The Meaning of Obama and One Million Contributors

Senator Obama's campaign announced that it has reached the one million mark of contributors to his campaign. He also has raised much more money than McCain, and even more money than Senator Clinton, both of whom have been funded by larger contributors, PAC's, interest groups, and the like -- the traditional sources of funding for candidates whom the Washington elite think are the likely winners in the nominating process (McCain much less so than Clinton).

The special interest money in American politics has, overwhelmingly, gone to the candidates, usually incumbents, that the special interests believe are the likely winners in electoral campaigns. In our book, The Politics of American Discontent, we found this fact that the incumbents were funded 10 to 20 times more than challengers. Early on, Hillary Clinton was thought to be the almost certain winner of the Democratic Party nomination, and she was able to raise a great deal from these interests.

The objective of the special interest money is very specific; the interests want to buy a seat at the table when policy decisions are made that will affect the fortunes of the interest, and their campaign contributions are designed to guarantee them that seat. In general, many of these interests want the ability to manipulate public policy to increase the flow of financial resources to the individuals, corporations, unions or other entities that they represent. It is a ubiquitous process, influencing both Republicans and Democrats, and it creates a huge pressure on governments at the state and national level to increase spending beyond any level that is prudent, with the inevitable impact that public deficits, public debt, and huge unfunded government liabilities are pushed upward at rates that the public would never support, if they had the opportunity to register their views on the subject.

The politicians -- of both parties -- maintain with a straight face that these contributions have no influence over them. In every poll of Americans for three decades, the American people know that this claim is simply a "Big Lie" -- exactly the kind of big lie that undermines the faith of people in their government. Of course the contributions influence office holders. At a minimum, the office holders treat the contributors very well and invite them to the table when the government is considering legislation that affects them.

You might ask yourself the obvious question. Is there any moral or ethical difference if I buy a piece of legislation by giving Congressmen outright bribes or if I buy a piece of legislation by contributing so much money to their campaigns that it permits them to stay in office in perpetuity.

The law and office holders say there is a difference, and they write the rules. But the public is not so stupid, and they can see and smell bribery when it is right in front of them.

Given this, what do we make of the announcement by Obama of one million contributors. For the first time in modern electoral history, a major -- and probably winning -- campaign is in the process of receiving its primary funding from the people at large, and not the special interests. The only other candidate in my lifetime who approached this was Ross Perot, who funded his own campaign. The consequences are numerous:

1. Obama, if elected, will enter office unbeholden to people such as the oil lobby, the NRA, the largest unions, the real estate interests, etc., the list is endless!
2. Obama's contributors will fund his Presidential campaign, but they could also help Democratic challengers up and down the line.
3. The Obama campaign is an organized entity that will exist after the election, potentially supporting him on a whole range of issues and exerting a direct influence of members of the Senate and the House.
4. The Obama organization is likely to grow over time, exerting influence from the public that exceeds the numerous pressures that will be brought together to subvert the public will.
5. In the longer run, the Obama achievement is likely to reshape the degree to which the public becomes a part of the policy of deciding policy, to the detriment of the special interests.

I could go on, but you probably have even more imagination that I have with regard to the implications. Whatever else, the Obama campaign has changed forever the way campaigns are likely to be fought in the United States.

A Surge in Black Voting

One of the largely ignored factors in 2008 is the probable "surge" in Black participation that is almost certain to occur with Obama at the head of the ticket. African-American voters are the single most loyal, in a partisan sense, constituency in American politics. African-American voters, who were largely Republican in the aftermath of the Civil War, turned Democratic during the Roosevelt Administration and the Great Depression. Since the 1930's, they have grown even more "Democratic" in their voting behavior, casting normally around 90 percent of their votes for Democratic candidates at all levels of government.



At the present time, African Americans make up about 13 percent of the general public and about the same among those who vote in national elections. That means that, on average, they vote at about the same percentage as Whites, which is about at the 50 percent mark in most recent national elections.



With Obama at the head of the Democratic ticket, there will almost certainly be a dramatic "surge" in Black voting -- perhaps producing an African American turnout of 75 to 80 percent of all voting age Blacks. This is, of course, speculation, but there clearly have been surges of participation throughout the primaries among African Americans. It is entirely understandable that such a surge would occur, and it will be helped by the degree of political organization that already exists in African American neighborhoods and communities and the strength of the Obama campaign around the Country. Existing organizations in Black communities will make an abnormally large effort to stimulate voting with Obama at the head of the ticket.



What has not been acknowledged, however, in any of the national media and among the political pundits is the potential effect of such a surge -- an effect that will be felt from the Presidency down to the local dog catcher race. A "surge" from 50 percent to 80 percent of all Blacks voting would represent a 60 percent increase in total Black participation compared with previous elections. Assuming that the White vote does not surge equally, and there are reasons to believe that we might actually witness a fall off in the vote among conservative Whites, the net result would shift the African American percentage of the final vote from 13 percent to as much as 18 percent of more of the total vote.



Since Blacks vote Democratic at all levels by about 90 percent, that means that the Democrats will benefit at every level of government by the surge in Black voting by an amount that is a product of the proportion of a particular district that is African American. Then net effect will be to "advantage" Democratic candidates all across the board, at every level of government. I have no idea without a lot of research how many seats at the State and National levels of government would be impacted by this surge, but the number has to be a fairly large number. Where the effect will be greatest are among the "marginal," or hotly contested seats, where Blacks are a moderate to a large percentage of the electorate in the constituency.



This effect does not include the probable impact of a voting surge among young Whites, who seem likely to enter the election and vote Democratic, perhaps for the first time. Young Whites are unlikely to be as loyal to the Democratic Party, but with Obama at the head of the ticket, his presence and attractiveness to the young is almost certain to have some spillover effect on other races. I will speak a little more about this on my next post.

Obama and Leadership

Leadership is a difficult "brew" to capture. It certainly benefits from "experience," but it is much more that experience. Many people in politics have lots of experience, but they are not leaders; and some of our most famous leaders in our history, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Teddy Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, and many more, were quite young and not very experienced when they asserted their leadership and changed the world we have come to know.

I want of offer several attributes that I think are generally true for all of most most revered political leaders. First, as Theodore Roosevelt was fond of saying, the White House is a "bully pulpit." A great skill with words, words that capture the imagination and passion of people, is surely one aspect of leadership. Lincoln had it. Franklin Roosevelt had it. And most certainly, Ronald Reagen had it. Does Obama possess this skill? I think that nearly everyone agrees that he does in a large way, although many of his opponents belittle him as being nothing more than words.

A second aspect of great leadership is the ability to attract the best and the brightest of those available for government service. This was an attribute that Americans admired in John Kennedy, but we were denied the opportunity to find out how far it would take us. We cannot be totally sure about this attribute for Obama until after the election, but he certainly is bringing out the enthusiasm of some of the smartest people in America. His ability to appeal to people at all levels completely transcends race, age or any gender issues.

A final element in leadership is the ability to cement together an organization that consists of more talent than the leader possesses. The core of the While House is an organization of great importance in the United States and the World. No one, not the smartest or most gifted among us, possess every talent to an equal extent. Leaders have a genius for putting together combinations of collaborators who have complimentary skills and perspectives, and leaders have an equal genius for knowing how to get those people to work together. Leaders cannot be involved in the details; they do not have the time. They are not "policy wonks." Leaders are able to attract very competent individuals, who share their vision and who will work in concert to convert the vision to a reality. One of the more unnoticed aspects of this campaign is the extraordinary organization that Obama has melded together. I think his campaign will be remembered as the first true 21st Century political campaign. It takes leadership to do that.

Personally, and this is just an outsiders opinion, I think that Obama has already exhibited more of the elements of leadership than either Clinton or McCain, and I think the voters recognize that leadership when they see it. Just my opinion!