With great respect to Mr. Montaner there seems to be an internal conflict in his above essay. He asserts that Dr King and President Johnson changed the view of USA society to the level that Mr. Obama can run as president. However, both Mr. King [a preacher] and President Johnson [ a lifelong politician] made the change with the help of Judges [also politicans]. No scientist no investor was involved in the process except as enablers of the politician [do recall the still rampant assertion by some scientists of note that race and human ability are closely correlated].

Similarly the recent changes in USA [especially in the last 10 years or so] were due to the efforts of politicians, from globalization enabling legislation, to the war with Iraq, the invasion of Afganistan and the creation of today's economic mess with all the toxic financial products. The downward slide of USA power [esteem by others, overwhelming debt levels, lack of health care for 15-20% of the population, etc] was created by political decisions, and politicians most famously characterised by the current DECIDER in the White House, as for example charaterised by the 900+ outright lies regarding Iraq before the war uttered by the President and Vice President and their cohort. Now the changes [siging statements et al] were clearly started propragated and brought to fruition exclusively due to the power of POLITICIANS, not of scientist etc.

The vision change that the USA is in desparate need can not be achived by any means other than Political, for the rest of society lives and dies by Government' Laws, Regulations, and the Governement's implicit power of sanction due to LAW ENFORCEMENT POWERS and LAW ENFORCEMENT Bureaucracy.

A pretty well written commentary on US politics. Indeed we need a statesman-like leader with integrity, well advised, and a quick learner, who will facilitate change by and for all the people not just in favor of the elite. There must be an end for irresponsible capitalism and greed by the few, which requires regulation. There must be rules that prevents the the greedy and sharp operators from victimizing those who lack understanding of commercial processes. Government must have integrity, general approval of all the people, be accountable, truthful and and competent.

The change the Obama campaign promises is uniting our divided country. So let's examine some particulars:
1) Gun control; the Obama stance on gun control is pretty much the Democratic party line, maintaining and tightening gun control. Will the NRA, hunters, libertarians and Second Amendment supporters fall in line with that?
2) Iraq; the Obama stance is immediate timed withdrawal from Iraq. This will likely be followed by chaos, bloodshed, and possible Al-Qaeda ascendancy. If you think we are divided now wait till that happens.
3) Immigration; The Obama stance on immigration pretty much follows the liberal Democratic policy or "amnesty". There is adamant opposition to this. Unless Obama fashions some middle ground contrary to his present stance I don't see that issue uniting anyone.
4) Abortion; Obama has a 0% NRLC rating. Are the right to life supporters going to suddenly stop their adament opposition to abortion?
5) Health Insurance; there is a growing sense that some kind of health insurance reform is necessary, even if just to keep American business
competitive. But people want unlimited access to a scarce and costly resource, health care, with little cost. It will be a donnybrook.
6) Obama is rated at 100% by the CTJ indicating a very progressive tax stance. That means higher taxes for somebody. Will these people acquiesce quietly?

I could double or triple this list. Gay marriage, the trade deficit, globalization, the federal deficit, the war on terror, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Social Security and Medicare problems. The list goes on. The question is can a hard core liberal politician wave a wand and make the deep seated opposition to left liberal solutions to these many problems disappear?

I agree that you are missing the point. Obama's appeal lies in his leadership and community organizing skills. For the first time in years, average Americans sense that a leader with integrity and vision will listen to and respond to their concerns and look after their interests, instead of only those of lobbyists, big campaign donors and the 1% on top. Its a symbiotic relationship-leaders inspire, the people get involved. I think it used to be called democracy. That would be a welcome change; away from the non-enforcement of the rules enshrined in a much maligned rule book called the Constitution, which has suffered so much neglect recently.

The single best governmental contribution (after national defense and commercial infrastructure) is to ensure that producers pay the full costs of their product or service. Only then can the market make intelligent choices. If some of the costs (like pollution or worker safety) are left for others (taxpayers) then my market choices are distorted and the system will fail. For example, there is a highway sign outside St, Louis saying "If the Cards will build some roads, we will build a stadium."

