Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Election of 2012: Why the Most Important Issues May Be Off the Table (But Should Be On It)
We’re on the cusp of the 2012 election. What will it be about? It seems reasonably certain President Obama will be confronted by a putative Republican candidate who:
Believes corporations are people, wants to cut the top corporate rate to 25% (from the current 35%) and no longer require they pay tax on foreign income, who will eliminate capital gains and dividend taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year, raise the retirement age for Social Security and turn Medicaid into block grants to states, seek a balanced-budged amendment to the Constitution, require any regulatory agency issuing a new regulation repeal another regulation of equal cost (regardless of the benefits), and seek repeal of Obama’s healthcare plan.
Or one who:
Believes the Federal Reserve is treasonous when it expands the money supply, doubts human beings evolved from more primitive forms of life, seeks to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and shift most public services to the states, thinks Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, while governor took a meat axe to public education and presided over an economy that generated large numbers of near-minimum-wage jobs, and who will shut down most federal regulatory agencies, cut corporate taxes, and seek repeal of Obama’s healthcare plan.
Whether it’s Romney or Perry, he’s sure to attack everything Obama has done or proposed. And Obama, for his part, will have to defend his positions and look for ways to counterpunch.
Hence, the parameters of public debate for the next fourteen months.
Within these narrow confines progressive ideas won’t get an airing. Even though poverty and unemployment will almost surely stay sky-high, wages will stagnate or continue to fall, inequality will widen, and deficit hawks will create an indelible (and false) impression that the nation can’t afford to do much about any of it – proposals to reverse these trends are unlikely to be heard.
Neither party’s presidential candidate will propose to tame CEO pay, create more tax brackets at the top and raise the highest marginal rates back to their levels in the 1950s and 1960s (that is, 70 to 90 percent), and match the capital-gains rate with ordinary income.
You won’t hear a call to strengthen labor unions and increase the bargaining power of ordinary workers.
Don’t expect an argument for resurrecting the Glass-Steagall Act, thereby separating commercial from investment banking and stopping Wall Street’s most lucrative and dangerous practices.
You won’t hear there’s no reason to cut Medicare and Medicaid – that a better means of taming health-care costs is to use these programs’ bargaining clout with drug companies and hospitals to obtain better deals and to shift from fee-for-services to fee for healthy outcomes.
Nor will you hear why we must move toward Medicare for all.
Nor why the best approach to assuring Social Security’s long-term solvency is to lift the ceiling on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes.
Don’t expect any reference to the absurdity of spending more on the military than do all other countries put together, and the waste and futility of an unending and undeclared war against Islamic extremism – especially when we have so much to do at home.
Nor are you likely to hear proposals for ending the corruption of our democracy by big money.
Although proposals like these are more important and relevant than ever, they won’t be part of the upcoming presidential election.
But they should be part of the public debate nonetheless.
That’s why I urge you to speak out about them – at town halls, candidate forums, and public events. Continue to mobilize and organize around them. Talk with your local media about them. Use social media to get the truth out.
Don’t be silenced by Democrats who say by doing so we’ll jeopardize the President’s re-election. If anything we’ll be painting him as more of a centrist than Republicans want the public to believe. And we’ll be preserving the possibility (however faint) of a progressive agenda if he’s reelected.
Remember, too, the presidential race isn’t the only one occurring in 2012. More than a third of Senate seats and every House seat will be decided on, as well as numerous governorships and state races. Making a ruckus about these issues could push some candidates in this direction — particularly since, as polls show, much of the public agrees.
Most importantly, by continuing to push and prod we give hope to countless Americans on the verge of giving up. We give back to them the courage of their own convictions, and thereby lay the groundwork for a future progressive agenda — to take back America from the privileged and powerful, and restore broad-based prosperity.
Robert Reich, one of the nation’s leading experts on work and the economy, is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. Time Magazine has named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including his latest best-seller, Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future; The Work of Nations; Locked in the Cabinet; Supercapitalism; and his newest, an e-book, Beyond Outrage. His syndicated columns, television appearances, and public radio commentaries reach millions of people each week. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, and Chairman of the citizen’s group Common Cause. His widely-read blog can be found at www.robertreich.org.
