SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (33404)7/5/2008 9:12:30 PM
From: puborectalis  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224750
 
July 5 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says he will be ``greedy'' in his quest to break the Republican Party's decades-long hold on the South.

``I can't guarantee we are going to win any Southern state,'' Obama, a first-term Illinois senator, told reporters on his campaign plane today. ``I can guarantee we are going to give it a good shot.''

Obama's campaign has bought television advertising time in states including Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia as part of a broader 50-state strategy to win the White House in November. Obama said Democrats' failure to show up and fight for what are considered Republican strongholds has contributed to a false belief that Democratic candidates can't win in those states.

``For a bunch of election cycles we have had such a narrow path to victory that one thing went wrong we were going to lose,'' Obama said today. ``The `Solid South' with the Republicans is part of that shrinkage of the map. I want to expand it.''

The so-called Solid South refers to Democrats' dominance in the Southeast for almost a century, from just after the American Civil War until Democratic President Lyndon Johnson supported passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, said last week that registering new voters in the South, particularly within the black community, will be a crucial part of the strategy to end Republican dominance in the region.

Smart Strategy

Obama said today that the decision to spend money in some longtime bastions of Republican support is smart strategy.

``If we are only down one in Georgia, if we are within margin of error in North Carolina, if we are actually up slightly in Virginia, it would be pretty foolish for us not to campaign there and just to assume somehow we can't win,'' said Obama, the first black candidate with a serious chance of winning the presidency. ``I think we've got a good shot at winning and I want to be greedy. I want to win as many states as possible.''

Obama said his campaign also may help Democrats win congressional seats in the South and represents the ``best chance of bringing the country together so I can deliver on the promises that have been made.''

The Illinois senator isn't just eyeing Republican strongholds in the South. He spent yesterday in Montana, which has voted for the Democratic presidential nominee only twice since 1948.

Colin Powell

When asked about a meeting last month with Colin Powell, who hasn't yet endorsed a candidate, Obama said he has longtime ties to Powell, a Republican and former secretary of State under President George W. Bush.

``I actually met him prior to being elected U.S. senator and talked to him frequently since being elected,'' Obama said. ``He's somebody whose opinion I value and is somebody I will continue to talk to about national security issues, both before I'm elected president and hopefully after.''

Separately, Obama told reporters he will hold joint fundraisers in New York City next week with his former Democratic rival, New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who finished May with more than $20 million in debt, including $12.2 million in loans she made to her campaign.

``As I've said before, I want to make sure we are providing Senator Clinton with some help just as she has gone out of her way to campaign on our behalf,'' Obama said.

He said he and former President Bill Clinton are figuring out a time to meet in person and ``have a good discussion.'' Obama and the senator's husband spoke by phone earlier this week.

``I look forward to his advice, counsel and participation in the race ahead,'' Obama said.

Obama today also reiterated his goal of ending the war in Iraq if elected.

The presumed Democratic nominee made headlines two days ago when he said he will listen to the advice of military commanders when he travels to Iraq this month and may ``refine'' his stance on a U.S. withdrawal based on their views.

Obama later rejected claims that he is backing off his plan to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office.

``I was a little puzzled by the frenzy that I set off,'' Obama said today on the flight from Butte, Montana to St. Louis. ``I am absolutely committed to ending the war.''

The comment prompted quick criticism from the campaign of Arizona Senator John McCain, the presumed Republican presidential nominee.

``We are all absolutely committed to ending this war, but on Thursday Barack Obama's words indicated that he also shared John McCain's commitment to securing the peace beforehand,'' McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said in a statement. ``What's really puzzling is that Barack Obama still doesn't understand that his words matter.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Kim Chipman in St. Louis at kchipman@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: July 5, 2008 20:54 EDT



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (33404)7/5/2008 9:14:00 PM
From: Ann Corrigan  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 224750
 
Why Barack Obama may be lonely in 2009

What Europe wants now: right-wing leaders with left-wing ideas

DOUG SAUNDERS, Saturday's Globe and Mail

Doug Saunders | July 5, 2008

LONDON — When Barack Obama lands in Europe for his first big international tour this month, the Democratic presidential candidate may be shocked to find himself standing in the middle of a vast, blood-soaked plain littered with the bodies of his political allies.

He will see left-wing parties that have reached their lowest popularity levels in a generation and in most cases have all but slid into non-existence. And it's getting worse. If he becomes president, by the end of 2009 Mr. Obama almost certainly will be the only left-wing leader remaining among the Group of Eight nations and one of only two or three left-leaning heads of state in the Western world. Once again, America will be going it alone.

It is a darkly ironic reversal of fortunes: At the start of the decade, a conservative such as George W. Bush was almost alone in the world; today, the world is being overtaken by conservative leaders — though not necessarily, as we shall see, by their ideas. Ten years ago, Newsweek magazine proclaimed that, "with the exception of Spain, every major country in Western Europe is now run by a left-of-centre party," adding tellingly that "conservative political parties keep winning policy debates and then losing elections." Today, almost the opposite is true. Across Europe, the left is collapsing.

In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel's left-right coalition government has recently seen its left-wing partner, the Social Democratic Party, fall to its lowest popularity level in 40 years and enter an interminable leadership crisis, allowing Ms. Merkel to govern virtually as a lone conservative. In France, conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy has overseen the unravelling of the Socialist Party, which has lost most of its electable leaders and failed to find any inspiring ideas. In Italy, Romano Prodi's smart but awkward left-wing coalition was bulldozed away in April by Silvio Berlusconi's angry far-right group.


Doug Saunders is the chief of the Globe and Mail's London-based European Bureau, (Deborah Baic/The Globe and Mail)

In Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland, social democrats have been swept out of office by conservatives, and even the traditionally left-wing cities of London and Rome have elected right-wing mayors this year. In Norway and Britain, long-standing left-wing parties are plummeting toward defeat.

Among the 27 countries of the European Union, Mr. Obama's friends are secure only in Spain, Portugal and Austria, where they can wield little wider influence.

"The democratic left in Europe is facing its gravest crisis in more than half a century," says British Labour Party MP Denis MacShane, as his Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, fails to raise his formerly world-dominating New Labour movement above the party's lowest polling results since the early 1960s.

Mr. MacShane recently wrote a blistering analysis of the left's demise, going back even further to find a precedent: "Not since the 19th-century concert of nations, when reactionary conservatives like Metternich, Talleyrand and Wellington stamped hard on liberal and proto-labour politics that challenged kings and emperors, has Europe seen so many right-wing politicians ruling the roost."

It is an extraordinary fall for the social-democratic left, which dominated the politics of the 1990s and the early 21st century and managed to redefine the world's centre of political gravity in the post-Cold War years with a new mixture of progressive social policy and economic growth.

Yet the left's collapse cannot be called a victory for right-wing thinking. Quite the contrary.

When Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper made his own tour of Europe in May, he met a lot of fellow conservatives and made some diplomatic inroads with them. He also encountered more left-wing policies than Europe has introduced in years — and most of them are being delivered by those conservative leaders.

Britain's social-democratic New Statesman magazine this week ran a column, meant to reassure Labour's more left-leaning supporters, headlined, "Leaders offering old-fashioned state welfare are getting elected everywhere." The European leaders it mentioned were Ms. Merkel, Mr. Sarkozy and Mr. Berlusconi.

As the world's economy slows, millions of workers find themselves in precarious positions, debt crises erupt and food and fuel prices batter voters, it is the parties of the right that are very often bringing back government regulation of markets, welfare-state protections and more generous social policies.

In Germany, Ms. Merkel has surprised everyone by reversing many of the sharp welfare and social-spending cuts and reforms launched five years ago by Social Democratic chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. She has increased housing allowances, welfare payments and pensions.

And what has happened? Unemployment has fallen almost in half, and Germany has surpassed the U.S. and China as the world's leading exporter.

In France, Mr. Sarkozy has led the efforts to bring more government regulation to financial markets. He has championed economic nationalism and protection of key corporations from foreign takeovers and has been a leading figure in calls for carbon-emission caps across Europe.

This week, he took over the rotating presidency of the EU and immediately launched a "renewed social agenda" of continent-wide welfare and health-care programs, including a universal right for European citizens to take advantage of public-health services in one another's countries — all of it inaugurated with a speech calling for increased state protection of the poor and vulnerable.

Even Mr. Berlusconi has proposed increases in corporate taxation and has introduced new welfare programs to subsidize food and fuel purchases.

