That Guy's A Good Speaker, He May Go Far

I hear that Barack Obama read old fireside chats by Franklin Roosevelt before shaping his joint address to Congress. It showed last night. He was completely realistic about the nature of the problem, even taking on the guise of an instructor of macroeconomics at one point to explain the role of banks. But he refused to cower in the face of this difficulty and exhorted his fellow men and women that we already have all the tools we need to return to prosperity and a brighter future. This point - that the solutions are all around us and just need to be properly directed - is an important one. He's using the familiar "we're Americans, we can move mountains" trope in service to a fairly liberal policy set. Robert Borosage is right on:

And his case was a clear and bold statement of the need for progressive government as the vital instrument to move us out of this crisis and into the future. The recovery plan to put people back to work. Banking reform and "new rules of the road" to get banks working once more. The mortgage initiative to help homeowners stay in their homes.

But more, the need for sustained public investment and leadership to move us into the future with new energy, reform of our broken health care system, and provision of a world class education from birth to a career for every child.

He vowed, sensibly, to bring the deficit down - once recovery begins - to half of its current levels by the end of his term. A return to growth will do most of that. And every other choice was a progressive one: savings from Cold War weapons and no bid military contracts, from billions provided insurance companies to compete with Medicare, from agribusiness (and unspecified education programs that don't work). And then progressive taxes - reversing the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000, ending tax breaks for companies taking jobs abroad (and unmentioned in the speech, sustaining the estate tax and raising the capital gains tax). He also called for moving on cap and trade on carbon emissions - and his budget will project revenue from this effort, so he won't just let companies pocket the proceeds.

That was my favorite part of the speech as well. Conservatives like to point to "wasteful spending" and then they promptly identify a tiny sliver, things that actually create jobs and have long-term goals like scientific research. The real wasteful spending can be found in corporate welfare and the military-industrial complex. Here the bark may be worse than the bite, but now progressives have an opportunity to hold the President to his promises.

He made the case for an active and progressive government that, through history, has both moved us out of crisis and supplied the down payment for long-term prosperity. It's a hopeful vision, a realistic vision, and a vision that crowds out any counter-message other than "government doesn't work," the outdated message used by Bobby Jindal in his response.

There are certainly parts that need more explanation (universal savings accounts?), and parts that were somewhat vague (like what to do with the banks). But overall, I think the President has even more of a mandate to do what he deems necessary to fix the economy and invest in the future. Republicans can join him, or get out of the way.

I Promise Not To Make Tim Kaine Puns for 4-8 Years

There looks to me further fuel to the speculation about Tim Kaine. He cancelled a fundraiser in Maryland tomorrow due to a "scheduling problem." And he was in Washington today at a time that Obama, his staff, and his veep selection team were all in the same place.

So, you know, take it or leave it. I personally think that it's a bad choice if you're a progressive, though I'm not as Chicken Little about it as Matt Stoller, who makes a pretty dishonest incomplete (see UPDATE below) argument in rebutting Matt Yglesias, particularly by ignoring most of his argument (that VPs have extremely little impact on the governing philosophy of a President. You could argue that Cheney did, but Bush was pretty much there already).

(UPDATE: I want to be clear that I say "dishonest", which should have been "incomplete," in terms of the argument made and not the author, who is not a dishonest person. I don't typically take personally things said about me on the Internets and I have the same perspective when I write, but I apologize to the author if that didn't transfer.)

However, because Obama has been somewhat inscrutable in what his priorities as a chief executive would be, this decision offers a window into his thought process. And that window, if it's Kaine, opens to a guy who has been a sellout on coal, signed a bill that Mark Warner vetoed repealing the estate tax and then instituted a sales tax increase that would disproportionately affect the poor, and failed to rein in the poisonous partisan atmosphere in Virginia. On the other hand, he's anti-death penalty, was a community organizer and at least campaigned as a pragmatic progressive, though he's lost his way on that according to the locals.

So, if it's him, I'm disappointed, although I didn't really expect my perfect progressive choice to be recognized. FWIW Kaine dismissed the speculation today, but that's to be expected. We'll wait and see.

The Obama I Want

This video from 2003 is why progressive friends of mine in Chicago (where I lived for a couple years) were so excited about Barack Obama.



"He's an unabashed liberal," my friends said.

At one level this was a partisan union crowd with Rep. Danny Davis, and you have to expect some red meat (he was trying to win a primary). But this Obama is not the one on display in this election. The new one is inspiring and hopeful and thoughtful and willing to parry accusations against him and even make a few of his own. But somewhere down the line, he decided that the ferocity and steadfastness on display in that little clip wouldn't work as a national candidate. Ultimately, I think the fire hasn't been extinguished, but it's been subdued to an extent.

There's a theory that a black candidate running for national office can't show that side of him, that he'll be painted as angry and divisive. Obama appears to have bought into that somewhat. But the Republicans have a great deal of paint, and all of it the same color. They ALWAYS smear their opponent. Obama's being charged as un-American and elitist in a series of increasingly outrageous e-mail smears. This guy on display in 2003 would be considered a lot of things, maybe, but certainly not elitist. That looks like Paul Wellstone speaking in that clip. I don't get that out of medium cool Obama. Not that this guy is bad; he's smooth and self-assured and humorous. Here's a good example. I like the guy.

He's not totally reflecting a public that's 85% wrong track, though. That guy is in the above clip. Chris Bowers is telling me that the race is tied and McCain may be slightly favored at the moment. That's probably true; of course, he's still never broken 45% in any national poll. I think in order to truly mirror the sentiment out in the country and reinforce his message of change, we need a re-appearance of this guy. Maybe in Ohio. Maybe in Pennsylvania. Maybe at the DNC.

