The Four Years Ahead of Us
As many others have posted, Barack Obama has now been elected President of the United States of America. Well, technically, he won't be elected until December when the electoral college will meet and the chosen electors will (almost certainly) elect him. But that won't stop me from rejoicing in the victory and celebrating, even though I put by faith in this as much as a year and a half ago, back when everyone thought the electoral contest would be Hillary vs. Giuliani.
It's been a long and hard race. Obama and his supporters, including myself, have tredged our way through a difficult primary season that was as brutal and vindicative as they come and which looked poised to split the party in two. We survived, remarkably, and we moved on together to face the Republicans. That battle was also hard, but once again, we pulled through, and in the end prevailed.
Now begins the hardest work of all. Governance. It's not enough just to be elected and to stand on promises. Obama, and those who follow him into office by election or appointment, are faced with a crisis greater than any since at least the 1960s when the country appeared on the brink of a race war even as we were losing a colonial war across the Pacific in the jungles of Southeast Asia. Some have even compared the situation to the Great Depression or the American Civil War, though in my opinion the crises we face can only be judged on such an immense magnitude once we've passed beyond it. And we will.
No one is any longer denying that the nation is in an economic downturn and an immense one at that. We face a massive trade deficit brought upon by importing the vast majority of our raw materials and manufactured goods alike and though we are the nation with the most bountiful farmlands, we import more food than the rest of the world. We use far more oil than we have the potential to produce or that the world can long continue to produce. People are being turned out of their homes, banks are collapsing, and vital investments are becoming worthless.
Our budget is burdened with paying not only for outdated social welfare services meant initially for the very old and infirm but also with a war that we cannot win and another war that we could if we would only give it the attention it deserves. What's more, our previous (and albiet, still current) president increased the cost of government while decreasing the income it took in. That's no way to run a business and it's no way to run a country.
Obama faces these problems and more, such as our dwindling international image abroad, a resurgent Al Qaida, an increasingly aggressive Russia, the inevitable spread of nuclear weapons (that's right - inevitable), and the threat of global warming. In a way, Jon Stewart could have been speaking for most of us, last week, in his interview with our future president, comparing America to a used car, he joked "is there a sense that you don't want this anymore?" Obama responded that he did and that this was the best opportunity to implement change.
So now, we must ask, will Obama walk the walk? Much has been made over the campaign by his opponents amongst Republicans that Obama is the "most liberal" senator in Washington. Let's forget for a moment that the word "liberal" is extremely loaded, far more than a word that literally means "free-thinking" should be, and that its definition as a political name-caller is on shaky ground (is Obama, for instance, more liberal than Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader)? Let's forget for a moment that the same people accusing Obama were also those who praised McCain in spite of, months earlier, calling him a "fake conservative." What the critics really meant was that Obama voted with his party more consistently than any other Democrat in the Senate.
This is a legitimate criticism to make, wrapped up though it is in lies and half-truths. Most Americans, as pollsters have repeatedly pointed out, are moderates, somewhere between the left and right wings. For that matter, most politicians, contrary to what most pundits on either side of the aisle like to claim, are also moderates. George W. Bush, contrary to the claims of many in my party, isn't a corporate fascist who builds the government solely for the benefit of the rich and powerful. In fact, he's opposed his own party on a few critical issues, such as immigration. Likewise, until Bush came along most political figures thought of making war abroad as a trait that Democrats consistently demonstrated, going all the way back to Woodrow Wilson, rather than traditionally isolationist Republicans.
Similarly, most Democrats aren't socialists but in fact capitalists who favor a little bit of the mixed economy that is common in Europe. Few Democrats are crazed, godless demagogues who wish to upturn all the values that we hold so dear, either. What better example of this is there, for example, than the fact that proponents of the Green Party often so openly say Democrats and Republicans are just the same? It's not true of course, but neither is the idea that they're complete opposites. And most Democrats have a few Republican views and most Republicans have a few Democrat ones.
I'll give an example. I, by nearly any standard, am pretty "liberal" (I'll go ahead and use the loaded term again). I happen to be in favor of government regulation of trusts and monopolies, social welfare programs, higher taxes to pay for the former, and labor unions. I want gay marriage to be legalized and I know global warming is real and that we should work hard to fix it. I want to protect the environment and pursue new energy sources such as wind and solar. I want to open up our immigration policies and make it easier for people to immigrate legally while toughening up on those who do so illegally. I believe, in spite of Obama's election, affirmative action hasn't quite finished its job yet and I oppose any attempt to turn our nation into a de facto theocracy based around Judeo-Christian values, including the treatment of pseudoscience like intelligent design as equals to theories backed up by the scientific method like evolution.
But in many other ways I might be considered "conservative" and was, by the standard of many whom I knew in childhood in my unusually liberal hometown, to the right of the the mainstream. I believe socialism on the scale proposed by Marx and other modern socialists would be a disaster and that, up and until corporations begin to become cartels, monopolies, and oligopolies that regulation is best left to the free market. I believe that labor shouldn't control the means of production, but rather those best trained through experience and business acumen.
