An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Barack Obama & The Referendum On Turning America Back From The Dark Side

01aaalibertykids.jpg

There are those, I know, who will say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom of man and mind, is nothing but a dream. They are right. It is the American dream. — ARCHIBALD MacLEISH

In exactly nine weeks, America will go to the polls in the most important election of my lifetime and, I daresay, for anyone who wasn’t old enough to vote for Franklin Roosevelt or Herbert Hoover in 1932.

Why is it the most important? Because even before factoring in the excesses, amorality and criminality of the last eight years, America already was in the kind of deep doo-doo that not even 1932 can compare to:

Well before the coming of George Walker Bush, the disparity between the rich and poor was accelerating. Middle class families were having a harder time balancing their checkbooks. Millions of people had no access to affordable health care, let alone the insurance to help pay for it. There was an over-reliance on fossil fuels and indifference to alternative energy resources. The infrastructure was crumbling. And there was great confusion about the role the remaining superpower should play on the world stage.

These crises, well underway as the new millennium dawned, cannot be blamed on the Clinton administration alone or for that matter any other administration of recent vintage. Some of the problems were beyond the control of whomever occupied the Oval Office. Indeed, some cried out for solutions that no party or politician could provide.


* * * * *

The dread that I felt that night in Philadelphia in August 2000 as Bush gnawed his way through his acceptance speech was palpable. This was because I knew that he was an empty vessel — a resumé without a man — into which rabid conservatives would pour their animosities and causes.

That some eight years later Bush has not fulfilled a single promise made in his acceptance speech seems besides the point. That he, nor any other president, could have done little to stanch certain long-term economic and social trends let alone prevent a hurricane by the name of Katrina from ravaging the Gulf Coast is beside the point.

The point is that what this president was able to control, be it responding to a humanitarian crisis, checking the excesses on Wall Street that were visiting miseries on Main Street not seen since the Great Depression, or embarking on initiatives to help calm the world’s hot spots, were well beyond his interest or capabilities. In fact, he was utterly out of his depth if he wasn’t tethered to the reliably evil Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and the lesser Machiavellis surrounding him.

It is Bush’s abject failure to lead following the events of September 11 that will be his legacy writ large.

How extraordinary that he took a presidential approval rating the likes of which had not be seen since Pearl Harbor attack and drop-kicked it all the way to Iraq while getting in a succession of sucker punches to the solar plexus of the balance of powers, the rule of law and international treaties and conventions to which the U.S. had been a charter signatory. Not in the service of fighting the Global War on Terror, the convenient cover story, but the very kind of imperial power grab that the Founding Fathers feared.

The result has been an ear-popping descent to the point where Bush’s dis-approval rating threatened to eclipse that of a late 20th century president who at least had the sense to resign.

* * * * *

It is hard to believe that this time a year ago, I was considering voting for John McCain.

This is because I understood that getting beyond the Age of Bush, let alone trying to rebound from its excesses, was not simply a matter of partisan politics. It was a matter of leadership, and in the distant past of September 2007 it seemed to me that the man from Arizona was made of sturdier stuff than a certain former First Lady.

Enter Barack Obama and a political ascendancy that is as improbable as this election is important.

If you are in the thrall of the media noise machine, then you may believe that Obama has raised more questions about his ability to lead America out of that morass than he has answered.

I do agree that few potential presidents during my lifetime have seemed more like a work in process, although not the empty vessel that George Bush was and remains. But Obama should be well known at this juncture: A hugely-charismatic man who has cleverly-marketed the politics of change but has a bare-knuckled pragmatism evident in his selection of Joe Biden.

Contrast the Biden pick with Sarah Palin, a lightweight so devoid of experience that she makes Richard Nixon’s anointment of a corrupt, third-rate governor and county executive by the name of Spiro Agnew seem inspired. And what further confirmation is needed about how addled and impulsive McCain is?

Taking a chance on Barack Obama is not really much of a gamble because he has made the hoary concept of governance a centerpiece of his campaign and will surround himself with the best and brightest; even Republicans.

