Political Change Part 1 - 2008 Campaign Rhetoric

The country seems decidedly ready for change, or so the candidates for the 2008 presidential election tell us. This is not all that surprising: the public and the Administration grow tired (of one another) as any two-term presidency winds down. The Bush presidency, in particular, has been wearing: its results include a costly, unpopular, and, until very recently, poorly executed war in Iraq, a steady stream of financial and political scandals, aggressive assertions of executive power; a stumbling economy, and broad public anxiety over the country’s direction and well-being. A divided and ineffectual Congress has certainly not helped matters.

On the Democratic side of the presidential campaign, Senator Barack Obama positions himself as the only credible agent of wholesale change - unifying a polarized country, restoring our battered moral standing in the global community, reforming Washington. As a new Senator, his actual legislative record at proposing and shepherding change is undistinguished. Senator John Edwards has staked out a populist position, declaring war on the special interests that govern Washington and the political process today. Senator Hilary Clinton asserts that only she has the experience, political skills, and will to carry out the hard work that is actually necessary to bring change about. In particular, she claims to have learned much from her failure to carry out radical healthcare change during her husband’s presidency.

The Republican candidates have also sensed the public mood and also espouse change - to the extent that they can within the constraints of party loyalty and ideological affinity with the waning Administration. Governor Romney, while generally aligning himself with President Bush, has parted ways on the divisive issue of immigration and is currently justifying his own status as change agent by referring to his consulting and Olympics turnaround credentials. He conveniently ignores his ineffectiveness at change and rapid disengagement from politics during his tenure in Massachusetts. Senator McCain can fairly lay claim to substantive credentials for political change (successful campaign spending reform, efforts on immigration reform), and has developed the widespread reputation for integrity and character to drive the trust and respect required by true change agents.

My concerns here center on a reality check on the torrent of change rhetoric. How much of it is sincere? How much is disingenuous posturing for political differentiation? Of the calls for policy change that are sincere, how many are naïve and unattainable? How much of the public genuinely wants change (in what areas)? And how ready are they to support the upheavals typically involved in achieving significant change? The venerable Chinese curse likely applies here: “May you get what you wish for.”

This note is the first in a series of reflections on political change. It explores the observation that is central to Senator Clinton’s pragmatic stance: change, however necessary or desirable it may be, requires experience and very hard work to bring about. In particular, I am troubled by Senator Obama’s idealistic, almost “spiritual” approach to change, which appears take the form: “If we propose it, the public will come and we will (somehow) make it happen”. In this connection, strong faith and optimism, however admirable, are generally insufficient to address the pragmatic obstacles standing in the way of effecting substantive change.

It is instructive to start by looking at recent history. Of particular relevance here is an article by Charles P. Pierce reviewing Governor Deval Patrick’s first year as the Governor of Massachusetts in the Boston Globe Sunday Magazine (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/01/13/the_mis_education_of_deval_patrick/).

Governor Patrick ran the same kind of idealistic outsider/underdog campaign that is being conducted by Senator Obama. Not surprisingly, Patrick has been an emphatic supporter and advocate for Obama on the campaign trail. Patrick took the Governor’s seat after many years of Republican predecessors and a State House perennially dominated by the Democratic Party. His background includes stints as a civil rights attorney, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the Clinton Administration. He later worked as a corporate lawyer and counsel/executive at Texaco and Coca Cola. He was elected in 2006 with 56% in a four-way race, beating his Republican opponent by 20%. His election nominally provided a strong mandate for policy changes and a government more strongly aligned along shared political party lines.

And yet, as Pierce recounts, change - and the competence to bring it about - has been slow to come from the Patrick Administration. He began his tenure with a remarkably insensitive series of public relations missteps of gratuitous spending for a luxury car lease, costly office decorations, and a highly paid assistant for his wife. He inflicted a more serious political injury on himself by intervening with a major bank on behalf of a troubled mortgage company with which he had prior business ties. The cumulative effect was to damage his “outsider” image, public support and confidence. He managed to recover respectably by mid-year, largely by replacing his staff of former campaign team members and political novices with government veterans to guide operations.

On the political front, Governor Patrick was slow to cultivate relationships with State House leaders, which resulted in the Legislature’s rejection of his policy initiatives to close corporate tax loopholes and realign spending for education, the environment, and other social needs. Again, he was able to regroup and develop more collaborative relationships with legislative leaders. Policy achievements include funding to promote life science business development, defeat of an amendment to overturn gay marriage, and favorable consideration of his budget priorities. Patrick recently embarked on a controversial initiative to license multiple casinos in Massachusetts as a means to raise badly needed revenues to support critical infrastructure repairs and his social spending goals. Although financially attractive, his plans face considerable opposition within the State House and in many segments of the public. Positioning the benefits of casinos and establishing suitable alliances will be critical for succeeding in his strategy. The stakes are high: failure here will certainly impact his ability to pursue other ideas on his ambitious policy agenda.

It is obviously too soon to pass a verdict on Governor Patrick’s performance as an agent of change. The price that invariably seems due in exchange for outsider idealism, energy, and optimism is an education in the harsh realities of political processes and the amassing and application of political power. Patrick no doubt is drawing his own lessons, adapting his approach and priorities, and getting on with the business of winning and losing battles for change.

It is reasonable to expect that the next President will face considerably more daunting challenges than Governor Patrick faced in Massachusetts. He or she will need to come up to speed quickly and work with a sharply divided Congress to bring about national-level change to address urgent domestic and international problems. Barring an unexpectedly wide margin of victory and major shifts in Congressional seats, the new President is unlikely to have a mandate on par with Patrick to drive their agenda for change.

Returning to our theme, change is very difficult, even given political acuity and reservoirs of political capital. Many of the current presidential candidates are skilled at the rhetoric of change. A critical criterion for voters, it seems to me, is "Which candidates demonstrate a serious understanding of the mechanics of change?" Lacking this (and barring fast learning by outsiders), campaign proposals for change, however innovative, are little more than posturing. Our country can ill afford such distractions.

What, then, are the “mechanics of change”? My inclination to approaching this question is to model political change explicitly as a process. Models, if they can be confirmed, offer several valuable capabilities:
· Explaining the results of past efforts at change
· Predicting the likelihood of success for current and future initiatives
· Guiding change agents to increase their effectiveness

A process framework for political change needs to address a broad set of questions, including the following: Who and what motivates particular calls for change? Within a given society, what are the prescribed methods or procedures for effecting change? How do they work in practice? And lastly, how must change be implemented to ensure that it occurs as it was intended?

Fortunately, the heavy lifting for such a framework has already been done. My next installment will review a powerful process model of political change in the United States Government developed by Dr. John Kingdon. Supported by extensive field research on major US legislation, Dr Kingdon paints a plausible picture of the “sausage factory” of political change in this country. Please stay tuned.