What Are We Waiting For?
May 22nd, 2008 | 9 responses
Here is another Guest Voice by Joel S. Hirschhorn who is highly critical of both parties.. Guest Voice columns do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.
What Are We Waiting For?
by Joel S. Hirschhorn
Long before the disastrous George W. Bush administration, I had been waiting for profound, systemic changes in our political system. Perversely, I saw the upside of Bush as motivating more Americans to demand political change. And that happened. But the national yearning for change was co-opted by Ron Paul on the right and Barack Obama on the left while John Edwards with the most authentic populist change message fizzled out early.
It is not enough to want, demand and support change, not when change is more of a campaign slogan than a carefully detailed set of reforms. Critically needed is a firm understanding of what specific changes can restore American democracy and remove the privileged rich plutocrats and corporatists running and ruining our nation.
A huge fraction of Americans have bought into the Obama candidacy because of his polished and effective rhetoric. But Obama does not offer the changes I have been waiting for, or the ones the public needs. A great speaker does not necessarily have the courage or intent to fight for deep political reforms.
Our nation’s Founders did not create the United States of America just with smiles and slick rhetoric; they were bold, risk-taking revolutionaries fighting tyranny. Obama has not defined our domestic tyranny and told us how he will try to abolish it. Obama is no dissident or revolutionary. The change he mostly seeks is moving from senator to president. Not what I have been waiting for.
There is no evidence in Obama’s brief political career that he is a champion for deep political reforms to transfer power from the plutocrats to the people. To the contrary, the more you learn about Obama’s history the more he appears as just another super-ambitious politician making friends, using people and cutting deals to get ahead.
To begin with, I have been waiting for a potential president that speaks out against the over-powerful two-party system that sucks up money from all countless corporate and other special interests. I have never heard a word from Obama to indicate he understands the many harmful effects of the two-party plutocracy and the need to open up our political system to a much wider spectrum of beliefs and strategies. Instead, Obama cleverly talks about bipartisanship just as many other Democrats and Republicans have, because that maintains the two-party status quo.
If Obama believed in opening up the political system he would, for example, advocate opening up televised presidential debates to third party candidates and removing the many obstacles the two parties have built to limit ballot access to third party and independent candidates. He would also openly call for replacing the Electoral College with the popular vote for president.
If Obama truly wanted to get rid of big, corrupting money from corporate and other special interests, then he should be advocating a constitutional amendment that would remove all private money from political campaigns and change the US system to totally publicly financed campaigns. Only a constitutional amendment can accomplish this. Campaign financing reforms by Congress are a distraction and next to useless.
And if Obama really supported universal health care, then he would have concluded as nearly all experts have that the nation needs a single payer insurance system that puts an end to the rape of the public by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
Change? Absolutely.
But real systemic, root changes that reform and transform the current system by changing the power structure that both major parties have nourished over many decades.
What is so clear to millions of people highly skeptical of the Obama-as-political-messiah fiction is that he has not earned the presidency through diverse political and leadership accomplishments.
Sure, none of the other candidates are any better than Obama – not Hillary Clinton, not John McCain. More worthy candidates based on experience and authenticity succumbed to many bizarre forces and media disinterest. It is too late to enlighten ardent Obamatons, but millions of voters will justify voting for Obama as the lesser evil candidate. That proves how bankrupt our political system really is. Now is the time to reject the two-party plutocracy and vote for third party and independent candidates, such as Ralph Nader. Yes we can! Voters that define themselves as independents should assert their independence by rejecting candidates from both major parties.
With a longer view of history, there really is something worse than John McCain becoming president. It is once again upholding the periodic shift of power between the two major parties that stabilizes their tyranny. Just as the Bush administration has built demand for change so too would a McBush presidency. Maybe then in 2012 a true, trustworthy and proven agent of change would have a shot at the presidency.
However, electing Obama will set back things back.
He will only disappoint us and drain all the pent up demand for change by delivering, at most, some cosmetic actions. Just like his recent decision to wear a flag lapel pin.
The right question is not whether this African American can win the general election, it is SHOULD he be president?
After a few years as president, millions of people would realize that Obama is not the political salvation people have been waiting for. Of course, he would then focus on getting a second term, with more seductive smiles, empty platitudes and false promises.
Why not? It worked the first time.
[Joel S. Hirschhorn can be reached through www.delusionaldemocracy.com. He is a co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org.]
opinions powered by SendLove.to
9 Responses to “What Are We Waiting For?”
I think this post answers its own question.
The question: Why not revolutionary change?
The answer: Not everyone wants the same revolution., so we would need several revolutions at the same time, or, as I would call it, chaos.
Johm Edwards's populism appealed to many people, but not to enough people. to make him a likely winner. for the presidency.
The same is true for the Green Party, Libertarians and other potential third parties. Changing the system to a multi-party one,would certainly be revolutionary, but, as we see in other countes, a government of unstable coalitions constituted from its many parties can be just that – an unstable government.
I think public financing for elections is a grand idea, but I can see how difficult it is to get enough support.now. What would make it suddenly be an overnight success , no matter how rhetorically gifted the candidate making that a priority might be.?
We can't even agree enough to pass an immigration bill, but someone thinks we could agree on what kind of revolution we should have? I don't think so.