39 Comments so far
Show All"to take back America from the privileged and powerful"
america has always belonged to these; there is nothing to "take back".
unless you're hoping for a refund.
Obama, House and Senate Democrats will address only the issues that their corporate sponsors allow them to address.
Most the issues that Robert Reich expects to be off the table are important issues, at least in terms of preventing further damage to the economy, to "our" failing proto-democracy, and to the welfare of people of modest means and the poor.
But Robert Reich is still pedaling the politics of "fear the Republicans", and delusions about Barack Obama, the Democrats, and "Democracy in America."
Barack Obama and the Democrats have done considerably more to advance the agenda of the Republicans than to oppose it. By far most Democrats and Republicans serve corporate power not the people they are supposed to represent. The agenda of the Democrats and the Republicans are in actual fact very similar in most respects.
Barack Obama and the Democrats did more to frustrate any real progress on the issues Robert Reich says will not be, but should be on the table.
Yet Robert Reich once agains stays within the script of Kubuki politics and blames the Republicans. Robert Reich, other Democrats, and Republicans can improvise on that script, but they cannot depart from the script without seriously crossing those who are actually in power.
Any serious efforts to counter global warming and climate change or to establish genuine democracy in the United States will be off the table.
People must demand that the U.S. Congress pass Fee and Dividend (Rebate) legislation as recommended by James Hansen and others to counter global warming, catastrophic climate change, and further exploitation of fossil carbon fuels including fracking for natural gas and the exploitation of Alberta's tar sands for oil.
People must demand both an end to proto-democracy and the establishment of genuine democracy in the United States, where "We the People" are the sovereign boss, and elected and appointed government officials are truly public servants, engaged in public service, acting on our behalf, and in our interests.
The two most important things people can do to democratize elections in their state and on the national level are to work with other people to get:
1) Their state legislature to replace Plurality Voting with a
consent / dissent grading scale based voting procedure,
such as Yes No 'Maybe So' Voting or Category Scale
Power Voting. Category Scale Power Voting is easier to
use and somewhat more powerful.
and to get:
2) Their state legislature or the U.S. Congress to pass legisla-
tion that will provide both the opportunity and the legal "rule
synthesis" rationale for overturning the Buckley v. Valeo
and Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decisions.
Both Citizens United v. FEC and Buckley v. Valeo need to be overturned. Like Plurality Voting those two Supreme Court decisions are undemocratic and unconstitutional, because they favor the speech and political association of the wealthy in violation of the U.S. Constitutional guarantee of "equal protection under the law".
I expect that massive protest, civil disobedience, and strikes by workers will be needed to bring about both the change of who is in power and the reconfiguration of our economies that are needed to avert the very worst consequences of global warming and catastrophic climate change.
Hey, people can also try to get their voices heard and to harass politicians at "town hall" meetings, candidate forums, and public events too.
But don't expect to see Robert Reich there.
Can we just secede and join a sane country?
I think we should bring the troops home, declare Texas and D.C. as rogue nations, invade, and bring them democracy.
Hell, it worked in Iraq...
QUESTIONAIRRE FOR 2012 CANDIDATES
1. The US has more than 700 military bases in 130 foreign countries. Do you support the closing of all of these bases?
YES________ NO________
2. The Black Budget finances covert operations in an unknown number of foreign countries. It was authorized during the Truman administration. Since then, because of secrecy, no informed ballot has been cast in the US. Would you support elimination of the Black Budget?
YES________ NO________
3. Would you support an end to the financing, manufacture, and use of Drones?
YES________ NO________
4. The US secret prison system has received world-wide criticism. Would you support the immediate closing of Guantanamo and all other US controlled prisons on foreign soil? Will you support the immediate release, or speedy Trials of all prisoners, including PFC Bradley Manning?
YES________ NO________
5. The Rule of Law has been suspended by an Executive Order allowing assassination – even of USA citizens. Will you pledge to rescind that Order?
YES________ NO________
6. Will you support the phasing out of all nuclear power plants?
YES________ NO________
7. Do you support Statehood for the Palestinians?
YES________ NO________
8. Will you support reform of the tax code? Eliminate tax on the first $88,000; a progressive tax on income above $88,000; a 98% tax on all income above $500,000, earned and unearned from investment.
