change has changed

David Brooks has a good column up discussing how the way the candidates talk about change has evolved. The gist of his analysis is this:

Obama beat Hillary Clinton by tapping into a widespread sense of discontent amongst voters about the whole system of government, and a stale political culture. He promised a new type of politics altogether. But since the general election he's become more of a conventional Democrat, arguing that a change of party is all the country needs; our side is better than their side. There are good reasons for this (Republicans are unpopular at the moment for obvious reasons). But it robs him of some of the excitement and novelty (not to mention appeal to independents) that made him so popular with voters fed up with business as usual during the primaries.

McCain, meanwhile, has gone the opposite way, via necessity and a bit of luck. With the Palin pick and his new "original maverick" positioning he's now the one making a vague but appealing promise of transformative change.

Obama needs to reclaim the mantle of big, non-partisan change, and recreate the sense of buzz around his candidacy that, post-Palin, has diminished. This feels instinctively right to me.

Brooks suggests one possible way to do that:

Obama needs to occasionally criticize his own side. If he can’t take on his own party hacks, he’ll never reclaim the mantle of systemic change. Specifically, he needs to attack the snobs who are savaging Sarah Palin’s faith and family. Many liberals claim to love working-class families, but the moment they glimpse a hunter with an uneven college record, they hop on chairs and call for disinfectant. Obama needs to attack Bill Maher for calling her a stewardess and the rest of the coastal condescenders.

Mark Penn, on the other hand, offers a different remedy - focus on the economy. I think he's right about that too. But it can't just be meat and potatoes stuff (Losing Democrats always go down pounding on about "the issues"). It needs to be combined with a bit of the old magic...

Comments

[Tony]

I disagree. I think people are overreacting because
McCain got a convention bounce and suddenly everyone is acting like the election is over. There is still a bit less than two months to go and I think Obama should be getting to the meat and potatoes. All of the people that were enticed to him originally are sticking with him and all of the independents that he is trying to court were never very impressed with his calls for all-encompassing change anyway... they wanted to hear about the issues. To head back to his vaguer days would be a mistake. It would only emphasise the unease with which many independents viewed him.

It would also bring the Obama/Biden ticket back on par with McCain/Palin, who are now the ones making vague claims. In my opinion, it was good in these past few weeks to add a new face, but as the independents pay more attention and look to the issues, they will realise that no one really knows what the hell McCain/Palin will do except continue the bush legacy.

[Marbury]

I agree that Obama shouldn't panic, and forget the issues, and just start talking about 'hope' all the time.

But can't he combine a focus on the issues with the promise of change that is more far-reaching than just a change of party?

[rob]

i would think if i were biden preparing to debate i'd be pulsing the scranton working class right now to find where their concerns might differ from the earmarked and oil rich alaskans -