polarization? I mean, those terms themselves have negative connotations, but they simply refer to situations in which people strongly agree on issues.
If you have two prevailing ideologies, is it necessarily good to forge legislation that is in the middle? It can be, but is it always preferable to the push and pull of competing ideas?
Everyone wants bipartisanship because it sounds so warm and fuzzy, but does anyone really pull a lever hoping for a mish-mash of ideas forged by "compromise". Isn't the entire system of checks and balances designed to slow progress? Isn't that kind of the point?
Either way, is Obama going to compromise with Republicans in Congress, particularly if they are the minority party? Of course not, and you won't hear a peep of protest from Sojo. Every non-incumbent candidate ever has yakked about change. That is nothing new.
I think the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire get to pick our nominees is really stupid. The results in Iowa and New Hampshire measure how well candidates did at catering to very parochial interests.
At any rate, if bipartisanship is what you want, you couldn't go wrong with a McCain/Lieberman ticket, eh?
Posted by: kevin s. | January 4, 2008 1:56 PM
Apparently the good folks at Sojo (or maybe it was Beliefnet) are not fans of "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou".
Oh well, your loss.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | January 4, 2008 2:01 PM
Iowa proved that the work horses don't win, only the show horses. We had two distinguished long-serving Democratic Senators who dropped out today following their poor showing in Iowa. Joe Biden, especially, had a flair for explaining foreign policy concepts and correcting his colleagues during the debates when they made mistakes. He has more Senate experience than the "top three" candidates combined and he is brilliant. He would have made an excellent nominee and an excellent President, and along with McCain was the most qualified from either party.
I like Obama as much as the next guy and think it would be great to have him on the ticket as VP so he can be ready for prime time in eight years. Edwards speaks a good line about two Americas, but he's not ready for prime time either. A real message of change from the Iowa voters would have meant that they were tired of politics-as-theater and had learned enough to selct somebody on the basis of more than their personality and their catch phrases. Haven't we had enough of that for the past eight years?
No, Iowa didn't signify that voters want change, only that Americans are up to their same old skit.
Sorry, I'm just very disappointed that American voters did not recognize or care about a truly qualified candidate who has shown great character and has served this country well for decades. SAME OLD, SAME OLD.
Posted by: I and I | January 4, 2008 3:17 PM
Can I ask why it is so important to breakthrough paritisanship and polarization? I mean, those terms themselves have negative connotations, but they simply refer to situations in which people strongly agree on issues.
People have always disagreed, but when the needs of the nation are put ahead of partisanship and ideology, politicians are able to get things done. The current polarization has resulted in the inability to get important things done, or (in the case of the Democrats in Congress), fear that the "other side" will spin what they do and use it as attack fodder has paralyzed them.
Meanwhile, serious issues that need a solution are left to fester, e.g., immigration, energy dependence.
Don
Posted by: Don | January 4, 2008 3:34 PM
I've been reading dueling commentaries on the Democratic contest in the NYT by David Brooks and Paul Krugman. In brief, Brooks seems to like Obama, because he believes he has the temperament to be president, while Krugman constantly describes him as naive. Krugman's contention is that the next Democratic president is going to have to crush any and all opposition from "movement conservatism," because the proponents of that movement and unwilling and unable to compromise. Success, as they define it, consists of eliminating the opposing point of view. Therefore, according to Krugman, anybody who wants to take them on has to be equally ruthless.
Now, I strongly want to believe that Brooks is right and Krugman is wrong, at least on this issue. So my question for the many conservative posters here is this: Am I naive to hope that conservatives will be willing to compromise with the next Democratic president? The answers so far haven't been encouraging...
Posted by: Another nonymous | January 4, 2008 4:07 PM
I and I,
Agreed on Biden and McCain, though the latter is still in the game.
"People have always disagreed, but when the needs of the nation are put ahead of partisanship and ideology, politicians are able to get things done."
But ideological lines are drawn on the basis of differing viewpoints about what the nation needs, and how to address those needs. People disagree about what things need to get done. I don't want to see something get done that will be disastrous just for the sake of getting it done.
"The current polarization has resulted in the inability to get important things done, or (in the case of the Democrats in Congress), fear that the "other side" will spin what they do and use it as attack fodder has paralyzed them."
So the solution is to govern in accordance with your ideology, and let the voters sort through the spin. What you are describing as fear is actually cowardice and self-interest. Those are lousy attributes, to be certain, but it does not speak to the need for compromise.
"Meanwhile, serious issues that need a solution are left to fester, e.g., immigration, energy dependence."
I would argue that immigration is an example where compromise produced a solution that nobody liked and failed to adequately address the problem. Instead of applying ideology to the situation, politicians looked to offer a little of everything. Such a solution was untenable.
When it comes to immigration, someone is going to have to risk their political career to make a change. If someone wants amnesty (or whatever you want to call it), then push for it. If your ideas win the day, and they fail, then you are replaced, and new solutions will be implemented.
