Can "Real, Transformative Change" Actually Happen?

If Democrats win this fall, what will it take to bring about change? Here are two answers. First, a call "to address Americans' insecurities about their economic futures as well as the future security of their nation":

A New Social Contract, by Michael Kazin and Julian E. Zelizer, Commentary, Washington Post: For the first time since 1964, Democrats have a good chance not just to win the White House and a majority in Congress but to enact a sweeping new liberal agenda. Conservative ideas are widely discredited...

The long Democratic primary battle masks the fact that the party faithful agree on the basic outlines of a new social contract. It fits a post-industrial society that was barely visible when Lyndon B. Johnson was ramming a series of landmark measures through Congress.

The new agenda focuses on protecting middle-class families from the insecurities of the global economy. ...

The emphasis on protecting middle-class families reflects a major historical shift. During the 1930s and '40s, liberals struggled to create a vibrant middle class out of the industrial wage-earners who had immigrated to the United States and rural people of all races who lacked electricity and jobs. New Deal programs focused on workingmen and depressed regions. The National Labor Relations Act legitimized unions and boosted the purchasing power of the working class. The Rural Electrification Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority enabled Southern communities to participate fully in the modern manufacturing economy. Social Security gave support to the elderly, lessening the burden on their children. The GI Bill gave a generation the ability to purchase a home and get a college education.

In the 1960s, Democrats turned to expanding the middle class. John F. Kennedy and LBJ sought to increase the number of Americans who could enjoy the economic and social benefits of a booming economy. The rights revolution made it possible for African Americans, Latinos and women from all backgrounds to compete for most of the same jobs as white men. Medicare and Medicaid provided new health benefits for the elderly and the poor.

Now, Democrats are grappling with insecurities faced by entire families, that institution conservatives always claim to represent. The past three decades have produced growing economic inequality and a shrinking middle class. ... Wage-earners fear for the future of their jobs and incomes. No family is secure.

This is the reality of a global, nonunion economy that the new agenda attempts to address. But before the reunited Democratic Party can start to make a forceful case to the nation, it will have to address its great weakness. Democrats have not yet been able to equal what was perhaps Franklin Roosevelt's greatest political success: to offer a bold foreign policy to match his domestic ambitions. FDR had an internationalist vision: that the United States should use military force only against clearly defined threats and with the aid of international, democratic institutions. This vision, with some exceptions, defined America's stance in the world until Vietnam.

That debacle destroyed LBJ's presidency, and the question of how America should act in the world has haunted his party ever since. Democrats have no coherent view about foreign policy that differs from that of conservatives. ... This weakness gives John McCain his best chance to delay or defeat a new liberal awakening.

Yet if Democrats find a way , they may be able to emulate the only liberal president who ever managed that difficult feat. And for that achievement, FDR became one of the greatest and most beloved leaders in our history.

Kathy G. has a different perspective on what it will take to bring about change:

...Now, on to the main subject of this post -- if you're a liberal Obama supporter, this past week or so has sucked pretty hard. We've seen Obama move sharply to the right on a number of fronts, including:

--  hiring the centrist, pro-Walmart economist Jason Furman as his economic policy director (and yes, I know that Furman's done good work on issues like Social Security privatization, but if you're truly committed to a progressive economic vision, he's not the guy you'd be hiring);

-- naming, as his campaign chief of staff, Jim Messina, who served as chief of staff to Max Baucus, and who appears to strongly support Baucus's pro-corporate agenda;

--  forming a Working Group on National Security that consists mainly of reanimated corpses from the 80s and 90s (Warren Christopher, Sam Nunn, David Boren, Madeleine Albright) rather than fresh, bold new thinkers like Samantha Power;

-- making statements that are strongly supportive of NAFTA and that conflict with his position during the primaries (Obama is now saying he won't unilaterally re-open NAFTA);

--  releasing a campaign ad, his first of the general election, which hits on right-wing rather than progressive themes (it emphasizes "cutting taxes" and "moving people from welfare to work" -- why not "universal health care" and "getting the hell out of Iraq"?);

-- and, finally, throwing his weight behind the FISA "compromise," which deservedly earned him Atrios's dreaded "wanker of the day" award.

I've gotta say, though -- all this was utterly predictable. It's not that only that, once the general election campaign starts, presidential candidates tend to move to the center. It's that, as I've been telling anyone who would listen, Barack Obama is an extremely cautious, utterly conventional, center-left politician. If you want to see real, transformative change in this country, he is not your guy.

The second coming of FDR he is not. As president, I think he's far more likely to resemble Bill Clinton... Which does not thrill me...

This is not say Obama is a bad guy at all. He's whip-smart, he's a compelling speaker, he's honest, and he has a pretty decent voting record overall. His campaign so far has been most impressive, particularly in the managerial and grassroots organizing departments. I will always give him enormous credit for speaking out against the Iraq War at a time when almost everyone else in public life was running scared. ...

And also, it must be said -- in case you haven't noticed, in this country, we do not elect liberal presidents. FDR was a fluke -- he was elected when the country was suffering an economic crisis of epic proportions, and even then few believed he'd end up governing as far to the left as he did. LBJ was the other great liberal domestic policy president, but that, too, was a fluke. ...

So, in all honesty, I think Obama is about the best we can do. Yes, he opposed the war from the start. But he's been vague about when he'd start withdrawing troops, and unlike candidates like Bill Richardson, he supports letting residual troops remain. His voting record is decent overall, but it contains some serious disappointments, such as his support of the FISA compromise. Like 95% of the other Democrats in Congress, he's not exactly a profile in courage. ...

The fact is, in his entire public career Barack Obama has never stuck his neck out for anyone or anything. He's never once taken on a big, high-profile cause or project that was highly controversial or risked failure. Yes, there's his early opposition to the war on the one hand; but on the other hand, once he got to the U.S. Senate he did little to, you know, try to stop the war, and his votes on the war have been utterly conventional Democratic votes.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton, when she was about the age Barack is now, took on the daunting task of developing a health care plan. And even though that ended up being a huge failure, at least she took the risk. If she became president, I truly believe that she'd do her damndest to make universal health care a reality in this country. If John Edwards became president, he'd work like hell to enact populist economic vision.

But Barack Obama? Honestly, I don't have a freaking clue. I think he'll govern like the utterly conventional Democrat that he is, but I have no idea what his policy priorities are, or what burning issue drives him.

Over this past election season, on websites and listservs and in conversations, I've seen an awful lot of cheap, hacktacular electioneering in favor of one candidate or another. But at the end of the day, I don't think there was ever all that much of a difference between Hillary and Barack. Or between those two and Edwards, for that manner. Hillary and Barack had voting records and positions on the issues that were closet to identical. They've both taken shitloads of money from Wall Street, and it's pretty clear to me that each of them is captive to corporate special interests. Indeed, I interpret Obama's recent rightward shift -- Furman, Messina, the remarks about NAFTA, the FISA compromise -- as saying to the corporate interests, "Never fear -- we'll be playing ball as usual with you folks."

As president, either Barack or Hillary, or Edwards, would be infinitely better than any Republican, but from a progressive point of view, each of them would also far short in some pretty profound and powerful ways.

But you know what? Ultimately, I don't think that they as individuals are to blame for that. I don't think Barack, or Hillary, or Edwards, are bad people. I don't think that Barack Obama, for example, went into politics so he could sell civil liberties down the river in favor of giveaways for the telecom industry. But the incentive structure in politics these days is such that he decided he had more to gain by supporting the FISA "compromise" than by opposing it.

This is where we, as liberals, progressives, lefties, activists, whatever-you-want-to-call-us, come in. ...

