The Case for Obama

If you're a liberal Democrat, that is. George Will makes it:

Large undertakings in domestic policy -- e.g., the enactments of Social Security in 1935 and of Medicare in 1965 -- often follow landslide elections. In the 15 presidential elections since the Second World War, only twice has the Democratic candidate won 50 percent of the popular vote -- Lyndon Johnson emphatically in 1964 and Jimmy Carter narrowly in 1976. In 2008, Obama is more likely than Clinton to win an impressive electoral vote total that will look like a mandate. Conservatives should think: Although Republicans have much to fear in 2008, they might have less to fear from her as a candidate and, if she wins, as a president, than they would from Obama.

Without mentioning Obama by name, I made a similar argument in the Atlantic a couple months ago. After pointing out all the trends going the Democrats' way, I added:

... even slow-motion realignments require architects, and the memory of Ronald Reagan’s role in the Republican revolution, in particular, is a reminder that having a message isn’t enough; you need a messenger as well.

Twice in the past 25 years—in 1986 for the Democrats, in 1994 for the Republicans—an opposition party retook one or both houses of Congress, as the Democrats just did. Each party thought it had a governing majority within reach, but each lost the subsequent presidential election, riding a weak horse to defeat. Long-term trends make new majorities possible, and traumatic events (such as 9/11 and the Iraq War) can help catalyze their formation, but without effective leadership, the opportunities are easily squandered, whether on the campaign trail or in the White House. Just ask Karl Rove and George W. Bush.

I still think this is right, though I'm have to say I'm a little less confident - or worried, more aptly - about Obama's ability to play the Reagan role after watching him campaign for six months.

Comments

I agree that ideally we need a president takes office with a decisive mandate. While admittedly none of the Republicans would be likely to achieve such a mandate, the question is whether Obama has the sort of steel of character and policy wisdom to lead the country. So far, he hasn't come close to proving this, though he is certainly an extraordinary young man worth the serious consideration of conservatives.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | November 15, 2007 2:20 PM

I dunno, Peter. He opposed the Iraq invasion back when it would have been much safer, as an ambitious young politician, to support it, like almost everyone else running for president. (As did I, FWIW).

That position alone doesn't establish "steel of character and policy wisdom," but it certainly points in that direction.

As to Will's point about realignment, I don't believe the Democrats are advocating any vast policy changes, except for expanding the number of people with health insurance.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | November 15, 2007 2:48 PM

I think Republicans also have a lot less to dread about an Obama presidency. The guy can work with everybody.

Posted by Peter Nevins | November 15, 2007 3:03 PM

John Edwards seems to me to be the one running the "transformational lefty" campaign.

End Poverty by 2036 seems to be suitably of a kind with the Great Society programs.

Edwards seems to me like the guy the right should be afraid of. Obama more than Hillary, sure, but there's still another guy in the race, and he's the transformational candidate.

Posted by DivGuy | November 15, 2007 4:00 PM

But it's somehow hard to see Edwards actually becoming president (of course, I thought that about Bush in 1999, so what do I know?)

While Obama seems more plauisble, and Hillary seems like an odds on favorite.

Edwards as president also strike me as a temporary disaster for the country, but probably four years that would do liberal-populism a great deal of damage, given my expectation of the competency, style, and wisdom Edwards would display.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | November 15, 2007 4:17 PM

I'll take that bet.

The right has rolled back, maybe, 1/10 of what the 89th Congress enacted. If there's a possibility of a transformational lefty, the right would be, in my opinion, well served not to assume that the administration will be a failure.

Posted by DivGuy | November 15, 2007 5:14 PM

The question is not whether Obama or Clinton will win in 2008 (either one can easily win against any of the Republican nominees). It is whether the Democrats get to 60 seats in the Senate or maybe even close such as 58 seats. There are already at least three Republicans who are deadmen walking as have no chance of coming back in 2009. If The Democrats pick off a couple more or pick up most of the empty seats, the get to 60 seats.

Either a Clinton or an Obama administration will enact nationalized health care if they have 60 Democrats in the Senate.

Also, since the demograhic trends are so against the Republicans, there is little chance of the Republicans ever getting back the seats in loses in the Senate, House, or even getting the presidency back.

Posted by superdestroyer | November 16, 2007 3:30 PM