EconomistMom.com

In an opinion piece in today’s Washington Post, Michael Tomasky asks “whatever happened to that Obama [who spoke at the 2004 Democratic Convention]…that enemy of excessive partisanship and evangelist of national unity?”  Tomasky argues that the Obama campaign has (disappointingly) moved the “post-partisanship” message to the “rhetorical back burner,” offering four theories as to why:

Theory No. 1: There’s only room in a campaign for one big theme at a time, and the Obama team has settled on “change.” That’s fair enough. Change is undemanding and direct. It requires no presumed level of information, whereas describing a “post-partisan future” counts on voters’ knowing that we’re in a partisan time and being upset by that or, heck, even knowing what partisanship is to begin with. The urge to keep it simple is understandable.

Theory No. 2: Post-partisanship is too abstract. Obama has taken lots of fire from pundits and GOP operatives for supposedly being too highfalutin’, a propensity he now feels he must guard against. (Of course, this is one of the planet’s dumbest arguments: Humble people don’t run for president, and that goes for John McCain, too.) So Obama’s more recent rhetoric has tended to emphasize nuts and bolts — his plans for Iraq, Afghanistan and the world and his prescriptions for the economy. Again, understandable.

Theory No. 3: The Obama team may feel that they’ve already established the purple theme sufficiently. They may be right; I don’t see their internal polling results. But my sense is that if you asked the average voter today to name three or four things about Obama, few would say, “He wants to bring the country together.” Even a year ago, many more would have.

Theory No. 4: It could be that the post-partisanship theme is simply less resonant now than it was in 2004. Back then, in an election that was a referendum on President Bush, the United States really was a 50-50 country. But with Bush weak and Karl Rove gone, Democrats can be forgiven for thinking that polarization is now a less pressing issue and that the equation tilts more in their favor today. Still, the McCain campaign shows every sign of planning to run — quite counter to the candidate’s earlier pronouncements — a Rove-style, divide-and-conquer campaign. (The man who vowed to run a substantive, honorable campaign is bringing us Paris Hilton?) Obama is giving as well as getting on this front, so we’ll certainly see our share of partisan politics between now and Nov. 4.

But Tomasky argues that a unifying, “post-partisan” (centrist) approach is an “electoral winner and a governing essential”–explaining it this way (emphasis added):

It’s an electoral winner because Democrats can’t really triumph in divide-and-conquer elections. No, it’s not that they’re too noble for them. It’s just that they’re not as good at it as the Rove Republicans are, and progressive core positions don’t translate as well into fear-mongering rhetoric. The Democrats fear-monger pretty effectively about Social Security — as well they should — but beyond that, it’s hard to scare people into fearing that the other guy is going to cut your taxes too much or be too tough on our enemies.

Of course, Obama must attack McCain and return fire when fired upon, but he needs to do something more. He must get some percentage of people to vote their hopes, not their fears, as Bill Clinton used to put it. As McCain sprints rightward on a range of issues and dedicates himself to a negative campaign designed to scare 51 percent of the voters about Obama’s euphemistic “otherness” and alleged lack of preparedness, a dose of trans-partisan optimism will make a useful contrast.

And the one-America theme will be crucial if he actually wins. As president, Obama will need to unite liberals and moderates of both parties and isolate the conservative blocs in the House and especially the Senate to get anything done. But that’s getting ahead of ourselves.

I think I get it.  Some Democrats like to “fear monger” about Social Security because there are some Republican ideas about Social Security that they should genuinely fear (and I agree with that).  But many of those same Democratic “fear mongers” see the position of those who advocate for fiscal responsibility as ”opposition fear mongering”–failing to understand that one cannot “fear monger” one’s way toward a center position.  As Michael Tomasky points out, it’s not a very effective “fear monger” position to scare people about their taxes being too low.

I know… the movie I.O.U.S.A. does try to hype up the federal debt problem by pointing to some scary numbers which are not necessarily the numbers economists would emphasize.  But the numbers are not dishonest, just dramatic (and simple).  This is a movie after all, and would you really think it would have made it to the big screen without a little extra drama (and simplicity)?

But the point is that “fear mongering” is a strategy designed to polarize people–to drive them toward one side of any issue, not to persuade people to come to the center and “talk to each other.”  Fiscal hawks such as the Blue Dog Democrats can’t be accused of shouting scary things from one side of the playground about their enemies on the other side of the playground.  They can only be accused of shouting scary things from the center of the playground–the rhetorical equivalent of “you guys better come out and start playing nicely with each other (and me) right now–or else!”  Yes, that’s admittedly not the smoothest social strategy… and perhaps that’s why the Blue Dogs (and centrists in general) don’t win too many popularity contests.

At any rate, here at this blog I’ve tried to emphasize a “unite and conquer” strategy, not a “fear mongering,” “divide and conquer” one.  So I love it when folks from both sides of the ”playground” come to visit.  But I hope to encourage a ”play nicely” in the center rule.  No “fear mongering” allowed, no gratuitous shouting and name calling at other visitors whom one has decided are their “enemies.”  While such rules of behavior may cause some to leave my playground, at least I’m not running for office.

As for Senator Obama, well, I think we can understand that whatever position he seems to be taking or not taking at the moment regarding “post-partisanship,” it’s what his campaign has deemed the best strategy for getting elected, and is not necessarily at all a sign of how he would govern should he become President Obama, when surely such unifying, post-partisanship will be essential.