Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHistory and This Election Say: Don't Govern From the Middle
Even before the buzz of Barak Obama's historic victory has worn off, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi said "A new President must govern from the middle." The lessons of history and the election of our first African American President say: that's nonsense.
Speaker Pelosi is confusing the need for skillful leadership, with the misguided compulsion to govern from the middle – a mistake which Democrats must finally abandon if they are to rise to the challenges that confront America. Middle of the road politics is part of the failed policies of the past, not the bright new future Americans have helped to create with the election of Barak Obama.
In his victory speech to young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled, he said, "The Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress," demonstrating that he understands leadership that unites, but does not diminish our combined power.
Barak Obama said, "[T]o those Americans whose support I have yet to earn – I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too," showing humility without capitulation.
He said, "This is our moment. This is our time – to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth – that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes We Can."
That's not about the tired politics of surrender; it's about the audacity of hope. President-elect Obama gets the distinction between middle-of-the-road politics, which takes us all down to the lowest common denominator, and leadership that advances everyone, helping us to soar decisively in the direction of the progressive change that Americans seek.
The great American Presidents – Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt – all knew the difference. The reason that they were great is because they led the nation through tough times with an ideology and dedication to principles that they were able to communicate effectively – not because the governed from the middle.
Abraham Lincoln did not lead us through the Civil War to the end of Slavery from the middle of the road. Franklin Roosevelt took principled positions with progressive policies to help us, to help ourselves through the Great Depression. Even Ronald Reagan, whose policies I opposed, led us decisively from the right. Proud Presidential legacies stem in no small part from major policy change, which simply does not happen in the middle of the road.
William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, George H. W. Bush, and Jimmy Carter, have been flattened by history, like the proverbial dead skunk, because they did not understand how history and the voters frown on middle-of-the-roaders.
Presidential Historian Allan Lichtman said, "Great Presidents don't move to the middle, they bring the middle to them in order to achieve fundamental change."
The American people know the difference between concession politics and decisive leadership for positive change. The difference is what turned Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina and Florida from red to blue. The difference is why 20,000 people abandoned sleep and hit the streets and the phones for Obama for 2 years and especially in the last 48 hours of the campaign. It's the reason why, in Winchester, Virginia and small towns around the country, on the Sunday before the election the Obama campaign offices were pulsing with energy, while the McCain headquarters were dark, cold, empty and locked-down. It's the reason why Barak Obama won in a landslide.
Barak Obama must listen and lead. He should be the antithesis of the heavy-handed, partisan bullying that is the hallmark of the George W. Bush Administration and lead with open, democratic, principled and reasoned positions which spring from broad-based, deep knowledge and progressive politics. That's decidedly different from governing from the middle – which suggests concession and never creates change.
Barak Obama proved he understands that we didn't elect him just to win an election for the Democrats or to walk down some middle road, when he said, "[W]e know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime – two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century...There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake...and wonder how they'll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor's bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair."
This is our victory, indeed. Let it not be underestimated, watered-down or dealt away. Let's do as our new leader suggest and dispense with cynicism, fear and doubt about what we can achieve, put our hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.
158 Comments so far
Show AllI just want to comment on the so-called "greatness" of Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan.
While Lincoln did sign the Emancipation Proclamation, wrote about the immorality of drug prohibition and may have had some same sex relationships, he did put a bounty on native American scalps, the equivalent of genocide. FDR represented wealth and privilege. He could have prevented WWII by earlier opposing fascism and stopping Bush's grandfather from supporting the Nazi's. He was pushed into the New Deal by the fear of the wealthy elites that a socialist revolution was on the horizon. Nobody today talks about the damage to our country that Ronald Reagan did. He refused to enforce environmental laws, sold our public lands to his buddies for pennies on the dollar, and fought for wealth and privilege at every turn. He should have spent his remaining years in prison yet has been canonized by the right wing whom have so benefited from his criminal presidency.
We need to beware of placing leaders on pedestals. We should continue to press for the just changes needed to create a peaceful world for all its inhabitants.
I just want to comment on the so-called "greatness" of Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan.
While Lincoln did sign the Emancipation Proclamation, wrote about the immorality of drug prohibition and may have had some same sex relationships, he did put a bounty on native American scalps, the equivalent of genocide. FDR represented wealth and privilege. He could have prevented WWII by earlier opposing fascism and stopping Bush's grandfather from supporting the Nazi's. He was pushed into the New Deal by the fear of the wealthy elites that a socialist revolution was on the horizon. Nobody today talks about the damage to our country that Ronald Reagan did. He refused to enforce environmental laws, sold our public lands to his buddies for pennies on the dollar, and fought for wealth and privilege at every turn. He should have spent his remaining years in prison yet has been canonized by the right wing whom have so benefited from his criminal presidency.
We need to beware of placing leaders on pedestals. We should continue to press for the just changes needed to create a peaceful world for all its inhabitants.
Nancy Pelosi's mealy-mouthed remarks about the "center" should be a warning. Her quiet, controlled voice saying nothing of value deserved to be trounced at the polls.
But how can we expect Obama to govern with a "mandate" if no journalists, no supporters were ever able to get enough granular answers on any one issue? It is our own fault. Why should Obama say anything that might alienate anyone if he didn't have to? He has no specific mandate to do anything and it's our fault. All we can do, ironically enough, is hope.
I suggest we had the answers we needed when he voted for telecom immunity, for the bailout, for war funding, etc., etc. And if you read or listen to what he actually said, you will know what his "mandate" is for. Attention must be paid.
Here in Mexico a number of years ago the EZLN (neo-zapatistas) in Chiapas came up with this motto for reponsible government:
Mandar obedeciendo
which means govern by obeying the will of the people.
The problem in the US is that whoever governs obeys Big Oil and Big Guns, and I doubt VERY much that the process will change with Obama in the Oval Office. In fact, the first important days of post-election hoohah indicate that it will be the Same Old Same Old Clinton cabinet running the show for BO and BG.
Michelle Obama said the other day that Barack's integrity consists in "doing what he say's he going to do." I recall something similar from an est seminar many years ago. Say what you're going to do, and then do what you said you would do. When you think about it, that is the beginning and end of personal integrity. Pelosi lost hers when she didn't do what she said she would do. Progressives who said they would not vote for democrats if they broke their promise to end the war also handed the democrats a landslide victory. No Cindy Sheehan, no Ralph Nader. Politicians depend on the lack of integrity of voters when we say things we don't mean and make vows we don't intend to keep. No wonder they are not accountable. I don't know that all this talk about "pressuring" the Obama administration to implement its mandate has any substance to it if our word is as vacuous as the sound bites of our politicians.
I'm glad Obama won the election. But I doubt that Obama was worried about losing our votes when he supported eavesdropping, funded the wars and bailed out Wall Street. He (and future presidents) has learned a lesson from George Bush. Public opinion has all the teeth of a stuffed panda. Ignore it.
It may be that Obama's integrity springs from doing what he says he's going to do, but his artifice is not saying what he's going to do - and getting away with it. Does no one remember the post primary face change?
Amen! But I think we have to take it a step further and ask what, for example, did Nancy Pelosi actually say she would do, not what others interpreted her as saying.
Michele Obama's words must be heeded - what did Obama actually say he would do?
Take Tennessee as an example. It went solidly for McCain, even though food banks feeding the hungry have become overwhelmed there.