The next president is going to have a very full plate passed to him by the current administration. I wouldn't want him spending his days umpiring revolutuons when he could be spending his time trying to make headway on Iraq, Iran, the economy, health care, the infrastructure, education challenges and on and on.
The way I read Obama is that he would try to deal with old problems in a revolutionayr way: without political character assasination, demonizing the opposition,or creating unnecessary , animosity abroad or at home by virtue of showing opem disdain. when simple resolve and firmness wiould do.
How successful he can be, is an open question. I'm sure everything possible will be fone to not treat him in the same respectful manner and to provoke him into political fights.
Judging from the hatred and vituperation on blogs, we may even be beyond salvation, determined to devour each other without regard to consequences.
We may be beyond caring what kind of lessons we are teaching our dhildren about civil society, thus guarranteeing that he current state of stale-mating hate continues past our demise.
Obama offers hope that it's not too late, that we can deal with our disagreements without jeopardzinzing our future. That we can solve problems, instead.
Hope itself, can be a revolution in the making. It depends on how many people still care and are willing to give civil society and cooperation a chance.
It does not depend on Obama. He can only point the way. It depends on us.
Should this revolution of mehods and manners succeed, however, then the suvsequent revolutioanary changes might just be possible without us detroying ourselves in the process.
[...] [...]
I do agree with the ops point that Barak Obama's message is to change his address.
Barak Obama speaks in glowing rhetoric but his voting record does not underscore a senator who is anything but a Pack animal. He however does espouse the proper slogans. “I will end the war.”
America is what it is. America is a good and decent country that just needs a few pushes in one direction or the other. America needs a smaller military and a larger health care system and we will have damn near a perfect country.
I shake my fist at those on both sides who have tried to change America to their version of what they perceive it to be. It has taken 200 plus years to get to what it is. Without a doubt one of the best places on earth to live. I did not say THE BEST but I did say one of the best.
Im so sick of people trash talking their own country. They embrace Barak Obama's flowery and glowing words of change and yet if you stop. Think. Analyze his message just what is it hes saying?
America SUCKS and Im here to fix it.
Thats not change. Thats the progressive lefts message for the last 35 years.
“I had been waiting for profound, systemic changes in our political system. Perversely, I saw the upside of Bush as motivating more Americans to demand political change.”
That's not the only thing perverse. Only the extreme fringe (accompanied by kids who know nothing yet of the real world) want “revolutionary change” and more laughable yet, actually anticipate it.
Instant runoff voting presents the easiest and most effective way of creating an option to the “lesser of evils” scenario many people feel they are being held hostage to. I believe adopting it here would give democracy a real shot in the arm.
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/faq.htm
As might be expected, wiki has lot's of good info on IRV as well.
Approval voting is superior to instant runoff voting (the name is cheap and brings to informed minds the image of flashing lights and gongs when an instant runoff is announced). Both are better than our plurality system that we have now. More than two political parties would be superior to what we have now. Users should not overlook the advantages of multi-party proportional representation merely because its almost-exclusive proponents are far-left activists who have no hope of any measure of acceptance of their agenda items in our legislatures otherwise.
Approval voting quck (single) link
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvot…
Proportional representation quick (single) link (the owner has called both Reagan and Thatcher “far right” [sic] and has placed the Democratic Party slightly right of center, in the past)
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm
Neocon,
Your own words belie you conclusion:
“I shake my fist at those on both sides who have tried to change America to their version of what they perceive it to be” …
is a very strong statement acknowledging yhat you have your own vision of what Anerica ought to be and that you're angry at those who have a different vision.
We have then, the Right, the Left, and you, all three shaking their fists at each other because each loves America enough to want it to be the best it can be.
You appear to feel that you are the only one who gets it right, and anyone who diagrees with you is dissing America.
News flash: everyone feels they are the one who gets it right and that they are fighting for the 'real' America.
The fist shaking has gotten so bad that Congresspeople care more about making the other side look bad and enhancing their own political prospects than
about moving even an inch to solve our growing pile of problems.
Obama is saying that the fist shaking and the name calling should stop, so that
we can talk to each other instead of shouting invectives at each other. When the noise stops, maybe we can actually hear each other well enough to find common ground on which to erect problem solving mechanisms.
That's calling for a more profound change, a more basic change, than the change represented by any single policy position.
Obama openly admits that he is not a perfect model for his own vision.
He is but a man, and a politician, as you point out. Many of his supporters have certainly ignored his message in order to carry on vituperative political battles in the same old way.
But his vision of HOW we relate to each other stands clear nevertheless.
Just think how our world could change if enough people, each in his imperfect way, would strive to put away the fist and engaged in respectful debate instead.
No more screaming heads pundits masquering as news reporters and commntators!.
Just hink how this blog's site would be impreved if we talked to eah other instead of wasting space on insults and vituperative rants. We might even find out how much we have in common, and that we are all fighting for the 'real' potential of America.
We ought to talk about how to improve elections at all levels and how the Democrats should improve their primaries.,,,,BUT NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ONGOING PRIMARY PROCESS.
No one should try to change the rules of the game in the middle of the game.
All participants should agree on the ruels at the start of the game, so they know which strategies will work.
The Democrats – all candidates-agreed on the rules at the beginning of the game.
Changing the rules now would be an exercise in bait-and-switch.
I shake my fist at the FAR left and the FAR right. If the shoe fits. Wear it.