Independents Embrace Liberal Values to Propel Obama to Victory

Obama’s victory has been described as a victory for independents, but he also won narrowly among Democratic voters. His support among Democrats also appears falsely low as many of the independents would probably be registered Democrats if they lived in states which did not allow participation by independents. To a considerable degree, Obama’s victory was about values even more than the 2004 election. Americans are really better than the values attributed to us after Bush’s 2004 election, which was more a triumph for fear-mongering accompanied by the advantages of incumbency.

Brent Budowsky described how Obama won due to a realignment based upon both independent and Democratic voters embracing liberal values. These are also the same American values upon which this country was founded, and which have been violated under years of Republican rule:

The next great historic political realignment is at hand, comparable to the Democratic realignment brought by Franklin Roosevelt and the Republican realignment brought by Ronald Reagan.

This historic third wave realignment combines:

* the aspirations of progressive Democrats who believe in a party that opposes wrong with courage and principle, and dreams great dreams of what is possible in America,

with

* the huge American center of political independents who want a national unity based on a return to the first principles of Americanism that have been far too often abandoned in the extremism, corruption and radical rightism that will be known by historians as the dark interlude of the Bush Years.

This fundamental and historic realignment includes 98 percent of authentic Democrats, who believe in the traditions of Roosevelt and Kennedy, and more than 70 percent of political independents who will join together in a great movement and new electoral map for renewal and change that is hopefully destined to elect a new president and Congress.

This fundamental realignment will also bring to the new Democratic/independent majority and governing coalition 5 to 10 percent of those who are now Republicans, formerly known by names such as Bull Moose Republicans under Theodore Roosevelt and Rockefeller Republicans, who no longer have a place in a Republican Party dominated by rightist factions that are outside the tradition of historical and commonly shared American values:

* The use of war for partisanship;

* the contempt for the Constitution;

* the premeditated tearing-apart of national unity and premeditated attacks on domestic enemies;

* the abuse of Sept. 11, 2001, to create fear in the land, which is not only unprecedented from any previous American president but the single most reprehensible, vile and un-American tactic in the history of American commanders in chief from the days that George Washington commanded the Continental Army until the great day when the next American president puts his or her hand on the Bible, takes the oath of office and formally inaugurates the next great era in American history.

* the abuse of fear to justify torture and domestic spying against fellow Americans;

* the disrespect for the separation of church and state;

* the aggressive attacks on checks and balances, judicial review, and constitutional duties of the legislative branch of government.

* the pathological hunger for pre-emptive war, followed by the failure to give adequate support to American troops, followed by the shameless exploitation of under-supported troops as the petty cash of partisan politics.

* the economic policies that do not promote the rising tide that should lift all boats and the harvest of shame from a new tidal wave of “Grapes of Wrath”-type foreclosure;

* the environmental endangerment of the planet by the policies of a president whose representatives are booed and hissed by friends of freedom at a global summit, despite the fact that American leadership to protect the planet is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans, a strong majority in Congress and a long and growing list of American business leaders and Fortune 1000 companies.

These things and many others violate cardinal rules of traditional Americanism.

Cardinal rules of Americanism that 98 percent of Democrats and more than 70 percent of political independents want restored to the center of American life.

With an occasional exception on an isolated issue, all the major Republican candidates support a continuation of the same extremist policies of the Bush administration which so greatly violate both liberal and traditional American values. One consequence was seen in the overwhelming desire of voters in a state which went for George Bush in 2004 to vote in the Democratic caucuses this year. This should also be seen in November as the Republicans are swept from power. In addition to the values which Budowsky listed, Americans oppose extremism, whether from the far right or left. The Bush/Rove strategy of governing with 50% plus 1 was doomed to fail. Democrats who have recently condemned bipartisanship in favor of a similar strategy should also keep this in mind.

Be Sociable, Share!

4 Comments

  1. 1
    Keith_Indy says:

    Want to play, name that party?

    “We have people who are plotting against us right now, getting ready to repeat the atrocity of Sept 11. We know it, I see the intelligence reports.”

    Interesting who said that isn’t it…

    And some perspective on Iowa is in order.

    What happened on the Republican side last night is not terribly different from what happened in 1988, when Pat Robertson finished a strong second behind nearly-neighboring-stater Bob Dole (Bush 39 41 finished third). Like Robertson, Huckabee turned out enough of the local Baptists to swamp the tiny caucus turnout, and looked for a brief moment like a serious candidate–at least to people who were willing to ignore political reality.

    This time around, Huckabee has the advantage of not being an outright weirdo like Robertson, and I’m sure that helped him… but c’mon. It’s Iowa. Ask President Gephart sometime about how much an Iowa win is actually worth.

    I really don’t think one should draw to many conclusions from Iowa. All it and the next several primaries is going to do is narrow the field down. Super Tuesday is going to be when a more solid choice is going to occur. From here on out it’s about fund raising, staying in the race, and getting the message out to potential primary goers.

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    Regarding your quote, Hillary sure sounds desperate.

    Huckabee’s victory may or may not turn out to be meaningful. He could do far better than Robertson among non-evangelicals, but the Iowa victory is hardly enough to call him a clear front runner.

    The Democratic race is different and I doubt Obama can be beaten. The Gephart example isn’t a good comparison. Gephart won because of Iowa being a neighboring state but otherwise did not have national support. Obama is in a much stronger position, and simply having lost greatly undercuts Clinton’s biggest advantage–the previous impression that a win for her was inevitable. She just doesn’t have enough time in New Hampshire to recover considering all the independents who vote there. By Super Tuesday Obama will be the one who looks like the inevitable winner.

  3. 3
    Tom Paine says:

    It seems that Obama would use military force beyond self defense and resurrect good old fashioned liberal interventionism.

    I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened.
    We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability — to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities.

    Link
    The questions for me are: what are “our vital interests” and who are the ‘friends’ that we would consider helping with military force?

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    Tom Paine,

    Those are valid concerns, but in looking at the field of candidates I have less concern about Obama unnecessarily using military force as opposed to his opponents. This was seen in his opposition to the Iraq war from the start

Leave a comment