- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Each party has a somewhat caricatured vision of its political rivals. So it is no surprise that Republicans talk about the "angry left" with the same vehemence that Democrats use to describe the "religious right." Tom Rath, a New Hampshire Republican leader who was a prominent backer of Mitt Romney's, predicted that Obama would be in trouble "if there is an angry liberal tone to the convention that makes voters feel like the Democrats are out of step on the issues."
I get pissed whenever the GOP's various wingdings sound off on what the Democrats need to do, worse when that "advice" gets heeded. They aren't out to help the Democrats; they're out to destroy them. So, throw their fucking advice in the recycle bin, already.
The problem is that the "angry left" referenced isn't even left of political center -- they are a phantasm invoked by the Right, who controls the framing so much it's appalling, whereas the Religious Right actually exists as a political force, and they're skewed further to the right than is acknowledged. The GOP are the ones entirely out of step on the issues, as is show time and again by what people want for the country and its direction.
A strident liberal tone wouldn't suit Obama, but a thoughtful and sensible liberal tone would resonate with voters, just as a weakly centrist tone would weaken the Democratic candidate against McCain, by blurring the differences. I hope that Obama calls down the thunder in his speech.
Because that is the surest way to erase any Clintonian machinations at the convention -- again, if Obama doesn't stand strong as a distinctly liberal candidate, apart from conservative HR Clinton, then the competing cults of personality will reign at the convention.
I think if Obama articulated a sincere and empowering liberal agenda, Clintonites would be forced to suck it up and concede that they are, after all, not liberals, not progressives, but are simply blindly chasing after a cult of personality in HR Clinton. Or else vote for the more progressive candidate.
My worry is that, chastened by the scheming, Obama might hew toward the very unsafe center, offer a weak vision that will fail to distinguish him enough from McCain (or from Clinton) to vault over either of them.
If he's offering a politics of change, he must embrace something strongly liberal, because that's the only way to actually bring needed change in our country's direction. This is a strong political challenge for him, but one I think he's capable of making. Certainly more than HR Clinton, who will always be hobbled and compromised by her (and her husband's) connections and confederates.
