Real Change

It seems to me that Kevin Drum is missing the obvious as he puzzles over what Barack Obama could be claiming to represent when he says he represents "real change." The implication of the claim, obviously, is that while Republicans offer stasis and he offers "real change" his opponent, Hillary Clinton, must offer "fake change."

I think the relevant idea here isn't "an end to polarization" nearly so much as it is an end to what Obama has referred to as "the smallness of our politics." In this frame, partisanship isn't being contrasted to finer-grained efforts to find compromise nearly so much as it's being contrasted to the pursuit of broad thematic goals rather than politics as trench warfare in which the fighting is fierce but nothing ever happens.

On a symbolic level, this is clear enough. It would be fairly ridiculous for George H.W. Bush to be elected president in 1988, beaten by Bill Clinton in 1992, Clinton succeeded by Bush's son in 2000, and Bush the Younger succeeded by Clinton's wife in 2008. And yet this seems like a very probably outcome. It's as if the two rival claimants to the throne could just settle their feud by having Hillary Clinton marry George P. Bush and unite the warring clans.

What does the difference mean in practice? Obama's people speak of a distinction between transactional and transformational politics, with their guy in the latter camp. But, again, what's the upshot? Sometimes, it may mean that Clinton would be to Obama's left insofar as she seems more eager to uncritically embrace public sector unions as a vital element of her minimum winning coalition. Other times, it may mean that Clinton is to Obama's right insofar as she also seems more eager to uncritically court groups like AIPAC and CANF when framing her foreign policy. Less partisan in this sense doesn't necessarily mean more "centrist" it means bigger and broader. The incompetence dodge critique of the Bush foreign policy is a perfect example of a position that's partisan to the exclusion of ideology or substance, just a bare assertion that Democrats could make all the same ideas turn out to be good ideas.

The problem for Obama is that the Democratic nomination process -- and especially the Iowa Caucus -- is a very transactional endeavor. And Obama doesn't want to be the high-minded candidate who earns praise and then loses. And to his people, that means he needs to win Iowa, which means putting this message forth so quietly that one begins to wonder if one isn't simply imagining things.

Comments

Don't you mean Chelsea should marry George P? I'm all for the Cougar phenomenon but this seems like a bit of a stretch.

Otherwise, I think this is a good summary of why I'm voting for Obama. I want to have a chance at great success on something like health care reform or confronting terrorism. Hillary is the candidate who is most likely to look at the world through the Bush prism and make tweaks at the edge. That's just not good enough for me.

Posted by Citizen (World) | October 1, 2007 4:30 PM

I think the real change Obama represents, and he's said as much himself, is that he'll view the world through a lens that wasn't crafted during the age of Vietnam. In other words, he came of political age long after those conflicts had ossified our politics. Beyond that, he makes much of his engagement with the world as a force for change, both in his own politics and in the way he'll be perceived by the people of other nations. But I'm less convinced on that front, given that HRC isn't exactly provincial. The same is true for his race, which would surely represent change. But again, so, too, would having a woman in the White House.

Posted by ANMIK | October 1, 2007 4:42 PM

Don't you mean Chelsea should marry George P?

I thought Matthew was coming out in favor of legalizing polygamy...

Posted by Al | October 1, 2007 4:46 PM

As I consider the "transformational" type candidates during my lifetime I come up with Carter, Reagan and the idiot currently in charge. One out of 3 [in terms of being able to fulfill the demands of the office competently] is not good enough odds for me, plus the one had many awful policies and often seemed confused between fact and fiction. No doubt my skepticism is generational, but my feeling is that Obama should come back in about 8-10 years after he's actually done something other than tell us about how transformational he will be.

Posted by Gene | October 1, 2007 4:48 PM

I think MY is reading far too much in to what Obama's saying. Obama's "real change" is nothing more than a marketing tool. Mostly it alludes to him being the youngest, and because of this he is different than everyone else. Partially it alludes to his supposed non-partisanship and niceness and rising above all of it ie he is not a DFH.
The most opportune analogy is probably the old Pepsi commercial with the slogan "Pepsi - The Choice of a New Generation." That slogan was equally meaningless. Obama is this year's Pepsi with his "real change."

