Electric Politics | A Changeling For All Seasons

A Changeling For All Seasons

The Changeling At this point in the game we can give Mr. Obama a grade for his main Cabinet appointments: a "D+." If not for a couple names that are pretty good it would be an "F." The large majority are lackluster, a few (Clinton, Gates) abominable. What on earth does he think he's doing, I wondered — until he selected Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. Now everything becomes clear: it's not about religion, it's not about political ideology, it's about organizing. Mr. Obama admires Mr. Warren's business to business marketing approach; what works so well for an evangelical California mega-church, or the Communist Party, i.e., a cell structure, surely can work for Mr. Obama's coalition. Content becomes irrelevant.

For decades, even a couple generations, ivory tower political scientists, encouraged by neo-classical economic theory, have argued that political battles, stripped of ephemera, are fought over who occupies the center. Perhaps Mr. Obama believes this. Yet pandering to the right does not get him to any center. In fact, there is no center there.

Mr. Obama overstates the ability of the right to engage in critical thought while he understates that of the left. We have divisive politics for good reason. There are divisive issues, critical issues, upon which the unthinking and the intelligent vigorously disagree. This is not something that can be fixed by blathering about inclusiveness. Nor, more to the point, can Mr. Obama construct a durable "cellular" coalition, a majority coalition, that moves into virgin territory.

A very large slice of those who voted for Mr. Obama did not expect Republicanism Lite. Perhaps Mr. Obama did not understand how he appeared to his supporters, or that his supporters were serious about politics. Perhaps his lack of specificity on the campaign trail was not simply a tactic but a lack of ideas. Perhaps he would prefer that difficult issues go away.

If he can figure out even semi-successfully how to deal with substantive priorities he's sure to be re-elected in four years. But I'm starting to ask myself if he may turn out to be a one term phenomenon...

Posted by George Kenney on December 19, 2008 4:06 PM

Comments

We might give him a few weeks or months to see how his execution is. He is not as easily led as those who these slicksters led by the nose in the past so there is a 2% chance he can manage them for the better. I am desparate for a silver lining, I guess.

Posted by: Marty Heyman | December 19, 2008 5:17 PM

Well.. I agree George, to the extent that this appears (convincingly) to be an unpleasant setup.

But. I am interested in hearing his speech and seeing if I can catch more concretely what his intent is.

I believe myself that more radical change is called for than Clinton, Gates, et al would suggest is in the offing, but I don't think I am being at all fair to myself to even be surprised thus far.

I guess that, like Marty here, I might admit some desperation.

Hope is not going to cut it. Not in these times.

Thanks again for a fine post. I haven't listened yet to the podcast. Soon.

Hooray for EP

Posted by: Peter | December 19, 2008 6:09 PM

Any truly progressive change must be concerned with the long term , and what is the point of making changes for four years or eight years just to lose power to the other side due to more spin and re-framing of issues devoid of content. You have to somehow get the other side to change their views and the only way to do that is through their leaders not yelling at them or ignoring them. Those leaders mostly care about the position of influence that they have, and his approach may be to show them that he does not intend to challenge their position of power but instead co-opt it for different ends.

(your post got me thinking of Jeff Sharlet's "The Family")

Posted by: pete | December 19, 2008 6:15 PM

I will keep reading what bloggers say, but have lost interest in listening to Obama after the Warren thing. If I loudly support views that cause the murder and intimidation of doctors can I preside at the inauguration too?

Posted by: someofparts | December 22, 2008 8:52 AM

I volunteered for Obama and voted for Obama and consider myself on the political left. But, to be honest, I thought your boosterism of and belief in Obama during the campaign was a little over the top. Yes, some of the cabinet picks are upsetting, but I can't say that I am getting anything different than what I expected. I'm in wait-and-see model with low expectations, some of which have already been satisfied simply by the removal of Republicans from the presidency.

