The New American Revolution
Beginning today, Sen. Barack Obama should start calling his presidential campaign “The New American Revolution.” As in, “My campaign offers change to the American people, change so fundamental that it amounts to a New American Revolution.”
As David Brooks wrote in Friday’s New York Times: “Barack Obama had a theory. It was that the voters are tired of the partisan paralysis of the last 20 years. The theory was that if Obama could inspire a grass-roots movement with a new kind of leadership, he could ride it to the White House and end gridlock in Washington.”
The key words there are “inspire,” and “a new kind of leadership.” Brooks wrote that Obama’s entire campaign was built on bringing this message to the people, and it was working:
“He’s claimed that there’s an ‘awakening’ in this country – people ‘hungry for a different kind of politics.’ It has brought millions of new voters into politics. It has given him grounds to fend off attacks. In debate after debate, he has accused Hillary Clinton and others of practicing the old kind of politics. When he was under assault in South Carolina, he rose above the barrage and made the Clintons look sleazy.”
Obama knew, Brooks pointed out, that, to sustain the message, he had to remain scrupulously above the barrage. No use inspiring people to turn their backs on “the old kind of politics,” if he was going to resort to the old kind himself.
Then, before the Ohio and Texas primaries, the Clinton campaign attacked him and, as Brooks said, “the attacks worked.” Obama lost both primaries, and the pressure is on. “Obama Camp Sees Fine Line in Hitting Back,” said a headline in Saturday’s Times. The story was about “how far he can go in striking back without sacrificing his claim to be practicing a new brand of politics.”
The answer is, he can’t strike back at all. If he goes into the trenches with Hillary, “the excitement of Obama-mania will seem like a distant, childish mirage,” Brooks said. “People will wonder if Obama ever believed any of that stuff himself . . . New politics is all he’s got. He loses that, he loses everything.”
The first American Revolution was like that. New politics was all the Americans had, and they were willing to go to war to bring about that change. If they lost that, they lost everything. Not all were committed to it, but enough to win the day. Even in winning, they had no set picture of life on the other side. They were creating a new American experience one day at a time, and they were doing it on the fly, with no guarantees and no destination in sight. Of course their commitment demanded that they be inspired against the old politics, and today that inspiration is historic.
Obama has to go to war now, never fire a single shot, but raise his campaign to a new level of inspiration in his new kind of leadership by elevating his call for change to a call for revolt against the old politics as they pop up on the campaign trail, routing them out one-by-one, with a barrage of ballots. He has to let the voters do his fighting for him. His only stand is to prove that the commitment to revolt is there, as the New American Revolution slowly rolls toward summer.
And if, as David Brooks suggests, he has “never explained how this new politics would actually produce bread-and-butter benefits to people in places like Youngstown and Altoona,” it’s because he can’t, any more than the first revolution’s leaders could. All the people of Youngstown and Altoona can expect is the removal of the old politics, and whatever that might mean to a new American experience out there unseen on the other side. Obama is the star, but this election is about people hungry for a different kind of politics, who are willing to take a leap of faith.
23 Responses to “The New American Revolution”
[...] The Left Coaster wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThe New American Revolution March 8th, 2008 by MICHAEL GRANT Beginning today, Sen. Barack Obama should start calling his presidential campaign “The New American Revolution.” As in, “My campaign offers change to the American people, change so fundamental that it amounts to a New American Revolution.” As David Brooks wrote in Friday’s New York Times: “Barack Obama had a theory. It was that the voters are tired of the partisan paralysis of the last 20 years. The theory was that if Obama could [...]
Well said. One doesn't need evidence of a proven cure in order to understand when one is suffering and that a change is necessary – hence the appeal and usefulness of hope as a first step. It's easy to mock and disparage hope as an empty promise, but you could have said that about the revolution too. Time for change.
[...] The New Sanctuary wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThe New American Revolution March 8th, 2008 by MICHAEL GRANT Beginning today, Sen. Barack Obama should start calling his presidential campaign “The New American Revolution.” As in, “My campaign offers change to the American people, change so fundamental that it amounts to a New American Revolution.” As David Brooks wrote in Friday’s New York Times: “Barack Obama had a theory. It was that the voters are tired of the partisan paralysis of the last 20 years. The theory was that if Obama could [...]
Sen. Obama seems no different from other politicians.
Sen. Obama seems no different from other politicians.
