You are hereObama's Elite Power Base
Obama's Elite Power Base
Looking back at President Obama’s first year in office, this much is clear: Obama first enraged the right wing by seeming to veer far left, then turned off the left by seeming to abandon them. Even as Fox News fundamentalists rail against “socialism,” self-styled progressives like Naomi Klein scream about a “blown” opportunity to lead the nation from the swamp of darkest capitalism.
Both right- and left-wing critics fail to consider the fundamental nature of the Obama regime. This presidency represents not a traditional ideology but a new politics that mirrors the rise of a new, and potentially hegemonic class, one for which Obama is a near-perfect representative.
Every president and political movement, of course, brings to power an often-hoary group of grasping interest groups. Under the conservatives and George W. Bush, the favored classes included standbys like the fossil-fuel energy companies, Big Agriculture, suburban homebuilders, and the defense industry.
Rather than the “good old boys,” Obama’s core group hails from what may be best described as the “creative class” – the cognitive elite, or, to borrow from Daniel Bell’s The Coming of Postindustrial Society, the “the hierophants of the new society.” They come not from traditional productive industry, but the self-conscious “knowledge” sectors – such as financial services, the software industry, and academia.
From early on, Barack Obama attracted big-money people like George Soros, Warren Buffett, and JP Morgan’s Jamie Dimon far more effectively than his opponents in either party. As The New York Times' Andrew Sorkin put it back in April, "Mr. Obama might be struggling with the blue-collar vote in Pennsylvania, but he has nailed the hedge-fund vote.”
Other bastions of support could be found in Silicon Valley, where Google Chairman Eric Schmidt and venture capitalist John Doerr were all early backers. Obama, the former law school professor, also did exceedingly well with academics, and many of his pivotal wins in the Midwest rested heavily on both votes and volunteers from college constituencies.
Finally Obama gained the early support of public-sector unions, now arguably the dominant power within the Democratic Party. Together, these groups now enjoy the lion’s share of influence inside the administration.
In contrast, the representatives of traditional Democratic sectors such as industrial labor unions, Latinos, or even many African Americans were slow to join the Obama bandwagon. Even after they joined his electoral coalition, they have received little in the way of succor from the president and the administration.
Indeed, for most of these voters, the past year has been an awful one. Unemployment for Latinos, blacks, and blue-collar workers has skyrocketed, particularly among males. For them, Obama’s economic plan has done very little – unsurprising given its primary focus on sustaining public-sector employment and large financial institutions.
In contrast, the core Obama constituencies appear to have ridden out the recession in fine shape. Mega-patron George Soros, for example, has boasted openly about how he was having “a very good crisis.” Much the same can be said of the largely pro-Obama hedge funds and investment bankers, for whom Paulson to Bernanke to Geithner has provided a double-play combination for the ages.
Academia has also emerged as a big winner. This administration is crammed with professors from Science Adviser John Holdren and Energy Secretary Steven Chu to former Harvard President Larry Summers, the director of the National Economic Council. More broadly, academics have reaped massive windfalls from the stimulus, both in terms of direct support for universities and funding for research projects.
One place where the priorities and class interests of the cognitive elite coalesce most has been on “climate change.” In contrast to manufacturers, farmers, or fossil-fuel firms, investment bankers, software companies, and university professors have little to fear from the rash of “green” policy initiatives.
In fact, for these groups, “climate change” often means a once-in-a-lifetime bonanza. Wall Street sees the administration’s “cap and trade” proposals as opening a whole new frontier to enjoy yet more profit. University researchers – particularly those with the right spin on the climate issue – have been big winners in the tens of billions of dollars being handed out by the Chu-led Energy Department and other federal agencies.
Overall, subsidized “alternative energy” – largely excluding both nuclear power and natural gas – also provides Silicon Valley with federal backing for ventures in everything from luxury electric cars and dodgy geothermal developments to “smart” energy grids. And, of course, all this increased federal spending also plays into the public-sector unions, for whom an ever-expanding government represents the ultimate growth industry.
In the short term, Obama’s loyalties have gained him political credit even in hard times. Support from Wall Street and Silicon Valley assures access to big-money sources and influences the upper echelons of the establishment press, particularly in New York. Meanwhile, the academy and the public bureaucracy provide a cadre of political shock troops who may be needed to rouse an increasingly disaffected Democratic base in the 2010 elections.
