A Different Kind of Insurgent
Obama Breaks the Mold of Democratic Party Reformists
By Bruce J. Schulman
01/28/2008
| 16 Comments
Photo Credit: Lauren Burke, WDCPix and Library of Congress
On the heels of a decisive victory in South Carolina, Sen. Barack Obama heads into Super-duper Tuesday as a surprisingly strong challenger to the presumptive favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. With much of the party leadership against him, Obama seeks to accomplish what few Democrats have managed in the last half-century: transform an insurgent’s campaign, with strong appeal to young voters and to the affluent, educated elite of the Democratic Party into a successful bid for the White House.
In a much-cited column in The Los Angeles Times earlier this year, Ron Brownstein linked Obama to other “wine-track” contenders --“brainy liberals with cool, detached personas and messages of political reform” like Eugene McCarthy in 1968, Jerry Brown in 1976, Gary Hart in 1984, Bill Bradley in 2000, and Howard Dean in 2004. Those insurgent campaigns lost the nomination to old-style machine candidates who had strong connections to union labor and party leadership. The rare exceptions who got the party’s nod--Adlai Stevenson in the 1950s, George McGovern in 1972-- fared badly in the November elections.
But Obama’s candidacy could well veer off the wine track. He draws on different historical models and confronts a very different kind of nomination fight than his insurgent Democrat predecessors. As his South Carolina victory revealed, Obama has strong support from African-American voters normally cool to Democratic insurgents. The singular character of his candidacy, and the shifting U.S. political landscape, just might let Obama succeed where previous reform Democrats have foundered.
The wine track/beer track divide has animated Democratic Party politics for two generations. This enduring rift emerged in the mid-1950s, when leading Democrats tried to reposition the party and its liberal agenda amid the post-World War II economic boom. In a time of growing affluence, with millions of Americans departing city row houses for suburban ranch homes (by 1960, more Americans lived in suburbs than any other community), the class-based politics of the New Deal era no longer had resonance.
Working on the campaign of Illinois Gov. Adlai Stevenson, prominent liberals like the historian-activist Arthur M. Schlesinger urged Democrats to develop a new agenda, one less focused on “quantity”-- lunchbox issues affecting the standard of living for working Americans -- and more on “quality”-- lifestyle issues like support for the arts, environmental protection and respect for the cultures of minority groups. They also envisioned a different style of politics -- one that muted the class rhetoric and the fierce partisanship of party stalwarts like Harry S. Truman in favor of disinterested, non-partisan championing of the general welfare.
The coming of age of the baby boom, and the turbulent politics of the 60s, made such values liberalism a potent political force. New Democrats often stressed governmental reform -- efforts to eliminate corruption, partisanship and horse-trading from national politics. Whether voiced by McGovern, Dean or Obama, these promises energized idealistic young people bent on transforming the political process. The disinterested commitment to general welfare, technocratic appreciation for the complexities of modern life, and distrust of populist rhetoric also appealed to educated, white collar workers in the growing high-tech, medical and financial sectors.
But those campaigns generated little excitement among blue collar Democrats or minority voters. Backed by union labor and party leaders, Humphrey defeated McCarthy in 1968 (and would likely have staved off Robert F. Kennedy, if an assassin had not ended his campaign). Echoing a Wendy’s ad, the establishment candidate, former Vice President Walter F. Mondale derailed Gary Hart when he asked “Where’s the beef?” Bradley and Dean’s campaigns similarly failed to translate widespread admiration into concrete support at the polls.
But despite his cerebral style and his concern for process, Obama is no McGovern or Bradley. Unlike those earlier insurgents, Obama has had no trouble raising money and has won endorsements from influential Democrats, like Sen. John Kerry, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, South Carolina Sen. Tim Johnson and California Rep. George Miller
Indeed, rather than resembling earlier wine track insurgents, Obama’s campaign more closely hearkens back more to that ultimate Democratic Party brand: the Kennedys.
Equally at home with Harvard professors like John Kenneth Galbraith and street-smart Irish Pols like Tip O’Neill, John F. Kennedy forged a new type of Democratic politics. Because of his ethnic and religious background and his military service, Kennedy could bring cultural icons like Pablo Casals and Andre Malraux to the White House (and fill his administration with Harvard swells) without being tagged with the egghead label that had sunk Stevenson in the 1950s.
Kennedy's daughter, Caroline Kennedy, wrote a piece in yesterday's New York Times saying Obama was the candidate most able to inspire voters, especially young people, as her father had.
But perhaps even more than JFK, it may be his younger brother, Robert F. Kennedy, who provides the model for Obama’s current campaign. Bobby Kennedy ran an insurgent’s race, challenging the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson and his designated successor, Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey. Running against the party pros that still largely controlled the nominating process, RFK attracted wine track voters, already nostalgic for Camelot; in the aftermath of the Martin Luther King Jr.’s death, Kennedy quoted from his “favorite poet,” Aeschylus, and spoke the language of reform and political renewal that animates Obama’s campaign. Kennedy also appealed strongly to minority voters.
Of course, Obama lacks the residual appeal with blue-collar white urban ethnics that Bobby Kennedy, being a Kennedy and an Irish Catholic, could draw on. But like RFK, Obama has assembled an insurgent’s campaign, strong among educated, affluent Democrats, energizing young voters, and simultaneously, exerting powerful appeal among African-American Democrats. That’s a formidable coalition, and one that no previous insurgent Democrat could manage. From McCarthy to Dean, minority voters have found earlier reformers cold.
Obama has something else going for him: the shifting terrain of the electoral landscape. In 1968, Democrats held just 15 primaries that selected a minority of the delegates. Bobby Kennedy may have out-dueled McCarthy 46 to 42 percent in the climactic California primary, but Humphrey, the leader in the delegate count, did not even have to contest the race. In the industrial North and Midwest, party professionals with strong ties to union labor controlled the nominating process. In the South and West, favorite son candidates dominated their states’ delegates, trading them for political favors and influence in the next administration. The excitement that insurgents stoked among rank-and-file Democrats did not matter.
In 2008, more than 40 states will hold primaries, awarding the overwhelming majority of the delegates. At the same time, blue-collar whites no longer form the dominant faction they long represented in Democratic Party politics. The beer track has been slowly drying up.
Obama still faces a tough battle for the nomination. But with his unique appeal and the changing layout of the primary battlefield, he may succeed where previous insurgent Democrats have faltered.
Bruce J. Schulman is professor of history at Boston University and the author of "The Seventies."
CATEGORIES IN THIS STORY:
© 2007 The Washington Independent
Comments:
Posted 01/28/2008 06:25pm with
Assuming the reader is NOT a Barama supporter (and even if you are), you might be interested in the following web page:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obam…
It’s a link to a November 5, 2006 article on the Chicago Sun Times web site – titled “Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake” – which is pretty revealing. The reporters’ second direct question to Barama asks him whether he or his wife ever did any legal work for Antoin “Tony” Rezko, the Chicago slumlord with whom Barama did a sweetheart real estate deal that resulted in the $1,650,000 Georgian revival mansion for the junior senator from Illinois (at a $300,000 discount). Barama answered “no” at the time, but didn’t he actually confirm that he had billed Rezko for five hours of his professional time during Monday’s SC debate? I guess my concern is that his “mistake” conveniently netted him a house most of us could only dream of living in, and he’s certainly not talking about donating IT to charity like the ill-gotten $40,000 in Rezko contributions his campaign has identified so far.
There is a silly piece on abcnews.com showing the Clintons in one of the 100,000 photo ops they’ve probably taken, in this case with the dreaded Tony Rezko. I couldn’t see any real estate docs in Hillary’s hands, but the top right of the page should display a film clip by Brian Ross that shows Barama’s Chicago mansion in living color. Here’s the link:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4192372&page=1
There is also a hard-hitting “print” article by Ross that extends the Chicago Tribune story – http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483&page=1 – yet when George Stephanopoulos interviewed Barama this week, he barely followed-up on his softball question about the cozy deal. I’m afraid most of the mainstream reporters are holding back on tough questioning about Barama’s lack of integrity (as it was displayed with the Rezko “mistake”) because they don’t want to be shut out of future interviews if he’s the nominee, or God help us, the next President. We’ve had just about eight years of an inexperienced politician with questionable moral certitude, and I really don’t want eight more of the same, even if the guy is a Dem!
Posted 01/28/2008 06:27pm with
Assuming the reader is NOT a Barama supporter (and even if you are), you might be interested in the following web page:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obam…
It’s a link to a November 5, 2006 article on the Chicago Sun Times web site – titled “Obama on Rezko deal: It was a mistake” – which is pretty revealing. The reporters’ second direct question to Barama asks him whether he or his wife ever did any legal work for Antoin “Tony” Rezko, the Chicago slumlord with whom Barama did a sweetheart real estate deal that resulted in the $1,650,000 Georgian revival mansion for the junior senator from Illinois (at a $300,000 discount). Barama answered “no” at the time, but didn’t he actually confirm that he had billed Rezko for five hours of his professional time during Monday’s SC debate? I guess my concern is that his “mistake” conveniently netted him a house most of us could only dream of living in, and he’s certainly not talking about donating IT to charity like the ill-gotten $40,000 in Rezko contributions his campaign has identified so far.