Instead of shilling for Barack, or Hillary, or whoever, we should have been pressuring the candidates to work for our votes. We should have been pressing them to take firm, non-negotiable positions in favor of things like no immunity for the telecoms, or immediate withdrawal from Iraq with no residual troops. Instead, we were really cheap dates. And when you act like suckers, don't be surprised when something like Obama's support for the FISA compromise comes back and bites you in the ass. ...

Obama, like just about every other politician out there, is cautious, but also highly pragmatic. Like everyone else, he responds to incentives. As activists, what we need to do is to move the political center of gravity in this country to the left. To change the incentive structure so that it will be easier for him to do the right thing. This is a far sounder strategy, over both the short and the long term, than waiting for saints or messiahs to come along.

I'll close with one of my favorite political stories. It concerns my all-time favorite president, FDR. He was meeting with a group of reformers trying to persuade him to support one of their goals. After they finished speaking, FDR said to them, "You've convinced me. I want to do it. Now make me do it."

And that, my friend, is the task at hand.

Comments

[anne]

"Instead of shilling for Barack, or Hillary, or whoever, we should have been pressuring the candidates to work for our votes."

Comes the dawning.

[anne]

I would extend concern to a foreign policy vision that appeared stridently backward looking, initially on Latin America then on the Middle East. That there is need to be politically astute I understand, but policy statements and appointments during the campaign will determine policy possibilities during the Presidency. And, simply being told there is no choice in voting is not enough for the choice there is can still be pushed and in the absence of pushing could well become a choice that is saddening.

There is no reason to avoid policy criticism, for the sake of the election. Criticism should make for a stronger candidacy should there be simple allowance for the criticism let alone responsiveness. There is entirely too much sensitivity, which can be self-defeating and is at least stifling.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/us/politics/19campaign.html?hp&pagewanted=print

June 19, 2008

Obama's Campaign Tightens Control of Image and Access
By JIM RUTENBERG and JEFF ZELENY

At a rally for Senator Barack Obama in Detroit on Monday, two Muslim women said they were prohibited from sitting behind the candidate because they were wearing head scarves and campaign volunteers did not want them to appear with him in news photographs or live television coverage.

The Obama campaign said it quickly called the women to apologize after learning of the incident. "It doesn't reflect the orientation of the campaign," said Anita Dunn, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama. "I do not believe that mistake will be made again."

But the incident, first reported Wednesday by Politico.com, pointed to pitfalls the campaign faces as it moves into the general election and seeks to maintain control of Mr. Obama's image by tightly managing his public appearances.

The Obama campaign is vigilantly fighting erroneous information that has spread on the Internet that he is Muslim — he is, in fact, Christian — and emphasizing his patriotism and American story, with flags in abundance. In Washington on Wednesday, he invited photographers to his meeting with new members of his national security team and retired military officers supporting his candidacy.

The campaign on Monday barred cameras from a large gathering of African-American civic leaders Mr. Obama attended. It recently refused to provide names of religious figures with whom Mr. Obama met in Chicago and directed some of them to avoid reporters by using a special exit....

[hari]

After 8yrs of GWB/Cheney, it's time to rethink role of policy makers in WH and cabinet appointees. The type of conflict of interest that's becoming manifest under present (young) control freaks in WH demands a return to appointment of heavy weights at cabinet level with authority to deal with Prsident on policy. Consequently, make the WH staff smaller and more focused on President's primary objective next four years - rather than micro-managing/directing cabinet decisions.

The latter (system) is obviously way to facilitate futher decline and fall of central authority and good governance.

[hari]

I've noticed BO uses the (fatal) expression that he's a *practical man*. Implying there is a weak moral force guiding his principles - *means* and *ends* approach to policy-making. I don't want to make it appear like moral equivalence of Chicago politics. But it damn well sounds more like it....

That's the danger of a Pres who can't stick to moral principles - use your own examples from past WH occupants - and world also desires a man of moral force to regain US image.

[Lafayette]

Blithely unspecific

Article: The new agenda focuses on protecting middle-class families from the insecurities of the global economy. ...

Oh, wow. What Messiah is going to work THAT miracle?

First we had the insecurity of a dot.com boom 'n bust that gutted the savings of many middle-class Americans. Then we had the insecurity of al Qaida in 9/11. Last year we were beset with the insecurity of a worldwide bank seizure. Now what?

No, I think Americans have had enough of insecurity. Let's move to some "when the going gets tough, the tough get going".

What is it that America needs to face some challenges of the 21st century that are poking their noses above the horizon a wee bit sooner than we had expected?

Globalization is not going away. If anything, it is settling in for a stay. We don't need protection from it, we need to cope with globalization. That is, profit from it.

This means, in terms of priorities, to lessen the dependence upon foreign oil. Exploit our dominance in hi-tech areas that we have it. Pursue market dominance in areas that we don't have. And create markets that don't yet exist.

It's really quite simple, to devise The Plan. The hard part is implementing it.

What we know for the present, between the two contenders, is that McCain will be more McBush than the maverick independent he was falsely made out to be. But BO?

He's a smooth wild-card. We have not a very good notion of where he is coming from or, worse, where he would like to take America. This "change thing" doesn't fool anyone.

Change from what to what? Go where? He's been blithely unspecific. (And, where he has been specific, like Health Care, he's been wrong.) If he's got a Better Plan, he'd better start communicating it. No Quick Fixes, but a Long-term Solution that will take him most of the two tenures he can hope to have.

This "Change Thingy" is getting somewhat used in appearance ...

[anne]

What the primary campaign offered or should have offered was a chance to really push candidates on policy, but that became increasingly difficult as pushing Barack Obama came to seem impossibly impolite, and worse, when that was never the issue. Why was there no conversation with and appeal to Puerto Rican voters, even though the nomination was really decided, simply to understand to needs and form a bond? Cuban American wishes were certainly addressed.

So, as the primary season continued chances at policy change became less. The primary season closed and suddenly change seemed to be appealing to a conservative core that has been politically appealed to as never before for years through this Administration and past Congresses.

[anne]

Lafayette has a fine eye for irony:

"The new agenda focuses on protecting middle-class families from the insecurities of the global economy...."

I'm awfully hard pressed trying to figure out where fiscal policy will allow for a real broadening of health care insurance coverage.

[anne]

"Instead, we were really cheap dates."

I'll have to make sure to do something fierce about changing that.

[2slugbaits]

Bottom line: Obama is very likely to bring along a large and longlasting Democratic majority in Congress, and that is absolutely critical to a liberal agenda. First things first. I'm not thrilled with the FISA agreement that Pelosi and Reid and Obama and Clinton and all the other Democrats signed on to, but I understand why they did it. Most of the country is not liberal. Most of the country is petrified and scared stiff of some terrorist attack. Most people would be more than happy to trade civil liberties for protection. And most voters are cowards. Liberal politicians have to deal with that fact of life.

[mrrunangun]

BO is our guy in this fight. He doesn't have to be perfect and he won't be. He won't even live up to modest left wing expectations. A center-left presidency is what we will probably get and that should be a big improvement over what we have had for the past FORTY YEARS! The government may become the friend of the workingman again instead of his enemy. On the other hand, special pleaders may find the Democrats' ears and pockets and nothing will change except that some different categories of rich folks will benefit.

[anne]

"And most voters are cowards."

I wuv progressives, wuv 'em.

[bakho]

Clinton started slow in foreign policy, but he developed a new US position, one of strengthening international institutions and bringing common interests together to solve common problems. This is diametrically opposed to the unilateralism that led to Bush foreign policy failure. Obama would do well to move back to the path that Clinton was on in 2000.

My impression of Obama was always that he was more to the right of both Edwards and Clinton. If you look at the Obama economic program, it focuses on middle class tax cuts and opening the SS cap. It is not clear where the money for health care reform comes in or how health care is reformed? It is not clear who his health care advisor will be? Obama is so new and undefined it seems that there should be a lot of openings for good ideas to move forward through Congress to push Obama to the left.

[Icarus]

'Change' is a mantra which has grown tiresome, and predictable.

Obama was peddling his rhetoric to AIPAC the other week. Think about that...AIPAC. This group is perhaps one of the biggest proponents of evil on the planet, and the so called progressive left is in their back pocket.

As long as AIPAC holds reign over Republicans and Democrats, the US will continue their onslaught of imperial violence, centered upon the continued expansion of zionism in Palestine.
This is the elephant in the room...the topic no one can address.

Obama may be able to play with tax rates a bit, especially at the upper crust...and, perhaps he can reduce the DOD/Pentagon budget a bit.

That said...nothing structurally will change. US Imperialism, AIPAC, anti-terrorism, globalization...they will all move forward will full force.

This is the sad state we're in.

[ken melvin]

Not sure what progressive means. I do know that Move-On wanted power and saw the best way to obtain it by usurping the democratic party. Obama is the Move-On.org candidate.

[Julio]

I agree with the criticisms of Obama and especially his positions since the primaries. In fact the article does a great job of describing my feelings re Obama.

But I remain a cheap date, at least until after the election.

All Obama needs to do to keep my vote is stay well to the left of the Republicans and McCain. And those folks have made that bar extremely low.

"Obama, like just about every other politician out there, is cautious, but also highly pragmatic. Like everyone else, he responds to incentives."

Unfortunately, for the time being, I have no incentives to offer him. He has my vote and support already.

"As activists, what we need to do is to move the political center of gravity in this country to the left. To change the incentive structure so that it will be easier for him to do the right thing."

Amen. Any suggestions? The only thing I can think of is trying to convince Republicans to move back towards the center.

Anne:
"And, simply being told there is no choice in voting is not enough for the choice there is can still be pushed and in the absence of pushing could well become a choice that is saddening."

Agreed. To push we need some leverage. Where is it coming from?

[methinks]

Americans and their politicians are like Charlie Brown and Lucy. Lucy promises over and over not to pull the football away, but Charlie keeps falling for her trick time after time.
These pols don't represent you. They represent monied interests. They only respond to the American people when we are on the verge of revolt.
Speaking of FDR, his wife was reported to have said: "If you don't give them some, they're going to take it all." They have never given us anything that we, our parents, or grandparents, haven't won through struggle. And that each succeeding generation has to fight to keep.
If you haven't learned this, the system will teach you again and again until you do.

[Melancholy Korean]

I'm a Republican, but I've never been more excited about a politician than Obama.

Partly, it's generational (as much as we're not supposed to talk about it now, since we're trying to bring on board the Hill-Billy's supporters). I find the narcissism and pettiness of the Boomers tiresome. Get over yourselves!

Partly, it's his personal character and compelling life story. I like the community organizer background, versus the conventional Democratic path of corporate lawyer or Wall Street banker, who still "looks out for the people's interest." I never liked hypocrisy.

But mostly, and this gets back to point one, thanks to the war and philosophical disputes over the war's legitimacy and efficacy now raging in our party, America is now on the cusp of a major realigning of the political parties. It's going to be a dramatic, multi-year shift of alliances and coalitions, especially once the internecine debates really get going after the looming November disaster.

Obama gets it. His 50 state strategy is one manifestation of this. Even if he doesn't win any additional states, the registration of Democratic voters in former Republican strongholds will help build a progressive majority for years, if not decades. A coalition bringing in some religious voters disgusted by the current Administration, some libertarians, some conservatives, many moderates, etc etc.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton, when she was about the age Barack is now, took on the daunting task of developing a health care plan. And even though that ended up being a huge failure, at least she took the risk. If she became president, I truly believe that she'd do her damnedest to make universal health care a reality in this country. If John Edwards became president, he'd work like hell to enact populist economic vision.

Ugh. One can now see how the disaffected Hill-Billy voters will complain about an Obama Administration: Their superwoman would have done it so much better! Right. Riddle me this, Kathy. What does it matter if she works real hard to pass health care legislation, but the Dems don't have the votes in Congress? Or even worse, lose their majority because so many Americans, rightly, don't trust her or her husband?

[evagrius]

But there is no "center".

The "center" in the U.S. is so far "right" that the wings of the nation tilt rightward to the point of diving down, denying the wind draft its role in upholding the vessel.

Obama's a "nice guy", certainly pregerable to McCain, ( who would tilt so far right that the nation crashes).

But the U.S., as a whole, is steadily drifting towards catastrophe, fiscal, military, social, what have you...all because whatever remains of its left wing cannot be included in its flight.

[anne]

"One can now see how the disaffected Hill-Billy voters will complain about an Obama Administration...."

Republican creepiness, wins out.

[wtf]

FISA was a great opportunity for Obama to change the conversation. He didn't take it. For a professor of constitutional law that is a sad statement...it should have been his bread & butter.

I expected more from him...I guess that's my bad. Live and learn.

[anne]

Julio:

"But I remain a cheap date, at least until after the election....

"To push we need some leverage. Where is it coming from?"

I know, I'm only grumbling.

[2slugbaits]

wtf,

Obama was hardly alone among Democrats in signing on to the FISA bill. The Democrats had to take the issue off the table for election purposes. We can still hope that after the election the Democrats will have the opportunity to quietly gut the most offensive aspects of the bill. The best way to do that would be to nominate some liberal justices to the Supreme Court. So I don't think this is fatal.

[wtf]

"The Democrats had to take the issue off the table for election purposes. We can still hope that after the election the Democrats will have the opportunity to quietly gut the most offensive aspects of the bill."

If that was the plan I would have voted for Hillary as I know knew she had the institutional knowledge and experience to stack the deck in extremely important institutions with long term implications for progressives like the FCC. Media consolidation anyone?

Obama convinced me he was willing to change the playing field. Like I said, live and learn.

PS

and I am sorry but "taking the issue off the table"??? Spying on Americans without warrant, rule of law? That is as American as apple pie. If I were running against the 3rd term of Mr. 25% I sure as hell would want that on the table, with George Washington cherries on top. How about a 4th of July speech on the freaking founding fathers and what it 'really' means to be an American? Talk about a lost opportunity...sad, very sad.

[anne]

Melancholy Korean"

"But mostly, and this gets back to point one, thanks to the war and philosophical disputes over the war's legitimacy and efficacy now raging in our party, America is now on the cusp of a major realigning of the political parties. It's going to be a dramatic, multi-year shift of alliances and coalitions, especially once the internecine debates really get going after the looming November disaster."

Interesting.

[Bruce Wilder]

anne: "There is entirely too much sensitivity, which can be self-defeating and is at least stifling."

Hmmm.

[anne]

"There is entirely too much sensitivity, which can be self-defeating and is at least stifling."

Me, trying to be or getting tough.

"A potato's beauty comes from hurricanes."

[Julio]

anne:

'"To push we need some leverage. Where is it coming from?"
I know, I'm only grumbling.'

I was so hoping you'd have an answer!

On a cheerier note, Obama may be just the ticket to capture Republican disenchantment and help elect a Congress that does something useful with the resulting mandate.

[Bruce Wilder]

I like the hopeful scenarios better than the dire ones, though I genuinely fear that this will all end badly.

Long after Gettysburg, Confederate die-hards fantasized about what might have been, how if only this general or that had acted differently. When asked for his analysis, George Pickett offered, "I've always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."

You want to know what Change requires, look at what the Republicans have changed over the last 25 years.