The Historical Importance of the California Grassroots

I am honored to be serving as a delegate to the CDP along with Ellis Perlman, a Professor Emeritus in political science from the University of Michigan-Flint. He has been a keen observer of grassroots politics as it relates to this state for the past 100 years, and I asked him to put together some information on it, to serve as a historical perspective for those of us who don't quite remember the days of Hiram Johnson and Earl Warren. There's some very good information here, and it all speaks to the fact that this "people-powered" movement is nothing new, it's just being adapted for the 21st century.

Grass Roots and Political Change in California Jan. 21, 2007

Progressivism, building on earlier populist movements, has spurred a variety of grass roots movements during the past hundred years in California. The state’s political history is encouraging. It demonstrates that progressive grass roots movements can achieve power and influence public policy. The examples below illustrate such achievements and influence.

Two factors should be noted. One is that the movements typically have been rooted in the middle and upper middle class. The second is that conservatives have had similar successes, especially in the 1960 and beyond. -Ellis Perlman January 24, 2007

The Progressive movement in California was founded by Chester Rowell and Edward Dickson, two journalists who had become disgusted with the Southern Pacific Railroad’s control of the state legislature. Their efforts ultimately led to formation of the Lincoln-Roosevelt Republican League, with clubs forming throughout the state. This was a grass roots movement, largely from within the Republican Party, to clean up California government, and make it more responsive to Progressive ideals.
Source: Joseph P. Harris, California Politics (Chandler: 1967), pp. 1-13

Another form of grass roots action and accomplishment in California involved the response of women when they first gained the right to vote. Women’s suffrage was opposed by the elite in Los Angeles, and especially by the Los Angeles Times. It was approved by 2000 votes in Los Angeles, and by 3587 votes statewide in a special election on October 10, 1911. By December, more than 82,000 women had registered in Los Angeles, and more than 90% voted in the mayoral election. Ironically, the Times, having opposed the women’s vote, congratulated women for their “intelligent voting” in defeating the Socialist mayoral candidate, John Harriman.
Source: Jane Apostal, “Why Women Should Not Have the Vote: Anti-Suffrage Views in the Southland in 1911,” Southern California Quarterly 70:29-42 (Spring, 1988)

A group of Republicans, mainly liberals, met in August, 1923, to organize a campaign to secure a liberal state legislature, and to oppose Friend W. Richardson, the conservative Republican governor. They created the Progressive Voters League to contest the 1924 and 1926 elections. The very conservative Richardson followed two progressive governors, Hiram Johnson and William Stephens. The Democratic Party was weak, commonly winning no more than a third of the gubernatorial vote. When Richardson was elected in 1922, conservative Republicans had a majority in the Assembly, and almost a majority in the Senate. The Voters League was instrumental in electing a Progressive, Clement Young, as Governor. The League then disbanded, and Conservative James Rolfe was elected governor in 1930. As with most revolts against dominant political authority in 20th century California, grass roots organization played a major role, and the revolt came from within the Republican Party.

Source: Russell Posner, “The Progressive Voters League, 1923-1926,” California Historical Society Quarterly 36:251-261 (September, 1957)

Progressivism is generally considered to have faded as a force in California and nationally by the 1920s-1930s period. Rosanne M. Barker demonstrated that Progressivism continued as an active movement during this period, sustained by women’s organizations, particularly in small towns. She highlights the activity of Pearl Chase and other women activists in Santa Barbara, and notes that progressive women activists were achieving success in other towns, as well. The types of activities and accomplishments described by Barker did not draw much attention, at the time or later. It represented, however, substantial grass roots effort and achievement of progressive goals.
Source: Rosanne M. Barker, “Small Town Progressivism: Pearl Chase and Female Activism in Santa Barbara,” Southern California Quarterly 79:47-100 (Spring, 1997)

The California Republican Assembly was organized in 1934 as a response to Republican losses in 1932. Clubs were formed throughout the state. By 1938, Earl Warren had become the key figure in bringing moderate/progressive Republican leadership to power, to control the state for the next twenty years. Subsequent grass root movements, beginning with United Republicans of California and the John Birch Society regained conservative control of the Republican Party by the 1960s.
Source: Richard Harvey, Dynamics of California Government and Politics (Wadsworth, 1970) ch. 2

The California Democratic Council, with chapters throughout the state and a peak membership of 66,000, grew out of Adlai Stevenson’s unsuccessful 1952 campaign for President. The political leader most associated with the CDC was Alan Cranston, State Controller and later U. S. Senator. The CDC was a grass roots movement, one generated from within the Democratic Party. Its membership tended to be middle class and suburban, as were the several Republican grass roots movements that fostered progressive reform.
Source: Clyde E. Jacobs and John F. Gallagher, California Government: One Among Fifty (Macmillan, 1966), pp. 102-106

I hope you all enjoyed that as much as I did (or perhaps not; I'm a history nerd). It's interesting that grassroots movements in this state have traditionally started in the middle and upper-middle classes; not surprising, certainly on the basis of leisure time. I think our challenge in the netroots is to ensure a multiplicity of voices, to understand and hear from the concerns of the poor and those typically not present in the larger political debate.

The other factor is that our opposition is just as equipped to pull this off, so we must be smarter, and grow larger, and continue to innovate to maintain any kind of advantage. We also must keep an eye on our legislators in Sacramento, as the "clean up government" mantra has bounced back and forth between the parties over the years.