Agents of Change

Here is how the presidential election was supposed to go, at least as of the end of July: it is all about change stupid. Senator Obama was to be considered as the agent of that change. He was the right party, the right age, and he said the right things. The opponents were saddled with one of the most unpopular presidents in history, a war few understood, and a 72 year old candidate that has been in Washington D.C. since the Stone Age.

This should have been a moment not to win one election, but to firmly establish the Democrats as the dominant party for at least a decade. The Republican base was disillusioned, disheartened, and disinterested in this election. No one gets excited about a blow out.

Up to this point, while Barack Obama might have claimed to be an agent of change, the true Agent that led to the brink of a democratic renaissance was George W. Bush. Say what you will about John McCain’s acceptance speech, he was correct in his assessment when he said that the Republican Party pursued power over principles and alienated their base. George W. Bush was not responsible for all of this, but he is the face of the conservative movement of the past decade. In his ability to mobilize the Democrats and compel people to reassess liberal principles, President Bush was the agent of change.

But at that point where Senator Obama should have stomped on the collective throats of the Republicans and finished President Bush’s job, he slipped on the figurative banana peel. It was then that he began to live up to his moniker of agent of change. Just for the wrong people. He was an agent of change for the Republican Party.

Senator Obama started playing it safe. For a man whose candidacy was built on audacity and boldness, this was the worst thing he could do. I will not criticize the Senator for not picking Senator Clinton as his running mate; in many ways I want to shake his hand and buy him a drink. There were a lot of reasons not to do so. However, by succumbing to pressure to pick Senator Biden as opposed to a younger choice like Governor Kaine, Senator Obama began to sell out his message.

Senator Obama continued to do this with his convention speech, where he dialed back the oratory and ramped up the attacks and the stale ideas. While some of the more slavish followers might believe that Senator Obama’s performance was great, the memories of speeches past made it look pale and weak. While I have it on good authority that those in the convention found the speech very inspiring, I doubt whether it played as well to those 40 million plus that watched it at home.

Senator Obama’s choices opened the door for Senator McCain and Governor Palin. I will not recap my thoughts on those choices as they have been summarized on this site earlier. However, Senator Obama’s choices have allowed Senator McCain to make moves to revitalize the base, distance the party from President Bush, and transition the party from the Republican Revolution of 1994 to the next stage in its evolution.

If Senator Obama loses this election it will be because of his screwups. The latest gaffe, his “pig with lipstick” comment, I think will hurt Senator Obama due to his platform of being “above it all.” Combine that with the deliberate care he uses when choosing his words, and Senator Obama doesn’t even have the excuse of “I just chose the wrong words.” While hardly a crushing blow, it is just one more misstep, in a campaign where mistakes are accumulating to a dangerous level for him.

Win or lose, Senator Obama has already lost the larger political struggle by not blowing out the Republican base. In 2010 and forward, the Dems are going to have to face a stronger, more unified Republican party than they would have had to if Senator Obama had done his job right. And in that, Senator Obama and President Bush bear a strong resemblance in their roles of agents of change.