Why is that such a bad thing?
Posted by: kevin s. | January 4, 2008 5:13 PM
Wallis says some true things here, but he still misses some points, and he fails to note how he and Sojourners have gotten it all wrong.
Wallis has championed the idea of a broader agenda for evangelicals, particularly one that includes concern for the poor - including supporting government programs to the end. But he appears he has been barking up the wrong political tree on that, demonstrated by the Iowa caucus results.
Wallis has been looking for signs of this change among establishment Democrats. He has made a lot of positive noises about them saying nice platitudes about faith. He talks as if they were for change. But when has any of the top three Democrats ever done anything meaningful for change? Their political platforms are tepid and establishment. But Wallis is correct that the vote for Obama represents a desire for change. He presents that aura, although he is devoid of substance.
Wallis has ignored the Republicans up to now, when he is forced to by Huckabee's victory in Iowa. But Huckabee is the real thing when it comes to evangelical. And he has been living the idea that Christian faith should cause you to have real concern for the poor. He is actually a good example of the change Wallis has been talking about. He has showed that evangelicals will turn out for someone with a broader agenda. Huckabee has been mercilessly attacked by the right, and has been responding with a defense of the Gospel. And he has a long record of not supporting those in his own denomination and in the larger evangelical community who have championed whole right wing agenda. He has rightly said it's not about being liberal or conservative.
Turns out that Wallis was looking at the wrong party for this change. Maybe he should have realized that the party which has been attracting the majority of at least the white evangelical vote might be where the broader agenda for evangelicals would first make a real political impact.
The power structure is really worried about Huckabee. They don't think they can control him. And a lot of the root of that is that Huckabee sees himself as responding to a higher authority. But they are not concerned about Obama, Clinton and Edwards, because they are safe, establishment-bound politicians who won't let their faith get in the way of their politics. In fact, all are getting substantial funding from the corporate power structure, while Huckabee has to run a shoe string campaign while the "Club for Growth" (well characterized by Huckabee as the Club for Greed) singles him out as their top enemy.
Posted by: Bill Samuel | January 4, 2008 8:25 PM
Once again, Kevin:
When politicians decide to put the interests of the country ahead of their own ideology (and, yes, sometimes their own political careers), things get done.
I didn't use the word compromise. You did. Sometimes, when the interests of the nation are put first, compromise isn't needed--during discussion, a solution emerges that a majority can agree on. Sometimes compromise is necessary. But the key is having politicians with the courage and the ability to put others' needs ahead of their own. That is what is so lacking in our current political climate.
And yes, that is a bad thing.
D
Posted by: Don | January 4, 2008 10:00 PM
Wallis has ignored the Republicans up to now, when he is forced to by Huckabee's victory in Iowa. But Huckabee is the real thing when it comes to evangelical. And he has been living the idea that Christian faith should cause you to have real concern for the poor. He is actually a good example of the change Wallis has been talking about. He has showed that evangelicals will turn out for someone with a broader agenda.
I remember a blog entry several months ago called "I Like Mike" -- and Jim wrote it. But part of Huckabee's appeal is the fading of the old "religious right" coalition, which can no longer basically give orders to millions. Besides, his former occupation probably made him sensitive to the needs of people out there.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 4, 2008 10:51 PM
Although Barak Obama seems to be a great guy, he is nothing more than another Harvard elitist. Huckabee on the other hand, is something special. If the media wasn't so Democrat and anti-Christian Humanist dominated, Huckabee would be called "Governor Huckabee" like Obama is called Senator Obama. It would be nice for once, to see a SOJOite, desire to stick up for a fellow Christian, as indeed Huckabee never proselytized anyone while in office. Afterall, it (loving one another) is what Jesus said would distinquish us from the crowd that walks through the wide gates to nowhere. But alas, the drive to make America a secular socialist nation is too strong in the Liberal-Progressive no matter what they call themselves. Unfortunately, the road being paved by "The Left" is heading us one day to either civil war, or our demise as a country.
Posted by: Donny | January 5, 2008 12:05 AM
Huckabee would be called "Governor Huckabee" like Obama is called Senator Obama. It would be nice for once, to see a SOJOite, desire to stick up for a fellow Christian, as indeed Huckabee never proselytized anyone while in office.
Donny:
See my post above.
And BTW, your comments about America becoming a "secular-socialist nation" are just plain bigoted. Truth be told, a number of economic conservatives don't like Huckabee either.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 5, 2008 12:17 AM
MIck
How Did the Democrats make sure you feel unimportant? I am not proud of torture; are you? I am not proud of a million dead Iraqi civilians; are you?
I am proud of the constitution , but Dick Cheney, who is running America at this point, thinks it is all wrong and gets in the way of a unitary executive.
