This post from Ezra Klein illustrates nicely the point I was just trying to make. Ezra:
Obama's speech underwent another subtle shift, too. There was much more emphasis placed on the word "progressive," a much more explicit recognition of Obama's potential meaning to a particular ideological movement. He spoke of "Independents who recognize that the current course we're on is not working, and are ready to form a coalition with Democrats for progressive change," chided the observers who said there was no way all these diverse individuals would turn out "for a progressive Democrat." I've not heard that word so oft-repeated at his rallies before. Indeed, the whole speech seemed the product of Obama's thinking about how he could use his political potency to shift the center in America to the left. "We will send a message," he said, "that we will not only end the war in Iraq, not only bring our troops home, but we will change the mindset that got us into that war in the first place." In some ways, it's that grandeur of ambition that separates Obama from Clinton Even before he said so explicitly, many progressives I know spoke of his ability not to change policies, but to change minds -- to do for progressivism what Reagan did for conservatism. Clinton, they agreed, was competent and well-meaning, but lacked that potential.The crowd was, as always, young. One element of Obama's appeal to young people that has not garnered much attention is his speech patterns. Not the oratorical brilliance he demonstrates on the stump, but the slang. There was something undeniably powerful about watching him lean into the microphone the night he won the Iowa Caucus and saying, "Give it up for my wife Michelle!" Politicians don't say "give it up." My generation does. They also don't say, by way of greeting, "what's going on?" And they shake hands, they don't, as Obama often does, slap into a clasp linked around the thumbs.
There have been many politicians with undeniable appeal to the young. Howard Dean. Ron Paul. At one point, John McCain. But none of them have been recognizable to the young. Obama is. And, as we're seeing in the rallies, and the Caucus totals, that matters.
Two things to note here....
First, the youth movement. Obama isn't just appealing to young voters - he is recognizable to them. This is a perfect illustration of the disconnect between the politics of the past and the future. We talk all the time about how people vote based on personal impressions, and how they are looking for someone who both is like them and who understands them - that's really what the "who would you rather have a beer with" question is all about. Rudy McRomney, Clinton, and the rest? They may be recognizable to you if you came of age in the 60s or 70s, but to the rest of us? Not so much. There is a profound difference between what those over and under 40 expect from the political process. Those over 40 are chasing an echo of something lived and lost. Those under 40 hear it, but to them it sounds like a neighbor watching TV. My point? Never underestimate the importance of "personal recognition" in the appeal of movement leaders.
Second, the rhetorical shift. It's long been clear to me that Obama is very consciously building a realignment movement. In fact, at this point I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he has read most of the political science literature on the subject. And if that's true, if he really is going at this explicitly, we should expect to see a major shift in his rhetoric over the next few weeks. If his goal really is - and he says it is, so why doubt it? - to shift the center and change the narrative, he will need to make this an explicit part of the campaign.
Build a movement, then build a mandate. "Do for progressivism what Reagan did for conservatism." That's the realignment model.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
