February 2009

Issue 1, Volume 7

Faced with no election to cover, and no daily polls or sound bytes to broadcast, most of the mainstream media has refocused its coverage on the formation of the Obama administration, and while it is comical and intriguing to watch the talking heads sift through “leaks” and other tidbits from unreliable sources, I find it prudent, even necessary, to comment on a common theme that the pundits continue to put forth.

The main observation from the commentators is that the Obama administration is being pieced together with ex-Clinton staffers. From this observation, the pundits conclude, there is no change. Rather, it is just more of the same politics that Barack Obama ran against. This is ignorant and vacuous on a level that is almost unattainable even for mainstream news.

Since the 1976 election, every change-of-party administration has been filled with inexperienced and naïve staffers, who knew nothing of Washington or how to work within its sphere, but possessed the belief that they were “changers”, that they had some ability or charisma that was unique to them, that had not been held by any of their predecessors, that allowed them to have some revolutionary scope of power within the government. These beliefs were malarkey, plain and simple.

Washington is an old-school city, run by old-school politicians. Even a resounding victory by a groundbreaking outsider will not change this. Let us not lose our sense of history either. Obama is certainly the least stereotypical candidate to attain the presidency, but his themes, his positions, his policy, and his demeanor definitely reflect the same master plan as previous holders of the position.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter ran as an outsider, someone far away from the corruption of the Watergate scandal, and won. In 1980, Ronald Regan galvanized a revolution of new conservative thinkers and ran as a traditionalist, someone far enough away from Washington to be immune to the jaded pettiness. He won as well. Clinton ran as a moderate Democrat, somebody who sought to blend the neo-conservative and liberal movements and someone who was folksy and blue-collar enough to understand the working man. And then George W. Bush ran as a “uniter, not a divider”, a pragmatist and a realist. He ran as someone who was ready to cut through D.C. balderdash, get some real work done, and then grab a brew. All of those candidates won against established Washington politicians, where enthusiasm and practicality trumped experience. Voters sought someone who was from outside the Beltway, because anyone inside of it had been too institutionalized and too “Washington” to have any real effect or create any real change.

However, Carter, Regan, Clinton, and Bush, as well as their supporters, found out that Washington was an institution, a one-way street with a strict set of rules for progress. It was foolish for anyone to think that they could come to a 200-year-old game, with no one that knew the rules, and expect to win. Carter faltered badly. He quarreled with a Democratically-controlled Congress over pork-barrel spending, and then looked foolish and ineffective when his water project reforms got shot down.

Clinton ran into immediate trouble when he tried to implement his “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy for opening the military to homosexuals, and again later when he started championing NAFTA. Both of the measures were put into practice, but not without serious concessions and loss of face.

George W. Bush also faced trouble, expending much of his valuable political capital on the bungled recovery of U.S. pilots captured by the Chinese and pushing the No Child Left Behind Act. In fact, the NCLBA would have died in Congress if it weren't for the tragedies of 9/11 that shifted the nation's focus and finally gave a direction to what had been a previously listless administration.

The point is that it is ludicrous to assume that someone with little experience in national politics would be able to govern and implement his way on a system that is very reluctant to change, filled up with entrenched, institutionalized members. The enthusiasm for new change needs to be matched with an experienced administration, one that knows how to dictate and shape the situation, so that that new change can begin to occur.

In baseball, when you call on a rookie to start game seven of the World Series, do you select a rookie catcher as his battery-mate? No, you select the steely veteran, the Jason Varitek or Johnny Bench, someone who is deeply knowledgeable in the game and in the opponents' weaknesses. The catcher calls the pitch that his experience leads him to believe would be successful, and the rookie executes a strong offering.

And now, as Obama faces the first test of his administration, we will see if the accumulated experience of his Cabinet and his senior staff help him avoid the stumbles his predecessors suffered. We shall see if the rookie president truly brought the veterans to play.

Chris Loomis is a freshman PPL major.