Posted by: jonabark | January 5, 2008 1:49 AM
Although Barak Obama seems to be a great guy, he is nothing more than another Harvard elitist
Posted by: Donny
Donny I noticed he stuck up for the middle class in his speech . As does Huckabee . Its why Huckabee strikes a chord with the average guy also . He did so in Arkansaw .
I heard Obama him say he did not like corporations getting big corporate tax breaks and sending jobs over seas .
I agree with that , to me that is part of my conservative Christian value system . To me it was value driven fairness. He wanted the big corporations to be treated as fair , not better then the small business owner . To me that is fairness , he is not playing to the rich against poor snick so often I find on the left .
Socilaist talk more to the taking from one group to give to another without fairness coming into play . I will give him the benefit of the doubt till he proves different .
Besides , no "SOJOite" took him to task for speaking about uniting Americans and doing what was good for America , no one took him on for his nationalism and love of Americans . Maybe he can help some of these guys out .
Posted by: Mick | January 5, 2008 1:50 AM
"When politicians decide to put the interests of the country ahead of their own ideology (and, yes, sometimes their own political careers), things get done."
But what you perceive to be in the best interests of the country is part and parcel of your ideology. People don't embrace ideologies for no reason. Agreed on the political careers front, but Huckabee and Obama hardly scream "Profiles of Courage" to me.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 5, 2008 2:15 AM
Status quo was certainly defeated in Iowa on Thursday. While Senator Obama is passionate, he does lack experience and substance. Governor Huckabee on the other had is a candidate I would think Sojourners could get behind.
Posted by: Shane Vander Hart | January 5, 2008 4:46 AM
The question isn't which one of these leaders will have the nerve to do what needs to be done in 2008.
The real question is will we have the courage to do what needs to be done in 2008 as responsive Americans? Will we have the endurance to keep the winner on his toes?
I am terribly grateful to see that for once the talent rising to the top is at the very least rather over qualified for the job they are concidering. Regardless of their education and experience these are clever and skillful candidates.
Why do we have to choose only one? I have things on my presidencial todo list that could keep any one of them very busy for 4 years. For example :
If we don't give Obama the job of President, there are about 6 or 8 other jobs that he would be amply qualified and supurbly gifted at. You could say that about any one of them.
There is so much to do and get done in 2008 we as Americans should be getting some of these tasks started so our next president can hit the road running.
And then of course there are x presidents. I would like to see more of them busy leaving the legacy that Jimmy Carter will leave behind.
Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | January 5, 2008 5:34 AM
"And BTW, your comments about America becoming a "secular-socialist nation" are just plain bigoted."Rick Nowlin
Bigoted? That's a stretch. Nice way to go ad-hominem there.
Posted by: doc75 | January 5, 2008 7:29 AM
To liberals, "bi-partisan cooperation" means we have abortion on demand, quotas, affirmative action as far as the eye can see, reparations, liberal judges, gay marriage, defense cuts like in Clinton's years, taxes out the whaaa-zoo.....and all with a smile !
Posted by: Jim | January 5, 2008 7:30 AM
...Huckabee and Obama hardly scream "Profiles of Courage" to me.
I never said they did. Nor do any of the other presidential candidates for that matter, except perhaps for one or two who have little chance of winning their party's nomination.
But what you perceive to be in the best interests of the country is part and parcel of your ideology
It's hardly ideological when serious issues are screaming for workable solutions.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 5, 2008 9:09 AM
"Either way, is Obama going to compromise with Republicans in Congress, particularly if they are the minority party? Of course not, and you won't hear a peep of protest from Sojo. Every non-incumbent candidate ever has yakked about change. That is nothing new." Kevin S.
I would have to agree with Kevin's assessment of the political landscape. I would hope that if Obama wins and he has a Democratic majority in Congress, he would not compromise with the Republicans, at least with respect to the war, the USA Patriot Act, healthcare, immigration, and judicial appointments. The bottom line is that there is an unbreachable chasm between the two parties and much of a first term of any Democratic president will be spent repairing the terrible damage of the past 8 years.
Posted by: JamesMartin | January 5, 2008 10:11 AM
I'm not sure Obama's win is a win for change. His platform seems to be the same old, same old peddled by the dems for decades. The real differene between Huck, Obama and the field is they seem to be nice guys.
I mentioned last summer that I was interested in how or if the Clintons would go after Obama. When they have test smeared him through surrogates and its backfired. The old Clinton playbook of destroying your opponents image won't work this time.
As long as libs define bipartisanship as almost total agreement with them, it won't happen.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 5, 2008 11:03 AM
Bigoted? That's a stretch. Nice way to go ad-hominem there.
Not if you consider the entire context of Donny's remarks.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 5, 2008 11:56 AM
"Nor do any of the other presidential candidates for that matter,"
I couldn't imagine any Profiles in Courage book would be written today without profiling McCain, albeit partially for reasons that are outside of the purview of this discussion.
