Obama and Change

Great Debates
1

One of the fundamental underpinnings of Barack Obama’s campaign for President has been “change.”

The very first thing you see when you go to his official campaign website is “CHANGE We Can Believe In.”

After you skip to the main site, the header displays an image of Obama and prominent text which reads, “I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington. . .I’m asking you to believe in yours.”

Now, I’m not trying to pick on Obama, I know that every candidate is going to use a ton of rhetoric. Obama is a politician, after all (though I think some of his supporters view him as a religious figure.) But I’m genuinely interested in Obama’s advocacy for “change.”

This post could possibly be more suited to GQ, but at the same time I’m not really sure it is appropriate for that forum–I don’t just want an answer, I want an answer from a specific group of people.

I’d like Obama supporters to answer two things:

  1. What exactly does Obama mean when he says there will be change in Washington?

  2. How exactly does Obama plan to bring about this change?

I’d really prefer this not devolve into a “look at his website!” discussion. I have looked at his website, I’m genuinely interested in how Obama supporters answer these questions. I’m interested in seeing what you guys think your candidate is going to do and how he is going to do it, on this one issue.

I’d like to ruminate for a bit about those two questions, though.

The first question should be understood to mean “fundamental change in how we do politics.” This is the sort of rhetoric Obama has used, and I’d genuinely like to hear how he plans to change how we conduct politics in this country. I don’t interpret “I’m going to change things in Washington” to mean, “I’m going to have different policies than my predecessor.” If that was what he meant, then his campaign slogan would apply to every single candidate in the field. Hell, even if Bush was running for a third term he’d be changing some of his past policies.

No, I think the impression Obama wants to give is that he’s not just going to enact new policies–every President does that, he’s going to fundamentally change how things work in Washington. If he succeeds, he could become one of the most important Presidents in American history, I mean, damn, changing how things work in our government at a fundamental level is a pretty big deal.

But what does he mean when he says “change?” Does he mean he’s going to change how we handle campaign finance? Try and reform how lobbyists peddle influence, change how we decide on legislation? What?

On the second question I’m again, looking for specifics. Does he think he can achieve this with legislation? Executive orders? Constitutional amendments? What? How does he plan to fundamentally alter how politics is done in Washington?

2

At the end of the day, “Change” is a brilliant one word tagline that 80% of Americans feel at some level. It’s a form of branding. Obama is change just as Coke is polar bears and red. He will change things just by being president - African American, healthcare, addressing the job situation, whether or not we keep the Middle Class, how people are elected (his campaign so far has been brilliant), perhaps more of a focus on rhetoric over style, etc. But on a surface level, it’s marketing.

3

As to your specific questions, the answers (as I see them), are thus:

  1. He plans to change the culture of Washington where legislations is bought and paid for and the only voices that count are those with the fund-raisingest lobbies (Pharma, Telcos, Big Oil). Further, he proposes to break down the us vs. them, Red State vs. Blue State wrangling that often kills good legislation purely to deny a victory to “them”.

  2. The how stems from the breadth of his appeal, and the sheer number of supporters. The idea is that if people care, even if its only rhetorically (or religiously, as you put it), they can apply pressure to the system. After all, the government works for us, not the other way around, right? He hopes to reduce the influence of money both by funding his campaign largely through small donations (so he has fewer “debts” to repay) and by increasing visibility of who is involved, and where the money is going. Look at his legislation regarding public disclosure for lobbyists and compare to Cheney’s refusal to disclose who was present at the Energy Task Force meetings.

Obviously this includes both legislation and executive orders (no more secret signing statements, for example). The legislation piece becomes much easier if he wins with large enough margins that he has a real mandate.

That’s a brief summary - it basically comes down to getting more people involved and paying attention, and increased visibility inside the beltway.

4

Which is, between elections, fairly obviously not true.

5

No, it is true. He proved that during community organizing days.