There is a silly piece on abcnews.com showing the Clintons in one of the 100,000 photo ops they’ve probably taken, in this case with the dreaded Tony Rezko. I couldn’t see any real estate docs in Hillary’s hands, but the top right of the page should display a film clip by Brian Ross that shows Barama’s Chicago mansion in living color. Here’s the link:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4192372&page=1
There is also a hard-hitting “print” article by Ross that extends the Chicago Tribune story – http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483&page=1 – yet when George Stephanopoulos interviewed Barama this week, he barely followed-up on his softball question about the cozy deal. I’m afraid most of the mainstream reporters are holding back on tough questioning about Barama’s lack of integrity (as it was displayed with the Rezko “mistake”) because they don’t want to be shut out of future interviews if he’s the nominee, or God help us, the next President. We’ve had just about eight years of an inexperienced politician with questionable moral certitude, and I really don’t want eight more of the same, even if the guy is a Dem!
Posted 01/28/2008 06:32pm with
I got connected to your site from Talking Points. Looks great. The article gave me some historic perspective. Thank you
Posted 01/28/2008 06:51pm with
I have a really bad feeling that President Obama will turn out to be as administratively incompetent as his predecessor. There is nothing in his resume that tells me he can run a country. It’s not a foregone conclusion that he’ll be a bad president … but we have other, demonstrably more qualified candidates in the field. We need someone who can get us out of the quagmire. Pretty speeches may get him in the door, but they won’t keep the wolf away. I don’t believe he understands that fact.
Thanks.
mp
Posted 01/28/2008 07:17pm with
Michael, I have to respond to your “incompetence” concerns with Obama. I fully accept your premise and perhaps this is why so few Senators have reached the White House. We seem to value Governors more… for their hands-on experience of running the machinery of state. However, in this particular primary race neither Clinton nor Obama have governing experience so we need to look for something else. It may be a roll of the dice but personally I’m more concerned with Clintons negatives. I think Obama represents a new face with new ideas and an outsiders optimism rather than tired political dynasty. People are looking for a fresh start and the risks that come with it couldn’t possibly be any worse than Bush/McCain or Romney.
Tim
Posted 01/28/2008 08:19pm with
Thanks for making the historical connections. I do think this very well may be a right time/right place opportunity for BO. Billary is presently doing his part to make it a reality. (As previously mentioned by C.F, I found this beta site through TPM. Good luck with new venture.)
Posted 01/28/2008 09:35pm with
You are looking good! Great article, brings back memories especially of JFK.
Skills needed to “run” the governemnt are not the classical “management” skills used in business (consider the current dolt in the White House with an MBA). We need a leader who can select good, competent people to do the managing for him. The President’s job is to develop policies and set priorities, to negotiate legislation, to get people to work to gether.
Posted 01/28/2008 09:48pm with
Comments like the one by Michael Powe depress me beyond belief. I don’t know if he’s a McCain supporter or a Hillary supporter, but either way, he seems to believe that the president of the United States is some sort of an administrator—like the CEO of a corporation or something of the sort. This is exactly what we DON’T want the president to be. The president has aides for that sort of essential, but distracting nonsense. The job of a president is to set and articulate the course for the country during his or her term in office and then guard that course. The president is the big thinker. The decision maker. Being president is about leadership—not administrative duties.
Winson Churchill famously said, “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” We can no longer afford to be simply average voters. We need to be far more curious, far more critical, far more skeptical, far more active and much better informed if we expect to dig ourselves out of the mess our current administrator has put us in. Let’s stop listening to the mass-mailed, idiotic lies we receive in our Inboxes every day. Instead, let’s pay attention and get to know the candidates—all of the candidates—before we put someone in office who knows their way around Washington, but who can’t think outside of the box we’ve allowed ourselves to be trapped in.
Posted 01/28/2008 10:20pm with
Excellent commentary! I found your historical perspective cogent and persuasive. Not to mention edifying. It’s very helpful to put someone like Obama into context. In many ways, he seems to be a much needed break from the past. It is my hope that he will be our next President.
Posted 01/28/2008 10:38pm with
Has cynicism really blinded people from not seeing what is really taking place? Obama is uniting people, inspiring young and old, moderate republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives, black and white, asian and native american, latinos and all cultures to vote for him.
Others complain that he is going to talk to conservatives and republicans to get them on board. I wonder how many of those people have read about his record? His record of working with some of the most conservative republicans that successfully passed legislation without compromising his principles puts that argument to rest.