They organized. They systematically took over the Media, replacing reporters with stenographers and opinion writers with obediant shills and fake liberals and progressive eunuchs. They are systematically taking over the politically relevant parts of Academia and the policy think tanks in Washington. They have nearly completed a takeover of the Judiciary. They changed income distribution radically. They've rolled back civil liberties, and assaulted the foundations of technocracy and expertise with jackhammers, and established the legal framework for an authoritarian State.

Lots of planning went into the Bush Presidency. Remember Ken Starr and the Impeachment of Clinton? Some of those Republicans knew perfectly well that they were immunizing their Crook-in-Chief. That's planning, folks. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and Media Consolidation? That's investment and planning.

Progressives are not the only ones voting in November 2008. Democrats do not control the Media, and that is a serious handicap, because the ignorance of the American People about the simple facts of their own politics is pervasive and deep.

The main reason Democrats will win in November is because the Plutocracy lets the Democrats win. Some part of the Republican coalition is genuinely distressed at what they have done. Another part is hoping that the Democrats get blamed, and they are planning to Hooverize Obama. The Republicans have chosen a genuinely bad candidate, and the Media are being constrained just a little less than normal, and will be allowed to show a little bit of just how atrocious a candidate McCain is.

Even a Rump Republican die-hard faction, that wants to win every election -- even the ones they might be better off losing -- have sufficient money and Media power, combined with the absence of ethical constraint, to damage Obama and limit the Democrats' gains in Congress. And, they will do what they can. Because they are not finished "Changing" America. Look at the ages of Supreme Court Justices: a Republican majority will still be there, in all probability in 2012, for the next Republican President to finish the job.

Atrios had the best comment I've seen on Obama's FISA cave. And, it wasn't how disappointed he was. This is what he wrote: "Democrats will regret embracing the expansion of executive power because a President Obama will find his administration undone by an "abuse of power" scandal. All of those powers which were necessary to prevent the instant destruction of the country will instantly become impeachable offenses. If you can't imagine how such a pivot can take place then you haven't been paying attention."

More progressive Democrats should be thinking paranoid. Because "they" really are out to get us.

What will Change require? If it is the Change people of Good Will desire, it requires a Revolution, a literal overthrow of the elites -- corporate, Media, political -- who have been running this country and its democracy into the ground. If, when you heard that Tim Russert had died, and as all the over-the-top eulogies were read out, a voice however small, in the back of your head, said, "Well, it's a beginning," then you are in the right mindset.

[Michael McKinlay]

Pressure to change ?

Peak Oil, Water, Food, the credit collapse, the $800 Billion trade deficit, the ballooning budget deficit, public and private debt at 350% of GDP, the housing collapse, an economy in free fall and the absence of governance will soon test Obama's economic team.

Without some radical answers Obama will be toast.

[Bruce Wilder]

Michael McKinlay: "Without some radical answers Obama will be toast."

You mean like George Bush has been "toast"?

[Bruce Wilder]

The Post ombudsman takes the Dean of the Washington Press Corps, David Broder to task for being an ethics-free liar. She also mentions, in passing, that Broder, 78!!!, after 42 years at the Post, has taken an "early retirement buyout" from the Post, but will continue to write his column under contract.

He violates the Post's ethics rules, he takes "early" retirement 13 years after the standard retirement age, and still will not stop, will not quit, will not be fired.

Viva la revolution!

[Lafayette]

Watch the AMA

anne: I'm awfully hard pressed trying to figure out where fiscal policy will allow for a real broadening of health care insurance coverage.

Both HC and BO offered programs, like that of Romney when Governor of Massachusetts, to expand coverage to those uncovered. This is a Quick Fix solution, lifted directly from car insurance. It creates a pool of uninsurable car owners and allocates them automatically to insurance companies (who do not want and have refused them) in a random fashion. The insurance companies are obliged to take them, if they want to keep the lucrative part of their business selling insurance to insurable drivers.

OK, so, abracadabra, these unisurable people, who could not find auto insurance come hell or high water, are now covered. But, the question remains:"OK, but how do we pay for them?"

It's a good question. Here's how. The companies simply raise the rates on everybody else in "their pool" of insured car owners to recuperate the costs of non-paying but insured "customers".

So, when applied to Health Insurance, nothing is done to remedy the root cause of runaway costs. Insurance companies simply pass the costs on to their customers, the companies with program insurance or mutualized insurance providers. If you work for yourself professionally, you pay the additional costs directly -- or you buy mutualized insurance from a professional body.

That can only come when decent Health Care services costs are capped by a state/Federal authority. And, if Europe is any example, then that state/Federal authority would do better to run the Health Insurance program itself. In stead of the hodge-podge multiple insurer system that exists presently.

England has 100% coverage, whilst France has less than 100% coverage on first-level Health Care services. If an illness is considered grave, it goes to second-level and is fully assumed by the state. (Some countries need to forestall abuse by a population that would go see a doctor for a headache.)

To answer your question, above, there are two points to consider.
1) The state/Federal insurance would require a parallel approach to rendering Health Services, such that anyone showing up a clinic or a hospital has the coverage they deserve. Meaning, the cost of visiting the GP must be affordable. Which will cost BigDollars in a country where a GP visit runs presently somewhere between 60 and 90 dollars (if not more in some communities). That's too expensive. [Here is how Ireland solves that particular problem. Those covered have a Medical Card (presuming they are employed and paying into the state system by payroll taxes). Those not covered in this manner are given, by the state, a "GP Visit Card" with which their visit to the GP is paid.]
2) Why is the affordable cost of a visit to the GP important? Because it detects illnesses before they become serious. This is the key to Preventive Health Care -- that ultimately reduces the high costs of Remedial Care.

All this is assumed by the state and costs a bundle. But, so does National Defense. Thus, we are confronting the same question as decades ago. Namely, "Do you want guns or Health Care". Meaning that national priorities must be made.

A generalized, affordable Health Care service can be afforded only by increasing taxes, meaning bringing them back to pre-Reagan days, and having a Federally mandated pricing of GP services. It can be parallel to the existing private service, but it should cost much less.

In fact, expanding Medicare for all Americans, rich or poor, employed or unemployed, would be the quickest and (perhaps) easiest route to Universal Health Care. But, it would cost money -- we must never lose that perspective.

Health Care is costly. As a nation, we have to now make it clear that Affordable Health Care is a national priority and expanding Medicare is the way to go -- with mandated pricing.

And, then watch the AMA bring out its running dogs (K-street lobbyists) to "take Capitol Hill".

[hari]

So far this thread is not providing any *transformative change* whatsoever, me thinks.

Those who claim only a *revolution* will tilt the playing field back to middleclass concerns are also day-dreaming.

Meanwhile, Israeli defense forces (IDF) have been given more or less complete (US) freedom to prepare for military attack against (questionable) Iranian nuclear facilities.

IAEA/DG has gone on record (UN/Vienna) he'll resign if IDF attacks Iranian facilities - the Agency is trying to verify if its for nuclear weapons or not.

Don't be surprised (eg. Regan's takeover from Carter) GOP using *threat* of Iranian *nuclear black mail* as a national security argument to trumph BO and his inexperience....

NYT/WP are already mouthing *inside info* from unidentified sources (IDF) to claim the trial-run of more than 100 (US) supplied fighter planes was the *real* stuff. Pentagon has officially confirmed it ...meaning there was (or not) complicity in planning the trial-run over mediterranen sea.

The theatre of middle east war-making *powers* have been transfered to IDF, so it seems, without any question from interested Western parties (incl. EU). Will the British allow IDF to run the socalled mock trial-runs without impunity? And turn the region into a war zone?

