Change Is Tougher than Hope
On the campaign trail, Barack Obama electrified Americans with his
bold call to transform despair into hope, and voters elected him in a
landslide. Democratic candidates for Congress rode his broad coattails
to large majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate
that his party hadn't held in a generation. The stage was set to
transform hope into change, for jobs, health care, climate change, and
many other fundamental challenges.
A year into the Obama administration, with giant obstacles
blocking those important changes, many Americans feel more frustrated
than hopeful. Following careful analysis,
the Institute for Policy Studies-which I lead-gives Obama a "C-minus"
grade for his first year in office. But his administration can learn
from these obstacles to guide the country toward positive change in
2010.
The Wall Street-driven economic meltdown that started in the
waning months of the 2008 campaign is the biggest challenge to the
change Obama campaigned on. More than eight million Americans have lost
their jobs since the crisis began, according to the Economic Policy
Institute. Try feeling hopeful without a job.
Obama added to his woes right from the start by selecting a
cabinet which, with only a few exceptions, didn't believe in bold
change. Take Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. The Associated Press
obtained Geithner's schedule
last October and learned that he spent hours on the phone daily with
Wall Street barons, instead of with the small entrepreneurs and workers
who form the backbone of this economy.
Change would be hard for anyone to achieve as long as
Washington is virtually owned by Wall Street bankers and giant
corporations. Too many members of Congress owe their elections to that
largess. Take this revealing example: Obama agreed to cut wasteful
military spending on extraneous items such as a new fleet of
presidential helicopters. Members of Congress, worried about job loss
and corporate anger, put some of the money back in to keep the program
alive.
If we look at the three major battles of 2009, corporate
interests blocked significant change on all of them. Wall Street
stymied any reform that would regulate the Wall Street casino that
brought our economy to the brink. Now its lobbyists are fighting tooth
and nail against a consumer financial protection agency that would
safeguard ordinary people against predatory lending.
On health care, the majority wants all Americans covered-and
they want some version of a government health plan to compete with
private plans. It does look like the Obama administration will win some
small but important health-care reforms, but they will fall short of
where the majority wants to go.
And bills that would address climate change by making major
U.S. companies pollute less were watered down. None have become law
yet.
The Obama administration nevertheless did take a few strong
steps in the right direction. Just three weeks into office, Obama
orchestrated the largest economic recovery spending bill in history. It
sent hundreds of billions of dollars into new jobs and key safety-net
programs. Much of that money has kept Americans from slipping through
the cracks, with a massive expansion of food stamps and a big increase
in unemployment benefits.
Obama should think about how some of his predecessors
successfully channeled public anger into meaningful change at the top.
Many of the social protections that have helped working people, the
elderly, and people of color in this country were passed in the
mid-1930s under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or during the mid-1960s
under Lyndon B. Johnson. In both cases, well-organized Americans
created strong pressure that overcame entrenched interests to win
change.
In Obama's first year, the Americans who mobilized to elect him
largely stayed home. Millions did so because they are out of work and
devoid of hope. Others thought change would come easily. For the change
this nation desperately needs-a transition from a Wall Street casino to
a new economy that fulfills people's needs-Americans must get off their
couches and 2010 and come together to confront corporate interests.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
On the campaign trail, Barack Obama electrified Americans with his
bold call to transform despair into hope, and voters elected him in a
landslide. Democratic candidates for Congress rode his broad coattails
to large majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate
that his party hadn't held in a generation. The stage was set to
transform hope into change, for jobs, health care, climate change, and
many other fundamental challenges.
A year into the Obama administration, with giant obstacles
blocking those important changes, many Americans feel more frustrated
than hopeful. Following careful analysis,
the Institute for Policy Studies-which I lead-gives Obama a "C-minus"
grade for his first year in office. But his administration can learn
from these obstacles to guide the country toward positive change in
2010.
The Wall Street-driven economic meltdown that started in the
waning months of the 2008 campaign is the biggest challenge to the
change Obama campaigned on. More than eight million Americans have lost
their jobs since the crisis began, according to the Economic Policy
Institute. Try feeling hopeful without a job.
Obama added to his woes right from the start by selecting a
cabinet which, with only a few exceptions, didn't believe in bold
change. Take Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. The Associated Press
obtained Geithner's schedule
last October and learned that he spent hours on the phone daily with
Wall Street barons, instead of with the small entrepreneurs and workers
who form the backbone of this economy.
Change would be hard for anyone to achieve as long as
Washington is virtually owned by Wall Street bankers and giant
corporations. Too many members of Congress owe their elections to that
largess. Take this revealing example: Obama agreed to cut wasteful
military spending on extraneous items such as a new fleet of
presidential helicopters. Members of Congress, worried about job loss
and corporate anger, put some of the money back in to keep the program
alive.