There are many millions of Americans who, like the infamous Joe The Plumber, desire most of all to be the very people who are ripping them off. To them, being ripped off is not a bad thing. What is bad is that they aren't among the favored few doing it. This incomprehensible desire to be the biggest swinging dick on the block wasn't killed off by Obama's victory. And is Obama going to pander to it by refusing to do certain things he knows must be done?
Agreed. I'm not saying that we need to totally ignore the voices of the right but Obama needs to understand that he was given a mandate from the United States. There is a reason why he was elected and there is a reason that the Democrats' majority increased in the House and the Senate; the American People want him to hit the ground running. They want him to not look back and not do the typical democratic thing which is to test the water before jumping in for fear of angering the other side. The only thing that will really anger the American People is for the change they so desperately seek to not be realized.
Again, I will say what I have said in response to other posts. What did "we" really give him a "mandate" to do? What he actually said he would do or what we allowed ourselves to believe he said he would do? Wishful thinking, in my humble opinion, is neither a good basis for a vote nor a legitimate reason to expect performance. Next time vote for somebody who actually says (s)he will champion what you want.
Calling Reagan a 'Great President' is to deny that Reaganism is the reason this country is in the state it's in.
Yeah, when I read this unimpressive article, I noted in passing that Reagan is apparently now fully rehabilitated. Obama's warm praise of the Gipper, whether genuine or calculated from a shrewd reading of Amerikan temperament, certainly contributed to this process.
This is standard for Republican presidents, of course. The rehabilitation reaches its apogee at their long-overdue funerals; even with the teevee turned off, one can't avoid the tsunami of hagiographic glurge generated by the corporate media on these bittersweet occasions.
Even that depraved hack and accessory-after-the-fact Gerry Ford (Warren Commission flack and Nixon-pardoner) is now revered as a hero.
This doesn't happen as aggressively and thorougly with Democratic ex-presidents; we haven't had a Democratic presidential funeral to compare the media coverage yet.
There's so much confusion about what Obama said about Reagan, mostly because Hillary jumped on his comments and twisted the shit out of them. He did not at all have "warm praise" for Reagan. He was just aware of the overwhelming obvious reality that Reagan's pro-business/anti-government message caught on and dominated politics. Here's what he said:
“I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10-15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.”
“I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure," he continued. "I think part of what's different are the times...I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. ... he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”
Obama made it clear in many ways on many occasions that the ideology and policies pushed by Reagan were undesirable, nasty, and certainly wrong. But his point was simply that Reagan read the mood of the people and pushed out strongly that whole Washington consensus crap (deregulation, privatization, reducing the size of government, etc.) which caught on and dominated completely the political arena for more than 15-20 years. No, Reagan didn't invent it, but he sure was an able communicator at getting it out there and getting millions of working class Americans to vote directly against their own class interest.
Anybody who claims to be a relatively aware 'progressive' must understand the level to which politics in this country has been shoved incredibly to the right by making privatization, deregulation, etc., absolutely the dominant notions out there, with all the language to support it: markets vs. government! As if the notion hasn't been strong since the Reagan years that gov't is the problem (as he said) and that markets are these magical things that get contaminated when governments touch them.
And...Reagan did not at all need to be 'rehabilitated' in the sense of popularity, like Nixon. As awful as we know he was, Reagan left office at 63% and averaged over 50% overall for his 8 years. In terms of policy, right-wingers revere him for obvious reasons, but his ideology (that of Friedman, Greenspan, etc.) has just crashed badly on the rocks and all indications are that the Washington consensus is as dead as Reagan.
Nice defense of Obama's comments. I remember hearing him say those things and agreeing with him. It got twisted by Hillary and now it's picked up by Obama bashers to discredit him. Obama never supported what Reagan did. His comments were directed at Reagan's influence during his time in office.
" '.....he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.' "
This an excellent description of what Obama learned from Reagan, and, I would add, from Clinton as well. Just tap into these ever recurrent themes and you can get people to follow you, no matter where you are actually taking them. Now that it is a bit late, we may start to pay attention. Oh well, folks, better luck next time, because luck, and not common sense, is what we seem to be relying on.
Reagan's election was fortuitous. Recovering from the devastation of World War II, by the end of the 1970s Europe and Japan became economically competitive with the U.S. Recognizing the ability to compete required transferring wealth from consumption to production, Jimmy Carter and Paul Volcker began the process. Unemployment increasing, though, ascribing their plight to greater employment competition introduced by "Great Society" reforms, the working class voted for Reagan. Transforming Carter and Volcker's wealth transference from temporary to permanent, Reagan distracted the working class by pandering to their bigotries, initiating the "culture wars." Brilliant, but not "great." Fatal flaw in the program was "supply-side economics," the need to constantly constrain compensation to free funds for investment. Wages stagnated, benefits declined, and compensation deferred in 401K and stock option plans. In order to provide funds for consumption, interest rates were reduced to near zero, encouraging borrowing (I just realized root of "encouraging" is "courage"). Concurrently, investors not realizing a sustainable return of investment on low interest rates, introduced fees and secondary debt markets. Because low, interest debt exhibited a slow but constantly increasing burden on consumers, until finally attaining an unsustainable level. Consumption becoming unsustainable, secondary debt markets became unsustainable. Crash. Assigning the word "greatness" to such a policy demeans greatness.
Good analysis, tight explanation.
Obama and the nation cannot afford red/dead state sensitivity. These people do not know what's good for themselves, much less the nation. Take Tennessee as an example. It went solidly for McCain, even though food banks feeding the hungry have become overwhelmed there. Many bemoan their lot without seeing their own culpability in perpetuating it. Obama must turn a deaf ear to their idiotic screams and help them in spite of themselves. Let them hate if that is their wont. Obama must do what is best for the nation as a WHOLE, and put the false morality (which is extremely immoral) of the last 8-30 years behind. I saw a report that most of the folk that support the hardened red/right are older folk. Well, then, maybe it's time for the younger folk to take the reigns and lead this nation back toward sanity.
If Nancy Pelosi says it then it is undoubtedly wrong!
All this left right crap is wrong, it is a gross oversimplification of complex socio-political-economic issues so that the dim witted media can shove things into tidy packages.
Obama's best bet is to disregard labels, institute a campaign to refute the mis classification of his politics and do the right thing because it is the right thing not because it is "left" or "right". Bill Clintons biggest mistake was to allow the right to label him as a "leftie" a "liberal", he was neither and should have worked to refute those labels.
True progressive politics defies the old "left" "right' labels. Not that I think that Obama is a true progressive, and Clinton certainly was not. As an example I would suggest that the income tax system no matter how much we use it to "redistribute" wealth by taxxing higher incomes at a higher rate is not a "progressive" idea. Liberalism is not necessarily "progressive" even though liberals have tried to claim the title of progressive. Socialism is not necessarily "progressive". etc.
"Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups."
- John Kenneth Galbraith
Completely confused article. The middle is the way to go...as long as you have a clue about what exactly is the middle. The whole political spectrum has been shoved so far to the right that Obama is considered 'left', and 'socialist'!!??? A complete joke of course.
Cheney/Dubya represent the most extreme far right possible, except full-on fascism. FDR was dead centre. Hoover before him was rightwing...and stupid. Reducing spending and tightening credit during a depression is like trying to help a starving person by reducing their intake of calories.
