Change is Obama’s campaign motto. His website asks visitors to "Join the Movement" for Change.
WaPo’s election watcher Chris Cillizza sees change as Obama’s strong point:
That message — that in voting for Obama Americans are opting for a broad change in the way politics is conducted — is VERY powerful and will be exceedingly difficult for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) or anyone else to overcome.
Clinton attacks the change slogan rather lame, claiming that she is someone experienced with implementing change. That is not a smart tactic as it endorses Obama’s primary claim.
But what is change anyway?
In one aspect there is a product, policy or process that can be changed. In another aspect there is the marketing of the product, which can change indepently. The ‘way politics are conducted’ is part of the marketing, not the policy product.
U.S. policy marketing is anchored around the public appearance of the U.S. president.
Within the democratic candidate field, a president Obama would be the biggest change against GWB simply from outer appearance. Hillary, as a woman, would be a big change too, but a linage of Bush – Clinton – Bush – Clinton certainly does not symbolize such. In appearance, Edwards is just another white politician.
In the marketing aspect, Obama is change. But how about his policies?
A typical challenge I have to cope with in my job is to change processes within companies. Usually everyone agrees that some change is needed. But as soon as one delivers concrete proposals, people start resisting – often from pure inertia.
A successful consultant tactic to achieve an intended and necessary change is to deliver a ‘radical’ change-proposal. Starting from there one negotiates a compromise with all concerned individuals. With luck the compromise arrives at the point one originally aimed for. As everyone was involved in negotiating it, people feel satisfied with such a solution.
In politics the challenge is the same. One has to set high goals to achieve a compromise that really can be characterized as the desired change.
Pat Lang reviewed Obama’s foreign policy stand. He concluded:
On the basis of his public statements regarding what foreign policy might be, I would have to say that Barack Obama sounds a lot like the neocons, that is, an agressive, utopian interventionist who might well pursue his ideals overseas. At the same time, his self-image as a "man of destiny," a Lincolnesque figure, may lead to attempts to transform the United States into something different, something I would not want to experience.
Change?
The U.S. Middle East policy is anchored in the relation to Israel. Obama’s speech to AIPAC satisfied Haaretz’s rightwing US correspondent Rosner:
Today, he sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.
Long-term Obama watcher Ali Abunimah from Illinois noted:
There was absolutely nothing in Obama’s speech that deviated from the hardline consensus underpinning US policy in the region.
Change?
On Social Security Obama remarked:
You know, Senator Clinton says that she’s concerned about Social Security but is not willing to say how she would solve the Social Security crisis, then I think voters aren’t going to feel real confident that this is a priority for her.
Paul Krugman responded:
Progressives who fought hard and successfully against the Bush administration’s attempt to panic America into privatizing the New Deal’s crown jewel are outraged, and rightly so.
…
Social Security isn’t a big problem that demands a solution; it’s a small problem, way down the list of major issues facing America, that has nonetheless become an obsession of Beltway insiders. And on Social Security, as on many other issues, what Washington means by bipartisanship is mainly that everyone should come together to give conservatives what they want.
Change?
Obama calls for universal healthcare. But it is only universal as long as one doesn’t look at the details. Real universal health care must include everyone. There has to be an individual mandate, i.e. everybody has to be insured mandatory, so freeloaders can not pervert the system. Obama’s plan does not require that.
Change?
While Obama is certainly a change in the sense of marketing, his policy proposals aim much too low to really be able to achieve change. In foreign policy, he seems not even to desire any change, just a continuation of neocon illusions.
Seen from abroad, the marketing change Obama epitomizes is irrelevant. Foreigners care about what the U.S. does, not what it says.
To many U.S. voters though, the marketing change seem to be sufficient. Do they trust the imprint on the package without verifying what’s inside. Or do they prefer the content of Obama’s policies?
The "NEW!" Obama detergent, "Now with Change formula," is the same mild dyestuff for reactionary cloth than "compassionate conservatism" has been.
Is this what Obama Change buyers really want, or do they fall for the packaging?