Posted by Dan the Man | October 1, 2007 4:54 PM

Dan, you're reading far too little into Obama's idea of real change. He has more integrity than that.

Obama has been consistent on this theme and way of thinking about politics throughout his political career. Read his book and report back.

Posted by eli the man | October 1, 2007 5:03 PM

Being of a new generation might mean real change, Dan. Coming into one's poltiical consciousness during the era of Vietnam matters for the HRC/GWB generation, just as coming of age in a post-9/11 moment matters for my students (and, apparently, for Rudy). Obama came of age politically after the Vietnam-inspired domestic battlelines had hardened. And that matters to me. I'd like a new set of metaphors, if nothing else, to frame our politics. I'd like foreign policy problems not always to be portrayed as a choice between Munich and the Tonkin Gulf. And I think a new generation might help.

Which isn't to say that your point about marketing is wrong. But Pepsi always kinda sucks, regardless of which generation isn't drinking it as often as Coke.

Posted by ANMIK | October 1, 2007 5:07 PM

Yes nothing like a campaign book to get the real truth. Obama wants to be a cipher. His whole campaign is based upon it.

Posted by Rob | October 1, 2007 5:21 PM

I am with Drum, if Obama wants to be transformational he's going to have to step up with some outside the box on actual proposals.

As it is MY's version of "transformational" just comes down to more Merlot Democrat reformism in the mold of Gary Hart/Bill Bradley. It just isn't new or transformational. His rhetoric is too vaue and his proposals are too pedestrian.

Posted by AJ | October 1, 2007 5:27 PM

Obama reminds me of Bill Bradley, whom I never much liked -- too intent on presenting himself as highminded and above the fray. I almost feel like Obama despises politics. I'm not very fond of the politics we now have, but . . . "small" politics are not going to go away just because Obama says he's transformational. And then there's the cautiousness -- I'm always waiting for him to say something sharp and contentious (and substantive). But as far as I can tell, he doesn't do this very often. And most if not all of his policy talk so far seems very, very cautious and (therefore) centrist. It's frustrating -- he's a great speaker, no doubt about it. But . . .

Of course, I'd vote for the guy if he were the nominee -- in some ways I feel like I'm just splitting hairs every time I try to think about the Dem candidates.

Posted by mary | October 1, 2007 5:39 PM

Christ, I hate Iowa.

Posted by JM | October 1, 2007 5:53 PM

What turned me off Obama is his rhetoric about how he is going to end polarization and be a uniter. I don't believe him.

The reason I don't believe him is because I don't think the current polarization is a matter of personality. You can't end polarization through civility and soothing talk. We are polarized because there is no consensus on the big issues. Obama is not going to change that. It is going to take many ugly divisive battles to change the equation. One side will have to lose.

Posted by DonB | October 1, 2007 6:04 PM

if Obama wants to be transformational he's going to have to step up with some outside the box on actual proposals.

I never really get this way of thinking with regards to politics, the idea that we should be looking for some sort of revolutionary wonk to lay out the Sgt. Peppers of policy proposals to make everyone's head spin and blow everyone's mind.

All good policy that could ever hope to be instituted will more often than not be first imagined by someone outside the political process; it takes a talented and intelligent politician to weed out the best of the best and figure out how to get it implemented.

Obama represents "real change" insomuch as he's a process radical (to borrow a phrase from Ambinder), looking to open up the political wheelings-and-dealings with a bold sense of transparency (an opposition to which Hillary Clinton certainly shares with the current administration), while curbing the impact of corrupting influences (lobbyists, special interests, etc.) through process-centric reforms.

This type of process radicalism has been the crux of his legislative accomplishments to date (Coburn-Obama, etc.) and, at the end of the day, matters more than the minute differences in policy positions between him and his rivals.

