Opinion
‘Unity’ Obama’s talk, not his walk
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by David Lapidus:
- 'Unity' Obama's talk, not his walk (February 27, 2008)
- Questions abound on future foreign policy (February 20, 2008)
- UW mistreats country's finest (February 13, 2008)
- Dane's not dead, so pay attention (February 6, 2008)
- Legal migration deserves reform (January 30, 2008)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Sen. Barack Obama campaigns on an extremely attractive message of pluralist political change, but do his policies match the “change” abstractly presented in his campaign speeches? The answer appears to be no.
In fact, if we look at his record — the policies he has actively supported, since action is the ultimate test of belief, this is how we must define what he would support as president — we see far more similarities to the policy partisanship of the last eight years than differences. We find that Mr. Obama is an inclusive bipartisan in speech, but an exclusive liberal partisan when it comes to policy. Mr. Obama frequently claims that he wants to change from a blue state/red state mentality to seeing “purple.” But when it comes to policy, his “uniting bipartisanship” is lacking.
Some support Mr. Obama for his consistent legislative record as a liberal Democrat, others, for his faculty of judgment. This article is not for those people. Instead, this article is for those who are tempted to vote for Mr. Obama this November on the premise that he will enact uniting bipartisan changes in policy, when his record strongly suggests otherwise.
From the perspective of policy, Mr. Obama’s presidency would not bring unifying change, but divisive policy partisanship similar to that of the last eight years — albeit from the opposite side of the political spectrum. In fact, even compared to the partisanship of conservative Sen. John McCain — who agrees with President Bush on a slew of issues — Mr. Obama’s policy record appears far from being “purple.”
To use Sen. McCain as a litmus test for Mr. Obama’s policy bipartisanship we must first ask: How often has he controversially bucked his own party’s rank-and-file to support a bipartisan policy he believed was for the good of the country? The answer: never.
Next, we must question: How often has Mr. McCain done this? The answer: certainly enough times to infuriate many conservatives.
Unlike Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama did not partake in the Gang of 14’s bipartisan deal on judges while Mr. McCain was one of the Gang’s leaders. Unlike Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama has never had his own Kennedy-McCain piece of legislation on immigration or any other issue that infuriated his base. Unlike Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama has never had his anti-partisan equivalent to McCain’s policy stand against torture.
Unlike Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama has never lambasted the Secretary of Defense of his party’s own presidential administration for chronic incompetence. Unlike Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama has never voted for environmental legislation that angered his fellow party members. Unlike Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama has never cussed at people in his own party for sending loads of pork to their home district and state. Unlike Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama has never principally voted against subsides for ethanol, even when it alienated members of his own party in politically significant Iowa.
Perhaps, however, it is unfair to evaluate Mr. Obama’s policy record solely from his time in the Senate. Unlike Mr. McCain, he has never been a Senate committee chair; conceivably, he was never in a position of influence to participate in things like the Gang of 14. Perhaps, Mr. Obama as the presidential candidate has acted more daringly.
Entitlements are a great issue for Mr. Obama to show some bipartisan bravery, maybe here we find Mr. Obama the uniter. For better or for worse, the answer is still no. Mr. Obama’s own campaign website states he does not even “believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age [for Social Security].” Review his campaign’s other positions and the answers are no different.
So where are the liberals Mr. Obama has infuriated in taking uniting bipartisan stances? Where is the smoking gun? If he doesn’t appear purple on anything, including his campaign platform, then where is he purple on policy? It seems that like WMDs in Iraq, Mr. Obama’s uniting policies do not exist.
Even compared to the likely GOP nominee, Mr. McCain — and even including Mr. McCain’s partisan moves to the right on tax cuts, campaign finance and immigration — Mr. Obama’s policies are far from being purple. Instead, they are stained by a deep shade of partisan blue.
Now, I am not saying bipartisanship is inherently good or that contemporary American liberalism is evil. There are plenty of great reasons to dislike bipartisanship and to love modern day American liberalism as a political ideology. What I am saying is that we are completely fooling ourselves if we call Barack Obama a bipartisan uniter — and not a divider — when his voting record and campaign positions suggest otherwise.
Thus, of all the possible good reasons to vote for Mr. Obama this November, his “uniting policies” should not be one of them.
When it comes to policy, Mr. Obama’s lack of “bipartisan unity” appears unlikely to change.
David Lapidus (dlapidus@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in economics and mathematics.
26 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
ATTENTION PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO POST 324234234 PRO-OBAMA ARGUMENTS UNDER THIS…
Before you, do realize David’s argument isn’t “OMG OBAMA IS THE SUCKZ0R!”
