Change, like charity, begins at home
“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.”
On the night that Barack Obama spoke those words, February 5, 2008, he had been a United States Senator for a little more than 3 years. Prior to that, and perhaps more importantly, he had been an Illinois State Senator for just shy of 8 years. That’s a combined total of 11 years that Mr. Obama has been an elected official. The question one should ask, now that he is posed to become his party’s national standard bearer and a finalist for the world’s most powerful office, is: why has he waited until now to seek change?
He says that he doesn’t “want to send another generation of American children to failing schools.” But can anyone cite a significant proposal he championed to improve Illinois schools?
He claims to have a healthcare plan that will cover every American. Where was his plan to cover every Illinoisan?
He promises to “make strengthening our transportation systems, including our roads and bridges, a top priority.” But when Governor Blagojevich effectively killed the Illinois FIRST program, what were Obama’s priorities?
He boasts that lobbyists have not funded his Presidential campaign, and thus will not set the agenda of his administration. But what about his previous 4 campaigns? Did all the lobbyist money he took in them influence his votes in Springfield and Washington?
Chicago’s transportation and education systems are broken, and broke. And yet Mr. Obama endorsed the man who presided over them for the past 2 decades.
Cook County’s patronage system is an crushing burden on its residents. And yet Mr. Obama campaigned for the scion of its reigning family.
Pundits and political observers marvel at how Mr. Obama managed to escape Springfield without any serious ethical baggage. But such amazement is an explicit recognition of our state’s embarrassing culture of corruption – a culture that went wholly unchallenged by the man who now seeks to change Washington.
The truth is, the only real change that Mr. Obama has brought to either Illinois or Washington is the partisan balance of our state’s U.S. Senate representation. How ironic that he might win the White House by claiming the legacy of the man he replaced.
15 comments:
You can't deny that he is bringing people into the political process that were not there before. That in itself is a change.
I believe that history makes people as much as people make history. For example, if Martin Luther hadn't posted his 95 theses, someone else would have. Because he was a man of that moment in history.
Unfortunately, I don't believe there is enough attention at the state level to create enough of a movement to fix our state. Is there enough energy and people invested at the national level, perhaps. This is the first time I have ever given money to a presidential campaign.
Regarding his US Senate record:
He spent two years in the minority in US Senate. Furthermore it is my understanding that the democratic leadership prevented presidential candidates from bringing legislation forward during the campaign. So he didn't really have that serious an opportunity. He still worked on bills for open government and veteran assistance, two of his core issues.
So we will see, I'll take his potential to John or Hillary where we know exactly what we will get in terms of government size (bigger), government transparency (less), foreign policy (pre-emptive war, more debt, and human rights violations).
So I feel we have a chance to do something. For example, I credit Obama with getting smart people like Austan Goolsbee involved. Here seems like a reasonable idea to improve our tax situation.
So, crash, what you’re saying is that Obama, who has an undeniable ability to bring people into the national political process that (for lack of interest) were not there before wouldn’t have been able to bring enough attention to the problems of our state's political process?
Even if that were true, the point still stands: the man who now wants us to vote for him almost entirely on the basis of “hope” (his policy positions are not significantly different from Hillary's) was apparently so pessimistic about the prospects for improving his own state that he never even bothered to try.
That’s “change we can believe in?”
I agree that "hope" is largely the difference in policy positions between the two.
As for us in Illinois, the next vote we have will be on policy positions between McCain and Obama/Clinton.
But in terms of the election: He was there to vote on FISA, she was not. The lobbyist money thing does not get me as excited as some, but the open government thing seems to be a theme with him more than Hillary (He has disclosed his income tax statements, she has not).
I again maintain that the public does not care about reforming Illinois. It would have been suicide to try to "inspire" that change. Who was the last to win a serious campaign in Illinois on reform? Did he/she actually get anything done there?
As Obama done stuff in the Senate, I think so, even in the 3 years with the issues I pointed out before. What is Obama's legacy in the Illinois senate? (note: this is all spin, I really don't know) but the word is he worked with republicans, despite holding quite liberal positions and being in the majority. Something that has continued in the US senate. This is part of the "hope".
That we are Americans. That we can worked together for better government and better policies. There will be policy decisions that I don't agree with, but I trust Obama to consider them. (His podcast on Clean Coal in 2005 I think is what sold me on this issue.)
Change is not just about people in power. It is about how we view our government. It is about what kinds of mechanisms can be put in place to assist our relationship with our government.
Our government like our nation has changed a bunch in the last 200+ years. I'm proud of where we started, I'm proud about how far we have come, and I'm proud about where we are going. Regardless of if Obama wins or not. But if he doesn't win, I believe we will have missed an opportunity.
I am not sure that Barack Obama has brought all these new people into the political process.
There are certainly more young people that are pro-Obama but they may have well gone for another candidate if Obama was not in the race. Ralph Nader, and more specifically Ron Paul this election have brought new people into the race.
I think this point is right on the money. Everything that Obama talks about in broad strokes of rhetoric he has not done at home and has not only turned a blind eye but participated in or put his head in the sand like an ostrich.
