The Perils Of Change Lite

Substance has become a liability. Some of my best friends and family members, as they say, are journalists. But I'm sick of hearing from them. Where are the historians, political scientists, economists, sociologists, communication experts and objective political analysts -- for a start?

Journalists are apparently equipped to tell us everything we need to know. Most on television interview each other and tell us next to nothing. With few exceptions, they ask superficial questions and seek sound bite answers. That's when they're not playing gotcha. And this is the information we're supposed to use to elect the next president.

Historians will reveal in years to come how we allowed ourselves to be convinced by people who were supposed to report what others with expertise have to say. Instead, they trained us to accept corporate media enterprises hiring good talkers to interview each other. The result -- a perpetual loop of stunning superficiality.

Most of us are ready to hear what the candidates plan to do about health care, Iraq, terrorism, social security, the failing economy, lead in children's toys, and a host of other issues that "momentum," "experience" and some vague notion of "change" can't effectively address without intense study and superb problem-solving. We need from the final candidates evidence of depth and skill in problem observation, detection of causes, generating of options, identifying and employing those best suited to each solution stage, selection of qualified team members, accountability and follow through. And that's just for starters.

I've studied change at length. Each type of change leader, commanding, logical, inspirational, and supportive, has his or her strengths and weaknesses. Commanders often rush to decisions and actions, but they are also good at getting things done once a plan has been developed. Logical leaders often ponder too much, but they are better than commanding leaders at taking the time needed to assess what is really at the heart of problems. Inspirational leaders can be lofty but short on delivery -- good at starting, but not at subsequent steps. Yet, to their credit, they are also motivational and some types of change benefit from that. Supportive leaders make people feel good, but can go too far by declining to make decisions that might displease.

Effective and lasting change requires assessing the skills and limitations of its agents. What change implementation leadership skills do the candidates possess? Where do they fall short? What skill combinations will solve our most pressing problems? Who has what it takes to effectively begin change on each pressing issue facing the United States and the world? Who can effectively follow through and maintain change in the areas that can make this country strong again? What obstacles stand in the way of change and how do the candidates intend to remove them? Are they in touch with their limitations and how will they compensate for them?

Until we insist that journalists ask such questions, change will not occur. It will remain an elusive quest and we will only have ourselves to blame.

more at politicsdoc

Comments

[vsign]

The WSJ says it will be white working class men who decide the Ohio and Texas races.

The time has come. I am really proud of every single individual white man who steps up to support Hillary.

We really need a grownup to have the red button.

This is the generational divide. This is what it feels like to have our young people turn against any of us over 50.

Vote against Obama. Vote against a person who is so inexperienced to be dangerous.

This year - The Best Man For The Job Is The Woman.

[rixhex56]

vsign,

I'm a "grown-up", and I'm not so happy with what the current batch of grown-ups in government have done over the past 7 years. Interestingly, one of those grown-ups is your choice for president.

Personally, I think either Obama or Hillary will make a good president. I do, however, also agree with those who have said, "the best man for the job isn't even in the race."

[whimsicalpig]

the bst man for the job isn't even in the race.

we are, instead, picking between the lesser of 2 evils.

how can the democats keep shooting themselves in the foot.

first it was reid/pelosi, now its hillary/obama

If these are the best we can do, maybe we don't deserve the mantle of governence.

[jagoneely]

"Change" (like Experience) could also be considered just a slogan. But not for the people who put that idea above rock-solid solutions. Some of us want clear answers. That's why I agree and have agreed for YEARS with this article. But what to do? deregulation has caused a hijacking of our free press that began with Reagan. And now Bush's lackey is doing the same to Radio. Sometimes I feel that America has been asleep at the wheel and has awakened just in time to hit a tree.

[savertime]

People seem to confuse "experience" with years of service. If experience is really the key, then Biden, Richardson or Dodd would be the front-runner in this election, not Clinton or Obama. Experience is just another campaign theme.

[AnninCA]

I so agree. It's maddening to see nobody tackle the real issue of health care, for example.

That could be so helpful just to start educating people. Instead, we end up with knee-jerk and wrong-headed thinking.

That's the crux of real change. We have to hack through the lack of substance but yet not expect people to become health care advisors to understand the real differences!

That takes someone truly knowledgeable who does their homework and figures out how to distill it down correctly.

That's hard work.

And inspiration doesn't hack it. That may get one moving, but in the end....it's hard work to effect real change.

