The mainstream media has a knack for painting issues with a broad brush, and occasionally with their fingers. And their dumbed-down questions lately of "Where's the change?" grossly oversimplify what president-elect Barack Obama will indeed bring to Washington.
Yes, Obama's Cabinet will consist largely of faces we've all seen before: Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Rahm Emanuel, and so on. But lasting change often has less to do with Washington "insiders" and "outsiders" per se than it does with the way in which business is conducted.
Policy aside, the approach of the George W. Bush administration was brash, rash, and hugely partisan. Bush was the self-proclaimed "Decider" who felt things in his gut rather than weighing them with his intellect. He was a self-consciously–presented blustery cowboy — all "Dead or alive" and "Bring it on." He was isolationist, secretive, and subversive in his attempts to grab power on the world stage, within the U.S., and specifically among the three branches of government. He thumbed his nose at the media (whose "filtered" newspapers he did not even deign to read), and was almost never humble, almost never contrite.
Appearances and tone count for a lot in terms of public opinion, and from what we have seen and heard so far, the Obama administration will be far more transparent and open, far more based in truthfulness than truthiness,
far more persuasive yet far more willing to compromise. Time will tell,
but it certainly appears that as president, Barack Obama will actually
listen to the other side, listen to public opinion, listen to science. And
after George Bush, the ability to listen at all is a great change.
Not to get all "team of rivals" about this, but it has been some time since we've had a president assemble a Cabinet unbounded by party lines and that will present a studied, informed view of events and crises to aid in the decisions which will help shape our world. Bush surrounded himself largely with yes men and women whose primary and sometimes only purpose seemed to be that of sheltering Himself from opinions other than his own.
Arguably, the transition from Clinton to Bush was far more drastic than the current transition. But the political whiplash and public uproar caused by Bush 2000 (after an election in which he, in fact, lost the popular vote) had to do with adviser Karl Rove's strategy of playing to an über-narrow base, repaying campaign debts, upholding strict party doctrine, and looking toward reelection. Barack Obama appears to be a far more unifying and skilled politician, and his Cabinet choices alone have shown his lack of servitude toward a far-left agenda. So one would hope that his brand of change (and it certainly is a brand) is a more lasting one.
I am not talking about immediate partisan change, nor gradual demographic changes favoring the left, nor even change in the Clintonian sense (George Clinton, that is — because "You're my piece of the rock, and I love you, CC"). Rather, I'm talking about a shift in national thinking and, hopefully, even the way in which it is presented. Not to sound cornpone, but a shift from the divisive red state/blue state map we all know to a more subtly shaded one in which there does exist a broad and surprisingly solid middle ground.
Sure, the change will start with the transfer of ruling party power, and yes, Barack Obama looks a bit different from all 43 of his predecessors — but from there, the subtleties take over, and the difference in people, in culture, and in the processes that help run the country have a good chance of seeping into public discourse and indeed into each of us, as we push back against the constructionist notions of who liberals are and who conservatives are. I am a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, but I vote the issues and I lean toward the middle on many of them, and I am utterly exhausted by the purported and perpetuated polarization of our two main parties. Again, the mainstream media, spoon-feeding us with their blunt shovels.
Exhibit A, the Sunday morning talk shows. The shrill voices they present us with, from the far left and far right do not help. Because "Jane, you ignorant slut" does not move along debate. Hearing varying opinions on how to best meet in the middle does. We need more centrist talking heads who not only can talk, but also listen to each other. So instead of letting say, Katha Pollitt and Bill Kristol smirk and jab at each other, what say we let Fareed Zakaria and Andrew Sullivan make some actual progress? We might find that we agree, welcome, and can build on their more centrist take on the issues.
Obama has consistently run on a platform of change, progress, and inclusiveness. I consider myself careful when offered to swig the rhetorical Kool-Aid, but I do believe substantive change is coming. It has been percolating for long enough that it cannot be stopped. And Barack Obama is the right guy in the right place at the right time to be an outstanding steward in leading our country in the direction it inherently wants to go.
Comments