The early primary in Illinois, ostebsibly to help Obama, that Obama supported--was an incumbent protection plan that made a primary and more importantly campaigning in a short and cold truncated process. It does not allow challengers to get their names out there or to build name recognition or even an effective campaign.
The level of political discourse, outside the internet depth at times and policy orientation left to right of the Kos or conservative bloggers or the Ron Paul bunch--most people only hear monologue platitudes from Obama (not to say he is not intelligent nor has policy white papers written for him with details) BUT the Obama camp has had "Obama girls" and trampy girls doing campaign ads and the so called young participation has not been substantitive. It kinds of reminds me of the MTV Rock the Vote when Madonna was dancing with the American (US) flag (something many felt disrespectful) scantily clad and disrespectful with two well built effeminite black men telling them to vote--yet she never registered to vote. It is great to bring young people involved and talk about hope but there must be substance.
The issue of corruption is hypocritical with Obama to the extent he has been part of the Machine and has knocked off canidates off the ballot like progressive Alice Palmer in 1996.
He was a student of Sen President Emil Jones who has given his step son 50,000,000 in computer contracts, girlfriends jobs, and partronage, nepotism, pinstripe patronage, contracts galore.
Jones has been in bed with utilities, gaming, and lobbyists--not a peep from Obama.
Obama has endorsed TODD STROGER and not a peep on layoffs, quality of health care, or corruption.
Obama has RAISED THE MOST MONEY of any Democrat and Republican and not from "average folk" but from high powered lawyers and lawyers and companies that want things. Plenty of articles exposing that including the Sun Times. The fundraisers and chairs are big names who get benefit from government and are wealthy oligarchs from families who play the system not reformers.
Barack Obama has been silent on Rod Blagojevich and their shared fundraiser Tony Rezko and activities including real estate deals that were very recent only to say it was a mistake and lapse in judgment.
Barack Obama has been silent on Richard M. Daley and influence and lobbyin and corruption and cover ups including the torture by Jon Burge and detectives at Area 2 and Area 3.
“Barack Obama: Fighting for change, as long as it’s not politically dangerous to do so”
Very inspiring, indeed.
Seriously, though. I didn’t realize that when Obama says that by voting for him we can “remake this world as it should be,” he really just means that we can change how we view our government.
Thanks for clearing that up. I'm sure not many other people are having as much trouble understanding Obama-speak. He'll be fine - no one will really expect him to actually change anything. I know I don't expect him to change the politics of Washington anymore than he has changed the politics of Illinois.
Change is about the people involved...at all levels. Donors, voters, you, me.
I have friends who have never voted before, who voted this year. I have friends who have never given money to a candidate before who are now giving money. I was very happy to have Ron Paul in the race. I considered voting for him in the primary.
I was sitting in a turkish coffee shop near boystown in Chicago the saturday a week before super tuesday (you know the single digit day). There were 4 Paul supports warming up. Hearing them talk to people and each other was inspiring. One of them was a serious libertarian always had been through and through. But the others had never really been engaged in politics. But here they were campaigning in single digit temps. They talked about different perspectives and listened to other people. The owner of the shop lives up in rogers park, he gladly let them put up a Ron Paul sign right next to the Obama sign that was already displayed in the window.
We, the people, are the change. Or at least that is how I see it. Obama does not exist without the organization that got him the win in Iowa. The volunteers that are working for him in every state around the country.
Is our government something we fight against? Someplace we go to complain? Or are we part of it? Am I responsible for our soldiers in Iraq?
Regarding Change and Corruption:
This post at xkcd resonates with me. I come from a technology background. I believe the internet can reshape public discourse and improve our democracy. I think Obama agrees with that (the aforementioned transparency bill). I don't know if any other candidates truly agree.
Note: I've haven't been to an Obama event since 2004, and I've only seen a couple of the speeches during the primary. So this is to explain what I enjoy about his message.
His bringing people into the political process isn't really worth much, because whenever something is cool in February, I can guarantee you it won't be cool by November.
I agree with Michael above.
Obama has also hurt politics because all the focus has been on him. There has been no focus on State's Attorney or Water Rec or local assembly races because there are multiple stories on Obama (saying the same thing or nothing new). An all Obama focus is unhealthy for real voter participation.
Harold Washington really increased voter turnout not Barack Obama.
Obama is all suit and no substance.
Obama is all hat and no cattle.
He should be a good Senator here in Illinois and not try to be a rock star.
We can't afford the Olympics. Taxes are going up. We Illinoisans get one of the worst returns on the dollar for taxes sent to Washington. We have a mass transit crisis in Illinois.
There is massive corruption in Illinois but Obama is talking about corruption in Kenya.
There is human rights abuse in Chicago by Police but Obama is talking about human rights abuse in Africa or supposedly by our soldiers fighting terrorism.
GOPartisan,
You forgot to mention Alexi.
What about Alexi?
I heard he ran his cousin MaryLou Spyropolous for the Water Rec and she lost but spent $500,000.
Barrack Obama is toast once the "Rezko Trial" starts.
Obama is a distraction from local issues and candidates.
As the most liberal member of the US Senate (2007), it's hard to see how Mr. Obama can be good for his party.
The Washington post on Obama's legislative record
Post a Comment