Only Russia/China may be able to use any IDF attack on Iran for their own political purposes - whatever that maybe -in the final analysis.

BO chances to win will be derailed, if current IDF threat is put to actual attack/invasion of Iranian sovereign territory under international (UN) law. What then? Are GWB/Cheney finger-prints visible to NYT/WP editorial pages and/or are they also complicit in the endeavour of IDF?

Recall how the invasion of Iraq was planned and executed to also protect the national security of Israel - the road to middle east peace, it claimed, went thru Bhagdad!

[Icarus]

Transformative Change cannot happen until the progressives, like Obama, can finally speak out against AIPAC. This pro-Israeli/Zionist lobby has haunted US politcs for a few decades, and it is now the silent elephant in the room.

AIPAC must be catered to, even by the democrats, and hence, the continued colonization of Palestine, and the bantustans they've created in the guise of 'peace' continue.

This atrocity is one of the world's horrors now, and even such an event as the UN Conference on Racism in Durban cannot create the momentum to change the nature of US politics.

Obama, who is purportedly progressive, should have had the moral fortitude to speak out against the current genocide in Palestine.
Instead, he speaks to a lobby group which pushes the Zionist cause without restraint.

It is a sad day for any sense of humanity, when the icon of hope and change in the US, is still intimately involved with the continued killings of innocent Palestinian victims of western colonialism.

[baileyman]

We could get lucky if Obama has the personal characteristics of an FDR and has similar pressures on him in office. But it's a dice throw. If he ran on an FDR program he would not be vetted, permitted to become a serious candidate. For him to pursue an FDR program, he'll have to surprise everyone after he's in.

[Lafayette]

Change mentalities

KG: It was only in the aftermath of the martyrdom of JFK that the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. could have been passed. And even then, it still required every last ounce of LBJ's political genius to get them through.

The US has shifted subtly Right. This was not difficult for Americans, since the center is none too centrist by other comparisons. What comparisons?, one might ask.

On a political landscape that included European countries, which have known Social Democracy since the end of WW2, the US is decidedly right-of-center. It has not the same array of social services (Health Care, Educational Assistance, Family Social Services, Poverty Subsidies, etc., etc., etc.) as Europe. And, frankly, it has never wanted them. for the longest time such was associated with Socialism, kid-brother of Communism and anathema to the "American way of life".

This array of Public Services is confused with the Welfare State, when in fact it is key to the state of Well-being. In terms of Social Investments, as defined and measured by the OECD, the US lingers somewhere in the lower levels. Why?

Are Americans all "rugged individualists" who will take all that life can throw at them, "shrug it off and win, win, win" at the end of the day? If we were, what happened in New Orleans after Katrina? Worse yet, after the Significant Event of Watts in California, has anything changed there? No, in both instances. Watts is still a dangerous place, and New Orleans has become the Urban Renewal Project that the white minority have always wanted.

Or, are we a nation that simply doesn't care? Life is in the fast-lane of our rat-race to riches -- and the poor are just acceptable road-kill?

It seems so. But, is that Individualism or Selfishness? I suspect it is more the latter than the former. Once upon a time, long, long ago; the individualist pioneers, despite their deep belief in themselves and their destiny, would stop and help those who were less fortunate than they.

But, we are the New Americans, aren't we? Forged in crucible of numerous wars (WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq), stalwart in our keen desire for the trappings of wealth, addicted to celebrities who have "made it" and become role models. And in silent admiration of those who "make a killing on Wall Street". These are the social attributes of an Individualist, not a Collective Society.

If that is so, then the Obamarama Campaign had better consider the raw materials that BO has to work with before he "Changes America".

Take heed: The Europeans, after almost total destruction at the end of WW2, learned that without government engagement in the process of Social Democracy, then nothing really changes. Economies just evolve, but Social Justice is not rendered.

BO has to change mentalities if he wants to Change America.

[ndd]

More than anyone, I want to address this to Bruce Wilder:

Bruce, spot on imho and you had me -- up until "The plutocracy lets democrats win." To borrow from Napoleon, you don't need a conspiracy theory where negligence will do. The RW got their man in with GWB (or was it Cheney?) and the candy store has been well and truly plundered. But it is the morning after and the hangover from all that cheap sugar is setting in.
I am sure the plutocracy would like to win each and every election, but ever since the GOP's designated heir, George Allen, uttered the word "macaca" in front of a videocam, this election simply was not going to happen. Not Romney, not Huckleberry, not Grandpa Fred, not Il Duce Rudy, and not McCain either have enough heft to pull this one off (most likely). Not that they won't try hard.

As to the Supreme Court, even a one term Democratic president will likely be given the opportunity to replace Stevens and Ginsburg (and so stem the bleeding) and there is a 50/50 chance that either Kennedy or Scalia (both ~73) will also resign. If Obama is lucky enough to serve two terms, most likely he will be able to replace at least two RWers on the court.

I suspect the fact that Obama if elected will be able to have the same carte balance as Bush, had much to do with his had as much to do with his cave-in as cold calculating inoculation against a RW attack.

I like the quote from FDR at the end. FDR was also a cold calculating politician, but he was a pol with a center, a soul. There were certain core values he held, and they were evident from his presidence. I have often said that Bill Clinton was FDR without the soul -- and that showed how important the soul is. Does Obama have a center, a soul? I don't know, but I think he is brilliant and shrewd enough to grow tremendously in the presidency if he does have one.

FDR's quote is also instructive in its candor, and frankly, aside from a few overarching basic issues, I have no problem with it. Even in FDR's day, 90% of the press was against the New Deal and the democrats. It was up to other organizations -- unions, the NAACP, etc., to create the force to counterbalance the RW heft. Today Move On and Act Blue are heirs to that culture. It is up to us to organize and create an infrastructure that learns from the example of the RW, in order to pressure pols and hold them to account, to reward - and punish - them depending on whether they do our bidding or not.

With rare exception, thus it has ever been.

[Michael McKinlay]

Bruce Wilder -

The chickens are coming home to roost and the coup is about to burn to the ground.

Unless Obama gets radical about his economic and social programs he will be tarred and feathered by the disaster and the Republicans will say " I told you so". Bailing water on the Titanic wasn't a good strategy and business as usual will get the same results.

[Michael McKinlay]

Bruce Wilder -

The chickens are coming home to roost and the coup is about to burn to the ground.

Unless Obama gets radical about his economic and social programs he will be tarred and feathered by the disaster and the Republicans will say " I told you so". Bailing water on the Titanic wasn't a good strategy and business as usual will get the same results.

[OhNoNotAgain]

"If he ran on an FDR program he would not be vetted, permitted to become a serious candidate. For him to pursue an FDR program, he'll have to surprise everyone after he's in."

Ding, ding, ding !!!!! We have a winner. Clinton would have had to do the same thing. Many in this country has forgotten why we had many of the regulations and institutions that were put in place by FDR and successive administrations, and it's going to be a slow process for them to re-learn that we need them. Telling these people up front about all of the necessary changes just scares the shit out of them and allows the Republicans to paint the candidate as "too radical".

[Steve Salmony]

If we can find ways to educate the opinion-makers and ‘talking heads’ in the mass media who are 'educating' us now. That could be a step forward in terms of successfully establishing behavior changes grounded in competence and improved reality-orientation.

The family of humanity is only now starting to learn unexpectedly and painfully about certain human-induced global threats that could soon be presented to the human community by the seemingly endless growth of per human consumption and unbridled production activities increasing exponentially and overspreading the surface of Earth in our time.