And he plans on continuing that philosophy into the White House. He’s even encouraging it during this campaign, by providing his supporters with the resources to form groups with similar interests, and tap into those groups to organize on any subject matter they desire using the event scheduler on his website.

Note that the very first option from the dropdown menu is “Community Service”, which is described as, “Demonstrate that our campaign is about more than just politics.” I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that that resource will remain available throughout the entire term of his Presidency and longer. He’s passionate and serious about this grassroots stuff and he puts his money where his mouth is.

The other way he intends to fundamentally change how Washington works is by not paying only lip-service to this whole bi-partisan crap, and actually doing it. By reaching across the aisle to bring Republicans and Democrats together where they can find common ground instead of this constant bickering and party-line divisions. He’s done so successfully with Tom Coburn (R-OK) with the Coburn-Obama Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, and with Dick Lugar (R-IN) with the Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Act.

And there’s still more work to do on his goal to make government more transparent, which is all spelled out in his Blueprint for Change, and which none of the other candidates are even thinking about, let alone talking about or planning to do. Given the secrecy and subterfuge of the past 16 years (and yes, I include the highly secretive Clintons), I think it’s about damn time we had an honest and open government.

6

The change that Obama represents most notably is the change from one generation to the other, the changing of the guard. From an Industrialist Mindset to an Information Age mindset.

7

Martin Hyde, I asked a very similar question. This thread might be useful, or not:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=456657&highlight=gestalt

8

So basically what I’m hearing is:

  1. He’s going to “disempower” lobbyists. The problem I have with this is how he plans to do that legislatively. “By getting a big majority”–this isn’t the United Kingdom, he won’t have a majority in the Congress. The President doesn’t not have majorities or minorities in congress although our partisan political system will sometimes make us think that is in fact the way it is. It’s all nice and gooey that Obama has been able to raise millions with his pretty face and pretty words, but the vast majority of Democratic lawmakers aren’t so gifted. They need fat cat connections, they need lobbying groups that get them the big money. They aren’t going to be so willing to bleed themselves just to get Obama’s rosey-eyed policies enacted.

It’s extremely tricky to try and change campaign financing, and to cut into the power of lobbying groups. I think few people will deny that John McCain was serious about campaign finance reform, he fought that battle long and hard. Ultimately he got McCain-Feingold passed, but after the fact even he has said that the bill hasn’t achieved what he wanted it to. McCain-Feingold actually hasn’t had a very big impact because most politicians don’t really want campaign finance reform and it is politicians themselves who have to pass these laws. All Obama can do is veto or sign, he can’t force the congress to pass legislation that will undermine the financing that many legislators on both sides of the aisle rely on to win elections year in and year out.

  1. Grassroots isn’t a new idea. In fact, this stuff has all happened before. I think a lot of Obama supporters would do well to read about the Progressive movement. With that in mind, what is Obama going to do that past leaders like him have failed to do–primarily, keep people interested once the issues of the day are no longer all that pressing? The Progressive movement lead to a lot of progress in America, but by and large progressives didn’t keep up that level of political involvement once they were satisfied. If these grassroots, community service organizing sort of things can’t be made sustainable then all they really are is a good dog and pony show to help win elections. If Obama is genuinely interested in effecting permanent shifts in the political land scape he’s going to need plans that will go far beyond even 8 years in the White House–a relatively short time span. How does he plan to keep people involved once he’s no longer interested in winning elections? Will he care, once he’s no longer interested in winning elections?

In 1912 Theodore Roosevelt walked out of the Republican National Convention in disgust that a backroom deal gave the nomination to Taft. He started a grass roots political party called the Progressive Party [although all the way back to the late 19th century the Progressive movement was arguably operating in a grass roots manner], his platform was, “To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.”

