The Audacity of the Party Line (II)

In a Q&A with New York's John Heilemann, the GOP strategist Alex Castellanos remarks:

BHO is going to need a few Sister Souljah moments. To demonstrate strength, he will need to stand up and speak truth to power, poke his finger in the Democratic Establishment's eye. Example: Marion Barry, D.C.'s former crack mayor, is now supporting vouchers for D.C. schoolchildren, in opposition to education unions and much of the Dem Party Establishment. Obama should join him. The Dem Establishment better start looking around to see which one of them he's going to throw under the bus as soon as the Denver convention is over and he takes the bus out of town.

Which prompts Noam Scheiber to remark: "Problem is, Obama doesn't really do crass, symbolic politics. At least he hasn't really in the past." The link in that sentence runs to a Scheiber piece that worries over whether Obama is cynical enough to fight the GOP machine, and that includes this passage:

The run-up to South Carolina was rife with talk that post-racial Obama was morphing into a decidedly pre-post-racial candidate. To reverse the slide, blogger Mickey Kaus suggested he give a speech embracing class- rather than race-based affirmative action, something Obama had flirted with in the past. Kaus had a point: The atmospherics would have been irresistible to ambivalent whites. I pushed a milder form of the idea on my own blog. Not long after, I got a response from an Obama adviser: Never gonna happen. Urging Sister Souljah politicking on him was the surest way to provoke a scowl.

In the discussion that followed this piece, Noam clarified that he didn't mean that an Obama embrace of class-based affirmative action was "never gonna happen," just that Obama would never make a policy leap like that "as a direct response to a sudden political problem." Fair enough, but if Obama won't take on the Dem party line during the primary season because that would be "crass, symbolic politics," and if he won't take on the Dem party line after the convention because that would "crass, symbolic politics" ... well, it'll be hard to escape the conclusion that Barack Obama is just a Democratic party line kind of guy.

Comments

I don't know. It seems to me Obama has pissed off both camps by rejecting vouchers but embracing merit pay (when talking to teacher's unions). Why does he have to hew to EITHER the party-line position OR the anit-party-line position?

Posted by Steve M | May 18, 2008 1:16 PM

This post sounds to me like a bunch of elite bloggers who have created their own version of an ivory tower and think that their frames are shared by the outside world. However, especially in the case of Kaus, this is little more than masturbation for the wonkish set. Nobody is going to care enough over whether or not Obama endorses Barry's idea enough to swing a significant number of votes either way. It's just not that high salience an issue.

Posted by Reality Man | May 18, 2008 3:08 PM

However, especially in the case of Kaus, this is little more than masturbation for the wonkish set.

So ... is wonksturbate a new verb now?

Posted by matt foley | May 18, 2008 4:07 PM

Obama doesn't like to lie. He likes to mislead, but he likes it to be your fault that you made up fantasies about what he must really be like based on naive misreadings of his life story.

It's exactly because he's a preppie from paradise that he has to constantly prove he's Black Enough. To spend 20 years in Jeremiah Wright's church and then suddenly cut back on the racial quota gravy train would be a betrayal of his life's work of proving himself black enough.

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 18, 2008 4:15 PM

"So ... is wonksturbate a new verb now?

Posted by matt foley | May 18, 2008 4:07 PM"

That made me laugh out loud and throw up a little bit in my mouth at the same time. Kudos.

Posted by Reality Man | May 18, 2008 4:17 PM

People need to learn how to really listen to what a Harvard trained lawyer says and what outs does he give himself. His talking point of vouchers (if they can be shown to definitely work, then I will support them) is meant to make people think he supported vouchers but a wink to the teachers unions and teachers colleges who will ensure that the reports on vouchers are always negative.

Senator Obama will come out for class based (economic affirmative action) while wanting to maintain race based affirmative action. That will just make it harder for the middle classes but sparing his number one group, blacks, from any of the pain.

Posted by superdestroyer | May 18, 2008 4:18 PM

Oh my, someone who requests donations to vdare and cites it approvingly doesn't like Obama?!?! Fetch the smelling salts, Martha, I'm fainting with surprise...

Posted by Ditko Hands | May 18, 2008 4:37 PM

Why would anyone listen to Castellanos? He's an idiot.

Posted by LnGrrrR | May 18, 2008 5:09 PM

BHO is going to need a few Sister Souljah moments.

This is true, but only because Obama is black, what with the Corporate Media jackasses forever demanding that Obama denounce, reject, and denounce again any and all Scary Black People (both real and imagined) who ever lived.

Posted by ed | May 18, 2008 8:10 PM

Obama doesn't like to lie. He likes to mislead, but he likes it to be your fault that you made up fantasies about what he must really be like based on naive misreadings of his life story.

Shorter Steve Sailor: Careful Abe, them [very bad word for black people] are sneaky bastards. I've seen Obama do some things...

It's exactly because he's a preppie from paradise that he has to constantly prove he's Black Enough.

As opposed to the hardscrabble childhoods of the current and previous Republican candidates. Right.

One sincerely hopes that the Steve Sailors of this world are becoming fewer, and the Barack Obama's are on the increase.

Posted by ed | May 18, 2008 8:18 PM

It's exactly because he's a preppie from paradise that he has to constantly prove he's Black Enough.
As opposed to the hardscrabble childhoods of the current and previous Republican candidates. Right.

Uh - the GOP candidates ar either not black, or in the case of Alan Keyes, have litle interest in proving how black they are. Therefore, there is no reason to compare them to Obama on this issue.

Sailer's point is that a black person of privilege (particularly a half-black half-white person) is more likely to pay lip service to the Sharpton/Jackson philosophy than a black person who grew up poor, because he needs to prove his blackness in a way that a poor black person or a non-black does not.

This is true, but only because Obama is black, what with the Corporate Media jackasses forever demanding that Obama denounce, reject, and denounce again any and all Scary Black People (both real and imagined) who ever lived.

And pray tell, if most black people feel like Rev. Wright about the U.S., or if most of them are wedded to the idea that blacks should have the government look out for their interests while whites should be forbidden from even having interests, why should whites want a black president?

That';s the real racial angle of the Rev. Wright controversy: if Wright is representative of blacks, it is perfectly reasonable not to want a black president.

Posted by Glaivester | May 18, 2008 10:23 PM

Sailer's point is...

Dude, I know what Sailor's point is. The guy's dog whistle needs some adjustment. We non-racists can hear it all too well. I had no idea that Obama is American royalty.

And pray tell, if most black people feel like Rev. Wright about the U.S., or if most of them are wedded to the idea that blacks should have the government look out for their interests while whites should be forbidden from even having interests, why should whites want a black president?

And who, pray tell, is suggesting this, aside from the crypto-racists (and barely crypto at that) of Sailor's ilk? Did you really write "why should whites want a black president?" Really? Really??

To paraphrase the great Sgt. Troy Barlow: Stop virtually speaking right now, Glaivester.

Posted by ed | May 18, 2008 10:59 PM

ed, it's Sailer, not Sailor. Spell his name correctly.

Did you really write "why should whites want a black president?" Really? Really??

Well, yes, but only under particular conditions. There is no problem with a black president if the black community mainly see themselves as Americans who want to look out for America's interests. If they see themselves as blacks first, and see looking out for their own ethnic group's interests as the top priority, then there is not reason for someone in another ethnic group to support a black president unless the black candidate clearly renounces black ethnocentrism.

It comes down to this: if Rev. Wright is the exception rather than the rule, Obama's race is not a problem. If Rev. Wright's sermons are representative of the black community's feelings in general, then whites have every reason to be concerned about what a black president might do.

Posted by Glaivester | May 18, 2008 11:37 PM

Another black person Steve Sailer dislikes. Yawn.

Posted by Mike | May 18, 2008 11:50 PM

There is no problem with a black president if the black community mainly see themselves as Americans who want to look out for America's interests.

