I don’t mean to be depressing, but so far 2008 hasn’t been a good year. The economy is tanking because of a perfect-storm of soaring oil prices, spiking food costs, and a financial crisis set off by years of incautious lending and borrowing. Unfortunately, our nation didn’t have the foresight to heed the warnings that cheap oil, cheap food and cheap credit wouldn’t go on forever. So now we’re in a business recession, and we’re praying that’s all it will be. As to working on long-term fixes, such as energy conservation research, renewed alternative energy development, rationalizing our agricultural regulation and subsidy policies, throttling back the one alternative energy program that did catch fire but is terribly inefficient (i.e., corn ethanol), regulating the crazy world of investment banking and increasing consumer protection in the mortgage markets – well, don’t hold your breath.
You would think that as our nation prepares to select a new president, such issues would be at the forefront of discussion. But the nation has had bad luck on the political front (as though the economic and financial problems weren’t bad enough). The Democratic Party got caught between Scylla and Charybdis, and its boat is sinking. The onslaught by Barack Obama caught everyone by surprise, but the “yes we can” movement disregarded Machiavelli’s advice: it went after its enemy (Hilary Clinton) without having the power to kill. Just as Machiavelli said, if you can’t take out your enemy clean, then you’re going to be severely weakened by his or her revenge. Obama and Clinton seem to be playing out a Greek tragedy, unknowingly advancing their own mutual doom; here’s an article about this by classicist historian Victor Davis. The GOP will most likely pick up the pieces in November, which basically means a continuation of national inaction and misdirection from the previous Bush administration.
I’m very disappointed about this because I think it’s time for big changes, on the level of FDR’s New Deal and the Kennedy/Johnson Great Society (notice that it’s Democrats who carry out big national changes, and Republicans like Reagan who take them apart). America has to do something big about health care, about global warming, about financial market stability, about the Mexican border (albeit, McCain may well be the best person for that), about energy independence, about education, about scientific research, about the growing divisions between rich and poor, about Social Security, about the Middle East (a problem that would be a lot more tractable if we didn’t need so much oil), etc. Yes, all this will mean somewhat higher taxes and more government involvement in the economy. But without it, things are going to get crazy, not to mention unfair. Every so many decades, America has to come together and give its system an overhaul. A McCain victory will put that off for another four years (I’m being optimistic about 2012). I’m sure that Mr. McCain will do a better job of maintaining the status quo than Mr. Bush did, but he will not start the big changes needed.
Given the terrible spectacle that has emerged from the Obama-Clinton struggle, it seems clear to me that American common-sense will decide that the Democrats aren’t up to overhauling the system, so let’s maintain the status quo for now. Maybe the heartland will be more open to considering a risky commitment to change in 2012 if by then the Democrats can develop a series of potential candidates who will inspire the nation’s confidence in terms of their experience, their character, their intelligence and their common sense.
Perhaps Barack Obama did us a favor by showing that Hilary Clinton wasn’t really ready to successfully guide the nation through a course of major change. Her husband was a popular President because times were good; he talked a good line, but he didn’t even try to accomplish anything substantial (especially after Hilary dropped the ball with health care in 1994). In fact he often did the bidding of the conservatives, e.g. by taking apart the family welfare system instead of truly reforming it.
If I was Howard Dean and the other Democratic bigwigs, I would assume that 2008 is a lost cause and start work on grooming the best and brightest possibilities for 2012. The name that I have in mind is Sen. Evans Bayh from Indiana, but there are others, including Sen. Claire McCaskill, Gov. Janet Napolitano, Gov. Tim Kaine and Sen. Mary Landrieu. (This list would also include Barack Obama, if he had the good sense to abort his present campaign and let Hilary take the bullet in November.)
One more thing – there was an interesting article in the NY Times about how the Titanic might not have sank so fast had the shipyard not cut corners by using cheap steel bolts. Had the better bolts been used, as with other ships, the Titanic might have held up long enough for other ships to reach it, saving a lot of lives. This couldn’t help but make me think about the problem that American Airlines had recently about finally getting around to inspecting its old MD80’s for wiring defects, after the FAA finally pressed them (and after Congress and some whistleblowers pressed the FAA into doing its job). This will hopefully avert a modern airborne Titanic incident (admittedly, the domestic airlines have had a pretty good safety record for the past few years). But it does show that business without effective government oversight is a dicey proposition. The need for government involvement has not gone away, despite what Ronald Reagan and his Bush acolytes (and probably soon-to-be McCain acolyte) told us.
Jim,
I am sorry but I do NOT see the “Obama-Clinton struggle” as a “terrible spectacle.”
I still find myself wondering how it is that calls are still being made for Clinton’s withdrawal from the Democratic race when, if the positions were reversed–that is, if Obama were behind and Clinton ahead–everybody would be cheering Obama on–not calling for HIS withdrawal from the race.
