Campaign Strategy

Old Politics vs. New Politics

Obama sketched out a different theory of social change than the one Clinton had implied earlier in the evening. Instead of relying on a president who fights for those who feel invisible, Obama, in the climactic passage of his speech, described how change bubbles from the bottom-up: “And because that somebody stood up, a few more stood up. And then a few thousand stood up. And then a few million stood up. And standing up, with courage and clear purpose, they somehow managed to change the world!”

For people raised on Jane Jacobs, who emphasized how a spontaneous dynamic order could emerge from thousands of individual decisions, this is a persuasive way of seeing the world. For young people who have grown up on Facebook, YouTube, open-source software and an array of decentralized networks, this is a compelling theory of how change happens.

Clinton had sounded like a traditional executive, as someone who gathers the experts, forges a policy, fights the opposition, bears the burdens of power, negotiates the deal and, in crisis, makes the decision at 3 o’clock in the morning.

But Obama sounded like a cross between a social activist and a flannel-shirted software C.E.O. — as a nonhierarchical, collaborative leader who can inspire autonomous individuals to cooperate for the sake of common concerns.

Clinton had sounded like Old Politics, but Obama created a vision of New Politics. And the past several months have revolved around the choice he framed there that night. Some people are enthralled by the New Politics, and we see their vapors every day. Others think it is a mirage and a delusion. There’s only one politics, and, tragically, it’s the old kind, filled with conflict and bad choices.


— David Brooks, A Defining Moment


liza's picture

| | | | | | |

Eating at the trough of Karl Rove

Karl Rove never met a man or a constituent group he didn’t seek to exploit for political gain…and as best I can tell, his scorched earth approach rarely, if ever, left him wondering about the welfare of the many innocent individuals that may have been consumed in the carnage he created with calloused and cunning calculations.

Mr. Wehner makes the mistake of many who live with the promise of privilege…those who have neither built the trough at which they feed nor done the hard work to harvest the feast that fills it…they stand shoulder to shoulder with other gluttonous and greedy purveyors of pain…sopping up the spoils while pushing the powerless under the proverbial bus. Pardon my disgust, but fine men aren’t made by driving on and over others.

While Karl Rove and his cronies see themselves as king makers, they climbed the pole of power on the backs of those they sought to sacrifice. His legacy of unleashing hatred upon homosexuals in order to herd the holier than thou hoards into the ballot box may be his hallmark…but calling him an honorable human being is simply another symbol of the corrupted Christian cacophony he sought to coerce.


liza's picture

| | | |
Syndicate content

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Who's online

There are currently 2 users and 1880 guests online.

Online users

Words to live by

How do we know? I mean, what you're saying is fine. But how do we know that that's actually the law? I mean there are a lot of people who absolutely in very good faith would say that isn't competing harm. They would say that the competing right for the life of the fetus is more important than the possibility of the mother having children in the future herself. See, there are people in good faith on both sides of this argument. And so how do we know that ... your competing harms defense is going to do for this particular woman what a health exception would do?


— Justice Stephen Breyer


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify