Where's the Change? It's Everywhere

I wrote an article on HuffPost a couple of days ago that spoke, among other things, about Barack Obama's ability to mobilize the Democratic base. One commenter responded with this: "With all due respect Mr. Loewe, Obama's base is also furious....with him." Another said: "The author neglects a critical logic. The Democrats have betrayed the voters who went to the dance with them. Flopsie has reversed virtually every major campaign promise. Hope for change is gone."

This sentiment is familiar to most who read this website and others; it's that of the "Where's the change?" crowd on the left, those who believe that Obama has turned out to be little more than a compassionate version of George W. Bush.

I'm not in that camp. I wasn't under the impression that Obama was going to somehow circumvent the political process in Washington. I didn't think he was going to end the game; I thought he was going to play it differently... and better.

And largely, it's clear he has. On policy alone, for those who ask, "Where's the change?" I'd remind you that the stimulus bill alone has over $60 billion in renewable energy investments, that the equal pay act is now law, that federal restrictions on stem cells are over, that Obama delivered on the middle class tax cut he promised, and that the White House has tighter ethics rules and broader transparency than any previous administration. Let's not forget that, like he promised, Obama is withdrawing forces from Iraq, his justice department has initiated a torture probe and the DEA has been ordered to stop raiding medical marijuana dispensaries. He's meeting the Afghanistan question with a critical skepticism and the kind of commitment to clear strategic goals that any anti-war Democrat should appreciate. On September 23rd at the United Nations, he said, "On my first day in office, I prohibited -- without exception or equivocation -- the use of torture by the United States of America." He did that too.

Oh, and by Thanksgiving he will almost surely sign a health care bill, the details of which are still unclear, but the outcome of which will almost certainly be the closest we've ever come to achieving universal health care. Those who are frustrated with him are forgetting that it wasn't a public option Obama had promised to bring to the country, it was universal health care. A promise broken by every other Democratic president will be fulfilled by Obama by the end of his first year in office. Where's the change? It's absolutely everywhere.

I get the sense that when people say, "Where's the change?" they either don't understand what's happening around them, or else they really mean, "Where's all change?" There is a difference between saying that the president has not been progressive enough, and saying he's not progressive. There is a difference between saying he hasn't brought the specific change you're looking for and saying he hasn't brought change at all. There has already been undeniable, overwhelming change.

I have no issue with those who want, expect and will demand even more change from this president. But for those who continue to make arguments that suggest that Obama has done essentially nothing since getting into office, I have difficulty listening. It's an irrational view, based on passions and frustrations, but not facts.

It's a way of thinking, a way of arguing, that's best left to the Birthers.

 

Follow Dylan Loewe on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dylanloewe

Comments

[mecormany]

You're setting up a straw man argument that we're complaining that there has been no change. I was still very hyped after his first month. Since then, what? The Patriot Act part 2, preventive detention with no habeus corpus, rendition, he's doing his best to cover up Bush's war crimes, the use of state security to get out of presenting torture gained "confessions", his missing in action on health care and even now with a public option a very real possibility he doesn't say jack, What happened to discussion on c-span to see who was carrying the health industry's water? Private deals with insurance and Pharma in closed door meetings is increased transparency? He's pledged to leave Iraq but as far as I know, nobody's left -- plus every trial balloon that's been floated by the administration or by the military is a red flag that says be prepared -- we ain't goin' nowhere for a while. Even if he thought Afghanistan was the right or good war when he campaigned, if he hasn't come to his senses on that subject, he never will and as far as I know the only definite comment from the White House is we aren't withdrawing, he's increased drone attacks, widening the war to Pakistan. his saber rattles with Iran are slightly quieter than Bush but still there ;Wall Street gets billions, Main Street gets rhetoric.
Saying things are better than under W, somehow I was expecting -- more.

[2big2fail]

Obama fixed Wall Street but not foreclosures. He's winding down Iraq and gone to war against Pakistan. He sat down with the AMA and the Health Insurers, but not with the single payers. Professor Gates is safe in Cambridge but Gitmo is still open for business. Obama should dust off that "Mission Accomplished" banner -- he's going to create more damage at greater cost in one term than W in two.

The problem is this: people didn't want bi-partisanship, they wanted a leader who leads by presenting
the case for clear, rational, fair, and even innovative policies that sensible folks on both sides could understand. Instead we got a new kind of skirmish along the frontier between the parties. Ideas no longer matter, nor does leadership. If we can make a coalition that takes the worst of both sides -- and it gets the votes of enough politicians -- we're done.

[Dogmanger]

Mr Loewe, please do not turn legitimate grievances with the current administration into a game of semantics. If and when people actually do say "where's the change?", they are using rhetoric as a device intended to display frustration. This device often contains an element of exaggeration. It is not intended to be taken literally. Noone actually believes there has been NO change. That would be rather silly. In every change of administration from Republican to Democrat there has and always will be a level of change. It is inevitable given the different ideological bases of the two parties. However, Pr. Obama ran on a platform of change. He asked the American people to vote for him because he promised to make a SUBSTANTIAL change to the previous administration's policies. So far the level of change he led the people to believe would be made, has not. Perhaps it will, in which case, those of us disappointed in Pr. Obama will apologise for our lack of patience and move on with our vastly improved lives. However, at this stage, there has been only the level of change which would have been expected of any change of administration- not the change expected of Obama, which he himself, led us to expect. Impatient perhaps, but certainly not irrational.

[BrickSykes]

Down below a little ways a reader posts the following:

"The change is not meaningless. I've been out of work for over a year, and as a cat behaviorist, I hardly expect Obama to wave a wand and create a job relating to my line of work. What he has done for me is extend unemployment payments and allowed me to modify my mortgage under the HAMP so that we can cover payments with just my husband's income. That change, just because it may not apply to you, doesn't amount to "nothing".­"

I sincerely agree with this person and I agree with you. Only the most shrill anti-Obamans will yell and scream that 'absolutely nothing' has been done by this president. I'd like to thank you for coming up with the premise of your piece because I feel its important for Americans to remember just how awful the recent past has been so that they can compare today's improvements. We All know that there are many, many things that aren't being addressed by anyone.

The Great Black Lava Flow that George W. Bush and Company started back in 2000 will take some time to turn around. MY President Barack Obama has made Herculean strides in the Right direction and established a plan for ALL Americans to follow. This should be lauded and NOT Ridiculed!!

Brick

[TheStreamAlwaysWins]

Totally agree

[Axlotl]

We need out of Iraq and Afghanistan. While there is war, Obama gets no peace. He's commander in chief - all he has to do is sign the paper, and we're out. He hasn't, and he won't, because a modern day Democrat is merely a Republican in a cheap suit.

[upbeatdem]

Thank you for a thoughtful and necessary piece. I have been dismayed with the number of people on the left who are extremely critical of President Obama's performance in the short time he has been in office. During the election, he seemed to possess a quality that encouraged voters to project all of their passions, hopes and priorities onto him. While it helped him get elected, it has become a liability for him in office. Many of these people now feel betrayed that he does not have exactly the same priorities and the same approaches that they favor, and they are lashing out. Barack Obama was never a "far left" politician. As you point out, "not progressive enough" is not the same as "not progressiv­e." He is progressive, and in many subtle and profound ways he has already made this country a much better place to live. His critics on the left need to get a grip. They are coming dangerously close to providing support to his critics on the right, and we know what they can do to the country. President Obama is cleaning up that mess right now.

[WakingLife]

I mostly agree with this. I've been getting pretty disillusioned myself, but not with President Obama himself, but his "supporters". Don't get me wrong. There are a few things with his administration that I'm pretty unhappy about. But the truth is, you can't sprint a whole marathon, and that's what this is.

And like it or not, he's not the president of the people who voted for him. He's the president of the whole U.S.A. I'm surprised at what little he's been able to do. I'm cynical that way.

Progress is slow and it takes time. To be honest, I don't even expect a whole lot to get done in four years, let alone 10 months. President Obama has been overlooked and underestimated before. And I think it's happening again.

Go ahead and try to get someone better in 2012. I have two words for that: Ralph Nader.

[zann]

Obama is a great triangulator. The problem is that the main points of his triangle at the moment seem to be the advisers he chose, almost all worth at least 50 million, the Republicans and the Democrats. The voters are in the background until about April of next year. Then the triangle we'll open and the rhetoric will bend in a populist direction until after the elections.

He's smart, thoughtful, kind, sane, hard-headed enough and young enough to change. That's our remaining hope.

[davidly]

"...the White House has tighter ethics rules and broader transparency than any previous administra­tion."

With that tidbit alone you make everything else you had to say suspect, because you are clearly not paying attention. Even this site has copiously exposed the hypocrisy on this issue.

And please, don't anyone ask for a link for me to prove the negative. You'd better serve yourselves by being able to cite evidence to back the claim to begin with. And a presidential announcement is not evidence.

[dynwit]

The Obama administration is not perfect on these two issues--ethics rules and transparency--but it has made some progress. Several federal bureaus have recently reversed the rules under which they were operating during the Bush administration. The FDA has announced tighter regulations over the drug companies and has created a new "transparency committee.­" The FAA is no longer permitted to call airlines their "customers­." The EPA has revised its smog regulations and its policies on climate change to more accurately reflect scientific opinion rather than the oil and coal industries' interests. There was also the "Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act" that got passed. The inner doings of this White House are much more transparent than the previous one, as evidenced by numerous stories in the press about how various decisions were made. Just this past week, we learned about the process by which Obama decided to go to the Olympics. That would have been unheard of during Bushco.

