Obama's private funding: what does it mean?

Ultimately, it means this:

The end of the Democrats' capitulation to, and cooperation with, the Republican 'Southern Strategy.'

I'm watching Jim Lehrer - what an extraordinary show - and David Brooks is embarrassing himself talking about Obama as a crafty liar, a 'tough SOB' (seriously); what a soulless, worthless hack Brooks is, overcome with resentments, simpering at the foot of power he'll never have. The decision not to take public funding isn't a sellout; I'm startled that otherwise intelligent people keep insisting that it is. By opting out of public funding, Obama has already reformed campaign funding, more than campaign-funding crusader John McCain ever has. Obama has said that he's in favour of far-reaching reform of federal campaign funding; by making his campaign directly accountable to several million donors (rather than the lobbyist organizations and big-money donors McCain will happily embrace in his 'publicly funded' campaign), he's paving the way for an overhaul of the 527 and PAC rules in 2010 and 2012.

If you assume that everything he does, he does for purely political, power-grabbing purposes, then of course this move looks hypocritical. But think long-term: he's gonna raise hundreds of millions of dollars. He's gonna chip away at the Party of White Resentment, the Right wing of the Republican Party, and its hegemony in 'red' states across the country. He's not just campaigning for 2008, he's making an initial push toward expanding Democratic outreach in the Old South and Southwest. Yes, this will force McCain to compete in states where he thought he was secure - but only demagogues and hacks would fail to see two things:

1) This will make McCain stronger, and

2) this will make for more honest representation in these states.

Obama's already making inroads in swing states - according to one major poll he's well up in Florida(!). But if you believe in the strong or weak form of the false-consciousness argument Thomas Frank advanced in What's the Matter With Kansas?, then you'll immediately get the importance of Democratic outreach in 'traditionally' Republican states: then end of pure pandering in lieu of proper campaigning, the beginning of an economic, pragmatic, full-throated argument about the merits of the Democrats' approach (and the consequences of the Republicans').

Look, Obama's going to win. Guaranteed. The Dems are going to shitbox the Republicans in this electoral cycle and that'll probably do the Republicans a hell of a lot of good. The end of public financing in its current form (which may be the ultimate result of Obama's decision) is part of a broader debate about the influence of special interests (GOP and Dem) during campaigns and beyond. There's nothing particularly noble about 'public funding,' especially compared - and this is a key point, pay attention - to the astonishing increase in public participation and excitement around Obama's campaign. It's not just young kneejerk liberals flipping out for this guy. And if a shift to direct funding (which is 'private' in the sense of 'unmediated,' not in the sense of 'privatizing Social Security') means Obama will be able to compete on equal footing in states where the Republicans have enjoyed extremely partial media treatment and extremely limited narrative penetration, then that's better for everyone! Especially the Republicans, who will now be accountable to their voters in ways they haven't been in decades (promising Culture War victories, delivering service cuts and lower taxes for corporations and the rich).

David Brooks is right about one thing: Obama definitely changed his mind about public funding. Why? Because he's embraced a system that's better not only tactically but on the merits. Obama's right about the influence of 527's and 'independent' operatives - remember that he just fought the Clinton machine to a standstill, and those bastards are masters of the Swift Boat style - and I believe he'll undertake comprehensive campaign-finance reform in ways McCain could only have dreamt of a few years ago. That's why the major media hates this decision - it represents yet another threat to the plutocratic political system in which our 'journalists' and laughable pundits are utterly complicit.

I'm open to an argument that Obama's about-face is a bigger deal than his far-reaching political program. But I've yet to hear one.

* * *

Shorter version of the above: David Brooks is a Republican hack and today's NYTimes column on Obama is nothing more than typical Republican propaganda dressed up as 'outsider' commentary. Just because Brooks doesn't take overt pleasure in pouring crude oil over endangered birds doesn't mean he's not an utterly conventional 'contrarian' hack.

Comments

[Walter Mitty]

Am I to believe that Mr. Obama was naive about the influence of 527s and independent "operatives" just a few months ago and has now suddenly woken up? That campaigning in the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois as a whole left him ignorant of the ways of real politics? I think more likely he said all the right things when he was supposed to say them not realizing enormous amount of money he would one day be able to raise from a highly motivated democratic base. You can call Mr. Brooks anything you want and you might be right but it was Mr. Obama who made the pledge.

[Wax Banks]

WM -

Heavens no, not naïve until recently - but until recently he hadn't had to deal with the unsubstantiated smears of the Clinton/McCain machine. Until recently he'd gotten a fair shake from the press, none of the manufactured Rezko/Muslim/fist-pump bullshit that's coming up. Until recently he hadn't had to deal with full-on Fox News nonsense, full-on GOP bullshit. And until recently there was a chance that McCain would make a good-faith effort to rein in the GOP hound dogs. But McCain is going to run exactly the sort of campaign any Republican would, and no doubt Obama's reacting to that realization more than anything. It didn't have to go that way - in Y2K it might not have gone that way. But the McCain Obama admired - admires - is not his opponent this year.