Again, who is suggesting this besides the crypto-racists? Has anyone in the Corporate Media suggested that Reverend Hagee's (and Billy Graham's)comments about Jews are representative of all Christians? And that They care about Christians more than Americans? Should this also be a Big Issue?

Spell his name correctly.

And what if I refuse? What then?

Posted by ed | May 18, 2008 11:55 PM

"Sailer's point is that a black person of privilege (particularly a half-black half-white person) is more likely to pay lip service to the Sharpton/Jackson philosophy than a black person who grew up poor, because he needs to prove his blackness in a way that a poor black person or a non-black does not."

If you think Sailer ever has a point, you are simply stupid. That might not be politically correct to say, but it's true. No one would cite David Duke as a source in polite company and citing Sailer is just showing you shouldn't be allowed in polite company, you mouth breather. You're simply creepy and need to leave your basement.

Posted by Reality Man | May 19, 2008 1:57 AM

it'll be hard to escape the conclusion that Barack Obama is just a Democratic party line kind of guy

But the thing is: in 1992, Clinton needed his Sister Souljah moment because the Democratic brand was tarnished and he needed to reach out. This year, the Democratic party line is the winning line anyway. There's no tactical need to go ruffling feathers. Obama may (or may not) slap down individual Democratic party members if they get out of line, but he doesn't need to do it for the optics alone.

Posted by william | May 19, 2008 4:38 AM

William makes the key point. Given prevailing dissatisfaction with Republicans, persisting in the belief that Democrats need to engage in ritual self-mutilation in every election reflects an odd detachment from reality. The question is (or should be) whether McCain will depart from Republican party line on the variousas issues that have made the Republicans unpopular. The answer so far is, apparently, no.

Posted by Led | May 19, 2008 9:10 AM

"People need to learn how to really listen to what a Harvard trained lawyer says and what outs does he give himself. His talking point of vouchers (if they can be shown to definitely work, then I will support them) is meant to make people think he supported vouchers but a wink to the teachers unions and teachers colleges who will ensure that the reports on vouchers are always negative."

How outrageous. So Obama is hesitant to embrace a large scale reform of an established program unless there's some evidence that the program works? My intellectual history is a little rusty, but isn't that pretty much the old fashioned definition of conservatism--skepticism towards radical changes of existing institutions without any evidence that said changes will actually be beneficial?

Posted by Doug T | May 19, 2008 10:04 AM

Doug T,

What Senator Obama is saying is, "Prove it to me," without mentioning what will serve as acceptable proof. I assume that there is no amount of proof that will prove conclusive enough for him to support vouchers (or any other educational reform). In addition, he knows that the organizations doing the studies, teachers college and left wing think tanks will ensure that the reports show that vouchers do not work well enough.

Posted by superdestroyer | May 19, 2008 10:59 AM

In addition, he knows that the organizations doing the studies, teachers college and left wing think tanks will ensure that the reports show that vouchers do not work well enough.

Dude, totally. Kind of like those left wing think tanks ensured that their studies showed that the earth revolves around the sun, and that different species developed as a result of Teh Evilution, and that the planet is getting warmer. As Professor Colbert said so many years ago: The Facts have a left wing bias.

Posted by ed | May 19, 2008 12:33 PM

ed,

The Democrats have had forty years to make an inprovement in schools inplaces like Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, DC, NYC, LA. Yes, everyone of those cities have tried dozens of fads and they have all failed. Even Senator Obama is not radical enough to send his children to a public school with unionized teachers.

One of the problems with being a liberal is that you had to explain the DC public schools. For forty years the call has been to give them more money. Yet, at $14K per students, they graduate less than half of the students and most of those are incapable of performing in college.

If you want to talk about education, at least you should look up the facts. The fact is that virtually all inner city schools are failures and everyone of them is a deeply blue areas.

Posted by superdestroyer | May 19, 2008 6:52 PM

If you want to talk about education, at least you should look up the facts. The fact is that virtually all inner city schools are failures and everyone of them is a deeply blue areas.

...or so says the Heritage Foundation.

Posted by ed | May 19, 2008 8:45 PM