What this confused writer is trying to say is that successful people--presidents, whatever--are not afraid to take bold, decisive, dynamic action...As opposed to being passive and indecisive, and doing nothing. Duh! But that has nothing to do whatever with the left-right political continuum. Leftwing and rightwing leaders both can be either bold or chicken-shit.
Reagan great???!!!! This silly person can't differentiate between somebody who was perceived as likeable--and liked--and somebody who actually accomplished great things. Nasty swerve to the right...Great?!
The situation is drastic and it calls for decisive action by Obama, for sure. Certainly not from the right, but what would she mean by 'left'...??? She doesn't really have a clue, but dead centre is the best for now, as long as we understand what that means.
Single-payer health insurance is DEAD CENTER. The system we have now is the darling of right-wingers... You're-on-your-own, and the private insurance companies have you by the sensitive parts, and they rake in the $$$. A fully nationalized public health system (hospitals, etc, the whole kit and kaboodle) would be left.
Obama will not make it to the center on this one; he'll be lucky to move a bit towards the center with improved coverage. But he needs to move as boldly as he can permit himself.
The same in other areas. This is no time to be queasy about the debt and deficit. We can raise gazillions with proper progressive taxation...when times are good again. For now, spend on infrastructure, and other means that puts money right away in the hands of the bottom 3rd of society, the people who will spend it right away...BECAUSE THEY NEED TO!
Bold and decisive, yes. But governing this country from the dead center right now represents a huge lurch leftward (from where we're been for the last 40 years, especially the last 8) and that will suffice for the time being.
And quick. No time to lose.
Very good observations. The definition of "center" is the key and perhaps is what should be the "center' of our conversations here.
Sioux Rose
GETREAL: Right on post. Last night I had dinner with a laywer who graduated tops in his class and he said, "Obama is a great man." I responded, "That remains to be seen." He argued that he was already great, and that led to a discussion as to what great means. A similar debate ensued when I spoke with a woman in the music business who basically believed that if a band was a commercial success, the public's approval (in the form of sales) meant the band was talented. I never agreed with this commercial bottom line/what the public will buy = greatness; but I suspect the author of this article does.
Thank you. I'm a musician and I sure hear what you're saying. I always say something like: More power to them if they can have success with an inferior product, they may be clever at marketing, etc., and there may be something in the public that gives their music resonance, regardless of mediocrity. But it's a bad mistake to conclude that success must equal quality. Reagan was a disaster but people found him likeable, and liked him. How many one-hit wonders couldn't play at all live and foundered completely when put on stage to support their studio success.
People don't really understand: marketing, fads, and simply the attractiveness of some people. You might remember Tony Joe White (Polk Salad Annie...great tune, by the way). The guy who 'discovered' him said that on laying his eyes on the tall, slim, cool-looking, deep-voiced White, he thought: "This guy is so cool looking that if he can carry a tune in a bucket, I'll make a star out of him."
In these discussions, I always think of the 70s pet rock fad that lasted over 6 months, sold for $3.95, and made millions for the guy who came up with the notion.
I'm extremely impressed (and relieved) at Obama's incredible ride, and I deeply believe he has the potential to be a great and transformational president. But I agree with you: He ain't done nothin' yet.
"But it's a bad mistake to conclude that success must equal quality". Spot on.
But I must confess that I don't understand why you are "extremely impressed (and relieved) at Obama's incredible ride, and .. deeply believe he has the potential to be a great and transformational president." Because I have to disagree that "He ain't done nothin' yet." He has enough of a record to demonstrate, at least in my opinion, that he is a "one-hit wonder" - his one hit being his electoral success. He can, indeed, carry a tune, but the actual lyrics are pretty depressing.
"People don't really understand: marketing, fads, and simply the attractiveness of some people." That is a description. in my opinion, of Obama's success in a nutshell.
Thank you for the positive comments. We obviously disagree, but your take on Obama is reasonable and obviously has much merit. I'm likely more emotional and even sentimental than you about the Obama campaign and victory, and what it means for Black people, and for America in general.
This is a bit of a cop-out, (to summon a progressive 'saint' to debate for me) but I'm very much of the opinion put forth by Howard Zinn (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/11/08-0). It's obviously huge for Black people, not only for its incredibly powerful symbolic value, but in mobilizing so many people who had never been active before. And I find that inspiring.
I'm deeply 'relieved' that he won, because the alternative was so terrible. A McCain victory would have appeared, and in fact have been a continuation of the Cheney/Bush/Rove regime. Obama might not be answering to powers that are all that different from the neo-cons, but there is still going to be a changing of the guard, even if at the deeper level, you likely believe that Obama serves pretty much the same interests. I'm not quite there with you.
But again the symbolic value is significant. There's a huge perception in America and abroad that there's been a significant change, and that Reaganomics, for instance is dead because of the financial meltdown, but also because Americans have decidedly voted for change. You're likely saying: "We'll see how much real change we really get". I agree that there's not much reason to expect Obama to represent the deep change that everybody talks about, but I think there's reason to be mildly optimistic about some positive change. To me it's significant that he's going to feel a fair bit of heat to do things differently, heat that McCain would not have felt.
Your point is well taken that he's demonstrated what he's all about already, and so why would we expect anything different in the White House. But, since he's obviously been gearing up to making a run for the job, it only makes sense that he acted politically instead of morally (to paraphrase Zinn) at times (too often) because to act otherwise would have prevented him from winning the nomination, let alone the election.
Look at the way things developed. As un-progressive as he has been in lots of ways, he was still branded far-left and a socialist by the right wingnuts. And as late as Sept., he was trailing in the polls ...to a confused, doddering old fool and a woman who couldn't name one major newspaper and thinks dinosaurs roamed around during the period that the Egyptians were perfecting papyrus. Had he fired from the hip with truly progressive ideas, he wouldn't have stood a chance.
For instance, I'm convinced that he has the same take on Afghanistan as you and me: a disastrous, immoral occupation for geostrategic positioning about energy, but he could not win the election if he came out against what too many Americans believe foolishly is the 'good war'.
To me, logic says that now that the election is won, he's going to tone down the saber rattling, because Afghanistan is as much lose/lose as Iraq (for him as president, as well as for Americans in general) and he knows that. I might be wishful thinking here, but I really believe that this is one election promise he's going to break out of straight-forward self-interest. Like the usual routine of an incoming administration that claims they can't afford to do what they had promised now that they see what the books look like, he's going to effectively say: "Now that I see the situation from here, we need to back out of this one as well."
In general, he's aroused a huge swath of Blacks and young people, among others, and they're going to demand satisfaction. He won't necessarily delivery perfectly what they want, but I figure the odds are decent that he'll respond to a certain extent to that pressure. I think Zinn's Lincoln example is reasonable in demonstrating how the dynamics of being in that job can operate to 'push' the president in the direction that historical determinism seems to be pointing. It's more than time for us to back away from imperialism--the signs are everywhere that we have to go, or we'll be pushed. Obama sees this as well as everybody else. The forces (MIC) resisting this profound change are colossal, I know, but the signs that it must happen are everywhere. For Obama, it's a deep challenge, but also a huge opportunity. I suspect he might be 'vulnerable' to being pushed to go for it.
Let me simply start by saying that for the sake of the country, I hope you are right and I am wrong. But I have been around long enough to have been burnt more than once by smooth talking politicians, and while in everyday life I am inclined to want to give folks the benefit of the doubt, there are sometimes when you really can't afford to dismiss warning signs. If it walks like a duck, etc.
I agree with you that the symbolism is monumental and not to be brushed aside, but while symbolism might heal some psychic wounds, it won't heal the body, it won't put food in your belly or clothes on your back or a roof over your head. And the real everyday problems in this regard are probably felt by a greater percentage of African Americans than of Caucasians. Ironically, I think the "old white guy" (Nader) I voted for had better solutions for these problems than Obama. So, after those feel good moments wear thin under the daily grind, will the symbolism be good enough?
Time will tell.
Yeah, I know...symbolism only goes so far. Not a lot of nutritional value on a cold winter night.
In the end, I think I'm really betting that he's too smart not to see that what people like Nader and Zinn, etc., are saying is obviously solid, and that the time has come to move in the direction they suggest...at least to some degree.
But, no question, if I had to bet the farm on my vision or yours, I'd take all the alloted time to think, and just before the bell, I'd probably flip a coin.
Thank you for the comments. I've read your posts all over and they're excellent and tend to urge people to think and justify our opinions. Very good.
Thank you, sir or madam, I appreciate that and I, in turn must say that when I read your posts I get the impression of an honest, intelligent, thoughtful human being who really gives a damn. I think reading that you are a musician filled out the picture more. My sister is a musician as well.
Your posts seem to have no "edge" on them which always remind me to try and take the edges off mine, which I too often fail to do. I confess, having seen the deterioration in health care over the past couple of decades, I am getting very frustrated, very impatient and, frankly, very angry. I understand the idea of a nat'l health plan has been around at least as long as Harry Truman - 60 years and we are no closer and actually in some ways farther away.
I realize it's dangerous to admit around here, but I do go to church and last Sun. gospel included the story of Christ taking a whip to the money changers in the temple - there is a time, apparently, for even a guy like him to lose patience and act. I would prefer the ballot box to the whip, myself, but it's message should be as sharp. For too long the electoral equivalent of thirty lashes with a wet noodle has seemed to be as far as we're willing to go, and, as has been demonstrated over and over, it is simply not enough.
I thank you again and look forward to reading more from you.
Thank you again for the kind words. I'm glad you mention 'edge' because I have a quick temper and some of my posts do have an insulting edge, for which I've even apologized. I agree completely that there's no need for it and it accomplishes nothing positive. But you mentioning it will hopefully remind me to reread and take out the edge. But yeah, there are so many things that inspire frustration...and all the suffering in our midst...
I'm not religious but I go to church with my elderly mother when I visit her (in another city) to please her, and to 'see everybody'. I was fairly stunned, and deeply...'impressed' (maybe the word) when I read in the missal the old story about the bread and the fish, that I had always known as a Jesus miracle. It was explained in detail (likely straight out of the bible...I wouldn't know) how Jesus and his desciples ORGANIZED everybody to SHARE! It was perfect...no miracle according to that description. They got everybody to work in family groups and pool what they had (food and $$$) and someone from each group was chosen to go to the nearest market to buy as much food as they could with the money raised and everybody ate that night!
Organizing. Sharing. And dealing with the money lenders. Three lessons for the ages.
Oh dear!
I hope you reread my post because I said "Your posts seem to have NO "edge" on them which always remind me to try and take the edges off mine, which I too often fail to do." (emphasis added here) I meant to say, obviously clumsily, that the lack of edginess in yours stands out and reminds me to try to pay more attention to the edges on mine.
No I did read it correctly, and I really appreciate that you thought so. It just made me feel good to hear that it comes across that way because I really value that. But it also made me think of the times when I've been very 'edgy' and even insulting... I always feel bad when I cool down. So I just meant that your compliment makes me even more conscious that it is the right way to do things and I will be even more vigilant from now on.
All good. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
"I have a quick temper and some of my posts do have an insulting edge, for which I've even apologized."
I've never noticed that "edge" particularly, but I have noted your civility in aplogizing the few times you got crosswise. Your posts are generally worth reading.....especially the ones where you agree with me.
Interesting dialogue folks.
Thank you. I agree with you quite a bit. You have a lot of common sense and you're very civil. I do appreciate that a lot.
"Thank you. I agree with you quite a bit."
Uh-Oh....boy, are you in trouble! (LOL)
Thanks for the very kind words.
Reagan? Great? Some of these comments bear repeating. Reagan was a disaster for the world. He oversaw the biggest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in the history of the planet.
Poor people in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, & Guatemala are still living the effects of his & the Republican right wing thugs like Jean Kirkpatrick, Kissinger, & Kirkpatrick's smarmy son-in-law, & the U.S. Congress, visited on those countries. The U.S. arming of the contras & their murders are root causes of the problems in Nicaragua today.
Who invaded Grenada? An island with 100,000 people, 80 miles long & 40 miles wide posed a threat to the United States? So Reagan had them bombed, strafed, invaded & occupied.
Reagan deserves to be tossed in the dustbin of history, along with Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, John Stennis & hundreds of other right wing Congressmen & operatives in the U.S.
The writer of this column needs to have her head & politics examined before being permitted to contribute to Commondreams.
Watching the Democrats in the final weeks of the presidential election has been a lesson in revisionist history. While they lament the terrible crimes perpetrated against the American people by George Bush and vow to keep fighting for our rights, they conveniently gloss over the fact that they have no standing to make such claims. Indeed, the Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama, have actually voted with President Bush’s agenda, making them complicit in his acts, not valiant opponents defending our liberties.
PELOSI’S PROMISE TO END THE WAR
Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi said that if she became the speaker of the House of Representatives she would end the war in Iraq. Remember that? The Boston Globe noted, "Pelosi vows no ‘blank check’ on Iraq funds.” (1/8/07). In her own words: "If the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it. And this is new to him, because up until now the Republican Congress has given him a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions.” Rick Klein of the Globe noted "Pelosi’s comments mark the first suggestion by a Democratic congressional leader that Congress could use its authority over the nation’s finances to hasten an end to the war. Her remarks point toward an aggressive stance on Iraq from Congressional Democrats in their opening days of control of the House and Senate.”
Yet after she became the speaker of the House in Jan 2007, war appropriations actually went up by $50 billion, with no strings attached and no date for the withdrawal of troops. This year, 2008, they’ve gone up by another $25 billion for a two-year total of $350 billion, with no end in sight. So what happened to the promise of "no blank check?”
...part of an article by Matt Gonzalez, Oct. 29, 2008
http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/10/29/what-do-they-have-to-do/
Please, pay a bit more attention. Pelosi's words, as quoted, are NOT the equivalent of a promise to end the war. All she said was the Pres. woud have to "justify" his requests. Well, apparently he did to her satisfaction. No Blank Check doesn't mean No Check. Even the commentator Klein interpreted the comment as a "suggestion" that a Dem. congress "could" use it's authority to "hasten" an end to the war. "Could", not "would". Sorry, Pelosi, as far as I know, never promised to spearhead an end to the war. If you read into her words, hey, that's your mistake.
Ronald Reagan a great president?? Try Ronald Reagan the great privatizer, the one who tossed tens of thousands of mentally people onto the streets, the man who waged illegal secret war in Central America. Your article lost credibility with me when you cited reagan as great.
Exactly right. If she had said that Reagan was successful in achieving his goals that would have been one thing, but "great president" is something else altogether. And you'd think that someone who drank the Obama Kool-Aid would at least know how to spell his first name.
