Part of the candidate blogger series for Obama

I want to start this post by apologizing for being absent much of the last week.  I've been visiting with a new niece who came into the world in June and has made this blogger into an uncle.  For that reason, combined with a certain amount of upheaval in my living arrangements, this post will also probably be on the short side.

I want to focus on Obama's relationship to partisanship, because it remains such a hot topic and as there have been a couple of interesting diaries I wanted to address.  Last Friday, Big Tent Democrat posted a look back at Obama's diary on DailyKos back in September of 2005, now nearly two years ago.  

It reminded me of Obama's comments on October 19th, 2005, when, reflecting on his first ten months in the Senate, he raised  the question he had been asked at forums across Illinois: "What do you find most surprising about serving in the US Senate?"

powered by ODEO

Obama answered with his surprise as to the extent that the Senate had essentially ceased to be a deliberative body.  Senators address empty chambers.  Votes are predictable.  Senators regularly demonstrate a lack of independence to vote their own conscience.

In his time in the state legislature, with six of his eight years in the minority party, Obama had the feeling that floor debate sometimes, with some regularity, actually resulted in someone changing their opinion or in a bill being modified.  In comparison, in the US Senate, he saw a lack of genuine debate about policy, a lack of openness, and the loss of the deliberative process --- these are not only a recipe for cynicism and disengagement among the broader public but a recipe for bad governance.

It's not just that the dysfunction in Washington is bad in itself, it's that it results in bad policy.

And, even more profoundly, it's not just that it fosters cynicism about politics but that it fosters cynicism about the possibilities of government, which in the end only makes the conservative case for them.

A Question of Tone

Without getting into the Roberts nomination fight or the specific context of the DailyKos discussion that Obama felt the need to respond to, I want to emphasize a few of the key points that Big Tent Dem either misunderstood or skipped over.  Obama felt defensive about what he felt were polemics against fellow Democratic senators who voted for the Roberts nomination, he was hardly criticizing the right of the netroots or the public to be critical.  In other words, he was criticizing the tenor of the comments and not the comments themselves.  The comments, he felt, went too far in vilifying people like Patrick Leahy who voted yes.

I've written previously about how Obama wants to restore an emphasis on progressive values to American politics with his talk of a new politics, and I've acknowledged that Obama wants to return a sense of civility to the process.  I believe this is not just a rhetorical but actually a substantive position.  It's a position that matters and that is worth talking about.

I think this early essay on DailyKos from Obama on American politics is an interesting document to return to.

But to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, "true" progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward.  When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive "checklist," then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems.  We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted.

Beyond that, by applying such tests, we are hamstringing our ability to build a majority.  We won't be able to transform the country with such a polarized electorate.

Obama emphasizes the importance of building the mandate for a progressive majority -- that progressive changes on foreign policy, on health care, and on judicial appointments rely on building new coalitions, approaching new constituencies, and restoring faith in government.  

More specifically, Obama emphasizes that decrying the bitterness of politics in Washington has nothing to do with compromising on progressive ideals.  It's not about the value of consensus for its own sake, or about the search for a grand compromise:

Let me be clear: I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more "centrist." In fact, I think the whole "centrist" versus "liberal" labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark.  Too often, the "centrist" label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don't think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don't work very well.  And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).

In other words, Obama argues that by risking a genuine conversation about ideas, by acknowledging error, by soliciting opposing viewpoints, we appear more reasonable, and that by appearing more reasonable, we can help lessen the cynicism Americans feel about politics -- again not for its own sake, but because an energized and engaged public leads to better policy and better government.

Obama also includes an apt summation of the dilemma facing the Democratic Party (after the jump).

There's more...