the current landscape
Jan. 12th, 2008 12:56 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jfbEric Martin pretty well summarizes my view of the Democratic presidential campaign, but here's my version:
I guess there's more to it than rhetoric; it's about theories of change*. Both of them talk about creating a mass movement to bring about positive action. But where Obama talks about unity, about bringing everyone together, Edwards uses a language of conflict and confrontation, of no compromise.
I like Obama, but I'm with Edwards. I don't think the present-day Republican party is available for compromise. I'm not going to do the full litany, but look at Iraq: With a clear mandate against the war, the Reid-Pelosi Congress made some noise about ending it, and then struck a wait-and-see deal with the President. How's that working out?
A catchphrase from Atrios explains the even bigger obstacle to creating a movement of unity: People disagree about stuff. We can't all work together to accomplish the goal, because we don't all have the same goal, let alone agree how to achieve it. Obama and Edwards and I all think it's a good idea to ensure health care is available to more people, and a bad idea to keep occupying Iraq. But not everyone does. That's why we have to fight for what we believe.
I'm not saying Obama's not a fighter, and I'm not saying Edwards doesn't understand negotiation. Both of them are real people, not cartoons. But they've chosen these tactics as major themes for their campaigns. These are the choices they've laid out.
(* Further reading: Mark Schmitt's article, linked above, introduced the "theories of change" idea to the political blog world, outlined the distinction above, and then argued that Obama is cannily using a tactic instead of a theory. Atrios offered a pithier summary of the leading candidates' theories. Ezra Klein questioned how Edwards's theory of change leads to a practice of governance. Somebody named Jed used Joe Lieberman as an illustration of the difference between Obama and Edwards. And, uh, Brian Doyle said everything I'm trying to say, only better, and longer.)
- Like everybody else and their brother, I'm ready for some change.
- So that's what all the candidates are offering in their stump speeches.
- On policy, Obama and Clinton seem about equally moderate.
- Edwards is significantly more progressive than either.
- But Obama has more successfully adopted the rhetoric of change.
I guess there's more to it than rhetoric; it's about theories of change*. Both of them talk about creating a mass movement to bring about positive action. But where Obama talks about unity, about bringing everyone together, Edwards uses a language of conflict and confrontation, of no compromise.
I like Obama, but I'm with Edwards. I don't think the present-day Republican party is available for compromise. I'm not going to do the full litany, but look at Iraq: With a clear mandate against the war, the Reid-Pelosi Congress made some noise about ending it, and then struck a wait-and-see deal with the President. How's that working out?
A catchphrase from Atrios explains the even bigger obstacle to creating a movement of unity: People disagree about stuff. We can't all work together to accomplish the goal, because we don't all have the same goal, let alone agree how to achieve it. Obama and Edwards and I all think it's a good idea to ensure health care is available to more people, and a bad idea to keep occupying Iraq. But not everyone does. That's why we have to fight for what we believe.
I'm not saying Obama's not a fighter, and I'm not saying Edwards doesn't understand negotiation. Both of them are real people, not cartoons. But they've chosen these tactics as major themes for their campaigns. These are the choices they've laid out.
(* Further reading: Mark Schmitt's article, linked above, introduced the "theories of change" idea to the political blog world, outlined the distinction above, and then argued that Obama is cannily using a tactic instead of a theory. Atrios offered a pithier summary of the leading candidates' theories. Ezra Klein questioned how Edwards's theory of change leads to a practice of governance. Somebody named Jed used Joe Lieberman as an illustration of the difference between Obama and Edwards. And, uh, Brian Doyle said everything I'm trying to say, only better, and longer.)
