Obama and change: What? When? How?

[GaryC 7]

What? When? How?

The 2008 'change' election

Gary Andres

Ask not what Barack Obama can do for this country, but instead, how he's going to do it. That should be the general election campaign's central question. America's collective response will determine the next president of the United States.

It's a more complicated query than you think. Breaking it down a little further, I'm unsatisfied with describing 2008 as a "change" election. Every election is about change. When was the last time you heard candidates describe themselves as "champions of the status quo?" Or, "I'm the person who will keep everything just the way it is?" Some kind of change is promised in every campaign. What will the candidate do differently? How will he or she tackle a problem? How can we improve?

Barack Obama and John McCain are both about change. Where they differ is in the type of change they offer and in their ability to deliver it.

Start with the substance of change each offers. Democratic strategists know Mr. Obama possesses a huge vulnerability here. America is a center-right country. According to the latest Rasmussen poll, only 25 percent of voters describe themselves as "liberal." And based on the same Rasmussen surveys, 67 percent believe Mr. Obama is a liberal. By way of comparison, only 53 percent viewed John Kerry as a liberal at the end of the 2004 campaign. It's hard to imagine a center-right country - once voters focus on the candidates' ideology - will elect a person who nearly seven out of 10 believe is a liberal.

Mr. Obama's voting record in the U.S. Senate supports the liberal label. Democratic Rep. David Boren of Oklahoma told the Associated Press this week that Obama was "the most liberal senator," and that his voting record in the Senate "does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion." A growing number of Americans see it that way, too. Only 47 percent viewed Mr. Obama as a liberal in December, according to the same Rasmussen surveys referenced above - meaning a 20-point climb in just five months. That reality is like fingers scratching a blackboard for the Illinois senator's partisans.

Obama supporters know he can't win if his real political views become widely known, and they are taking pre-emptive steps to bat down that perception. Blogger John Henke writing at TheNextRight.com noted earlier in the week that one tactic among liberal bloggers will be to pre-emptively deligitimize criticisms of Obama as "racist."

And Americans should care about his ideology. Teamed up with a Democratic Congress, an Obama administration could usher in the most liberal, special-interest dominated period in American history. Power will shift to Washington as labor lobbyists, trial lawyers and environmental activists will have a heyday pulling all the levers of power.

There is no evidence that Mr. Obama would move to the center on any of his policies. We certainly don't hear about it in his campaign rhetoric. We hear about "change" and vague references to bringing people together, but there's no substance to back up the talk. Presumably, Mr. Obama will bring people together, as long as they all end up agreeing with him. So he's really offering a kinder, gentler way of getting rolled.

We see this gap between "what" and "how" all the time in polling. It's easy to achieve consensus on rhetorical promises - "we need change, we need to bring people together, let's get America back on track." Not many want to turn down that kind of apple pie. But consensus breaks down and things get more uncomfortable when we start showing precisely what track we're on and where it's heading.

One of the best teachers I ever had - Leland Ryken, professor of literature at Wheaton College - likes to say that every good story tells the reader what happens in the plot. But a great story shows us how, in concrete ways. The same is true when it comes to politics. Everyone agrees we want change in America. But Mr. Obama has not answered the fundamental question of how.

If he thinks partisan difference will melt away, he's naive. If he believes he can bludgeon conservatives and moderates to adopt his liberal policy agenda, he's dangerous. Neither sounds like the type of person a majority of Americans want as their next president.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/j.../what-when-how/

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Obama does need to define what he means by "change" as far as that goes - as it isn't very well defined. But I rather think the campaign in November will be about actual issues, rather than sloganising - or at least I'd hope so anyway (but who am I kidding - there's always a foam-hand brigade in every election).

McCain still has to contend with lingering resentment over the Bush years (which will be a negative for him anyway) - as well as his rather strange decision to publicly ally himself with the President and his administration. If his policies differ from Bush et al that's something that also needs a bit more clarity - but allying himself with the president doesn't do him a lot of favours as far as public perceptions go.

[GaryC 7]

Obama does need to define what he means by "change" as far as that goes - as it isn't very well defined. But I rather think the campaign in November will be about actual issues, rather than sloganising - or at least I'd hope so anyway (but who am I kidding - there's always a foam-hand brigade in every election).

McCain still has to contend with lingering resentment over the Bush years (which will be a negative for him anyway) - as well as his rather strange decision to publicly ally himself with the President and his administration. If his policies differ from Bush et al that's something that also needs a bit more clarity - but allying himself with the president doesn't do him a lot of favours as far as public perceptions go.

I think the election will be about the economy and gas prices. When the people realize that Obama's fix for both are higher taxes they will be turned off. McCain is far (very far) from perfect but when faced with a hard left candidate that wants to tax everything in sight McCain will seem like the much better choice.

[no name 1]

[Ban Hammer 13,621]

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Obama does need to define what he means by "change" as far as that goes - as it isn't very well defined. But I rather think the campaign in November will be about actual issues, rather than sloganising - or at least I'd hope so anyway (but who am I kidding - there's always a foam-hand brigade in every election).

McCain still has to contend with lingering resentment over the Bush years (which will be a negative for him anyway) - as well as his rather strange decision to publicly ally himself with the President and his administration. If his policies differ from Bush et al that's something that also needs a bit more clarity - but allying himself with the president doesn't do him a lot of favours as far as public perceptions go.

