It's better if the change is not characterized as transformational (4.00 / 2)

I think it's perfectly fine if Obama's agenda - for example, as indicated by his budget - is characterized as "moderate," if that helps get it passed.

Calling policies "transformational" scares some people, even if they're for the policies.  So, let them define what these terms mean.  Just give me the policies.

---

by: Jim Neuman @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 16:33:44 PM CDT

True... (4.00 / 2)

for the most part(and during more typical times).  But I agree with Mike when he points out that the last few years worth of circumstances has altered the general perceptions of the country.

I think the country is primed for "transformational" right now.  The agenda is key, but selling it as "transformational" may well be more effective, and successful.

Let the "convential wisdom worshippers" fret about "transfomation" all they want, but for all the people out there losing their jobs (like the family I spent yesterday afternoon with) or those in fear of massive lay-offs (including myself), a little, or a lot, of transformation sounds very nice right about now.

---

by: alffy @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 16:47:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

On the contrary (4.00 / 7)

In my opinion, the only way to move them is to scare them. After all, Obama didn't campaign on Minor Tweaks You Can Believe In. Brooks may believe that Obama's rhetoric was just for the rubes, but he'll find himself a lot more pliable, I think, if the NYT goes bankrupt, or if the unemployment rate keeps going straight up for the next six months, and hordes of Sarah Palin's real Americans start showing up in Washington with pitchforks and torches.

I know that virtually no one thinks that such things can happen here, most especially not David Brooks, whose hair has never been ruffled, but then like most of the other privileged blowhards in New York and Washington, he's never read any American history, and has consequently convinced himself that nothing bad can ever happen to anyone who wears a suit.

---

by: William Timberman @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 16:53:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is pertenant and consice and precient. (4.00 / 3)

This is pertinent, concise and prescriptive. First in truth it is exactly what was promised. "Sweeping change" is what Obama promised, is what Obama said America was demanding, is what he said Americans must have the couage to do themselves from the bottom up. "Real change" -
Tom Brokaw: A Sweeping Change With President Obamaand  he puts his hand on the Bible and becomes President, theres going to be a cultural change in America, and a political change in America, and I'm not sure that we fully understand how sweeping it is going to be..."

Yes We Can.

But thats the preamble, thats what was expected: what William Timberman says here is that what needs to be done, not just to acheive the saving of America in this crisis, but to survive the onrushing fear of the American public, the demands that will be coming. The crisis, Im sorry to say, that has yet to be fully felt, Obama had better be seen to be working almost too hard, doing almost too much, struggling with great strength and comittemnt every day, day in and day out. It is what America hired him to do, it is what they are trusting him to do. They dont think this is a small problem, they trust him, he has to be doing the big things, or even in just optics, even just in the eyes of an economy that NEEDS trust right now, he must be seen to be seen making sweeping changes.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 17:59:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Off-topic (0.00 / 0)

Did you suddenly learn to spell between the title-line and the first sentence of your post?

"This is pertenant and consice and precient."

...turns into...

"This is pertinent, concise and prescriptive."

Did you turn on the Mozart, or take a pill, or what?

Congratulations, in any case.

---

by: Jacob Freeze @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 18:20:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

LOL I wish it were that easy. (4.00 / 1)

I edit like a chimp on amphetamine, I hate it, and I am ashamed to say it shows. I actually copied the subject line to the comment area because my redline spelling checker doesn't do the subject box. I then corrected it, then altered it because prescriptive is better for action, and prescient, although I think Im right, is presumptuous and unproven.

Pleased with my change, I kept punching away at my keyboard with two fingers until my obsession with rapid response couldn't be held off any longer.

I have apologized for my crap before, I will again.

If have any pills that work on this . . .

Mozart?

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 18:37:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Mozart! (0.00 / 0)

There's an article about the "Mozart Effect" in Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

...referring to a measurable improvement on all sorts of mental tasks with Mozart playing in the background. For me, almost any Baroque or Rococo music also works.

Rock your brain with Rococo, bay-beeeee!!!

And thanks for the tip about spell-checker not working on the title-line. I never knew that.

---

by: Jacob Freeze @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 21:39:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Perhaps it's all audience-specific (0.00 / 0)

I get the point that "transformational" may be a selling point in some circles.  But I suppose that the Obama crowd has made the determination that, in general, it's better to be perceived as moderate.

The best approach is probably more nuanced, stressing change at times, and continuity at others.

---

by: Jim Neuman @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 16:56:49 PM CDT

These people need to lose their jobs (4.00 / 6)

These are the kinds of people who are pushing to keep the government from doing a major restructuring of the banking system, who don't want to pick a fight with insurance and drug companies on health care reform, who wanted to appoint a commission that would recommend cutting Social Security benefits, and who like to pursue a triangulation with Democrats in Congress by sniping at Nancy Pelosi.

  And they are Democrats because...

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 16:58:56 PM CDT

And what people tend to forget .. (4.00 / 1)

there are a lot of centrist, DLC lovin' types in the administration .. Rahm Emanuel among them .. so I am sure four people made that known to "Bobo" Brooks .. the question is why those four are even Democrats .. I mean .. look at Mary Landrieu .. if she can't vote for Democratic initiatives .. why bother being a Democrat?

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 17:46:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's hard to take your commentary here (0.00 / 0)

seriously.

Look, do you really think that these four -- four -- senior members did not have Obama's blessing when they went to Brooks with this characterization of Obama's views? Does it seem in any way plausible that such a concerted effort would not have been well known by Obama in advance?

If they did indeed misrepresent how Obama really thought on a deep philosophical level, or how he thought his plans would work out in terms of concrete numbers (including a drastic reduction in the amount of money dedicated to discretionary spending, even as compared to Clinton and even Reagan), then why has the Obama WH not vociferously protested that mis-characterization?

Really, the column and the statement by these members of the Obama WH (which, for all I can tell, might indeed include Obama himself) could scarcely be in a more prominent setting than in the NY Times Opinion section. Don't you think there would be vigorous pushback if Obama and his people were unhappy with what was said? Where, I ask, is that pushback?

---

by: frankly0 @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 17:00:48 PM CDT

Changing the tax code, no matter Brooks attempt to "define" Obama (4.00 / 2)

so that he can later say Obama has betrayed what he said, is already, IT IS ALREADY a sweeping change from the Reagan ? Bush Years. It is a return of a trillion dollars back to the working and middle class, from the owning / wall street / bonuses class. Sweeping change. So like Mr. Brooks, you are defining whats happening incorrectly.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 18:04:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's proving more and more often the case (0.00 / 0)

that Obama's change-and-hope rhetoric was just another political charade to convince the rubes he was/is "sincere."

The fucking Pope of Hope? Ha!

---

by: konopelli @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 17:01:40 PM CDT

So they fret about what David Brooks thinks... (4.00 / 9)

 ...while completely ignoring Paul Krugman.

 They humor the hack. They blow off the Nobel laureate.

 This will not end well.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 17:05:48 PM CDT

I could have told you that in November... (0.00 / 0)

n/t

---

by: konopelli @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 17:32:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

LOL (0.00 / 0)

And thats it folks, took konopelli only 49 days.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 18:08:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sprinkled????? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: kanzeon @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 17:06:45 PM CDT

wish fulfillment (4.00 / 1)

I would love to believe you but these posts are sounding more and more like wish fulfillment to me. The return of the "Obama's a secret progressive" claim.

Sure, the country has moved left, or transformed if you like. And the times, the current crisis, demand strong progressive action. I agree the country is ready for a broad progressive argument.

But I don't see Obama making that argument.

I see an Obama unable to say what even Bush said ("I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system"):

Just one thing I was thinking about as I was getting on the copter. It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question. I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn't under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. It wasn't on my watch. And it wasn't on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement - the prescription drug plan without a source of funding. And so I think it's important just to note when you start hearing folks throw these words around that we've actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word socialist around can't say the same.

Obama is saying here the same things Brooks quotes Obama's advisors as saying. Obama's policies, his budget, the bailout, are aligned with what he said to the NY Times. Those four senior officials are sending Obama's message.

None of this means that Obama is not going for big changes. Health care reform is a big change and Obama is committed to it. He is pushing big changes on energy. He is spending a lot of money on job creation. But Obama's approach to these issues is more cautious and moderate than someone like Nancy Pelosi, or me, would prefer. Many knowledgeable observers argue that his approach is too cautious to succeed on a series of issues. His approach is one that a conservative like Brooks can live with.

---

by: souvarine @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 17:20:20 PM CDT

Folks always said Obama's appointments' (0.00 / 0)

previous positions 'wouldn't matter' because the Pope of Hope was gonna be in charge.

Problem widdat was always that Obama had nowhere near enough "experience" to ignore the advice of the appointments who counseled caution. He doesn't possess the strength to impose his will on his henchmen. The regard him as a parvenu.

---

by: konopelli @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 17:36:34 PM CDT

He's NOT! (0.00 / 0)

Health care reform is a big change and Obama is committed to it.

He's committed to pandering to the Health Insurance Industry.

Oh, yeah, and collecting their contributions.

His 'health-care summit' last week was a perfect example: sole-payer advocates had to just about crash the gates to get in.

---

by: konopelli @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 17:39:04 PM CDT

not making the big change we want (0.00 / 0)

He may not be proposing the kind of change on these issues progressives prefer, but he is pushing fundamental changes to the system. Even Republicans acknowledge that our health care system is broken. Obama has adopted some of John McCain's ideas on health care reform, taxing employer provided health benefits. He does want to largely preserve the private insurance system, as he made clear in the primaries. But the changes he does propose are big, just not all that progressive, and in some cases more aligned with Republican reform proposals.

---

by: souvarine @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 17:51:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama has just showed who's boss in foreign policy (0.00 / 0)

He dumped that Freeman guy for the Israel lobby. Look out for someone (Israel or us) attacking Iran, because that's where that leads.

Some change!

Can it happen here?

---

by: janinsanfran @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 18:03:39 PM CDT

Holy crap, what a lot of hogwash. Are the freepers bored of their own sites? (0.00 / 0)

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 18:06:19 PM CDT

I don't believe that people in DC can't read a poll (4.00 / 1)

Mike,

I have to take issue with this:

"What they don't get is that we are living in a country that has been fundamentally transformed."

C'mon, they are unable to read polls in DC?  BS.  That's common nonsense by democrat apologists.  They get it, but they are not interested in serving the people.  They are interested in having their government serve them hence their efforts to confine the debate to what they want and tell us that is what we really want.

As far as Obama is concerned, just becoz he says things real well doesn't mean that he means them.  He has appointed as his chief of staff one of the most deceitful people in DC and he's too smart and has too much familiarity with emanuel to not know that.  After he made his elegant stimulus proposal apparently someone from his administration was whispering into cooper's ear to vote against it.  And then emanuel made a deal with cooper "to bring the blue digs aboard" by giving into big business' interests.  Could it be that emanuel also instructed cooper to vote against it?    

Obama also talks about reeling in wall street and yet he appoints people who serve wall street's interests and who facilitated this whole economic mess that empowered and enriched wall street.  Now these same people who claim ... or lie ... that they never saw this coming are in charge of cleaning it up.  Ans who is benefitting again?

So c'mon, Mike you are smart and you've done a lot of good work, and I for one appreciate it, but lets open yourself to the possibility that Obama is a fraud.  The people's interests are not served by blind allegiance to party.  Or maybe you believe that clinton really meant to do well too but somehow was bullied into giving in to big business and wall street and making himself filthy rich in his post-presidency as a result.

Z

---

by: Z @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 19:30:19 PM CDT