[ProfessorB]

This post makes the assumption that change is created by change agents, so naturally, Kathleen Reardon complains about the media's lack of attention to these agents' abilities. But that's exactly the mistake that Hillary Clinton makes. It's a mistake made by social engineers who think that social change comes from social policy, to whom the only political issue becomes getting the power to control policy.

But change is not made by change agents or by social policy. Change is made by social movements. The real problem in Hillary's MLK/LBJ comment was that she identified LBJ, the policy-maker, as the most important element of change, not MLK, the leader of a social movement. In most cases, social policy shuts down the momentum for change created by social movements.

The primary campaign pits two ideas of change, social policy vs social movements. It is clear that Obama represents the latter, which is why he is the more effective change agent no matter what his policy skills, which are impressive in any event.

[SEQUOIABISON]

Well Said ProfessorB.

[slow2]

Sequoiabison,

I Second that; and many citizens note and understand, whether Ms Reardon does or not.

Maybe someone will speak to her and bring her the substance she so desires. Obviously her selective listening is leading her into a corner.

There are laundry lists, and then there are speeches that encourage and inspire people to work, to make policy and to effect change.

"Substance" is like documentation. You don't measure it by the bushel.

[auntiecairo]

Why is this election different than any other? Politicians are always full of promises. It just happens this time there's a candidate people are actually enthusiastic about. No President has been perfect - those that have been better than others sometimes have been moved to action by circumstances that occur during their tenure. Senator Clinton purports to have experience - but she really doesn't. We were at peace while Bill was in office; and he made quite a few blunders on his own anyway. The economy and the world in general move forward despite who is in power in the US. The bottom line is you need a mandate from the people to effect meaningful change -- maybe Obama can run with that - maybe he can't. But given the 20 year standoff between Democrats and Republicans isn't it worth a try? What is everyone so afraid of? The government is set up with checks and balances for a reason -- the current problem we have is that Bush is overriding the Constitution in favor of doing what he wants. Obama at least has less baggage so perhaps that naivety will cause him to be more objective. Does anyone think HIllary will go after Blackwater if Mark Penn represents them and she's paid him millions? Maybe - but it's doubtful. Since cynicism is at an all time high doesn't it make sense things might swing the other direction? It's not Obama's message that is so exciting - just the fact people formerly not interested are excited.

[Lemeritus]

"The bottom line is you need a mandate from the people to effect meaningful change -- maybe Obama can run with that - maybe he can't. But given the 20 year standoff between Democrats and Republicans isn't it worth a try?"

There's such good heartedness in your question, aunticairo, that I thought it was worth reiterating.

[NotMyPrez]

They are not Journalists in the investigative sense. They are 10 year olds at a soccer game chasing the ball around the field. The ball being whatever hot-ad revenue generating topic to run the teaser before the season premiere of Grey's Anatomy. Truth is irrelevant.

Welcome to Orwell country

[research]

"we will only have ourselves to blame"

We watched the MSM media shut Kucinich out of the debates, but did not vote for him.

We took the values test, that indicated Kucinich was the man who matched our values, but we did not vote for him.

[Lemeritus]

When Kucinich was barred from the Nevada debates, it became crystal clear to me who was choosing our candidates. And I did not hear a peep of protest from the Democratic Party or the two candidates the media allowed to let us hear.

[research]

I am going to vote for whomever the dems pick.

Let's hope a good person sneaks in.

[Lemeritus]

I'll drink to that!

And if all this fussing, fighting and feuding goes on, I may just drink for the sheer hell of it!

[Pdubya]

good article, thanks. follow the money. who reports to whom and who pays for what. that is why we have propaganda to the Nth degree now. disinformation, misinformation, liable, blackouts, one-sided views.

our two party system isn't really one. it is one-sided: globalism. we keep swallowing the red pill or blue pill. the plutocrats on the Hill want it that way, meanwhile, they shake hands in a back room and pass eachothers' legislation - eroding our civil liberties and sovereignty and economic freedom to enable to become more rich and powerful.

it is such a ruse.

there is only one candidate that is speaking truth to politics and has a record to back it up. and he will be at convention. Ron Paul.

want to know whom the historians, economists, etc are flocking to?

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements

the list is impressive.

p.s. lincoln went to convention with only 20 delegates.

[geg6]

*rolls eyes*

Yeah, Ron Paul. Mr. Libertarian. Unless, of course, you have a uterus. And then he's fine with the state controlling that.

[Nommo]

I expect that they are way busy looking for plagiarizers.

