Barack Obama has recently altered his positions (or at least his rhetoric) on two issues related to energy policy: (i) offshore drilling and (ii) selling off pieces of the strategic petroleum reserve as a method of curbing oil prices. In both cases, I think he has reduced the effectiveness of his campaign–and unnecessarily put himself on the defense–by seeming to concede to Republican talking points and frames.
These concessions are especially pernicious because they overwhelmingly dominate the journalistic ledes that describe Obama’s energy policy. Look, for instance at the NYT’s description (“Obama, in New Stand, Proposes Use of Oil Reserve”) of how the Democratic candidate “altered his position on Monday to call for tapping the nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower gasoline prices.”
Only later in the article does the reporter explain that Obama and McCain have vastly different energy policies, that Obama (rightly, in my view) favors massive government investment in alternative energy (to the tune of $150 billion). Now that’s big government we can believe in!
This is all symptomatic of what I find most unsatisfying about the Obama campaign: its commitment to the ideology of “post-partisanship.” This ideology claims that our political problems stem from gridlock caused by our overly polarized ways, rather than from the rabid ideological agenda of the far Right. Anyone familiar with the rise of the political Right since the 70s would be hard-pressed to think that there is some analogous obstructionist Left in this country. I mean, c’mon, the Right in this country acts as if Ted Kennedy is the anti-Christ!
This post-partisan strategy is, as far as I can tell, the same losing strategy that Gore and Kerry adopted. If mainstream polling is to be believed, voters systematically prefer left-leaning policies–on a host of hugely significant issues, ranging from the Iraq War to international diplomacy to universal health care to the environment. Why don’t Democrats take the lead, and destroy their opponents, by hammering this point home? It is frankly shameful that Obama isn’t overwhelmingly in the lead in this race–Mr. Bush is the least popular president in modern memory–and that some polls, shockingly, show him just barely ahead of Mr. Maverick, within the statistical margin of error.
Why are our media cycles dominated by Republican talking points about stupid irrelevant issues like offshore drilling? It is the height of irrationality to act as if offshore drilling is anything other than a diversion from our very serious energy crisis. Obama successfully–and unambiguously–defined the gas tax holiday proposed by both Hillary Clinton and John McCain as stupid pandering. He won that battle. He ought to have done the same thing with offshore drilling and with proposals to release part of the strategic petroleum reserve, but he didn’t and this makes him look weak or indecisive.
What successful frames could he have used?, you ask. Here are two, off the top of my head:
(i) John McCain wants to destroy the national treasures of our environment–our coasts and our wildlife preserves–and for what? For what? Offshore drilling will not reduce gas prices more than a few pennies, at best. Stating otherwise is a blatant lie. Doing this would be like blowing up Mount Rushmore–a treasure we preserve for our children and their children–to get an ounce of gold. We lose much that we as Americans love and we get nothing in return. This is nothing short of short-sighted greedy pandering. I, Barack Obama, have a better energy policy, one that would actually reduce the price of energy and wean us off oil, one that will safe guard the energy security of future generations of Americans.
(ii) John McCain apparently doesn’t understand basic economics. He wants to sell off our energy insurance policy for a quick buck. But the laws of supply and demand work against his short-sighted theory. Yes, releasing oil from the reserve may reduce prices, though don’t count on it being reduced by much, but then we would be vulnerable to oil shocks. John McCain wants to put us at the mercy of our enemies, the petro-dictators. He seems to be against America having all sorts of insurance: health insurance, energy insurance. If we’re not careful, he might outlaw car insurance if he becomes president. I, Barack Obama, have a better vision.
Fighting a partisan battle is not hard. It is not cynical. It is not immoral. It is the opposite of all these things: it is the very purpose of our electoral politics. You can be post-partisan after you’ve won the White House. Why isn’t Obama (metaphorically) punching McCain in the nose? I ask only because I believe that he would win that fight, because the American people overwhelmingly prefer his professed policies, because he is the far superior candidate but does himself a disservice when he acts as if his opponent might have some sort of reasonable sensible point when the fact is his opponent doesn’t.