The author is just another "anyone but Bush" type. Sure, I don't appreciate the damage Bush has done to this country but this does not excuse the author for failing to proofread her article prior to publication. Besides, it was Reaganomics that started this entire mess although my dad remembers how Nixon paved the way for this in the early 70s and then worked behind the scenes during Carter's presidency to help the Republican Party out big time despite his resignation.
"Barak Obama must listen and lead."
Over and over and over I have heard people say that the only way Obama can listen and lead is if he hears us. There are myriads of ways we can let him know what we want and need.
We can't wait anymore. The Bush nightmare is (almost) over. It is time for us to come out of our protective hibernation and make so much noise that Obama can't help but hear us. This election was as much a referendum about us as it was him.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
I voted for Obama because according to his opposition he was "the most liberal of all the senators." Okay, let's see it!
.Ive got this land for sale, Grousefeather, I would love to show it to you, any low tide.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
This is more fluff. We need change now and are tired of waiting. Our health care system and economy are already behind. We do not have the luxury of waiting another day for a substandard result. They know what has to be done-they just do not want to do it. It may cost their friends and relatives administrative positions.
The longer you wait for things to happen the further you get behind. No problem for our elected officals as they sit on the socialized healthcare that we are not suppose to want to have. What a crock!
Compromise is how goverment works, other wise you have gridlock.
Nancy Pelosi doesn't know her a** from a hole in the ground. Sorry. She took impeachment off the table after the mid-term overturn of Republican majority. The House Dems were weak under her leadership and got us almost nowhere. If she thinks she's got a clue as to how Obama ought to govern, she's got another think coming. Nancy Pelosi is all about posture, not about effective action.
Tens of millions of people voted for Obama in the hope that this will lead to a rapid end to the war in Iraq and to domestic policies that promote jobs and decent living standards, as opposed to the unrestrained profiteering by big business and the wealthy fostered by the Bush administration.
The policy of the incoming administration will not be guided by these popular illusions, however, but by the reality of a worldwide financial crisis, a deepening slump in the United States, and the ongoing resistance to imperialist military occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A principal concern of Obama and his key strategists is that a large-scale Democratic victory will arouse popular expectations that they have no intention of meeting.
The disavowal of any political mandate in Tuesday’s voting was spelled out by the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry, in an appearance as an Obama surrogate on the NBC Sunday interview program “Meet the Press.” Kerry said that Obama would seek significant Republican input and involvement in his administration. “He’s going to govern in a way that brings the country together, and no matter what our majority, he’s going to seek to reach a broader consensus because that’s the only way we can govern America at this time.” The senator suggested that the Democrats would not seek to use their majority to push through policies opposed by the Republicans. “We don’t need to pass things by 51 votes or 60 votes,” he said, referring to the Senate. “We need to build 85-vote majorities.”
This statement deserves serious consideration. Insistence on “85-vote majorities” in the Senate means giving the Republican minority veto power over government policy. It amounts to a repudiation of any conception of democracy.
It is because of broad popular sentiment for a reversal of the policies of war and social reaction pursued for the past eight years by Bush that led to Obama’s sweeping victory. But Kerry insists that it would be wrong for the Democrats to govern as though they had a mandate.
The anti-democratic character of this stance was underscored as Kerry voiced his agreement with comments by former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey, who declared recently: “By my lights, the primary threat to the success of a President Obama will come from some Democrats… emboldened by the size of their congressional majority… Obama will need to communicate the following to Congress, in no uncertain terms: The Democrats have not won a mandate for all their policies. Rather, the American people have resoundingly registered their frustration with a failed status quo, and the next president must chart a new, less partisan course.”
Kerry’s remarks are an indication that an incoming Democratic administration will do as the Democrats did after their sweeping victory in the 2006 congressional elections, which was propelled largely by popular hostility to the war in Iraq. The newly installed Democratic majorities in the House and Senate pledged to work with President Bush on a bipartisan basis.
The comments by Kerry and other Democratic spokesmen underscore the essentially fraudulent character of the entire 2008 election. Despite large increases in voter turnout and widespread involvement by new layers of the population, particularly youth and students, the American people will end up serving as little more than extras in a conflict within the ruling elite. Once Election Day is past, Obama will put “hope” and “change” back in his briefcase and go about his real business: defending the interests of corporate America.
The Democrats responded with alacrity to the danger of a meltdown in the financial markets, turning over trillions in public funds to bail out the banks and speculators. The same political figures will turn to working people after the election and tell them that there is no money to provide health care, jobs, education and other social benefits, especially given the need to spend even more for wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.
davidd,
You are absolutely correct that that is what we can rightly expect from the "new" administration. But I would disagree with you about the "essentially fraudulent character of the entire 2008 election". There was nothing "fraudulent" about it. We will get exactly what he told us he was for. When you vote for someone you are giving him a "mandate" to pursue the policies he is pursuing or said he would pursue, not for the things you wish he would do. To whit, you have given him a mandate for an "end" to one "war" though not a military "occupation", an escalation of another war, health care "reform" that actually subsidizes the current system, an increase in the military budget, continued spying with protection for private industries who do it, more drilling and nukes, bailouts of big banks, more "free trade", etc. etc.
When confronted with the reality of his positions, the standard response has been "he had to do it to get elected". That may,or may not, be true, but nevertheless folks voted for a man who promoted all these things. That is the "mandate" he can rightly claim. To express disappointment that he does not do what you wish he would do would be, frankly, rather childish and quite naive; he never said, nor did he demonstrate by his actions, that he would do any other. As for the "troubling" aspect of his choice of advisors or potential cabinet posts, there, at this point, are no surprises either; these are the folks he was known to surround himself with long before the election.
Folks voted for "change" in Washington, but, precisely what did they want changed? And did the fellow they voted for actually promise the kind they wanted? The only change we know we will get so far is a change of color and the party affiliation of the fellow that occupies the WH, and the degree of articulateness with which he expresses himself. All these other "changes" that people so desperately seem to want are not ones this fellow has ever actually promoted. We will get what we voted for, not what we wished for, unless we were very careful to make sure that the 2 categories matched and by no stretch of the imagination could we be said to have done that. The only people who we know will actually get what they wanted are those whose sole desire was to put an African American and/or a Dem in the WH. The rest us will then, after all our "pushing" and "prodding" and e-mails and marches and "organizing", have to decide whether next time we will pay more attention. Frankly, I don't have a lot of hope; we are way beyond the "fool me twice" stage and don't seem even yet to have the inclination to refuse to be fooled again.
The problem, it seems to me, is that we are a nation whose people have demonstrated over and over again that we can be fooled into buying any product advertised as having the ability to "make our lives better", even when that claim is patently absurd. We buy the product, then express "disappointment" when it fails to deliver, even when we had clear indications it would not. There are some I have read who have, indeed, expressed this caveat with regard to Obama, but who, nevertheless, voted for him. These are folks, I suspect, who have such a low expectation of political possibilities that their concept of electoral politics is no more than an exercise in damage control. Sadly, even these folks will be disappointed; the damage will continue.
And then there are those who are totally defeatist; they do not see the possibility of ever making things better. They are those for whom "Inevitability" has become the all encompassing, totally controlling paradigm. Their "contribution" to the process is to simply try to convince us that "resistance is futile". I'm sorry, but for those of us who wish to continue in the political process, such "bowing to reality" is NOT a useful contribution.
