Already over the course of this election cycle, we've begun to see a new trend in presidential politics: candidates wooing potential supporters by calling them to action on a particular issue. Bill Richardson asked us to join him in calling for diplomacy, not attacks against Iran. Chris Dodd asked us to join him in working to restore the right to habeas corpus. Joe Biden asked us to support for his plan to end the Iraq War. Hillary Clinton asked us to join her in telling the President not to veto legislation calling for the withdrawal of American troops. John Edwards asked us to tell Congress to pass that piece of legislation again after it was vetoed. And now Barack Obama is asking us to contact our Republican Senator (if we have one) in the hopes of finding the 16 votes necessary to override the President's veto.
Certainly there have been campaigns based on big ideas in the past, and even calls to action by candidates. But it seems to me that this is a fairly new and unique trend in American politics -- and I like it a lot.
One might say that these efforts are simply campaigns trying a different approach to finding new supporters instead of genuine grassroots efforts to change policy. Perhaps a deal of skepticism in this regard is healthy. At the same time, these campaigns are calling people to action in an unprecedented way at an unprecedentedly early point in an election cycle. There is a great deal of excitement within Democratic circles today, but the presidential election is a long way away. As such, there is a real need for ways to keep people engaged. These efforts by campaigns could just be the way to do this.
And there is a potential to change policy, or at least come a lot closer to doing so. Last night the House of Representatives voted on legislation that would bring American military involvement in the Iraq War to an end through a phased withdrawal. The measure garnered 171 votes -- more than almost anyone expected. Did the fact that John Edwards was calling on his supporters and on Americans more broadly to pass similar legislation have an effect on this vote? Perhaps. But could this surge in support for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq have been achieved in a vacuum without added pressure from the American public? Probably not.
Similarly, Barack Obama has begun an effort to shame Republican Senators into voting correctly on Iraq by having voters in their states contact them and in fact lobby them, an effort he presaged earlier in the week by making an implicit call to Iowans to contact Chuck Grassley to try to sway his vote. Now am I naive enough to believe that this effort has a great chance at actually finding the 16 votes necessary to override the President's veto? No. Yet at the same time I'm not cynical enough to believe that there isn't value in at least trying.
And in the process of trying, by getting people involved, these presidential candidates have the potential to find new supporters. Many in the Netroots and elsewhere would sooner sign up for an effort to change policy -- whether on Iraq, Iran, habeas corpus or something else -- than they would commit to a presidential campaign at this juncture. But in the process of getting involved, voters may find that they like a candidate they hadn't previously expected to support.
Anyway, perhaps I'm reading too much into these efforts and am a little bit too idealistic. But I still like what I'm seeing -- and I sincerely hope that the Democratic presidential candidates keep it up.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 12 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
