When hope is not enough
BARACK OBAMA is promising to change politics as usual in America. As Massachusetts already knows, that can be one tough promise to keep.
Last year, Deval Patrick promised to do the same, when he ran for governor. Voters bought the message, making him the first Democrat in 16 years to win the corner office, and the first black candidate to do so. Symbolically, Patrick's election represented dramatic change for this commonwealth. But his first year in office shows that it can be hard to get beyond being the face of change, to actually changing politics.
Viewed from the Bay State, the similarities between Obama and Patrick are striking. They go beyond skin color, personal charm, Harvard educations, Chicago connections, and a shared political consultant, David Axelrod. Obama's message during last week's visit to the Globe was an echo of Patrick's: hope versus fear, the power of a less partisan agenda, and the appeal of a less polarizing tone. Of course, Obama already test-marketed that message in his 2004 run for US Senate and memorialized it in his book "The Audacity of Hope."
Patrick, who had never held elective office, made rookie mistakes. Relatively minor indulgences, such as redecorating his office and leasing a Cadillac, played like politics as usual. Then, when he needed to practice a bit of politics as usual, he didn't. Democrats who control the Massachusetts Legislature ignored virtually every major budget and policy initiative presented by a fellow Democrat. Patrick's supporters insist he laid the foundation for substantive change. But in the wake of big expectations for a new administration, even some supporters are disappointed in his missteps, along with aspects of his agenda, such as bringing casino gambling to Massachusetts.
Symbolically, Obama's election as president would amount to even more dramatic change. Obama has held elective office on the state and national level, so he has much more political experience than a neophyte like Patrick. An Obama White House would signal the start of a fresh political era for a country long divided by race, and that could be change enough. His agenda would certainly differ from the Bush agenda. But what would Obama actually change that rival Democrats wouldn't? And why should voters believe that he has special powers to accomplish those changes?
During his recent visit to the Globe, Obama was asked if the change he is talking about is more style than substance, and if that is the real distinction between him and Hillary Clinton, his chief rival. "I'm not sure you can separate out the policy from the atmospherics in the sense that all of us are talking to the same experts," he replied. He went on to say, "During the course of a campaign, there is going to be a strong convergence in a Democratic primary on various issues."
In other words, yes, the major difference with Clinton is one of style, not substance - Obama's "being able to work both sides of the aisle," versus her alleged inability. Of course, there's no absolute certainty a Congress controlled by Democrats would go along with an Obama agenda any more than a state Legislature controlled by Democrats went along with Patrick's. From Beacon Hill to Washington, ego has a way of kicking in.
Asked for evidence of experience in shepherding initiatives in Congress, Obama mentioned work he has done on nuclear nonproliferation and ethics reform. Then, he gently complained about editorial boards who question his experience, all the while "fulminating about how incompetent Washington is. And yet the question becomes, why haven't you gotten more fully steeped in this culture that is dysfunctional in order to qualify you for bringing about change in Washington?"
Like Patrick, Obama appeals to voters' better instincts for common ground. It's a seductive appeal; according to some recent polling, voters could be ready to break for change versus experience.
It's a long way from Iowa to the Oval Office. But if Obama won the nomination and then the presidency, he would face even bigger expectations than the governor of Massachusetts, more powerful special interests, and deeper cultural and political schisms.
Obama is asking voters to trust that he is the one who can pull off this magic trick, via personal charm and hopeful rhetoric.
As is often noted, Massachusetts is not America. But even here, hope is not yet enough to dramatically change government, politics or minds.
The change is Obama. Obama is the change. Maybe.
Joan Vennochi's e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com.