Well, it’s almost 100 years later and essentially Obama is talking about the same things. To be honest there’s no American President I hold in higher regard than Theodore Roosevelt. I’m genuinely skeptical about the ability of Obama to do what a man who was his better in virtually every category failed to do. (By the time Roosevelt was Obama’s age he was in the White House, had served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, become a war hero, rose to the Governorship of New York State, published over two dozen books that weren’t ghost written by anyone and et cetera.)

I think we can probably argue that both business and politics is less corrupt than it was in Roosevelt’s era (however this says little, both were astonishingly corrupt at that time), yet we still have a strong marriage of business and politics.

There’s a strong argument that lobbying groups have a constitutional right to do what they do. Sure, we can restrict their direct donations but any group has a right to say whatever it damn well pleases. Any laws which try to restrict a third party from running advertisements about a campaign are, in my opinion, against the very spirit of America’s core freedoms. While I do worry about the power that unaccountable business/corporate interests have in this country, I worry more about some of the election laws which have, in my opinion, fundamentally restricted freedom of speech.

I agree that “money isn’t speech” but advertisement clearly are, and any corporation that is willing to put up the money should be allowed to run whatever ads it wants as long as a media outlet is willing to run them.

9

First of all let me say, good question Martin Hyde. Spoke like a true philosopher. However, a true philosopher would likely ask more questions about their personal relationship to the question - what they have to gain from asking it - and about what the question will ultimately mean to their assertion.

What I snipped from your post above - again well written - is that you admire Theodore Roosevelt - and you should, he was a staunch man, one who lead his life by his convictions and not how the powers that be told him to live it.
Seems I am thinking of someone trying to do the same things right now…
You also mention that you are skeptical of a man who is trying to do something Roosevelt couldn’t, you say Roosevelt was was his better in virtually every category so the man you are talking about couldn’t do what Roosevelt tried to do. I try not to use the words woulda, coulda, shoulda at all in my vocabulary because they set limits I could not possibly know.
100 years ago Teddy Roosevelt racked up quite a few accomplishments and I bet some of his brethren at the time thought he wouldn’t be able to accomplish all of what he did, but in the end he did.
We don’t know what Obama will do in his Presidency. We don’t know what his “change” will be to Washington - but we do know he wants to take it to a new level - to do something different, much like Teddy did. I would say Obama and Teddy are remarkably similar in that sense. Both wanted some serious changes to occur and both didn’t want to follow the regular establishment rules.
Interesting that the progressive President for a century ago was a young white man with a big dream and a serious side - a hunter - which he used to his benefit. And today - by contrast the “change” candidate is a young black man with a big dream and a serious side - an organizer - which he is using to his benefit.
The similarities are wonderful when you juxtapose the two men - and quite frankly, Obama could change the very way politics are thought of in this country - he could change the way people think about who sits in the oval office.

So if you want to know what Change means when refering to Obama, look at your man Teddy and see how people feel about him a century later - to give you a good idea of what Obama want’s to do now in the present.

Again, very good question, and it raised some points whilst writing this post that I had never thought of before. A new way to look at Obama - a clear way, a progressive way.

Fast forward from Teddy to Franklin Delano Roosevelt - when he entered office I bet he didn’t think he was going to come up with Social Security - but he did. Obama is not thinking about a specific thing he wants to come up with whilst president - just like the Roosevelts didn’t think about it when they were running, but he is thinking about what he will do in the white house - and what may eventuallyt come of it.

Its this line of thought that get’s me jazzed about Obama - I let my mind go as to what he might be able to accomplish, and I get a lof of warm fuzzies when thinking about what he might do.

10

For example?

11

Obama is planning to reach the hand of government into business affairs to a much greater extent than in the past. He plans to ‘manage’ business through new incentives and punishments.

Anyone who thinks this will bring with it a reduction in lobbying activity, lower corruption, and lower the influence of big money in politics is smoking something.

The end result of Obama’s plans, if enacted, would be larger government, closer ties between government and business, and far more money and effort spent by business in attempting to sway government policy.

