Au Contraire

Shane, in making a slightly half-hearted, but unusually well-thought out (for Shane) argument in favor of John Edwards, says

Senator Obama's message of change centers on him, as an individual, while Senator Edwards is focused on changing the system. The message that I keep picking up from him is that he, as a person, is the focal point of his technique of change. I am very skeptical of the ability of one person, no matter how charismatic, to implement any sort of lasting change.

I think that Shane is falling prey to the conventional wisdom just a little bit here. I definitely agree that the media narrative of the Obama campaign is that he is the central locus of change. Atrios summed it up quite clearly when he wrote in December that Obama's message is "The system sucks, but I'm so awesome that it'll melt away before me."

I don't see it that way at all. I remember hearing on Chris Matthews, the night after Iowa, quotes from Senators Clinton and Obama. The remarkable thing, and Matthews noticed it in one of his lucid moments, was that Sen. Clinton was talking all about herself. I will do this, and I will make this happen, and I will fight for you. But Sen. Obama talks all about you, about us. About what you can do, and what you can make happen. As many have pointed out, it's the classic language of a community organizer, convincing you that you have the power to change your environment.

That's the aspect of the Obama message that I think Shane is missing out on. It's not about what he can do. It's about what we, the American people, can do. I've written about this before, I'm sure, but I'm a bit too lazy to go back and find it. But I don't think the way that things get done in America is through the agency of the Presidency. Well, in the last 7 years all sorts of things have been done purely through the executive branch, but I don't like that system, and would much prefer a return to something closer to the ideal, where the legislative branch makes the laws, and the executive interprets and enforces them.

Anyhow, my point is that the way laws, especially laws that go against the bogeyman Special Interests, get passed is when they are popular enough that congressmen fear popular backlash if they don't vote for them. That's why it's easy to pass laws to, say, help people who are behind on their mortgage only when it becomes a big enough phenomenon that everyone gets concerned about it and Demands Action.

So, the way to pass real progressive reform is a two-part plan. One is to elect a more progressive Congress. There's a very valid argument that Sen. Edwards would be more effective in this regard, but it's really a crapshoot. I think we can all agree that both Sens. Edwards and Obama have a better chance of having long coattails for this purpose than Sen. Clinton. The second part, though, which is equally important, is convincing the American people that the reform in question is important. Vital. Absolutely necessary to preserve the future of America.

That's the part that Sen. Obama is thinking about when he brought up Saint Reagan this week in an interview. And I think he's right. Reagan had a remarkable ability to bring The People around to his side of the argument. And, for all of our bitching and moaning about the Special Interests, The People are still pretty damn powerful when it comes to getting the rules changed. And here is where I think Sen. Obama has the best hole cards. I think he, with his soaring rhetoric and cross-partisan appeal, has the best chance of convincing the American people of the rightness of the progressive cause. Which is why I'll be voting (well, caucusing) for him on February 5th.