I "hope", for all our sakes, that I am wrong, but I have learned the hard way, more often than I care to admit, that one's biggest mistakes are often made because one was not paying attention. We did not pay attention in the primaries and, having thus limited our "major" choices to those of A or B (literally, if you remember the lines on the ballot), we compounded the error in the election.
This country is not "doomed" by big money and big media. If we are doomed at all, it is simply by our 1) failure to pay attention, 2) willingness to allow others to define for us the limits of the possible, and 3) lack of courage to pursue that which we know is what we need. We need to work on all three. But the first is indeed the first - we must pay attention.
Government from the middle is code for "thanks you lefty progressive suckers, but you are just as irrelevant to us as christian right now that we are in power. We serve our elite masters, you bottom dwelling fish are just food for the elite so they get bigger and fatter at your expense. The names have been changed, but the march to the NWO and Global Government marches on. Freedom will be replaced by reponsibilities, inalienable rights with obligations and universal national service, etc."
Given the history of the hell FDR faced when he tried to govern from the left once he made it to the White House, from fierce opposition in Congress to attempted assassination attempts, I don't see how Obama is going to come anywhere close given today's elite opposition being even more powerful and dangerous. The only way we're going to expect Obama to govern from the left is by renouncing our yankee self-confidence and striving for public unity. Otherwise, nobody can anticipate fundamental changes. Look what happened to the Clintons in 1994 when they tried to reform healthcare. Without public unity, the package went down in flames. I went through the trouble of voting for Obama knowing very well that he faces a daunting system very hostile to even a small change for the better and I don't and probably won't regret my vote.
P.S.: The reason Pelosi still won is Cindy Sheehan did not try running an effective local campaign or even bother reaching out to enough San Franciscans. Moreover, Sheehan I was told, ran on only the war and not multiple issues which would have helped her tremendously and make that election much closer.
I still suspect that even though more people speak against the war, because of oil and its thousands of uses which keep us all hooked to it, getting duped into wars for oil is just too easy for Big Oil to lose.
The only way that Obama gets a shot at a second term is by PROVING he's for the people and NOT the corporations. The DLC Democrats who are being lined up for his administration certainly do not inspire a lot of hope. Chief among them is Rahm, who has carried a bit too much water during the corporate takeover of the party in the Clinton years. Possibly, he can revise his agenda and adapt. We'll see.
In the meantime, the Treasury is the one to REALLY WATCH. It MUST NOT be taken over by another of the Wall Street dandies who want to funnel funds to the executive pay packages and dividends. Remember how we HAD to pass that BAILOUT BILL or the sky would fall???
And our dear Nancy Pelosi..."impeachment is off the table" Nancy... what can we really say about her...except that her day has come...and has gone. If she wants to "govern from the center" then let her be one of the masses again and choose a REAL LEADER of the House. She's been the greatest disappointment after breaking through that glass ceiling.
"The only way that Obama gets a shot at a second term is by PROVING he's for the people and NOT the corporations."
To my way of thinking, which informed my vote, was that he shouldn't get a shot at a FIRST term unless he proved that. He didn't, over and over again.
This re-proves an important point. Pelosi must be stripped of her speaker-of-the-house position. Again and again she has violated her oath of office, fought against the best interests of the country, and proven herself to be a right wing hack. Its very sad she was re-elected. But the rest of the country must not be made to suffer for SF's mistake. I we can't impeach nor jail Pelosi for her criminal acts, the least the new administration can do is work to strip her of all power in the house!
Hear hear!
Obama is going to have to be an artist now as well as a politician. He is going to have to convince the American people that things that they have for the last 30 years considered communist or socialist or the work of Satan are in fact in the middle of the American political road.
True.
Well said truthseeker58
Ms Strickler, your post is well-written & provocative (as we see from comments), as it should be. I agree with your perspective. If anything, I am even further from "middle" than you.
For me, the two quotes from your post that best capture the essence of your thesis are these:
" Presidential Historian Allan Lichtman said, 'Great Presidents don't move to the middle, they bring the middle to them in order to achieve fundamental change.' "
"Barack Obama proved he understands that we didn't elect him just to win an election for the Democrats or to walk down some middle road, when he said, '[W]e know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime – two wars, a planet in peril ...' "
Our planet is, indeed, in peril, much greater peril than average citizens can yet comprehend, most notably from climate change (as you understand well from your work at hottpac.org). Climate change is several orders of magnitude more perilous than the financial crisis (or any other issue currently on the table). Starting no later than mid-century, it will not only challenge civilization, but alter the course of human evolution.
To continue the "road" metaphor, our planet's climate is about to take the largest, sharpest turn in 55 million years on a road leading through dangerous terrain. Hugging the political "middle", attempting to appease those resisting large changes in our relationship to our home planet, is a recipe for a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions.
Let's hope that Mr. Obama is, indeed, prepared to listen to the best climate scientists of our time - James Hansen & James Lovelock (*) - & steadfastly lead us away from the proverbial "middle". Even his bold (by contemporary standards) pledge to reduce emissions to 1990's levels by 2020 & by 80% by 2050 is too little, too late.
In the words of W.B. Yeats, "Things fall apart; the center cannot hold..." Either we must make a conscious choice to veer from the center, or our planet's climate system is going to run us off the road.
[Note: (*) If you don't like Lovelock's solutions to the climate crisis, ignore them; but don't ignore his assessment of the climate crisis.]
Alder Fuller
www.EuglenaBlog.com
Alder,
I like the title of your blog - Euglena! It reminds me of an op-ed piece I wrote years ago comparing Americans to Euglena.
Point the light over there...
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
but you have to listen to the other side. "each of us, no matter how dull, has a story to tell."
I agree with Presidential Historian Allan Lichtman's who said, "Great Presidents don't move to the middle, they bring the middle to them in order to achieve fundamental change."
I hate labels like conservative, liberal, radical or the middle because their divisive and often untrue. Is bailing out Institutions instead of people conservative or liberal?. What about drilling in our national forests?. What about spending billions on mercenaries, and failed adventures?
I don't know what Ms. Pelosi's governing philosophy is. One thing I do no is that she's no progressive. When she got her chance to stop funding for the Iraq war, support articles of impeachment and vote no on the bail-out of banks and mortgage companies who got their selves into this mess because of bad business practices, she voted no.
If that is what governing from the middle means then the democrats need a new senatorial leader.
The democrats should have had more concern for their senatorial leadership than the republicans.
The new president and congress should govern with the idea of offering Americans equality of opportunity and elevating new leadership based merit, over the sense of status.
In other words we can help you get where your going or need to go, but we won't make sure you stay there.
I agree with Presidential Historian Allan Lichtman's who said, "Great Presidents don't move to the middle, they bring the middle to them in order to achieve fundamental change."
I hate labels like conservative, liberal, radical or the middle because their divisive and often untrue. Is bailing out Institutions instead of people conservative or liberal?. What about drilling in our national forests?. What about spending billions on mercenaries, and failed adventures?
I don't know what Ms. Pelosi's governing philosophy is. One thing I do no is that she's no progressive. When she got her chance to stop funding for the Iraq war, support articles of impeachment and vote no on the bail-out of banks and mortgage companies who got their selves into this mess because of bad business practices, she voted no.
If that is what governing from the middle means then the democrats need a new senatorial leader.
The democrats should have had more concern for their senatorial leadership than the republicans.