Let us the consider the way many too many economists, politicians and their super-rich benefactors who primarily govern the workings of the news media, report to us that Earth can indefinitely sustain people conspicuously consuming its limited resources the way millions of fortunate people worldwide are doing; but I fear these intelligent ‘dreamers’ have lost their reality-orientation with regard to human biological limits and the limitations of the bounded physical world we inhabit. The Earth is relatively small, evidently finite and noticeably frangible; it is neither an eternal provider like a mother’s teat nor is it an endlessly overflowing cornucopia. Unlimited expansion of the global economy without regard to limits to its growth that are inevitably imposed by a finite world is an end-all strategy, I suppose.

A planet with the limitations and the make-up of Earth cannot realistically be expected to much longer maintain profligate over-consumption and adamantine hoarding of limited resources as well as seemingly endless expansion of production capabilities by millions of people, mostly in the overdeveloped world, that we see occurring as a result of actions by a tiny minority of selfish people who possess the wealth and power needed to behave in this ostentatious way.

Obscene displays of consumption by self-seeking people with great wealth could be directly undermining the biophysical integrity of Earth as well as precipitating deleterious effects upon its environs. Please consider how scarce resources are being recklessly dissipated and global ecosystems relentlessly degraded at a much faster rate than the Earth can restore its resources and ecological services for human benefit. Unintended, pernicious challenges resulting from the unrestrained increase of per capita over-consumption of Earth’s finite resources and the unbridled growth of economic globalization appear to be threatening to ravage our planetary home.

Perhaps the current scale as well the anticipated growth of per human over-consumption and the global economy could become unsustainable well before the year 2050.

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001

[Don Quijote]

A center-left presidency is what we will probably get and that should be a big improvement over what we have had for the past FORTY YEARS

What we are likely to get if Obama wins is a nice center-right administration and if McSame wins will get a third Bush term, at which point the US will be just another authoritarian police state disguising itself as a Democracy.

[Masonik]

"not McCain either have enough heft to pull this one off (most likely)"

How much impact does an Israeli attack on Iran have on McCain's candidacy and given the fact that Americans tend to vote Republican during times of war?

[Lafayette]

The Essence of America

ndd: Does Obama have a center, a soul? I don't know

I'm not sure it's a soul, but I think that he does have a Moral Compass.

And, in a country with a capitol that has lost its heading, he's gonna need it. A moral compass will be necessary but not sufficient for any Real Transformation.

Transformation is far more profound than just changing presidencies and administrations. It's even more than the aggregate of administration policy. It's certainly the work of more than just 8 years in office.

Transformation requires decades of dedication to certain principles/values that America lost ... on its road to riches, where business interests prevailed over (often) common sense but also over the Best Interests of the nation as a whole.

Which is why the preacher instinct of Obama appealed to so many. This is uniquely an American phenomenon. Gordon Brown preaching to the Brits would go over like a lead-balloon. Nicholas Sarkozy preaching to the French would be treated like a clown.

But, Obama preaching to the Americans -- it carries the day. Go figure as to how and why. But in the right answer lies the essence of America.

[ndd]

Masonic:
I am sure the GOP will pull out all the stops before election day. This includes public show trials in Gitmo (that may or may not go awry depending on actual judicial intervention), an attempt to capture the totally forgotten OBL, and assorted sabre rattling (the GOP playbook is Fear and Smear, pure and simple).

If Israel, not the US, attacks Iran, then if I am the Evil One in Iran, my response depends on who I want to win the US presidential election. Surely I will use my proxies, Hesbollah, Syria, and perhaps Hamas to mount assorted terrorist attacks in Israel. If I think the US was actively involved and not just passively, my proxies in Iraq return furiously.
If I want Obama to win, I wait till after the election. If I want McCain to win, I retaliate before.

If the Bush administration itself attacks Iran, without specific Congressional authorization, the public will be furious, and Obama wins in a landslide.

Lafayette: I agree, except I'm not sure about the moral compass part.

[Julio]

Lafayette:

"But, Obama preaching to the Americans -- it carries the day. Go figure as to how and why. But in the right answer lies the essence of America."

Well put.

"Transformation requires decades of dedication to certain principles/values that America lost ... on its road to riches, where business interests prevailed over (often) common sense but also over the Best Interests of the nation as a whole."

The enemy was, is, and remains Ronald Reagan,
who sold the nation on the idea that we had to choose between togetherness and progress.

Obama's political skills may be the needed antidote.

[Bruce Wilder]

Steve Salmony: "adamantine hoarding"

I am unfamiliar with the adjective in this context. What is it supposed to mean here?

[Bruce Wilder]

Michael McKinlay: "Unless Obama gets radical about his economic and social programs he will be tarred and feathered by the disaster and the Republicans will say 'I told you so'."

I agree with you. An Obama Administration would be well-advised to get very radical and aggressive on policy, on January 20th; half-measures will invite hooverization, as the country's situation, at home and abroad, continues to deteriorate. I also, mostly, agree with other commenters, who have made the point that the voters are unlikely to react favorably to a candidate, who strikes a "radical" pose. And, I would add, that the plutocratic powers-that-be will only hold fire, if they believe that Obama is "safe", an impression that Obama has been assiduous in cultivating. Whether he has the passion, soul, intellectual acuman and whatever else it takes, is the question that will trouble us all during the course of the campaign, when he will be taking positions that are easy to defend, particularly in front of an audience of low-information, "independent" voters, completely unlike those who comment on this blog.

"appealing to a conservative core" is what Obama and the Democrats have to do, to build an electoral majority. Since 1994, Reactionaries have been leading Conservatives in the Republican coalition. 2008 is the chance for Democrats to form a majority coalition combining Progressives and Conservatives. I believe that Obama is self-consciously trying to do that, thinking that his rhetorical and personal gifts make him an ideal pivot for such a turn. The job of the campaign is to bring Conservatives, dissatisfied with the moral and practical consequences of their erstwhile coalition with the corrupt and hateful Reactionaries, out of the Republican coalition and into the Democratic coalition.

I know a lot of noisy Progressives would like to hold the country hostage, extorting from Conservatives not just their reluctant votes, but open admission that Conservatives have been wrong about everything. Conservatives, by allying themselves with Reactionaries, have been wrong about everything. But, I seriously doubt that a campaign of extortion ("go ahead, elect McCain, destroy the country, I dare you; but if you want to save the Country, you have to accept everything on the Progressive agenda, from gay marriage to a cradle-to-grave welfare State to higher taxes to total military withdrawal from Iraq and every other damn place") is a winning strategy electorally, and even if it were, it doesn't set up preconditions for manageable governance thereafter. (Don't get me wrong! I support the Progressive Agenda -- if it were up to me personally, income tax rates would top out at 70% or higher; the Air Force would be holding bake sales to raise money for their F-22; and national health care . . . well you get the idea.)

In 2008, in the campaign, Job #1 is getting the conservative middle into partisan identification with the Democratic Party, otherwise known as a political realignment. Both Obama and Clinton shaped their campaigns to be conservative enough; I think Obama is a better vehicle than Clinton was, to facilitate the realignment. Oddly enough, McCain seems ready, however unconsciously, to cooperate in facilitating this realignment, by being the poster child for what happens to a Conservative, who allows himself to be seduced and subverted by the Dark Side of Reactionary politics. McCain 2000 was the candidate of Conservatives, beaten by the corrupt Reactionary's choice of George W. Bush for the Republican nomination. Now, McCain 2008 has repudiated many of his own iconic positions, to embrace an identity as John McBush III. He's demonstrating in dramatic fashion what a Conservative has to do, to maintain an alliance with a corrupt Reationary Party, and it ain't pretty.

2009+ will be the opportunity to see whether Progressives can lead Conservatives in a governing coalition. The Reactionaries will be waiting in the wings to see if they can frustrate and hooverize, carterize the Obama Administration and a solidly Democratic Congress. Solid, even radical Progressive accomplishment might solidify the political realignment. Or, it will all turn to ashes. Time will tell.