[payforthepizza]

Ourselves to blame?
Maybe its your fault, but don't try to drop this on me, thankyouverymuch ;)

But seriously, I do think this type generalized causality never give's us a very clear picture about who REALLY is to blame, and how we fix it.

[standforpeace]

Sorry Kathleen, but I don't want to dine on the meal of sour grapes that you're serving up. One of the primary jobs of the president is to inspire -- to help Americans believe in their better selves, and the possibility that we can act together to make our country a better place.

Barack Obama can provide that kind of leadership. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton can. She is the wrong person at the wrong time.

As for the rest, specific policies don't matter as much as basic principles and commitments at this stage of the game. Remember Bill Clinton campaign promises to reform health care or that gays and lesbians would be able to serve openly in the military? The truth is that both of these promises weren't really within his ability to deliver since policy making requires the input of Congress -- a Congress that will no doubt want to alter the details of any policy before writing it into law. So why not elect a candidate who combines intellectual achievement with liberal commitments and the abilty to actually move the American public along with him rather than someone who comes with the kinds of baggage that will make it very hard for her to acheive the majorities needed to put detailed policy plans into action?

By the way, I think when historians look back, they will Congress' (with Hillary right there with the rest) vote to authorize Bush's Iraqi killing spree as a true failure of leadership and an American catastrophy.

[SEQUOIABISON]

standforpeace,

Brilliant evaluation.

I totally agree, authorizing Bush to bomb innocent woman and children in Baghdad is the defining issue that has turned me against Hillary.

She betrayed the liberal democrats and supported the warmongering republicans and never ever apologized for this action, which leads me to believe she was not fooled by Bush-Cheney but rather agreed with their policies.

[Heidfeld]

This is another Obama argument that thinking people simply laugh at. This assumption that he will be able to bring people together.

He hasn't managed to win over Hillary's 50% of the Democratic party, so what makes you think he can win over some Republicans? Democrates should be receptive to his message, but half of them see Obama as a fake. So how is he going to magically win over the rest of the country and the right side of congress?


Yes SHE Can

[tommjk]

Exactly!

[maggieb]

Second that!!! Some of these people seem to believe that it is going to be easy to win over Hillary's supporters come November. We are not so gullible to the notion of CHANGE.

[K-Dog76]

standforpeace

Um, wow, interestingly you assumed the post was about candidates or something? I think it was really about why reporters suck. Which they do. The article is about the difference between style and substance, not whether the candidates have any.

Historians are actually going to look back at the Iraq war in a favorable light. Much like WWI, despite opposition on the homefront. It won't be viewed as an error like Vietnam. Especially since most Iraqis want some sort of US presence (albeit not to knock down doors, etc). I think your the one serving the sour grapes.

[generationyes]

She IS talking about the candidates, even if in classic disguise. But I'll take Change-lite over Bush-lite any day.

[Sketchartist]

It doesn't take a genius to recall that the presidents who stand out in American history are the ones who could move and inspire.

Figures like Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln - NOT the Warren G. Hardings and Grover Clevelands - come to mind.

We have have gone so long without that, perhaps we have forgotten how important it is.

[glorija]

Dear Ms. Reardon,
I am an academic myself and think our work is important in assessing and understanding numerous variables involved in any historical change or its institutionalization. But I am also one of the members of the academy who thinks that we, the academics, are often the last ones to be able to grasp the present in all its potentialities. We are certainly among the last ones who have the courage to dare to change the big picture of our present condition. From our offices, libraries, and archives, we look at life from a safe distance, not aware of the processes that have been underway for many years, and not understanding the force of political, historical, or cultural imagination when it captures common people. This is why, with all our wonderful knowledge, we cannot predict (or stop) wars. We are much, much better at some a posteriori assessment than in understanding the now and where it might go.
There were, and are, only a few unique individuals who managed to escape the trap of the ivory tower of academia. I am not one of them. And you are certainly not one of them.

[K-Dog76]

glorija, good point, the idealism of left-wing academia rarely if ever is applicable to the truth of current events. You've pretty much marginalized (particularly the far-left) the Democratic party by explaining "we look at life from a safe distance, not aware of the processes that have been underway for many years, and not understanding the force of political, historical, or cultural imagination when it captures common people" Which is why farmers and small business owners vote Republican. Which is why conservatives don't say the war is lost. etc. etc.