The new president and congress should govern with the idea of offering Americans equality of opportunity and elevating new leadership based merit, over the sense of status.
In other words we can help you get where your going or need to go, but we won't make sure you stay there.
This article is nonsense. The basic assumption is wrong. These so called great presidents are not great at all. Reagan is the cause for the downfall of American society and responsible for its present problems. He encouraged militarism and engaged in acts by which he should rightly be considered a criminal. FDR brough the US into war by allowing an attack on Pearl Harbor and brought in the New Deal to stop a more dangerous reform. He acted to protect the interests of capitalism and the owners. If he seemed progressive it is because true progressives were close to taking over. Lincoln did not lead us through the civil war, he caused it, and attacked the south mercilessly and illegally. The South had every right to secede. Hogwash is what this article is..............lizard
Did the South have "every right" to own slaves?
Depends on if you are speaking of legally or morally? Legally, of course, it was legal in those states then. Morally of course not.
The civil war was not about slavery in any case, it was about the right of succession, I'll remind that Lincoln pledged that he wasn't going to free the slaves when the war started.
.Not about slavery....about the question of who would rule here, the industrial north or the agrarian south....We now fixed that by giving away our industry! The south is rising! Drat, where are those prozacs?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
".Not about slavery....about the question of who would rule here, the industrial north or the agrarian south....We now fixed that by giving away our industry!"
You certainly have that right! But never fear, we are going to reindustrialize the south AND provide free prozac to the north.
.I want mine in cornbread or pecan pralines!
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
pecan pralines! By all means! Excellent choice!!
Technically speaking it was about secession. But why did the South wish to secede?
Simply a question of States rights of which slavery was surely a part. But its an involved question for a simple answer. Industrialization, markets, attitudes.
If you are implying that the South wanted to secede based on the issue of slavery, the answer is no. It was already substantially declining, an empirical fact.
Aquifer November 8th, 2008 4:18 pm
By the way, this was an interesting post.
I am not implying that slavery was the sole reason that the South wished to secede. I agree fully, and appreciate the fact that you have pointed this out, that there were other significant reasons, among them the issue of trade which again looms, or should loom to a greater extent than it does, in our current milieu. But this whole issue of "state's rights" is an interesting one. It seems to me that it, like so many other lofty theoretical concepts, is trotted out when it is useful and ignored when it is not. The original Constitution was a severe blow to the rights states had under the Articles of Confederation, but was ratified none the less and apparently good enough for the South in the first 60 or so years of our existence as a country. The fact that it, instead of the Declaration's "right of the people to alter or abolish government" was trotted out as a permission slip for secession I think is interesting. You may be right that slavery was "already substantially declining", perhaps because of its failure as an economic model, but I think the South was desperately trying to hold onto it and felt quite threatened by the increasing rumble of abolitionism, as well as by the power of industrialization, coming from the North. "States Rights", I would contend, was a convenient fig leaf used to cover this fact.
Believe me..."like so many other lofty theoretical concepts, is trotted out when it is useful and ignored when it is not." this wasn't and isn't a lofty theoretical concept to the South. Even though we finally won the civil war. I'd say we really don't like a lot of interference from the Federal government, but neither do a lot of other States. I'd say in fact that the Federal government is over reaching.
My State of Texas when we came in retained the right to leave again, by law.
Aside from that, I think the rest is fair comment. I think the old South was desperately trying to hold onto their old way of life. I'm sure that they felt quite threatened by the increasing rumble of abolitionism as illustrated by Uncle Tom's Cabin.....a work of fiction by the way, but none the less effective, as well as by the power of industrialization, coming from the North.
"You may be right that slavery was "already substantially declining"
I did a study on this long ago and all the records of the traders, the papers of the day showed it was declining and the records of the big plantations. I don't have any doubt myself.
I wish we could abolish slavery, but its not in our power.
Thomas More - Thank you for continuing this conversation! It may not be directly on point with the original article, but, for me, it's great because there are so few times I have an opportunity to "wrestle", other than with myself, with ideas and trains of thought. Most folks want to quit long before I do.
In any case, as an example of where I think states' rights are trotted out when they are useful and ignored when they are not, did Texas file an amicus brief in favor of letting Florida, as a state right, finish its ballot recount in the '00 Pres. election?
I am fascinated by the concept that Texas reserves the right to secede. Under what conditions could such a right, under your law, be exercised? For what reasons, or no reason at all? How would that work? A referendum? Could that decision be appealed to the USSC? And, if Texas lost, would Texans pay any attention to the SC decision? How far would Texans go if they lost such a decision? What would make Texans decide to secede?
When you say "we .... won the civil war", who's the "we"? Wasn't the war, again, ostensibly, about whether or not states HAD the right to secede? Or was the end of the war, in many people's minds, only a cessation of military activity and we are in a prolonged truce, as in Korea, leaving the US, for all intents and purposes, divided into (at least) 2 countries with only the appearance of loyalty to a Fed'l gov't? This may sound like an academic exercise, but I think it may get to the heart of who "we" are as a polity.
"In any case, as an example of where I think states' rights are trotted out when they are useful and ignored when they are not, did Texas file an amicus brief in favor of letting Florida, as a state right, finish its ballot recount in the '00 Pres. election?"
Not that I know of, but that was a Federal election.
"I am fascinated by the concept that Texas reserves the right to secede."
Actually I think we no longer have it. We probably lost it at the end of the civil war. We did retain that right when we joined the Union, there are various opinions on it, but at worst the wording of the treaty implied it. Don't forget we have no Federal lands in Texas, we retained them. Also the right to break into 4 or 5 independet states if we choose. Can't remenmber if its 4 or 5.
We did cede land to the United States that makes up much of Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas,and I think Wyoming.
We wouldn't secede from the US, most Texans love Texas, but love America just as much. But I'd say Texas is one of only two or three states that could form a viable country by itself. Maybe the only one these days.
Texas is not bankrupt, in fact we have a surplus, we have very little decline in housing prices, We supply all our own power and water. Our economy is larger than China, I think its 6th or 8th largest in the world.
Enough Texas bragging! You get the idea, Texans love Texas. But we wouldn't leave America.
When I said "we" finally won the Civil war, I meant that the Southern states have the political power now and its a Southern joke to say we finally won the war. Actually Southerners never really surrendered, we just had to quit fighting!
"Or was the end of the war, in many people's minds, only a cessation of military activity and we are in a prolonged truce, as in Korea, leaving the US, for all intents and purposes, divided into (at least) 2 countries with only the appearance of loyalty to a Fed'l gov't?"
Actually thats sort of true, except that there was no divided loyalty. When Southerners give their word they keep it. Almost to this day we still do deals on a handshake, but I think that may be changing.
This post you really have to take with a grain of salt, because it is only my own opinon and feelings.
"Thomas More - Thank you for continuing this conversation!" My pleasure. I always learn something.
As I recall, the "states' rights" issue was questioned with regard to Bush v. Gore. It may have been a Fed'l election, but votes are counted at the state level and elections determined by electoral college votes which are allocated to each state. Pres. elections are not decided by nat'l popular vote. The Florida SC had decided to continue with a recount, as I recall, but was overruled by the US SC. Was that not a "state's rights" issue? Would Texas have stood for that?
"The Florida SC had decided to continue with a recount, as I recall, but was overruled by the US SC. Was that not a "state's rights" issue? Would Texas have stood for that?"
When the SCOTUS ruled that ended it. The answer to the second is not gracefully. We'd have raised hell from Dallas to Washington and back. We'd still be raising hell. We didn't like Bush when he was Gov. And he is no real Texan.
My original question was, did Texas, before SCOTUS handed down its ruling but while it was hearing the case, file an amicus brief in favor of Fla. "state right" to recount it's own ballot free of Fed'l interference, or even make any noise afterward that that decision was a clear violation of states' rights. I think you know very well what I'm getting at, which is where we started - "states' rights" are trotted out when convenient and ignored when they're not, even, I suspect, in Texas
You could say that. But of course Texas would never interfere in Floridas state right to complain to the Fed's in its own right. (LOL)!
But its still not a good analogy to the civil war and secession, even so. This was simply a states right within and dictated by the Federal system, not about the right to withdraw from it.
So, lets say I was right then and you're right now?
For me this has been a very interesting exchange for a number of reasons. First for its "longevity" over several days. Second for its apparent willingness to spar on a rational if not always (at least on my part) intellectual level. And perhaps, most importantly, for its illustration of what happens when folks think they're arguing about, or discussing, the same thing when they perhaps actually aren't, as illustrated by your last post. To whit: I thought the argument was about the principle of "states' rights" as opposed to Fed'l rights in gen'l, but, if I (finally) understand you properly your point was about a state's right of secession, per se.
I confess being totally chagrined at my failure to be more explicit in defining what I thought were the terms of the "debate" as I am such a big bug about definition of terms as being a sine qua non for rational discussion - the idea being that before we can turn a page we must agree not only to start on the same page but on which page that will be.
I am also reminded again of both the advantages and limitations of this format for carrying on such a discussion. The advantages being that without this I probably would never be carrying on a conversation with a person from Texas about anything as I don't know anybody who lives there. The limitations, for me at least, are a bit more numerous. I am a 2 fingered typist so it takes me forever to type this stuff (that, of course, is an excellent incentive to learn the art of concision, at least, if not brevity). But the biggest disadvantage for me is that my preferred mode of communication is verbal - this whole conversation could have been had probably in about 2 minutes, with the added benefits of verbal cues - pauses, tone of voice, etc, - cues as to where one perhaps should redefine, change direction, etc. in order to advance the discussion.
As it always seemed to me that it was a good idea to refer back to the beginning to see where we started and how, or why we got here - perhaps definitions would be a good place to begin every discussion. A definition of "middle" or "center" that we could agree on may have been useful as a starting place for discussion of this article. But, even then, that definition would be useful, I think, only for OUR discussion, i.e. do any of us know what the AUTHOR really means by the "middle" she doesn't want the admin. to govern from?
In any case, Thanx Again, Thomas More (and getreal on another, occasionally meshing stream), I have enjoyed this exchange enormously!
Agreed.
"rational if not always (at least on my part) intellectual level."
HA! Ardee will tell you I'm scattered and not always clear, especially in my writing. And you have just found out for yourself.
"I am a 2 fingered typist so it takes me forever to type this stuff (that, of course, is an excellent incentive to learn the art of concision, at least, if not brevity). But the biggest disadvantage for me is that my preferred mode of communication is verbal - this whole conversation could have been had probably in about 2 minutes, with the added benefits of verbal cues - pauses, tone of voice, etc, - cues as to where one perhaps should redefine, change direction, etc. in order to advance the discussion."
Thats exactly me. Except I'm a one fingered typist.
I have enjoyed your thoughts and suggestions, I've also appreciated the chance to continue past one day. I suspect we will get a chance on some other topic someday. Thanks to you.
.It might help if you stopped typing while sitting in your 'two holer'....just trying to help here...;-)
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Thanx for the laugh, best one I've had all day!
oops, see below
Good discussion you guys.
The author's point is that those three fellows got stuff done, whether for good or ill. They got it done by first by selling it to the masses, then by crushing or co-opting opposition — not by meeting it on the broken yellow line.
Come to think of it, W probably qualifies under those criteria.
Define the middle? Define centrist?
All Americans can have no higher purpose in the pursuit of patriotism than to demand that President Obama and his administration drive a wooden stake once and for all through the heart of the so called conservative ideology so that it's permanently marginalized and our country can advance into the 21st century with our heads held high.
THANK YOU for putting it so CLEARLY, Grousefeather.
i always like to say for myself:
in ALL its various "variations" : libertarian, paleo-conservative, conservative, social conservative, fiscal conservative,..whatever....
CONSERVATISM is a DEAD PHILOSOPHY that walks around like a zombie pretending to be alive...
it doesn't matter if it's the "paleo-conservative" , "true right wing" variety of the "libertarian" mode of "antiwar.com".s Justin Raimondo (who has very good observations nonetheless) or the Cato institute, or Heritage foundation ilk, or the "traditional" conservatives of the Pat Buchanan "let's liquidate empire" (correctly so, i must add) - variety or the Ron Paul "no taxes, small government" variety that somehow NEVER talk MUCH about the CORPORATE entities that take advantage of THEIR own philosophies of "small government" because its protections for the PUBLIC FROM big business is so weakened as a result....
ALL of them as CONSERVATIVES are riding a DEAD PHILOSOPHY.
it is the equivalent of wanting to cling to a MYTHICAL "conservative" ideal that NEVER really existed while the rest of the world STRUGGLES to PROGRESS beyond these stupid, COLD "theories" of social organization because some people have such a hard time dealing with the IDEA that
humanity actually is an interconnected society that NEEDS each other and that , one way or another, sooner or later, we ARE "our brother's keepers".
CONSERVATISM considers THAT an anathema. and these folks should find a different PLANET in which they can be as "individual" as they WANT! and not bother anyone and not be bothered BY anyone! hahaha!
conservatives SHOULD be made to feel ASHAMED and DESPISED , as far as i am concerned, and should be made to feel TIED to what are inherently CRUEL practices and philosophies of GREED and SELFISHNESS ...until they are SHAMED for even harboring such principles. lol. and if they try to argue about economics and so on - why ...it is so easy to drive home the point, better if others are watching --
JUST POINT TO RONALD REAGAN , BUSH, the president Buchanan, etc...with THEIR FAILED philosophies!!! and then ask them :
"have you seen a relative or friend lately that has perhaps LOST a job , wages, home, health care, social services, might have to choose between medication or FOOD, or jobs going abroad because of the CONSERVATIVE ECONOMICS principles of looking for CHEAP JOBS abroad to feed YOUR wonderful BIG BUSINESSES YOUR own conservative economics LOVE SO MUCH?"
that ought to shut them up!!! lol.
I agree with Presidential Historian Allan Lichtman's who said, "Great Presidents don't move to the middle, they bring the middle to them in order to achieve fundamental change."
I hate labels like conservative, liberal, radical or the middle because they take no thought.
I don't know what Ms. Pelosi's governing philosophy is. One thing I do no is that she's no progressive. When she got her chance to stop funding for the iraq war, support articles of impeachment and vote no on the bail-out of banks and mortgage companies who practiced bad business she said no.
I think the democrats should have had more concern for their senatorial leadership than the republicans. I hope our voting electorate continues to hold are representatives feet to the fire regardless of what the media says.
I think that the new president and congress should govern with the idea of offering equality of opportunity and merit, over the sense of status.
In other words we can help you get where your going or need to go, but we won't make sure you stay there.