Transformational Change

In my previous post I mentioned some of the big, ambitious changes I thought Obama might make. Here is a little information on what I think these new policies might look like. It's late, so for now I'm just going to put up the quotes without commentary.

First, I said he would re-orient our national security towards global issues. In a New Yorker from October, Obama and McCain's foreign policies were contrasted. It discusses a group of foreign-policy Democrats who call themselves The Phoenix Initiative. Among them was Susan Rice, being considered for a top spot in the new administration. They wrote a report about a new vision for U.S. foreign policy:

“This report,” Rice writes in her preface, “breaks away from such traditional concepts as containment, engagement, and enlargement and rejects standard dichotomies of realist power politics versus liberal idealism.” It “offers bold and genuinely new thinking about America’s role.” The report lists five top “strategic priorities” for the United States. The first three are issues that governments, or even international organizations, can’t handle on their own: counterterrorism, nuclear proliferation, and, taken together, climate change and oil dependence. The other two are regional: the Middle East and East Asia. The report barely mentions great-power diplomacy, the traditional core concept of statecraft. It is not just post-Cold War but post-war on terror and, arguably, post-American hegemony. (It makes a point of describing the war in Iraq as a bad idea, rather than as a good idea poorly executed.) It speaks of “interconnectedness” and “diffuse power.” It isn’t dovish or sanguine, exactly—those top three strategic priorities are all threats—but it definitely does not envision American military power, or even power combined with diplomacy, as the only effective tool of foreign-policymaking.

Well before the Phoenix Initiative’s report came out, Obama was using similar themes in his speeches.

I also mentioned that Obama would put energy policy at the center of everything. I got this by reading an interview he gave to Joe Klein at Time Magazine. It's long and very interesting, but the key part (or "money quote" in blog terminology) is here:

The biggest problem with our energy policy has been to lurch from crisis to trance. And what we need is a sustained, serious effort. Now, I actually think the biggest opportunity right now is not just gas prices at the pump but the fact that the engine for economic growth for the last 20 years is not going to be there for the next 20, and that was consumer spending. I mean, basically, we turbo-charged this economy based on cheap credit. Whatever else we think is going to happen over the next certainly 5 years, one thing we know, the days of easy credit are going to be over because there is just too much de-leveraging taking place, too much debt both at the government level, corporate level and consumer level. And what that means is that just from a purely economic perspective, finding the new driver of our economy is going to be critical. There is no better potential driver that pervades all aspects of our economy than a new energy economy.

I was just reading an article in the New York Times by Michael Pollen about food and the fact that our entire agricultural system is built on cheap oil. As a consequence, our agriculture sector actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector. And in the mean time, it's creating monocultures that are vulnerable to national security threats, are now vulnerable to sky-high food prices or crashes in food prices, huge swings in commodity prices, and are partly responsible for the explosion in our healthcare costs because they're contributing to type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease, obesity, all the things that are driving our huge explosion in healthcare costs. That's just one sector of the economy. You think about the same thing is true on transportation. The same thing is true on how we construct our buildings. The same is true across the board.

For us to say we are just going to completely revamp how we use energy in a way that deals with climate change, deals with national security and drives our economy, that's going to be my number one priority when I get into office, assuming, obviously, that we have done enough to just stabilize the immediate economic situation.

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.