If you want to get rid of corruption in Washington, reduce the power the federal government has. Businesses only spend millions to elect politicians if they can recoup more than that in government favors. If government doesn’t have the ability to reward them to that extend, the money will stop flowing.

That’s the only way. Politicians have been promising to end corruption in government for as long as there has been government. It *never works. Power corrupts.

12

Hypotheticals:
Bridging the tensions in the world with a new way of dealing with other countries.
Perhaps making inroads in reducing the Government as we know it.
Tax system reform to help pay for highways, biways, DOT reorganizations, Healthcare reform.
Lay the ground work for immigration laws in the age of global terrorism.

Who knows - the point is a lot of his supporters think he will do things differently than any other candidate would. A lot of establishment types feel the same way.

It’s interesting - if you are not automatically thinking negative - to let your mind go and think about what Obama would do positively in Washington.

13

…which would be…? I’m really not getting it. Most of the answers thrown out by the Obama crowd are hypotheticals that rely on answering a question as vaguely as one can.

See the post right above yours for a good explanation of why the government wouldn’t be reduced, but rather, probably end up playing a larger part.

This is different from Hillary’s platform in what way?

Again, I’m not seeing much of a difference from HRC.

Okay, well, I don’t buy it. And I’m not thinking negatively, I’m thinking realistically. Obama is a lot of smoke and mirrors, but I’m not getting much substance from his supporters. If I didn’t know better, I’d categorize his entire campaign as a giant marketing scheme.

You are, of course, free to form your own opinions, and I will form mine. You are under no obligation to defend your position of Obamalove to me, nor am I under any to defend my stance of Hillarylove to you. Obama says we can, Hillary says we will. Until I see some kind of substance from the Obama rhetoric, I’m just unconvinced.

14

Interesting. The second bit I totally agree with (and so, won’t continue about it). The first, not so much. Unfortunately, I don’t have a set of cites to back up that impression. At the same time, I honestly believe that he won’t be attempting to force retroactive immunity for any sector of the business world. I also believe that, in accordance with his stated tenets of a more transparent government, no-bid contracts – in fact, a large portion of outsourcing of government tasks – will receive closer scrutiny.

But mostly, I wanted to put in that I agree very much with the second. :slight_smile:

ETA: my agreement with the second part should be understood granting the stated assumption of “a much greater extent”, which also happens to be an assumption I don’t necessarily grant.

15

And free you are to remain unconvinced. I’m not 100% sure you will see another Clinton Presidency to come back and say, “see…she’s doing what I said she would…” Even though you are not saying anything that she will do. The fact is their camps are so similar it is difficult to come up with a resaon to vote one over the other. Clinton represents old school, Obama represents New School. If you like the way Washington has run for the past 16 years, then vote for Clinton. If you’d like to see some difference like afore mentioned Roosevelt years, vote for Obama.
Personally, I’d much rather see Obama’s face during the inaugural address than Clinton’s, and I’d much rather hear an Obama administration’s State of the Uniion than another Clinton’s. To me, and millions of other democrats, Clinton represents the second coming of the came old calvary.
This morning on the morning news Obama is ahead in overall popular votes, and delegates. If this trend stays the same - and I see no reason why it wouldn’t - until August, he will be the nominee.
References to Clinton and Obama in the same ticket are geared to bring more voters to Clinton’s side thinking they may get Obama with her. However, it’s this one man’s opinion that Clinton would Benefit from an Obama Vp, and Obama would not benefit from a Clinton Vp.

16

And this is the clincher for me, folks. It’s this line, repeated over and over about Obama, that I simply don’t get. Nothing that I’ve read about him thus far gives any indication of exactly how things are going to be “different.” And yes, I’ve read his website and the Bibl----Blueprint for Change that Obamites so religiously tout.

I’m still not buying it. It’s marketing. Unsubstantiated marketing, at best. With each hard hitting question, Obama and his gang retort with “Obama is different! Things will change!”

