Obama’s Radicalism: Breaking The “Big Versus Small Government” Frame
A quick afterthought on President Obama’s big speech before Congress last night.
The President’s speech was, at bottom, a call for radical change. He outlined an extraordinarily ambitious governmental agenda, vowing aggressive governmental action to rescue the economy and the banking system, find alternative energy sources, and overhaul the country’s health care system — all at once. As The Times’s Peter Baker put it, Obama proposed a “more activist government than any other since Lyndon B. Johnson.”
And Obama was able to do this while coming across as moderate and reasonable and garnering the support of huge majorities, if last night’s snap polls are any indication.
How? Politico’s John Harris and Jonathan Martin argue that Obama was able to do this with words and mood “intended to convey caution, moderation, sobriety.” That may be part of it, but I think something bigger is happening here.
Obama may be well on his way to breaking the “big government versus small government” rhetorical frame that has had a stranglehold on our political discourse for well-on decades now.
The promise of rising above old disputes has been Obama’s core political animating impulse since he burst onto the national scene. He was elected President after defeating not one, but two of the leading practitioners of 1960s-style cultural politics — the Clinton machine and the Rove-Atwater acolytes who hijacked the McCain campaign. He refused to engage on his foes’ terms the Vietnam-era-rooted arguments — about patriotism, about what it means to be a “real American” in a cultural sense — that have dominated our politics for decades.
Now Obama is attempting the same thing with the “big versus small government” dispute, and while others have tried this, Obama may be succeeding. Consider: When he said yesterday he’s not in favor of “big government” it just didn’t have the defensive feel that Bill Clinton’s “era of big government is over” speech did. Obama didn’t feel the need to package his agenda with any fancy name, like the “New Covenant.” Obama is not being apologetic or coy in steering towards an extremely ambitious role for government. Quite the opposite.
To be sure, Obama is enjoying a major assist: The economic crisis has left the public as desperate for domestic governmental assistance as at any other similar point in history. But the point is, Obama is seizing this moment to finally accomplish what has eluded other Dems: Transcending the “big versus small government” argument and, by extension, leaving it behind for good.
In so doing, Obama is allowing the public to judge his proposals for ambitious governmental action not through the old big-versus-small prism, but on their own merits. And the public likes them — big government and all.
**********************************
Update: To be clear, I don’t mean “radical” in the sense of far to the left on the ideological spectrum. I mean it in the sense that Obama’s proposed changes are enormous.
The homepage of this blog is here. Its RSS feed is here. And its Twitter feed is here.
Transcending the “big versus small government” argument and, by extension, leaving it behind for good.
He’s transcending lots of things like that – he is determined, I think, to shape a new model for progressive politics and for the Democrats and he’s doing it. We’ve lost the old “Democrats can’t protect the US” meme, too – he’s more trusted on foreign policy than the Republicans and that was one of their main strengths. He’s shattering old – forgive me – paradigms. That’s why I keep wanting to change the way I see the political landscape. I’m responding to Obama in my wish to move beyond the old viewpoints and the old way of doing things and the idea that just complaining when we don’t agree is enough.
Greg great post. I would quibble that perhaps the word is radical as much as progressive. But that is a minor comment. You really hit the nail on the head and reading this crystallized for me why I found the moment yesterday so exciting and inspiring (aside from being a great speech)
thx guys. I think maybe progressive is a better word — radical progressivism?
radical progressivism?
I don’t think so – he’s not radical, Greg. He’s not – a radical would be divisive and if there’s one thing he’s not it’s divisive.
to be clear, I don’t mean “radical” as far to the left on the ideological spectrum. I mean it purely in the sense that the changes he’s proposing are enormous.
Radical progressives aren’t divisive, Tena.
Radical is kind of the wrong word for the Obama style, and maybe a little divisive. How about something sleeker that I can’t think of that means transformative?
I just meant “radical” purely in the non-loaded sense of the word. This goes to show you how charged the word has become…
That’s a very bright analysis, greg. I wish I’d written it.
The cognitive studies guys like Westen and Lakoff are going to be finally happy that they’ve got this Obama fella and team who not only get what they’ve been saying but who are also really expert at it.
Rich Lowry gets it too. This is what he finds “scary”:
“He’s trying to redefine extensive government activism as simple pragmatism, and if he succeeds, might well shift the center of American politics for a generation.”
Indeed. And Kristol understood back in ‘93-’94 that if the Clintons were successful at medical delivery/insurance reform, that “big government bad” framing would be seriously damaged with negative political consquences for his ideology and his party.
And you are surely correct in surmising that this economic emergency has provided an environment in which a new New Deal is readily facilitated.
As my wife and I watched the speech last evening, I pointed out (a husband’s duty is to point things out) another re-framing Obama is engaged in now. The populist strain in America is a fundamental aspect to the political picture…it always has been and likely will continue to be. But who it targets as the ’selfish and oppressive and snooty elites’ at any given period in time can change. In FDR’s period, a number of contemporary trends were in place which allowed FDR to very reasonably direct populist anger against the financial sector. That populist target gained a resurgence in the 60’s and was a fundamental stimulus for the Chamber of Commerce crowd to set about reframing where people ought to direct their anger. From the early seventies through to the present, they managed to create the means to achieve this. “Big government bad” is the key notion (or one of the key notions) in hat reframing.
Last night, Obama spent a lot of time underlining and expanding on why our anger at the present situation and the ideology behind it made obvious sense and why we all need to rethink the old framing.
I think radical is entirely appropriate a term. The problem is the word radical just like the word liberal has not become a pejorative. But make no mistake about it, health care reform WILL take radical change. Defense spending reform WILL take radical change. Education reform WILL take radical change. Just coloring around the edges like we usually do won’t cut it this time. It is what it is.
bernie, that lowry quote is right on. and he said it in one sentence, too.
I’m drawing a blank, but what term is used when technology becomes obsolete and a new model displaces it? That’s what this feels like. I get you on radical, Greg, but yeah, too much baggage attached.
It’s more than a paradigm shift. Is it a renaissance? Is it the opposite of creative destruction–destructive creation? Creative construction?
Greg said: “bernie, that lowry quote is right on. and he said it in one sentence, too.”
Yeah. Not all the bright people are on our side.
Beta progressivism?–try it out and see if it works. Fix what doesn’t.
One thing that’s bugging me is this view that Obama and the Dems are being opportunistic in an evil way–raping and pillaging in wartime–that because things are so bad, they/we can impose socialism. Like we’ve been rooting for this collapse so we can take advantage. Rub hands together and add an evil heh-heh-heh. They’re ignoring the fact that the excesses of small govt/free market mentalities put us here, and now we need government to stabilize.
to be clear, I don’t mean “radical” as far to the left on the ideological spectrum. I mean it purely in the sense that the changes he’s proposing are enormous.
Posted by: Greg Sargent | February 25th, 2009 at 09:40
Yes I can see that and you’re right about that.
flufferwink – radical anything is divisive by definition.
flufferwink – radical anything is divisive by definition.
I decided that was going to get lost as part of my reply to Greg. Radical contains a sharp divide in its meaning – a radical departure is a sharp departure. You don’t see “radical agreement” as an oft-used phrase…
Kathleen Hussein in Maine–I thought first of “industrial revolution,” but this isn’t really a true political revolution. I remember the pundits saying it was a “sea change” in American politics when Reagan won. We are living through another sea change. Joe Scarborough was actually right this morning when he said Obama “is raising the Great Society from the ashes.” The thing is, Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society was derailed by the culture war that was triggered by the Vietnam War, not by any intrinsic failure on its part. Now a lot of Great Society ideas, like helping people keep a roof over their head, or subsidized college education, or affordable health care, are becoming just plain old common sense. Which makes the Republicans what? The new tinfoil hat crowd?
Joe Scarborough was actually right this morning when he said Obama “is raising the Great Society from the ashes.” The thing is, Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society was derailed by the culture war that was triggered by the Vietnam War, not by any intrinsic failure on its part
this is a discussion I’ve had with people many times over the years – was LBJ a failure or a great president? I happen to think The Great Society had the potential to make him great and the war is what ruined it and I still think he was a right-thinking man. He chose not to run again in the face of an almost certain victory because he couldn’t take having to run that damn war that derailed his grand ideas for this country.
William — Good points. I missed that bit on Scarborough, but I’d hate for that to stick, because that is going to be a clarion call for the Repub dead-enders and anyone else who thinks Great Society is code for enabling dependency and irresponsibility. And affirmative action and all the rest of their betes noir.
That’s why that line connecting finishing your education and patriotism was profound and powerful.
Notions about Johnson are a bit muddied by the PR campaigns (contemporary and post) about him. As one observer put it, the “War on Poverty” might be better described as the “Skirmish on Poverty”.
***
On the notion of reframing and populist targets, Todd Gitlin has some notes from the speech posted at TPM. The first one reads: “When was the last time a president said that universities were part of the solution?”
In the 60’s, populist anger was building with the targets being consumerism, corporate values, and the foreign involvements of the US, particularly military involvements, which were in aid of corporate interests. The Chamber of Commerce crowd (sorry, a simplicity but not an inaccurate one) had to redirect attention and anger to mitigate against the danger of their preferred system collapsing. One of the prime targets they pushed were the universities (pansies, dreamers, Marxists, atheists, etc). All of this is ubiquitous still in rightwing rhetoric with David Horowitz and Dinesh D’Souza building their present careers with this schtick.
Universities: commie, homo-loving sons of guns.
Obama on TV again. This is what I love. He is front and center almost every day. And good at it. No wonder his approval is so high. It’s leadership. It’s Henry at Agincourt.
“Henry at Agincourt”
I understand that The Bush Legacy Project has applied for copyright protection on that metaphor.
Greg:
You claim Obama was not defensive on this, when in fact he was. I point you to this early passage in his speech:
” As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by Presidents Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets, not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t — not because I’m not mindful of the massive debt we’ve inherited — I am. . . .”
That is clearly defensive.
I have to disagree, Armando. There’s a difference between saying “I’m against big government” and “I’m not in favor of big government.” One is defensive, the other is part of an honest statement of the Democratic position.
The reason “big government vs. small government” has to be transcended is that it has always been one of the standard conservative false dichotomies — issues where one side is their core belief, so they are absolutely convinced that if we disagree, the opposite must be one of our core beliefs.
They profess belief in “small government” (usually code for unrestricted corporate power and allowing states to perpetuate discriminatory policies, but let’s leave that aside for now.) We disagree that it’s always good, and they try to paint us as lovers of government for the sake of government.
Or they declare their opposition to all taxes. When we point out that’s insane, and would turn the whole country into Alabama, they take this as evidence that we are committed to raising taxes because we like them as much as they hate them. And the list goes on.
None of these things are remotely true, but since they are BS arguments, responding to them directly or trying to smack them down with logic only strengthens them. By refusing to engage in their argument and instead talking directly about what we really believe (and with the massive failure of the past eight years), I hope that Obama may be able to move us beyond them.
One quibble, Greg — I think you give McCain too much credit. He handed his campaign over to the Rove-Atwater acolytes, they didn’t “hijack” it. His repeated willingness to run with blatantly false GOP talking points about the stimulus should leave no doubt about which of the “bipartisan maverick” or “anything to win” is the “real” McCain.
My problem with the speech is that Obama spoke of taking action on great issues, but I’m not sure what those actions will be.
However, he still has his eye on “reforming” or “fixing’ SocSec, which doesn’t need fixing. But it seems he’s making it tradeoff of taking on healthcare? I’m not sure, but am worried about that.
Re: the Lowry statement, “He’s trying to redefine extensive government activism as simple pragmatism, and if he succeeds, might well shift the center of American politics for a generation,” that’s what Bill Clinton said was imperative as well. He worked very hard to make the governement effective, efficient, and working for the people. Competence. Doing what was logical and pragmatic.
He believed that unless the public viewed govnment as accomplishing what they needed to have done, it would be difficult to pass new programs to help the people.
If Obama’s proposals are radical, then you have to call what GW Bush did radical as well. Democracy in Iraq? Largest tax cut in history? these were radical proposals. but somehow i never heard that word associated with bush, or other conservatives for that matter. it seems to be a liberals-only word.
Yes, absolutely, Bush’s policies were radical. They were actually called that, and not just by opponents. Google “Bush radical” and it’ll turn up quite a lot.
Even a government of the people and by the people should have clearly defined restrictions on what it may do for the people.
Why? Because otherwise, the people grow weak, and the government grows very powerful and corrupt.
@nathan – I often referred to Bush’s policies as “radical”. I called the neo-cons “radicals”. Still do. In those cases, though, I viewed them as “radical” in a bad way. But “radical” change isn’t always bad.
But Obama IS radical! As in rad. TO THE XTREME!1!1
During the last eight years government increased tremendously. In the absence of government hiring, Bush would have had almost a flat or negative employment growth rate. So the new “paradigm” (if I may coin a new word:) is functional government vs. inept government. Forget size as long as it works.