YES________ NO________
9. Do you believe that Health Care is a human right, and that a Single Payer System is the best way to achieve it?
YES________ NO________
10. Do you believe that hunger and homelessness are national tragedies, often resulting from an unfair economic system?
YES________ NO________
11. Does the public educational system have an obligation to teach an accurate view of US and World History? This would include lessons about lynching, US war crimes, etc.
YES________ NO________
12. Will you support legal protection for families and children working on farms? Children as young as 2 years old have been filmed in farm fields because there is no system to provide safe child care, protection from toxic chemicals, adequate housing, fair pay, education, health services, etc.
YES_______ NO________
Rosemarie Jackowski is an advocacy journalist. She is author of BANNED IN VERMONT.
Love the questions, Rosemarie, especially #8 with the 98% tax on income above half a million.
I wonder what kind of a world it would be without myopic bullies, pumped up on cash, pushing and prodding us towards oblivion .
Certainly, these are good questions.
Anyone considering attending "town hall" meetings of elected officials, candidate forums, and other public events as suggested by Robert Reich should seriously consider bringing these questions with them.
Mr. Reich still clings to the delusions that Obama is a "centrist" and that the Democrats actually offer a clear, true choice over the admittedly sociopathic Republicans.
But Democrats have long ago proven, by their support for policies at home and abroad, that they are as sociopathic as Republicans, all their nice-sounding rhetoric to the contrary. Remember that Reich was part of a Clinton government that ended "welfare as we know it", repealed Glass-Steagall, and removed regulations on crazy financial instruments which led to the crash of 2008. Clinton also maintained Bush Senior's cruel, genocidal sanctions on Iraq, killing more than 500,000 children (Clinton's Secretary of state Albright judged those deaths acceptable), and Clinton bombed Yugoslavia for 78 straight days.
Obama has continued and expanded Bush Junior's Surveillance Society and his wars from three to six, and Special Ops countries from 60 to 120; has increased Bush's already-bloated militarist budget; and has still not closed Guantanamo or the prison at Bagram, Afghanistan, where torture continues. Obama is keeping U.S. troops in Iraq. Obama has done NOTHING to slow down catastrophic climate change, but has caved on clean air standards and will most likely okay the disastrous Canada to Texas oil sands pipeline which Hillary Clinto approved and which climate scientist James Hansen called "game over" for any chance at stopping global warming.
Reich, with his ties to the Democrats, cannot see clearly that BOTH parties are violent thugs intent on reaping all the power they can with no regard for the 99% of U.S. residents nor those of the rest of the planet.
Only a total system replacement (political, economic & military), not "reform", is capable of saving us. But the cards are stacked against that ever happening.
ED,
Maybe it doesn't matter but I believe Reich held his post in the Clinton Administration only during Clinton's first term, but not in the second. I think the "bad" stuff came down in Clinton's second term after Reich was gone.
Well, except for NAFTA, which Reich enthusiastically supported, as he in fact still supports it (and other "free trade agreements") to this very day.
Number 8 will give you the biggest problem since most of our congesspersons would be liable for that tax! Nice idea though.
No 8 would kill the economy also. I'm all for tax reform and increasing taxes on the wealthy but like it or not, investments are needed to sustain economies and such a 98% tax is essentially putting a cap on investments as those who have the capacity to invest would simply stop at that level rather than be taxed at 98%. Also, starting a tax at $88,000 is a bad idea as we all need to contribute something towards the budget to maintain and build our country.
Progressive101... Even those who are paid less than $88,000 DO contribute in many ways - including all sorts of taxes other than tax on income.
Also, investment is NOT needed in other types of economic systems. We need to stop thinking in the Capitalist box. Capitalism and Wall Street got us where we are. Tinkering around the edges will not make a big improvement. We need to change the fundamental system. There is a better way.
I'd like to know what system in the world exists without investment. Yes, those less than $88K do contribute, but those taxes (e.g, sales taxes, property taxes) are regressive. The Republicans have been moving more and more of the taxes away from Federal progressive taxation to local regressive taxes. I'd like to see that trend reversed. That said, I stand by my stance that we should all share in the tax burden and the rich should be taxed at a higher rate.
The human race survived since the beginning without this "investment" ideas you are promoting here. With this "investment" model, the human race may not survive.
