Then again, it'll be an interesting time to be in Washington, that's for sure.
Why an Obama presidency makes me uncomfortable, from
here.
"I want change as much as the next guy, but 'We are the change' doesn't cut it. After three years in the Senate, Obama must know that Washington is a dense ecology of entrenched programs and bureaucracies and client groups, not one of which can be waved aside with blandishments about change. He must know that politicians follow inspiration 10 days a year and incentives the other 355, and that putting a new face in the Oval Office won't change those incentives after the honeymoon is over.
So what's his plan? I consulted
The Audacity of Hope, his political book, and found it full of rhetoric such as 'what's needed is a broad majority of Americans -- Democrats, Republicans, and independents of goodwill -- who are re-engaged in the project of national renewal' and 'we need a new kind of politics, one that can excavate and build upon those shared understandings,' etc., etc. But how will he actually bring about this political transformation as president? He warns that it won't be easy. He says it will require 'tough choices' and 'courage.' OK, but WHAT'S THE PLAN? 'This isn't to say I know exactly how to do it,' he writes. 'I don't.' Oh. I'm not sure if this is disarming modesty or outrageous chutzpah.
I don't think Obama is cynical, although he may be naive. I think he believes that once in a while a new kind of politician, with a new kind of mandate from a new kind of electorate, can set a new tone and direction. He's right, up to a point. Ronald Reagan showed in 1981 what a strong mandate from a changed electorate could accomplish, though only for a year or so.
But there's also a kind of pandering in what Obama is doing. A few years ago, a pair of political scientists, John R. Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, looked at evidence from surveys and focus groups and drew some fairly startling conclusions. Most Americans, they found, think there are easy, straightforward solutions out there that everyone would agree on if only biased special interests and self-serving politicians would get out of the way. They want to be governed by ENSIDs: empathetic non-self-interested decision makers.
This is pure fantasy, of course. But indulging it is Obama's stock-in-trade. In today's Washington, the only way to get sustainable bipartisanship -- bipartisanship over a period of years, not weeks -- is with divided government, which Obama and a Democratic Congress obviously can't provide. True, Hillary Rodham Clinton can't provide that either. He might be better than she at working across party lines (although in the Senate she has been quite good at it, arguably better than he -- and John McCain has been best of all). But to promise 'a new kind of politics' borders on chicanery."
