advertisement

The Obama-Sanders divide

WASHINGTON -- In the fevered atmosphere of an election for president, attention naturally drifts away from the one who's still there. So it is with President Obama. The day after the New Hampshire primary, Obama returned to the scene of his political education -- and the launching pad for his own campaign nine sobering years ago.

In Springfield, Illinois, Obama lamented the "poisonous political climate" and mourned that "the tone of our politics hasn't gotten better since I was inaugurated; in fact, it has gotten worse."

His message, mostly, got buried -- bumped off the front pages and evening news by the aftershocks of New Hampshire. Some of the coverage correctly understood the president as criticizing Donald Trump, as when he denounced politics that "reward the most extreme voices or the most divisive language or who is best at launching schoolyard taunts."

But the more interesting aspect of Obama's speech was its implicit disagreement with Bernie Sanders, the previous day's winner. Decorum dictates that an incumbent stay above the current political fray, yet Obama's speech can be interpreted as a rebuttal to Sanders, a rebuke of the Vermont senator's unyielding approach to politics and an unstated endorsement of Hillary Clinton's more-plodding pragmatism.

Contrast, first, Obama's ingrained tropism toward the middle ground with Sanders' call for political upheaval. Voters, Obama said, "instinctively know that issues are more complicated than rehearsed sound bites." They "understand the difference between realism and idealism." They possess "the maturity to know what can and cannot be compromised, and to admit the possibility that the other side just might have a point."

This analysis is antithetical to Sanders' stark depiction of the political landscape. Like Ronald Reagan, Sanders paints in bold colors, not pale pastels. If the other side has a point, Sanders doesn't see it, or at least doesn't acknowledge it. The business model of Wall Street is fraud. The economy is rigged. The billionaire class has purchased a chokehold on Congress.

Obama's message was that voters should find what unites them, across red and blue America. Sanders' is that they must man the barricades.

Contrast, second, Obama's assessment of why voters are so repulsed by politics with Sanders' grimmer diagnosis. In Obama's analysis, "a poisonous political climate ... pushes people away from participating in our public life. It turns folks off. It discourages them, makes them cynical."

The consequence, Obama said, is that "more powerful and extreme voices fill the void. ... And that's how we end up with only a handful of lobbyists setting the agenda. That's how we end up with policies that are detached from what working families face every day. That's how we end up with the well-connected who publicly demand that government stay out of their business but then whisper in its ear for special treatment."

Sanders sees the situation in expressly monetary terms: "a campaign finance system which is corrupt, which is undermining American democracy, which allows Wall Street and billionaires to pour huge sums of money into the political process to elect the candidates of their choice," as he said in Thursday's PBS debate.

In Sanders' view, the problem is not that voters are discouraged, it is that they are disenfranchised by the corruption of the existing system. He does not believe in political climate change but in political revolution.

Which leads to the third, striking difference: Obama's clash with Sanders over the role of money in politics.

Obama, correctly, perceives serious flaws in the system -- in particular, undisclosed, unlimited "dark money" contributions. But he puts the problem in important historical perspective, while Sanders depicts the situation in far bleaker terms. Part of Obama's Springfield message was that folks who subscribe to the Sanders' worldview should get a grip.

"There's also the notion sometimes that our politics are broken because politicians are significantly more corrupt or beholden to big money than they used to be," he said. "Folks aren't entirely wrong when they feel as if the system too often is rigged and does not address their interests."

Still, he noted, invoking America's rich history of political pocket-lining, ward-bossing and vote-buying, "the truth is that the kind of corruption that is blatant, of the sort that we saw in the past, is much less likely in today's politics." You wouldn't know this from Sanders' thundering.

Too bad Obama's speech didn't get more attention. Too bad voters won't get the chance to hear him and Sanders debate directly.

Ruth Marcus' email address is ruthmarcus@washpost.com.

(c) 2016, Washington Post Writers Group

Article Comments
Guidelines: Keep it civil and on topic; no profanity, vulgarity, slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked. If a comment violates these standards or our terms of service, click the "flag" link in the lower-right corner of the comment box. To find our more, read our FAQ.