Obviously, he has made overtures to the conservative wing of the party in recent months that are less than genuine. But he has also shown a willingness to draw lines in the sand (on the war, pork reform etc...) that have compromised his career.
I think this is why he is surging to the front of the Republican pack. It certainly isn't money.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 5, 2008 2:19 PM
"he would not compromise with the Republicans, at least with respect to the war, the USA Patriot Act, healthcare, immigration, and judicial appointments. "
Then be prepared for little change , because the views of the American people, their religion , and idealogy do not all aggree with you .
Your asking for one long Filibuster.
Posted by: Mick | January 5, 2008 3:16 PM
"It certainly isn't money."
And with that said alas the Republican's will fall on their faces, finally and officially. You see Kevin the overriding panoramic view of the center is squeezing the Lieberman's, McCain's and the like. Even the major propoganda arms in the country are telling you this. But we'll see this play out soon enough. Just like the Nancy Pelosi victory showed y'all what 70% of the electorate agreed on several months ago. Turn out the lights...the party is just beginning.
P.S. I don't think Ron Paul will be the one to get the party started either.
Posted by: Steve | January 5, 2008 3:20 PM
I think the other thing Obama and Huckabee have in common is a hopeful message. I think their wins in Iowa will allow them to keep getting that message out.
It is hard to avoid being a cynic, for sure. But I'm indulging myself in a little hope. The first two winners in the 2008 race for president both believe helping the poor is a part of the Gospel message. That's nice for a change.
Prophetic Progress: Just in from Iowa: Praise Jesus!
Posted by: JimII | January 5, 2008 4:12 PM
"Your asking for one long Filibuster. "
No, he would be asking for filibusters only on the issues most popular with Americans (e.g. the Patriot Act). I don't think Obama would know how to handle this. He'd be a one-termer. Hillary, on the other hand.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 5, 2008 4:15 PM
There is one area that Obama trumps everyone in the hope department. If he wins we will never have a president Hillary.
The speeches after the caucus revealed a lot about the candidates. Edwards and Clintons speeches focused on us versus them whether rich/poor dem/rep. Obama and Huckabee brought out differences without seeming divisive. These two are likable no matter what your agenda. I don't think I would find Edwards or Clinton likable even if I did agree with them.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | January 5, 2008 4:44 PM
There is one area that Obama trumps everyone in the hope department. If he wins we will never have a president Hillary.
Here's the problem with that: A few conservatives are actually saying, "We may be able to live with her." She's considered the most conservative of the Democratic candidates.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 5, 2008 4:57 PM
Then be prepared for little change , because the views of the American people, their religion , and idealogy do not all aggree with you.Your asking for one long Filibuster. Posted by: Mick
I would hope that we could get the number of Senate Democrats up to 60 to vote for cloture. I realize that not all Americans agree with me. So what is your point?
"No, he would be asking for filibusters only on the issues most popular with Americans (e.g. the Patriot Act)." Kevin S.
Not sure whether the American people even know enough about the Patriot Act to know how it endangers them in the long run. To the extent that it is "popular", that is the case because neo-conservatives have convinced the American people through scare tactics that they need it in order to be safe.
Posted by: JamesMartin | January 5, 2008 5:07 PM
I hope you'll consider project democratic renewal(I've already emailed it to Chris LaTondresse, I believe.), which I describe in a letter written for ESA's prism e-pistle that will be coming out in their Wednesday's newsletter.
It's one thing to call for a social mvmt from outside of politics, but I believe that we need to see that third parties are given foot-holds on power w.in politics to enable such mvmts more voice.
dlw
Posted by: dlw | January 5, 2008 6:14 PM
"Nor do any of the other presidential candidates for that matter,"
I couldn't imagine any Profiles in Courage book would be written today without profiling McCain, albeit partially for reasons that are outside of the purview of this discussion.
I thought of McCain right after I posted that comment. You are right about him--as on commentary I read this morning in the newspaper said, McCain almost seems to delight in saying things people don't want to hear. How refreshing for a politician!
I do think he compromised himself by sticking so closely to Bush on Iraq. But right now, he looks like the most promising of a distinctly mediocre lineup of Republican hopefuls.
Oh, by the way, regarding all the comments about how "liberal" Obama is vs. Hillary: take a look at the profiles of the presidential candidates on the Web site called Political compass (http://www.politicalcompass.org/>). Be sure to read the background information about the site first, so you understand how it is constructed. The surprising thing is that all the major US presidential candidates--Republican and Democrat--aren't really all that far apart. All but Kucinich fall in the same quadrant--socially authoritarian rather than libertarian and economic rightist rather than leftist. The differences between all of them are really rather minor. Obama isn't all that much farther left (on the economic scale) than Clinton, and Edwards is actually slightly to the left of Obama. And Clinton isn't a lot more to the left than the most "liberal" Republicans--Giulinai and McCain.
And you might also want to do your own political compass, too. I did mine and was rather surprised where I found myself. (I did it twice two months apart and came up with essentially the same results.)
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 5, 2008 8:48 PM
"I would hope that we could get the number of Senate Democrats up to 60 to vote for cloture. I realize that not all Americans agree with me. So what is your point?"
Posted by: JamesMartin
My point is that you style of politics is exactly what the democrats have been complaining about for almost all of the two terms Bush has served .
Your concern over the Patriot Act , James is valid , but you leaving it there and not caring or speaking to policies that others feel inmportant to their freedoms is what appears to be the problem in DC
. Its what Barak and Huckabbee were speaking to .
Because your passions only validate what freedoms you see as important , not what all Americans see as important . Your belief that to lock out all who disagree with you , or allow others who represent other passions not to have a voice , is just the mindset that hurts this country , from the right or the left . Thats my point .
Also notice you are going against what the winner of the democratic Iowa Caucus just stated , so how are you going to handle those democrats , block them out also ?
Because if you do , history says another party will come back and take it away from you .
I still believe America can be better then that .
Posted by: Mick | January 6, 2008 4:12 AM
Because your passions only validate what freedoms you see as important , not what all Americans see as important . Your belief that to lock out all who disagree with you , or allow others who represent other passions not to have a voice , is just the mindset that hurts this country , from the right or the left . Mick
I can respect and understand your desire for there to be concensus on major issues. To the extent that there can be, it should be sought. I sense that both you and I are tire of "business as usual" in Washington. But unfortunately the Republican party has gone so far off of its center that this country is going to require a major change in direction. I would agree that Huckabee won in large part because he sought to be conciliatory within a group of canditates who do not know the meaning of the word "reconciliation". Obama won more because he was perceived as the candidate of change. If the other party obstructs that change, then he will be left with no choice but to fight for it, and impose it to the extent that he has the political power to do it.
"Your belief that to lock out all who disagree with you , or allow others who represent other passions not to have a voice , is just the mindset that hurts this country" Mick
As for your belief that my desire is not to give others a voice, that is your perception. As for what is hurting this country, I think that there are some things that will hurt this country much more than my desire for change- one of them is to see compromise and concensus at all costs- something I perceive you as doing.
Posted by: JamesMartin | January 6, 2008 6:35 AM
If pinned against Romney, Clinton or Edwards, I would vote for either of these men. If they are pinned against one another, I say we go back to taking 1st place and making him pres. and second place be vice-pres. Talk about bi-partisanship! Huckbee/Obama or Obama/Huckabee! This sounds like a winning ticket!!
Posted by: Joy | January 6, 2008 11:58 AM
Partisanship?
Barak Obama is the biggest and scariest liberal to come down the pipe in a generation.
I mean, c'mon - uniting and bringing people together?
Wake up it is 2008 and those days are gone.
The left has made it clear that they hate Republicans and will never unite anything
Posted by: Paul Jamieson | January 6, 2008 1:54 PM
Don -
Thanks for referencing the Political Compass site; it's fascinating. What the results there show, I think, is not that there is little difference between the candidates - all the Democrats are clearly further left than all the Republicans. Rather, the results show something that I have long maintained, which is that the entire political spectrum in the US is completely out of kilter with the rest of the world. Every one of the major candidates falls within the rightist authoritarian quadrant. I, OTOH, fall squarely within the left-libertarian quadrant, placing me completely at odds with the American mainstream but together with Gandhi, Dennis Kucinich, and most major composers. Go figure.
Posted by: Another nonymous | January 6, 2008 2:06 PM
Barak Obama is the biggest and scariest liberal to come down the pipe in a generation.
Even more so than Bill Clinton? In the 1990s he was the bogeyman.
The left has made it clear that they hate Republicans and will never unite anything.
The right that once ran the GOP had a lot to do with that. Don't forget about that little piece of trivia.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 6, 2008 2:17 PM
What the political compass demonstrates is there is an acceptable range of political values in America, and that many political ideas are unacceptable within the framework of our democratic system. We have generally achieved consensus on a variety of issues by way of our Constitution.
However, I would argue that the preponderance of real estate on the compass invariably results in abject failure. Within the boundaries of potential success, the differences become more pronounced.
There is also the question of how the candidates positions were determined. Were they given the survey, or did the political compass make educated guesses? Either method would have an impact on the results.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 6, 2008 2:23 PM
"However, I would argue that the preponderance of real estate on the compass invariably results in abject failure."
So Gandhi was a failure?
Posted by: Another nonymous | January 6, 2008 2:46 PM
There is also the question of how the candidates positions were determined. Were they given the survey, or did the political compass make educated guesses?
If you had read the Compass' Web site thoroughly, you would know the answer to this question: "They [i.e., the candidates' positions] have been evaluated through scrutiny of public statements, manifestos, interviews and, crucially, voting records."
