For weeks I've been meaning to write something here about the need for Barack Obama to make reform a centerpiece of his presidential campaign. Fortunately, he went ahead and did just that, without my prompting, at his Reform Town Hall Meeting in Iowa. So my post ends up being partly a pat on the back, but it's also a call for more.
Obama's speech was delivered at a middle school named for Theodore Roosevelt, and Obama took the opportunity to talk about how that old-school reformer helped break up monopolies and put an end to the "Gilded Age", in which power and money became concentrated in very few hands. Given Karl Rove's admiration of that era, Obama's casting himself as a modern Teddy Roosevelt is especially fitting.
I sincerely hope this wasn't just a speech for the occasion, though, because I would like to see Barack Obama make political reform his #1 campaign issue. He has a strong track record in Illinois and Washington of focusing on congressional ethics, especially with regard to gifts from lobbyists. Given the timeliness of that issue with the Abramoff case and the FBI just today searching Republican senator Ted Stevens's house, Obama's experience and credentials on this issue must be emphasized.
Reform is an issue where Obama has a strong advantage over Hillary Clinton. It was Obama who agreed with McCain to limit campaign spending in the general election. And it definitely means something that Hillary Clinton gets the lion's share of the $4600 checks, while Obama is vastly ahead of the pack in small donations.
Of particular importance, Obama refuses to accept money from corporate PAC's and lobbyists, while Clinton continues to take almost any kind of money she can get. I would like to see Barack Obama make a direct public challenge to Hillary Clinton on this point:
"Won't you join me in saying 'no' to corporate PAC money and donations from lobbyists?"
If she refuses, America sees that Obama has a clear edge in the clean fundraising department. If she agrees, Obama was the leader on this issue, Hillary the follower, and some of her dirty money edge is erased. Ideally, I would like to see this challenge made in a head-to-head debate, rather than through a press release, so the Clinton campaign has a harder time dodging the issue.
I would also like to see Barack Obama set forth a comprehensive blueprint for election reform and ethics reform - one that goes well beyond simply ensuring that votes are counted and that lobbyists aren't allowed to offer certain types of gifts. Obama should become the candidate who is serious about reducing the role of money in American elections, advocating the sort of "clean money" campaign finance reform that has worked in Maine, Arizona, and elsewhere. He's already a co-sponsor (with Feingold and Specter) of Durbin's Senate Fair Elections Now Act, which calls for just this type of solution. Here's a video of Obama explaining his support. All that's needed is to draw attention to Obama's leadership on this issue.
Obama's strength on reform has the potential to help him with voters from all across the policital spectrum, especially the independent-minded swing voters who have been drawn to candidates as diverse as Perot, McCain, and Nader in past elections. Obama is the Democrat who is best able to claim the mantle of reform, and this could be his greatest advantage in his quest for the White House.
The way Iraq is being portrayed today, you would think America now faces a choice between escalating Bush's failed military strategies or abandoning Iraq to an endless spiral of sectarian bloodshed. Clearly neither of these alternatives is acceptable to the American people, nor to the people of Iraq. We need to introduce new solutions into the Iraq debate that will end the war responsibly.
I agree with Barack Obama's proposal to redeploy U.S. troops out of Iraq within the next year. It should be emphasized that this plan is consistent with what most Americans want, and more importantly still, it reflects the wishes of most Iraqis. As of September 2006, 78% of Iraqis viewed the U.S. military's presence as a destabilizing force in their country, and 71% of Iraqis wanted U.S. troops to leave within a year:
Link
In light of these numbers, it becomes very difficult for proponents of prolonging the war to argue that we should occupy Iraq indefinitely.
But that's not enough - thus far, I think many advocates of peace have spent too much time calling for American troops to be brought home within a given timeframe, and not enough time outlining alternatives to military occupation that will promote stability in Iraq. We have to make it clear that even as our troops are withdrawn, America still has an enormous responsibility to Iraq. That means tireless diplomatic efforts, both among Iraq's feuding factions, and also involving its neighbors, to defuse the looming civil war that could become a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. It also means ongoing reconstruction aid, provided the Iraqi government lives up to its promises and works to halt the violence. And to heal the scars of the sectarian atrocities already committed in Iraq, we should encourage the Iraqi government to set up a "Truth and Reconciliation" panel (modeled on South Africa's example), whereby offenders can admit their crimes and ask for amnesty, in order to stop the cycle of revenge.
Finally, I think one suggestion missing from the national dialogue on Iraq is to internationalize the effort to bring peace there. It is time for the United States to go before the U.N., admit our mistakes in Iraq, and ask for the world's help. A U.N. peacekeeping force, especially if composed primarily of forces from Muslim countries outside the Middle East, would be viewed much less suspiciously by the Iraqi people than American troops are now, and would have a much better chance of successfully bolstering the security situation in Iraq.
More than 1/3 of all Americans identify themselves as Independents, and these are the voters that will ultimately choose our next president. Clearly, if Democrats want their nominee for president to be elected in 2008, they will have to select a candidate who resonates with Independent voters. But what are the qualities that Independent voters are searching for, and who among the Democratic frontrunners best reflects those qualities?
To judge from some recent (and current) Democratic candidates for president, a common assumption would seem to be Independent voters simply want a candidate who chases after that elusive "middle ground" between Republicans and Democrats (even if these "centrist" views are a recent shift for the candidate in question). I see two main problems with this logic, which point to ways that many candidates fail to understand what a large number of voters are looking for:
First, voters can sense when they are being pandered to. There is an incredible thirst for honesty and integrity in American politics, and a candidate who truly projects these qualities will gather much more support from Independents than one who merely tries to match their positions to as many people on as many issues as they can.
And second, "chasing the middle" strikes me as rather amusing, but not very effective, as a political strategy. Politics is a tug-of-war of ideals, and I can't picture anyone winning a game of tug-of-war by dropping their end of the rope and running after that ribbon tied around the middle. A player who chooses that strategy will certainly find the "middle" drawing ever-closer to their opponent's position. To win for your ideals in politics, the only real option is to bring the middle to you, through open discussion and debate.
Independents are not necessarily people who can't decide if they're Democrats or Republicans, and they're not yearning for some chimeric candidate who is half donkey and half elephant. What so many of us want is to see our troubled democracy fixed, to see an end to the corruption and partisan acrimony that have plagued Washington for so long. Any candidate who speaks to this need, who offers real solutions for reform, and who demonstrates that they are "independent" of special interests, will win the lion's share of Independent votes - regardless of that candidate's place on the ideological spectrum.
Independents will support a candidate who speaks with sincerity and conviction, and one who recognizes the need for fundamental change in American politics. And I contend that among the 2008 presidential hopefuls, Barack Obama represents these qualities uniquely well. Obama's ability to connect with a broad spectrum of Americans is unparalleled, chiefly due to his direct and genuine approach. And his own independence from the status-quo is well-represented by his recent quote:
"I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change."
Barack Obama is the kind of force for change that Independents have been waiting for. Let's hope Democrats realize that Obama is, by far, their most "electable" candidate.
