Barack Obama and the illusion of change

[TK-421]

I like Obama but...(I am sure this will get alot people upset)

NEIL MACDONALD, CBC News:

Barack Obama and the illusion of change
January 14, 2008

If he is elected president, Barack Obama says he's going to make changes. He's the agent of change. The chalice of change.

And not just mundane, wonkish change, but change at the most fundamental level. Transformational change. Change — and this is crucial to his pitch — that will transcend ideology itself.

"We are sending a powerful message that change is coming to America,'' the candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination tells audience after audience. Then he names the force he'll unleash to accomplish it.

"We are choosing hope," he proclaims. "Hope is the bedrock of this nation."
Hope, he tells his rapt listeners, "is not sitting on the sidelines or shirking from a fight. Hope is that thing inside of us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that there is something greater inside of us."

When he utters these lines, the crowds often vault to their feet, applauding, if not quite understanding how this hope business will actually work.
Even some of the journalists assigned to the candidate have trouble containing their enthusiasm. They seem caught up in what is almost a national swoon.

Obama, the charismatic mixed-race senator from Illinois, is going to change things. People can just feel it.

Hang the Boomers
In a piece of hagiography in the current issue of Atlantic magazine, the right-leaning writer Andrew Sullivan argues that "Obama — and Obama alone — offers the possibility of a truce … in the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us."
By that, Sullivan means the degenerative hatred between the political right and left in this country. Suffused by religion and those uniquely American notions of national destiny and righteousness, this family quarrel has often turned the American conversation into a vulgar, deafening slanging match.
Conservatives, egged on by Fox News and other right-wing media outlets, use the word "liberal" as a smear, meaning something close to traitor. For their part, liberals, often affecting an air of stern intellectual superiority, dismiss Republicans as something akin to Bible-waving fascists.

Obama promises to put an end to all that: "Republicans, Democrats and independents," he told an audience recently. "We are one nation."
In return, to paraphrase Simon and Garfunkel, a nation turns its weary eyes to him.

But few, so far at least, have looked past Obama's eloquence for the specifics of what he means by change.

Not that Obama isn't open about his plans. They're right on the official campaign website. They just don't contain much that can be reasonably described as radical or different. In fact, taken as a whole, they are more like a big, carefully worded bowl of Democrat-flavoured porridge.

Need to hear
The candidate who advertises himself as the one who "tells people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear," has made sure to craft positions that should jar no one in the Democratic party base, whether they be left-leaning or moderate.

On Iraq, he would get out, but in a cautiously calibrated, phased withdrawal over roughly a year and a half. (His main opponent, Hillary Clinton, also advocates a phased withdrawal, though over a longer time frame, perhaps as much as five years.)

On health care, he favors universal coverage, but not all of it government-run, and not all of it obligatory.

For gays and lesbians, he approves of civil unions but not marriage. And when it comes to illegal immigration, he wants tougher border enforcement and a crackdown on those who hire illegal immigrants, while at the same time finding some way to confer citizenship on the 12 million who are already here.
And so on.

Not only is none of it radical. But, as American commentators have begun to point out, none of it is very different from the solutions offered by Clinton, whom Obama paints as a charter member of the status quo that so badly needs changing.

"There's not a dime's worth of difference between them," says fellow Democrat and political scientist Allan Lichtman of American University in Washington, D.C. Moreover, according to Lichtman, Obama isn't particularly trying to present any bold or different proposals. So much for challenging the establishment.

Identity politics
The other question, of course, is how any of Obama's proposals would end the ideology wars and win over Republicans, many of whom emphasize social conservatism, small government and a militaristic foreign policy. It is a puzzle the candidate has chosen not to address with anything other than platitudes.

But then, he may not have to. Because this election, like so much else in the television age, is about identity politics — the notion that a person's leadership abilities derive chiefly from his or her cultural background.
Change is taken to be in the person, not the ideas. And in the identity department, Obama is a colossus.

