Framing

The post above actually started edging toward the whole concept of "framing" as it is practiced in contemporary politics. Edwards has done a lot to reframe the debate on the Democratic side, while both Clinton and Obama are perpetuating the current, Republican-built frames.

Digby has a post on this from the Obama angle -- I mentioned somewhere that I hvae no use for a Democrat running on Republican talking points, which Edwards is not (and that's one gaffe in Digby's post -- she doesn't acknowledge that Edwards is not buying the St. Ron of Hollywood mantra. I don't think he's mentioned it specifically, but his message is distinctly 180 from any praise of Ronald Reagan or his policies. My own take on Reagan was that he was a mediocre president, but pragmatic enough that he didn't screw up completely, although his economic policies -- apparently his strong point, aside from foreign policy, where he didn't do anything new -- were fairly stupid if you're talking about benefitting the country as a whole, which of course he wasn't. His message -- "Greed is good!" -- was ultimately pretty damaging.)

Booman has a contrary view on that issue, and I think he's wrong:

Unfortunately, the progressive movement is replete with pinheads that think running for president is some kind of academic exercise. Krugman is a case in point. His column today is correct in all its details. Reagan's presidency was no economic miracle and it hurt the middle class, working people, and the poor. Reaganomics have worked no better in the present administration. It's important that progressives fight back against false narratives about the Reagan years because those narratives matter. They matter because they set the framework within which the public debate takes place. And that framework is falsely skewed to the right in large part because of accepted myths that have been built into the national narrative. Progressives should concede none of these myths and fight back against them at every opportunity. Or...almost every opportunity. [. . .]

That Obama can walk into a meeting with a corporate editorial board in Nevada and walk out with an endorsement over two white opponents is something that should be applauded. Instead, progressives accuse him of selling out, of reinforcing false frames, of insulting progressives.*

On its face it looks like a good argument from the basis of political pragmatism. However. . . .

What exactly is the value of an endorsement from a conservative editorial board in a Democratic primary?

Nor, I think, can you take Obama's remarks about Reagan as an isolated event. This is not the first time he's repeated the conservative viewpoint, and in general, although more progressive than Clinton, he's not really left of center at all -- aside from the fact that, because of the repetition ad nauseam of the right's talking points, 70% of the country is left of center, according to the Villagers, who, after all, are the ones honking that particular horn.

Which leads me to another thing:

Sometimes progressives deserve their position on the fringe of American politics. This is one of those times.

Take another look. Turnout for Democratic primaries is roughly double that for Republicans. A lot of it is independent voters. Tell you anything? (If the Democrats would actually field some genuine progressives, I'd be willing to bet they would wind up with solid majorities in both houses of Congress.)

* Obama did make a further comment on those remarks, quoted in the comments to BooMan's post:

Today Senator Obama responded to their criticisms at his Columbia, South Carolina rally, saying his statements have been mischaracterized - just another Washinton "trick."

"I didn't' say I liked Ronald Reagan's policies," Obama explained. "What I said was that was the kind of working majority we need to form in order to move a progressive agenda forward. So when I see, you know, Senator Clinton or President Clinton distort my words, say somehow that I was saying Republican (sic) the only ones who had good ideas since 1980 - then that is not a way to move the debate forward. That is not a way to help the American people. And I am not running for president just to become president - I'm running to help the American people and move the debate forward. I'm not willing to say or do anything just to win an election, because when you start operating that way, you lose the trust of the American people and we need trust if we're going to build the kind of country that all of us want for our children and our grandchildren."

Obama told the crowd that Reagan "was able to tap into the discontent of the American people and he was able to get Democrats to vote Republican - they were called Reagan Democrats." This skill of bridging party divides is one that Obama admits he hopes to emulate. "We as Democrats right now, should tap into the discontent of Republicans. I want some Obama Republicans!"

I will give him this: I'm not going into this election identifying issues as either progressive or conservatives. The issues are ideologically neutral. Positions on those issues are not.

Edwards' value is that he has identified some key issues in this campaign and kept them on the table, as much as the corporate media will allow -- that little band of oligarchs is not really interested in introducing any reality into American politics at this point. My problem with Obama is that, by perpetuating the Republican memes in any fashion, he's conceding the debate, which seems to me to be the end result of BooMan's position. This is even more a problem with Clinton, in my view.

Granted, it's a Catch 22: you perpetuate the myth to appeal to those who subscribe to it, because if you don't they have the power to bury you. But if you win on that basis, you're compromised.

No one ever thinks about what the road from Hell is paved with.

Footnote: Here's a further comment on Obama's speech from Natasha Chart that strikes me as extraordinarily perceptive: in her view, he's not perpetuating the myth, but subverting it.

I just wonder how many people can catch that.