So you are arguing that American democracy could never consider any candidate whose positions didn't land them in the upper left quadrant (economic right/social authoritarian)? That someone whose political views lined up with, say, Nelson Mandela's (economic left/social libertarian), Pope Benedict's (economic left/social authoritarian), or Milton Friedman's (economic right/social libertaian) could never be a viable candidate? I'm not sure I could accept that as absolute fact.
What the Compass tells me is that American politics tends to major in minors. We as citizens tend to get bent out of shape over relatively minor differences. When every single Presidential candidate falls within the economic libertarian/social authoritarian quadrant, perhaps we as citizen/voters should focus more on competence and administrative skills rather than positions on X or Y.
It also tells me that labeling candidates "liberal" or "conservative" is useless and counterproductive. Since almost all the candidates are in a similar place in terms of their political views, it's long past time to stop the name calling. (Barak Obama is the biggest and scariest liberal to come down the pipe in a generation. Gimmie a break!) Limbaugh, Obermann, Coulter, Air America, etc. etc., are you paying attention?
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 6, 2008 4:29 PM
Another nonymous:
I really like Dvorak's music, even though he straddles the line. ;-)
I ended up in the same quadrant--close to Ghandi, but a little to the right of him. I still maintain that I'm basically a conservative.
D
Posted by: Don | January 6, 2008 4:41 PM
Cads ,
Your prediction seems very possible to me too .
Economically the dems miss on certain points . One I find like our state , we tax small business on their gross , its called the B&O Tax . Not their net , so according to dems they are rich , but actually some small businesses can say sell a 4000 dollar Hot Tub , and make their real money say on the installation or whatever . But in our state they are taxed on the 4000 dollar Hot Tub also , not their net oncome , the gross income of the Tub too . If your ina business with expensive items , with small markdowns , you are out of business.
Hence not too many small businesses make it to big busisnesses anymore in our state .
Huge deficits, $ 100 a barrel oil , The housing market , : "we disagree on that impact" also will help this mess along . Thye next president will be met with a recession , as Bush was somewhat also . Human Nature will blame him for the mess also , unfairly too CADS , but your right , taxing our way out of it will result in certain gloom and doom in my opinion. And of course the fringe will blame Bush long after he is gne , but it will only work as well as when the right blames Clionton for our military etc .
Our of sight , out of blame .
Posted by: Mick | January 6, 2008 5:12 PM
"So Gandhi was a failure?"
Ultimately, his government did. Or would at least be considered failure by our standards. While his activity served to moderate existing paradigms, a government is best operating in relative balance, rather than going to and fro between extremes.
In America, those extremes do not exist in our political landscape.
"socialist policies will be adopted (free healthcare and nonexistent taxes on the poor while soaking and raping the rich), the result being that the economy will tank and Bush will still be blamed for the mess."
So you are predicting victory for John Edwards ;)
Some of what you say may become true, but America has a tendency to hold present leaders accountable for the state of the economy. Massive efforts to redistribute income will tank the economy, and nobody (well, present company excepted I suppose) is going to buy the "Bush did it" line.
"So you are arguing that American democracy could never consider any candidate whose positions didn't land them in the upper left quadrant (economic right/social authoritarian)?"
Not at present, and I would hope never. Of course, there are those who will advocate from those benchmarks, but our democracy is immune, I think, to a purveyor of a single extreme idea taking office.
People like Nelson Mandela rise to power as a counterbalance to a similarly extreme cause. The presence of extremism tends to beget more extremism.
Is that an absolute fact? Well, if we elect Dennis Kucinich, then I am proven wrong. But that is the best explanation I can give for the political compass.
That said, I think the biggest threat to this balance is a leader who sits on one of the furthest poles of American political thought, but who lacks ideological and political fortitude.
Obama comes closest to fitting that description for me. He is very liberal, and can't seem to articulate why he shouldn't be even further left than he is (Hillary has taken him to task for this). Talking about shunning labels, as he often does, is okay for political speak. At a certain point, I want to know what he wants to do for his employer.
"I ended up in the same quadrant--close to Ghandi, but a little to the right of him. I still maintain that I'm basically a conservative."
That's funny. I'm conservative, and I landed squarely on Thatcher. Or, rather, her dot, not the woman herself. We can't both be right. Maybe your politics are a little more, um, expressionist, than you concede?
Posted by: kevin s. | January 6, 2008 5:22 PM
Um, Kevin, do you realize you're trying to box American politics into the same quadrant as Hitler? I'd be careful if I were you.
Seriously, though, the only healthy political environment is one in which all positions are expressed and have a chance to be heard. What the political compass shows is that we're not doing very well in that regard. IMHO, you should be glad American has people like me and Don. And yes, I'm glad it has people like you. That's what a functioning democracy is about.
