I was struck by something as I listened to President Obama speaking in Elyria, Ohio, last Friday, at one of the occasional townhalls he has held out in Ohio whenever he deems it important to get out of Washington and be seen "connecting" with the public. It wasn't just Obama's constant use of the refrain "I'll never stop fighting for you." (My friend David Corn notes he used the word "fighting" 14 times in his prepared remarks.) It was how often he said "I."

I didn't run for President to turn away from these challenges. I didn't run for President to kick them down the road. I ran for President to confront them - once and for all. I ran for this office to rebuild our economy so it works not just for a fortunate few, but for hardworking people in this country....I had no illusions when I took on health care....I took this up because I want to ease the burdens on all the families and small businesses that can't afford to pay outrageous rates. I want to protect mothers, fathers, children from being targeted by the worst practices of the insurance industry.
I will do this for you; I will continue doing that for you. The first person singular is laced through the speech. Same with his use of the word "we." It's not the formulation that goes with "we are all in this together," another signature Obama phrase that is more inclusive of the public (and a direct ideological response to the Right's "leave me alone" politics). Obama's use of "we" was in the royal sense:
We also passed a Recovery Act to pull our economy back from the brink. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working Americans - 15 different tax cuts for working families and 7 different tax cuts for small businesses so they can start up, and grow, and hire. We extended and increased unemployment insurance. We made COBRA cheaper. We gave aid to states to help them through these tough times. We made the largest investment in infrastructure since the creation of the Interstate Highway System, putting Americans to work rebuilding our roads, bridges and waterways, doing the work America needs done.
What was missing from Obama's speech in Elyria: any mention of the word "us." The relationship between the President and his public--at least at this event in Ohio--is completely transactional. Contrast this to his remarks on Election Night 2008:
This victory alone is not the change we seek - it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you. So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, its that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers - in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.
In that speech, Obama used the phrase "let us" five times, and the word "us" appears a total of 13 times. And he weaves a communal narrative of change and hope, wherein his election is subsumed in a much larger story of progress in America, one that steadily encompasses more people and summons the country to higher goals, and one that requires public participation in making change real.
I don't know if all of that was just rhetoric, or if Obama has been ground down by a year of living in the White House bubble. But while there have been some interesting changes in tone (supposedly in a more "populist" direction), priorities ("we want our money back" from the banks), and staffing (David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, is now said to be playing a larger role as an outside political advisor to the President), there still seems to a be a big disconnect here. Obama seems to have forgotten that he was elected to do more than deliver bacon to kitchen tables, but to also change how the country works. The open, networked, participatory nature of the Internet ought to be his guide; but despite some valiant efforts inside his Administration in that direction, it looks like Obama himself is stuck in a very old groove, one that has captured every one of his predecessors.
Comments
What happened to 'US'?
Maybe it's that vision of Obama as Rorschach test. That idea has popped up in a lot of places, apparently starting with Obama himself.
I guess the idea is -- speak in rapturous ideal generalities, and everybody can project their favorite dreams into your image.
Maybe that's why his millions of excited followers saw him in so many different ways, but seemed to come together "in one accord" on those brilliant nights a year ago. Maybe that's why they are splintering in so many separate directions today.
For me, this article by Micah Sifrey resonates pretty good. I see it pretty much the same way. As a network developer and long-time advocate of "the cybernetic optimization of democracy" (or something like that), I thought the MyBO system was an awesome new potential in a world that needs some better ways to do things.
In my little Rorschach test, the thing I projected into his generalities -- was the potential for "fixing a broken politics". I had started off about 2006 with Joe Klein's "Politics Lost: How American Democracy Was Trivialized by People Who Think You Are Stupid" -- and with a background in what is often called "group process" -- I figured that our emerging new insights, plus the amazing technical potentials of MyBO and its ilk, could rescue our country from its fragmentation and shattering anger. Collective intelligence, everybody on the same team. Not red states, not blue states, but United States. "Form a more perfect union". This is the message I was hearing -- the message I wanted to hear.
The way it looks to me today is -- if we want the Obama dream to come true, it's going to be up to us. He IS "in the bubble" -- he said so himself on Friday in Ohio. But it's so true -- what happened to this "community organizer" and bottom-up listener-to-all-voices when he got locked in the Oval Office or Air Force One? He lost contact with that huge grass-roots constituency, and without a thousand voices to organize and bring into resonance, he reached for the establishment, and surrounded himself with them. Not an ideologue, maybe always dependent for an action agenda on his circle of advisers, he just got into the business of convening the people around him, instead of sticking to his core message. Now he's taking direction from them, and Joe Klein's thesis is just as true as ever.
So for me today, one year in, it's time to take a flying crack at something new. We're playing with the idea now -- a "fast click purple alliance" with a short-burst message length -- maybe not 140 characters, but who knows, maybe an internet-wide message-length convention would be a good thing.
What issues concern you? Check all that apply. What do you want to do about them? Check the agenda points entered by the leading organizations and voices in the USA...
Not a "new political party" -- but maybe something like a digital "Common Cause" -- a way to take on every issue of concern, bringing together every voice -- red, blue, yellow, green, up, left, sideways....
My instinct is -- something like this is going to work. The bandwidth in conventional politics is hugely small. The decision-control for the western world is funneled through Robert Gibbs and a few elite reporters. It don't work so great. We need bandwidth, big-time. We need a million engaged voices. We need fast-click synchronization on all sides of 5,000 critical issues.
Just an experiment -- but there seems to be a lot of drive in this direction. Thanks for this good article.
http://purplealliance.us
- Bruce Schuman, Santa Barbara CA
Bruce Schuman
The Purple Alliance - http://purplealliance.us
PO Box 23346, Santa Barbara CA 93121
(805) 966-9515