Why Obama's mantra of change has a short half-life
Amid the Obamamania, allow me to insert two contrarian thoughts. Both are by way of arguing that the change mantra will have to, er, change. And soon.
A first reason is that other politicians, particularly those holding office, are going to get uneasy about all this call for change. In Maryland, for instance, two members of Congress, one from each party, lost their seats in the Feb. 12 primary, the first time that has happened in the state in 30 years.
It's an example of how the appetite for change can get out of control. And a harbinger of how politicians will be pressuring Obama to lay off.
Close to home, it could happen that Dino Rossi will become the local embodiment of Obama's message, pushing for change after 24 years of Democrats in the governor's mansion, calling for unspecified "new approaches" to big problems like transportation and education, and using his affable personality as a promise for bipartisan solutions. Two can play this game of change, and Obama is writing a script that is open-source.
The other reason for predicting a change in Obama's basic appeal is that it can only conceal for so long that his message is a downer, an invitation to swallow castor oil. To his credit, Obama is laying the groundwork for tackling some very big problems, so big that they can't be addressed without bipartisanship: withdrawal from Iraq, climate change, too much debt, universal health insurance, fixing Medicare and Social Security.
But of course, all these neglected issues involve a lot of pain, sacrifices, new taxes, public anger. Daniel Henninger, a conservative columnist for The Wall Streeet Journal, detects a kind of grimness underneath Obama's uplifting rhetoric:
Unease about the economy is real, but Sen. Obama is selling more than that. He is selling deep grievance over the structure of American society. That's the same message as John Edwards, or Dennis Kucinich for that matter. Hillary Clinton's mistake may have been to think this is 2008, not 1938, with the solution lying in leveraging votes in a Democratic Congress. Instead of Hillary's wonkish geniuses, Barack is selling the revolution – change "from the bottom up." ...
Whatever else, Barack Obama isn't talking sunshine in America. He's talking fast and furious. People not yet baptized into Obamamania may start to look past the dazzling theatrics to see a vision of the United States that is quite grim and could wear thin in the general election.
Oh, and did I mention the Seattle mayor's race in 2009?
Comments:
Posted Fri, Feb 15, 8:31 a.m. inappropriate
Grim: So, David, if having a vision to try to fix America's problems is, to use your word, "grim", what is not fixing America's problems? More of Bush? Ignorant? Disasterous? Irresponsible?
Maybe, just maybe, part of the enthusiasm for Obama and his message of change is that a number of us are willing to roll up our sleeves, do some sacrificing and start undoing the mistakes and wrong-headed policies that go back to a little more that 8 years ago.
Posted Fri, Feb 15, 8:53 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Grim: Right on, Hack. And David, I'm suprised to read this sort of thing from you. Let's leave that the Obama bashing/hope crushing to likes of Rush, ok? You are SO far above that, remember who you are.
Mary
Posted Fri, Feb 15, 9:05 a.m. inappropriate
As the new inevitibility of Barack Obama gels, giddy euphoria over the new political Messiah will fade when it's discovered that he cannot turn water into wine despite the best efforts of Mossback, MSNBC, and most of the Kennedy clan (to them, the Clinton's are trailer trash upstarts no matter their go-to-meetin' clothes and nouveau riche Chappaqua digs) to convince the great unwashed to the contrary.
Charles Krauthammer makes some great points about how Barack Obama is running around issuing unsecured promissory notes that can only be cashed out of our pockets.
What, exactly, will he cost us in the form of higher taxes, on the job training mistakes, and national disillusionment?
This isn't even remotely to suggest that Hillary Clinton is better. God forbid! The Democratic Party's answer to Richard Nixon is, thankfully, in the process of her own Greek tragedy crash and burn missing only Wagnerian background music ala Apocalypse Now. Please, Lord, for the good of the Republic, let it be so!
But the sins of Clinton do not justify giving a pass to Obamania, which, in the long haul, could be equally bad. Unlike Hillary, we simply haven't the data to know for sure. Here's hoping before we cast our fate upon the political Lotto ticket of Barack Obama, will give him at least a modicum of thought as to exactly what this guy brings to the table besides expository flourishes and an ability to vanquish the Wicked Witch of the West Wing.
In the time taken to write this, how deeper has David Brester's blog post been buried? Editorial quicksand.
The Piper
Posted Fri, Feb 15, 9:20 a.m. inappropriate
Who is David?: In his better moments a Scientist, is my guess
Posted Fri, Feb 15, 10:29 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Grim: First of all, one has to ask, "What does someone need to do to get fired around here?" Let's be clear, there is ample evidence of mismanagement and opportunities wasted on the part of our political leaders in the recent past - in both Washingtons.
Additionally, I recall that Mr Rossi didn't need Sen Obama's help to nearly win the Governor's mansion the last time he ran for it. It is time for a change. When voters get their say, I have a feeling that people who put party before all else will be looking for work on K Street.
Secondly, I do have a "deep grievance over the structure of American society" which seems so comfortable to act unilaterally on the global stage for the benefit of a tiny fraction of the populace. Grim does not even begin to describe how I have felt these past eight years, so rest assured that revolution, in all its messy glory, sounds much more appropriate than "wonkish genius" right now.
The more pressure which is brought to bare on Sen. Obama by the existing political elite, both inside and outside of the Democratic party, the better I feel about giving him my support.
Mike
Posted Fri, Feb 15, 10:37 a.m. inappropriate
it's a lot worse mantra than: "a kinder gentler nation"
"it's the economy you morons"
"compassionate conservatism"
or whatever hoola hoop the idiots fall for every four years. obama has brzisnky as his foreign policy advisor, aint goin' to be no change with the lion of a'stan in your den.
and what was reagan's one sentence simplemindedness?
Posted Sat, Feb 16, 10:49 p.m. inappropriate
Hope Springs Eternal: Many people are asking questions about the 'substance' of Obama's exhortation of "Yes We Can." I am in the 50+ crowd and have a friend who is both a semi-retired doctor and 'Vet for Obama'.
My friend had the good fortune to hear one of JFK's last public speeches at Amherst College in 1963. He said that he hasn't felt like this since then. . . i.e., the charisma, the vision the hope.
I come from a different perspective - there is no question that if I were a young person, a college student, I would clearly be caught up in the euphoria and idealism that is associated with Obama. Without question, he has captured the imagination of many.
Let me also note the shrewdness of his campaign, grounded in his own history of organizing - presumably a la Saul Alinsky - in Chicago. The strategy of bringing the grassroots to the caucuses was brilliant and his best hope for success.
However, I am older, more skeptical and have tossed around the notion that, perhaps, I am reluctant to 'believe' again in the possibility of change and hope. As freaked as I was by the Cuban missile crisis when I was a child and the subsequent assassinations of JFK, MLK and RFK, the death of hope may have come with a series of miscalculations in the 1970s from Watergate to the fall of Saigon. Whatever it was, I am now uncertain what it means when a politician who comes from nowhere to espouse hope; he is either a) too good to be true or b) likely to suffer the same fate as other who have had charismatic messages of hope.
But it's more than that. Obama, with his lack of experience and seemingly naive approach to international politics, is missing some essential requirements for office. Of course, despite Bush 41's resume, Clinton beat him thanks to Ross Perot. At the time, I wondered what it would mean to have someone who was a governor from a state with 1.4 million residents, hardly a borough in New York or an LA County Supervisorial District, as president. He got pretty bruised and beat up his first couple of years in office - a learning curve. Obama will have the same. Clinton and McCain, less so. . .
While I do not think Obama is everything that his followers think he is, I certainly do not want to discourage those who are now engaged - thanks to him - from their enthusiastic involvement in the body politic.
For that reason I am one of those D voters described in post-Super T exit polling - 72% of Obama supporters would be fine with Clinton as the nominee and 73% of Clinton supporters would be fine with Obama as the nominee.