|
TODAY'S TOPIC:
A Fleeting
Political Movement,
Part II
Part I
Part III
by
Natalia J. Garland
Print Version
|
Let's dig deeper into the dynamics of the short-lived hope and
change presidential campaign: a political movement which was
inspired by Senator Obama, only to be altered beyond recognition
when he became President-elect Obama. Here is how Obama described
both the reason for and the process of the shift in his political
perspective.
|
I suspect that you
would be troubled and the American people would be troubled if I
selected a Treasury secretary or a chairman of the National
Economic Council at one of the most critical economic times in our
history who had no experience in government whatsoever.
What we are going
to do is combine experience with fresh thinking. But understand
where the vision for change comes from first and foremost. It
comes from me. That's my job.
[End of quotes.]
|
Why does Obama
suspect that the American people would feel troubled? Why not ask
us how we feel and what we think? What happened to the meaning of
hope? Why would people feel troubled by a total changeover in
government? That is exactly why Obama supporters voted and what
they had hoped for. Why would Obama use the concept of change as
a central campaign message and then not put it into total action?
Below are some possible answers to and ramifications of these
concerns.
(1) Although he
utilized the concept of change to motivate and galvanize his
supporters, and he developed policy statements, Obama was
ill-prepared to actualize change in terms of staffing his cabinet
with fresh, new faces.
(2) Obama seems to
say that hope and change are not totally applicable during times
of crisis, but only when the nation is comparatively manageable.
Since the current crisis is a financial one, it would follow that
withdrawal from Iraq is to be included within the realm of
comparative manageability. If this is so, then it is not
necessary for Obama to choose Washington insiders (especially war
hawks and former war hawks) to work with him on effecting a
military withdrawal from Iraq. According to his own logic, Obama
should choose Washington insiders only for his economic team.
(3) During times of
crisis, however, policy changes are still regarded as possible
because the new or creative ideas will originate from the mind of
Obama. But, the agents of change must be drawn from experienced
Washington insiders who understand the inner workings of
government.
(4) Obama seems
to say, therefore, that the inner workings of government cannot be
learned quickly, not even by intelligent outsiders who are
knowledgeable and accomplished in the areas in which Obama
proposes change. During times of crisis (or, at least, during a
financial crisis), Washington insiders are more suited to
implement change than outsiders.
(5) During his
campaign Obama had only criticism for the so-called Washington
insiders and never hinted that there could be circumstances under
which he would need insiders. If Obama knew beforehand that
novices would not be able to make a quick adjustment to the ways
of Washington, D.C., then he should not have disapproved of the
very people on whom he is now dependent.
We can see that
Obama has made a drastic shift from hope and change to a
combination of experience with fresh thinking. Moreover,
he has made this shift because he believes the American people
feel troubled and need to be comforted or reassured. The American
people cannot sustain hope or tolerate change when under severe
stress. At the same time, however, Americans should trust in
Obama's vision and in his ability to choose Washington insiders
who will implement his vision.
Could it be that
Obama feels troubled, does not fully understand the inner workings
of government, lacks experience and therefore needs the expertise
and assistance of Washington insiders? Is this why some
journalists seem to have difficulty labeling the Obamian shift,
and why some supporters resort to rationalizing the shift? Is
this why Obama is compared to Abraham Lincoln, then to F.D.R.,
then to J.F.K., and then to R.F.K. all in the same breath? But,
Obama has never been compared to President Bill Clinton. Let's
dig back to 2006 when Obama wrote The Audacity of Hope.
You do not have to read very far into the book to realize that
Obama has some respect for Bill Clinton.
|
It was Bill
Clinton's singular contribution that he tried to transcend this
ideological deadlock, recognizing not only that what had come to
be meant by the labels of "conservative" and
"liberal" played to Republican advantage, but that
categories were inadequate to address the problems we faced. At
times during his first campaign, his gestures toward disaffected
Reagan Democrats could seem clumsy and transparent (whatever
happened to Sister Souljah?) or frighteningly coldhearted
(allowing the execution of a mentally retarded death row inmate to
go forward on the eve of an important primary). In the first two
years of his presidency, he would be forced to abandon some core
elements of his platform--universal health care, aggressive
investment in education and training--that might have more
decisively reversed the long-term trends that were undermining the
position of working families in the new economy.
Still, he
instinctively understood the falseness of the choices being
presented to the American people. He saw that government spending
and regulation could, if properly designed, serve as vital
ingredients and not inhibitors to economic growth, and how markets
and fiscal discipline could help promote social justice. He
recognized that not only societal responsibility but personal
responsibility was needed to combat poverty. In his platform--if
not always in his day-to-day politics--Clinton's Third Way went
beyond splitting the difference. It tapped into the pragmatic,
nonideological attitude of the majority of Americans.
[End of
quote.]
|
Obama is assembling
a Clintonian government with shades of the Bush administration.
After accusing Senator McCain of adhering strictly to Bush policy,
after telling the American people that four years of a McCain
presidency would be the same as four more years of President Bush,
after criticizing and defeating the Clinton political machine:
Obama is now organizing a cabinet that will continue some policies
of the past eight years (the war on terror), attempt to succeed
where others tried but failed (healthcare, education), as well as
assert his own hardcore liberal tendencies (partial-birth
abortion).
Obama may or may
not succeed with his combination government. Some of us will be
studying the shift closely, hoping for the best, and contributing
what we can toward the good of America as the political dynamics
begin to unfold in 2009. The four years ahead might turn out to
be more troubling for Obama supporters than for Hillary Clinton or
John McCain supporters. Yes, we can. Well, no, you can't,
not without cooperation from people whom you criticized and would
have rejected totally. (Written 12/01/08: bibliography available.)
Until we meet
again....... .......stay sane.
|
