« What Fresh Hell .... | Main | Voter ID Laws: Return of Jim Crow? »
Changes in the Air
Passions will part to a strange melody.
As fires will sometimes burn cold.
Like petals in the wind, we're puppets to the silver
strings of souls, of changes.
Phil Ochs, Changes
The "change" meme looms large in this year's conversation about the direction and leadership of this country. In fact Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama got into it a little in the New Hampshire debates.
But what does it mean to embody change? Or to lead into change? None of the candidates seems to be defining change; they are just claiming to represent it. So I started thinking about it, especially since "change" is movement and movement analysis is what I do.
There are many things that one can change:
1. Changing direction: The economy is heading downward, oil prices are heading upwards, and many people think the country is headed in the wrong direction. I'd like to ask the candidates to answer the question: Which direction(s) is./are the right direction(s)?
2. Changing face: The changing face of Americans is perhaps best represented by Barack Obama: a mixed race, smiling guy with a fairly young swing in his step, whip smart, and full of piss and hope. But then the other faces are far more familiar and perhaps, therefore reassuring to some. I'd like them all to address changing the face of politics in this country--how will each do it?
3. Changing attitudes: Right now there are attitudes towards the citizens, towards people of the middle east, towards anything that comes under the category of "otherness" that need to change. Any of the top candidates on either side seem to be willing to change those attitudes, but again, how and to what?
4. Changing course: The course of the "war on terrorism" has been steady and a failure. No, the surge is NOT working; at least, it is not working except as it accomplishes what should have been accomplished immediately following the fall of Baghdad, which was what? Four years ago? At any rate, it was the wrong course to begin with. But to change that course also requires an acknowledgment that the course is wrong and has been wrong and a revised course, hopefully in the direction of peacemaking rather than warmaking, should be developed.
5. Changing policies: The policies of meanness, thuggery, profiteering, and the war on the poor need changing. John Edwards has been the most vocal and specific of all of the candidates on this front, and whomever is the nominee from either party (or any of the ones trying to run down the middle or off to the side) ought to listen to him. He truly proposes a change in policies, and a return to American principles of fairness and caring.
6. Changing strategies: Aah, who can be so versatile as to shift how one is approaching a campaign that promotes change? We saw Hillary Clinton shift, we may see Mike Huckabee change from his openness to considering different perspectives to a more ideological and narrow strategy. Is changing strategies a useful leadership skill or a sign of flip-flopping? ;)
7. Changing hearts and minds: We who were part and parcel of the Kerry blog understand how much time, attention, love and caring it takes to work with someone's misperceptions or beliefs about an issue or a candidate, and to both teach and learn at the same time. It is this kind of change-ability I value most in a leader and it is this kind of ability I see so rarely. When someone believes a perception, such as a candidate's perceived arrogance, and others have evidence to the contrary, how one frames that evidence is critically important, as is staying with the conversation long enough to trade examples and to keep the channels open for changing. Open minds and open hearts are absolute requirements for real substantive change in beliefs. And yet, we are an impatient species, not prone to to teaching or learning deeply, especially online. The ability on the ground to look someone in the eye and answer a question with honesty and concern is a special skill. But that skill is what I, personally, search for.
In the end, I think what keeps real change from happening is the underlying belief that change=loss of something. In America, we are consumed with the notion of WINNING. The candidates' tiffing over who best embodies change is challenged by whether or not the citizens want or fear change. As the economy, jobs, healthcare, basic safety, and social services deteriorate however, less ambivalence may prevail and people just might be ready to leap into those waters, even to risk drowning in them, in order to reach the shores of justice and democracy.
We can only hope.
27 Comments
Leave a comment
Not registered? Click on 'Sign-in' above and then select 'Sign up' in the lower right corner. Don't forget to click on the link in the confirmation email that will be sent to your email address.
Change. Hmmmm
I've been thinking about this too.
I am not 100% behind any of the candidates at this point and frankly am not going to trash any of them either. They all have their pluses and minuses.
But the word "change" has become like the word "surge".
I think that many people are wanting change. It's an admission of how we are on the wrong track. Polls do this survey of number of people who believe we're on the right track/wrong track. And since 2004, wrong track unfortunately always wins.
So, what comes next is knowing what we need to get back on the right track. Clearly the Democratic side of the ticket is light years ahead of the Republicans on this. (At least in my opinion. Democrats represent Universal Healthcare, diplomacy, jobs, etc... Republicans represent hatemongering and the policies that were around in 1864 instead of 2007.)
