First, however, I must again hammer home a point crucial to understanding Obama's approach:  you cannot separate process from policy. It is error to treat process and policy as unrelated concerns.  In fact, it is very, very often the case that process drives policy outcomes  Power determines policy, and process is power.

Now, to T.S. Kuhn. Kuhn was not a politician nor even a political scientist nor was he a sociologist.  Kuhn was a physicist.  And Kuhn's important writings were on the history and philosophy of science.  In other words, not someone prone to substituting platitudes for logic and evidence.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Al Gore's favorite book, btw), thus gives us an unusually valuable insight into the scientific process.

Kuhn's central thesis and greatest contribution to the field of science was the notion that the great scientific advances do not occur through a gradual accumulation of knowledge and disciplined approach to empiricism.  Instead, the great advances are episodic, not linear.  And, crucially, they are the result of radical changes in conceptual framework, or paradigms.  These scientific revolutions occur from paradigm shifts--a move from one paradigm to another.  Fundamental change occurs when scientists change the way they view the universe instead of when they get new data about the universe.

When do paradigm shifts occur?  They occur when old paradigms break.  When do old paradigms break?  When they prove inadequate to explain the facts and data as known.  

The classic example is The Copernican Revolution.  For centuries before Copernicus, the prevailing paradigm was the Ptolemaic geocentric universe, i.e. that the Earth was the center of the universe.  While initial astronomical observations were perfectly consistent with this model, as these observations became more and more accurate the model had to adapt.   Over time, these adjustments turned the Ptolemaic model into a clumsy, convoluted mess.  Astronomers posited new and more complex mechanisms such as deferents and epicycles. in the observed movement of stars and planets.  

Eventually, it became clear the the Ptolemaic model and its assumptions just did not work.  Scientists had to change the way they thought of the universe. Copernicus introduced the (radical!) theory that the Earth rotated around the sun.   Kepler, Galileo and finally Newton built upon this new paradigm to create a more coherent alternative to the Ptolemaic model that opened up tremendous insights not only into astronomy, but also led to the greatest advance in the history of physics, Newton's three laws of motion.

Like the Ptolemaic model, our political system is broken.  Right now in our primary the debate is between the Clintons, who are experts at working the system as it is--adding cycles and epicycles-- to tweak it towards marginally improving our society. Obama wants to transform the system.  Just like Copernicus et al changed the way we look at the universe, Obama seeks to change the way we look at our politics and each other as participants in that political system.

This theme has emerged most strongly in Obama's foreign policy statements.  The Washington Establishment, the bipartisan party of the Very Serious People, scolded Obama as being naive and irresponsible for challenging their groupthink.  Obama's foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, issued this memo which articulated Obama's challenge to the foreign policy paradigm:

It was Washington's conventional wisdom that led us into the worst strategic blunder in the history of US foreign policy. The rush to invade Iraq was a position advocated by not only the Bush Administration, but also by editorial pages, the foreign policy establishment of both parties, and majorities in both houses of Congress. Those who opposed the war were often labeled weak, inexperienced, and even naïve.

Vision: American foreign policy is broken. It has been broken by people who supported the Iraq War, opposed talking to our adversaries, failed to finish the job with al Qaeda, and alienated the world with our belligerence. Yet conventional wisdom holds that people whose experience includes taking these positions are held up as examples of what America needs in times of trouble

Glenn Greenwald had this reaction:

Am