Can he do better? Of course. But he's an improvement, and for that much, I'm grateful.

[davidly]

Thanks for the constructive reply. You can see my less snarky response to kev1000 below to get an idea of how I would summarize my feelings on the matter. Take care.

[kev1000]

Please cite a link proving your negative. Thanks.

[davidly]

Here're a couple of places to start:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/
http://pubrecord.org/politics/2056/obamas-pledge-of-transparency-remains-largely-unfulfilled/

I'm not just being critical to bicker. And I can't just place the bar at "W" and be happy with any appearance of change. I have to look at the overall picture and decide for myself if this is the right direction. My honest feeling thus far is that the changes have been cosmetic and rhetorical, but that the trend remains the same.

[Queenhuh]

Mr. Loewe I really liked your first article and even more so, this one. I think the disconnect for "change" and what we are seeing is coming from more immediate images. Speaking personally, Afghanistan. When we screamed change during the horrendous W years, Iraq was a debacle of mammoth proportions. Escalating Afghanistan appears to be more of the same folly. The money dumped into the war hole is so enormous, we can and never will know its true numbers. This money is needed right here at home in health care, jobs etc. California, without an earthquake, has created its own hole. This is what we want for change. Get out of WARMONGERING!!

[davidly]

Unfortunately, that bit of warmongering was one of his promises.

[truthmachine]

People who say that nothing has changed are simply displaying their own ignorance.

[Citizen54]

Nice try, man.
But the nearly 20% of the US that is out of work is not buying your happy message. Until we see some jobs on the street, any other "change" is meaningless.

Obama doesn't even mention jobs anymore.

[Rolinica]

The change is not meaningless. I've been out of work for over a year, and as a cat behaviorist, I hardly expect Obama to wave a wand and create a job relating to my line of work. What he has done for me is extend unemployment payments and allowed me to modify my mortgage under the HAMP so that we can cover payments with just my husband's income. That change, just because it may not apply to you, doesn't amount to "nothing".

[Pyrum]

Dylan Loewe, you're forgetting the most important changes. The Obama administration has done nothing to restore the Constitution by reversing the expanded powers awarded the executive branch through the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, etc. It's also pursuing a National ID through the PASS Act, and Obama's "health care" bill has nothing to do with "health care" or even medicine, and everything to do with more governmental inference into and control over our personal lives. Add that to Obama's continuation of reckless spending on government bailouts and talk about starting some new wars in the event he'll actually end the wars we already have, and I'll have to say in the areas where it really counts, Obama is just another Bush.

[Merily4977]

Thank you, Mr. Loewe, for pointing out what changes have occorred under President Obama's leadership. In my view, anyone who says nothing has changed, does not follow the news that relays the facts accurately. They should listen to CNN today, Tuesday, September 29, 2009.

[UKOH]

Unfortunately I don't trust CNN to be objective any more - and not just because of Lou Dobbs.

I have seen several CNN programs that have discussions between opposing view points. They often don't moderate effectively, but treat the opposing positions as equivalent. This allows extremist lies to gain credibility on a respected channel.

e.g.
GOP spokesperson "Obama's plan will result in death panels deciding who gets treatment and who is encouraged to die."

DEM spokesperson: "That is a gross distortion that has no basis whatsoever in fact. There is a voluntary end of life counciling provision - initially suggested by the GOP incidentally - that is a free service no a mandate."

CNN moderator: "OK thanks. After the break we will be ........."

One point of view is based in fact and the other is a complete fabrication but they are treated as identical. I believe it is the responsibility of a moderator to point out facts where they have been established. All independent fact check web sites have called out the "death panels' as completely untrue.

In my experience the most objective mainstream media outlet is BBC America. Tune in to their World News America at 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.

[S E Martin]

Most "moderators" don't know the facts. They are uninformed.

This is why, personally, I watch MSNBC. Maddow knows her stuff.

KO annoys me though; he's a bit much. But, his facts are accurate.

Matthews is a bit of a wimp, which is why I prefer Lawrence O'Donnell (and hope he gets his own show.)

[nwerle]

1 $60 billion in renewable energy investments - t hat havent been used
2 equal pay act ? that is nothing!
3 stem cells ? shwo me any progress !
4 tax cut ? in light of economy is NOTHING
5 ethics? appointed people with NO ethics!
6 lied about posting bills!
7 we are still in Iraq and any leaving are goign to Afghanistan sinkhole!

as we said Obama has done nothing SUBSTANTtiIVe!

[Matt7]

Perhaps you're right. Apparently, he needs to get on that Education Reform thing, right away.

[catrst]

Thank you.

[bigteffie]

Hey I second that one at least we will have a counry where people can spell little words right...