But Obama’s class strategy also poses considerable longer-term risks. The cognitive elites – clustered in places like Washington, New York, Boston, or Silicon Valley – tend to only talk to and listen to each other. This often makes them slow to recognize shifts in grassroots opinion on such issues as the health plan or global warming.
That risks continued erosion of support from many hard-pressed middle-class voters around the country more concerned with economic growth and holding onto their home than saving the planet. These are precisely the voters, not the tea party activists or their leftist analogues, who likely will determine the political winners in 2010 and beyond.
This article originally appeared at The Daily Beast.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend


Very informative and trustworthy blog. Please keep updating with great posts like this one. Hulu Downloader , m2ts converter flv converter flv to wmv converter
Even after they joined his electoral coalition, they have received little in the way of succor from the president and the administration. Thanks Life Insurance Policies
Well, the point here seems complicates and is beyond my usnderstanding....
classified ads |employment|adjustable beds
President Obama is really consistent and he is firm with his decisions. He does what must be done to save the country.
Essay | Essay writing
Obama is amazing consistent in doing exactly what he says. The media, however, either citing Mr A Source or just speculating spew inaccuracy into the airwaves that frequently make it seem that Obama says one thing but does another. If people would educate themselves, actually read articles versus headlines, question the motives of the messenger, ask "how does this person know' etc., they wouldn't be so easily misinformed. Quit being manipulated by a self=serving media and think. Start demanding a higher quality journalism based on facts. slatwall
I believe every president and political movement, of course, brings to power an often-hoary group of grasping interest groups.
classifieds |ads|memory foam mattress
Sometimes our innocence hindrance our point of view to understand so much about the law. Thus, we have to investigate it further for our own good. The Obama Wall Street Address at Cooper Union College was meant for president Obama to further explain his stand point on the health bill that could be going to the Senate later this week or next. The bill has already passed the House of Representatives, and only has a little ways left on its way to becoming law. This reform bill has numerous optimistic and questionable sides to it. All I ask is that before you get all hot headed and worked up over it, do your research. Actually spend some unbiased time finding out just what this bill is about and how it will impact your life; you may be surprised at what you discover.
Joel,
Please do not fall prey to the MSM disease of uncritically accepting or manufacturing false positions to attribute to the left as counterpoints to right wing extremist and obviously mendacious rhetoric or actions. Examples are comparing FOX News based on lies and half truths to MSNBC who may be hyper-critical of right wing hypocrisy but does not use lies to advance their POV. Likewise I have not found any left wing equivalent of the right wing hateful activities full of lies engaged by Tea-baggers and GOPers alike.
The risk Team Obama runs in that trying to protect themselves as centrists, they are trying to distance themselves from the progressive agenda they ran on and pulled all the support in. Centrist is a deceptive terms among Dems covering the spectrum from DINO Blue Strays, Hidebound Anti-choice to Corporate Tools.
No amount of Silicon Valley money is going to be able to compensate for a disillusioned base. I think Dems will be drinking deadly Elite Power Base Koolaid described by you and being dispensed by Rahm & Co.
*Examples are comparing FOX News based on lies and half truths to MSNBC*
Curiously enough, `seven', Kotkin has done no such thing in the above piece.
You are, in spite of yourself, quite correct in saying there is no comparison between Fox and MSNBC - the latter is far worse for spreading lies (never mind half-truths). It's hard to come up with any instance of where MSNBC has actually reported the truth in fact.
*The risk Team Obama runs in that trying to protect themselves as centrists, they are trying to distance themselves from the progressive agenda they ran on and pulled all the support in. Centrist is a deceptive terms among Dems covering the spectrum from DINO Blue Strays, Hidebound Anti-choice to Corporate Tools.*
Unfortunately, Mr or Ms `seven' has succumbed to the delusion that Obama's poodle lost in Massachusetts (to a Republican!) bec. the president is not `showing leadership' - is not radical enough.
This is the same delusion that overcame the Republicans after the loss in 08 - ie. `If only we had run a *real* conservative instead of that RINO McCain, the American people would have rallied to us.'
Fortunately, the Rep's seem to have overcame that delusion.
`seven' even uses the same terminology: ie. `DINO' instead of `RINO'
Someone should counsel `seven' that there is face-saving and then there is delusion.