Government programs, such as Social Security under F.D. Roosevelt, were also innovations and changes. There is a need for a program of national healthcare in the United States of America, and this will be a change that can come from politicians, if they have the support of the voters. Articles like this one by Montaner sound fine on the surface, but really are written with an agenda of promoting the private sector as the only source for good in the society and a low-tax, small-government future. The USA spends far less than the OECD average on government, and the result is millions without health insurance, a crumbling infrastructure, and too-big houses filled with Chinese junk.

What is so wrong about the Obama message is that it encourages false expectations at a time when Pakistan is crawling with creepys, Iran ready to become a nasty nuclear member, North Korea giving them secrets as well as Syria...the whole damn world is ready to blow and this Obama message is all about how sweet and positive we can all be - its fluff! Meanwhile, I think Hillary is growing increasingly sharp and savy in her role as a very very capable person who speaks of all the meat and potatoe issues and you just know that she'll be good at it....maybe great. One very smart and capable person who is steadily growing more formidable.
and also with the whole world about to blow, all we need is a 'Willard' with a cultic agenda covered over with expedient flip flops and tergiversations based on which way the wind is blowing.
your premise questioning the 'change' candidates is correct...change is not always advisable, nor is it even wise...
Two years in the Senate Obama? Not enough!
Flip Flopped on Life Conscience Issues Romney
and tergiversating on torture? Dangerous Risk!
If you listen to the Pyjamas Interview of McCain - he is incredible on defence - positively brilliant, like Winston Churchill. Or listen on U Tube to his speech to the Churchill Club - a man with REAL foresight, guts, wisdom, & honesty.
McCain is a gift to America.
The Democrats I'm not as sure about between the candidates yet, but so far, i'd say they are both good people, but Hillary has the experience....Obama is a risk for the country....he needs a little more experience and he should have known that before he declared he would run. It was too early; far too much hubris for a mere two years in DC...let him learn a few years more....and then come back at it again....

The author wrote: "The function of American politicians is not to generate changes but to regulate them."

Very well said! Every child believes that there is a magic wand that can make all the wishes come true. Only adults know that there is no such magic wand.

Most changes are results from a long process of confrontation, compromise, and eventually cooperation among different ideologies. But for contradictory ideologies, there is no compromise but only hard fought battle.

For example, what will be the best way to "unite" with Nazi? Not compromise or cooperation, but direct combat. It will be naive to think that one party can simply reach out to the Nazi party and achieve world peace.

Most people who believes in a "uniter" in today's atmosphere are committing the same mistake. The Republican party has been slowly but surely running away from most of the principles of democracy -- from the basic principle of serving the majority (rather than a few), to the protection of personal right.

The only "change" that is possible under the circumstances is similar to the 2006 election -- rooting out those astray politicians and gives the power to public servant that actually has the "public" in mind.

We don't need a naive politician calling for meaningless "change" right now. The regulation of changes we need is to identify the right ideology and rooting out the wrong one.

Sage words about American democracy spoken by someone who was born under a dictatorship and now writes from a country whose democracy has made it all the way to its early 30s. The author's background has lead him to a reactionary characterization of American leadership. Americans do live in an open society, yet we do expect our politicians to act rather than just react. The changes we seek are in both the style of our government and in the substance of its structural response to the challenges we face. Things like the cost of health care don't just "happen" because of technology that drops from the sky. These things are created, produced and sold by human beings in a market place that has rules written by human beings. It was a political decision to massively increase NIH's budget, which then begat an acceleration in biomedical technology. Similarly, our employer based health insurance system is a result of wage controls imposed during WWII. All conditions brought about by human agency.

I think you might be missing the point of Obama's campaign. He's promoting himself not as a candidate who will reach into America with god-like hands and make everything better. He's promising to amend the same regulations you're talking about that control and guide change in America.

It's also worth pointing out that our leaders don't just set the rules. They also represent our nation and our people in the world at large. Part of Obama's change message is that the way his administration would greet the international community - and our own Americans - would constitute a change from what we have seen under Bush and Clinton.

Changes in government can allow change to take place in peoples lives. It's good to remind the pundits and the voters alike that ultimately the greatest changes take place outside the government. But I don't think that makes it absurd to run a campaign with a message for change. I don't think all the candidates who carry this message are being honest. But the message itself is not inherently wrong.