Change for Whom?
Let's face it: McCain and Palin have run off with the Change banner.
I was always worried that "Change" was too vague by half, one of those pallid euphemisms of our degraded politics intended to excite (somewhat) a society many of whom think politics is the devil's work or in any case far less interesting than gadgetry, sex, and the pursuit of personal happiness. Who doesn't want Change?
And who doesn't want Reform, for that matter? A certain George W. Bush ran off with that mantle in 2002: "Reformer with Results." Now the plutocratic, bomb-and-drill, culture-war, abortion-stopping, tycoon-loving, polar-bear-drowning wolf-shooting reformers are back with a vengeance.
In their vagueness, the Obamans were trying to suggest two changes at once:
• change from Bush, and
• change from squabbling, partisan Washington.
A certain deliberate vagueness, they hoped, would sweep up both anti-Republicans, in recoil from Bush, and do-good anti-partisans, in recoil from what they think of as "Washington" (gridlock, not longtime Republican hammerlock) in a big majority tent. Progressive goals would be smuggled in, mostly, by implication, with a fuzzy penumbra, under the heading "Change from Bush."
Maybe it was a smart idea, this deliberate cloudiness, or maybe not. It no longer matters. What matters is that McCain's maverick myth has galloped ahead. Now, with the lapdog press spraying Teflon, the Dynamic Maverick Duo are off and running. (See below for some startling conclusions, courtesy of the conservative Kristen Soltis, about their appeal to independents.)
So the Change mantra has to be changed to something more combative, something that draws a distinction like:
Change for Us, Not for Them
Change for the Many, Not the Few
Real Change, Not Cosmetic Change
Or maybe it's time to dump "Change" altogether for "Progress," or better, "A Better Life."
There's a reason why I never contemplated a career on Madison Ave.--more than one reason, actually--but maybe somebody can take this concept and run it up the A*M*E*R*I*C*A*N flagpole and see who salutes.
The aforementioned Kristen Soltis has a fascinating (and spooky) analysis up at Pollster.com. It's obvious that Palin fired up the 'winger base. But look at this:
CBS's poll asked independents if watching Obama's speech made them more or less likely to vote for Obama. Half of those who watched (29% overall) said it made them more likely to vote for Obama. The other half said it made no change (17% overall) or that it made them less likely to vote Obama (12%). They then asked if McCain's speech made them more or less likely to vote for McCain. More independents watched McCain's speech - 67% of independents surveyed, compared to 58% for Obama's...and among those who watched, the impact was far more positive. 43% of independent voters watched McCain's speech AND said it made them more likely to vote for him. That's nearly 2 out of every 3 independents who watched the speech.This bodes well for Team McCain.
(Also? 61% of independents said they thought McCain/Palin would bring real change to Washington, compared to 33% who disagreed...a bigger margin for change than Obama/Biden, where 57% of independents said they'd bring change and 37% disagreed).
There's more. I can't vouch for the numbers but the principle remains important. Obama has to sharpen the message. "Change" won't do. Everybody can spare Change. He's got to be Mr. Good Change for the Middle Class, Change from Belligerence, Change toward Decency. "Change" has lost whatever edge it had. It's retooling time.
How about: 'No More Lies". How about 'Better Living Through Science'. How about: 'No More Nation Building'. I think the list of wicked problems is pretty long. But you are right.
Obama wants to change the channel. America doesn't know what he wants to put on.
McCain promises change, too--Using tactical Hydrogen Bombs against the uncooperative nations? Bullying Russia? Prayer in Schools? End of Abortion Rights? End of Contraception? Drill now, drill everywhere, drill forever. I mean really, what kind of investment does a 72 year old rich dude have in the future?
I think John McCain has proven that he is capable of just about anything. Anything. Including rouning up dissenters and putting them in a Gulag Archipelago. We got a taste of that in Minneapolis during the RNC.
McCain is now trying to win the election by triggering the reticular activation system with the twin suvival memes of sexual desire and sexual fear. People--get ready.