If we look at the three major battles of 2009, corporate
interests blocked significant change on all of them. Wall Street
stymied any reform that would regulate the Wall Street casino that
brought our economy to the brink. Now its lobbyists are fighting tooth
and nail against a consumer financial protection agency that would
safeguard ordinary people against predatory lending.
On health care, the majority wants all Americans covered-and
they want some version of a government health plan to compete with
private plans. It does look like the Obama administration will win some
small but important health-care reforms, but they will fall short of
where the majority wants to go.
And bills that would address climate change by making major
U.S. companies pollute less were watered down. None have become law
yet.
The Obama administration nevertheless did take a few strong
steps in the right direction. Just three weeks into office, Obama
orchestrated the largest economic recovery spending bill in history. It
sent hundreds of billions of dollars into new jobs and key safety-net
programs. Much of that money has kept Americans from slipping through
the cracks, with a massive expansion of food stamps and a big increase
in unemployment benefits.
Obama should think about how some of his predecessors
successfully channeled public anger into meaningful change at the top.
Many of the social protections that have helped working people, the
elderly, and people of color in this country were passed in the
mid-1930s under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or during the mid-1960s
under Lyndon B. Johnson. In both cases, well-organized Americans
created strong pressure that overcame entrenched interests to win
change.
In Obama's first year, the Americans who mobilized to elect him
largely stayed home. Millions did so because they are out of work and
devoid of hope. Others thought change would come easily. For the change
this nation desperately needs-a transition from a Wall Street casino to
a new economy that fulfills people's needs-Americans must get off their
couches and 2010 and come together to confront corporate interests.
On the campaign trail, Barack Obama electrified Americans with his
bold call to transform despair into hope, and voters elected him in a
landslide. Democratic candidates for Congress rode his broad coattails
to large majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate
that his party hadn't held in a generation. The stage was set to
transform hope into change, for jobs, health care, climate change, and
many other fundamental challenges.
A year into the Obama administration, with giant obstacles
blocking those important changes, many Americans feel more frustrated
than hopeful. Following careful analysis,
the Institute for Policy Studies-which I lead-gives Obama a "C-minus"
grade for his first year in office. But his administration can learn
from these obstacles to guide the country toward positive change in
2010.
The Wall Street-driven economic meltdown that started in the
waning months of the 2008 campaign is the biggest challenge to the
change Obama campaigned on. More than eight million Americans have lost
their jobs since the crisis began, according to the Economic Policy
Institute. Try feeling hopeful without a job.
Obama added to his woes right from the start by selecting a
cabinet which, with only a few exceptions, didn't believe in bold
change. Take Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. The Associated Press
obtained Geithner's schedule
last October and learned that he spent hours on the phone daily with
Wall Street barons, instead of with the small entrepreneurs and workers
who form the backbone of this economy.
Change would be hard for anyone to achieve as long as
Washington is virtually owned by Wall Street bankers and giant
corporations. Too many members of Congress owe their elections to that
largess. Take this revealing example: Obama agreed to cut wasteful
military spending on extraneous items such as a new fleet of
presidential helicopters. Members of Congress, worried about job loss
and corporate anger, put some of the money back in to keep the program
alive.
If we look at the three major battles of 2009, corporate
interests blocked significant change on all of them. Wall Street
stymied any reform that would regulate the Wall Street casino that
brought our economy to the brink. Now its lobbyists are fighting tooth
and nail against a consumer financial protection agency that would
safeguard ordinary people against predatory lending.
On health care, the majority wants all Americans covered-and
they want some version of a government health plan to compete with
private plans. It does look like the Obama administration will win some
small but important health-care reforms, but they will fall short of
where the majority wants to go.
And bills that would address climate change by making major
U.S. companies pollute less were watered down. None have become law
yet.
The Obama administration nevertheless did take a few strong
steps in the right direction. Just three weeks into office, Obama
orchestrated the largest economic recovery spending bill in history. It
sent hundreds of billions of dollars into new jobs and key safety-net
programs. Much of that money has kept Americans from slipping through
the cracks, with a massive expansion of food stamps and a big increase
in unemployment benefits.
Obama should think about how some of his predecessors
successfully channeled public anger into meaningful change at the top.
Many of the social protections that have helped working people, the
elderly, and people of color in this country were passed in the
mid-1930s under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or during the mid-1960s
under Lyndon B. Johnson. In both cases, well-organized Americans
created strong pressure that overcame entrenched interests to win
change.
In Obama's first year, the Americans who mobilized to elect him
largely stayed home. Millions did so because they are out of work and
devoid of hope. Others thought change would come easily. For the change
this nation desperately needs-a transition from a Wall Street casino to
a new economy that fulfills people's needs-Americans must get off their
couches and 2010 and come together to confront corporate interests.