Theory of Change


Posted by Bruno on December 23rd, 2007

Mark Schmitt on Obama:

But let’s take a slightly different angle on the charge that Obama is “naïve” about power and partisanship. Suppose you were as non-naïve about it as I am — but your job wasn’t writing about politics, it was running for president? What should you do? In that case, your responsibility is not merely to describe the situation exactly, but to find a way to subvert it. In other words, perhaps we are being too literal in believing that “hope” and bipartisanship are things that Obama naively believes are present and possible, when in fact they are a tactic, a method of subverting and breaking the unified conservative power structure. Claiming the mantle of bipartisanship and national unity, and defining the problem to be solved (e.g. universal health care) puts one in a position of strength, and Republicans would defect from that position at their own risk. The public, and younger voters in particular, seem to want an end to partisanship and conflictual politics, and an administration that came in with that premise (an option not available to Senator Clinton), would have a tremendous advantage, at least for a moment.


No Responses to “Theory of Change”  

  1. No Comments

Leave a Reply

You must log in to post a comment.


Now Playing: Episode 368

 
 Standard Podcast [33:00m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Terror in Mumbai, the collapse of Seattle banking and an update on the new Obama cabinet.

Links Mentioned: A timeline of the Mumbai carnage … SAM and WaMu … some early warning signs of trouble at the Seattle bank … Obama’s new Labor secretary?