To me Obama is much more talented, skilled and inspiring than other politicians.
To me Obama is much more talented, skilled and inspiring than other politicians.
This post expresses the way things should be, and I applaud that.
I've lived long enough, though, to have my faith in things turning out the way they should be seriously eroded. Is the American public capable of neglecting their immediate self-interests long enough to keep focused on a higher goal? Can they forget the pile of unpaid bills long enough to care about the state of our politics. or will they just fall for the one who promises immediate satisfaction related to some personal concern?
It's a real dilemma. It is legitimate, after all, to want to know how a candidate will address specific problems. I think the pressures on Obama to address specifics and 'play to the crowd' will only increase.
There is also the problem of a message losing impact through repetition.
All in all, it's a tall order for Obama. He will need the very best advisors he can get..
.
This post expresses the way things should be, and I applaud that.
I've lived long enough, though, to have my faith in things turning out the way they should be seriously eroded. Is the American public capable of neglecting their immediate self-interests long enough to keep focused on a higher goal? Can they forget the pile of unpaid bills long enough to care about the state of our politics. or will they just fall for the one who promises immediate satisfaction related to some personal concern?
It's a real dilemma. It is legitimate, after all, to want to know how a candidate will address specific problems. I think the pressures on Obama to address specifics and 'play to the crowd' will only increase.
There is also the problem of a message losing impact through repetition.
All in all, it's a tall order for Obama. He will need the very best advisors he can get..
.
“Sen. Obama seems no different from other politicians.”
Sorry Holly, but I think your Clinton loyalty/Obama dislike is interfering with your objectivity.
“Sen. Obama seems no different from other politicians.”
Sorry Holly, but I think your Clinton loyalty/Obama dislike is interfering with your objectivity.
JSpence: If you've read her posts the last few weeks, when it comes to O, Holly means and suggests nothing but bile.
JSpence: If you've read her posts the last few weeks, when it comes to O, Holly means and suggests nothing but bile.
Good post Michael.
And Holly, the difference is that he is offering, as Brooks, and Michael's post point out, a departure from the very rancorous, divisive and nasty tactics of the past that Sen. Clinton is demonstrating anew. Indeed, her claim to “experience” is exactly such a demonstration. She claims she knows how to work the system and play insider Washington politics.
Her campaign is riddled with manipulative distortions that are far beneath her intelligence. For example, although to the best of my knowledge she has never run a business, she knows that being the wife of a CEO does not qualify as experience for a position as a CEO. Being in the East Wing for eight years is not presidential level experience at all. She did not have security clearance and could not have been involved in the policy discussions which she claims as a part of her experience (or does she think presidential pillow talk is qualification enough? Or maybe she's saying that actually (wink, wink) she was a part of critical discussions and decisions in violation of federal national security laws? Are we to believe that Laura Bush is now qualified to be the president of the United States?
When she talks about our policy toward Cuba or towards Iran or Venezuela, she implies that we do not deal with totalitarian regimes that oppress their people unless they are already making progress toward democracy. She knows that's not true, and treats us as fools by expecting us to believe that. We have regular dealings with, and in fact provide enormous sums of money to exactly such regimes: China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Egypt and dozens of others. I for one and tired of being manipulated by such childish rhetoric.
If Hillary Clinton wants to engage the American people in a “conversation” about experience and competence, she might start trying to use a fraction of the IQ that I know she possesses.
Good post Michael.
And Holly, the difference is that he is offering, as Brooks, and Michael's post point out, a departure from the very rancorous, divisive and nasty tactics of the past that Sen. Clinton is demonstrating anew. Indeed, her claim to “experience” is exactly such a demonstration. She claims she knows how to work the system and play insider Washington politics.
Her campaign is riddled with manipulative distortions that are far beneath her intelligence. For example, although to the best of my knowledge she has never run a business, she knows that being the wife of a CEO does not qualify as experience for a position as a CEO. Being in the East Wing for eight years is not presidential level experience at all. She did not have security clearance and could not have been involved in the policy discussions which she claims as a part of her experience (or does she think presidential pillow talk is qualification enough? Or maybe she's saying that actually (wink, wink) she was a part of critical discussions and decisions in violation of federal national security laws? Are we to believe that Laura Bush is now qualified to be the president of the United States?
