The burden of liberalism

Kimberly Strassel:

"If you want conventional Washington thinking, I'm not your man. If you want rigid ideology, I'm not your man. If you think that fundamental change can wait, I'm definitely not your man. But if you want to bring this country together . . . then I offer a different choice in this race and a different vision for our future."

-- Barack Obama, DePaul University, Oct. 2

Ask an Obama supporter what they love about the presidential contender, and some version of this pitch is what you'll hear. Mr. Obama can "heal divisions," can "win hearts and minds." He's going to change the way crummy old Washington does business, get past this red-versus-blue thing, and get on with being president of one truly United States of America.

If the Democratic race has been about anything, it's been about promises of "change." Mr. Obama has made it his signature issue, tapping into a national unease with the status quo, and riding it to within striking distance of Hillary Clinton. What the charismatic young Illinois senator has not yet had to do is explain what shape this change will assume, or how he intends to bring it about. And lucky for him, because it's far from clear Mr. Obama is anything but same old, same old.

Mrs. Clinton has also been laboring for "change," though she's kept the focus on Republicans. Her strategy has been to minimize divisions among the Democrats, presenting herself as their natural leader. She's also had an eye to the general election prize, where she hopes talk of George W. Bush's failings will hold appeal for independents, and some Republicans, unhappy with the eight years of GOP rule.

But it's been Mr. Obama's more sweeping message that has captured public attention. He's seen Mrs. Clinton's bet (to change which party runs the White House) and raised her (by promising to change the entire political calculus). That goes down well not only with anti-Bush partisans, but paradoxically with voters who complain about too much "partisanship" in Washington. As a bonus, it allows Mr. Obama to hit Mrs. Clinton where it hurts, namely voter fear that she'd be a return to 1990s battles.

The message is so strong that it has, remarkably, allowed Mr. Obama to so far weather his biggest weakness: lack of experience, especially on foreign policy. Everyone likes a fresh face, but voters have a way of trusting in the old, familiar ones in times of danger. Mrs. Clinton knows this, and has pounded Mr. Obama on his ability to protect us against terror. And yet Mr. Obama trundles along with his promise of a new political era.

What exactly is that new era? Washington is gridlocked in part because congressional Democrats have attempted to govern with an agenda that is too liberal even for many in their own party. Mr. Obama is captivating, though probably not captivating enough to convince Republican rivals to sign up for Nancy Pelosi's game plan. His only real tool for changing Washington presumably rests in convincing his own party to move toward a more innovative middle. Yet nothing in Mr. Obama's history, or current campaign, suggests he intends to forge a new Democratic direction.

...

I would like to see Democrats change. I want them to not just change liberal policies into "progressive" policies. they need to recognize that liberalism is a deeply flawed concept that fails on so many levels that it does not help to disguise liberalism with new names and poll tested arguments for liberal greed.

What Obama really represents is the latest repackaging of the same old liberalism. At its heart, it is still about liberal control freaks running everyones' life through government programs and mandates. Is there one liberal or "progressive" program that promotes freedom? If so, it is hard to find it on the agenda of Obama or other Democrats.