It’s that Obama is not exactly a bipartisan type candidate. It’s that simple.
And he’s right. I voted for Obama, but he’s already taking shots across the asile. He’s not going to win with GOP votes. He’ll win with Democrats and left leaning moderates. And those fed up with the war or fucked by the GOP economic policies.
So you mean 85 percent or so of the nation??? Sounds like a winner to me…Study your rhetoric…If a republican attacks Obama he’s being tough, If Obama responds he’s being partisan…What David is asking is for him to be moderate, which is wrong because even strong liberals can work with strong conservatives…Obama has not had the leadership post that allow for aisle crossing…That’s his majority leader’s job not his and if you want more “bipartisanship” like selling out your base like Daschale, being blocked out of the legislative process constantly, or such bipartisan programs as off cycle gerrymandering and Texans for Permanent(that means one-party rule) Majority keep drinking the Kool-Aid…
Im voting for BO because of his lack of experience.
David, you equate unity with moderate ideology.
That’s a logical fallacy, and furthermore has never been Obama’s claim. His message of unity is about process, not policy. People who’ve voted for him aren’t confused or unaware that they’re voting for a solid progressive record; indeed, they’re very much aware of the fact that Obama is a liberal, but one who also wants to take a new approach and bring people together by not being an asshole. Judging by the response, it’s been wildly successful.
Unfortunately for your boy McCain, a recent convert to the disastrous Bush-Cheney Economic and Iraq policies, Obama will be successful on November 4th.
President Obama. Has a nice ring to it.
“He’s not going to win with GOP votes. He’ll win with Democrats and left leaning moderates.”
This only holds true for the primary (and only partly so). In the general election, Obama’s appeal to moderates and Republicans will be clutch if he hopes to win. In terms of specific policies he’s behind, I know the Office of Public Intergrity was a bipartisan effort that he started, as was the Veterans’ Benefits bill. So David, what exactly do you mean when you say that these efforts “don’t exist”?
This article makes no sense. In order to be purple, the author suggests, you must cast one red vote followed by one blue vote. That’s silly.
Obama is appealing to Americans, because he does not alienate one half of the country. For instance, the notion that you are either “with us or against us” has fallen out of vogue.
When you consider both sides, respect the opposition view point, try to compromise, acting in the best interest of your constituency, you have become purple.
Next time, write a better opinion.
There’s nobody to the left of Obama in the US Senate, and expecting a political hack from Chicago to support any bipartisan policy is foolish.
Obama is the Antichrist. Turn away from him now, for he shall lead thee down the path of lawlessness. Repent o’ sinner, for the time of the Lord is nigh! The four horsemen cometh and the bowls of the wrath of God shall pour out over the earth. Thou shalt surely perish.
“Unlike Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama has never lambasted the Secretary of Defense of his party’s own presidential administration for chronic incompetence”
David, a)there hasn’t been a Democratic defense secretary since Jan. 2001, when Obama was not involved in national politics, and b)the last time there was a Democratic defense sec worth criticizing was in 1968, when Obama was 7 years old.
It’s as if the whole thing is just a game to fool the rubes.
“Both Democratic presidential candidates, who promise to curb the influence of corporate lobbyists in Washington, helped enact narrowly tailored tax breaks sought by major campaign contributors.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-02-25-tax-breaks_N.htm?POE=click-refer
The Obama plan to disarm America:
I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems…
…I will not weaponize space…
…I will slow development of future combat systems…
…and I will institute a “Defense Priorities Board” to ensure the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending…
…I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons…
…and to seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons…
…I will seek a global ban on the development of fissile material…
…and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert…
…and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs
10:06 are those suppposed to be good things to advertise… that we are going to be completely open to destruction?
OBAMA WILL FIX YOUR BICYCLE FOR YOU THEN RIDE ON THE HANDLE BARS AS YOU BOTH GO TO PICK UP SOME GROCERIES FROM WHOLE FOODS, EVEN WHEN HE HAS A BAD BACK AND HERPES
Its understandable what you are trying to say, but, as others have above pointed out, you make a mistake in reasoning. Obama is certainly not running as a moderate and is open and clear about the fact that he is someone who values highly the liberal tenets of his party. He is, in fact, as has been well documented, the most liberal voting senator in the entire Senate.
What has been confused in this opinion piece is Obama’s message of “unity,” with moderatism. Obama’s message is that we need to eliminate Democrats and Republicans constantly bickering at each other when its not about policy or whats best for the American people, but when it is simply “arguing” for political reasons. His vision is not one of enacting moderate positions but to get our government to realize that they all have one, unified, goal: the best for the American people. This notion seems to have been lost. Liberals somehow believe that conservatives do not want to the best for the country and vice versa. Obama shows us and will prove to us that this does not have to be. He will unify us.
Barrack Hussein Obama for President, Hmmmmmm… Officially endorsed by Louis Farrakhan, the radical leader of Islamic Nation, Hmmmmm…..
Hope?
Remember September 11th,2001 when you cast your vote for President and Commander In Chief. It REALLY should be someone with more experience than a partial term as a freshman Senator. Given Barrack’s habit of ambiguously voting ‘Present’ rather than taking a principled ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ position on critical legislation, what can we expect as a response from Mr. Obama, when a terrorist attack on our Homeland again succeeds? “I’m Present… I Hope?”.
I’m sure Mr. Farrakhan and all ‘peace loving’ islamic terrorists hope that will come true.
Hope?
11:41, I understand 10:06 to be criticism of Obama’s plan. Either way, it’s silly. If we’re attacked by a militarized sovereign nation (China, Russia), who benefits?
All this “globalization” has created financial dependence between otherwise rival nations.
The danger with this situation, however, comes when the USA is no longer financially important. Like with ultra-weak currency, perpetual budget and trade deficits, and petrol being purchased in Euros instead of dollars.
Basically, to stay safe, we have to stay wealthy and significant. Otherwise, start learning “yes sir” in Russian and Chinese.
i’m voting for obama because it’s time we had a black president and also because 1billion muslims worldwide will see it as an olive branch. also, europe will like us better.
“So you mean 85 percent or so of the nation??? Sounds like a winner to me…Study your rhetoric…If a republican attacks Obama he’s being tough, If Obama responds he’s being partisan…What David is asking is for him to be moderate, which is wrong because even strong liberals can work with strong conservatives…Obama has not had the leadership post that allow for aisle crossing…That’s his majority leader’s job not his and if you want more “bipartisanship” like selling out your base like Daschale, being blocked out of the legislative process constantly, or such bipartisan programs as off cycle gerrymandering and Texans for Permanent(that means one-party rule) Majority keep drinking the Kool-Aid…”
The point is, he has had plenty of opportunities to take brave stances that might infuriate his base, but are good for the country and he hasn’t (make excuses for it however you want). The closest thing to these stances was some mild dabbling with merit pay for teachers and unilaterally attacking Pakistan without warning, but I don’t see conflict with his base over these comparatively - to entitlements for instance - minor stances.
In short the point of the article is: when it comes to going against his party/base or choosing a uniting policy that is good for the country Obama so far has always gone with his party. Whether this is a good or bad thing is debatable, but it is certainly not very pluralist or uniting…
“David, you equate unity with moderate ideology.”
Nope. I equate pluralist political unity with being able to choose unity over one’s party. This can lead to moderate, conservative, or liberal stances, or not, it depends on the issue. So far, when it comes to pluralist unity versus his party, Obama has chosen his party or picked pluralist policies that are so non-controversial and safe that anyone else could have done the same and has (i.e. Office of Public Intergrity), etc. seriously who would oppose stuff like this?). The point is, Obama has never been courageously bipartisan, he constantly plays it safe with his party, or we would see more liberals who were unhappy with him as many conservatives are with McCain.
“This article makes no sense. In order to be purple, the author suggests, you must cast one red vote followed by one blue vote. That’s silly.
Obama is appealing to Americans, because he does not alienate one half of the country. For instance, the notion that you are either “with us or against us” has fallen out of vogue.
When you consider both sides, respect the opposition view point, try to compromise, acting in the best interest of your constituency, you have become purple.
Next time, write a better opinion.”
Nope, the article advocates that in order to be unifying it requires not always going with his party on everything or playing bipartisan votes extremely safe. BTW it certainly sounds like he still has the with us or against us mentality from his speeches, just the targets are now different evils: the rich, the corporations, the lobbyists, etc.
If your definition of purple is just showing respect for the other side that is a pretty unimpressive definition of purple. There have been legislators who have done this in congress far longer than Obama has even been in politics. This definition of purple creates zero unity on the great issues of the day, it just means more civil debate.
-David Lapidus
“(i.e. Office of Public Intergrity), etc. seriously who would oppose stuff like this?)”