In his magazine essay, Andrew Sullivan argues that the mere sight of Obama's handsome, beaming, biracial face will melt the world's current anti-American heart and restore goodwill towards the U.S. and its ideals.
"If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology," writes Sullivan, "Obama's face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can."

That, of course, assumes the Islamic world will be so besotted with a black man in the White House it will have failed to notice his threatening to bomb Pakistan if necessary to root out al-Qaeda.

Sullivan, at least, is willing to make that leap. And he seems to think that if Americans can look past substance for form, so will the Third World.

Motherhood
Hillary Clinton found out in Iowa how widespread the Sullivan view is today in Middle America.

She had campaigned for months under the impression that years of experience in the Senate and, yes, the White House, would trump impressionistic politics. Then the polls started breaking for Obama.
Clinton saw it, and twisted her message, arguing that she, too, is a reformer, but that only she has the inside experience to enact real change.

It seemed like an internal contradiction. So she tried another tack.

"Words are not action," she began telling audiences, referring to Obama's uplifting pitch. "And as beautifully presented and passionately felt as they are, they are not action."

By the time she said that, she probably knew she was doomed, at least in Iowa where Obama triumphed in the first important vote of the race. A few days later, in New Hampshire, you could hear the desperation in Clinton's voice.

"I've already made change," she snapped during an all-candidates debate three nights before the primary, "and I will continue to make change. I'm not just running on a promise of change! I'm running on 35 years of change!"

Then she had that on-camera "emo moment," as the teens say, choking up when a woman in the crowd asked her how she manages the stress of the road. Whether Clinton's answer was authentic or staged hardly mattered.

For an instant, she was a mother struggling gamely under all the weight of household and job, and that realization seems to have been what turned the tide in her favour. After all her speeches about experience and all her public mastery of the issues, it was the change implicit in being a mother headed for the White House that shoved her over the top.

Don't stop thinking
Obama has Republicans as well in contortions.

Men like Mitt Romney, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, whose careers have been the very embodiment of the status quo, are now fighting over who among them can best be seen as an agent of change.

It verges on the ridiculous, given the intrinsic meaning of the word conservative. But of course other candidates in other elections have deployed change, too, as a political weapon, often with great success.

John F. Kennedy came to offer the ideal of Camelot. Ronald Reagan promised "Morning in America." And Bill Clinton presented himself as "the man from Hope," rocking and jiving to Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow)."

The interesting thing about this race is that there actually are candidates who are offering specific, concrete change. John Edwards, the Democrat currently running third, would quit Iraq immediately and impose enough new taxes to pay down at least some of America's stupendous debts. Ron Paul, the libertarian running close to last in the Republican pack, also offers some similarly radical prescriptions.

But that assumes people really want change, as opposed to what looks like change. And there is a difference.

[andrew.v.spencer]

Change in the US system of government is deliberately difficult to enact. The US is a great deal more democratic than the UK.

Sadly though image and presentation in politics increasingly triumphs over substance. We, the voter, are of course complicit in this change, we have neither the time nor attention span to... oh look a sparrow.

[Cayal]

John McCain - isn't that Bruce Willis's character in Die Hard? I'd vote for him.

Imagine 'YippeeKaiay M*****F*****' as a presidential slogan.

[littlemissattitude]

Originally Posted by Jaire

John McCain - isn't that Bruce Willis's character in Die Hard? I'd vote for him.

Imagine 'YippeeKaiay M*****F*****' as a presidential slogan.

Close, but no cigar. That was John McClane.

[flygin]

Originally Posted by Jaire

John McCain - isn't that Bruce Willis's character in Die Hard? I'd vote for him.

Imagine 'YippeeKaiay M*****F*****' as a presidential slogan.

Thank you for giving me my first laugh in what has been a really crappy day.

