More On Obama's Theory Of Change
My worry is whether [Obama] is really mobilizing them on the content of his substantive message or just the vagueness of "change" in a time when people are angry and distressed. I'm not annoyed like some at his "post-partisanship" message, since the best way to build a big partisan majority is to assert this kind of non-partisan inclusiveness. No, the concern is that the ideas and policies filling his "change" message actually connect with people beyond momentary distress to shape a real analysis of what's wrong with the nation.
I am not sure I understand or agree with Nathan's distinctions here between message and partisanship. I believe that the way to make substantive change in policy is to get folks to agree with your message and policy by voting for you and your political party.
[More...]
I wonder if there any examples of big change that were not connected to big partisan success? There have been two realigning elections in the last 100 years - FDR's win in 1932 and Ronald Reagan's win in 1980. Both were huge partisan wins. both FDR and Ronald Reagan were unabashed partisans who argued for change and expressly argued that the change was connected to their wins and importantly the wins of their Party and ideas.
Perhaps some of you could point to a successful nonpartisan political victory that I am overlooking.
| < Heading Home: Open Thread | Obama On The Stump On His Theory Of Change > |