Your investment model is incompatible with the social and political change you claim to support.
What you are calling "the economy" is in fact an economy by, for and of the investing class. That "economy" cannot survive without investors. Our economy, the real human economy, cannot survive the investors.
Progressive 101,
Let's see...
Does government ever invest in research and development? I think it does!
And are banks and companies, currently sitting on trillions of dollars. paying next to zero in taxes, currently investing in new growth and development in the USA? The answer is NO! In other countries, yes. But not in the good ole USA.
During the '50's # 60's, the high taxes of 90% on millionaires (there were no billionaires) forced the then super rich to reinvest their incomes into growing real wealth (production of real products and services) to avoid paying the hight taxes on their income. Now with their lowered income taxes and relaxed financial regulations they can just sit back and grow obscene amounts of "funny" money--money from thin air without creating real wealth, but being able to purchase goods and services nevertheless, using their "funny" money.
Goverment R&D does not nearly account for the investments the country needs and if we depend on the government for investments, expect a massive expansion of government and higher taxes if you want that as the solution. Yes companies are sitting on a lot of cash but is irrelevant in regards to the argument I made and I am not arguing against higher taxes on the rich, just proposal #8. As far as the super rich, getting estate tax rates to where they were and simply raising taxes on the rich will go a long ways to stopping these superrich families from passing so much money to family members.
You are repeating the lie that the wealthy create jobs and that without those we would all starve.
Your "massive expansion of government" and "higher taxes" fear-mongering is pure right wing propaganda.
98% may seem a bit extreme, but I'd be willing to wager there would be plenty of loopholes -- just as there were in the days of Eisenhower when the highest tax rate was somewhere around 90%.
Reich: "And we’ll be preserving the possibility (however faint) of a progressive agenda if he’s reelected."
My Sarcastic Obama Parody: Oh please Democratic voters, just give me one more chance, in our first three years, I've broken campaign promises, extended and expanded Bush's war on nations, done nothing for civil liberties but continue spying on Americans, arresting peaceful demonstrators and harrassing political activists, supported the acceleration of Israel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, passed payroll tax cuts leading to the demise of Social Security, had staff that called you "Fxxking retarded" and told you to "Buck up and stop whining"; as well as Hillary admitting that elections don't change foreign policy. I'm not going to do anything for the next year but make political speeches of proposals that have no chance in Hxll of passing now but please, gimmee another chance, in 2013 and maybe, if you are good, I'll pass a few progressive legislative nuggets for you and maybe even bring Reich on as a cabinet member as he has been my number one supporter as I've screwed you over in my first term.
This article is remarkable mainly because of the abundance of misrepresentations it contains.
"The republicans made us do it" is the only thing the democrats have to offer and Mr. Reich sees that as honorable.
What a fraud.
"Whether it’s Romney or Perry, he’s sure to attack everything Obama has done or proposed. And Obama, for his part, will have to defend his positions and look for ways to counterpunch."
Except torture, war, bailouts, universal healthcare, and anything else that actually matters, instead of the phantasmagoric puppet show Mr. Reich watches, jaw agape, a stain of drool spreading darkly across his thin blue robe--
I'd criticize Reich for such gargantuan inanity, but clearly he what he needs is sympathy, a Thorazine/Prozac cocktail and a memory-foam mattress in a Very Quiet (but locked and well-guarded) Place for at least a year--
A most important issue is that of War or Peace. The USA has been in a state of war for 10 years.
And what progress has been made in this country in those 10 years? Anything?
No significant progress has been made and no progress will be made anywhere until the USA becomes a nation at peace. National Security will always trump the commonweal and things will continue to get worse.
Whatever progress you wish for, it cannot come about if it gets in the way of the national priority of waging this insane war.
As usual, I mention Public Law 107-40 because it is the bane of our existence and the powers it ceded to the US Executive need to be taken away and not extended.
There is no progress, I say again, while the nation is at war. If the nation is forever at war, then there will never be progress.
Except for the progress in military technology, of course.
Ending the state of war by ending Public Law 107-40 should be the issue. After that but not before, progress will be possible.
Where's the Obama's playing chess Rhetoric?