[Fred]

The most radical thing Obama could do is replace monetary by fiscal policy. If the Fed fixes interest rates at 2% over CPI and FDIC and the other bailout agencies are severely curbed, then the only way to stabilize the economy will be via the budget deficit/surplus.

When Congress increases spending/cut taxes and the benefit goes entirely to one group of people, the manifest unfairness of this is obvious to the average voter. Not so when Wall Street is able to make bad loans and profit enormously thereby, then have the Fed come in later and bail them out when the loans go sour. Same amount of money at stake, but the latter case is infinitely more difficult for the average voter to comprehend.

Right now, rise in interest rates to 2% real would allow for massive budget deficits. The balanced-budget cranks would roar at this, but the vast majority of the voters would be better off (assuming the demand didn't leak out with a trade deficit, and that can be fixed easily with a tariff) and the result would be another Democratic victory in 2012. A huge budget deficit allows for any sort of health care reform that Obama might want. Eventually, the deficit will have to be removed, but given the deflationary forces of the housing bust and the coming stock market bus, that day of reckoning should be well past 2012.

[methinks]

"KG: It was only in the aftermath of the martyrdom of JFK that the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. could have been passed. And even then, it still required every last ounce of LBJ's political genius to get them through."

The masses make history -not leaders. If you lived through this time you know that this country was being shaken to its foundation. It was in this climate that this legislation was passed.
The "free speech movement," Watts, Detroit, Columbia U., SDS, Panthers, Feminism, Anti-War Movement, Chicano, AIM, .........etc. I could go on and on. These were exciting and liberating times. Everything was being challenged, our schools, our professors, the curriculum, the arts, -everything. I long for those days to return.
In summation, Frederick Douglass said:
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
It was true over a hundred years ago, and it is true now.

[anne]

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/06/public-campaign.html

June 22, 2008

Public Campaign Financing

Francis Wilkinson is smart:

"Bring It On.... *

"If reformers make Mr. Obama out to be the bad guy, that may be fine by him. Despite what we have witnessed with our own eyes, some people remain under the illusion that Mr. Obama is soft. (Apparently they missed the part where, two years into his first term in the Senate, he ran for president against the most powerful political machine in America and steadily ground it down.) Mr. Obama’s willingness to snub reformers isn’t exactly akin to taming a lion or wrestling an alligator. But more than four months before the election, even beating up on a toothless bunny might send a message."

* http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/bring-it-on/

-- Brad DeLong

[Complete idiocy.]

[anne]

"Mr. Obama’s willingness to snub reformers isn’t exactly akin to taming a lion or wrestling an alligator. But more than four months before the election, even beating up on a toothless bunny might send a message."

My hero....

[anne]

"I know a lot of noisy Progressives would like to hold the country hostage...."

Offensive idiocy.

[Fred]

The upheavals of the 1960's were a worldwide phenomenon, the result of a surge of optimism. It became clear by then that nuclear war between the US and USSR was not going to happen, the green revolution meant that people were eating better than ever before, there was plentiful oil, not too much overpopulation and hence essentially no limits on future economic growth. Under these conditions, people rebelled against the old cultural norms, which had been developed in a time of scarcity. When the future is bright, there is no need to be so discplined as when the future is grim.

We now have the opposite situation. Everyone is pessimistic about the future and talking about a return to the days of scarcity. This pessimism will persist until the next wave of technological innovation causes another burst of optimism. The next few years may ressemble the 30's but they will most definitely NOT resemble the 60's.

[Icarus]

NDD...

There is no real 'terrorism' agains the Israeli state. The violence you see is reactive, and a response to the inherent violence which is the Israeli colonization and occupation of this land.

The people who inflict "terror" are the US, and the Israelis.

We should be careful about throwing such words around...

[anne]

"Surely I will use my proxies...."
"Surely I will use my proxies...."
"Surely I will use my proxies...."
"Surely I will use my proxies...."
"Surely I will use my proxies...."

Surely I know everything. Surely.

[methinks]

Fred says..
"The next few years may ressemble the 30's but they will most definitely NOT resemble the 60's."

You might be right! But remember, the 30s gave rise to a whole lot of progressive legislation.
People began to question the system when at least 25% of workers were unemployed. The ruling class was forced to make concessions. Conditions might once again force the American people to get engaged.

[Bruce Wilder]

anne: "Offensive idiocy."

Offensive idiocy.

[ndd]

Ah, the perils of online verbal intercourse.

Anne, my first line in that paragraph has the qualifying phrase "if I am the Evil One..." so all I stated is what an imaginary me would do. Which is something "surely" I might know a little about. Sorry you took it as something more.

Icarus, although you may not approve of the term, I think you knew factually what I meant. Blowing up stuff is blowing up stuff, regardless of the label.

[anne]

"Anne, my first line in that paragraph has the qualifying phrase 'if I am....' "

If.... I get it, now.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/22cnd-campaign.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=print

June 22, 2008

Obama Urges Tighter Regulation of Oil Speculators
By BRIAN KNOWLTON

Gee....

[Icarus]

ndd...

Not sure...there is a value to necessary armed resistance to colonization...
And, calling it 'terror' is a pernicious way to forget the violence they're responding to.

[methinks]

When you don't know anything, but think you do........snipe.

[Lafayette]

Fred: Everyone is pessimistic about the future and talking about a return to the days of scarcity.

Because most of the last three generations, born since WW2, including the baby-boomers, have never understood the word "penury".

Do you realize how spoiled a people Americans are, compared to how most of the people on this planet must live? Have you traveled abroad, further than Mexico? People live in misery in some countries -- a misery America has not seen since the Great Depression.

Fast forward: Americans now eat the most per capita, guzzle the most per car, pollute the most per person, and America has the greatest Income Inequity of any developed nation, etc., etc., etc.

America is the winner in most superlatives. And, now it is all in a dither because it fears its part of the pie may be shrinking?

Hey, let's get real - if only just once. Nobody out there is feeling sorry for Uncle Sam. He's feeling sorry for himself.

[Lafayette]

ndd: I agree, except I'm not sure about the moral compass part.

I am.

An example: When a lead-head president can say that "Kyoto is flawed as a treaty", then decide not to sign it. Meanwhile, his henchman of a vice-president calls in the the major oil/coal companies to assure them that they will maintain a stranglehold on American Energy. (Which friends at Enron conclude is a signal to profit from the arcane energy market by reducing supply and thereby making megabucks.)

All that evidences, imo, the lack of a Moral Compass. It is cronyism at its finest, or worst - which depends upon your POV.

True North in life is almost always indicated. We determine our own heading by what we say and what we do. Methinks.

[anne]

Real change, transforming change can happen if there is a possibility of questioning the supposed agents of change, and that strikes me as fiercely difficult. A change agent is supposed to be all responsible campaign financing, then changes mind and tells us the responsibility will come later but there is supposed to be no criticism. Similarly for acceptance of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Then, after wondering for weeks why there is no concern expressed over continuing the ethanol subsidy program in the midst of international food price problems, and domestic crop viability problems, when a temporary ethanol program suspension could be helpful, we find out that a candidate's campaign is riddled with advisers representing ethanol interests.

Change is possible but will not come unless the supposed change makers are allowed to be questioned and pushed, but that is ever so difficult presently.

[Bruce Wilder]

anne, go question McCain. See what that gets you.

all anyone gets from questioning you, anne, is "Offensive idiocy" -- pointless, mindless insults and childish outbursts.