What I think is different is that change is more than how a person looks. Frankly Hillary and Obama look like change. They aren't a white male like you said. But it's the policies that seem to reflect change or stagnation. Hillary looks like her policies might be stagnation due to the lobbyist buying her campaign. Edwards talks of change, and I love what Edwards says, but will he be able to stop the roadblock in Congress and get people to work together to bring that change he wants? He can not just dictate change. He has to get Congress to work with him. And Obama seems to be a unifier, but when you have to unify people, it means compromise. And that means the left HAS TO BE WILLING to compromise with the right. So by the fact that you have to compromise, will change actually happen?
Thus...I've pretty much summed up my reasons why I truly don't know which candidate will set us on the right path again. I just know that I like what Edwards and Obama says. I would like to like Hillary and know she'll do right by us.
And even though Huckabee is sort of extreme as is Paul, I like a little about what each of them says. I heard the other day that Huckabee should run as a religious Democrat instead of a religious Republican. The change he talks about is about serving the poor, not torturing, not promoting wars. He doesn't say the words "Universal Healthcare" but one suspects that if he were a Democrat he would. But Huckabee and Paul also represent change as well.
I liked this - two tall thin men
enough Humpty Dumptys like Cheney and Rove
The physical is only one reflection of the totality but this suggests clean living and possibly exercise, clear thought.
As far as candidates, I liked Richardson, Kucinich and Dodd but they weren't viable. I liked Edwards, Obama and Clinton all, for different reasons. The Kerry endorsement gave me a tip toward Obama, and also Gary Hart helped. Endorsements are not supposed to mean much, but if it's someone I respect, I listen. It was Kerry's 90% voting record agreement with Ted Kennedy that swayed me in December 2002 after Gore decided not to run, though I disagreed with his policies in three main areas. No regrets. I would support the nominee of course.
Somebody sent me this as the "campaign process" - by Alice Cooper, Everlast & The Who
our campaign process in three steps:
I'm your top prime cut of meat, I'm your choice,
I wanna be elected,
I'm your yankee doodle dandy in a gold Rolls Royce,
I wanna be elected,
Kids want a saviour, don't need a fake,
I wanna be elected,
We're all gonna rock to the rules that I make,
I wanna be elected, elected, elected.
---
I've seen a rich man beg
I've seen a good man sin
I've seen a tough man cry
I've seen a loser win
And a sad man grin
I heard an honest man lie
---
There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight...
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
During this election cycle, I have interpreted the appeal of "change" to voters as a code word for "the world is completely fucked up, and we'd better do something about it soon."
Given the role that corporations play in the body politic through their donations and lobbying, it's hard to see how any substantive change can take place without challenging corporate power and the current interpretation of globalized capitalism,
Neither Clinton nor Obama are going to get within a 100-foot pole of taking on corporations. Edwards and Kucinich have been speaking directly to the dangers of corporate power. The mass media is not, shall we say, a very hospitable environment for corporate criticism. The media never gave Kucinich a moment's time, and they dropped Edwards as soon as the Iowa caucuses were over.
Getting rid of the
Republicans in the White House, and as many as possible in the House and the Senate, is still a worthwhile task, but if we really want to move to a more peaceful planet, a planet where humans are not accelerating the destruction of the planet's living systems, there's going to be a hell of a lot of work to do after the 2008 elections.
Richard,
That's exactly why I can't get behind any of them. I think in my heart of hearts, I most prefer Kucinich. And the corporate media blocks him out, just like they block out Paul. I considered Paul a little bit, but once I saw more of the things he advocates and has said, I changed my mind.
But Your comment about Edwards and Kucinich speaking about the dangers of corporate power is exactly why I can't completely discount Edwards either.
And your comment about Hillary and Obama being less willing to push back against corporations, and changing the whole structure of our elections, is why I can't support either of them fully either. It leads me to believe that the line Dianne posted is correct, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
You would think that Edwards would be my best choice. But I'm not sure that Edwards on "Trippi style aggression" is something that makes me think he can get the job done either.
The reason I think this is because other than a 6 month old, that you can just go and take the infant away from whatever is a danger to him/her, you can not pick up a 200 pound man (or a 130 pound woman) and just make her do what you want. And that's what Congress is. 130 pound women and 200 pound men who are use to getting their own way--power and money.
My thought is that for meaningful change to happen, there has to first be meaningful pain. Right now, people are feeling squeezed - but not serious pain. It's probably going to take a major meltdown to get the American people's, and then the politicans', full attention. I wish that weren't the case, but its seems to me that this is what's required. The problem is a lot of people will be hurt, and some will never get back on their feet, potentially even some of us. And the vast majority of these people will not have "deserved" that pain in any meaningful sense - especially in comparison to the people who set this shell game in motion.
I'm 24 lectures into a series on the History of the First World War. The things that humanity has done...and not learned its lesson from.
I disagree with you Matthew.
I believe that in 2004 people were feeling squeezed. But now people are feeling pain.
However, I agree with you that until they feel enough pain to put aside their own prejudices, then they will continue the status quo. 2004 was an example of the fact that prejudice over-rode any squeeze they were feeling. And in 2006, they migrated towards Democrats not knowing that the Democrats were going to continue the status quo by 1. Not showing more spine, 2. allowing the media and the Republicans to frame the debate and outcome, and 3. that they would allow the Republicans to just not show up for meetings and allow work to not get done. They SHOULD have held meetings, hearings, and votes on weekends with the tv's documenting the Republican's seats being empty.
Show and share!
But now, people are desparate for change. And that's why you see an increase in support for people like Paul, Obama, and Edwards, and Kucinich.
I would be pleased with the small incremental step of getting a Democrat back in the White House, but there is the discouraging past, the slowness, the stolen elections ..
.. it scares me what Bush is doing in our name in the middle east, pretending diplomacy while setting up weapons deals and who knows what else
(click on my name for illustrations)
Sparrow, I'm talking about economic pain. You may be talking about something of a more political nature. The unemployment rate is still only 5% - but that rate doesn't address the discouraged workers, or the people who are working harder, but not getting as much out of their effort. But we're still enjoying a lifestyle that is so far beyond what other human beings have experience that it's mind blowing. The average German munitions worker in WWI consumed around 1,300 calories a day in 1915, but by 1917 he was down to 1,000 calories a day. He was eating bread made out of potatoes, until the potato crop failed, and then they gave him bread made from Turnips. And all the while, the war leaders demanded the population stay committed to total victory. That's pain. That's also insanity. The Great Depression was pain. I only hope and pray that we can avoid that kind of a low this time around. Thank God for the welfare state.
sparrow said
You have a president now who can just dictate change. And he doesn't have to get Congress to work with him.
BUT we don't want the status quo. We DO want change. We do want to distribute power so that power has a more difficult problem in corrupting.
How do we know that Obama or Edwards or anyone can actually bring about change. I think that we are seeing that right now, as the candidates campaign. If Obama really can bring about change it will be evident in his campaign. When he won in Iowa I thought I would never live to see such a day. This win signified to all of us, that he is very capable in instituting change. He's succeeded in changing some hard hearts and minds right now. Wow! This man really can bring about change.
He doesn't really need to answer the questions from the other candidates so much as he needs to continue to LEAD BY EXAMPLE. As a kid, I did my best work for employers who were the best to me. And still, give me a good leader and I will support that person through thick and thin. Get someone like Obama or Edwards in charge who will LEAD BY EXAMPLE, we the people, we the majority, will do the rest.
The current leadership is divisive and couldn't bring about bipartisanship over the water supply in the halls of government. With the next leadership there will be less dicatatorship and more taking LEADING BY EXAMPLE.
Karen - great thread. Lots to think about. Damn, I wish I could vote.
Sparrow -
I know you and I disagree about Edwards (he's still my guy) and I'm afraid he's done for without media coverage.
I agreed with Kucinich but knew he was unelectable so never gave him much thought. Shallow as this may be, he doesn't have the presidential look.
But I felt that of Edwards, Obama, and Clinton, Edwards was the only one of the three who was genuine in his populism - in his real-ness. I thought he was honest, and said what he thought. I thought he was the only one who was really about change.
I just don't get that from Obama and Clinton. There's too much....mystery, too much vagueness, not enough real emotion. I think Hillary has learned this and is trying to show more of her "real" stuff, but I'm not sure she'll ever be able to.
Obama is a great orator and on the right side of most of the issues, but somehow, I have a hard time knowing what he really stands for.
I don't care that Edwards worked for a hedge fund - maybe he needed a nest egg, maybe he wanted to see inside the industry. Lots of good people work there. It doesn't make it a good thing, but not all those employees are bad people.
Anyway - the real shame is that the media and the Washington establishment don't really WANT change. And so they do whatever they have the power to do to prevent it. John Edwards is the perfect example of that.
