The Great Bypass - 2012

"Since Robert F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign in 1968 and George McGovern’s run in 1972, progressives have sought to create a multiracial, multiethnic, crossclass coalition—made up of African Americans, Latinos, women, young people, professionals, and economically populist blue-collar whites—supporting an activist government agenda to expand economic opportunities and personal freedoms for all people. With the re-election of President Barack Obama in 2012, this progressive coalition has clearly emerged, albeit in an early and tenuous stage."

So say Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin of the Center for American Progress in an article entitled, "The Obama Coalition in the 2012 Election and Beyond".

They go on to say:

"Why was this possible? First, the shifting demographic composition of the electorate—rising percentages of people of color, unmarried and working women, the Millennial generation and more secular voters, and educated whites living in more urbanized states—has clearly favored Democrats and increased the relative strength of the party in national elections. Similarly, white working-class support for Democrats has been higher in key battleground states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin than in other states, while white college-educated support for Democrats has been strong in emerging battlegrounds such as Colorado and Virginia.3 In contrast, the Republican Party’s coalition of older, whiter, more rural, and evangelical voters is shrinking and becoming more geographically concentrated and less important to the overall political landscape of the country."

And:

Second, this transition toward a new progressive coalition was possible because of the ideological shift of the American electorate. Voters are moving away from the Reagan-Bush era of trickle-down economics and social conservatism and toward the more pragmatic approach of the Clinton-Obama vision that includes strong governmental support for the middle class, public investments in education and infrastructure, a fairer tax system that requires the wealthy to pay their fair share, and more inclusive social policies."

This is a mouthful, and more than I expected to digest on a lazy Sunday afternoon in December. But it's sucking me in. Just over a month has gone by since Barack Obama comfortably defeated Mitt Romney in the 2012 election, and my feelings of relief and pride have now faded to the point where I can observe some of this stuff objectively. It's crazy how politics works. It's not I love Barack Obama or anything. He's okay. But I have grown to loathe the Republican Party, in general, and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan in particular. Obama's 2012 success feels like a victory over the dark side.

To be fair, Obama is better than okay. His speaking ability is incredible, and his cerebral demeanor is totally befitting that of a president. Obamacare, for all its flaws, should hopefully make some sort of difference in the screwed up healthcare in this country. The small tax increase on the wealthy was way overdue. His foreign policy of "Stop doing stupid stuff" has been, in the grand scheme of things, effective.

Then again, how good does one have to be to look good after the George W. Bush administration? When not invading countries that didn't do anything wrong to you is viewed as effective, that is a pretty low bar. The so-called "sequester" was blatant blackmail on the part of the Republicans, and Obama went for it. Maybe he had to, politically, but still. Then there was the aftermath of the financial crisis, when Obama first came into office. He really had a chance to lay the hammer down on those Wall Street fucks, and let 'em off with a slap on the wrist. FDR, he certainly isn't.

Then again, he never campaigned as FDR. Not even LBJ, for that matter. I have to get that through my thick skull. He campaigned as a moderate, left-of-center gradual change agent. He never said he was gonna stick it to the banks, no matter how much they might deserve it. He never said he was going to push for mass unionization or a living wage. The whole living wage thing, as a matter of fact, sort of stays at the fringes of the party, no matter how much sense it might make to a economic progressive like myself.

He ain't perfect. But politics is about the art of the possible, right?

Obama, more than anything else, represented (represents?) a sort of common sense, aspirational appeal to the better angels of America, a moderate alternative to the zero sum game of Social Darwinism just below the surface of modern Republicanism. His presidency says to us that if we can just come together as a nation, we can fix stuff without burning it down first. His election speaks to the power of his political team to bring together disparate parts of the country, combining positive identity politics with the social safety net to provide a little bit for everyone. By his very nature as the first black president, he is a transformational figure, even if his politics aren't transformative in and of themselves.

He ain't popular in Sheldon, Iowa. But a Democrat rarely is. And anyway, if Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin got it right, Sheldon--and all the places like it scattered throughout the Upper Midwest, what with their older, whiter, rural and evangelical voters--just aren't going to matter as much anymore.

To be continued...