Obama's approach invokes the powerful political tools of reconciliation and compromise, which have long gone unused in Washington. We need more efficient government. Achieving change will require more than electing a new President.

::::::::

We clearly need a lot of change in domestic policies, and Obama must be given time and support to achieve a new direction.

If people are to feel disappointed with Obama, the cause will most likely be a sense that Obama has abandoned them. We will only know the extent of Obama's real concern with the less fortunate once he's in office.

If evidence of change is slow-coming, it could indicate Obama's changes may be less radical. Or a failure to implement change could simply mean the government is slow to change. Until the results begin to come in, and are carefully dissected for their effectiveness, we can't assume Obama's regime is an effort to revive Bill Clinton's.

Several of Obama's advisers do bring a lot of baggage. I think this attests more to the way Washington does business than any act of misrepresentation by the new administration. Any President seeking change needs to work within the context of a bureaucratic system.

Policy changes might be best adopted by using insiders to advance specific components of Obama's agenda piecemeal, winning over the Beltway over time.

In order to change the system, Obama could have brought in outsiders, but has sided instead with Clinton-era "known quantities." Obama's appointments have sent a very friendly message to Washington insiders, which could indicate that he's got a good feeling for how Washington works, and isn't afraid to work through existing channels to get things done.

The chief benefit of such an approach is consolidation and coordination of existing resources. The US government can do a better job of running itself. For far too long, partisan loyalties have been placed ahead of competence. It shows nowhere better than in the haphazard relief package granted the banks, which stinks of a putrid blend of bureaucratic inefficiency and naked cronyism.

People from outside the Beltway who come in with constructive agendas for change get swallowed up by Washington. Its culture is too power-obsessed to relinquish it, even if the cost to American society is far higher as a result of inadequate or delayed action. Obama can't afford to alienate the government which he will lead.

The huge bureaucracies that run the government tend to look on the Old Guard rather fondly. By recycling Clinton-era folks, Obama can reassures rank and file bureaucrats that changes at the top won't mean they'll all get tossed out of their jobs, if such a thing were even possible.

Some Bush appointees have been "wormed" into the ranks of lower-rung Federal employees whose jobs enjoy restrictive covenants on firing, thanks to collective bargaining provisions by federal employee unions. Bush appointees will try to derail whatever plans Obama has.

The best example of avoiding political risk is J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI, who throughout numerous changes in government kept his statutory rank at least three spots from the top, to avoid appearing too close to one administration out of fear of alienating another.

Bringing Clinton-era people back has not been without its risks. Critics of the last administration have re-emerged; also the old animosities directed at the Clintons have resurrected themselves. Exposing himself to these criticisms must be a risk Obama considers worth taking in order to advance his agenda.

Rather than represent an abandonment of Obama's campaign positions, these appointments demonstrate an acute awareness of the importance of making friends and winning over enemies.

"Even the purest of romantics compromise." -Grateful Dead, Victim or the Crime

Obama has already received a great deal of criticism. Thankfully, so far there's been no widespread backlash for the appointments among his more ardent supporters.  Still, I'm concerned that due to their general lack of political experience, many of his supporters might not grasp the nature of political expediency. That's the theory that all politicians will act in their own interest first.

All politicians compromise. To achieve political goals, Obama needs to set his own pace, and compromise. Yes, compromise is the ultimate political expediency--give up some of what you want in order to fulfill other more important goals. 

Picking former Clinton people for key cabinet positions is an example of political expediency. There is the obvious risks that Clinton could use her perch within the Cabinet to pick fights, or seed division and distrust. Then again bringing Clinton onboard could allow Obama advisers to more quickly coalesce around the new administration, and achieve more, faster.

Personally, I can't say where Obama's headed, but his recent picks are clearly trying not to change Washington, but revert back to Clinton-era norms which honestly weren't too bad. Yes, there were numerous issues, but Clinton years don't look too bad right now. Anti-government partisans in the alternative media have brought out old conspiracy theories about the Clintons, everything from Vince Foster's "alleged" suicide to Kosovo.

Yes, there are Clinton skeletons in the closet. Hillary Clinton is also part of the establishment Obama appears intent on restoring through his picks. Hillary was awarded a tremendous number of votes and commands a large following. To ignore or 'dis her now might not bode well for party unity under the new President. Yet many ardent Obama fanatics might see the reconciliation as weakness, an affront to the purity of their ideology, being that Clinton opposed their candidate in the Presidency.

Anti-Clinton folks might say that her vote supporting the Iraq war demonstrates her allegiance to Bush policies. Perhaps. I do remember a lot of smart people getting suckered in to voting for the war. Hearing the quiet voice of caution is hard amid the clamor of war drums and post-9/11 hysteria, channeled by the Bush administration and all its "intelligence."

I see in the choice of Clinton (remember this is not Bill but someone quite different) an effort to placate her followers, perhaps in a way that least threatens Obama's base of power which is clearly his domestic policy agenda. With so many in the Clinton camp obviously voting for him, extending a reward to her was a shrewd political move.

Appointing Clinton to Secretary of State acknowledges her power, and follows the axiom that it is better to keep one's friends close, but one's enemies closer still. The two appear good friends but politics will be played in Washington nonetheless.

Washington Elite vs. the Public

The relationships between those in power run deep and transcend political affiliation. We saw this in the recent Ted Stevens trial, where his friend Senator Inouye from Hawaii testified on his behalf, saying whatever Stevens said can be "taken to the bank." [source]

Washington's critics could say that all this mutual appreciation is evidence of a Star Chamber, a network composed of cross-affiliated clusters where social bonds transcend political allegiances. They would claim Inouye's defense of Senator Stevens proves that "they" are all in it together, trying to protect their friends in a web of loyalty that makes a mockery out of their job to represent the people. It's simply the way Washington does business, they might explain.

Social bonds can overcome political affiliations. Perhaps they should. Americans who perform the same job together long enough are bound to become friends.

Political differences shouldn't preclude the possibility of friendship, at any level. Ultimately we will need all Americans, Red or Blue, to work with each other in order to produce real change (oh no, I'm beginning to sound like them...) This cooperation has been sadly lacking, and people need to feel they can come together and make a difference despite their differences.

Friendship isn't evidence of a conspiracy to defraud the public. Complain as critics might about Washington, transcending political differences can from time to time produce positive results. During the Presidential campaign, John McCain stood up to defend Obama when a room of GOP stalwarts got testy up in Wisconsin, calling Obama "dangerous." Right to their hate-filled faces, McCain said Obama was an honorable man, not an easy thing to do in the midst of a heated election race.

Membership in the very exclusive Senate does create relationships which distinguish Senators from more ignorant voters. Those close to power do cling to one another, and avoid more crude partisan rivalries, although McCain did in fact challenge a fellow Senator to a fistfight at one point, but maybe that's just McCain's infamous temper.

Separation has come not between the American people but between them and their political leaders. Even with eight years of Bush exacerbating and working on our differences, the American people have more in common than opposed. Our political leaders--from both parties--have more in common with each other than with the people they represent. They are in short, the elite, maintainers of the Establishment.

Under Bush, so firmly have the partisan lines been drawn that we can't see how much we all have in common, how deeply our futures are intertwined. We have common interests that transcend partisan ideologies. No President can disconnect us from each other, although I'm sure that's how many have felt under Bush: isolated and unloved. 

Rather than simply disenfranchise the political opposition, Barak Obama seems willing to embrace it. Rather than thrust the losers into the corner, like Bush did, Obama seems willing to contemplate some positions held by the Republicans, even to the point of threatening his popularity with the progressive base that brought him to power.

Out of so much political partisanship has grown a fundamental distrust about far more than politics. Many are disaffected, not just with the direction of the country or its economy, but with how our country is managed. Many feel betrayed by their politicians, and Congress' popularity has sunk, but individually we tend to think that our representatives are fine and reelect them.

Obama's victory speech delivered on the night of his election in Grant Park spoke of reconciliation rather than revenge. Many of us probably thirsted for a bit more Republican-bashing, especially in the heat of the moment. Yet Barack restrained us, made us "make up" and play nice. Obama has demonstrated his patience, and grace, acting like a parent would in dealing with a pair of feuding children. We owe it to him to extend ours.

Change not here yet

Inexperienced voters might assume that getting Obama elected is the grand accomplishment, the be-all and end-all, a culmination of all that hard work. 