More importantly Obama is perpetuating the idea that he stands for nothing. Now he’s a politician but he needs to stand his ground, or at least not be so clumsy about the changes. The main issue is that the media treats it as an all or nothing issue. Are there some protected lands and waters where drilling makes sense? Probably but certainly not all of them. Nancy Pelosi has pointing out how many areas open to drilling are not being drilled right now.
This only servers the usual pattern where the public may disagree with McCain but because he seems to not change his mind and is consistent in the eyes of the media.
Comment by John — August 5, 2008 @ 2:14 am
To conclude this only follows the script from 2000 and 2004 that the GOP candidate is the one you can trust. Obama needs to change the narrative and fast.
Comment by John — August 5, 2008 @ 2:16 am
Posts like this send me into an absolute hissy-fit.
What is the point of this blog, anyway? To show off how we’re so much smarter than Obama!?
If we’re going to pollute this blog with posts comparing Obama’s campaign to “the same losing strategy that Gore and Kerry adopted” and saying it’s “frankly shameful that Obama isn’t overwhelmingly in the lead in this race,” why don’t we just commit ritual suicide and let it be done?!
Why don’t we just give up on politics and start digging a bomb shelter in the basement in preparation for the inevitable nuclear holocaust that will ensue when the conservatives take over completely?
I’ll tell you why Obama’s poll numbers are dropping. It’s because people read blog posts like the one above, and get the impression that Obama is a flip-flopping wimp. I read the post above and just hope nobody else reads it and takes it seriously — and that’s the opposite of how I should feel about this blog!
Obama doesn’t need strategy advice from us. He has plenty of professional political analysts with decades of experience who get paid a lot of money to opine about what messages will work and what messages won’t work. If you do have some advice, I honestly suggest you send him a private letter.
On public blogs like this, Obama needs us to support him. Politics may be an academic exercise for some, but it’s very real for our children (real and potential) who will live in the world shaped by our next president. I appreciate Lee’s suggestions above about how to fight offshore drilling, or how to fight selling off the petroleum reserve. So how about this crazy idea: How about we blog about why the Republicans are wrong about offshore drilling?! How about we blog about why the Republicans are wrong about the petroleum reserve?!
But instead of fighting the fight that must be fought — with our political enemies, the right-wing — we instead waste our time publicly punishing our nominee for doing what may be necessary to win in November. With supporters like us, it should come as absolutely no surprise whatsoever that Obama is caving on these sorts of issues. If he can’t count on us to do anything but snipe, who can he count on?
It would be one thing if we felt compelled to publicly disagree with our party’s nominee as a matter of principle — as on the FISA issue, for example — but is it really that important to any of us that the oil companies not drill off the coast? Is it really so crucial that we not sell oil from the strategic reserve? Maybe, maybe not. Correct me if I’m wrong, however, but I don’t think we really care all that much about either of those issues, at least not when compared to the economy, health care, the energy crisis, the war, etc — it’s just Obama’s “defensiveness” that is motivating the criticisms above.
Well, why don’t we stop putting Obama on the defensive about his apparent “defensiveness” and start putting McCain on the defensive about all the areas where he’s just dead wrong!
We need to stop thinking of ourselves as observers and start thinking of ourselves as participants in the political process. We need to stop blaming Obama for losing a race that he isn’t actually losing, and start supporting his efforts to win. It isn’t Obama who needs to change the narrative and fast — it’s us!
The “idea that Obama stands for nothing” is absolutely ridiculous! Absurd! Moronic! It is not an idea that can be perpetuated except among the utterly ignorant! It doesn’t deserve the credibility it is being given in John’s comment above. Obama IS standing his ground on a wide array of issues. It’s true that he is changing his position slightly on these particular issues, but why should we automatically buy into the right-wing propoganda that these changes are a sign that he is caving in?