Maybe he is - chess moves already made: - destroy democratic party of old - Check
Turn the largest majorities in generations in both the house and senate into a midterm wipeout - check
Continue Destroying the economy - give trillions to the bankster criminals leading to massive speculation and Inflation - increasing misery and poverty - check
Chess moves left to make:
Lose the WH, house and senate to rethugs - who cut SS and all the other social safety nets - leading to the next greater depression - followed by rioting in the streets and revolution -
Then possibly leading to a True Progressive that'll fight for the poor and middle class.
There's the obama 'chess game'
Success thru Failure - what's more Dem Party than that?
Still no mention of Nafta, the deal that outsourced our
industrial base to China. Still no mention of Hillary outsourcing computer jobs to India. Still no mention of
hauling Clinton before Congress to explain what he meant during the Nafta Hearings when he said that Nafta
would create millions of jobs for the USa..
Still no mention of the 200 million dollars that Clinton is now worth...
Freddie,
Is it 200 million now? I've been using 100 million, but maybe that number is now out of date.
When I try to understand Obama's actions and behavior, the only motivation I can come up with is that he wants, 1) not make enemies on the crazy right, thus possibly avoiding personal harm. and 2) make a lot of money.
I believe he enjoys being President, but not to the extent of offending wealthy "friends" or leading the country out of its economic, militaristic, and political morass and moral degridation.
It is good to hear advocacy that we keep hope, keep faith, work for an America with liberty and justice for all. But that is what we did in the 2008 elections, and we got President Obama, who immediately re-installed all of the Bush administrators, then expanded the foreign wars, gave more money to bankers than did Bush, and re-authorized the Patriot Act. I try to keep hope, but sometimes I imagine that the crazier the next President, the better. Like an alcoholic, the US government cannot recover until it finds itself in the gutter, penniless, and friendless, regretting how it wasted our wealth and good will. Maybe that is what we should hope for.
Not to worry. We haven't hit bottom yet, but we will.
__________________________________
Who cares about elections within a thoroughly corrupt system?!
The only thing that elections give opportunity to at this point is to NOT VOTE FOR EITHER A DEMOCRAT OR A REPUBLICAN.
The ONLY thing that's really politically meaningful at this point is to seriously begin to organize in our communities in an effort to build over the long term a mass nonviolent resistance movement that employs relentless direct actions throughout the country. At some point, maybe we can actually field a worthy candidate interested in serving on OUR behalf.
"....he’s sure to attack everything Obama has done or proposed."
I'm sorry. I must have missed it.
What was it that Obama has proposed or done?
I mean, apart from claimning the authority to order summary executions of Americans whom he "suspects" of terrorism, which I assume the Republicans (except for Ron Paul) would support?
sj
What this country needs is a comprehensive industrial policy. Every other developed country has one, including China, whose planning is on a 50 year timetable. I doubt that subject will be brought up during the campaign, either.
Both parties rely on the capitalist economy to take care of industrial policy, even though capitalists now seem to believe that progress is best achieved by the U.S. being investment bankers for the world (and we can see how well that's worked out). Anything that smacks of "central planning" is anathema to the political class, which leaves us with no economic or industrial plan, haphazard growth and progress with no discernible direction, always at the risk of economic chaos while falling behind technologically, and at a distinct disadvantage in the world community. This country won't even accept technological standards, which is why we end up with gadgets that can't communicate with each other and large areas of hardware and software incompatibilities.
Democrats can not expect to win an election when they spend all their time and resources playing defense to the Republicans' prescriptions for the country's future. A certain amount of defense may be necessary, but no team wins without fielding a strong offense.
"Democrats can not expect to win an election when they spend all their time and resources playing defense to the Republicans' prescriptions for the country's future."
This is butt-up against several uncomfortable truths, most of which are corollaries to this one: The Dims exist in order to provide the illusion of opposition in a corporate/corporatist state that naturally prefers Rethugs.
All good words & ideas!
The fact remains that the first step is to concentrate on getting corporate dollars and influence out of our political system (such as it is). Corporations are NOT people & do not cast ballots. They have no standing to have a say in the the wants of voters. Regardless of what some crooked hack of a judge decided many years ago in another world time. Their right to finance and meddle in our government must be reversed before we can get back to work on a government that works for the majority of our people & not the corporations and the privelaged few who implement them.