Well, yes. All candidates are different, and all candidates will bring about some sort of change. But my question is how will Obama bring about this change, while avoiding the fact that it’s going to be difficult to get Congressional support when the majority of our Congresspeople aren’t as, ah, charismatic as he? Once he gets into the oval office, his charisma means absolutely nothing and he’s going to have to rely on something to get him through the Presidency without having hoardes of followers chanting his name outside his window.

In what way can I expect the government to be fundamentally changed four years from now?

17

We have elected countless politicians on the basis of hope. We had no idea what Reagan would do at his age, or what Kennedy would do, or Roosevelt for that matter.
As Americans we want to be optimistic, hell I’ll even say we’d by in large like to invest in optimism half the time. We began this country on a premise of freedom. That has not changed, and we have over the years went out on a limb for politicians and have been pleasently surprised when rewarded with such small things as Civil Rights, Environmental Protection, Social Security etc…etc…

How can I tell you that, how can anyone? There is no concrete answer to that question. If you are telling me you knew what Bush was going to do, or Clinton, or Reagan, or Carter - well I’ll give you a gold star.

Obama will not change lead to gold, but somethings I’d like to see him do: Make our nation participate in Kyoto. Make our nation a more green nation, invest in alternative fuels, try to make us less dependant on oil, improve relations with nations stymied by our past deeds, work to bridge the gaps in our economy, work to reform healthcare, work to secure our borders…

How far do you want me to go? I believe in Obama because he represents to me a fundamental change from the last two decades, If he brings a fraction of what he purports I’ll rejoice!

18

I suppose our difference is that I think not only optimistically, but realistically. Realistically, I don’t see Obama’s charisma being used to break down barriers in the legislature. Realistically, I see the Obama train derailing shortly after November, when all the supporters forget about what’s going on now, and he instead becomes “the President.” Realistically, I don’t see Obama’s methodology being used for anything useful in the real world.

With optimism comes naivety. Realistically, I imagine his meetings going something like “well, Barack, that’s a good idea… but how about…”

I’d say, on a forced spectrum, Obama represents about 80/20 optimism vs. realism. Hillary, on the other hand, is about 80/20 in favor of realism. And that, mixed with her gumption and ability to make things work without a cheering crowd behind her, is why she’s got my vote. Hell, I agree with a lot of folks-- a Clinton/Obama ticket is something I would get behind. He’s got the will, she’s got the way, and together, they could be a lot more beneficial to us than either could be alone.

Precisely my point. It’s all rhetoric, speculation, and "what if"s from the Obama crowd – and to a lesser extent as well, from the Hillary side. “Imagine this…” and “think about…” That’s all well and good for now, but when the time comes for action, I don’t see him as being very successful in Washington.

Anyway, this is all entirely moot now, as the nomination is now primarily up to PA and the Superdelegates. You have to remember that the Superdelegates are politicians, as well, and that much of what they say now… well, it won’t really matter in August. A lot can happen, and I think it’s foolish to bank on their claims of who they will support right now.

The eggs are warming up, but it’s still too early to count those chickens.

19

And this is exactly what makes America great, the ability for me to stand on my side of the street, you to stand on yours, and to TALK about things without shooting at each other. I don’t hate Clinton as a human being, I don’t want to see her in the White House, but I can’t fault her for trying to get there. I don’t agree with her tactics, but then I don’t have to. It’s my duty as an American to cast my vote - I wouldn’t bitch about things if I wasn’t casting that vote.

20

Personally, I’m rather enamoured with his stance on more transparency in government. Overlapping with that to some extent is his stance on streamlining data systems (e.g., medical records). Which, incidentally, puts me in a rather odd and uncomfortable position, as I border on “tin-foil wearing” when it comes to national ID and the government retaining personal information.

Will it get done? I have no way of knowing. But the fact that he’s made it an explicit part of his platform says quite a bit to me. Gah, we could use more people in elected office that have some modicum of tech knowledge (series of tubes, anyone?).