Changes - David Bowie
Still dont know what I was waiting for
And my time was running wild
A million dead-end streets and
Every time I thought I'd got it made
It seemed the taste was not so sweet
So I turned myself to face me
But I've never caught a glimpse
Of how the others must see the faker
I'm much too fast to take that test
Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes
(turn and face the strain)
Ch-ch-changes
Dont want to be a richer man
Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes
(turn and face the strain)
Ch-ch-changes
Just gonna have to be a different man
Time may change me
But I can't trace time
I watch the ripples change their size
But never leave the stream
Of warm impermanence
So the days float through my eyes
But still the days seem the same
And these children that you spit on
As they try to change their worlds
Are immune to your consultations
They're quite aware of what they're going through
Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes
(turn and face the strain)
Ch-ch-changes
Don't tell them to grow up and out of it
Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes
(turn and face the strain)
Ch-ch-changes
Where's your shame
You've left us up to our necks in it
Time may change me
But you can't trace time
Strange fascination, fascinating me
Ah changes are taking the pace I'm going through
Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes
(turn and face the strain)
Ch-ch-changes
Oh, look out you rock-n-rollers
Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes
(turn and face the strain)
Ch-ch-changes
Pretty soon now you're gonna get a little older
Time may change me
But I cant trace time
I said that time may change me
But I cant trace time
Change? We need to look to the world of democratic governments. Where have the democratic governments of the world had full and fair elections? America? No - big time cheating. Zimbabwe? No - big time cheating and assaults? Kenya? No - big time murder and mayhem due to the cheating. Russia and other ex soviet states? No - big time cheating and unrest. Look at the countries that America is now clustered with in terms of democratic governments and the cheating of outcomes.
Prevention. Prevention. Prevention. The majority know that cheating will occur. Cheating is already being planned. The majority can expose it and nip it in the bud. The majority have more cars than the minority. Bumper stickers.
Carol,
I agree with you that Kucinich doesn't have the 'look'. But he's got the right populist ideas. And he's followed them consistently with action.
Of course most of American is sort of unwilling to hire someone for the office of the Presidency who is the size of a Leprecon.
Regarding our differences on Edwards. I think you state my dislike of him much more strongly than I feel.
I spoke up thread that I do LIKE what he says. My question about him isn't about the hedge funds, though I suspect that may be a right-winged issue, it's more that I think he's over-Trippified right now. For me personally, he's over aggressive now.
To me, he's coming across right now as an autocrat--someone who plans to go to DC and dictate.
I think someone who just wants to beat up people may not get things done. Hey...IF he could just go in there and eliminate corps, and give us Universal Healthcare, then that might be great, except then if he could just do that, he'd just be a dictator. But as our democracy stands now, it takes Congress to create the changes that we all want. Would Edwards be able to get both parties to sit down and draw up those policies we need? both parties!! I put that in bold because face it, we've got corporate Dems and corporate Republicans. It's not just 50-50 there. What percentage of Congress is willing to create laws that would take the corporations out of government?
That's why I think you have to look at how Edwards, if he were to overtake Hillary or Obama, would have to morph in the General election to be able to reach both Republicans and Democrats. Because as he is right now, he's a 2nd/3rd candidate in the Democratic primary. He is not winning his own side by being Edwards-Trippi.
He doesn't even bring the same message as he did in o4. He had HOPE then.
But as I've said before, I wouldn't not vote for Edwards if he were the nominee. And it's the same with Obama. And to an extent, well, I would probably vote for Hillary if she were the nominee.
But don't get me wrong. There are things I don't like about all three of the candidates.
I also think Casey had a good point in the previous Open Thread when she mentioned the coattails. The fact is that Obama pulls more people into the process. This helps every level of Dems on the ticket. Would Edwards have coattails too? If he's Edwards-Trippi, he may be speaking really well to the netroots, but cutting off the progress at the rest of the ticket.
I repeat though: I have not chosen a candidate yet. But I certainly feel that Obama and Edwards do offer more hope for change than Hillary does. And all those thoughts are what enter my head when thinking about the primary.
I do not think any of these candidates is perfect (and John Kerry wasn't either), so it is always a question of who meets the test of a campaign. Who can learn and grow the most?
Jut because JRE has the right message (IMO) does not mean he has figured out the best way to deliver it. Just because Barack Obama has the right face for a new view of the USA and is an orator does not mean he can carry out the changes necessary. And just because Hillary Clinton has the strategies that worked in the 90s does not mean that she is the most easily elected. On the Republican side the story is the same.
Changing directions, face or strategies when necessary is critical and people can only do so when they are brave and bold and humble and ready.
We shall see...
Despite worries about Edwards and the Nadar effect, one good thing about his continued presence is that the other two have changed their message to be a bit more populist, or a bit more real or something.
The cynic in me sees this kind of change as kind of lame, but as Karen said, maybe it's necessary.
Carol,
I LOVE the fact that Edwards, Kucinich, and Gravel haven't bowed down yet and taken their campaigns off yet. I believe their voices WILL bring Hillary and Obama back towards progressivism, the same way that Huckabees and Pauls force the neocon-establishment to adapt some of their approaches too. Of course the Republicans are slow learners judging by the way they warmonger and hatemonger.
