Change We Can Believe In?

So much of Barack Obama’s appeal – not only to voters and those supporting him, but also to the media who barely try to conceal their adoration of him – has been his claim of being a different politician practicing a new kind of politics, “change we can believe in”. To his and his campaign’s credit, this image and message have been crafted to near-perfection, and while I can’t prove it, I suspect that if most Americans were asked to play a word association game, “change” is the word most would choose when presented with Obama’s name.

Indeed, Obama has been an incredible candidate. His rhetoric, both in terms of its content and his speaking style, are nothing short of awesome. Some might argue that the content of his speeches lacks substance, but perhaps in a so-called “change election”, that’s what the voters want to hear. Listening to Obama speak, I can only imagine that the experience must be akin to those who had the opportunity to hear Martin Luther King, Jr. speak. His tone, his cadence, his pitch – all are delivered with an almost intoxicating quality to which one cannot help but be drawn.

Further, his campaign has been run with a precision and a discipline unlike any of the Democratic candidates who preceded him. The Obama Campaign’s ability to stay “on message” and to effectively convey that message is impressive to say the least. Even the seemingly little things such as the backdrops to his speeches or the settings of his press conferences are done with precision, and believe it or not, these things matter, even if perhaps only in the observer’s subconscious. Of course nothing speaks louder than his proven ability to attract tens of thousands of people to a campaign rally, coverage of which is public relations gold that surely has the McCain Campaign green with envy.

But as Obama’s opponent, John McCain might say, “let’s have some straight talk”. Over the last few months – the last few weeks in particular – Obama and his campaign have made some choices and taken some actions that reveal his claim of being a different kind of politician practicing a different kind of politics to be nothing more than a superficial veneer. To be sure, some of this was to be expected, and for the most part would have to be considered prudent. These maneuvers do not make Obama a bad person, or any more dishonest or beholden to the politically expedient than McCain or any other politician, but they do – or should – effectively rob him of his ability to cast himself as a political Robin Hood, a flawless crusader of hope and change.

The first chink in Obama’s armor of change came courtesy of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In a much-celebrated speech in Philadelphia on March 18th, Obama famously said that he could “no more disown [Reverend Wright] than [he could his] white grandmother”. After a few more inflammatory speeches by Wright however, Obama did, in fact, disown him. Again, his choice to do so was certainly prudent, but not the choice that the principled public servant Obama portrays himself as would have made. This was a decision made out of political expediency, period.

More recently (and more alarmingly), Obama reversed himself again. This time it was the issue of whether or not to accept public funding for his general election campaign. No candidate since the system was enacted after Watergate has ever opted out of the system. Obama himself signed a pledge in which he promised to take public funding, and in a debate in April, he indicated that he would “sit down with John McCain” if he won the Democratic Nomination so that the two could discuss the issue and make a fair agreement. Campaign finance reform has been a signature issue for Obama in his brief legislative career, something for which he has won a great deal of praise. Several weeks ago, though, Obama announced that he would be opting out of the public funding, relying instead on his legions of donors, both large and small. While again this was the prudent choice, it was pure political calculation, made worse by the bogus justification he offered as to why he was making this choice. He argued that Republicans and so-called 527 groups (like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in the 2004 Election) would spend millions against him, and that in deciding to opt out, he was only ensuring a level playing field for himself. The reality is that there are currently no anti-Obama 527 groups in existence, and apparently none on the horizon, either. In fact, the only 527 ad currently airing is a pathetic anti-McCain, anti-Iraq War “Not Alex” ad funded by the Democratic 527, Moveon.Org and the union, AFSCME. By opting out of the $85 million in public funding (also an effective $85 million limit on spending) he would have received, Obama is now capable – and likely to – raise hundreds of millions of dollars, allowing him to overwhelmingly outspend McCain, who has indicated that he will accept the $85 million. This will give Obama an almost incalculable advantage in the last few months of the campaign, and is the sort of action that, had a Republican taken it, would have had elicited vociferous objections and righteous indignation from the Obama camp and the media. The playing field will be anything but level.

Last week, Obama changed positions again on two separate issues: the FISA Bill in the Senate, and the handgun ban in Washington, DC. His campaign stated in no uncertain terms last fall that any FISA Bill legislation that included legal immunity for the telecommunications companies would be met with an Obama-led filibuster. When the bill came to the floor last week, Obama not only failed to filibuster, he voted for it – telecom immunity and all. While this was a part of the inevitable move to the center that candidates from both parties make after securing their respective nominations, it flew in the face of the sort of change Obama promises. When the Supreme Court last week overturned the DC gun ban, Obama expressed no objection to it, and even issued a statement in which he dubiously indicated that he had always supported an individual’s right to bear arms. Here, the Obama campaign surely concluded that by offering his tacit agreement, Obama could pacify the moderate Democrats in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio – the same Democrats Obama infamously said “cling to their guns”. This was the politically advantageous move to make with an eye on the general election, but it was also a misleading statement in reaction to the court’s decision, and it marked the latest in a string of instances in which Obama eschewed the high road of hope for the low road of “the same old Washington politics”.

As the Oval Office has become more and more a very real possibility for Obama, he has on several occasions now shown himself to be nothing more than just another politician. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that on its face, of course; candidates will always do what it takes to win. But in doing so, Obama can no longer sincerely claim to be the shiny, new departure from the political norm, and the media have a responsibility to stop portraying him as such. With the latter unlikely to happen, though, the former becomes even more improbable, and that’s not “change we can believe in” anymore.