Politicians don't dream up the policies, they implement them, and that's why this change in process is so important.

Posted by Dave White | October 1, 2007 6:07 PM

Obama is a Rorschach Blot for progressives. And he has about as much validity.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | October 1, 2007 6:11 PM

You can't end polarization through civility and soothing talk. We are polarized because there is no consensus on the big issues. Obama is not going to change that. It is going to take many ugly divisive battles to change the equation. One side will have to lose.

I think when Obama talks about "ending polarization" he's referring more to ending this idea of politics as a zero-sum game, where politicians divide up onto teams and duke it out, more interested in "who's winning" than "what's working." He believes (and I tend to agree with him) that there are solutions to problems that exist outside the Dem-Repub divide, and that it takes a change in the way politicians approach politics (ie no longer so occupied winning and losing) to come to those solutions.

He also has a pretty unique way of selling progressive policy, one rooted more in the concepts of personal responsibility meets compassion, in a way that I think he'll be able to sell liberalism to the masses in much the same way Ronald Reagan was able to make movement conservatism palatable to middle America.

Posted by Dave White | October 1, 2007 6:19 PM

He believes (and I tend to agree with him) that there are solutions to problems that exist outside the Dem-Repub divide, and that it takes a change in the way politicians approach politics (ie no longer so occupied winning and losing) to come to those solutions.

I dunno. Sounds a lot like Ross Perot to me.

Posted by Gene | October 1, 2007 6:29 PM

I dunno. Sounds a lot like Ross Perot to me.

Sound more like Ted Kennedy to me.

Posted by Dave White | October 1, 2007 6:31 PM

Vote for me. I represent spare change.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 1, 2007 6:42 PM

"The reason I don't believe him is because I don't think the current polarization is a matter of personality. You can't end polarization through civility and soothing talk. We are polarized because there is no consensus on the big issues. Obama is not going to change that. It is going to take many ugly divisive battles to change the equation. One side will have to lose."

In current American discourse, conservatives have effectively co-opted the word "partisan" to mean "ideologically liberal." If the Republicans have had one strength since Nixon, it has been framing the political narrative in this country in a way the media has eaten up. Another 4-8 years of a Clinton, especially the less popular and charismatic Clinton, will just be another re-hash of the 1990's media wars with the media even more full of continuous anger against a Clinton presidency. This would be worth it if she was the most liberal of the leading three, but she's the most conservative. Edwards has the charisma to be a media darling, but the media has turned on him as a class traitor. Obama is the only one of the three that has any chance of re-capturing the word "mainstream" to mean "liberal" and "partisan" to mean "ideologically conservative."

Attitude matters a lot in how one governs. Bush has a fratboy attitude and governs as such. Bill Clinton is intelligent and competent but also lacking in self-control at the same time he was over-eager to please and governed as such. Obama's attitude has been crafted by being such life experiences as being a community organizer and living in the world's largest Muslim nation, which hints at how he would handle foreign policy. A president's foreign policy at the end of the term is very much defined by how one handles the various crises that arise while they are in office than what they say in debates beforehand. Of the big three, Obama and Edwards have the best instincts and relevant personality characteristics on this than Clinton, who is the closest of the three to the likes of AIPAC and the neocons. Edwards is the most protectionist, which is simply the economic way of making the rest of the world hate us more.

Posted by Reality Man | October 1, 2007 8:25 PM

If Obama wants to convince voters in Iowa that he is the agent of change, he needs to drop all the bullshit about the "smallness of our politics" and the need for "broad thematic goals."

He needs to state unequivocally that he will not let the past and future mistakes of this administration determine the policies of his administration. He needs to state clearly that he will end the war in Iraq by the end of his first year in office -- something the overwhelming majority of Americans want -- and end immediately any hostile acts toward Iran that this administration will have initiated. (If it turns out to take him two years, who will give a big rat's ass?)

He doesn't need to attack HRC. He simply needs to state that he will not sacrifice more American lives in a hopeless civil war, and will not continue to spend hundreds of billions of additional dollars in a fruitless way. (And, please, Obama supporters, don't respond that he has already done that by citing a sentence or two from a rambling speech full of qualifiers that have been used by the MSM to question his position and resolve.)

He can't be an agent of change and continue to (appear to) equivocate on Iraq and Iran. That is, he can't continue to talk in nuanced ways that HRC can pick apart -- in language that requires weeks of translation and follow up to understand.

He has to talk in gripping specifics about the horrific costs of the war and the insanity of engaging Iran militarily without any diplomacy whatsoever -- using strong, clear language that will win converts -- and stop preaching idealistic crap to the choir of Obama supporters.

Posted by Econobuzz | October 1, 2007 8:32 PM

I like the things Obama says on process well enough, but I don't see how he counts as a 'process radical'. McCain-Feingold seems to me a more radical change in the political process than anything I've seen from Obama (excepting the Durbin bill he's co-sponsoring).

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | October 1, 2007 8:41 PM

One out of 3 [in terms of being able to fulfill the demands of the office competently] is not good enough odds for me, plus the one had many awful policies and often seemed confused between fact and fiction.

You do Carter an injustice--he usually had a decent grasp of the difference between fact and fiction. Otherwise, though, your comment is pretty much dead-on. ;)

Posted by rea | October 1, 2007 8:42 PM

> He believes (and I tend to agree with him) that
> there are solutions to problems that exist outside
> the Dem-Repub divide, and that it takes a change
> in the way politicians approach politics (ie no
> longer so occupied winning and losing) to come to
> those solutions.

If the Radical Right's goal is to return to the Gilded Age - and there is every indication that this is the case - then I tend to disagree. "New ways forward" will simply be co-opted by the entity with the most money and most control of the media. Which is the Radical Right.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | October 1, 2007 8:47 PM

McCain-Feingold seems to me a more radical change in the political process than anything I've seen from Obama (excepting the Durbin bill he's co-sponsoring).

Well McCain-Fiengold and Barack Obama aren't exactly mutually exclusive.

I'd say Fiengold-Obama is just as radical, doing for the legislative process what McCain-Feingold did for the campaign process.

Other (addmitedly smaller) process reforms include Coburn-Obama and the taped confessions legislation he led through the Illinois State Senate.

Posted by Dave White | October 1, 2007 9:10 PM

"I think when Obama talks about "ending polarization" he's referring more to ending this idea of politics as a zero-sum game,"

But politics is a zero sum game. One side wins, the other side loses.

"and that it takes a change in the way politicians approach politics"

I completely disagree with this thinking.

FDR was a transformational president. It didn't happen by changing "the way" he approached politics. He stated his views, dared the GOP, had bitter divisive fights with them and won. He was despised by the GOP and welcomed it. This is how you become a tranformational president. Not by giving Hallmark speeches like Obama.

Transformational leaders don't concern themselves with niceties or worry about divisiveness.

Posted by DonB | October 1, 2007 11:09 PM

"Obama is the only one of the three that has any chance of re-capturing the word "mainstream" to mean "liberal" and "partisan" to mean "ideologically conservative."

How?

His supporters seem to think he can do it through the force of his personality. I am not buying it.

Unlike Clinton/Gore/Kerry/Hillary Obama has not been subjected to attacks by the Right Wing Noise Machine. If he becomes the nominee they will go after him and by the time they are through with him he will be turned into the most polarizing, divisive, hated politician in America. They will turn him into a terrorist coddling, soft on crime, socialist.

Posted by DonB | October 1, 2007 11:19 PM

"the same way Ronald Reagan was able to make movement conservatism palatable to middle America."

Were you around during the Reagan years?

Reagan was a very divisive president. Contrary to current mythology he was not that popular. Certainly not like Eisenhower or JFK. He constantly demonized liberals and openly engaged in race baiting. Remember welfare queens?

