"Throw the bums out," the vernacular for incumbent fatigue, is the emotional response to the analytical dissatisfaction with the status quo. Yet a bum can survive if a challenger can't promise a compelling vision of the new order.
Obama understands how this calculus of organization change applies to his re-election. He knows that this election is a referendum on his record, his stewardship of the resources under his command, and how well he mitigated inherited messes. Obama has been a failure on all three counts. No, he has been spectacularly dreadful -- his record, stewardship, and mitigation -- leaving a legacy of despair and divisiveness.
Thus, Obama loses the referendum. And he knows it.
It is no surprise, then, that Obama's campaign has been devoted to framing Mitt Romney -- and Paul Ryan -- as unfit to lead the nation. Nullification of Romney/Ryan legitimacy denies the challengers' standing to present a compelling vision of their new order. Students of organizational behavior know that resistance against or invitation to change is a function of how well a compelling vision of the new order can be asserted and be convincing enough to outweigh the risks of dumping the status quo.
This simple mathematical formula -- (f) R = D+V (rough symbolism) -- is far from novel or profound. Barack Obama beat John McCain because of Bush fatigue and Obama's compelling vision as the messiah. Likewise, the 2010 Tea Party sweeps in the U.S. House and in state capitols reflected the deep unhappiness with the tax-and-spend, recklessly irresponsible fiscal policies of the Democrats. And compelling new faces such as Marco Rubio and Scott Walker provided the vision for the safe bet in rejecting the status quo.
Of course, a few 2010 candidates failed miserably in presenting a compelling -- indeed, competent -- vision of the new order. To wit: Christine O'Donnell in Maryland and Sharron Angle in Nevada. Thus, resistance to change triumphed in some cases.
No comments:
Post a Comment