Swinging Pendelums and Cuckoo Clocks

In a recent discussion with a good friend, he wondered aloud if McCain and Obama were not simply flip sides of the same coin. In other words, could either of them really offer deep structural change? Who really believes that lobbyists are going to disappear from Washington and corporate interests will no longer hold sway over congress? What is this if not a nation of special interests? That, I'm afraid, is the nature of the beast in Washington. My friend further suggested that only Ron Paul was proposing real systemic change (note to self, pay more attention to Ron Paul). I find that, in many ways, my amigo is right. More than a few commentators have, in fact, observed that for all the talk of post-partisanship, both candidates have descended into conventionally Democratic and Republic stances. So the question is are we really going to get change with either Obama or McCain?

If my friend is right, and I am afraid he is, the new world order is going to look surprisingly like the old one and there are going to be many disappointed idealists. There is, however, a reason for this systemic resistance to change: the system is rigged to prevent rapid change in order to maintain institutional stability (or sluggishness as you may see it). The founding fathers realized that not all bright ideas turn out to be great ideas after all. Privatized social security anyone?

The advantage of the American system has been that the institution is stronger than the individual. Furthermore, the binary party system, which has resisted intrusion from third parties, is set up to accept change insofar as it is the swing of a pendulum back and forth. When the pendulum swings too far in one direction, the American people can, if they are so inclined, push it back in the other direction. See the regulation or deregulation of markets for instance.

The question for the American people is whether they want to swing the direction of the pendulum or they are asking for a new watchmaker. Ron Paul and some of his less successful counterparts certainly propose rebuilding the clock but what if they break it? The polls so far suggest that the American people want change as long as it isn't accompanied by instability: evolution not revolution. Sorry Ron Paul.

By the way, do not be confused by John McCain's presence in this election; the pendulum swing that an Obama candidacy exists to counter is the Bush administration's not John McCain's (hence Obama's attempts to declare McCain as the 3rd Bush term). McCain is sort of the cuckoo that pops out and distracts you from noticing the swinging pendulum. While fair-minded observers will credit McCain as a politician who is willing to strike it out on his own (hence the maverick label), he still has to drag the right-wing base of the Republican party along with him--witness the Republic convention and the selection of Sarah Palin.

So while Obama appears to be competing against McCain, you can only truly understand his emergence and the passion of his supporters if you see him as the anti-Bush, the pendulum swing in the other direction. For every undesirable Bush trait, he seems to offer a corrective. Where Bush appeared to make decisions impulsively and speak in simple anemic sentences, Obama appears to weigh every utterance considerably and speak in thoughtful paragraphs (an asset that is likely to be a liability in the debates). While Bush operates on the global scene like a cowboy on his ranch, Obama seems to see the global community as faculty lounge where all can be reasoned with. For Bush, the constitution is an inconvenience to be maneuvered around, while for Obama it has been object of study as a constitutional lawyer.



Obama could only happen in American politics because Bush happened in American governance. Just as Bush's mindset and worldview brought its consequences, so will Obama's modus operandi, some good, some bad. The only real question is has the pendulum swung far enough to the right for change.