Obama Was Never a Revolutionary

As Jon Stewart put it, "so when does 'hope' turn into 'change'?" As Arianna points out, we still don't know. To any outside observer it sure looks like Obama has lost his campaign mojo and gotten crushed in the whinging gears of Washington's political apparatus. But I'm not so sure.

I've been in Washington since the early 1990s. During that time, let's face it: very little happened. Well, that's not quite right: a lot of things happened, many of them consequential. There was a presidential impeachment, a government shutdown, and several military campaigns and wars. But when you get right down to it, what did all that mean in terms of the way the government ran and its basic priorities? Very little.

The basic structure of American politics -- the array of interest groups and party structures, the government's basic assumptions about what was politically possible and desirable -- didn't change much at all. Mainly, well, it got stupider. Media coverage got stupider. Electoral politics got stupider. And, especially during the Bush administration, government itself got stupider, or at least prone to spectacular breakdowns. With the assent and encouragement of the White House, large swaths of the federal government became hostage to narrow-minded interest groups of one kind or another that simply didn't have a stake in making it work.

Meanwhile, the world was changing. Fast. Big problems such as global warming and collateralized debt obligations emerged. They were catastrophic and just plain weird, and they didn't fit any of our usual political paradigms. When the government can't respond effectively to the real world, it's going to pile one disaster on another.

Obama clearly recognized this problem -- a government adrift in a revolutionary age, with all its constituent parts hardwired to stay that way -- and set out to change it.

But there was never going to be a revolution. Obama ran on change, but he also made clear that he is a centrist and an institutionalist. He believes in making things work, in practical results -- not in blowing things up and starting from scratch.

As a result, the poetry of the Obama campaign has been transformed into the software users manual of the Obama White House.

This is not to deride the software manual approach. Most of the work of actually reforming government is a) politically very, very hard and b) not especially inspiring or even interesting to the media or the public. That includes big stuff like guiding health care reform through Congress. Or lower-profile stuff like staffing scientific agencies with scientists rather than hacks. At every turn, there are obstacles large and small that have been in place for decades and can't easily be dislodged.

So I'm willing to cut Obama some slack. I think his approach is substantive where those of some of his immediate predecessors were variously incremental, empty or dangerous.

But Obama's problems are more than merely rhetorical. (Tom Friedman's suggestion for a lofty thematic fix, "Nation Building at Home," even if basically correct, was politically suicidal as slogans go.) I'm still wondering: Can someone who is temperamentally conservative and pragmatic, and who clearly doesn't relish political combat, ever make truly revolutionary changes? Or in our system, is this the only kind of president who can? That's the riddle we're all facing right now.

So, one year after the election, what do you think Candidate Obama would think of President Obama? Tweet your response (our Twitter hashtag is #OneYearLater), or post it in the comments section.

 

Follow John McQuaid on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnmcquaid

Comments

[packcreeker]

The lack of fire in the belly for progressive action does not surprise me. Obama's record was not progressive. What surprises me is how successful he has been in misrepresenting what he is doing on a daily basis. Is it that hard for us to call him on the hypocrisy of his expressed preference for a bipartisan health care bill when the Wyden-Bennett bill is a more bipartisan bill than Congress has seen in a very long time? Yet, Obama has been allowed to ignore it - by us. We have known since at least July that the Baucus bill is Obama's bill but we sit back and ask why Obama is not out there fighting for a better bill? We have also known that the only thing Obama really favors is the trigger yet we mumble about Rahm as if Rahm - not Obama - is the man in charge. We are to blame for this. Progressives elected him but we do not make it clear that it is not acceptable to refuse to even allow progressives to sit at the table when policy is crafted and debated. We should be shouting from the rooftops about the shut-out of Progressives in this administration. Look at who is supporting the Wyden amendment to the Baucus bill - Landrieu, Nelson, Bayh, Boxer and Burris. Will Obama insist on the amendment? Will we?