Then there is the deeply-cynical John McCain, who not only is running a shameful campaign reminiscent of Bush-Cheney 2000 and 2004, but would take us even deeper into that morass of fear and thuggery not merely because of his failure to break with it but because of his obeisance to the very people who have taken America to the dark side.

Image: “Liberty” by Andrea Harris

  • Kathryn
    Well said Shawn, I admit to getting caught up in the "mommy war" noise surrounding Palin. The most relevant points are Obama's pick shows a readiness to govern with seriousness. McCain's decision not to vet his pick shows he isn't ready to govern.
  • superdestroyer
    Shawn must have been smoking a lot of dope back in the 70's to believe that the economy is worse off now than it was in the last year of the Carter Administration. Double digit unemployment, double digit inflation, energy prices rocking the economy, and a presidential administration who had to idea what to do about any part of the economy.

    Do you really believe that 10 percent unemployment is better than what we have today.

    Of course, Shawn will not support things that would help the economy such as lower governmetn spending. limiting illegal immigration, or improving the academic teaching in public schools.

    The real question is will the U.S be better off with the coming one party state and with Chicago style politicians in charge of the government. For a couple of decades the white middle class has had to vote with their feet because they have been unable to affect political change at the ballot box. Look at the loss of population in places like Philly, Baltimore, Detroit, Cleveland. As the U.S. becomes a one party state dominated by urban politicains who pander to the underclass where is the middle class suppose to move to escape it.
  • superdestroyer- So it would actually be better for my parents to have four more years of Bush-Cheney, than four years of change. That's very obvious, seeing that after eight we have ballooning budget deficits, the biggest governmental debt, like, ever, and tax cuts for the wealthy. Of course Obama is pandering to the underclass, Chicago-style, when he talks about helping the middle class. That wouldn't seem to be the most likely way, but, hey, if you say so, man.
  • superdestroyer
    PG,

    Did I make that argument. Of course, Senator Obama is being massively oversold with people like Shawn as an example. However, the question is what do your parents do. If they own a private business or work for themselves, the Obama Administration is not looking so good. If they live in an area that is prone to high crime, the Obama Adminsitration's desire to limit the punishment of criminals may not be a good idea. If they compete honestly with businesses that hire illegal aliens, the Obama Administration will be a disaster.

    However, if they work in the public sector, are a union members, or work in the legal professions, the Obama Administration will be a blessing. If they are already getting a government check, the Obama Administration is probably a good thing since those checks will expand.

    However, where would you tell your parents to invest their retirement funds in the coming Obama Adminstration? With higher capital gains taxes, income stocks will go down. Many industries such as energy, trans portation, and tourism will go down. It is impossible to invest in lawyers or unions, so where should people invest their money. I suspect that tax emept bonds will become a stronger investment as people try to shelter their investments from higher taxes.
  • JSpencer
    Well said Shaun, once again you nailed it. I'd like to hang out and say more but it's off to work for me. My long weekend is over.

    A parting comment: Lot's of weird stuff going on over in the twin cities. I guess cops do whatever they want at R conventions, apparently citizens' rights are temporarily suspended.

    Here's just one example:

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Thugs-with-Bad...

    Adios
  • AustinRoth
    jspencer - you pay ANY attention to what the cops did in Denver? Sheesh, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

    BTW - interesting, isn't it, how often the Left (supposedly the 'peace and kindness' group) seems to use violence and physical intimidation to make their political points at Right-oriented functions.
  • Rudi
    SD - What does the Carter administration have to do with W's, both were incompetent.
    How has the DJA performed under Bush.
    http://www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/index.cfm?event...
    At the time of his election the DJA was around 10,500, what is it at today?
  • superdestroyer
    Rudi,

    If Shawn is going to say that the economy is the worst since 1929, then Shawn is making the argument that the economy in 1980 was better than it is today. That argument is totally incorrect. My almost any measure, the economy was much worse n 1980 than it is today. Does that make the election in 1980 more important than the election in 2008.