Others think Obama is not “experienced” enough. Obviously they are not taking into account Obama has had more years as an elected official that Hillary. His “experience” is much more conducive to changing “politics” as usual because he is not entrenched in Washington politics.
Some say he is too young: Bill Clinton was two years younger than Obama when he took office.
This election is not about race; it is not about “experience;” it is however about making wise decisions based on sound judgment & common sense. We’ve had an excruciating 7 years of trickery and deceit with “experienced” politicians and look where it got us. Do we want more?
Which candidate is more likely to bring change: a candidate entrenched in the Washington political establishment or the one whose experience is outside Washington?
Last but not least: With a deep understanding of the human psyche and a grasp of world events and how the two are inseparable indicates Obama is uniquely qualified to become the next president.
Let’s not allow cynicism to blind us to a unique opportunity for real change.
Posted 01/29/2008 12:12am with
As someone who is too young to remember campaigns prior to Reagan, it’s great to have B.O.’s apparent insurgency placed in historical context. Thanks. Bruce Chamberlain: are you from Illinois? Do you love The Who? I have a weird feeling I may know you….from a library.
Mark H: yossarian54@yahoo.com
Posted 01/29/2008 12:12pm with
I am a bit confused. In the article you state that BO has much of the party leadership against him, however just this week several of the party big wigs have come out supporting him. Who are the ones that are against him? I’m not being confrontational, I was just wondering.
I also got here by way of TPM.
Posted 01/30/2008 04:22pm with
With all due respect, the pictures with the article are misleading.
The BOBBY KENNEDY branch of the Kennedy family is supporting Hillary Clinton.
It’s only Uncle Teddy and Caroline that support Obama.
And frankly, by tagging himself as Teddy Kennedy’s protege, given that Uncle Teddy is considered the MOST liberal of all Senators, even by moderates, Obama has now tagged himself not as a centrist, but as a left-wing liberal.
Association with Uncle Teddy won’t bring back the Reagan Democrats or the Independents or the Moderates. They’ll all move to McCain if that’s their only other choice.
He literally NARROWED his possibility field in this choice, reducing his chances of winning the general election.
I truly believe Obama will regret this endorsement when all is said and done.
Posted 01/31/2008 01:13am with
It’s amazing! The Clintonian’s comments are always obvious – like Scientologists assigned to defend Tom Cruise on TMZ, they’re remarkably easy to spot. And God bless ‘em. I’m no Hillary hater. She’s better than any Republican running, and I’ll surely pull that lever if necessary in November (though like my vote for Kerry in ‘04 it won’t do much good).
“Rezco” they screech, – completely ignoring the dozens of legit scandals (Can you say Hugh Rodham pardon, just as a starting point) that the Clintons have hanging over them to this day.
“Short on resume!” they howl… uh, what exactly has Hillary done so much better than Obama? Not what her husband has done – Hillary. Being the wife of the President doesn’t count, folks. Otherwise, we’d all be as comfortable with Laura Bush’s credentials as with Hillary’s.
“Well, the ‘Bobby Kennedy branch’ (?!) is behind Hillary” they quickly opine, as defense against Teddy, Caroline and Patrick’s extraordinary showing the other day. Please. I’ll trade you 6 Kathleen’s to one Caroline, any day. (Granted, Patrick’s another story, though.)
The bottom line is, you guys just don’t get it. Accept that and move on. I like Hillary and Bill. I’ve defended them against Republican and Dem alike, and I’ll keep doing so (even as they insist on making it as difficult as possible these days). But Obama. is. different. You are unable to see that, and honestly, I kinda’ feel bad for you. You’re damaged – understandably so, given the last 15 years, but damaged none-the-less. It’s time to move on. And Barak seems the perfect guy to help the US do that, while staying true to Democratic/progressive ideals.
Posted 01/31/2008 03:14am with
Oh, my. Look at these numbers:
Clitnon 856,914
McCain 693,425
Romney 598,152
Obama 568,930
It appears that Obama couldn’t even beat Mitt Romney, let alone McCain or Clinton. And that was AFTER Uncle Teddy endorsed him.
27% of the African American vote deserted him and voted for Hillary.
Ruh roh.
Posted 01/31/2008 12:44pm with
...And rightly or wrongly, not one of those votes counts, remember? Hillary (and all the other candidates) signed a pledge not to “campaign or participate” in the Michigan or Florida Democratic primaries. Yet for some reason hers was the only name on the ballot in MI, and she alone *did* campaign in FL. Gosh, not much of a team player! Oh well, that’s how the Clintons roll!
In any case, she signed the Democratic National Committee’s pledge – ruh roh.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/us/politics/02dems.html…