What Does "Change" Mean?

So last night I was talking with a friend about the Obama transition. He was surprised when I told him that I liked the pragmatism and results-oriented nature of his appointments so far. We started talking about Obama's campaign slogan of "change" and I talked about how it was always over-blown and even called it "propaganda". But, I wasn't thinking at all when I said that and since then I've been thinking about what that slogan actually meant. So here goes.

I think the slogan is accurate. First, on a basic level, the simple act of electing a Democrat, any Democrat, after eight years of Bush constitutes "change": practically any Democrat would enact a least a few policies which would be significantly different from what Bush did. Obama definitely fits that bill even if he were to do a few simple things he promised, like getting us out of Iraq and a middle-class tax cut. So "change" can simply mean, "not Bush" and, to many people, perhaps independents and Republicans that voted for him, it did.

I would say that during the campaign sometimes "change" did come to mean more than what he acutally believed, and people thought that he basically wouldn't act like a politician. The simplistic quality of campaigning did make some people think it was going to be COMPLETELY different if he was president. That we would pull out of Iraq immediately no matter what, that would keep his promise to take public financing, that he would talk only of unity and "post-partisanship", that he would do the town-hall debates with McCain over the summer (I hoped for that). Obama should be faulted for that, but to expect otherwise was always unrealistic. Obama is still a politician, and one known for his caution and pragmatic nature.

As a pragmatist who is not an idealogue he seeks out people who are similar, and who care about getting things done. H wants people who have the ability and experience to navigate the very difficult Washington bureaucracy to enact policy. Yes, these are not fresh faces. But that's a plus. The Obama transition is very aware of not falling into the same pitfalls as the Clinton transition, where fresh faces were installed who ended up causing significant chaos and ineffectiveness at the beginning of the Clinton administration. From as far back as May of 2007, when I read this New Yorker article, I've always believed that Obama believes in evolutionary, not revolutionary, change. So, to me that means he is cautious in his campaign and doesn't take unnecessary risks, and for his administration picks very smart, capable pragmatists. This won't please everyone and doesn't always mean Change: he might move slower on Iraq than some people would like, or not try to enact some big policy goals right away; his possible appointment of John Brennan as head of the CIA is an example of a moderate choice that doesn't represent significant "change" -- John Brennan has been an apologist for torture, rendition and illegal domestic surveillance. It disturbs me very much.

But, while he's cautious, Obama is also a strategic thinker. He sees the big picture and I think is aware of the historical moment we're in. The financial and economic crisis, the success of the surge and new agreement with Iraq to pull out all troops by 2011 have come together to create an opportunity -- a big opportunity, I think. If these things hadn't happened his administration might be less ambitious. But as of now -- and I strenuously want to point out that not much has happened yet, besides appointing people and some policy proposals -- I think he is hoping to make BIG change happen. Rahm Emanuel has indicated that they plan to "throw long and deep" on policy and that "you never want a serious crisis go to waste":



Obama I think is planning to, indeed, "throw long" and...
- Not just pull out of Iraq, but change our foreign policy orientation away from individual states and towards global issues: climate-change, globalization, terrorism.
- Put energy policy at the center of U.S. policy as it relates to the economy, national security and climate change.
- Enact some form of universal health care. simply achieving this would be a dramatic change from what we've always known (and one step closer to.... socialism!!)
- Change the tax code to improve middle class incomes, which have stagnated this decade, and , I think, even since 1975.

While Obama is a pragmatist and is skeptical of revolutions, it doesn't mean that he thinks BIG change is impossible. It's just that he is cautious and careful about how he goes about it. Two examples from his own life are instructive here. First, the decision to run for president. His election is one of the most improbable political events in our history. For him to decide to run was a huge risk in many ways. But he read the winds of history right and he won. Second, his response to the Reverend Wright controversy. He decided to tackle the issue with a nuanced, landmark speech on race instead of something more conventional, something that said this is no big deal, or didn't really get into the issue of race. He gambled and it payed off. Obama is capable of being something other than cautious. He represents change, but also potentialy Change. He can take risks. He takes them when they are a good, strategic decision. I think that kind of moment may have arrived, and I think he is going to take it.