One paragraph jumped out at me. I think it says more about a potential Obama presidency than does anything in connection to his specific ideas on education, although it follows from Brooks' point.
He proposes dozens of programs to build on top of the current system, but it’s not clear that he would challenge it. He’s all carrot, no stick. He’s politically astute — giving everybody the impression he’s on their side — but substantively vague. Change just isn’t that easy.
All politicians want --- and in many cases need --- to be popular. It's kind of the nature of winning an election.
Still, there is a difference between focusing a campaign around the popularity of one's personality as opposed to the popularity of one's policies. In this, I see a lot of Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm in Obama.
Granholm, like Obama, has always been, and likely always be, very personally popular. And with the current state of things in Michigan, the fact that people like her is about all she has going for her.
Granholm, like Obama, ran on "change" and against a person who was a political victim of the public's fatigue with an outgoing administration.
Her campaign, like Obama's, focused on the fact that she was dynamic, young, attractive and very likable, much more so than any 10-point plan on a particular issue.
The problem for the "personality politician," however, is that "change" is hard, as Brooks notes. It's often not popular. Upsetting the apple cart upsets the people who run that apple cart. Challenging the status quo makes people mad. So, when you've based your campaign primarily on the fact that you, and not your ideas, are popular with people, the very thought that someone or some group could get mad at you can be politically paralyzing.
Granholm and Michigan have discovered this the hard way. Instead of using her popularity to push for big, tough things, she boxed it all up and hid it in a mattress.
Voters across the country should take note.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment