Technology with attitude

Gingrich's Advice For Obama: 5 Big Changes

10

It’s pretty short and sweet: be about something.

But between the new health care proposal, heavy investment in green-collar jobs and renewed investment in our infrastructure and national education system, Obama seems like he has plenty of ideas that Americans could get behind. So it feels like Gingrich is trying to position Obama as the guy without ideas. But this has been Newt’s message since long ago: the Republican party is the party of ideas and the Democrats aren’t.

Still, Newt’s historical perspective is always an interesting read…

Your campaign has been brilliant. It has given you more support and more momentum than most analysts expected a year ago. Keeping things simple and vague has worked so far, and it might work all the way to the White House. “Change you can believe in” is a great all-purpose slogan. It allows every person to fill in his or her own interpretation of what it means. In some ways, it’s reminiscent of Jimmy Carter’s 1976 promise to run “a government as good as the American people.”

The challenge you will face in the next few months is stark. Do you want to remain vague? You might win—but you might find that, in winning, you have a “victory of personality” with no real policy consequences. Or do you want to provide specifics? If so, your victory could be a clarion call from the American people to Congress to join you in achieving your goals. […]

Can you find five big changes that are substantive, popular—and can rally Democrats from the House and Senate to join you on the Capitol steps in September or October? If you cannot, you should question if you’ll be able to deliver on your “change” slogan. Your campaign advisers may not care about that. Their instinct will be to win the election and leave the difficulties of governing up to you. But if you want to be a genuine historic agent of change “we can believe in,” then you have to look beyond Election Day.

Well, I think I named 4 changes above. Whether they fall into Newt’s definition of “big” is a completely different conversation. But what would be a 5th? A completely new foreign policy philosophy? Is that enough? My guess is yes.

What do you think?