We don't know yet what the overarching theme of President Obama's reelection campaign will be, but the word "change" is likely to once again play at least a co-starring role.
With around three-quarters of the country saying we're on the "wrong track," and unemployment still over 9 percent, the one thing pretty much everybody can agree on is the need for change.
And, of course, the concept of change is the thing that singularly defined Obama's candidacy last time around. So I have no doubt that as election season intensifies, we're going to hear a lot more from him about change.
But this time it's different. We've now seen the ways in which the president went about trying to effect that change over the last three years. So while his ideas about the changes the system needs in his second term are welcome and necessary, there is another kind of change he needs to talk about if the change he proposes is to be believed. He needs to make clear the changes he intends to make in himself, in the way he governs, and in the way he approaches the big, systemic changes he claims to want to see.
As Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote in The First Circle: "If you wanted to put the world to rights, who should you begin with: yourself or others?" After what we've seen during Obama's first term, it seems safe to say that there's not going to be much change in the latter without a good deal of change in the former.
In The Audacity to Win, David Plouffe, one of the masterminds of Obama's 2008 campaign, wrote again and again about how central the idea of fundamental change was to the campaign.
"The country needed deep, fundamental change," he wrote. Change was the campaign's "North Star." Plouffe quotes David Axelrod saying that the race was about "change versus a broken status quo." And he describes the campaign as obsessed with not accepting the conventional wisdom of how campaigns are run, always asking "if we do this, how is that running a different kind of campaign?"
At a few points in the campaign when things were looking bad, they'd reconnect with this idea of change. "I want us to get our mojo back," Plouffe quotes Obama as saying. "We've got to remember who we are."
And in accepting his party's nomination, the new Democratic nominee stood at Denver's Invesco Field and proclaimed: "The greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result."
What a difference three years makes. While candidate Obama's goal of change was what the country needed and longed for, President Obama's method of effecting that change has failed. Though Plouffe writes that Obama had run "to challenge the bankrupt and conventional politics of Washington, not master it," in the end -- or at least three-fourths of the way through his first term -- he, in fact, has been mastered by it.
Instead of the "break-the-rules" strategy that Plouffe writes about, once in office a "follow-the-rules" strategy took hold. Instead of challenging the system, the president often legitimized it by accepting its limits and dutifully working within them. His administration was quickly stocked with all the usual "wise men." Not surprisingly, the same old players delivered the same old result. No wonder James Carville desperately wants them replaced.
In his book, Plouffe writes that the campaign "started with our supporters on the ground and they led us to victory." Obama, he wrote, "felt in his gut that if properly motivated, a committed grassroots army could be a powerful force." Yet, once Obama was in office that powerful force, eager to continue the campaign for change, went untapped. Obama has continued to make eloquent speeches about the need for change -- but it's the between-the-speeches-about-change part that needs some change of its own. Because, at this point, it's abundantly clear that the system isn't going to change unless Obama's method of bringing about change changes first.
It won't be easy. The closer we get to the 2012 election, the more voters tend to dismiss all rhetoric as mere electioneering. So given this rhetorical depreciation -- an election speech loses half its value the second you drive it off the lot -- this time it's going to take more than Obama trumpeting change as the goal. This time we need to hear more about exactly how he intends to change the ways he intends to bring about change. This requires acknowledging that change is not just needed in the country, but in himself.
And yes, I'm well aware of the structural impediments (aka the Republican Party) facing the president. But, given that they're not going anywhere, and show no signs of moderating their intransigence, it's even more important that we hear what changes he plans to make in his approach to governing.
His new jobs plan is a good case in point. Solid plan; great speech -- one he followed up by immediately taking his case to that "committed grassroots army." First, he went to Eric Cantor's district and proclaimed, "the time for action is now. The time to create jobs is now." Then he went to John Boehner's state and said, "my question to Congress is, what on earth are we waiting for?" This was followed by his call for a new minimum tax rate for millionaires.
It was an effective bit of political salesmanship -- and a refreshing shift in strategy. But the president's problem going forward is explaining the shift: If you've been taking one approach and then you abruptly change without acknowledging why, or even that you did, or what lessons were learned that caused you to make the change, it just doesn't ring true.
Of course, acknowledging mistakes and course-correcting are the hardest things for a leader to do. But in order for voters to believe that things will be different in the president's second term, there has to be some recognition of what didn't work in the first. Otherwise, any future talk of change will be like hearing a song without the music. And the more often words of change are used without real change happening, the more devalued they will become.
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
Michael B. Keegan: The Imaginary Class War
In 2008, "change" was a soft word for revolution, because many American voters felt like a revolutionary change was necessary to deliver America from the robber-baron depradations committed against the American people by the Bush administration and big money. People expected more change than they got, and now they're starting to show up in the streets. (Over 10,000 in Portland, Oregon yesterday, thursday Oct 6.)
If Obama had investigated the actions of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft et al; had taken a hard line against the corporate forces which caused the economic crash; and had stood against the plutocracy that brought this country to its knees, then he would have a lot more support than he does now.
I'm still voting for him in 2012, I'm just saying what's happening in the streets is an understandable development in the wake of his honorable and worthy and unsuccessful performance as a community organizer and promoter of agreements in a dysfunctional community (the US Congress) that never wanted to be organized in the first place, let alone agree upon anything.
In retrospect it's clear that he would have done better leading a civilized, legal, Democratic Party-based revolt against the Bush status quo rather than trying to organize a bipartisan consensus which included the perpetrators of the Bush years.
For a clear picture of why people are in the streets now, read http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/when-change-not-enough-seven-steps-revolution
The independants, the young and easily impressionable, the dissatisfied with Bushes 8 years and a bad other choice put obama in the White house. A slogan won the day almost 3 years ago!
Now everything is different. We have seen what obama's definition of Change
Communism requires three things:
(1) society becomes one big 'commune', at which point;
(2) the people level all economic and status differences among them, finally
(3) abolishing government (no longer necessary for organizing civilization; no longer any need of representatives, office clerks (a.k.a., bureaucrats), police/fire/emergency services, money, etc.; we'd handle everything cooperatively, run around naked with nary a fig leaf, and generally have a good time!
There's a word for this: 'utopia'. We can all agree there is no point in fearing utopia; too many fevers and fetishes ;)
And Socialism? Two kinds:
(1) the kind that sets the price of bread and milk for everyone (central planning) and owns the bakery and the dairy (government ownership of industry). E.g., Cuba, North Korea, China and the defunct Soviet Union. This is properly called State Socialism, or statism: the state-as-trustee of people's needs until they become ready for Communism. A big lie.
(2) the kind that supports labor unions, which, in Adam Smith's parlance, counterbalance the conspirating of "the masters" of Big Business ("Wealth of Nations," section 'Of the Wages of Labor'); guarantees a standard of health care to everyone; and provides retirement/unemployment security, among other things, all of which empower democracy because people are not beholden to employers for their needs. This is properly called Democratic Socialism, or social democracy, what most, if not all, European countries have today.
Instead of Labor Unions verses Corporations,
or Government Run Economies,
have worker owned companies.
When GM when bankrupt, it would have been cheaper
for the Fed. to loan the employees the money to buy the stock.
Democracy in the workplace with worker owned companies competing
in the market place is the best alternative
to capitalism, government run economies, national unions and global corporations.
Throw in a WPA safety net & wala, a stable and prosperous society.
Anyway, I believe the president is making the right moves now, and I believe he will follow up this move with more of this.
I do not believe our President has to apologize for anything. I believe timing in this political situation is of the essence. Going at the Republicans to early could have backfired - i can already hear Cantor "he did not even give us a chance.." followed by a tearful moment from the Speaker...
I believe he let the Republicans dig their grave nice and deep. And they have. They cannot move on anything anymore without losing face.
But in order to win elections they will have to make major moves. And our President is acutely aware of that. And doing exactly the right thing.
Republicans try to distract by going after social issues, minorities and womens rights - it wont work.
It will alienate them further and further from the independent voter who has no interest in seeing religion being imposed on our great nation more and more.
Our President and the Democrats have the voice of reason - if used correctly it should lead to enormous success.
I believe now we will see the President that everyone seems to expect.
he has to FIRE, INDICT and FIGHT.
Correct - but it is an impossibility. It is not in his DNA.
This is nuts, and Geithner needs to go. I don't know if Obama would make better decisions in favor of the American workers or not, but as it stands now, he screws us every time we turn around.
Now that re-election looms ahead, surprise! The old Obama reappears, ready to fight. Why would anyone believe that any sign of that old word "change" will reappear after the election is finalized in November, 2012? We were played for fools once, why would we go down that road again?
If we allow either Republicans or faux Democrats to systematically dismantle our government, we are placing ourselves in the path of imminent disaster. Democrats need serious primary challengers for the offices of president, the house and the remaining blue dogs in the senate. We are in deep trouble and that "change" is needed, now!
Google: The New World Order, The Invisible Empire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO24XmP1c5E
Not.
It would take a lot of action down Carville's recommended path to make me believe he gets it.
http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=14
Obama’s corporate and political ties took root with Chicago-styled politics. As his career progressed, I believe that he was carefully chosen by conservatives as an articulate and attractive minority with strong conservative beliefs and groomed to assume the role of a faux liberal president. That would explain the difference between what he promises and what he is willing to accept and why I believe that his re-election will be one more nail in our coffin.
Whether Obama was overwhelmed by pressure from the right or a willing partner to our bought-&-paid-for far-right government from the beginning doesn't matter, the effect on our lives and fortunes is the same: he will not deliver. As a nation of docile sheep being led to slaughter, we are told that the time for us to fight back is past. Once the Conservative plan called “Starve the Beast†is complete, they will have full control over our government and our futures. We cannot allow that to happen.