Change we can believe in?

Commentators on both sides of the political spectrum agree that Obama has picked a "center-right" bunch of experienced all-stars for his Cabinet. I would add that the picks reflect not only the severity of the crises facing the nation but also the fact that contrary to right-wing caricatures, Obama himself is a "center-right" all-star, at least temperamentally, and temperament matters more than one might think.

The financial and foreign policy disasters Obama faces are in no small measure legacies bequeathed to us by a political climate dominated by the toxic temparement of the religious right and its Limbaugh-Hannity-Coulter style of public discourse (or more accurately, non-discourse), a style which all but ensures that reasoned policy analysis cannot be heard above the din of fervent moralizing. Of course, the style is not exclusive to the religious right, as a recent piece on Hugo Chavez aired on PBS's Frontline makes quite clear.

But the time for speaking in tongues - for evaluating policy alternatives with sole reference to amorphous concepts like "family values", "patriotism" and "freedom" - is hopefully coming to a close. We have learned the hard way that Manichaeanism is no more effective today than it was two thousand years ago. And so even if one construes the mandate received during the recent election as endorsing a change of temperament rather than a set of specific public policy proposals, it nonetheless would be the herald of an important "change we could believe in."

That being said, even the Limbaugh-Hannity-Coulter crowd are finding it difficult to put Obama's recent Cabinet picks in neat little ideological boxes in these topsy turvy times when, according to a recent article in the Times, a Republican administration has overseen the assumption of $7.8 trillion in direct and indirect financial obligations in less than a year (an amount equal to about half the size of our nation's entire economy), and when the likes of James Baker appears on Meet the Press from Houston to publicly urge a black man with arguably the most liberal voting record in the Senate to be more symbolically invovled in economic decision-making as quickly as possible (to calm the markets of all things). Indeed, although there is agreement over the proper labels to apply to Obama's recent Cabinet picks there is less agreement over just what policies will be advocated by these "center-right" all stars.

I hope that the specific policies advocated by the new administration are based upon the following realities: (1) the economic crisis we are facing was not the result of the moral failures of individual borrowers but was the direct result of a failure of regulation and a fundamentally flawed Fed policy which intentionally ignored bubbles with the callous thought that the markets would "clean up the mess afterwards;"(2) a foreign policy which emphasizes diplomacy, supports international institutions and treaties whenever possible and is backed by a strong economy will be far more effective than one which relies on bluster, an obscene amount of defense spending and an inflexible support of Israeli militarism; and (3) the cost of NOT adopting universal health care, achieiving tax equity and supporting cities and towns ravaged by foreclosures and depleted tax revenues will be far greater than the cost of doing so.

In any event, for the first time since I was a kid, I'm optimistic. I've re-connected with that poltically pretentious ten-year-old kid I was forty years ago, taking flack for sporting an RFK button at my parochial elementary school. I was a true believer as soon as I put down "Dreams from my Father." It was apparent to me from that one book and from the language of even his very early speeches that unlike the great majority of the political talking heads who have dominated the national political scene for so long, Obama was an intellectual in the traditional sense of the word. By that I mean he thought about himself and the world in a rigorously analytical manner and took the time to acquire an authentic literary voice. It is ironic that Obama's lack of experience is the most potent weapon used against him when it is the career politicians we have become so accustomed to - spouting the cheesey rhetoric of their campaign consultants - who are the ones lacking necessary experience, i.e., any appreciable time thinking and writing.

Yet, my optimism is not blind and I am well aware that in American politics, the very complexity of our poltical options usually guarantees that we will take refuge in simplistic delusions. Witness my home state of Rhode Island, where every state and local elected official knows more about the logistics of snow removal - and less about public finance or education - than one might think would be necessary or appropriate. Elected officials in my state(or at least those who want to stay in office) know that Rhode Islanders are unforgiving when it comes to removing snow. Many a career in Rhode Island has come to an abrupt end because of snow, and on the other hand the successful handling of a major snow storm has, on at least one occasion, created enduring fame for an otherwise mediocore public official. Rhode Islanders may not understand public finance or education, but they do know snow.

Let's hope the Farmer's Almanac is wrong and there isn't much snow in Washington this winter.

Copyright @ 2008 Anthony F. Cottone.