[kevinw]

I think you are being generous. He is pragmatic, but not neccessarily about accomplishing his agenda. The meetings and agreements with Big Pharma and the healthcare industry and his fight to neuter the Public Option with the trigger fig leaf are more for nailing down support for 2012 than for solving the healthcare crisis. That is why he has all but ignored the LGBT community. The only reason he favors the trigger on the public option is so he can continue the fiction that he prefers the public option. It is apparent that he prefers the public option to go away. Has this Presidency so far been better than the previous holder of the office or a McCain/Palin administration, without a doubt. That is an extremely low bar to be using to evaluate the administrations performance. This administration has set a course to follow the conservadem course, beleiving that the US has turned center right. It is looking as though Obama has always been center right. The only liberal issue completed so far in his term has been the "lilly Ledbetter" legislation, which was mainly symbolic in nature. As of this date, no one has been able to mount a case based upon this non-dicriminatory "landmark" legislation.

[Sam1jere]

What all governments need to restore faith in their insitutions is to reform them. Sounds simple, but it's more challenging than many think changing an established mindset among government officers. Obama seems to be taking this direction by trying to break the box of current thinking. This takes a lot of courage to even attempt.

As for Jon Stewart's question of when hope turns into change, it's a fallacy that follows belief in linear history. There are no demarcations in time that clearly mark change. Many events we now read of, the French Revolution, Renaissance, etc. happened in overlap with others. The answer would be to wait and see, while each individual does their part.

One thing the author gets spot on is a stupid (and to me, gullible) media. The media is now a follower, and not critical enough. The media was never conceived to be a friend of the establishment - discounting political party mouthpieces (Pravda, Xinhua) It was meant to keep a hawkish eye on the goings on of the elite, asking the difficult questions and (above all) informing the populace, which in turn assists the citizenry in making good decisions. McQuaid has fairly factored in inherited political challenges. This is the objectivity media should practice.

There's a long way to go for Obama, lots of learning too. There's no easy way to walk into history, except by walking. Who knows, the president's current institution-based changes might one day make it to the rarefied heights of revolution.

[kevinw]

"History is a fable agreed upon" Napolean

[hebrew prophet]

The latest buzz word/phrase in Washington,no we can,t ,change won,t come ,we are all inept and confused .Maybe the new Republican governors in Virginia and New Jersey will awake Mr. Obama from his slumber as that,s all he seems to do ,these days.

[wrabbitt]

Revolution is about change, so Washington don't have to worry, no change can come to it. Thats what England thought in 1775.

[realpolitic]

The contrast bewteen the Bush and Obama adminsitration's is striking on several levels. During the Bush administration, Congress seemed almost not to exist. The Bush White House would write legislation and demand Congress pass it almost before they read it. Congress was not even seen by the administraion as an equal branch of government. When administration officials testified before Congress, like Rice or Rumsfield, they did so with disdain.

On the other hand, the role of Congress is monumental in the Obama adminsitration. The president seems checkmated unless he can get legislation through the unweildy, hyper-partisan Congress where conservative members of his own party are proving to be as much trouble as Republicans. Conservatives, now in the minority, still seem to have the capability to control the dialogue and block any legislation they do not like. Health care, cap and trade, and reform of Wall Street is all dependent on Congress and is the change Obama promised, and we might not see any of it. It would be such a monumental pity if so few could block the aspirations of so many.

[RKTesq]

Characterize him any way you wish. The relevant fact is he's broken nearly every campaign promise he made -- including several he made central to his campaign.

[MikiD36]

Obama is not a revolutionary ... and anyone who saw him as one during his run for President had no real ability to judge a man's character, only the ability to create an image of the bright and shining, sword wielding revolutionary that they have longed for and impose it on Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama is charismatic, but no revolutionary. He is a brilliant man and an accomplished politician and has been around politics long enough to know that the kind of revolution many of the hopeful were looking for was impossible, given the state of our current government. He knew it would be a long and painful road to recovery, and he told us so in many of his speeches.
He is no fool, and anyone who sees him as one or as a person who has fooled the voters is a fool them self. If I could wave a magic wand, I would change the election rules and make him eligible to run for and win the Presidency for four terms in a row. Then he might be able to accomplish the things that we liberal pragmatists long for -- a brightened, tightened and more populist form of a working and smooth running government that is truly of the people, by the people and FOR the people.

[carque9]

u are right in one respect-it would take him 16 years to make up his mind one a subject.

[hebrew prophet]

When Obama speaks it,s rather slow or deliberate so which one is the right one as it,s not clear what he means .

[JohnLloydScharf]

If $787 billion is working from scratch, I want some scratch.

[Willie12345]

True. He was also never a Senator, although he was often "present".

[hebrew prophet]

Present ,maybe ,but not paying attention ,definitely .

[s133p1ngdrag0n]

Finally somebody gets it. Obama was never the "most liberal man in the Senate" as Conservatives charged. By reading most progressive commentators you'd think they believed the Republican hype. Obama hasn't done everything each & every one of his supporters wanted him to do & now they are mad. What a shock! I personally voted for him because I read his record of pragmatic mostly liberal politics & am glad to have him. Is he perfect? A savior? A revolutionary? No, no & no. I wonder what "progressive" whack job will step up to try & take liberal votes from him in 2012- Ralph again? The US has been going Right since Regan & now the "progressives" are mad that Barak couldn't change it all back in 8 months- hell they were mad when he didn't do it in the first 10(0) days.

[Paramendra Bhagat]

"....his approach is substantive where those of some of his immediate predecessors were variously incremental, empty or dangerous.." True.

[Doubledoot]

I for one could use a little of that Revolutionary zeal as opposed to the slow and plodding pragmatism There are just some things that we are sure of as a people that we have already figured out. We already know what's practical we just needed someone in a position to make them so ! What we have gotten so far is not exactly what we expected : The Obama worshipers are too forgiving and too willing to wait and see. I think you can see the writting on the wall. We have a majority of Democrates in office : a time where we or the left leaning or whatever you want to call it could actually make some grand steps towards a society that isn't owned and run by the rich elite, coporate, and thier lobbyist. The very interest who are vested in the status quo and resist any kind of change. The Obama administration seems to be taking the stance "let's not rock the boat " too much : Let's not upset them ! I may be mistaken but didn't we elect this guy to do just that : upset that apple cart ? So let's wait until the public gets fed up and elects more Republicans and then we'll have an excuse for not doing anything ? Is that it ? I'll take meat on the table over 'hope' any day !

[Doubledoot]

When you run a campaign on a platform of "fixing" the things that are broke you make yourself open to criticism when you don't fix things ! 365 days is certainly time enough to have implemented a major and sweeping change for the entire country : Which I think is what most people expected, wanted and voted for. A year is a lifetime in politics. Is he waiting for his last year in office to do something significant ? I will grant that the health care issue is major but that hasn't really panned out yet and the more I hear about it the more watered down it gets. The stimulus package was a pork fiasco ! The middle class (what's left of it) is laying out here mortally wounded w/ no hope of triage at the moment Mortgage and credit card co's hold the consumer in a death grip. The point is we wouldn't even be talking about these things at this moment had certain things already have been done that could very easily and rightly been done. There would be no need for your apologetics. No: Obama is no Revolutionary : he clearly sits right of center and ponders the center as Rome burns !

[Doubledoot]

As you point out the Government has been no stranger to ignorance in the last 9 years : That's a fact! A good sign of intelligence is being able to think on ones feet. Obama has displayed a definite tilt towards reluctance, hesitency and lingering rumination. While that dosen't qualify him as 'stupid' it definitely brings up a concern that he may have had no plan ; no idea of how he wanted to handle the issues before he jumped in. He nor his staff seem to have come up with anything profound to adjust the pre-existing and current conditions we all know need to be changed Some things definitely needed an immediate action or implementation of "a plan" : The Economy comes to mind first and all the things on wall street that need oversight and regulations imposed. Where's that at ? Obama does seem to be caught in the vice of Washington political indecision. When ones is torn like this : nothing happens ! It is a familiar ailment of our government we've known and lived with for a long time !