September 10, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
The biggest change that an Obama presidency could bring to the management of the US government is informed, intelligent decision-making. Democrats know that, but does the general public? President Bush's inability to make thoughtful, carefully considered decisions is well documented. He relies heavily on his "gut" to make decisions, and many of them have been disastrous. Look at the wars, the economy and other crises. Bob Woodward has written convincingly about the way Bush makes decisions. Senator McCain is cut from the same quick-thinking, hip-shooting, cowboy-in-a-business suit cloth. He is not an intelligent person, not in the true definition of the word. Smart? I don't think so. Not given his record in school, in the military, or in Congress. (We have yet to be given the full, accurate story about McCain's deficiencies as a pilot that led to his being shot down, and how he truly behaved in prison.) The differences between Bush and McCain are cosmetic. What Obama has that Bush and McCain do not is the ability to run the government intelligently. Who knows what unexpected problems will cross the next president's desk? Being able to make intelligent decisions about the known and unknown problems the lie ahead should be the main criterion for choosing our next president. Just as JFK tried to choose the best and brightest people to work with him. So, too, would President Obama. That's the kind of change that needs to be emphasized.
September 11, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, "change" in general was always too broad, but the reason this is happening more than anything else is Obama's naive and foolish refusal to be "too" partisan. It's the campaign equivalent of Pelosi announcing that impeachment is "off the table".
Bottom line is that Obama's strategy, despite all the evidence and proof of modern electoral politics in America, rests on the idea that the voters will somehow magically recognize he is the better candidate and that he offers the best set of policies. That's a losing strategy and we can see that as the election slowly slips away this year just as it did in 2004. If Obama doesn't start fighting back and talking like a Democrat and attacking the Republicans then we are all sunk because of his foolish naivete.
The message that McCain is more of the same is right on, but you have to do more than simply point that out. To be effective, that message MUST be coupled with constant reminders to the electorate how corrupt, incompetent, criminal, irresponsible, and damaging Republican misrule has been to our nation overall, to our economy and to our national security. When you take away your best and most effective partisan punches you have tied one and maybe both hands behind your back. How can you expect to win a fight when your hands are tied?
September 10, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Add to that the fact that our party is terrified of branding itself with any label more specific than "progressive" which has been chosen more to obscure what we stand for (what do we stand for?)than anything else.
Once the Dems ran away from the liberal label and let the Republicans define them, they lost their brand and they've done thing to get it back.
What do conservatives stand for? Low taxes, getting government off your back...
What do Democrats stand for? What do progressives stand for? I once knew. I no longer know.
I know what I stand for but then I'm a liberal.
September 10, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The very first change Obama has to make is to forbid anyone in his campaign from ever saying a single good thing about McCain. Nothing could be more stupid in a politician than making a speech that starts out with praise for his opponent. If he really thinks that much of McCain, any sane person would wonder why he doesn't just announce that he is voting for him.
Changing the central theme of his campaign now is a loser's strategy. So, he needs to continue to promote "Change", but include that he wants to change from corrupt old farts like McCain to a younger generation that still has intact honor and morals. And, adding a trophy armpiece like Palin doesn't change that.
September 10, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm crossposting this across the Cafe.
Please check out the Women Against Sarah Palin blog. I got the link from Bad Attitudes (they're doing some heavy lifting there, folks). You may have to click through a warning screen. The friends and cousins of shooter242 are mucking up access, but here is the link:
http://womenagainstsarahpalin.blogspot.com/
September 10, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
After reading your post, it is clear, sir, that you have had absolutely no idea what the Obama campaign has been talking about.
No, the McCain-Palin campaign has not run off with anything other than their own mouths. They do not have the "change" mantle. They are "Johnny and Sarah Come Latelys" to the idea that this is a change election.
The McCain's switch from "experience" to "change" is indicative that "experience" wasn't working. This latest mantra "change is coming! change is coming! my friends, change is coming!" merely heralds what we already know. Change is coming, and Barack Obama and Joe Biden are bringing it.
After 20 months of campaigning -- with Bill and Hillary and every other pundit in the world claiming the imminent death of "change" as a campaign theme -- the Obama campaign has remained steadfast and true to their message from day one.
Sorry Todd, but all evidence points to the fact that you are wrong, with a blog "too stupid by half" -- to employ the most assinine line of the punditocracy this campaign season -- and built from yesterday's rejects of the largest talking heads around.
September 10, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been listening to Obama for the past 18 months very carefully, and I think Todd is correct that change for Obama represents these two fronts:
• change from Bush, and
• change from squabbling, partisan Washington.