    Shawm would also have a better argument of how the Obama campaign really is different from standard boilerplate Democratic policy proposals. Giving the trial lawyers, the unions, and the public service employees everything they want is not exactly change. Does anyone really believe that creating ten more versions of Americorps really change?
  • Leonidas
    I'm voting for McCain-Palin, this is the ticket that represents reform. You have two people on this ticket that have taken on and won against their own party. In the Obama-Biden ticket you get the 8th and 11th most partisan senators, having voted with their party 96% and 96.6% of the time.

    Its not like this party has done anything for America either since the Democrats took controll of both houses of congress. We have seen then roll over and fold on almost every issue where they had a madate from the people to act. We even saw Obama himself go from threatening to filibuster any legislation granting retroactive immunity to telecomes for assisting the Bush administrations warrantless wiretapping, to adding his vote of approval to the Dick Cheney'd FISA bill which granted such immunity. Obama, like the rest of the Democrats simply lack the will to carry out their promises, and if Obama is elected we will see a continuation of this in my opinion, the track record certainly shows it.

    When it comes to reforming this nations government I'll take the man who lead the gang of 14, the man who pushed McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy etc through the hoops, and I'll take his running mate who left a trail of corrupt republican politicians in wake, and is actually from the real world outside DC. I won't take an empty suit spouting rhetoric about change while voting for his own party 96% of the time and his history of Chicago politics and his running mate who is more partisan than 84% of an extremely partisan senate.
  • vwcat
    I am really astounded that people who are on the internet so much are so lazy or just take whatever is fed them and do not use any common sense or try to do any research.
    By that I mean that people do not bother to use google, look up the website of the candidates or go to the Library of Congress site to look up the record and legislation of many of the candidate who were running for president.
    If they did they would know obama has quite a long legislative page with sponsoring and co-sponsoring many bills of import. Not so much headline grabbing as solid and good.
    His website has pages of detailed policy proposals on all the major issues and he has had some major policy papers published in journals like Foreign Affairs, ect.
    There had been a very detailed artlcle in the NY Times about his years as a Constitutional professor where they even went into his exams and notes and class schedules.
    You can find out alot of information on the web about obama and what he has done and it is eye opening.
    this is a very serious and deep man who is very involved in policy and the issues.
    He is hardly just rhetoric. He is hardly just a speechifier. It doesn't hurt that he more then excels in writing and giving speeches and know how to inspire and motive people. But, that is also the public part of a good candidate. They should be able to do that. Until the past 20 years, it was considered an essential part.
    So, when people say they do not know about him or what his positions are obviously are relying only on a dysfunctional media that is more about the horse race then informing the public.
  • vwcat
    Those citing the Carter admin. are obviously too blinded by loyalty to the republican party to be able to step back and look at things from an objective view.
    If they were able to they would know that Bush has done far worse damage to and our economy is in the worse shape it's been since the beginning of the Depression.
    Maybe pick up a copy of a good book on the depression, look at the real statistics and you will find that we have not been in a bad of a shape until now.
    I may be a democrat but, I am able to see and know when my own side was not doing a good job. Carter was not successful and was a disappointment. But, he hardly plunged us into economic disaster like we are in now.
    Even I can say that Clinton was an embarrassment for his personal weaknesses and scandals, ect. but, he did know how to fix the economy.
    You had a decent president with Reagan and Bush I. I don't take that away from you but, please quit being sooooo partisan that you cannot even be honest with yourselves and see that Bush Jr. has been a walking disaster for this country. Domestic and Foreign policy wise.
  • AustinRoth
    Well, being old enough actually remember gas lines, stagflation, every reducing GDP, double-digit interest rates, the nadir of home ownership in our country's history, the drumbeat from the left that 'our time as a superpower was past', etc., yep, it WAY better than today.

    Carter did not 'plunge us into economic disaster like we are now.' I fully agree with that. It was way, way worse. Especially as we aren't really in a 'disaster', but that is another inconvenient truth, kind of like how 'homelessness' is only a problem during Republican administrations.
  • superdestroyer
    A.R.

    You also forgot that the U.S. had the highest crime rates in its history during the late 1970's. It is hard to understand movies like Death Wish and Dirty Harry without understanding the underlaying crime rates.
  • superdestroyer
    VWCAT.