I think you should step out of your Ivory Tower and stop feeding B.S. to the American youth. There is nothing wrong with the idealism "everybody should have free healthcare" but not giving the dose of realism "NOTHING IS FREE" you perpetuate a weakness. I'm all for liberal thinking, actions however must be for the greater good and not minority interests, on either side of the aisle...

[roxanne90]

Glorija--
Reardon writes an eloquent piece finally asking the question about substance in the media and you write back that academics don't understand or care? (conveniently & self-servingly saying that you of course are not one of them!). give me a break.
Of course we do! I'm an academic-- my life is not an ivory tower and never has been--I'm a citizen, mother, voter, etc -- I understand complex processes in my field and have opinions! Please do not perpetuate the
myth that as academics we only sit and ponder and never act!

[glorija]

Roxanne90,

I have no problem stating what I've been seeing in the American academia for years. This is not a myth, this is a fact. Sure, you are a citizen (and many other things), but the life you (and I) are leading is very, very far away from the life of the working class mother, citizen, voter...Who are around us in much greater numbers. And whose views of the world--their location, their concerns, their hopes--we rarely seem to understand.

Re. your statement that I "write back that academics don't understand or care? (conveniently & self-servingly saying that you of course are not one of them!)"

Not sure that I do understand how I was saying, firstly, that academics do not care, and secondly, that I am not one of them. I said--at least I think I did--that the academics care a lot, maybe too much, and suggested that we, the academics, give ourselves too much credit for the ability to shape the world, or understand it. We rarely dare to admit our own limitations--methodological, philosophical, normative.

As to your comments about me, let me repeat: "There were, and are, only a few unique individuals who managed to escape the trap of the ivory tower of academia. I am not one of them. And you are certainly not one of them."

A little bit of humility is what I was suggesting, that's all. We are not that much better than the journalists are.

[OhYeah08]

Change is very hard for anyone and that includes the government, business, NGO and individuals alike. Just take healthcare; change has been fostered on the system by outsiders to the point, many institutions can not longer survive on the revenue generated and the staffing is so inadequate as to put patients at risk for harm. Technology has changes the environment drastically causing increased cost, less waiting time in some cases and less on-on-one contact w/healthcare personnel; yet everyone complains about the "impersonal nature" of heathcare today. Can't have it both ways.
Our politics is all about talk now days. The "journalist" don't ask questions to determine policies and solutions to the citizen's concerns, they give us entertainment and gotsha news reports. They revel in the missteps, humilations, the staging, etc, then complain about candidates not being "genuine".
Talk is talk; Dubya talked a lot during his campaign day; we now have little to nothing that he promised and a war he lied about. I wonder what Obama and all his change talk will bring? I know Clinton and her record; she has promised not so much change as solutions to current issues. I guess talk is more important to many more citizens than originally thought. We shall see, we shall see. I am still waiting.

[Lemeritus]

"Sometimes I wonder if we shall ever grow up in our politics and say definite things which mean something, or whether we shall always go on using generalities to which everyone can subscribe, and which mean very little." --Eleanor Roosevelt

[K-Dog76]

Lemeritus
well qouted

[Durango]

Excellent question. Where are the historians, the political scientists, the acedemics? You know, people who study the issues?

It seems most of the media, at least broadcast, studied hair styles. And seem to be ignorant of any history what so ever. The exception being Olberman and, of course, Jon Stewart.

Prime example: In the lead up to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq THERE WAS NOT ONE BROADCAST about the history, culture, society of these countries. NOT ONE!!!

The closest thing I saw, and I was looking hard, was on the Travel Channel!!!

Frontline did a show about Iraq that went all the way back to the Reagan Era.

On a country we were about to invade and occupy. A country where history began!!!!!

Unless of course you believe that Herat in Afghanistan is the worlds oldest city.

This is an absolute disgrace. And now we have nonstop punditry yacking about useless polls (that includes you Keith) instead of actual NEWS.

There is a whole big wide and sometimes bad world out there. But you would never know it by watching the American media.

PS When was the last time you saw an Iraqi or Afghani correspondent on the Evening News?

[K-Dog76]

Durango, You say: "Prime example: In the lead up to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq THERE WAS NOT ONE BROADCAST about the history, culture, society of these countries. NOT ONE!!!"

Well actually I learned a lot about Iraq and Afghanistan, and their history and culture, unfortunately it was on Foxnews and CNN.

I guess you meant to say liberal meanstream media?

YOu can find the occasional foreign correspondent on NPR as well, a good haven for the left.

And now we have nonstop punditry yacking about useless polls .... agreed, it is a bunch of B.S.