Change from Bush also implies change from Bush's approach to policy formation--but if simply change from Bush is all you want--McCain can deliver that.
As for point number 2, it is self evident that more than half the country, including Democrat partisans is commited to continuing the squabbling, partisanship.
I personally, always wondered what tactics Obama would use to pull that one off. I believe in Game Theory. I believe in Win-Win solutions. I use both every single day in my professional life. But politics is still a SwampLand--and most voter still think with Blood and Earth, and reach for their guns whenever they hear the word 'culture'.
McCain lept forward on the back of the lizard-brain. Obama is trying to appeal to their prefrontal lobes. Will this work, on the majority?
September 10, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
His point Jade, was that the enemy has expropriated the change theme because it is too general. I'd say that's a pretty demonstrable reality.
Just because the other side talks about change doesn't mean Obama wins. Far from it. If they outmanuever Obama and people believe the Republicans represent change then what's the difference? Why not vote for McCain? That's the point you seem to have missed.
The relatively vague mantra of change overall is open to being defined by the other side and that is what is going on right now. If Obama doesn't sharpen his message and control the definition of change it won't have been any kind of coup for him to have forced them to talk about change.
September 10, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
after reading your reply it is clear you have no idea what todd gitlin's point even was.
September 10, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's face it: McCain and Palin have run off with the Change banner.
This is silly. The Republicans haven't "run off" with the change banner. They have made a play to grab it, yes. But we just have to tackle them, punch their lights out and grab it back.
The fact is that a majority of the public has repudiated the last eight years of Republican control of the White House, and wants a change. It's up to the Obama campaign to make the case that McCain and Palin won't bring that change, but represent a continuation of the things the public has rejected. This is actually a very easy case to make. Now that the Republican convention balloons have popped, the confetti has been swept up and thrown away, and the Sarah Palin "new face" buzz has subsided, I expect the Obama campaign to make the case clearly, confidently, aggressively and with great political effect.
September 10, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Obama talks about change it reminds me of something Paul Newman said in The Verdict.
"The Courts don't give you justice, they give you a chance at justice."
That's how I see Obama, 90/95% of the public get a chance at some kind of representation.
September 10, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is this nonsense about "change" that I keep hearing about?
To the best of my knowledge, neither John McCain nor Barack Obama have any intention of dealing with the two biggest problems facing modern America:
1. The outsourcing of jobs
2. Immigration
If they want to continue talking about the mythical "War On Terror" and who is best suited to be Commander In Chief, then I'll busy myself by re-reading "Goodbye To All That," the sensational memoirs of Robert Graves and his journey through World War I.
If there ceases to be a candidate who will deal with our nation's real problems, then why not let the Private Sector continue on with its de facto governance of our nation? Corporations and Boards of Directors already determine the legislative agenda, right? Correct me if I'm wrong.
September 11, 2008 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously, Gettysburg missed school the day "The Most Important Election of Our Lifetimes" was announced.
Where's Sal Viscuso when you really need him.
September 11, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Todd,
I'm not sure it is accurate to level criticism at Obama as a change candidate. There is a real distintion between what Obama and McCain are saying.
Obama has taken pains to give clear definition to the things that are obviously messed up and proposes real and detailed modifications.
I don't see McCain doing that. Where McCain is offering solutions, his proposals sound very much like what we have now. Or you could say that the change McCain is proposing is one which would move the country more to the right. I agree that is change. However, it's also what Bush has done for eight years and it hasn't worked.
I think they both propose change. It is the details or the character of that change which makes them markedly different.
September 11, 2008 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll admit to not following this quadrennial kabuki we call an election very closely (I live in a non-battle ground state), but from what I've been able to pick up from the sound bites provided to me by the mass media I gather that McCain and not Obama is the real agent of change.
McCain's promised to veto all earmarks, a promise he might actually make good on. (Note: Bill Clinton shut down the government and the people backed him; I think they'd back McCain on this one, too).
Sure, the effects of entitlements are negligible in a nearly three trillion dollar budget -- but McCain's promise is short, sweet, and represents "Change".
Enlighten me. Has Obama shown up with a "Change" which 1) raps the knuckles of the Washington establishment and 2) is describable in one sentence?
September 11, 2008 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I meant to type the "costs of earmarks" rather than the "effects of entitlements."
September 11, 2008 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink