NYTimes (Herbert): Where’s the Big Idea?

[Aviation Pro]

By BOB HERBERT
Berkeley, Calif.

There is plenty for Democrats to admire in the candidacies of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

They are smart, appealing and politically gifted. High fives are in order. Their success to date represents advances in American society that many would have seen as unthinkable just a few years ago.

There’s actually a lot for Americans of all political persuasions to admire this election season. This is how we change regimes in the U.S. — peacefully. I had a long conversation the other day with a writer from Kenya, Edwin Okong’o, who is visiting the University of California campus here.

He found it difficult to hide his grief as he spoke of the murderous violence that has followed a disputed election in his country. Then he managed a smile. “It’s all about corruption,” he said. “I am always amazed when people say they are leaving the American government because they have to make more money. In my country, you go into the government to make the money.”

*snip*

With the Democrats, we seem obsessed with whether Senator Obama can get his new voters to the polls, and whether Senator Clinton can keep enough cash coming in, and whether there’s an inch or an inch-and-a-half’s worth of difference between their positions on health insurance and the war in Iraq.

Where, in this alleged season of change, is the big idea?

What’s missing in this campaign is a bold vision of where the United States should be heading in these crucially important early years of the 21st century. In their different ways, Senators Clinton and Obama have shown themselves to be inspirational and at times even heroic figures. But neither has offered the vision that this moment in history demands.

We’re excited more by who they are than by what they’ve promised to do.

All the candidates have detailed policy proposals — masterpieces of minutiae.

But do we have any real sense of what Senator Obama will do to stop the stagnation of the middle class and resuscitate the American dream? Do we have any reason to believe that during a Clinton presidency we’ll see a transformation of the nation’s decaying infrastructure? Does John McCain have the stuff to lead us from a long debilitating period of dependence on foreign oil to a new and exciting world of energy efficiency and innovation?

The answers of course are no, no and fuck no. Small aside, yesterday I spoke to a program manager who is leading the effort to develop jet fuel (JP-8) from biofuels. During the course of the conversation, he let me know that the majority of the fuels would be derived from celluotic sources and that hydrocarbon-based fuels would still be percentages higher than that. Guess who owns the feedstock for cellulose based fuels? Monsanto. Guess who benefits from the hydrocarbon-based fuels? The oil companies. Now, I'm not picking on any of the candidates, but if you read the position papers of both our candidates guess where their positions align.

I'm afraid that the only things we may change are color of the skin and what's between the legs.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/opinion/09herbert.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

[BeyondGeography]

1. BS, Obama does have a big idea

It's called open government. Give the people the information they need to be informed while using the presidency to mobilize the grass roots and public opinion. That's how he'll encourage progressive change from the bottom-up.

One could say he doesn't talk enough about it (because it's too esoteric for primary season or maybe it doesn't poll as well as other easier to digest messages), but you can't say it's not a big idea.

[Aviation Pro]

3. BS....no he doesn't....

I've read all the papers, and it's the same platitudes and bullshit. Sorry, being progressive is nice and everything, but if you don't have the horses to pull the wagon you just stay in the same place. Same thing goes for Senator Clinton.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Don't even try to compare the two

Clinton has either fought or been indifferent to every meaningful piece of ethics or financing reform that has come down the pike in her Senate career whereas Obama has spent his entire legislative career initiating reform. For good measure, she even mocked Obama's 2006 lobbyist reform package at the NH debate.

Then again, you do get to see her tax returns AFTER she gets the nomination (maybe).

[MH1]

6. Um, yeah he does

That's why Lawrence Lessig endorsed him back in November.

http://lessig.org/blog/2007/11/4barack.html

First, and again, I know him, which means I know something of his character. "He is the real deal" has become my favorite new phrase. Everything about him, personally, is what you would dream a candidate should be. Integrity, brilliance, warmth, humor and most importantly, commitment. They all say they're all this. But for me, this part is easy, because about this one at least, I know.

Second, I believe in the policies. Clearly on the big issues -- the war and corruption. Obama has made his career fighting both. But also on the issues closest to me. As the technology document released today reveals, to anyone who reads it closely, Obama has committed himself to important and importantly balanced positions.

First the importantly balanced: You'll read he's a supporter of Net Neutrality. No surprise there. But read carefully what Net Neutrality for Obama is. There's no blanket ban on offering better service; the ban is on contracts that offer different terms to different providers for that better service. And there's no promise to police what's under the technical hood (beyond the commitment already articulated by Chairman Powell): This is a sensible and valuable Net Neutrality policy that shows a team keen to get it right -- which includes making it enforceable in an efficient way, even if not as radical as some possible friends would like.

Second, on the important: As you'll read, Obama has committed himself to a technology policy for government that could radically change how government works. The small part of that is simple efficiency -- the appointment with broad power of a CTO for the government, making the insanely backwards technology systems of government actually work.

But the big part of this is a commitment to making data about the government (as well as government data) publicly available in standard machine readable formats. The promise isn't just the naive promise that government websites will work better and reveal more. It is the really powerful promise to feed the data necessary for the Sunlights and the Maplights of the world to make government work better. Atomize (or RSS-ify) government data (votes, contributions, Members of Congress's calendars) and you enable the rest of us to make clear the economy of influence that is Washington.

After the debacle that is the last 7 years, the duty is upon the Democrats to be something different. I've been wildly critical of their sameness (remember "Dems to the Net: Go to hell" which earned me lots of friends in the Democratic party). I would give my left arm to be able to celebrate their difference. This man, Mr. Obama, would be that difference. He has as much support as I can give.

I haven't seen anything remotely like that from Clinton. And if you'll follow the link and read the rest of Lessig's endorsement, you'll see that he has good reason to believe she just doesn't get it (or doesn't want to do it).

[Aviation Pro]

2. Forgot the link....

...it's up.

[kentuck]

5. I agree.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4485914&mesg_id=4485914

[awaysidetraveler]

7. My understanding of what Obama will do to stop the stagnation of the middle class follows.

The big idea is to return the tax burden to shirking corporations and the rich, which is where it belongs.

That way they're the ones paying for this war and the deficit.

As the deficit reduces, we'll see a strengthening of our economy much like what we saw under Clinton.

For the most part, that's what we'll see under HRC as well.

The difference that he offers in terms of a strengthening of the middle class is in his grassroots understanding of what
needs to occur in our most impoverished communities. There, the government needs to invest: we need to invest in our schools and in our community-building programs. That's where the focus of American politics belongs.

I also agree with MHG's comment about transparency in government: that's important.

The New York Times is wrong to advocate HRC over Obama, in my opinion. Also, since they've done so, I've noticed a clear spin in their reporting. They tend not to acknowledge real differences in HRC's position and Obama's.

There is a stark difference in their war policy, and it deserves reflection.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4482617&mesg_id=4482617

This is an interesting post, however. Thanks for sharing.