Who Runs This Country, Anyway?

A brief rebuttal to the New York Times, which endorsed Hillary Clinton today (do they read their own columnists, I wonder?) with the claim that she was "better qualified" for the "Herculean" task of repairing the damage Bush has done to the country since the last time a Clinton was in the White House. "Herculean" I have no quibble with, particularly since a second President Clinton would be working against the legacy of inaction from her husband's tenure (we wouldn't be facing dramatic crises in health care, the environment, and political corruption if the 1990s had seen more decisive presidential commitment to solutions on these issues) as well as her own support, as a freshman senator, for some of President Bush's more devastating policies (NCLB and Iraq come to mind). Nor do I dispute their just criticisms of both Clintons' behavior on the campaign trail. And I can't argue with the statement that Hillary "overstates the importance of résumé."

Wait, which candidate were you supporting again?

Okay, okay, so for the premier establishment newspaper in the country, experience is the deciding card. While their lack of confidence in fresh blood is a little disappointing, the Times's endorsement is not what you could call surprising. They are a respectable pillar of the conventional East Coast political aristocracy, as invested in the standard top-down politics of the 20th century as any scion of the great lawmaking dynasties. Like the politicians who have run the country for 25 years by genteel wheeling and dealing among elites and their corporate allies, the Times is willing to accept a candidate with a history of embracing policies that are convenient and popular at the moment because she is the known quantity of the system they sell papers commenting on. For them to conceive of a system in which the actions of millions of rank-and-file citizens carried as much weight as the pocketbooks of a handful of lobbying interests would require a cognitive leap akin to putting a Red Sox victory on the front page. Obama's campaign, and the base of his political capital and the change he is leading in American society, is outside of this worldview. His supporters are breaking down the notion that policymaking is for politicians and passive complaining is for everybody else. Obama counters Clinton's Experience Card with the reminder that her experience is in a system that has been broken for years. If it's going to get fixed, it is going to take not just the leadership of a brilliant and pragmatic president, but the combined efforts of every one of the American people. Collectively we have over three hundred million lifetimes of experience making this country work for us: it's time we put that experience to work for our country.

The breadth and strength of this message and of Obama's grassroots coalition has challenged Clinton and every other candidate in the race--Republican as well as Democrat--to take ordinary and individual citizens more seriously than ever before. That the other hopefuls have taken up this strategy is a testament to Obama's astute connection with this historical moment, and it is changing the way national politics happen in ways that will leave the establishment scratching its head.

So stand back, New York Times, because there's a new system on the rise, and it belongs to us.