On the blogs, the difference between our two candidates is generally obvious: one is good and the other evil. But out in the real world, the difference doesn't look so clear to everyone. In the debates, when the candidates are asked to talk about their differences, it's about the finer points of health care mandates and driver's licenses. It's about a vote on the war from 2002 or a vote on credit card interest from 2005.
And certainly, there is no disagreement between the candidates as to the fundamental precepts of the Democratic Party: a belief in the common good and a belief in government as a positive force in people's lives. Despite all the chatter about which of them loves Reagan more, obviously neither of our candidates would agree with Reagan's claim that government is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
But I think there is a fundamental, philosophical difference between our candidates, that was crystallized at one point in tonight's debate:
SEN. CLINTON: But, ultimately, this is really about the American people. It's about your lives. It's about your jobs, your health care, whether you can afford to send your children to college, whether you'll be able to withstand the pressure of the rising interest rates on a home foreclosure that might come your way, and whether we're going to once again be proud of our country, and our leadership, and our moral authority in the world.
And so I think that, as we look at these upcoming contests -- 22 of them now on Tuesday -- really, every voter should be looking and examining what they want out of the next president.
What are the criteria that you have for determining who you will vote for, what you think our country needs, what you and your family are really looking for? And then you evaluate the two of us, because no one else will be on the ballot.
Here, we see Hillary talking about basic problems people face: jobs, health care, college costs. And she wants us to think about which candidate would do the best job of solving those problems for us.
Obama, of course, wants to address these same problems. But he takes a different approach:
SEN. OBAMA: ...All of us have endorsers, and ultimately you've got to take a look and see: Who do you want in that White House?
I do think that there was something that happened, and we've been seeing it all across the country. We saw it at the event with Senator Kennedy. We are bringing in a whole generation of new voters, which I think is exciting. And part of the task, I believe, of leadership is the hard nuts-and-bolts of getting legislation passed and managing the bureaucracy, but part of it is also being able to call on the American people to reach higher, to say we shouldn't settle for an economy that does very well for some, but leaves millions of people behind...
So the question is -- part of the question is: Who can work the levers of power more effectively? Part of the question is also: Who can inspire the American people to get re-engaged in their government again, push back the special interests, reduce the influence of lobbyists?
Obama does not minimize the role of government as problem-solver. But he also talks about something more, the idea of getting you, the voter, involved in making change happen, building that movement that Obama supporters instinctively gravitate towards and others struggle to understand.
It's a call to service which echoes, yes, the famous words of John F. Kennedy: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
But I don't think it's as simple as declaring Obama the new JFK and leaving it at that. We see that both our candidates have millions of supporters. Both their messages have broad appeal.
In the online communities like Daily Kos, the vast majority of participants are drawn to Obama's message. For the most part, we are activists, and the idea of joining a movement for change feels natural to us. We see younger voters in general drawn to Obama for much the same reason; they have the energy and the passion for change and they want to be part of making it happen. They're not looking for Hillary to solve all their problems while they stand by passively.
But not everyone in the Democratic Party is looking to be part of a movement. Many traditional, mainstream Democratic voters - the working class, the elderly, the downtrodden, the single mothers - are simply looking for a hand with their problems. It's not that they want a handout. It's that they already have trouble finding enough hours in the day, and if the government can make things a little easier for them, that's what they're looking for. They have no time to join a movement.
And obviously, I'm generalizing as to both groups of people, so I hope no one takes offense. There are certainly plenty of activists who support Hillary and plenty of people working three jobs who support Obama.
When I think about my own candidate, John Edwards, no one would question that he speaks powerfully in terms of using the government to help the poor, the homeless, the struggling. But he also speaks of how important it is for regular people to become involved in the process, to take back the reins of power from the lobbyists and special interests who control them, who prevent government from working for the benefit of regular people. In a sense, he incorporates positive elements of both messages, and it's not surprising that poll numbers are inconclusive as to which candidate his supporters will gravitate towards.
My purpose in writing this diary is not to argue that one vision of government is "better" than the other, but simply to articulate the two visions and the reasons why different people might be inclined to choose one or the other.
The vision you choose depends not on which is "right," in some objective sense, but moreso on who you are, what you need, and where you have been. Both these visions, it seems to me, fit squarely within the fundamental values of the Democratic Party, and both of them stand squarely in opposition to the Republican philosophy of "every man for himself."
I believe the Democratic Party can work successfully within either framework, without abandoning its core principles one bit. Next Tuesday, roughly half the Democrats in America will have a chance to choose which vision they prefer.