[anne]

Having gotten all that could be gotten from smashing Hillary Clinton, a smashing still now and again under way, the need now is to threaten the specter of a terrible horrible awful fate unless voters actually vote as they are told they have to vote. Such is the way in which policy positions are to be "clarified," which is by threat against the attempt at clarification.

[anne]

Sort of like Jerry Seinfeld returning a blazer for spite, never have I felt more like voting just for spite.

[Patricia Shannon]

I suggest

"The Cycles of American History" by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.

"The Fourth Turning" by William Strauss and Neil Howe

[Lafayette]

Michael McKinlay: Unless Obama gets radical about his economic and social programs he will be tarred and feathered by the disaster and the Republicans will say 'I told you so'

The cure must be sufficient to the illness. We've let ourselves go.

We've undergone a dot.com boom that came and went with little profound effect on our economic fiber. It created a lot of fluff that didn't last a fortnight along with the creation of asset value that benefited a comparatively tiny portion of our population.

We're presently working our way out of the sub-prime mess that is comparable. It has benefited handsomely comparatively few whilst throwing a great number into the proverbial sh*t.

It is no wonder the body politic is in a nasty mood. It has good reason to be in a nasty mood, given what it has had to endure -- all the above with a war to boot.

We have the plutocratic political class we deserve, encrusted in Washington. If changing that is what BO means by "change we can believe it", then his is an appealing call to arms.

[Lafayette]

IC: Transformative Change cannot happen until the progressives, like Obama, can finally speak out against AIPAC. This pro-Israeli/Zionist lobby has haunted US politcs for a few decades,

Pure drivel, this. Wherever do you invent such trash?

Influence of the US on Isreali policy as regards the Palestinians is balanced, more or less, by European influence upon the Palestinians. In terms of clientelism, if the US finances Israel then the EU finances the Palestinian Authority. This arrangement has been tacit for more than two decades.

The bugger in the deal is Hamas, not the corrupt PA. For as long as they employ their terrorist arm against Israel, they will get no quarter from that country.

This blood feud has been going on for so long that people have forgot its origins. The hate is ingrained amongst the young, taught by the old that Israel is their enemy -- and that they should be prepared to annihilate Israel. So, in retaliation, Israel blocks their frontiers and the Palestinians incur even further suffering.

This situation is as intractable as Northern Ireland. Let's not forget that the overwhelming financing of the IRA bombers came from the US.

In these sorts of conflicts, there are no innocents but plenty of victims on both sides. It's insane.

The President of France, himself half Jewish, has real acceptance amongst Muslim leaders in France. He is in Israel presently and today visited Abbas. To the Israelis, he promised continued support for their state. (After all, it was DeGaulle that gave the Israelis the knowhow to build an atomic bomb -- against American protests.) To the Muslims he reiterated the need that Jerusalem be an "open city" and the capital of both Israel and the Palestinian state.

A more equilibrated approach to both parties is not likely possible. But, even if possible, would not further peace between them. Syria is key. The head of the Hamas movement is protected by the Syrian government in Damascus. So, Sarkozy has invited Assad to France's 14th July celebrations.

Sarkozy is working all the Middle-east levers (including heavy French influence in Lebanon) towards making a settlement possible. He could, nonetheless, easily fail -- like others before him.

Except financing an Israeli withdrawal from occupied lands, there is no much the US can do. Obama will make little difference, even if his middle name is Hussein. That carries no weight whatsoever in the matter.

[hari]

Yes, he can, if BO decides to withold US Treasury budget allocation to Israel. That's the only lever POUS can and usually does utilize when trying to get them to accomodate American policy towards a peace settlement (cf. Bush 41)

Sarkosy spoke to MK (just like GWB) but he was more demanding on a *two-state settlement* and peaceful co-existence in Old Palestine. Jerusalem cannot be - as BO and Mccain wanted, sole capital of Israel. It must be shared since the temples belong to both faiths...

What a difference a cartesian thinking-mind can conjecture comapred to an old brhamin from new england!

[Icarus]

Lafayette,

Surely you can not compare the roughly $500 million/year the EU spends on Palestine, to the amount of aid, support, UN bullying, and general disgerard for global opinion and law, enabled by the US regarding the israeli state.

And, there is an important question regarding the 'right for israel to exist'. This question has been taken off the table by the very colonizers who enabled it. It is a legitimate question.
Land acquisition and colonization such as this is illegitimate, and deserves our collective scrutiny.

As well, there is a necessary right to return. Palestinians live in sub-human conditions, and the violence they perpetrate is in reaction to being victims of atrocities. I'm not sure how 'israeli victims' compare. What are they? Who are they?

[Lafayette]

Promised Lands

Ic: Palestinians live in sub-human conditions, and the violence they perpetrate is in reaction to being victims of atrocities.

Yes, you are right. Violence engenders violence.

I'm not sure how 'israeli victims' compare. What are they? Who are they?

Are you an accountant? How many Palestinian lives are worth an Israeli life? Regress that for me, will you? The idea is nonsense. Both sides have suffered enough.

(Shylock, in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice: I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes; hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer that a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?)

Return to what? The PA has already two geographies, one around its HQ in Ramallah and the other in the Gaza strip. These parts are the homeland of the future Palestinian State. And, yes, they are probably insufficient. So, go ask Jordan give up its northern bit. Or Lebanon its southern bit.

But, don't even think of asking Israel to give up any of its land, including Jerusalem.

The East Jerusalem and West Bank settlements are clearly illegal. The Palestinians should, in any Statehood Treaty, get them back for their own people. So, if the Israelis are building them (employing American funding), to house the hard-head radicals who think that homesteading these plots gives Israel de facto ownership rights ... well, these hard-heads are dead wrong. The West Bank will house the Palestinian State as will Gaza.

The key in the puzzle is Hamas, which does not want to relinquish its belligerency towards Israel. This is stupid, but what can one do? It took the PA fifty years to realize that it cannot annihilate Israel. Let's hope Hamas comes quickly to the same conclusion -- and benefits legally as a recognized political party in the State of Palestine.

A Palestinian State living in harmony next door to the Israeli State makes for a lot of common sense. The Israeli economy has developed so fast that it needs low-skilled workers. It also could probably absorb all the Palestinian programmers that might be offered as well. Integrating the two economically, but separating them physically, will do both a world of economic good.

The only factor that is keeping this state-of-harmony from happening is Mutual Hatred.

Now, you tell us how to get beyond that mutual hatred -- and on to the Promised Lands of both ethnicities.

[Lafayette]

PS: Lafayette is not Jewish ...

[hari]

Finally some serious input on two-state solution....

Hamas is the root of Palestine Family Tree compared to Fatah which migrated from Tunis under Araft under Madrid/Norwegian sponsored peacetalks supported by Bush#41.

Having spent a (student) summer in a Kibbutz, I've love for both people and understand their ancient courtship relation back from Roman times (when Palestinians protected the Jews).
These children of Abraham have gone thru hell...and will one day live as peaceful neighbours, I trust in their destiny.

Jews are best students of Hamas, otherwise the present truce won't be possible. Fatah is corrupt and it was an error of judgement by GWB/Rice to ban Hamas (without understanding the Palestinian Family Tree structure).

Only a *neutral* US/EU participation in facilitating final settlement under UN resolutions will bring the conflict to an end. Yesterday's Berlin meeting is indicative of what can be achieved by developing the Palestinian infrastructure destroyed by relentless bombing and destruction by IDF.

[Lafayette]

hari: Only a *neutral* US/EU participation in facilitating final settlement under UN resolutions will bring the conflict to an end.

The US should be a spectator and the EU "neutral" as the active negotiator between the two parties.

Whenever there has been any progress towards establishing a peaceful co:existence, it has been the Europeans who accomplished it (both the Oslo and Geneva).