Reagan made movement conservatism palatable by appealing to the lowest insticts of middle America, practicing wedge polics, encouraging racial divisions.

Posted by DonB | October 1, 2007 11:27 PM

FDR was a transformational president. It didn't happen by changing "the way" he approached politics.

But FDR definitely did change the way we think about politics, greatly expanding the role of the federal government (in large part with the help of progressive Republicans). FDR's success was a process success--he articulated a different way for government, something he did so well it laid the groundwork for the way US government works to this day.

Who lost when the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was passed? 1964? Who lost when S-Chip passed? Medicare? McCain-Fiengold? You simply cannot pass legislation on straight party-lines that will stick, that will last. All these dreams of implementing a liberal utopia of single party rule by way of a 60-vote Senate are delusional. Politics is not a zero-sum game of Republicans vs. Democrats, politics is always a product of the interaction between Republicans and Democrats. Platforms will change, policies will be opposed, but laws aren't made by wins and losses.

Posted by Dave White | October 1, 2007 11:29 PM

Reagan made movement conservatism palatable by appealing to the lowest insticts of middle America, practicing wedge polics, encouraging racial divisions.

I understand what you're saying, that's pretty nasty. Maybe the best antidote to the way Reagan promoted conservatism by appealing to our basest instincts with divisive rhetoric is someone who'll promote liberalism by appealing to the opposite with some Hallmark rhetoric of unity and an end of divisiveness? No?

Posted by Dave White | October 1, 2007 11:36 PM

"FDR's success was a process success--"

Are you kidding?

FDR's success was taking on the enemy and defeating them in one bloody battle after another. He was not afraid to get his hands dirty and went after the GOP with everything he had, defeating them time after time in nasty, divisive battles.

FDR understood the nature of power. He understood that those who have power will not give it up willingly. They will fight you to the bitter end.

John Edwards seems to understand it too.

Posted by DonB | October 1, 2007 11:38 PM

FDR's success was taking on the enemy and defeating them in one bloody battle after another.

So my mother gets a Social Security check every month because everyone admires the way the big-bad FDR bloodied up some Republicans? Not because FDR implemented a change in the role of the federal government that was first envisioned within the Republican party?

Posted by Dave White | October 1, 2007 11:45 PM

"Politics is not a zero-sum game of Republicans vs. Democrats, politics is always a product of the interaction between Republicans and Democrats."

Politics is a zero sum game bt those who have power vs those who don't.

There are times when the GOP or Dems join the other side to pass legislature. That doesn't change the zero sum. One side will be against the legislation passed and they will lose. It is a zero sum game.

Example; Iraq war. Dems in Congress joined the GOP to pass the war resolution. It was a zero sum game. Anti war side lost.

Posted by DonB | October 1, 2007 11:46 PM

Example; Iraq war. Dems in Congress joined the GOP to pass the war resolution. It was a zero sum game. Anti war side lost.

Well that's a different formulation, if you're looking at isolated votes there are people who support Aye and people who support Nay, then either Aye or Nay will win and Aye or Nay will lose. But Aye vs. Nay changes vote to vote, and is not aligned automatically with either party.

Politics is not zero-sum between Republicans and Democrats. Seriously, who lost by the passage of the Civi Rights Act of 1964, other than the people who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Republicans? Democrats?

Posted by Dave White | October 1, 2007 11:53 PM

"big-bad FDR bloodied up some Republicans?"

The GOP demonized FDR and his wife in a way that makes their treatment of the Clintons look like a picnic.

It look many bitter divisive ugly battles, battles the GOP lost, for a national consensus to emerge about the new order.

Posted by DonB | October 1, 2007 11:56 PM

The GOP demonized FDR and his wife in a way that makes their treatment of the Clintons look like a picnic.

It look many bitter divisive ugly battles, battles the GOP lost, for a national consensus to emerge about the new order.

