To be a bit clearer on the point of my post comparing Obama and Edwards (it was written late at night), it's not that I think it possible, or even healthy, for the country to have some long period of confession and absolution after the Bush years. But I do worry that the desire for change is more a plea for new management than radically different policies. What always attracted me to the Edwards campaign was that he understood that elections were, on one level, about winning, but on another level about constructing a national mandate for your policy agenda. As unions say, it's useless to win the election if you can't also win the contract. But Obama, locked in a primary of small differences, hasn't exhibited the same ferocious commitment to specific policies, and has instead spoken mostly of a higher politics. Some murmur that the plan against McCain is to do rather the opposite. For McCain and Obama, the small differences actually lie in their shared vision for a better politics, while their policy visions are worlds apart. Thus, many say that Obama will run a much more policy-driven campaign in the general, dedicated to building a mandate for his agenda. I hope so. Andy Stern has a line that I've been thinking about a lot lately. "Change," he says, "is inevitable. But progress is not." There's no doubt that, come January of 2009, there will be change. The question is whether the election will have provided certainty and consensus as to whether there'll be progress.