Posted by: Another nonymous | January 6, 2008 6:42 PM
My prediction holds regardless of who the Dems nominate, and it won't be Edwards (except in the "best hair" category). I'm looking forward to the Fox News Republican Forum tonight. My man, Rudy (won't win "best hair"), needs to step up and make some news to get back in the game. I still think he's the one who can best give Hillary or Obama a run for their money. And I'm halfway between Ghandi, Friedman, and right in the middle! Good test, Don.
Posted by: Cads | January 6, 2008 7:45 PM
Maybe your politics are a little more, um, expressionist, than you concede?
Judging from the questions the Compass asks, I believe I ended up where I am at least partly because of my mistrust of corporations. I come to that mistrust for what I believe is a very conservative reason--human sin nature is magnified in the corporate structure. I'm therefore not knee-jerk anti-regulatory like so many of the Thatcher-type 'conservatives' (and I'm not necessarily saying that description applies to you). You can take issue with my understanding of 'conservative' if you must, but that's the way I see it.
I haven't forgotten the fact that 'conservative' and 'conservation' both come from the same Latin root. So instead of scoffing at conservation, as our allegedly conservative Vice President did, I believe true conservatives will see it as a major and necessary element of energy strategy and national security policy. I also believe 'conservative' means, if one must err, one should be erring on the side of caution. In regard to global warming, that means assuming that the science is true and taking steps to prevent possible disaster now, not waiting until we know disaster is imminent, at which time it likely would be too late. Again, take issue with my understanding of 'conservative' if you will, but I don't understand how denial can possibly be construed to be a conservative virtue.
I believe we should be paying now for things we spend money on. That means that if we need to be spending, we should make sure we have the revenue to cover it. To me, knee-jerk tax cutting is foolish and irresponsible, when spending is outpacing revenue. If we must spend the money, we need to raise taxes somehow to cover the spending. Enough said about that.
I could go on, but I think that's enough for now.
Have a peaceful evening,
D
Posted by: Don | January 6, 2008 8:00 PM
The presence of extremism tends to beget more extremism. Is that an absolute fact? Well, if we elect Dennis Kucinich, then I am proven wrong.
Interesting but confusing. I would think that an "extreme" position would be one close to the edge, regardless of which quadrant. Yes, Mandela is sort of close to the collectivist edge, but Kucinich is actually fairly close to the center. I would think the Compass editors would consider him somewhat of a centrist, not an extremist. And Obama is rather close to the center, too.
Take a look at where they plotted GW Bush. He's really close to the laissez-faire edge. And Romney approaches the authoritarian edge. Tom Tancredo (yes, he's no longer in the race) is close to Romney on the authoritarian side and apparently is even closer than Bush is on the laissez-faire side. So who is/are really the extremist(s)?
You apparently don't consider unfettered, corporate-dominated free-enterprise to be an extreme position, but I would take issue with that.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 6, 2008 8:27 PM
Hope may get a lot harder when the full effects of a financial sector filled with subprime funny money combine with the high price of oil. I predict major economic trouble. We are living in an oily house of cards and the wind is starting to blow.
Posted by: jonabark | January 6, 2008 9:25 PM
"Um, Kevin, do you realize you're trying to box American politics into the same quadrant as Hitler? I'd be careful if I were you."
They are quadrants, not boxes, and Hitler isn't close to any of the nominees, who exist in a fairly small sliver of the same quadrant.
"Seriously, though, the only healthy political environment is one in which all positions are expressed and have a chance to be heard. What the political compass shows is that we're not doing very well in that regard."
Or that there are a very small range of political opinions acceptable in America. If your Hitler example means anything, then we should consider this a good thing.
"IMHO, you should be glad American has people like me and Don."
Who said I wasn't? I just hope you aren't happy with too many elections.
"I believe is a very conservative reason--human sin nature is magnified in the corporate structure."
I think one of the test-maker's core assumptions is that trust of corporations and trust in government live on the same continuum, as though it is either/or. I don't know if that assumption is valid as it relates to your case.
My inclination is to oppose regulation, (the "knee-jerk" qualifier is poisoning the well, btw) not because regulation is bad in and of itself, but because regulation can become a tool of the rich and powerful. As such, I operate on a different continuum.
"I haven't forgotten the fact that 'conservative' and 'conservation' both come from the same Latin root."
I'd exercise caution in ruminating over the meanings of 'pedestrian' and 'philanthropy'. But seriously, you are conflating different usages of similar terms.
Solutions to environmental hazards that arise from punishing those who are spoling other peoples land can be dealt with by the courts. Problems related to natural resources will be solved my free market mechanisms. That is the conservative viewpoint, but you do not share it.
"You apparently don't consider unfettered, corporate-dominated free-enterprise to be an extreme position,"
I do not, which is why I don't support Ron Paul, who wants to make the sort of free market reforms (e.g. eliminating the FDA and the federal reserve) that place him at that end of the spectrum.
But I am still a conservative in that I believe governmental regulation is always undesirable, even if it is necessary.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 7, 2008 1:48 AM
You know - I would personally not put a lot into the Iowa results. They do not have a good track record when it comes to picking who is the final canidate. Also caucus vs primary - they are very different animals. Caucus takes alot of commitment on the part of the person and primary just involves going into the booth and selecting a canidate. I think that coming to some of the southern states, it will be interesting to see how they look at the canidates. I still believe that it will be Edwards and Romney. (but then again - I'm not a prophet)
It's Monday and prayers were offered for our military personnel all around the world for their safety, victory and return. I also understand that makes me an idolator - whatever.
Blessings -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | January 7, 2008 9:20 AM
Several comments posted here refer to Huckabee as moderate or even liberal in his economics. Let's relieve ourselves of this canard here right now, with this article from today's NY Times on his support of the regressive "fair tax" proposal:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/us/politics/06economy.html?th&emc=th
(Hope the link works.)
One commenter even suggested that he might be the ideal Sojo readers' candidate. Not!
Posted by: I and I | January 7, 2008 9:55 AM
My inclination is to oppose regulation, not because regulation is bad in and of itself, but because regulation can become a tool of the rich and powerful.
But just who are the rich and powerful? It seems to me that corporate America has been buying deregulation since the time of Reagan. All so-called 'conservative' politicians since them have been campaigning on 'reducing the regulatory burden', as if it still hasn't been 'reduced' enough. Who's paying for these politicians' campaigns? When will they be satisfied that the 'regulatory burden' has been sufficiently relieved? My guess is that will happen only when all regulation that corporate leaders dislike has been eliminated.
You are right that the magnification of sin nature that I recognize in corporations is also true of government. But where has opposition to regulation been based on a principled opposition to business and economic manipulation by government regulatory agencies. It's all coming because corporations would rather not have to comply and they're doing everything they can to wiggle out of compliance. All you have to do is look at what's been happening to the Clean Air Act under Bush to see what I'm saying.
I don't support Ron Paul for several reasons, but look again at where the Compass has Ron Paul plotted vs. GW Bush. Bush appears closer to the laissez faire line than Paul, though it is somewhat hard to tell since they're on two separate screens.
Problems related to natural resources will be solved my free market mechanisms. That is the conservative viewpoint, but you do not share it.
I don't deny free market solutions to global warming. I welcome them. But I don't think they alone are enough to deal with an impending crisis of this magnitude. And I repeat: complete denial of the problem (e.g., Sen. Inhofe) is not part of authentic conservative philosophy.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | January 7, 2008 11:03 AM
"Change" alone is not the issue. We need to keep our focus on the direction of change. Bush got plenty of mileage from the "stay the course" mantra until the public finally recognized the course he was on. I will not just back a "change" candidate without examining the direction that change would take us. For example, there is a vast difference between change to provide health "insurance" for all versus change to provide health "care" for all. To merely make sure we are all insured is little more than a recipe to give insurance companies a cut of the spoils of politics. To provide health care for all means we question whether insurance has any role at all, given that its sole purpose is to insure against the catastrophe of being unable to pay for health care in a system that fails to provide health care for all.
Posted by: John Mitchell | January 7, 2008 1:17 PM
What did Mr Huckabee mean by "give the world a better leader"? Although rhetoric about the "leader of the free world" seems to continue to be popular, it is highly enigmatic to those of us in "free" Europe who observe with great interest the US Presidential elections but do not find any moral or actual leadership for ourselves in its winner.
Posted by: David Griffiths | January 7, 2008 4:12 PM
It's Monday and, as with every other day, prayers were offered for the safety of all soldiers in Iraq, as well as all Iraqi victims of the current war in their country.
In obedience to Matthew 5:43-48, prayers were also offered for Osama bin Ladin and al-Qaida.
Posted by: carl copas | January 7, 2008 4:44 PM
Bill Samuel wrote,
"Wallis has ignored the Republicans up to now, when he is forced to by Huckabee's victory in Iowa."
Actually, the Sojourners blog has had some nice things to say about Huckabee.
I and I wrote,
"One commenter even suggested that he [Huckabee] might be the ideal Sojo readers' candidate. Not!"
I believe that Sojourners' readership is diverse enough that no single candidate could be the best ideological representative for all of us.
Also, many of you have been talking about the ineffectiveness of "compromise." I don't think that's what either Huckabee or Obama is talking about when they say "working together." It is the (radical?) idea of understanding that those who hold opposing points of view are not necessarily stupid, or evil, or intransigent; that sharing ideas might actually help us all move towards a common goal; that the nation as a whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Posted by: Hali | January 7, 2008 6:09 PM
Respecting your opponent in more important than defeating him.
Posted by: Fr. Bill Ryan, O.S.A | January 8, 2008 12:46 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?