I believe we should protect the environment, but never at a cost to ourselves since I truly believe the survival of humanity to be of a greater moral imperative than the rest of nature. If it comes between another species and us, the other species goes without question. Though I am against stupid wars like the one in Iraq I am not a pacifist and believe war can be justified and sometimes must be waged. I even believe that we should have the moral high ground in war, that we shouldn't go to war for moral reasons but rather practical ones. And here's something I haven't confessed before. I am (partially) pro-life, for a number of complex reasons I'd rather not go into.
So, you see, no one's a pure leftie or pure rightie. And it is for this reason Obama won, because he made his message clear: he will abandon partisanship and embarace the idea ofa United States of America. But the question is, will he do it? Though I can't answer that question I can say that he must, since if he doesn't, not only will our country go forward with the same slow speed it has for the past eight years, but Obama will be ousted from office for his failure to maintain the independent vote that brought him into office.
Here are some signs that would show if Obama truly means to embrace his message.
1. Obama appoints a Republican to a mid or high-profile job. One obvious contender is Colin Powell (prehaps for Secretary of Defense), though I have doubts in my gut as to whether or not the former Secretary of State would accept a new job or even be offered one in spite of his prestigious endorsement. But it could be someone else and Obama has a large number of Republican endorsements across the country. If he wants to show the country he's bringing real change, he'll do this. It would certainly be a smart move, as it would demonstrate he's not going to let the Democratic majority in Congress rule him but that he's going to reach across the aisle.
2. Obama immediately brings the United Nations and other international organizations into the economic crisis. Past presidents have been too proud and too bound by nationalism to seek international aid for anything. But if Obama wants to show that he's past that posturing and willing to really work for the American people, he should appeal to the UN for aid in the economic crisis. Likewise, he should reach across the Republicans and ask for their advice on the economic crisis, especially since many prominent economists, are, in fact, Republicans or conservative Independents.
3. Obama sits down with those who might yet become, but are not our enemies. Yes, the right wing has attacked Obama for this but there is nothing wrong with talking to the Iranians or the Cubans. In fact, not talking to them, makes the chances of war all the more easier since it leads to miscommunication. Any trained diplomat worth his salt will tell you that. That doesn't mean you take force off the table, like Chamberlain did infamously in his talks with Hitler. As Teddy Roosevelt once said "speak softly and carry a big stick." That means not threatening obliteration to your enemies before you talk with them. Diplomacy is much less effective once you've already made it clear you're hostile. After all, if somebody thinks you want to kill them but weren't already scared into submission the first time, why should talking with them now make any difference?
These are just a few signs that could show up. A few possibilities. If Obama is willing to bring change as he promises, there will be more.
Nivenus out.
It's been a long and hard race. Obama and his supporters, including myself, have tredged our way through a difficult primary season that was as brutal and vindicative as they come and which looked poised to split the party in two. We survived, remarkably, and we moved on together to face the Republicans. That battle was also hard, but once again, we pulled through, and in the end prevailed.
Now begins the hardest work of all. Governance. It's not enough just to be elected and to stand on promises. Obama, and those who follow him into office by election or appointment, are faced with a crisis greater than any since at least the 1960s when the country appeared on the brink of a race war even as we were losing a colonial war across the Pacific in the jungles of Southeast Asia. Some have even compared the situation to the Great Depression or the American Civil War, though in my opinion the crises we face can only be judged on such an immense magnitude once we've passed beyond it. And we will.
No one is any longer denying that the nation is in an economic downturn and an immense one at that. We face a massive trade deficit brought upon by importing the vast majority of our raw materials and manufactured goods alike and though we are the nation with the most bountiful farmlands, we import more food than the rest of the world. We use far more oil than we have the potential to produce or that the world can long continue to produce. People are being turned out of their homes, banks are collapsing, and vital investments are becoming worthless.
Our budget is burdened with paying not only for outdated social welfare services meant initially for the very old and infirm but also with a war that we cannot win and another war that we could if we would only give it the attention it deserves. What's more, our previous (and albiet, still current) president increased the cost of government while decreasing the income it took in. That's no way to run a business and it's no way to run a country.
Obama faces these problems and more, such as our dwindling international image abroad, a resurgent Al Qaida, an increasingly aggressive Russia, the inevitable spread of nuclear weapons (that's right - inevitable), and the threat of global warming. In a way, Jon Stewart could have been speaking for most of us, last week, in his interview with our future president, comparing America to a used car, he joked "is there a sense that you don't want this anymore?" Obama responded that he did and that this was the best opportunity to implement change.
So now, we must ask, will Obama walk the walk? Much has been made over the campaign by his opponents amongst Republicans that Obama is the "most liberal" senator in Washington. Let's forget for a moment that the word "liberal" is extremely loaded, far more than a word that literally means "free-thinking" should be, and that its definition as a political name-caller is on shaky ground (is Obama, for instance, more liberal than Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader)? Let's forget for a moment that the same people accusing Obama were also those who praised McCain in spite of, months earlier, calling him a "fake conservative." What the critics really meant was that Obama voted with his party more consistently than any other Democrat in the Senate.
This is a legitimate criticism to make, wrapped up though it is in lies and half-truths. Most Americans, as pollsters have repeatedly pointed out, are moderates, somewhere between the left and right wings. For that matter, most politicians, contrary to what most pundits on either side of the aisle like to claim, are also moderates. George W. Bush, contrary to the claims of many in my party, isn't a corporate fascist who builds the government solely for the benefit of the rich and powerful. In fact, he's opposed his own party on a few critical issues, such as immigration. Likewise, until Bush came along most political figures thought of making war abroad as a trait that Democrats consistently demonstrated, going all the way back to Woodrow Wilson, rather than traditionally isolationist Republicans.
Similarly, most Democrats aren't socialists but in fact capitalists who favor a little bit of the mixed economy that is common in Europe. Few Democrats are crazed, godless demagogues who wish to upturn all the values that we hold so dear, either. What better example of this is there, for example, than the fact that proponents of the Green Party often so openly say Democrats and Republicans are just the same? It's not true of course, but neither is the idea that they're complete opposites. And most Democrats have a few Republican views and most Republicans have a few Democrat ones.
I'll give an example. I, by nearly any standard, am pretty "liberal" (I'll go ahead and use the loaded term again). I happen to be in favor of government regulation of trusts and monopolies, social welfare programs, higher taxes to pay for the former, and labor unions. I want gay marriage to be legalized and I know global warming is real and that we should work hard to fix it. I want to protect the environment and pursue new energy sources such as wind and solar. I want to open up our immigration policies and make it easier for people to immigrate legally while toughening up on those who do so illegally. I believe, in spite of Obama's election, affirmative action hasn't quite finished its job yet and I oppose any attempt to turn our nation into a de facto theocracy based around Judeo-Christian values, including the treatment of pseudoscience like intelligent design as equals to theories backed up by the scientific method like evolution.
But in many other ways I might be considered "conservative" and was, by the standard of many whom I knew in childhood in my unusually liberal hometown, to the right of the the mainstream. I believe socialism on the scale proposed by Marx and other modern socialists would be a disaster and that, up and until corporations begin to become cartels, monopolies, and oligopolies that regulation is best left to the free market. I believe that labor shouldn't control the means of production, but rather those best trained through experience and business acumen.
I believe we should protect the environment, but never at a cost to ourselves since I truly believe the survival of humanity to be of a greater moral imperative than the rest of nature. If it comes between another species and us, the other species goes without question. Though I am against stupid wars like the one in Iraq I am not a pacifist and believe war can be justified and sometimes must be waged. I even believe that we should have the moral high ground in war, that we shouldn't go to war for moral reasons but rather practical ones. And here's something I haven't confessed before. I am (partially) pro-life, for a number of complex reasons I'd rather not go into.
So, you see, no one's a pure leftie or pure rightie. And it is for this reason Obama won, because he made his message clear: he will abandon partisanship and embarace the idea ofa United States of America. But the question is, will he do it? Though I can't answer that question I can say that he must, since if he doesn't, not only will our country go forward with the same slow speed it has for the past eight years, but Obama will be ousted from office for his failure to maintain the independent vote that brought him into office.
Here are some signs that would show if Obama truly means to embrace his message.
1. Obama appoints a Republican to a mid or high-profile job. One obvious contender is Colin Powell (prehaps for Secretary of Defense), though I have doubts in my gut as to whether or not the former Secretary of State would accept a new job or even be offered one in spite of his prestigious endorsement. But it could be someone else and Obama has a large number of Republican endorsements across the country. If he wants to show the country he's bringing real change, he'll do this. It would certainly be a smart move, as it would demonstrate he's not going to let the Democratic majority in Congress rule him but that he's going to reach across the aisle.
2. Obama immediately brings the United Nations and other international organizations into the economic crisis. Past presidents have been too proud and too bound by nationalism to seek international aid for anything. But if Obama wants to show that he's past that posturing and willing to really work for the American people, he should appeal to the UN for aid in the economic crisis. Likewise, he should reach across the Republicans and ask for their advice on the economic crisis, especially since many prominent economists, are, in fact, Republicans or conservative Independents.
3. Obama sits down with those who might yet become, but are not our enemies. Yes, the right wing has attacked Obama for this but there is nothing wrong with talking to the Iranians or the Cubans. In fact, not talking to them, makes the chances of war all the more easier since it leads to miscommunication. Any trained diplomat worth his salt will tell you that. That doesn't mean you take force off the table, like Chamberlain did infamously in his talks with Hitler. As Teddy Roosevelt once said "speak softly and carry a big stick." That means not threatening obliteration to your enemies before you talk with them. Diplomacy is much less effective once you've already made it clear you're hostile. After all, if somebody thinks you want to kill them but weren't already scared into submission the first time, why should talking with them now make any difference?
These are just a few signs that could show up. A few possibilities. If Obama is willing to bring change as he promises, there will be more.
Nivenus out.