When she talks about our policy toward Cuba or towards Iran or Venezuela, she implies that we do not deal with totalitarian regimes that oppress their people unless they are already making progress toward democracy. She knows that's not true, and treats us as fools by expecting us to believe that. We have regular dealings with, and in fact provide enormous sums of money to exactly such regimes: China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Egypt and dozens of others. I for one and tired of being manipulated by such childish rhetoric.
If Hillary Clinton wants to engage the American people in a “conversation” about experience and competence, she might start trying to use a fraction of the IQ that I know she possesses.
How can Senator Obama claim to be revolutionary when his policy positions are standard Democratic party boiler plate that benefit the core groups of the Democratic party? If he wants to be revolutionary, he needs to make policy proposals that go against the public service unions, the trial lawyers, big unions., etc
How can Senator Obama claim to be revolutionary when his policy positions are standard Democratic party boiler plate that benefit the core groups of the Democratic party? If he wants to be revolutionary, he needs to make policy proposals that go against the public service unions, the trial lawyers, big unions., etc
??? His agenda is nearly identical to Clinton's. It's the packaging that's different, that's all. Having a newbie in DC could shake up personnel there, a welcome thing, but I wouldn't bet that the fixtures there would freely and happily relinquish their power. Even that may be too much to Hope for.
??? His agenda is nearly identical to Clinton's. It's the packaging that's different, that's all. Having a newbie in DC could shake up personnel there, a welcome thing, but I wouldn't bet that the fixtures there would freely and happily relinquish their power. Even that may be too much to Hope for.
“the American public capable of neglecting their immediate self-interests long enough to keep focused on a higher goal?”
No. They will want immediate gratification (or what appears to be it, in the case of so much Obama support this year), and postpone the unpleasant (such as Social Security reform to enable the program to survive) indefinitely (or until forced to do something about it later).
* * *
“Clinton loyalty/Obama dislike is interfering with your objectivity … when it comes to O, … nothing but bile.”
The anti-Clinton activity by the Obama supporters (or at least Clinton haters) is by far greater in amounts and worse in so many instances of its conduct. For such a Messiah that has a fresh, new face and is so sunny and optimistic, etc., what gets slung not only at Clinton (worse than what righties have done) and toward Clinton voters, including those posting to this site and even editing on it, is hardly sunny, fresh-faced, or positive. I doubt you'll win new Obama voters among such targets.
“the American public capable of neglecting their immediate self-interests long enough to keep focused on a higher goal?”
No. They will want immediate gratification (or what appears to be it, in the case of so much Obama support this year), and postpone the unpleasant (such as Social Security reform to enable the program to survive) indefinitely (or until forced to do something about it later).
* * *
“Clinton loyalty/Obama dislike is interfering with your objectivity … when it comes to O, … nothing but bile.”
The anti-Clinton activity by the Obama supporters (or at least Clinton haters) is by far greater in amounts and worse in so many instances of its conduct. For such a Messiah that has a fresh, new face and is so sunny and optimistic, etc., what gets slung not only at Clinton (worse than what righties have done) and toward Clinton voters, including those posting to this site and even editing on it, is hardly sunny, fresh-faced, or positive. I doubt you'll win new Obama voters among such targets.
I think Obama is an extremely intelligent and capable politiican who promises to rein in corporate influence on politics. I admire that, and keep all my fingers crossed that the will seucceed.
I don't admire statements like this, however:
“….I think your Clinton loyalty/Obama dislike is interfering with your objectivity.”
I don't think we should resort to psychoanalyzing others, without a license, or to project motivations unto others which we have no way of actually knowing.
More aimportantly, disagreement about politics n no way shows which partiy is objective and which not. It's a disagreemtn. Period.
It would help Obma, more, IMO, if we pulled in our claws and just concentrated on what he offers. It is possible to do that without denigrated voters who don't see it our way.
I think Obama is an extremely intelligent and capable politiican who promises to rein in corporate influence on politics. I admire that, and keep all my fingers crossed that the will seucceed.
I don't admire statements like this, however:
“….I think your Clinton loyalty/Obama dislike is interfering with your objectivity.”
I don't think we should resort to psychoanalyzing others, without a license, or to project motivations unto others which we have no way of actually knowing.
More aimportantly, disagreement about politics n no way shows which partiy is objective and which not. It's a disagreemtn. Period.
It would help Obma, more, IMO, if we pulled in our claws and just concentrated on what he offers. It is possible to do that without denigrated voters who don't see it our way.