Some folks believe that the financial crisis that has befallen us has come unsolicited, the result of an unforeseen series of events that produced a financial “perfect storm”. Some go so far as to believe that Mr. W. Bush’s lack of intelligence or savvy coupled with a topsy-turvy deregulation of the markets produced this crisis. I beg to differ, let me explain:
Certain groups of our society have always advocated the preeminence of the private sector as the exclusive provider of goods and services. It is the root of the Far-right ideology and its backbone; the belief that the State should not involve itself nor regulate in any way the free trade of goods and services. They believe that any restraints or limits should be imposed willingly by those who participate in the marketplace. Of course they say that the final arbiter would be the market itself, who would weed out those who are not competitive or effective enough.
As a matter of fact the ideal scenario for those who hold these ideas is that the state should limit itself to:
1 - Provide a police force to protect the citizenry’s property,
2 - A judicial system to establish the legal framework of ownership and
3 - Establish and maintain the armed forces necessary to protect the nation and its interests abroad.
From their perspective Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) - was and is still - their greatest enemy; because he used the might of the State to redistribute wealth and to create jobs for average folks. Many argue that his policies in effect created the fertile ground for the development of the great American Middle Class. The fact is that the middle class as we know it had not existed before FDR’s time.
Because of this, the Extreme Right has fought back unceasingly to return the nation to the raw capitalist “free market” country that existed previous to FDR. To this effect the “cold war” and the emergence of the extreme left Communist block, served to create an emotive fear against anything with the word “socialist”. Things went so far as to demonize the name “liberal” which is a synonym for tolerant.
Notwithstanding these advancements in the political arena, the American people would never accept the extreme right’s program’s vaunted end; the dissolution of Social Security, Medicaid, Public Education, Department of Transportation, FDA, etc. The American people recognize the usefulness and importance of those programs and reject those extreme ideas. The concept of “We the People”, the foundation of our system of governance is very much alive, despite the efforts of those who try to thwart it.
So it is that a new strategy was devised: If we cannot get the American people to stop these government programs, then the Extreme Right would seek to “break” the Government. This was done through a two pronged program; on one front they would seek to impoverish the Nation by selling off national assets and doling out huge tax breaks for the very wealthy; on the other they would institute a massive accumulation of debt.
This is exactly what was accomplished under Ronald Reagan’s administration. Through the use of vivid imagery and a masterful performance as America’s Granddad, Reagan was able to increase the deficit from one trillion to three trillion dollars during his so called “conservative” years.
The peace dividend and balanced budgets brought by the Clinton administration endangered the scheme. Well, GW took care of that, his administration has singlehandedly doubled the deficit from five to ten trillion dollars in eight years. While we have all been flabbergasted by the deceptive war, torture, abuse of power, and so much more - behind the scenes this administration has hosted and abetted an orgy of looting of our treasure, resources, and people.
Now after eight years of the full blown right wing experiment, the middle class is devastated, poverty is at record levels and health care has become a luxury out of the reach of many. Meanwhile Big Oil producers, crooked CEO's and Wall Street shysters are dizzy from their tremendous profits.
The shame of this situation is something that your average American understandably loathes to face. The fact is that this government has behaved like the lowest of third world banana republics. Corruption and cronyism are rampant and the looting of the middle class is nearly complete.
Now at the end the experiment we are presented with the “bailout” brought to us by Mr. Bush. As initially presented this was his final golden touch. After all the mess he has wrought, he asks us to take on even more debt so that he can leave his Wall Street fat cat buddies with pockets full of loot. All on the backs of America’s overworked, underpaid and overextended middle class.
Now we have McCain’s economic program. He promises to cut social programs for the middle classes and the needy, at the same time he promises billions more to Wall Street and Oil Companies. This is plainly revealed for what it is: the continued attempt to completely subjugate the State, to enslave it to serve only those with power and connections. I ask you, where is “We the People” in this scene?
What is truly visionary in Obama’s proposal and strategy is that he “gets” the concept that we have a government “for the people and by the people”. The man truly believes it!
As he has boldly stepped into the breach, he has opened opportunities and revealed possibilities beyond the cynicism that plagued many of our minds.
Obama has taken this country by its very soul and foundation, he truly and wholly believes in “We the People”. He has shared that faith and passion with us all - and our very beings resonate with his call. “We the People” sounds so right, indeed.


Salon.com
Comments
A few years ago, an ex-Repugnican opertive copped to this in a book which I cannot locate now. It is true as rain.
rated and recommended.
I’m glad you and I are on the same team. This was a nice little recap of conservative vs. liberal history, and I was with you up to the very end of your post where you made some statements regarding Obama that seem unsupported. I’m not what technically qualifies as a “liberal” unless you include “radical” in that definition. In my view I have not seen anything truly earth shattering coming from Obama. I do hope to see that if he gets into office, but all I’ve seen so far is capitulation and compromise that has done nothing to bolster my optimism about an Obama presidency. The FISA vote was especially depressing to me --- he could not even make a solid stand on that principle.
You say, “What is truly visionary in Obama’s proposal and strategy is that he “gets” the concept that we have a government “for the people and by the people”. The man truly believes it!”
What makes you believe that “the man truly believes it”? He appears to me as primarily a corporatist candidate.
You say, “As he has boldly stepped into the breach, he has opened opportunities and revealed possibilities beyond the cynicism that plagued many of our minds.”
I’m not quite sure what exactly that means. Can you expound a little on that?
And you say, “Obama has taken this country by its very soul and foundation, he truly and wholly believes in ‘We the People’. He has shared that faith and passion with us all - and our very beings resonate with his call. ‘We the People’ sounds so right, indeed.”
Talk is cheap. Until Obama stands up and actually DOES something that displays this belief in “We the People”, I will wait and see where we end up should he gain the office he seeks. I’ll be voting third party simply because in the state where I live, there is no chance of a “Blue-State” outcome, and I think a viable third party would do this country more good than one vote for Obama from me that won’t count anyway.
What I find refreshing about Obama's candidacy is that he really does believe that he can bring about consensus and positive change. He seemingly believes this despite his racial background or his humble beginnings. He has inspired a whole generation with hope for the future.
When the Democratic Party chose him I believed that they had managed to "steal defeat from the jaws of victory" once again. I did not believe that his country was ready to elect a member of a minority to its highest office, regardless of his qualifications. Now, barring some monumental unforeseen circumstance or massive fraud, it seems almost certain that he will win this election. We will see.
Regardless, we live in an eminently capitalist country that has a long history of corporate malfeasance. I have no issue with the existence of corporations, they are tools to be used to promote trade and provide profits to their stockholders. That is fine by me.
I do however have issues with a government that hands over complete power to corporate CEOs and abrogates its responsibility to care for the welfare of its citizens.
What I see in an Obama administration is the beginnings of change; leadership that holds value in something other than corporate profits. Frankly the election of GW proved the fallacy in the idea that it did not matter whether the Democrats or the Republicans held power. I admit to being hopeful, however after the disastrous Bush administration - hope seems like the only thing that I had left.
In regards to a third or fourth party I have always felt that a two party system seems little removed from a one party state. However I now believe that a multi party system is inevitable that we will arrive there; democracy demands it and the same technology that has made Obama’s effort a reality, will provide the space for it.
The diversity and democracy of on-line communication has already given birth to new political forces. If the people’s expectations are not met, we now have the tools to proselytize, organize, fund and establish new efforts. You are looking at the ground from where new political expectations, participants, ideas and forces will spring forth.
And it certainly does seem that the internet and other forms of newer technology could be instrumental in accomplishing that break from the two-headed monster we currently possess. Unless, corporatists can prevent that...
In my view, this skewing govt to the wealthy and well-connected goes back to the founding when "all men are created equal" actually meant "all white men of property are more or less equal". The most egregious trashing of the platitudes about equality was that some men were treated as livestock worthy of 3/5 a human for purposes of representation.
While the Rabid Right is all too anxious to "provide for the common defense" (while failing to heed Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex), they are ignorantly or deliberately blind to the charge to "promote the general welfare".
I would like to share your enthusiasm for Obama, and I am very cautiously optimistic in some areas, but I fear he is at heart a centrist compromiser -- especially after reading The Audacity of Hope. Frankly, if we are to correct the crazed policies of Reagan and Bush, we are going to have to own up to some policies too many brainwashed Americans see as "dirty" words.
Those words? Socialism, Industrial Planning, National Healthcare, Reduced Military Expenditures, Confiscatory Taxation (of excess profits and obscene income). When I hear politicians speak truthfully about these matters, I will be a bit less skeptical.