Category Scale Power Voting
Representative Democracy - The Power of the Boss
Abolishing the Spoiler Effect and the Lesser of Two Evils dilemma (Part 1 of 2)
- - - - -
Category Scale Power Voting
Here are three of just five examples demonstrating the different ways that a single Ralph Nader voter could have cast his or her vote in the 2000 Presidential Election, focusing on the freedom of speech and freedom of political association of the Ralph Nader voter if Category Scale Power Voting had been used in the election.
Please note that in each of these five example ballots voters who support Ralph Nader are able to political associate together with voters who support Al Gore in their common opposition to George W. Bush by explicitly expressing their opposition to George W. Bush.
As is fitting in a genuine democracy characterized by free, fair and democratic elections based upon the consent of the governed, voters who support Ralph Nader may choose whether or not they also want to support or to oppose Al Gore.
- - - - -
Example 1: (Equal support for Nader and Gore while opposing Bush)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
- - - - -
Example 2: (More support for Nader than Gore while opposing Bush)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
- - - - -
Example 3: (Support for Nader no support for Gore while opposing Bush)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
Category Scale Power Voting
Representative Democracy - The Power of the Boss
Abolishing the Spoiler Effect and the Lesser of Two Evils dilemma (Part 2 of 2)
- - - - -
Category Scale Power Voting
Here are two more of the five examples demonstrating the different ways that a single Ralph Nader voter could have cast his or her vote in the 2000 Presidential Election, focusing on the freedom of speech and freedom of political association of the Ralph Nader voter if Category Scale Power Voting had been used in the election.
Please note that in each of these five example ballots voters who support Ralph Nader are able to political associate together with voters who support Al Gore in their common opposition to George W. Bush by explicitly expressing their opposition to George W. Bush.
As is fitting in a genuine democracy characterized by free, fair and democratic elections based upon the consent of the governed, voters who support Ralph Nader may choose whether or not they also want to support or to oppose Al Gore.
- - - - -
Example 4: (Support for Nader, Gore preferred as lesser evil than Bush)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
- - - - -
Example 5: (Support for Nader, equal opposition to Gore and Bush)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
* * * * *
Example 6: (None of the Above)
2000 Presidential Election
Candidate Most Oppose Oppose No Comment Support Most Support
George W. Bush X
Al Gore X
Ralph Nader X
Harry Browne X
Pat Buchanan X
David McReynolds X
As thoroughly demonstrated by performance and results, Republican vs. Democrat is a distinction of style with no difference in substance. It is a Hobson's choice offered up by the de facto power bloc that employs both parties. This is but one of the deceptions applied in the artifice of tyranny. The question is why people continue to accept the deception in the face of its obvious injurious results. Thomas Jefferson explained:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed..."
In other words, americans have yet to hurt enough to expend the effort required to identify and reject the source of their dilemma. So how bad does it have to get? History reports some dismaying examples of people being "more disposed to suffer", especially when they think the problems won't catch up to them personally.
_______________________________
In other words, we are an "entitled", self-righteous people that lack compassion and empathy for other living things, and we are also narcissistic and craven to the core.
Otherwise, how does one explain the deliberate ignorance and lack of humane action concerning the institutional forms of hunger, oppression, murder, poisoning, racism, and inequality that openly permeate the U.S. and the planet, all of which the great majority of us either explicitly or implicitly sanction?
No, we are WAY beyond Jefferson's "light and transient causes". If we, as a people, find our heart again, we will stand up and fundamentally recreate our institutions to reflect a capacity to actually "love" all of life. Indeed, radical change is not thwarted by a lack of dire circumstances, but is precluded via the insidious deadening of our hearts and souls as loving human beings.
"And we’ll be preserving the possibility (however faint) of a progressive agenda if he’s reelected."
HAHAHAHA.... Really? You actually think that? Obama is NOT a progressive! When are you poor naive people going to wake up and realize that the entire system is rigged! NOTHING can be accomplished by voting. The system is too far gone, wholly owned by corporate america. I can see it now, all these so-called liberals are going to be working so hard to get Obama re-elected and then of course, if they succeed, then they'll be crying in the lite-beer because Obama sold them out yet again. It's the same thing over and over again.