TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
29.08.2008
Just What the Doctor Ordered

I have heard Barack Obama deliver speeches better, but in this acceptance speech, Obama did exactly what he needed to do to set the stage for the fall campaign.

He had to do three things for the fall, which he accomplished in his speech: first, he focused the campaign on the economy--and did so by personalizing the fear and anger that many Americans now feel. Secondly, he answered forcefully arguments about his ability as commander-in-chief. And third, he invoked his own biography to dispel fears that as a president he would favor one group over another.

And he did all these things thematically. There was a very subtle interweaving of Obama’s past themes with the new theme of the American promise. (I like to think that Obama has read Herbert Croly’s The Promise of American Life, which inspired Theodore Roosevelt’s progressive campaign in 1912 and the founding of The New Republic in 1914.) Here, in outline, is how the past and present themes came together:

Change: In this speech, “change” did not refer to the kind of sweeping good government notion that Obama evoked in the campaign to skewer Hillary Clinton. Rather, it referred specifically to change from the eight years of George W. Bush.  Indeed, Obama drew a contrast between the Clinton and Bush years. With that simple modification, change became relevant to the fall campaign.

American promise: Obama used this idea to refer to the promise that each American, regardless of the circumstances of his or her birth, has an opportunity to get ahead. In that sense, it was intertwined with his own biography and with his appeal to a higher equality of Americans regardless of race, class, and region.

But it also fed two other arguments. First, it figured in the liberal or progressive (to use Croly’s term) argument that government has a responsibility to make good on the American promise: through regulating the market, and through providing health insurance and education for all citizens. Second, it figured in Bill Clinton’s “New Democrat” argument (that has goes back to the Puritans) that in order to achieve the promise of American life, Americans have to exercise mutual and individual responsibility. People have to be willing to work; parents have to look after their children; corporations cannot behave like brigands. So through this notion of the American promise, Obama united the two historic strands of American liberalism: the older New Deal argument of the 1930s and the “New Democrat” argument of the 1990s.

One America: Finally, Obama invoked his vision of a single America--and he used it not only to put forward the promise of racial reconciliation, but as an attempt to defuse the great social divisions of the last decades over immigration, abortion, gays and guns. And that, too, dovetailed back into the idea of the American promise, which could not be achieved, Obama suggested, if America continued to be rent by incivility and social discord. It was one of the most intellectually elegant speeches I’ve heard. Besides that, I expect that it will do Obama and the Democrats a lot of good in the weeks ahead.

--John B. Judis

Posted: Friday, August 29, 2008 5:04 AM with 10 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

nikkiwhite said:

I won't lie: I was sobbing yesterday when Hillary Clinton moved that Barack Obama be nominated by acclamation. I am a late Baby Boomer and I appreciate what women just a little older than I did so that I could live the life I lead today, and she is a potent symbol of their accomplishments.

But I know that as a sincere Democrat, the task now is to get Barack Obama elected. Period.

I watched all the speeches tonight at the official Dallas County Democratic Party's event, held at a historic movie theater in my neighborhood.

But living in Texas, I know full well that it would be a miracle if my state's electoral votes had anything to do with a Democratic victory for the White House.

The local event also served as a sort of pep rally for downballot candidates who were present, and Obama's speech did a great job of energizing the grassroots for the fall campaign ahead. Obama can serve as a a turnout-generator in trying to get local Democrats elected and as a spark for local volunteers to expand their efforts beyond Obama's campaign alone.

That would be the best outcome of tonight's speech as it relates to Dallas Democrats. In that measure, I would judge his speech a success and hope the energy is carried forward.

August 29, 2008 12:20 AM

isik1 said:

thank you. Listening to all the tv commentary -Brooks on PBS to MSNBC to Fox, I was beginning to think I must be crazy. Whether they liked it or not, they seem to have not understood it. How is that possible? The speech you summarized/analyzed is the one I heard; it put change into a historic context and tied it to the "American promise". Here's to hoping that other people were hearing it too.

August 29, 2008 12:25 AM

gurdjieff66 said:

The most amazing pundit moment was Pat Buchanan acting like Chris Matthews, saying it was the greatest speech he's heard since Kennedy in 80, saying it was speech out of the American heartland, etc..  I'm a huge Buchanan fan, I don't share his level of enthusiasm about this speech, but I agree with his general take on it: he sounded genuinely American (as opposed to African-American).  Let's hope enough Americans who don't vote in Democratic primaries agree.  

You Tube of Buchanan's comment is posted on Daily Kos right now.  

August 29, 2008 1:32 AM

The Plank said:

There was a moment after Barack Obama spoke but before Michelle and the children had made it on stage

August 29, 2008 1:48 AM

a_long said:

I agree, but his argument can still stand some reduction, concentration, so that it hits you in the gut as well as the head. That can happen on the stump, but should, critically, happen in the first debate.

August 29, 2008 1:55 AM

The Plank said:

A few thoughts: --I think J ohn Judis is right about the overall effect of the speech, and the "single

August 29, 2008 3:17 AM

jyunis said:

One interesting thing about Obama's retooled economic speech, which was featured tonight: no talk whatsoever about trade. I figure he wanted to avoid a complex and controversial issue within the party, but as long as he doesn't discuss trade head-on, he won't completely convey the populist agenda that Judis and others deem so vital to his success with working-class voters.

Otherwise, it was a very solid speech, that managed to accomplish a whole bunch of things at once--be specific, but also be lofty, be tough, but don't fight back, and so forth.

August 29, 2008 3:57 AM

americapolyphony said:

A l'écouter, le discours de Barack Obama jeudi soir dans l'immense stade de football américain des Broncos de Denver (pas loin de 85'000 personnes) avait tous les ingrédients de la stature de présidentiable. A le regarder aussi, tant...

August 29, 2008 6:26 AM

PeteBeck said:

The idea of a "single America" is emotionally satisfying, but not an America that I have ever experienced -- and I am in my 70's and have had a rather diverse life experience.

Beyond Fourth of July patriotism, we are divided by race, economics, trade or profession, religion (and nuances within religion), education level, musical taste, sexual orientation, etc., etc.  

This may be because I live in the Northeast, where these differences are I have been told far more pronounced than in other parts of the country.  But they stil exist nationwide.

For example, I live in a neighborhood that has changed -- become much more affluent -- since we bought our house 32 years ago.  I'm surrounded by venture capitalists and hedge fund managers with whom I have very little in common.  My sincere impression is that they and their families don't think in terms of a single America, but, rather in terms of an America which affords them the opportunity to get rich and live the good life.  The vast majority will vote Republican, although some may fall away based primarily on Iraq.

What the two major parties have done is create coalitions of self-identified groups, and the party which is able to appeal to the broadest coalition plus that small minority honestly interested in who offers the best governmental policy wins the election.

It is critical (and I am sure Obama knows it) that Obama hold onto the traditional coalition of environmentalists, pro choice women, gays and lesbians, left leaning college professors and students, and other soi disant intellectuals union members, anti-Iraq war people, and traditional I have always voted that way Democrats, etc.  That alone represents almost enough -- but not enough -- to win voters.  The added group to bring in is those who feel economically insecure (a large number but not as large as most commentators seem to think).  That combination -- the traditional coalition plus those who are or who see themselves as economically vulnerable -- should enable him to win the election.

August 29, 2008 9:17 AM

Daily Intelligencer - New York Magazine said:

We’ve ordered our pundits’ reactions to Obama’s speech from, roughly, the most glowing praise to the harshest critiques, to elucidate the vast discrepancies of opinion.

August 29, 2008 11:35 AM