[Cayal]

Originally Posted by littlemissattitude

Close, but no cigar. That was John McClane.

lol I knew that but I had to act stupid for my comment to work.

[kaelcarp]

If Barack Obama were truly going to enact any substantial amount of change, he wouldn't be getting the funding he's getting. In order to be a major contender, you need big corporate money, and big corporations aren't going to support someone who promises major change, since major change makes life harder for them.

[Delvo]

"Change" is a buzzword for the American left. They say it because their audience just loves the sound of it and gets a warm fuzzy feeling from it. It's like "Jesus" or "values" to the hardcore moralistic evangelical religio-political types. Bill Clinton made that word the theme of his campaign speeches and acceptance speeches during and after his successful campaign to be President in 1992 & 1993. On American university campuses (which are havens of liberalism in the USA), you would constantly hear almost every single student and member of the faculty calling for "change" even though they almost never have any particular idea of what to change or how to change it (or they have something in mind but it's a fantasy daydream they haven't thought through at all).

It's annoying, but overuse of a word is a minor trifle that I have no problem forgiving Obama for. Using that word a lot is one of the basic things you have to do at least one of in order to be a member of the lefty culture here, and the other choices he could have gone with to be accepted into the group instead are worse (such as Hillary Clinton's constant, bitter, scathing, hostile, scowling, grating, ranting hate-speech and hostility and mob mentality and lying about her opponents). And at least he's mentioned specific current policies and what he thinks they should be changed to.

[Emu]

Barack is going to make change. It's the stinking people of the U.S.A. that are preventing that. He is a much better choice than any of the other democratic canidates. Does anyone want another business leader like Bush in power no. Not even a women. Hilary is playing a dirty game, just like Bill. She will stop at nothing to achive her goal. Did any hear about the comment Bill made about Barack doing a 'Hit Job'? That is just an example of what the Clintons are willing to do.

[Manarion]

Okay, I've taken a look at this thread enough without putting my two cents in, and I really can't stand it anymore.

Obama is the last chance my country has, in my opinion. He has, I believe, a lot more integrity and, well I choke at the word honor, than any of the other candidates, either democratic OR republican-ESPECIALLY republican, in my views. I would NOT want Hillary up on the throne, she'd truly be no worse than Bush, I think.....been in the game too long and I believe she's always been fairly power hungry herself.

Obama, though, I don't think he's been among the political glamour and whatnot as long as Hillary has. Some of you against him might argue that that shows he has less experience. That might be true, but a lack of experience isn't a lack of wisdom, and innocence is often a quality of redemption.

[pyan]

Originally Posted by Manarion

He has, I believe, a lot more integrity and, well I choke at the word honor, than any of the other candidates,.....

....innocence is often a quality of redemption.

You may very well be correct there, Mana...but, alas, the cynic in me wonders if this can survive the White House.

[Manarion]

Originally Posted by pyan

You may very well be correct there, Mana...but, alas, the cynic in me wonders if this can survive the White House.

That can indeed be a case, but if he can't, then my country has no chance at all, and that's something I'd rather not have to face.....

[TK-421]

Manarion, I hope that there is indeed more substance than gloss to Obama as I too like him very much. If he wins, I hope also he will bring real change whatever that may be. The ruling classes, CNN, Fox and others may not allow him too bring such changes however.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Emu

It's the stinking people of the U.S.A. that are preventing that.

As someone who is often critical of those nations (and their leaders) that are able to project their power externally, I see a lot that is wrong in the U.S. and its current policies, both foreign and internal. However, I think your statement is way too strong. Maliciously categorising any group, let alone a nation of 300 million people, is not only wrong but daft; implying that a significant number of them stink is simply not acceptable in my eyes.

I doubt you would like it said about the people in your country. (I certainly wouldn't like it said about those who live in mine.)

[Emu]

Hmmm to strong I shall think better of what I say next time. I shall change my wording. There are a sicnificant amount of people preventing Obama from his goal. Is that better?