Posted by: Scott | December 28, 2008 6:57 AM



Home FAQ Contact Archive EP Store EP Alerts © 2010 ElectricPolitics	A Changeling For All Seasons At this point in the game we can give Mr. Obama a grade for his main Cabinet appointments: a "D+." If not for a couple names that are pretty good it would be an "F." The large majority are lackluster, a few (Clinton, Gates) abominable. What on earth does he think he's doing, I wondered — until he selected Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. Now everything becomes clear: it's not about religion, it's not about political ideology, it's about organizing. Mr. Obama admires Mr. Warren's business to business marketing approach; what works so well for an evangelical California mega-church, or the Communist Party, i.e., a cell structure, surely can work for Mr. Obama's coalition. Content becomes irrelevant. For decades, even a couple generations, ivory tower political scientists, encouraged by neo-classical economic theory, have argued that political battles, stripped of ephemera, are fought over who occupies the center. Perhaps Mr. Obama believes this. Yet pandering to the right does not get him to any center. In fact, there is no center there. Mr. Obama overstates the ability of the right to engage in critical thought while he understates that of the left. We have divisive politics for good reason. There are divisive issues, critical issues, upon which the unthinking and the intelligent vigorously disagree. This is not something that can be fixed by blathering about inclusiveness. Nor, more to the point, can Mr. Obama construct a durable "cellular" coalition, a majority coalition, that moves into virgin territory. A very large slice of those who voted for Mr. Obama did not expect Republicanism Lite. Perhaps Mr. Obama did not understand how he appeared to his supporters, or that his supporters were serious about politics. Perhaps his lack of specificity on the campaign trail was not simply a tactic but a lack of ideas. Perhaps he would prefer that difficult issues go away. If he can figure out even semi-successfully how to deal with substantive priorities he's sure to be re-elected in four years. But I'm starting to ask myself if he may turn out to be a one term phenomenon... Posted by George Kenney on December 19, 2008 4:06 PM « Other Podcasts \| Main \| Merry Christmas! » Share this post: Comments We might give him a few weeks or months to see how his execution is. He is not as easily led as those who these slicksters led by the nose in the past so there is a 2% chance he can manage them for the better. I am desparate for a silver lining, I guess. Posted by: Marty Heyman \| December 19, 2008 5:17 PM Well.. I agree George, to the extent that this appears (convincingly) to be an unpleasant setup. But. I am interested in hearing his speech and seeing if I can catch more concretely what his intent is. I believe myself that more radical change is called for than Clinton, Gates, et al would suggest is in the offing, but I don't think I am being at all fair to myself to even be surprised thus far. I guess that, like Marty here, I might admit some desperation. Hope is not going to cut it. Not in these times. Thanks again for a fine post. I haven't listened yet to the podcast. Soon. Hooray for EP Posted by: Peter \| December 19, 2008 6:09 PM Any truly progressive change must be concerned with the long term , and what is the point of making changes for four years or eight years just to lose power to the other side due to more spin and re-framing of issues devoid of content. You have to somehow get the other side to change their views and the only way to do that is through their leaders not yelling at them or ignoring them. Those leaders mostly care about the position of influence that they have, and his approach may be to show them that he does not intend to challenge their position of power but instead co-opt it for different ends. (your post got me thinking of Jeff Sharlet's "The Family") Posted by: pete \| December 19, 2008 6:15 PM I will keep reading what bloggers say, but have lost interest in listening to Obama after the Warren thing. If I loudly support views that cause the murder and intimidation of doctors can I preside at the inauguration too? Posted by: someofparts \| December 22, 2008 8:52 AM I volunteered for Obama and voted for Obama and consider myself on the political left. But, to be honest, I thought your boosterism of and belief in Obama during the campaign was a little over the top. Yes, some of the cabinet picks are upsetting, but I can't say that I am getting anything different than what I expected. I'm in wait-and-see model with low expectations, some of which have already been satisfied simply by the removal of Republicans from the presidency. Posted by: Scott \| December 28, 2008 6:57 AM Leave a comment Name Email Address URL Remember personal info? Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)

A Changeling For All Seasons

Comments

Leave a comment