Editor's Note: I'm pleased to present what we hope will be the first of many "Voxant Guest Bloggers" today. Ed Grefe is a 40-year veteranb of grassroots politics and is recognized the world over as one of the best political strategists in the business. As the Senior Political Consultant at Aristotle International, Grefe travels the globe teaching politicians the fine art of reaching the people. For more than a decade, he's taught grassroots strategy and political management at The George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management.
I first met Ed earlier this year and was immediately struck by his wit and intellect. In a world
of no
n-stop political chatter on the 24-hour cable news outlets, Ed brings patience and experience to his take on the political news of the day. At my request, Ed graciously agreed to share his views of the current race for the Democratic presidential nomination. At Voxant, our mission is to bring the best information to the Internet. I can think of no better way to further that goal than to put Ed's unique take on politics on the Internet for the first time
- Evan McMorris-Santoro, Senior Editor
Reading about Robert Mugabe’s unwillingness to acknowledge election results and give up
power and all its trappings – the lavish mansions and enormous bank accounts
reported on in the media – one comes to see some analogies with the Clintons
who understand what power can do if you have it. Since neither has worked much
in the private sector one can only assume that the Clinton fortune we now know about is the
direct result of their political power.
True the United States is not Zimbabwe,
and Hillary does not have a police force holding the opposition in check. But
the Clinton’s
thirst for power and Hillary’s sense of entitlement is surely no different from
most who seek to gain and/or hold onto power they assume to be rightfully
theirs. Add to the mix the seeming lack of understanding by the Obama folks two
lessons that may undermine their campaign and his turn for the worse appears
more probable even without the assistance of Jeremiah Wright.
The first is the historical confrontations reminiscent of
the 1960s that seem to be playing out in this campaign. The second is that at
the end of the day in any political system, “politics ain’t beanbag.”.
What then makes the Hillary and Obama campaigns – and the
two candidates – different? Several thoughts come to mind as one looks first at
the two campaigns and the two candidates from a historical perspective and next
at the perspective of politics that both Clintons bring to politics.
David Brooks has written an excellent column summarizing the
two Democratic Parties. He notes one is younger, better educated, more
affluent; the other older, less educated and less affluent. He says this is a
relatively new finding. Yet perceiving the differences between what has been termed
the “liberal” wing of the Democratic Party and the “lunch bucket” wing is not
all that new, certainly not if one has spent any time analyzing the
demographics and even psychographics of the audience that prefers Letterman to
Leno, the latter being the preferred comic of the “lunch bucket” crowd.
What amazes Brooks – and the rest of us – is the hold
Hillary seems to have on the “lunch bucket” crowd. She is certainly as well
educated (Yale) as Obama (Harvard). Her climb up the ladder of success has been
somewhat – though in no way exactly – similar. And their platforms appear to be
roughly mirror-images of each other.
But what seems to be at work here is that the two campaigns
and the two candidates are also re-playing the classic split first in evidence
in the 1960s between the Civil Rights Movement and the Feminist Movement. Those
of us present and involved remember the clashes between black women and white
women.
The black community has often been termed a largely
matriarchal society. Thus black women were saying both publicly and privately
to white women: “Sister ain’t no way I am going to let you take the job that my
man should have.” Black women often saw the challenge by white women for
equality as a way of keeping black men down, thereby perpetuating a matriarchal
life the black women were seeking to change by opening up economic
opportunities for their men.
That clash is in evidence today. Older women support Hillary
because they remember the sting of being relegated to the clerical pool.
Younger women do not know of the struggle to make it first to the voting booth
and then the board room except as a historical reference in their studies.
Black women still see white women pushing ahead of their men – and Hillary
represents the extreme, especially given the fact that for all their alleged
interest in helping blacks, the Clintons single-handedly destroyed the fabric
by which poor – read “black” – could survive in our society in order to get the
“lunch bucket” folks to rally behind Bill in the mistaken belief that the
welfare system in place helped only
black people.
Which gets us to the second point – the Clintons are essentially amoral when it comes
to politics. They understand that winning isn’t just everything, it is the only
thing, They subscribe to the notion that coming in second counts only in horse
shoes and hand grenades, And they will do anything to win because at the end of
the day what separates the two candidates in the notion that one is playing at
politics believing there should be some rules of decorum while the other
recognizes that politics is a blood sport, and that it in no way represents
bean bag.
Clinton claims she is toughening up Obama to deal with the Republicans. Such a courtesy
none of us who have worked in campaigns believes. She knows that attack
campaigns have two goals: one, to destroy the opponent; and/two, to make
certain that those voters easily turned off by a negative campaign do not, in
fact, vote as their vote is not a certainty for the attacker. If I do not know
for certain you are going to vote for me I do not want you anywhere near the
polls on Election Day. Her goal is to make certain that if she does not win,
the Democrats do not win.
People appeal to the Party leaders to ask her to get out of
the race. They have no power over her. The only people who could get her to
abandon her quest are people like Gloria Steinem or Eleanor Smeal. That will
not happen because they lead the Feminist Movement which has but one interest:
achieving power over any man at any price.
Short of a shift in strategy one wonders if Obama can secure
the nomination or even if he secures it, whether the divisiveness engendered by
Hillary will not so damage him that McCain is propelled into the White House.
The Democrats may suffer at the polls but when power corrupts it can at times
do so absolutely. Witness those like Mugabe whose obscene desire for power
reminds this observer of those whose only interest in self aggrandizement – not
too far off the mark as one observes the Clintons.