Why is it “post-partisan” for Obama to support the idea of drilling off the coast as part of an energy compromise bill? Why isn’t it just good policy, or a smart tactical move? You haven’t argued for the assumptions that underly your argument!
In particular, I would challenge John to explain how Obama is being “clumsy” in changing his position on either of these issues. I would challenge John to explain how Obama could have been more “graceful” in adjusting his position. He was perfectly graceful — but self-destructive liberals like us have a tendency to descend upon their candidate like vultures whenever we see a critical headline about him in the media. I would respectfully say that you are allowing the media to manipulate you into thinking things that simply are not true — in particular, that Obama has somehow embarassed himself in making these changes.
McCain completely switched his position on offshore drilling a while back. Did we start blogging about how this makes it look like McCain stands for nothing? Did we start blogging about how this makes him look “clumsy,” did we say he “needs to change the narrative and fast” if he wants to win? No. We completely ignored it, because we self-destructive liberals like to pretend that conservatives don’t actually exist except as abstractions in polls.
It’s one thing to disagree with the positions Obama has taken — as Lee does to some extent, above. But to take issue not with Obama’s new positions but instead with the appearance of weakness? That’s just buying into right-wing nonsense; you might as well be writing ads for the Republican Party. Next, you’ll be telling us Obama’s flag pin should be larger.
Let me remind our readers what Obama stands for: Affordable health care for everyone. Repeal of the Bush tax cuts and a middle class tax cut. A robust effort to combat global warming. Withdrawal of almost all U.S. forces from Iraq within 16 months. Diplomacy with Iran, Cuba, and other “enemies” of the United States. Heavy investment in alternative energy. More pay for teachers. An increase in the cap on the payroll tax to save social security. A strong civil union law for homosexuals. The list of things for which Obama stands goes on and on and on. And yet we are accusing Obama of “perpetuating the idea that he stands for nothing.” Why?!
It’s maddenning to see us fall prey to right-wing talking points like lambs to the slaughter.
We live in one country — liberals and conservatives alike — and as liberals we need to stop talking amongst ourselves about the conservatives and start talking TO the conservatives about why they are wrong and we are right.
When was the last time any of you debated any of these issues with a real conservative? If you did this more often, you might understand why posts like this make me nuts. I have these sorts of debates regularly, and they aren’t easy.
Sorry if I’m being over-the-top, but as Kermit the Frog used to say, “I’m hopping mad!”
Comment by Ian — August 5, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
A follow up question: Do we think right-wing bloggers are spending all their time criticizing the way McCain is running his campaign? Do we believe right-wing bloggers are posting blogs about how McCain is caving in to the left-wing juggernaut, feeding the narrative that he’s a cranky old man with no new ideas whose idea of campaigning is limited to silly personal attacks on his opponent’s character?
This isn’t a rhetorical question. I honestly don’t know. But if there is a blog where conservatives spend all their time talking about how weak their candidate is, I’d like to know about it so I can use it to attack McCain.
Comment by Ian — August 5, 2008 @ 10:55 pm
Actually, the right has–and does–harshly criticize McCain all the time on blogs, just not on CNN.
Comment by Lee — August 6, 2008 @ 2:05 am
You’re right, I know. I’m sure there are conservatives tearing McCain to pieces. I guess I should start reading them!
Comment by Ian — August 6, 2008 @ 2:14 am
Ian asks a series of interesting questions: “What is the point of this blog, anyway? To show off how we’re so much smarter than Obama!?”
This is, on the one hand, a very good question because it’s good to reflect on ones motives for doing something–I could be watching TV or reading a novel or staring at a wall instead of posting on this blog, all of which might be a more productive uses of my time.
On the other hand, I find the question baffling in the form that it is posed. Isn’t the point of this blog self-evident? When I write postings, I do so because I want to put my opinions and interpretation of politics into the public sphere. I want to participate, in a tiny way, in our hugely important national conversation about what direction to take this country in.