But on top of that there's the noncynical explanation: raising money directly from a couple million Americans is morally upstanding and a better alternative to public funding, which is something Obama's been stressing for ages now (small donors and local politics have been running themes of his campaign from the beginning). He doesn't want the money so he can take the White House; he's going to win anyway. He wants the money so he can alter the process for good, from within.

I don't even buy his explanation (527's) entirely. I think it's about ending the current system of campaign financing, questioning the donation structure, democratizing. He can't do that with his hands cuffed by that loopy dollar limit imposed by public funding. As usual, the best bet is that he's making a smart play that's also a moral play; he'll do both sides good.

Of course he learned rough-n-tumble politics in Chicago. But it's shortsighted to see him as yet another politician wanting to perpetuate the current system. This is a reformist gesture, obviously. He's running on reform, to be sure, but he's not just running. He's also reforming. This is about governance even more than it's about campaigning.

Jes' you wait.

[The Good Doctor]

Defending the indefensible is no small feat, O' Dear Back-to-the-Wall-ies. You may want to keep this excellent piece in the back of your mind for the long future: wouldn't want to see you falling all over yourself backtracking through this swamp for fear they'll find the body +800 years later in some peat bog,* perfectly petrified for posterity,** and with the telltale coin still dans la poche.*** BUT it certainly is a nice try: I do admire it as I sit here chuckling. Next time...consider hemlock.

* Edinburgh, Scotland ~ in the museum.
** Original rough weeds clothing of the period.
*** The telltale: thought to be mere legend (most of which have actual basis in fact) a coin was found on the man that was minted during one year only, thus more accurately dating the time of death in historical terms while also a) matching with the results of carbon dating of the body and b) going to the very year in which the 'legend' was first reported to be in circulation.

Now...an admission of my own: back at the time of the first W.J. Clinton election, I could not feature that the American people would elect the guy...and actually made that view known. Ouch! Ouch...ouch! Later on, the ouch became something of a giggle: we always get what you pay for, although that may have seemed like a bargain at the moment of purchase. I am not making the same assertion this time around, having come to think that (while it is the my policy never to lose faith in one's fellow citizens in THIS country) sometimes our trust is betrayed by shortsightedness...even our own (meaning that I very well comprehend the stats leading us through this race and up to the election suggest a remarkable degree of faith some folks are investing in your candidate. [Been there/done that, and know that it is to step into the pitted mouth of peril and regret.]

Catch you on the swing side!

[Wax Banks]

Doc -

I loudly proclaimed to all my friends that there was no way GW Bush would be reelected in 2004 - how could he? A proven liar, an unlawful war, etc. And his opponent a war hero and hugely experienced Senator! But they went for it.

I definitely stand by this post - and I guarantee this too: Obama wins running a very different kind of campaign from McCain, guts the Congressional Republicans, and undertakes campaign finance overhaul as a major issue at some point in his two terms, against hesitation and opposition from his gutless Democratic colleagues.

I don't believe he entirely trusts the Democratic Party, and while he'll surely push for major Democratic initiatives (e.g. universal health care) during his time in office, I think the Dems will have some problems with Obama, starting with Republican outreach (which scares them).

He's going for all 50 states, and he's gonna win a hell of a lot of 'em. Because of this decision. And that will have an enormous impact on his presidency, compared to the 50/50 splits of the last couple presidential elections. No Supreme Court involvement this time. His candidacy is about small donors, local involvement, and grassroots action, and that's a better model than public financing to my mind. It's gonna work for him, and it's gonna have a big effect on his term in office.

This is not a primarily electoral maneuver. Mark my words.

[The Good Doctor]

I should pray you are correct in your curious assessment/s. Experience watching these matters is one thing and reading the histories about them is another: together, they make for a very sorry gruel ~ call it cruel cruel, if you like.

Probably both you and I would like what George Washington strived to achieve; soon enough undermined and the resulting artifacts painfully suffered and nobly endured by John Adams [despite his stumble with the infamous Allien & Sedition Acts]; and the resulting upcropping fistual used by a most inventive Thomas Jefferson who came to understand, "We've got parties now and I may as well engineer them to serve my ends before they destroy Me..." -- NOTE: Not "us all" but "Me."

We survive, oh yes, though I think how we tend now as a result of the varietal exhaustions of the American people and remains what must be turned around: you think one Shall do it, I think that unlikely and so it seems I will opt for the other when it comes down to it...although I am making no predictions yet about my final behavior: I'll be sticking with principles forged of my experiences, unlike my preferred party since the departure of the vilified Newt Gingrich, and closely watching what unfolds subsequent to current "positioning" moves we both see mounting. [That anyone can watch this stuff and still write "This is not a primarily electoral maneuver," without, as it seems of your context, meaning "...the internal electoral struggles are over," births awe in my spread open eyes and arched eyebrows -- Whew! give me air.

Have a good weekend, Wal-some (and IF you have not yet stumbled all over it, try yourself a bottle of the modestly priced but de-lish Balvenie/Doublewood 12 yr. single malt: it has turned our heads here as our sipping exemplar extraordinaire...moving that one notch back closer to Scotch over bourbon, where I began to sip. "Moderation in all things." You'll be glad for it.

[The Good Doctor]

I missed a "it seems when closing my quotation of your words at the end of the next to last paragraph before "births": sorry.