I think the election will be about the economy and gas prices. When the people realize that Obama's fix for both are higher taxes they will be turned off. McCain is far (very far) from perfect but when faced with a hard left candidate that wants to tax everything in sight McCain will seem like the much better choice.

I think you're right that it will hinge largely on economic issues. I guess we'll see in the coming months exactly how the candidates go about addressing that.

[metta 0]

[no name 1]

ooh, those are good!!

[Ban Hammer 13,621]

[no name 1]

A plethora of goodness: http://www.cnsnews.com/cartoon/alliearchive/archive.asp

[SteveLaura 0]

America is a center-right country. According to the latest Rasmussen poll, only 25 percent of voters describe themselves as "liberal." And based on the same Rasmussen surveys, 67 percent believe Mr. Obama is a liberal. By way of comparison, only 53 percent viewed John Kerry as a liberal at the end of the 2004 campaign. It's hard to imagine a center-right country - once voters focus on the candidates' ideology - will elect a person who nearly seven out of 10 believe is a liberal.

As a term, 'liberal' is pretty meaningless and how someone describes themselves is therefore irrelevant. I would suggest that if you took a number of polls and asked people's opinions on actual issues, you'd find that more than 25% would be in favour of what this author would probably describe as 'liberal views'.

Edited June 12, 2008 by SteveLaura

[one...two...tree 2,762]

America is a center-right country. According to the latest Rasmussen poll, only 25 percent of voters describe themselves as "liberal." And based on the same Rasmussen surveys, 67 percent believe Mr. Obama is a liberal. By way of comparison, only 53 percent viewed John Kerry as a liberal at the end of the 2004 campaign. It's hard to imagine a center-right country - once voters focus on the candidates' ideology - will elect a person who nearly seven out of 10 believe is a liberal.

As a term, 'liberal' is pretty meaningless and how someone describes themselves is therefore irrelevant. I would suggest that if you took a number of polls and asked people's opinions on actual issues, you'd find that more than 25% would be in favour of what this author would probably describe as 'liberal views'.

I keep trying to get Gary to realize that. Americans don't vote on the issues based on ideology (except maybe Gary). The ideas he has supported have failed and now Americans are looking for better solutions.

Case in point...

Poll Shows Majority Back Health Care for All

A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

While the war in Iraq remains the overarching issue in the early stages of the 2008 campaign, access to affordable health care is at the top of the public’s domestic agenda, ranked as far more important than immigration, cutting taxes or promoting traditional values. Only 24 percent said they were satisfied with President Bush’s handling of the issue, despite his recent initiatives, and 62 percent said the Democrats — not the Republicans — were more likely to improve the health care system.

Americans showed a striking willingness in the poll to make tradeoffs for a better health care system, including paying as much as $500 more in taxes a year and forgoing future tax cuts. But the same divisions that doomed the last attempt at creating universal health insurance, under the Clinton administration, are still apparent. Americans remain divided, largely along party lines, over whether the government should require everyone to participate in a national health care plan, and over whether the government would do a better job than the private insurance industry in providing coverage.

Looking ahead to the presidential campaign, 36 percent of Americans said they had confidence in the ability of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the New York Democrat, to “make the right decisions on health care,” while 49 percent said they were uneasy about it. But Mrs. Clinton, who presents herself as a sadder but wiser candidate on health care, retained the confidence of nearly 6 in 10 Democrats on the issue, despite the politically devastating collapse 13 years ago of the national health initiative she helped develop early in her husband’s presidency.

The poll helps explain why health care already looms large in the presidential campaign, and in statehouses from California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has proposed a sweeping coverage plan, to Massachusetts, now implementing a program passed under Mitt Romney, the former governor and current Republican presidential candidate. Nearly 47 million Americans, or more than 15 percent of the population, now go without health insurance, up 6.8 million since 2000.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01cnd-poll.html

[Dan J 277]

America is a center-right country. According to the latest Rasmussen poll, only 25 percent of voters describe themselves as "liberal." And based on the same Rasmussen surveys, 67 percent believe Mr. Obama is a liberal. By way of comparison, only 53 percent viewed John Kerry as a liberal at the end of the 2004 campaign. It's hard to imagine a center-right country - once voters focus on the candidates' ideology - will elect a person who nearly seven out of 10 believe is a liberal.

As a term, 'liberal' is pretty meaningless and how someone describes themselves is therefore irrelevant. I would suggest that if you took a number of polls and asked people's opinions on actual issues, you'd find that more than 25% would be in favour of what this author would probably describe as 'liberal views'.

http://people-press.org/report/312/trends-...tudes-1987-2007

I would definetly question the bias of Rasmussen if their results are contrary to the political makeup of the US. Also, liberal is a loaded label, which is why many democrats opt not to use it. But that doesn't mean they are not politically left.

Younger generations identify with Democrats in much larger margins then they identify with Republicans. As older generations pass out of poltics, those who replace them will be more and more liberal, at least by todays definition. What it means to be liberal or conservative will likely change in the next few years. Democrats may take on even more liberal positions, and Republicans may take some positions that were traditionally democratic.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Dan + Gemvita

[HAL 9000 96]

I get it. Polls that deal in vague and arbitrary definitions of tendencies are OK but polls that deal with actual, concrete issues are not. Way to go to our neo-con friends.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I get it. Polls that deal in vague and arbitrary definitions of tendencies are OK but polls that deal with actual, concrete issues are not. Way to go to our neo-con friends.

pssssst....

Gary's really scared of the inevitable...a Democrat in the White House....shhhh! We don't want him to soil his pants.