Let's get real. This particular transfer of power is only one turn in a revolving door that's gone on since the beginning of human history. Every new chieftain, king, prime minister and President has brought their own set of hopes and dreams. All too many go unfulfilled, casualties of internal squabbles, economic necessity, or some setback or another.

We risk putting Obama on a pedestal, lifting our expectations beyond the capabilities of any mortal. Obama is not a celebrity, though he has been packaged as such. So much of our media-crazed society revolves around celebrity worship. Celebrity worshippers objectify the celebrity, inflate them into figures of gigantic proportion and style epitomized by their image presented through the media. The celebrity is objectified, and turned into some kind of superhuman they aren't nor could ever be.

Nobel laureate Alice Walker explains this issue in her open letter to Obama. [Preferable to reading is listening to the author's own words, available on the DemocracyNow podcast from November 11th through iTunes or the mp3 can be downloaded at the DN site.] Obama will need to keep focused on his family, and his inner compass pointed in the right direction if he's to succeed.

I do think Obama is flawed yet he's begun to face a torrent of criticism before he's assumed office. I have criticisms of Obama, I think we all probably do. Can't we just wait a little bit longer before rejecting his approach?

I wouldn't confuse disagreeing with Obama's decisions to contradictions within his moral principles or disavowed campaign promises. It's too early to say that Obama has betrayed progressive principles. Obama's picks do tempt a lot of skeptics about him, many of whom may have held their viewpoints secret out of fear that McCain might win.

All progressives hope that Obama can succeed, and that's is the true power of political change. We can't just accept that Obama will change the world. Rather all Americans need to push issues and get informed. As Ghandi said, "be the change you want to see in the world." Exercised collectively, the confidence which we place in our new leader gives us reason for hope and optimism--the fuel needed to mobilize people and get them to accept the need for changes.

The end of Bush's reign might not be enough to bring change. It's not like Washington's inner desire for change has been imprisoned all these years and is ready to crawl out. Yet still Obama's achievement has birthed a sense of optimism, of what can be. Simply complaining about Obama's flaws won't achieve much, nor will Obama's election by itself produce real change.

Obama can't change anything without lots of friends and lots of help. His administration seems to acknowledge this. Obama likes to build consensus, and therefore he likes to reconcile with potential rivals. This is an approach which sees conflict and tension as bad energy which will produce bad results. In this regard, retaining Defense Secretary Bates might be a olive branch to the defeated, as well as a nod to the risks of trying to change what's become an exit plan in Iraq.

Obama clearly values the benefits of cooperation and respect for other's opinions. People with different or opposing viewpoints aren't challenged, mocked, or overcome but rather listened to and respected. That in itself is a massive change from the Bush years.

Maybe Obama is the anti-Bush, wielding positive energy like Bush used his malevolence. Or maybe he's just a man who believes in the power of respecting our differences. By agreeing to disagree we can do so much more.

Modern Americans have shunned political discourse and remain uninvolved and apathetic about the way our country is run. This disaffection has elevated partisanship and turned it into a winner-take-all extravaganza, with pain and sorrow for the loser. Left to partisans, this has heightened the Red-Blue divide.

It's time now to turn from our unfortunate tendency to shun our political differences as a symbol of divisiveness. Instead we should embrace differing opinions, not crush or be intolerant of them. We should cherish the latitude with which we can express such a wide range of opinions in our nation, not cower from the passions they might arise.

Tolerance is the true language of diversification--ultimately its greatest contribution to learning and cooperation available to everyone in our society. Opening up and talking politics should be a prized method of social interaction, not a topic of conversation to be avoided. At the end of the debate we need to agree that we don't see eye-to-eye and accept that's part of being American. At the same time we shouldn't be so uncompromising in our own positions that we disregard the opinions of others.

Authors Bio:

The author lives in Colorado, photographing the natural beauty of the Rocky Mountains.

Politically, John's an X generation independent with a blend of traditional American and progressive values. He is fiscally conservative and believes in small but efficient government.

He opposes all hard power intervention in the Middle East unless the U.S. faces a direct security threat. Peace between Muslims and non-Muslims will be necessary to achieve peace in the region.