In Britain, Tory Leader David Cameron has spent the past year running to the left of Mr. Brown on social policies, calling for more generous public services and a government aimed at helping the poor rather than maximizing profit.

There's a price for such policies: True-blue Tories have likened Mr. Cameron to Pol Pot, just as more conservative members of Ms. Merkel's Christian Democratic Union complain that she has gone soft. But these are shrewd politicians who know what their voters want — and it isn't conservative austerity and spending cuts.

Fear factor

Indeed, even as it welcomes its new blue-tinted family of leaders, Europe seems to be seeing a great leftward tilt of the electorate.

"Across the Western world, the political middle is shifting back toward the left," German author Gabor Steingart wrote in Der Spiegel magazine. "Surprisingly, it may be the conservatives who are best equipped to capitalize on the shift. ¡K It comes as no surprise that voters now favour the type of politician who knows how to combine the market's invisible hand with the iron fist of the state. ...

"[Voters] have worried their way into the leftist camp. They fear competition that overburdens them. They fear a war that they cannot win. And they fear a damaged environment that could come back to haunt them."

There, in the deep-seated fear that now grips voters across the Western world, lies the source of the left's collapse — and the reason why many people are now electing right-wing parties to deliver left-wing policies.

The great accomplishment of the 1990s, when the Cold War conservatives were driven out of office by a new type of left-wing politician in the U.S., Western Europe and (to a lesser extent) Canada, was the left's re-conquest of optimism and confidence.

After the 1970s, the word "progressive" had ceased to have much meaning for left-wing parties: Their main agenda and overarching concern for 30 years was opposition to the policies of conservatives. By default, left-wing parties had become reactionary, offering little more than a turning back of the clock on the right's version of progress. The postwar left had a solid set of social programs, but it had abandoned the economy to the right.

Then, in a dramatic reshaping of the social-democratic parties of Europe and the Democratic Party in the U.S., the left reclaimed ownership of its greatest invention: the liberal market economy. The boom years of the 1990s were largely the product of left-of-centre parties allowing the economy to run freely and using some of that wealth to rebuild the state institutions that had been devastated in the years of conservative austerity.

However, by reclaiming the economic mantle, the new leftists struck a Faustian bargain: No longer could they boast about the welfare state or social security, lest they arouse suspicions.

In Britain, New Labour advisers called this "stealth redistribution" — improve life for the poor, but don't tell anyone about it. In Washington, Bill Clinton loudly carried out his promise to "end welfare as we know it," while quietly increasing social spending in key areas. The bywords were "aspiration," "consumer choice," "empowerment." The poor actually did improve their lot, but the middle class didn't know it, and the left became trusted money managers.

But fear didn't fit into the equation. The current global financial shock and pending recession, combined with the disappearance of the old secure-job industrial economy, has sent voters searching for security, not for the exhilaration of choice. Now that the liberal, global market is hurting voters rather than enriching them, there is an appetite for something else. The left had shown that it could be confident, tough, hawkish, bankable and even exciting, but the field of comfort and confidence had been abandoned. The new right has stepped into that field.

Sometimes, conservatives satisfy this need in conventionally right-wing ways — especially on crime and immigration, where the new conservatives have ranged from tough (in France, where mass deportations are taking place) to outright hateful (in Italy, where some ethnic groups are now being fingerprinted). But conservatives have also managed to buy up the left's former monopoly on social security, both in rhetoric and often in policies, and do good electoral business there.

Neal Lawson, a former adviser and speechwriter to Gordon Brown, recently blasted his party for losing this key piece of terrain, for leaving a large open space that has been filled by parties of the right across Europe.

"Labour's neo-liberals have emerged out of the decade-long process of triangulation," he said, "so ideological and electoral strategy come together: The Tories [were] defeated by taking their terrain before they have a chance to get there." But now, he added, Mr. Brown "has left so much space to the left that David Cameron has found it impossible not to leapfrog into it."

Behind these acrobatics you'll find the truly great comic paradox of our age: The left is struggling to find ways to seize the social safety net away from its current champions on the right, while conservatives are hoping they might win the free-market economy back from its owners on the left. A decade ago, it would have been impossible to imagine.

And as the bloodied left-wing parties struggle to find their way to some future victory, while conservatives search for messages that haven't been borrowed from the other side, it's increasingly clear that absolutely nobody has any idea what will happen next.

theglobeandmail.com