Then too, just this a.m. I heard Cokie Roberts say that Obama’s promises of change, change, change (and for that matter even Clinton’s) actually mean absolutely NOTHING! How is a Democrat (or even a Republican) going to come in and totally change the system as it is set up? Obama (if he wins) will have a very rude awakening. In fact, did not Bill Clinton himself promise change and reluctantly have to admit that he was unable to effect the changes he would have liked to have made? Isn’t Hillary’s Health Care initiative a prime example of one of those attempts at change that was completely shot down by the established system? Can you imagine the lobby system (for one)saying, “Oh, please let us have change”? Not in this galaxy.
For this reason I actually would hope Clinton manages to squeak through rather than Obama. I think she has much greater experience in dealing with the power structure in D.C. than Obama has; perhaps she has some tiny bit of possibility to actually effect some change. I think Obama will stand around wondering what his next move should be; or end up complaining people are unfair to him.
Then too there is the Rezko trial in Chicago, which it seems no one in the country except a few people from Chicago are following. And Obama’s name has come up in some very unpleasant and “ominous” situations in this trial. “Ominous” in the sense that Obama’s idea of “change” may be how much influence and power he can acquire for himself rather than any sense of really effecting any change on a real level–on a level that will mean anything at all to the “little guy.” I know I keep harping about the Rezko trial going on in Chicago. Yet it does seem to me that there is a kind of national denial regarding any aspect of Obama having clay feet, and there definitely is some “clay” showing in Obama as a result of the Rezko trial.
I do agree with you that the country needs big changes. Sadly, though, I am beginning to wonder if all our leaders were killed off in the 1960s. Since then it seems there has been a downhill slide in real leadership that in recent years seems to be intensifying.
I find it most difficult to believe that GWB can baldly say that he is leaving to those who follow him the cleanup of the mess he has created. An astonishing statement! Does the man have no self-respect?
I also question your statement that Hillary Clinton is not really ready to successfully guide the nation through a major change. I also cannot see that Hillary “dropped the ball with the health care in 1994.” Given the fact that “her” health care program was shot down because she did not have any power, I would like to see her operating when she DOES have some power.
I still say that ingrained prejudice against women (unacknowledge because it’s not realized just how deeply subconscious it is) is in operation with regard to Hillary.
As to the airline and the whole “MD-80” thing: Here again we have an expression of an attitude that is all too prevalent in the country today. Namely, people are interested only in what is on the surface. E.g., houses have to look good on the outside, while the structural aspects of the house (electric, heating, plumbing, etc.) go uncared for. Everything has to “look good” (on the outside) while the inside is collapsing. Another example: All the credit people have accrued and are now unable to pay. Again, “look good” on the outside, drive a fancy car, have a fancy, big house, etc.; meanwhile, one doesn’t know whether next month’s mortgage will be paid. And for that matter isn’t the whole infrastructure of the nation
Comment by MCS — April 20, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
Jim,
I am sorry but I do NOT see the “Obama-Clinton struggle” as a “terrible spectacle.”
I still find myself wondering how it is that calls are still being made for Clinton’s withdrawal from the Democratic race when, if the positions were reversed–that is, if Obama were behind and Clinton ahead–everybody would be cheering Obama on–not calling for HIS withdrawal from the race.
Then too, just this a.m. I heard Cokie Roberts say that Obama’s promises of change, change, change (and for that matter even Clinton’s) actually mean absolutely NOTHING! How is a Democrat (or even a Republican) going to come in and totally change the system as it is set up? Obama (if he wins) will have a very rude awakening. In fact, did not Bill Clinton himself promise change and reluctantly have to admit that he was unable to effect the changes he would have liked to have made? Isn’t Hillary’s Health Care initiative a prime example of one of those attempts at change that was completely shot down by the established system? Can you imagine the lobby system (for one)saying, “Oh, please let us have change”? Not in this galaxy.
For this reason I actually would hope Clinton manages to squeak through rather than Obama. I think she has much greater experience in dealing with the power structure in D.C. than Obama has; perhaps she has some tiny bit of possibility to actually effect some change. I think Obama will stand around wondering what his next move should be; or end up complaining people are unfair to him.
Then too there is the Rezko trial in Chicago, which it seems no one in the country except a few people from Chicago are following. And Obama’s name has come up in some very unpleasant and “ominous” situations in this trial. “Ominous” in the sense that Obama’s idea of “change” may be how much influence and power he can acquire for himself rather than any sense of really effecting any change on a real level–on a level that will mean anything at all to the “little guy.” I know I keep harping about the Rezko trial going on in Chicago. Yet it does seem to me that there is a kind of national denial regarding any aspect of Obama having clay feet, and there definitely is some “clay” showing in Obama as a result of the Rezko trial.
I do agree with you that the country needs big changes. Sadly, though, I am beginning to wonder if all our leaders were killed off in the 1960s. Since then it seems there has been a downhill slide in real leadership that in recent years seems to be intensifying.