Well, 67 senators opposed it, including Clinton.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/rollcalllists/rollcallvote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00077
David Lapidus, I think you’re mistaking primary rhetoric for policy proposals. What you’re hearing now from Clinton and Obama is designed to make liberal and disaffected independents’ toes curl. Much as McCain seems to be effectively baiting the base on the right.
Hold tight, David, you’ll see moderation on both sides as we approach November.
I fundamentally disagree with David on a host of issues, but usually enjoy his columns.
Unfortunately this time I am utterly disappointed, not because of the subject, but because of the quality of arguments; Weak, desperate, and lacking substance.
Disappointing David.
“David Lapidus, I think you’re mistaking primary rhetoric for policy proposals. What you’re hearing now from Clinton and Obama is designed to make liberal and disaffected independents’ toes curl. Much as McCain seems to be effectively baiting the base on the right.
Hold tight, David, you’ll see moderation on both sides as we approach November.”
I’m not so sure when it comes to really big issues like entitlements. The cynic in me guesses both McCain and Obama will not stand up to the likes of the AARP and their own bases. Not that “moderation” is an inherently good thing either. I don’t see partisan disagreements as a bad thing if they’re sincere.
“(i.e. Office of Public Intergrity), etc. seriously who would oppose stuff like this?)”
Well, 67 senators opposed it, including Clinton.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/rollcalllists/rollcallvote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00077”
My mistake, I didn’t realize so many Democrats voted against it. It was unfair of me not to give Obama credit for this.
Thank you for pointing this out.
“I fundamentally disagree with David on a host of issues, but usually enjoy his columns.
Unfortunately this time I am utterly disappointed, not because of the subject, but because of the quality of arguments; Weak, desperate, and lacking substance.
Disappointing David.”
If you disliked it that much logically please email me your thoughts. I’d like to hear your specific grievances. I promise I won’t take personal offense.
-David Lapidus
It’s not that I disagree with you, it’s just that you are describing the election as you wish it to be and not as it really is.
“Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon.”
This excerpt from William Ayers’ memoir appeared in the New York Times on Sept. 11, 2001— the day al-Qaeda terrorists crashed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Ayers, once a leader in the Weather Underground — the group that declared “war” on the U.S. government in 1970— told the Times, “I don’t regret setting bombs,” and, “I feel we didn’t do enough.”
Ayers recently reappeared in the news because Politico.com reported Friday that Barack Obama has loose ties to him. Ayers, now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is apparently a left-wing institution in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood, and Obama visited Ayers’ home as a rite of passage when launching his political career in the mid-1990s. The two also served on the board of the charitable Woods Fund of Chicago, which gave money to Northwestern University Law School’s Children and Family Justice Center, where Ayers’ wife (and former Weather Underground compatriot who glorified violence) Bernardine Dohrn is the director.
I don’t think Obama supports domestic terrorism, and I’m sure he can offer eloquent explanations for why he shouldn’t suffer any guilt by association. The Hillary Clinton campaign, however, did try to score a few political points, meekly linking to the Politico story on the campaign website’s blog. The campaign probably couldn’t be more aggressive without calling attention to how Bill Clinton pardoned Puerto Rican separatist terrorists— perceived to be a way to gain support for Hillary’s Senate bid from left-wing Puerto Ricans in New York.
What fascinates me is how light the baggage is when one travels from violent radicalism to “progressivism.”
Shouldn’t past associations with radical Marxists cost something?
Unite us…
Unite us! Unite the clans!!
“Anonymous (February 27, 2008 @ 4:09pm): It’s not that I disagree with you, it’s just that you are describing the election as you wish it to be and not as it really is.”
Teh? So you’re accusing me of either being delusional or dishonest it seems… I still stand by the main point of my article. I should have noted with more emphasis his vote on the Office of Public Intergrity, although reading more about this he certainly did not piss off fellow liberals much in voting for this. It was the right vote, but courageous bipartisanship with something significant to lose? No, he still was playing it pretty safe.
In general, Obama leaves us a pretty partisan record and when he does deviate from this record he generally plays it safe. Unless you actively dispute, with proof, his record being mostly partisan or so safely bipartisan to the point of being irrelevant - and you haven’t, instead you’ve just been throwing out insults - there is no way to get around the inference that his policies are generally divisive. Overall partisan policies = divisive policies. We might agree to disagree on the second point, that divisive policies = divisive politics, but this first one is as clear as day.
The second point, meanwhile, is not delusional, but it is controversial. There is enough evidence to make an argument for it either way, but certainly it isn’t pie in the sky BS.
-David Lapidus