Therefore, when I write that (in my view) Obama has made a strategic mistake in some of his concessions on energy policy or that it’s shameful that he is not doing better, given the circumstances, I am saying exactly what I really think. When I write that Obama is probably losing some of his base because of his concessions on FISA, on energy, because of his rhetorical emphasis on adding more troops to Afghanistan, and so on, I write these things because I think they happen to be true.
Unlike Ian, I do not hope that “nobody else reads [my post] and takes it seriously.” If I am right, I hope lots of people take what I post seriously, because it is very specific in its advice. I see no reason to believe that Obama’s numbers are dropping because “people read blog posts like the one above, and get the impression that Obama is a flip-flopping wimp.” And I am certainly not suggesting that we “give up on politics and start digging a bomb shelter in the basement in preparation for the inevitable nuclear holocaust that will ensue when the conservatives take over completely.” Re-read my posts. Again and again, I say the same thing: hit the McCain campaign where it hurts. Don’t be so nice. My hope is that this advice will join the chorus who wish for a more aggressive Obama campaign. My hope is that Obama will hear that chorus and consider our opinion and understand that these opinions are expressions of goodwill, not malice. In that sense, I agree completely with Ian’s suggestion that we “start thinking of ourselves as participants in the political process.”
Honest non-cynical posts that analyze the presidential campaign do not “pollute this blog.” The accusation that such posts “pollute” the blog seem to me born of a political fear. Obama supporters are so fickle, this argument assumes, that they can’t handle a little criticism. His untrustworthy fair-weather supporters will read blog postings, such as this one, and spontaneously decide to support McCain instead because they are mental and moral midgets. This is an argument that assumes the voter’s mind is some kind of hideously fragile vase easy shattered by exposure to impure language or thought. I find this argument unpersuasive. I also think comments like this will discourage people with different political opinions from contributing these conversations.
Al Gore and John Kerry had “plenty of professional political analysts with decades of experience who get paid a lot of money to opine about what messages will work and what messages won’t work.” Their opinions were apparently wrong. I see no reason to believe my opinions have any less value, insight, and accuracy than theirs. If we want Obama to win in November, we should ask ourselves: Why did Al Gore lose in 2000? Why did John Kerry lose in 2004? Why did Congressional Democrats clean house in 2006? Why is Congress’s popularity rating now suddenly even lower than the President’s? How will we neutralize Rovian tactics this time so that our preferred candidates don’t just win by squeaking by but win by an overwhelming majority? These are the questions of strategy that people interested in political elections ought to be asking. These are the questions my posts are meant to address.
Based on all the evidence I have found, I think that my analysis and advice remain completely correct. If there is evidence to the contrary, I am open to learning of it.
P.S. On energy policy Ian asks: “is it really that important to any of us that the oil companies not drill off the coast? Is it really so crucial that we not sell oil from the strategic reserve?” My answer is embedded in my original post, but I’ll restate it here. The problem isn’t offshore drilling and tapping the SPR. It’s that news organizations are running Obama’s shifts on these McCain-branded issues IN THE LEDES of their stories and BURYING Obama’s substantive policies. CNN is atwitter with talk of Obama’s concessions, not his plan. Even if we assume offshore drilling and the SPR don’t matter, that wouldn’t change my argument, because it’s not about the policies but the campaign strategy. I do incidentally think that offshore drilling and tapping the SPR are bad ideas, but that’s secondary in the case of this particular argument.
Comment by Lee — August 6, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
I take your point that my language about our motives, talk of “polluting” the blog and so forth may be somewhat bullying, and I apologize. I appreciate some push-back on that, and I’ll try to keep my language from veering into something inappropriate.
I would say, however, that the point of your postings is NOT self-evident. If I understood the point of your recent blogs correctly, you wrote them in an effort to influence Obama and his campaign strategists, to get them to change their approach so they’d be more effective against McCain.
Frankly, I think it’s quite unlikely that Obama or his staff will find time to read your post. Furthermore, I would strongly urge you to try to communicate this sort of advice privately, rather than publicly. We do not need a “chorus” of people calling for a more aggressive Obama campaign. We need a “chorus” of people calling for other people to vote for Obama. This country is a democracy, but Obama’s campaign is not. Again: the national campaign is upon us! It’s too late for movement building around the daily minutea of Obama’s message.
Furthermore, you seemed to suggest above that you can’t think of a single reason why your opinions about political tactics would have less value than Bob Shrum, who ran John Kerry’s campaign. Really? Are you serious? Have you ever run a political campaign?
Regarding Shrum and the other people who’ve lost in the past, their opinions weren’t necessarily wrong — it’s just that they NEEDED OUR HELP! It’s easy to blame them for losing in 2000 and 2004, but the truth is that WE lost. This is OUR election. As Obama says, “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”
I guess my point is: please stop blogging about the flaws in Obama’s campaign strategy. It isn’t helping, in my opinion.
Comment by Ian — August 6, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
Furthermore, why do you use the word “shameful” to describe Obama’s position in the polls right now compared to McCain?
Shameful? Really? There are plenty of people in politics who should be ashamed of themselves. Barack Obama isn’t one of those people, in my opinion.
Comment by Ian — August 6, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
I agree that “the point of [my] postings is NOT self-evident.” That is why I gave evidence to support my claims.
Claim: changing positions on offshore drilling and the SPR was a strategic (as opposed to a policy) mistake.
Evidence: All the ledes of journalistic accounts of Obama’s energy policy fail to mention his substantially better plan or do so late in the articles.
Claim: Obama’s change on certain key issues (FISA, etc) may have damaged his popularity WITH HIS BASE.
Evidence: The new Zogby polling showing just this. You may blame his base for abandoning him, but you could likewise blame Obama for reversing or modifying his positions.
I think the fundamental difference between us is that electing Obama, while I would like to see it happen, is not the reason I am blogging. If I wanted to personally do something to have Obama elected, I’d volunteer for his organization. My not doing so might rightly be regarded as a flaw.
I see this blog as a place for analysis. Yes, writing is a sort of action, and can have an individual or collective effect on the world, but I would rather say what I think rather than hold off until Politician X gets elected.
There is a serious election in this country every two years–either midterm elections or elections for the president. If we operated on the theory that we could only publicly speak in favor of the candidate we preferred, but not give our honest opinion on the minutia, then we would never say what we think.
(And now for a digression:
More essentially, I see the problems of the last eight years as more fundamental than which party or candidate sits in the White House. Who sits in the White House matters hugely–it is pivotal–but I see the fact that a George Bush was POSSIBLE as the basis for my involvement in politics. In a functional democracy, the system of checks and balances would have squashed Bush. It would have tied his hands and made his radical ambitions impossible–or at least much harder.
If Obama gets into the White House and is the Best President Ever, that would be great. But my concern is changing our system in ways that ensures that the president immediately following him, should he be a radical neocon, can’t do what Bush did.)
Comment by Lee — August 6, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
You’re missing my point. I’m not asking you to suppress your honest opinions.
I happen to think you’re a handsome man, but let’s say, hypothetically, that I thought you were ugly. Would it be helpful for me to say so? It would be honest (in the hypothetical), but it would not be helpful. I guess I feel like your insights are similarly unhelpful. I guess I want you to comment on the minutia in a way that I think is more productive.
But I could be wrong. I apologize for being the blog police. I really appreciate your blogging in general, which makes a real contribution, even in my narrow definition! I’ll stop complaining.
Comment by Ian — August 7, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
If my goal were to become more handsome, and there was something I could do to improve my looks, and you had strong opinions about what that something was, I certainly hope you would let me know your opinions
But of course this metaphor is, as you rightly state, entirely irrelevant, because I am a handsome devil.
Comment by Lee — August 7, 2008 @ 9:41 pm