But I think that at a certain point, if Edwards is still behind, he'll have to chose between a Hillary win or a Obama win. Then he'll decide to cut off the campaign.
However, I do also want to state that it's not fair how the media has treated DK, JRE, Gravel, and Paul. They did this to Kerry. Ignored him EXCEPT when it suited their purpose of smearing him.
Karen, you stated about growing, learning as a candidate.
I think Obama by getting Kerry's endorsement might also glean some useful hints and bits and pieces of wisdom from the candidate who experienced it first hand.
Perhaps Kerry learned from 04 and will take the info to Obama.
And although it's no guarantee, Kerry IS progressive, so maybe IF Obama were elected, Kerry would be able to keep pushing progressive legislation for him.
But obviously Edwards learned from o4 too. He's become a fighter and has really embraced the netroot's and given voice to our anger.
Sparrow - I too love that they haven't bowed out. This is all part of the way the game needs to be played. Strategists will have given much information about the timing of certain actions. The timing of JK's endorsement was perfect. Will Al Gore's come closer to the end? I wonder. It is vital that the Dems win in November despite the media blackouts and the poll booth cheating.
To counteract the media blackouts there needs to be more UTubes out there - counteracting the media republican headlines. In fact one more headline singing the praises of the troop surge in Iraq from either the US, the UK or Australian press and I'm gonna scream.
Kangaroo. That soldier's statements need to be heard by the world. McCain needs to be shown to be the liar that he is. Right now political correspondents accross the globe are presenting him is straight down the line. "True blue" as we'd say in Australia. Except McCain is anything but "true blue". He's more like deadly fire-red and boring-black. His lies and his monotone would make for the world's most boring leader - EVER.
karen - there never will be a perfect candidate - for anyone. And we are very lucky that is the case. This world is all about balance. With the climate out of balance and the biggest predators of the world dying out, what will happen to us - down the predator foodchain?
Balance. We have seen what imbalance can bring. It brings poverty, murder, rape, occupation, pillaging of citizens' life possessions. Imbalance brings murder and mayhem to the entire world.
At first we need a *balanced* candidate. One who can speak with intelligence. One who can speak quickly. One who can write his/her own speeches - AFTER being sworn in as president. One who can bring balance to the world.
Peace is balance. We all need to attack climate change. All the world needs to be united on that front.
This thread has really hit a nerve here karen. Change? It's a word without definition really. Or is it a word with an infinite number of definitions?
And your comment about Hillary and Obama being less willing to push back against corporations, and changing the whole structure of our elections, is why I can't support either of them fully either. It leads me to believe that the line Dianne posted is correct, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
@@@@@@
Change, usually, is not dramatic but occurs over time. The country has been on an extreme rightward course after Republican rule for almost 15 years (since the Republican sweep of Congress in 1994) and really accelerated after 9-11. This must be stopped and corrected. Even the Republican candidates for president sense this because they never talk about George Bush. His name is not uttered in public or in the debates.
I don't particular care about the presidency since it has become so much of a beauty contest and a fund-raising orgy. I want to focus on Congress and getting good, talented progressives in Congress and expanding the Democrat majority in both Houses. So much important work goes on in Congress. There were three high watermarks in Congress in the last two years:
1) The dumping of Rumsfeld (which Democrats and Republicans began to insist on) and credit goes to the Democrats after their taking control of the House and Senate in '06.
2) The dumping of Gonzales (after months of lies and evasion and completely unbelievable testimony) - credit going to Sens. Leahy and Schumer and Feinstein and Whitehouse etc.
3) John Bolton being rejected as ambassador to the United Nations. I remember those hearings - the Democrats were unanimous in opposition and the Repubs were, frankly, embarrassed by Bolton. Finally one of the Repubs caved on the nomination and it was blocked.
I look at the "change" as being one of institutional change (not just a change in what person is president): that the Congress reassert its traditional power and the power of executive be scaled back.
I am hoping that the Democratic party - dying, corrupt, in shambles, without a clear message - can be revitalized in this election and return to power.
I think "change" is also needed in the media (especially the mass media/ MSM) - which has done an awful job of covering the Bush administration.
Huckabee .. another End Timer
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/blumenthal
Article is by Max Blumenthal, the guy who infiltrated the Young Republicans and the Christian/Radical Israel convention - he's the son of Sydney Blumenthal who writes for The Guardian and was part of the Clinton cabinet.
That's a pretty good perspective, Ralpheh
I quite agree