    It is hard to argue that Clinton did much for the economy considering he had a Republican Congress for his last six years. The best argument from the Clinton years is that divided government is good government in that it limits the expansion of government and stops new programs. It also means that the rules stay the same for longer. The Clinton Administration went six years without a tax increase. I doubt if the Obama Administration will be the same.

    Also, how many times to I have to call McCain an idiot so that you will stop consider me a partisan.
  • timr
    The major problem has never been mentioned by either party is the militarism of the US. The fact is that both parties would rather use the military than diplomacy. The fact that bush always has his picture taken surrounded by uniformed military speaks volumes. The fact that the US has a standing professional Military, something the founders would deplore. This fact has escaped the MSM, Gen Abrams reorganized the new all vol.(professional) military back in 1973 when the draft ended to give the guard/reserve 40% of the missions that had been carried out by the active duty military. This was done to give the military more control over their civilian bosses proclivity to start wars. Since the advent of the american professional army we have used them more times than we did between the 1860 and 1973. The professional military contains 1% of the US population. Currently it is 49% African American, and at least 30% hispanic. The vast majority of minorities are in the enlisted ranks. Most-not all, but most-of the current officer class come from children of current officers and young people whose families have a long history of serving. The sons and daughters of the rich and powerful do not consider the military as a career any more. Like dick cheney, they have "Better things to do." The next step in a militaristic society is a police state that crushes dissent. So, do not be surprised when the police arrest protesters in St Paul before they can even protest.
  • mikkel
    Yes I would argue the numbers now are as bad as they were in the 70s. They changed how they calculated both inflation and unemployment. If you use the old metric we are near 10% in both right now. There is a lot of argument whether the new way or the old way is more reflective of "reality" but apples to apples comparison things are very similar.

    This suppossedly constructs the data using the old metrics. I've read several critiques that say it is overstating things in most cases by 2-4%. (So they say 14% unemployment while most of the economists would say 10%, which is also in line with the broadest measure that the government releases).

    And CPI would be around 14%, but most of the people say that it used to be very stupid and unrealistic and so rebalancing it was wise.....but if you took out "hedonics" (which most of the time they don't even make sense) then around 10% is accurate.

    So yes I would argue that the actual numbers are relatively the same, and furthermore look at wage increases and they are much much lower.
  • Rudi
    The gas lines and inflation happened due in part to an OPEC embargo, not our consumption after 911 that W pushed. To the partisans on the other side, once again where is the DJA after Bush 43. I'd guess the increase is about as bad as a bank savings interest rate.
  • superdestroyer
    tmir,

    The military is less than 1/4 blacks with the Navy, Air Force, and Marine
    Corps being less than 10% blacks. In addition, the number of minorities in the military has been going down since 2002.

    The U.S. Army has involved in low intensity war with the Indians from 1870 to 1890. You should also look up gun boat diplomacy as followed by Roosevelt and wilson.
    .
  • JSpencer
    AR, my comment was made while news was still unfolding. As usual there are two sides to that story, and both sides have legitimate concerns. As for the rest of your comment: The USA has a long proud history of civil disobedience going all the way back to our independence. I'm sure you're aware of this, no? That said, I believe in peaceful protest, and yet all it takes is a small contingent of nuts to turn any peaceful protest into something the MSM will paint with a broad brush. Some people are actually troubled about those who are dealt with by police in a way that ignores constitutional rights. That should be a concern of everyone (including the MSM) - independent of party or ideology.
  • DLS
    It's the Left who has been the Dark Side and reactionary as well as resentful since Reagan was elected in 1980.
  • JSpencer
    What are you, like 12 years old?
  • AustinRoth
    jspencer - OK, keep the comments to the cops in both locations acting like goons, and don't make it a 'look at the bad Republican's at their convention', and I agree wholeheartedly with you.

    As for civil disobedience, I was making the point of the irony of the 'left -peace' protesters seeming to be much more violent, as a whole, than the 'right' protesters, not objecting to civil disobedience in general. You would be surprised how much I support that, and in the distance past here at TMV, posted extensively on the concept.

    In short, I am a Jeffersonian in those matters.
  • JSpencer
    Fair enough AR. You're right about that Jefferson guy. He was allright.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC