|
So... it looks like we may have a victor here. It's not finalized, as Clinton is letting this go until the last vote is cast, but her very narrow win in Indiana indicated to me that finally the "front runner" momentum has caught up with Obama, so Clinton no longer will be able to win contests.
That said, I've learned much more about the American people than I have about the candidates this election season. One of the thoughts I've had repeatedly is that I think we've replaced irrational fear with irrational exuberance, which is understandable but no more healthy a condition than after the Terror Attacks. It's understandable given that we've endured eight years of malaise under an emotionally abusive government. I remember well the first few days following the 2004 Presidential election. I was shocked and felt helpless to yet more chain-jerking by the Bush White House. They manipulate in order to solidify power, and many of us had enough by then. America's added insult of being denied a change in leadership in 2004 only guaranteed the political calls for "change" and the feel-good rhetoric of "hope" that we see today.
The answer to an excessive power grab by a state's leaders is populism. It's a natural swing from the conservative movement started in 1980 when Reagan took the White House. During this swing, we've faced business deregulation, the watering down of collective bargaining and labor power, a dramatic widening in the gap separating the wealthiest and the poorest, meager to virtually non-existent environmental protections, the erosion of the middle class, the liquidation of government services, layoffs as the business solution instead of belt-tightening and CEO accountability, the weakening of women's rights, and the replacement of merit with ego as the means of acquiring power in business and politics. Style has trumped substance.
For Democrats angry with Bill Clinton's "Republican" presidency, this is the reason for their discontent. Even a Democrat elected during this era, such as Bill Clinton, would espouse more conservative values, making these political swings less attributive to the party in power than to the mood of the public. As we climb out of this cesspool into what may likely be an era brought by a swing to the left, I do not believe that this swing will be successful unless the developments of the conservative era aren't directly addressed, mainly issues of labor and corporate layoffs. The changes must not be cursory but fundamental adjustments in how we understand the relationships between businesses and workers.
Somewhere, somehow, many in America came to democratize capitalism during the conservative era, believing that acquiring capital is a right. It is not. Capitalism is something earned, not acquired, and how quickly we have replaced the concept of "good business" with "selfish interests" and protectionism. During the last liberal era, from the days of FDR to the days Jimmy Carter, taxes on the wealthy ranged anywhere from 50 to 80%. The belief then was to maintain as narrow gap as possible between the wealthiest and poorest Americans in order to strengthen spending power in the lower classes and, believe it or not, protect the success of our capitalist lifestyle. For this reason, a strong middle class arose and sustained itself until the deregulatory era raised its ugly head.
For the incoming Democratic presidency (I am one to believe John McCain has no shot whatsoever), we must pour substance into the rhetoric of "change." If indeed we wish to see true change in how our government does business, then the new Democratic administration must - in the most profound way - improve the life of the American worker. Without doing so, this concept of change will crumble, and the Democratic Party's power with it. After flying high on idealistic concepts we must come back down to earth and get to work. Work for the worker is no effort wasted.
~Writer~
|