Well then I guess divisiveness either A) Doesn't work (GOP vs. FDR) or B) when it does work, is terribly disturbing (Reagan and the Welfare Queens). Doesn't bode well for divisiveness.

Posted by Dave White | October 1, 2007 11:59 PM

"other than the people who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964?"

That is what I mean. People who opposed the civil rights act of 1964 lost. It was a zero sum game.

You are right that it is not always one party vs the other. But it is always one interest vs the other.

Example; People who want to drill in the arctic and people who are opposed. One side will win, the other side will lose. And since political parties have taken sides they will be doing the battle.

Posted by DonB | October 2, 2007 12:05 AM

That is what I mean. People who opposed the civil rights act of 1964 lost. It was a zero sum game.

Well I guess we're talking past each other, cause I've always meant politics is not a zero-sum of Republicans vs. Democrats, which is what Obama argues in Audacity of Hope as well.

When he talks about curbing polarization or putting and end to the smallness of our politics he doesn't mean ending disagreements or bringing about a whole bunch unanimous Senate votes, he means putting an end to the idea of a zero-sum game of Democrats vs. Republicans.

Posted by Dave White | October 2, 2007 12:10 AM

"Well then I guess divisiveness either A) Doesn't work (GOP vs. FDR) or B) when it does work, is terribly disturbing (Reagan and the Welfare Queens)."

Unfortunately divisiveness works. After one side wins decisively the other side is tamed and neutered, at least for awhile.

After repeated electoral victories by FDR the GOP eventually gave in and grudgingly accepted the New Deal. This is how we got the Eisenhower era GOP. They were the post FDR republicans, reasonable and moderate.

Likewise, after repeated defeats in the 80s the Dems became tamed and neutered, the spineless wimps they are today. They became more moderate. Accepted the less goverment concept.

Fundamental change comes from bitter divisions, followed by one side winning decisively and imposing their will.

Posted by DonB | October 2, 2007 12:15 AM

"I've always meant politics is not a zero-sum of Republicans vs. Democrats,"

Politics is a zero sum same bt various interest. Since political parties represent the various interests it inevitably becomes a zero sum game bt parties.

Posted by DonB | October 2, 2007 12:19 AM

Unfortunately divisiveness works. After one side wins decisively the other side is tamed and neutered, at least for awhile.

So what was the FDR equivalent of the Welfare Queens? Should the Democrats start implementing some of their own divisive wedge issues, playing off the worst American impulses in order to bludgeon their way to the heights of power, with King Leonidas/John Edwards climbing to the top of the bloody heap to declare victory in the name of the Democratic party, imposing his all-powerful liberal will on a submissive and cowering American public?

Posted by Dave White | October 2, 2007 12:21 AM

"So what was the FDR equivalent of the Welfare Queens?"

FDR did his own share of demonizing. He demonized the Wall Street bankers and the super rich. They were his welfare queens. This was during the depression.

Edwards rhetoric reminds me of FDR. He is using similar language.

Posted by DonB | October 2, 2007 12:43 AM

FDR did his own share of demonizing. He demonized the Wall Street bankers and the super rich. They were his welfare queens. This was during the depression.

Edwards rhetoric reminds me of FDR. He is using similar language.

So you're problem with Reagan using the Welfare Queens isn't the fact that it appealed to the lowest insticts of middle America and encouraged racial divisions but the fact that he hurt the Democrats by doing so?

Posted by Dave White | October 2, 2007 12:49 AM

I think there is a difference bt demonizing the powerless and demonizing the powerful.

The wall streets bankers had the power to fight back and they did.

Posted by DonB | October 2, 2007 1:47 AM

Well then I suppose we have very different ideas about what constitutes good politics if you support the same wedge-issue strategy and the making of demons people who are not demons of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, so long as those wedge issues are done in support of Democrats and Democratic interest groups.

I have to say, though, if Democrats acting more like Republicans in the wake of Ronal Reagan was a bad thing, then this is even worse.

Posted by Dave White | October 2, 2007 8:01 AM