The pendulum swings left... what must be done in order to enact "change."

[Writer]

So... it looks like we may have a victor here. It's not finalized, as Clinton is letting this go until the last vote is cast, but her very narrow win in Indiana indicated to me that finally the "front runner" momentum has caught up with Obama, so Clinton no longer will be able to win contests.

That said, I've learned much more about the American people than I have about the candidates this election season. One of the thoughts I've had repeatedly is that I think we've replaced irrational fear with irrational exuberance, which is understandable but no more healthy a condition than after the Terror Attacks. It's understandable given that we've endured eight years of malaise under an emotionally abusive government. I remember well the first few days following the 2004 Presidential election. I was shocked and felt helpless to yet more chain-jerking by the Bush White House. They manipulate in order to solidify power, and many of us had enough by then. America's added insult of being denied a change in leadership in 2004 only guaranteed the political calls for "change" and the feel-good rhetoric of "hope" that we see today.

The answer to an excessive power grab by a state's leaders is populism. It's a natural swing from the conservative movement started in 1980 when Reagan took the White House. During this swing, we've faced business deregulation, the watering down of collective bargaining and labor power, a dramatic widening in the gap separating the wealthiest and the poorest, meager to virtually non-existent environmental protections, the erosion of the middle class, the liquidation of government services, layoffs as the business solution instead of belt-tightening and CEO accountability, the weakening of women's rights, and the replacement of merit with ego as the means of acquiring power in business and politics. Style has trumped substance.

For Democrats angry with Bill Clinton's "Republican" presidency, this is the reason for their discontent. Even a Democrat elected during this era, such as Bill Clinton, would espouse more conservative values, making these political swings less attributive to the party in power than to the mood of the public. As we climb out of this cesspool into what may likely be an era brought by a swing to the left, I do not believe that this swing will be successful unless the developments of the conservative era aren't directly addressed, mainly issues of labor and corporate layoffs. The changes must not be cursory but fundamental adjustments in how we understand the relationships between businesses and workers.

Somewhere, somehow, many in America came to democratize capitalism during the conservative era, believing that acquiring capital is a right. It is not. Capitalism is something earned, not acquired, and how quickly we have replaced the concept of "good business" with "selfish interests" and protectionism. During the last liberal era, from the days of FDR to the days Jimmy Carter, taxes on the wealthy ranged anywhere from 50 to 80%. The belief then was to maintain as narrow gap as possible between the wealthiest and poorest Americans in order to strengthen spending power in the lower classes and, believe it or not, protect the success of our capitalist lifestyle. For this reason, a strong middle class arose and sustained itself until the deregulatory era raised its ugly head.

For the incoming Democratic presidency (I am one to believe John McCain has no shot whatsoever), we must pour substance into the rhetoric of "change." If indeed we wish to see true change in how our government does business, then the new Democratic administration must - in the most profound way - improve the life of the American worker. Without doing so, this concept of change will crumble, and the Democratic Party's power with it. After flying high on idealistic concepts we must come back down to earth and get to work. Work for the worker is no effort wasted.

~Writer~

[Solon]

1. I saw this post earlier, but got distracted, I'm kicking it...

because I think the work that needs to be done won't start until after January of 2009. Obama will need to be pulled, and pulled hard, to the left. Just so what needs to be done can be accomplished.

[redqueen]

3. Thank you for kicking it.

:)

[redqueen]

2. We have to stay involved, and push... HARD.

Pick an issue... any issue... and join a coalition to push it with congress... with local leaders... in the media. We have to make sure this energy doesn't just fade away after the new administration takes over.

As for me, right now I'd be most interested in pushing for proportional representation and an election system we can audit (*trust*).

[stillcool]

4. I believe that it really is...

up to the people in their states to make the difference that will bring about change. I think Senator Obama is absolutely correct..that nothing changes unless the people get involved..and the people will not get involved without some kind of organization and an avenue to action and knowledge. It's as simple and as hard as that.

[LWolf]

5. Interesting point.

How will the pendulum swing left if the new Democratic President is swinging right?

[Writer]

7. It depends on how we handle it.

Forming more public interest groups won't be enough, in my opinion. They will provide organization, of course, but if people don't take to the streets, very little will get done.

[LWolf]

8. So how DO Democrats influence the party to swing left,

when party leaders are not?

[Writer]

10. Get out into the streets.

We need to stop depending on institutions and start depending on ourselves. I don't care if we've elected Jimmy Hoffa as president, we need to start speaking out again.

[LWolf]

13. I don't disagree, BUT

many of us have BEEN out in the streets since 2001. Who has listened?

It's understandable that Bush and republicans in congress didn't care how many of us were in the streets, marching, etc..

I KNOW that Democrats did not have a majority until '06, although it seems like, with the number of people who WERE calling on them to oppose the Bush agenda, they might have organized a more vigorous opposition, to say the least.

By '06, they'd definitely had plenty of opportunity to hear us, and they had the numbers...what did they do?

If Democrats in office, if party leaders, don't respond to all of the people who have been active, been in the streets, in the last 7 years, what will be the turning point?

[quaker bill]

6. I tend to disagree

that the exuberance is irrational. Democrats tend to suffer long and hard over the notion that voting behavior arises from the head. It doesn't, it arises from the heart. This is nothing new. There simply is no case that it has ever been different. Gore and Kerry were both intellectual superiors to Bush, of this there can be no doubt. If voting behavior arose from the head, neither of these races would have been remotely close.

Adali Stevenson is another fine example of a consumate intellectual who came in second. The greatest collection of white papers written by the finest minds on the vast sea of policies domestic and foriegn, do not a winning campaign make. The finest resume doesn't cut it either. Statistically, looked at historically, simply being the taller of the two candidates makes a far larger difference in outcome than the resume.

People vote for the candidate that feels right. A truly smart candidate understands this and can convey difficult concepts in simple and plain language that inspires. This is an essential part of the craft. There are those born with the skill, and those who aren't. No amount of intellectual argument can compensate. It has never been different than this.

[Guava Jelly]

9. That was a nice read

Thank you.
And happy Saturday my friend :hi:

[Joanne98]

11. Great advice. k&r

[newmajority]

12. Happy to give this one Rec number 5, and kick it on to the Greatest page

This is pretty much sums up my current viewpoint on where this country has gone the last 28 years, and how we now have a real opportunity to undo the damage. As our next President has said often, "Change" is not from the top down, but from the bottom up. It's why he says "Yes WE can".

I believe soon to be President Obama has heard where the people are coming from, and with a real majority on Capitol Hill and the voice of the people behind him, we will get there.

[Writer]

14. Actually... if I may... about this "yes we can"/"si se puede" thing.

I should emphasize that, although it's necessary for Obama to address these issues, I wouldn't blindly believe that he will do what we expect of him. I don't think real "change" occurs by placing faith in a long broken system. What needs to change is the system itself, and the institutions that surround the system. I actually find it a little naive to believe that because we're installing a new administration, that somehow we now have a direct line to our federal government and that they'll listen. Nor do I believe that everything we protest for should be enacted. The reason for this is that, as great a people we are, our emotions can sully our judgment and we can be dead wrong at times. And that's when we need to be governed. However, we still must speak up and push for enhanced workers' rights. We may not always be on target, but we still must try. Regardless, we will never get what we want, but we will more than likely get what we need.