Beyond ‘business as usual’
February 20th 2008
Ahead of ‘Super Tuesday’, Nick DeLuca argues that the US stands on the cusp of the most significant political change since the 1960s
Forty years have passed since 1968, but I fear that all those baby-boomers who were in their late teens and early 20s who lived through this historic year, will be reminding us of how momentous it was: Nixon elected president; Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy assassinated; Czechoslovakia invaded by the Soviets; and Louis Armstrong telling us he lived in a ‘wonderful world’.
The 60s drew the lines of modern political engagement. The public square was a loud, raucous place with social, political and economic disagreement. The ‘culture wars’ in the US that we have witnessed ever since – over gay rights and guns, abortion and birth control, women’s rights and wars of choice – all lead back to that period.
Every decade that has passed seems to have turned up the volume on all these issues as the children of the 60s have become older, more powerful and much more partisan. This brings us to the 2008 presidential election campaign and the rhetoric that is beginning to define and differentiate the candidates of both parties, but most notably the Democrats. All the aspirants to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave seem to be talking about ‘change’.
Fundamental change looms
The media is, naturally, obsessed by the prospect of change, which the first female or African-American president would personify. Since Hillary Clinton’s win in New Hampshire, the commentariat increasingly has been debating the tension between race and gender.
Temperatures have been rising as supporters of Senator Obama and Senator Clinton slug it over who can bring ‘real’ change, while everyone argues over whether or not either candidate really intends to change anything. And yet this election will be about change.
Obviously, the end of the Bush administration will fundamentally shift the political environment. Expect the next Oval Office occupant to be more multi-lateral, consensual and reflective and less isolated, aggressive and insular.
Potentially, though, there is the prospect of far greater change: change beyond the unusual re-shuffling of the familiar Washington faces. Senator Obama offers the prospect of that change. The jury is still out on whether he is seasoned enough politician to see off Clinton, then a Republican challenger and go on to become an effective president. But an Obama presidency would be more than the shuffling of deckchairs – it would be a real break from the past.
Obama sexes up consensus politics
From the late 1980s, US politics has become more partisan and divisions have become more fractious. Liberals and conservatives scream at each other on radio and cable TV; Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton face off in a war of the wills, shutting down government; and Karl Rove devises electoral strategies by mobilizing supporters on so-called ‘wedge’ issues.
While this dynamic seemed to co-opt political discourse in the 1990s, it reached its nadir in the middle of Bush the younger’s presidency. Iraq, Guantanamo, Kyoto, rendition, wiretapping, stem-cell research, gay marriage and a host of other issues high lighted how divided were the Washington political institutions, and how compromise and consensus were long-lost values.
Until Obama. If there is anything unique about the Illinois senator’s candidacy it is how it is centered on unity not division, co-operation and conciliation rather than conflict. In a voice that reminds one of many of the great leaders of the 1960s’ he has found a way to make compromise sound inspiring and sexy.
Clinton’s mountain to climb
Watching most candidates roll out packaged answers on the ‘old chestnut’ issues, it seems that voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan are saying they want something different. Of course there will always be some voters who are narrowly motivated by particular issue, but right now it appears people are saying to the candidates: ‘Tell me how you will move past “business as usual”.’
And that’s a problem for Hilary Clinton. Many people identify the Clintons with the partisan divisions of the past 40 years. They are loved or hated because of that. If the New York senator is nominated and then elected, many voters have told pollsters they see that as another step on the Bush-Clinton treadmill of the past 28 years.
Looking ahead to ‘Super Tuesday’ (when 24 states are scheduled to hold caucuses or primary elections) on 5 February, Mrs Clinton will have to convince voters that she has indeed found her own voice and that another Clinton administration will have her stamp on it, not her husband’s and that it will not be ‘more of the same’.
Time will tell if she can pull that off. She has lots of money, celebrity – like name recognition and a powerful team on the ground. But politics, like life, is often about timing, and there does seem to be a wind of change blowing through US politics.
The sense that a new approach is necessary in politics is, generally, good news for the Democractic Party. Specifically, I think it is good news for Barack Obama. He may or may not sail behind that wind to victory in November – it is too early to tell.
But it is already clear that if Senator Clinton is to prevail, she will have to buck that trend, peruade the public that experience matters most, and that she is best placed to implement change. This looks like a steep mountain for her to climb.
If the clamour for generational change continues, the Democratic Party looks set to nominate an African – American.
