The New American Revolution

Beginning today, Sen. Barack Obama should start calling his presidential campaign "The New American Revolution." As in, "My campaign offers change to the American people, change so fundamental that it amounts to a New American Revolution."

As David Brooks wrote in Friday's New York Times: "Barack Obama had a theory. It was that the voters are tired of the partisan paralysis of the last 20 years. The theory was that if Obama could inspire a grass-roots movement with a new kind of leadership, he could ride it to the White House and end gridlock in Washington."

The key words there are "inspire," and "a new kind of leadership." Brooks wrote that Obama's entire campaign was built on bringing this message to the people, and it was working:

"He's claimed that there's an 'awakening' in this country – people 'hungry for a different kind of politics.' It has brought millions of new voters into politics. It has given him grounds to fend off attacks. In debate after debate, he has accused Hillary Clinton and others of practicing the old kind of politics. When he was under assault in South Carolina, he rose above the barrage and made the Clintons look sleazy."

Obama knew, Brooks pointed out, that, to sustain the message, he had to remain scrupulously above the barrage. No use inspiring people to turn their backs on "the old kind of politics," if he was going to resort to the old kind himself.

Then, before the Ohio and Texas primaries, the Clinton campaign attacked him and, as Brooks said, "the attacks worked." Obama lost both primaries, and the pressure is on. "Obama Camp Sees Fine Line in Hitting Back," said a headline in Saturday's Times. The story was about "how far he can go in striking back without sacrificing his claim to be practicing a new brand of politics."

The answer is, he can't strike back at all. If he goes into the trenches with Hillary, "the excitement of Obama-mania will seem like a distant, childish mirage," Brooks said. "People will wonder if Obama ever believed any of that stuff himself . . . New politics is all he's got. He loses that, he loses everything."

The first American Revolution was like that. New politics was all the Americans had, and they were willing to go to war to bring about that change. If they lost that, they lost everything. Not all were committed to it, but enough to win the day. Even in winning, they had no set picture of life on the other side. They were creating a new American experience one day at a time, and they were doing it on the fly, with no guarantees and no destination in sight. Of course their commitment demanded that they be inspired against the old politics, and today that inspiration is historic.

Obama has to go to war now, never fire a single shot, but raise his campaign to a new level of inspiration in his new kind of leadership by elevating his call for change to a call for revolt against the old politics as they pop up on the campaign trail, routing them out one-by-one, with a barrage of ballots. He has to let the voters do his fighting for him. His only stand is to prove that the commitment to revolt is there, as the New American Revolution slowly rolls toward summer.

And if, as David Brooks suggests, he has "never explained how this new politics would actually produce bread-and-butter benefits to people in places like Youngstown and Altoona," it's because he can't, any more than the first revolution's leaders could. All the people of Youngstown and Altoona can expect is the removal of the old politics, and whatever that might mean to a new American experience out there unseen on the other side. Obama is the star, but this election is about people hungry for a different kind of politics, who are willing to take a leap of faith.