I find it most difficult to believe that GWB can baldly say that he is leaving to those who follow him the cleanup of the mess he has created. An astonishing statement! Does the man have no self-respect?
I also question your statement that Hillary Clinton is not really ready to successfully guide the nation through a major change. I also cannot see that Hillary “dropped the ball with the health care in 1994.” Given the fact that “her” health care program was shot down because she did not have any power, I would like to see her operating when she DOES have some power.
I still say that ingrained prejudice against women (unacknowledge because it’s not realized just how deeply subconscious it is) is in operation with regard to Hillary.
As to the airline and the whole “MD-80” thing: Here again we have an expression of an attitude that is all too prevalent in the country today. Namely, people are interested only in what is on the surface. E.g., houses have to look good on the outside, while the structural aspects of the house (electric, heating, plumbing, etc.) go uncared for. Everything has to “look good” (on the outside) while the inside is collapsing. Another example: All the credit people have accrued and are now unable to pay. Again, “look good” on the outside, drive a fancy car, have a fancy, big house, etc.; meanwhile, one doesn’t know whether next month’s mortgage will be paid. And for that matter isn’t the whole infrastructure of the nation falling apart? Bridges (for one). And when one is thinking about it, I dread to even THINK about the electricity grid. Our whole nation is dependent on electricity; and for all we know all that has to happen is one little wire short out somewhere and who knows what all can happen to the country “electicity-wise.”
I’ve started to rant so will stop here.
MCS
Comment by MCS — April 20, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
Jim,
I am sorry but I do NOT see the “Obama-Clinton struggle” as a “terrible spectacle.”
I still find myself wondering how it is that calls are still being made for Clinton’s withdrawal from the Democratic race when, if the positions were reversed–that is, if Obama were behind and Clinton ahead–everybody would be cheering Obama on–not calling for HIS withdrawal from the race.
Then too, just this a.m. I heard Cokie Roberts say that Obama’s promises of change, change, change (and for that matter even Clinton’s) actually mean absolutely NOTHING! How is a Democrat (or even a Republican) going to come in and totally change the system as it is set up? Obama (if he wins) will have a very rude awakening. In fact, did not Bill Clinton himself promise change and reluctantly have to admit that he was unable to effect the changes he would have liked to have made? Isn’t Hillary’s Health Care initiative a prime example of one of those attempts at change that was completely shot down by the established system? Can you imagine the lobby system (for one)saying, “Oh, please let us have change”? Not in this galaxy.
For this reason I actually would hope Clinton manages to squeak through rather than Obama. I think she has much greater experience in dealing with the power structure in D.C. than Obama has; perhaps she has some tiny bit of possibility to actually effect some change. I think Obama will stand around wondering what his next move should be; or end up complaining people are unfair to him.
Then too there is the Rezko trial in Chicago, which it seems no one in the country except a few people from Chicago are following. And Obama’s name has come up in some very unpleasant and “ominous” situations in this trial. “Ominous” in the sense that Obama’s idea of “change” may be how much influence and power he can acquire for himself rather than any sense of really effecting any change on a real level–on a level that will mean anything at all to the “little guy.” I know I keep harping about the Rezko trial going on in Chicago. Yet it does seem to me that there is a kind of national denial regarding any aspect of Obama having clay feet, and there definitely is some “clay” showing in Obama as a result of the Rezko trial.
I do agree with you that the country needs big changes. Sadly, though, I am beginning to wonder if all our leaders were killed off in the 1960s. Since then it seems there has been a downhill slide in real leadership that in recent years seems to be intensifying.
I find it most difficult to believe that GWB can baldly say that he is leaving to those who follow him the cleanup of the mess he has created. An astonishing statement! Does the man have no self-respect?
I also question your statement that Hillary Clinton is not really ready to successfully guide the nation through a major change. I also cannot see that Hillary “dropped the ball with the health care in 1994.” Given the fact that “her” health care program was shot down because she did not have any power, I would like to see her operating when she DOES have some power.
I still say that ingrained prejudice against women (unacknowledge because it’s not realized just how deeply subconscious it is) is in operation with regard to Hillary.
As to the airline and the whole “MD-80” thing: Here again we have an expression of an attitude that is all too prevalent in the country today. Namely, people are interested only in what is on the surface. E.g., houses have to look good on the outside, while the structural aspects of the house (electric, heating, plumbing, etc.) go uncared for. Everything has to “look good” (on the outside) while the inside is collapsing. Another example: All the credit people have accrued and are now unable to pay. Again, “look good” on the outside, drive a fancy car, have a fancy, big house, etc.; meanwhile, one doesn’t know whether next month’s mortgage will be paid. And for that matter isn’t the whole infrastructure of the nation
Comment by MCS — April 20, 2008 @ 3:20 pm