This week for the first time in the presidential race, a poll gave Mitt Romney the edge over President Obama (only a tiny one, within the margin of error). One foresees that a simple message may prevail over a complex one. The simple message, which Romney endlessly repeats, is this: The president is a nice guy, but he's in over his head, and his wild spending has bankrupted the country. The complex message, which comes from Obama in mixed, varied, and confusing in ways, is this: We must revamp America in order to meet the future.
Because Romney has blame, impatience, and angry frustration on his side, he may succeed in his uphill climb. Already most of what the pundits told us -- that Romney had been damaged in the combative primary race, that the conservative base is opposed to him, that the religious right is suspicious of him -- has proved invalid. Republicans are rallying en masse behind the simple message, while seething underneath is an irrational hostility to Obama that no sensible person can quite fathom.
Yet it's the president who knows the magic word that will end all our woes: Evolve. He picked "Forward" as a simpler synonym, but the net effect is the same. The old America that was such a familiar comfort zone isn't coming back, no matter how warmly the Republicans try to conjure it. Our future will not be the repetition of our past, because certain hard facts are set in place:
- Manufacturing jobs aren't coming back.
- Workers with only high school diplomas are at a permanent disadvantage that grows larger every decade.
- Older blue-collar workers are forming a new class of the permanently unemployed.
- Safety nets in the form of pensions and benefits have drastically eroded.
- Fossil fuels are more in demand than ever from places like India and China.
- Economic inequality is wider than ever before in our history.
- The middle class has stagnated in income potential and burdensome debt.
- Society is getting older, putting pressure on entitlements as never before.
It's a tragic irony that the Republican Party has become the domain of white blue-collar workers, because they are the worse off and the ones who need Obama's vision the most. All governing classes come from the elite (after all, both candidates have Harvard degrees, just as all the leading contenders in 2004 went to Yale). The difference is that the Democratic vision is fostered by an elite that wants to retool our whole society for the benefit of the greatest number. The Republican Party wants to benefit well-off white males.
Somehow, after 40 years of reactionary conditioning, the working class has been persuaded to support rich white males while ignoring their own best interests. Abortion and gay marriage are typical red herrings, as are foreign wars and stoking mass fear about terrorism. For all that, America must evolve on all fronts. Obama realizes this quite clearly; hence his programs for alternative energy, a cleaner environment, infrastructure repairs, universal health care, and on and on. Nothing offered by Romney is remotely commensurate. One prays that in his heart he is the moderate, sensible person that the extreme right hates and fears.
But the larger point is that "evolve" is too complex a message to cut through Tea Party hostility and unreason, which Romney must cash in on. For decades the elite mentality inside both parties has kept reactionary forces from doing their worst. We still have abortion, no prayer in the schools, increasing acceptance of gay marriage, etc. But this kind of passive resistance has come to an end. Angry populism has battered down the doors of Congress. Endemic problems have finally come home to roost. Without a doubt President Obama has the clearest vision for our future and the one that would benefit the very kind of voter who riles against health care, alternative energy, a sane immigration policy, and gay marriage. It would be a tragedy if these voters get what they want instead, which is another decade of decline and misery if reactionary politicians have their way.
Follow Deepak Chopra on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DeepakChopra
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
And now we have "Forward", an essentially meaningless admonition to move in a direction called forward but in no way defined as a political platform or program. It means little of a specific nature except "Vote for The Obama". It is not a grand policy/program(s) like the "New Deal" or "Great Society", just a summons to The Obama's faithful to follow him forward for another 4 years.
The reason for the hostility to Obama is not hard to famine at all: He Lies! But not only does he lie, but he lies about lying. And that is hard for voters to forgive.
He is genuinely a good guy but he has consistently broken campaign promises and, in many cases, done the exact opposite that he said he would. Obamacare, his signature piece is riddled with false accounting, backroom deals, and restrictions and obligations he said would not occur. His economic polices are rife with spurious theorems and quasi-fictitious math. His attacks on Romney, as desperate as they are, predicated on falsehoods and disingenuous supposition.
Combine that with his economic policies that resulted in epic failure and his attempts to increase the nanny state to a point where it individual decision making and consequences go with it, both good and bad, are taken away and you have the recipe for a loss of credibility.
Voters do not find Obama credible. That is the fact of it and any word or phrase he uses, such as ‘Forward’, ‘Onward’, ‘Bain Sucks, etc. people will not believe him. Nor should they. He has demonstrated quite effectively that he cannot be trusted.
People have no confidence in his ‘Great Leap FORWARD’
Kai
You state, ‘Ok fine! Go ahead and get him out then. I just hope you don't have any parents or loved one's on any entitlements when the GOP takes over.’
I have a parent on Soc Sec. Thanks for pointing out that the GOP, and myself, are willing to look beyond the self interest of our own families to ensure that entitlements in a reduced form are available for future generations predicated on real financial and budget fundamentals. By omission, thanks for pointing out that the Democrats and you are so self-interested that you would like to underfund Soc Sec on a go forward basis, greedily take entitlements today and leave the bill for the future to pay, and leave the US worse off financially tomorrow so you can live better than you deserve today. Typical greedy self-absorbed progressive. It is this entitlement mentality which has undermined many of the socialist economies. The greedy people today spending the futures of their children and leaving them with a Greek-like economy.
I am saddened by the greed and lack of foresight. And ashamed of you.
Kai
You are, amazingly enough, confusing "the Democratic vision" with "the Progressive vision." The Progressive vision is fostered by a REAL PERSON elite that, yes, wants to retool our whole society for the benefit of the greatest number. The Democratic (Party) vision is fostered by a POLITICAL elite that wants to maintain the status quo for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful.
You have made the mistake (as have many) of listening to, and believing, Obama's words. True progressives, like Denis Kucinich, have instead judged Obama by his actions, by the men he associates with, and by the big money he solicits and accepts.
The Progressive vision, like the Libertarian vision, is based in truthful dedication to a democratic worldview grounded in principles. The Democratic vision, like the Republican vision, is a Party Machine vision based in ends-justify-means dedication to a corrupted elitist worldview grounded in power and money.
Just keep sending my SS check. If you will notice my lead-in, “Life is good” and just gets better with e ach passing day.
http://www.laventanadelmar.com/Resort/Recreation_Desert_Strings_Cory.html
Eat your heart out….
Cory
How does running a massive deficit while carrying an enormous debt load help anyone? Those who are going to be most affected are the poor. They have limited assets and no outs. Poor people cannot leave the US when things get bad. They cannot rely on investments or foreign holdings.
I just cannot understand how someone can appear to understand the problems of the nation and still want to turn the keys over to the same people. It makes no sense. Does Mr. Chopra really believe that things will be different this time around? The deficit will be reduced and debt will be manageable? Social service spending will stop growing and programs will be sustainable?
you confuse the terms deficit and debt. Deficit describes a yearly budget shortfall. Debt is the total amount of moneys owed. There was no surplus. Only a smaller debt. And it lasted for one year. The next year--still under Clinton--the deficit grew and continued to do so during the presidency of Mr. Bush. Mr. President Obama has seen a increase in debt of about $5 trillion while he has been in office. Pretty much the same as what Mr. Bush saw during his term.
Destroy whose country? Do not count me with you. I do not care what happens. My US citizenship will end when my passport expires. That is what makes this all more interesting. I do not even care about America or Americans, yet I still am able to make the obvious observations about the nation and its people.
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/05/playing-monopolis-monopoly-an-inquiry-into-why-we-are-making-ourselves-so-miserable.html
Restrictions were put in place in the 1930s by political leaders who had just experienced a terrible financial crisis, and were trying to prevent another. But by 1980 the memory of the Depression had faded. Government, declared Reagan, is the problem, not the solution; the magic of the marketplace must be set free. And so the precautionary rules were scrapped.
Now the republicans want to put the same policies into gear again ......it's like systematic cancer.
Easy and abused credit.
In the job description Congress is to regulate COMMERCE conservatives failed both times to control and regulate allowing the system to collapse.
Senate majority leaders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_leaders_of_the_United_States_Senate
House Majority leaders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaders_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives
They prove over and over they can not run the government.
That come from the Fed, not Congress. It was chairmen of the Fed (B. Strong in the 20s and Greenspan more recently) who were largely responsible for those two asset bubbles and crashes. The Fed is controlled by the private banking industry, not by Congress. After thirty years of trying, Ron Paul has finally succeeded in achieving a sliver of transparency into the workings of the Fed, and finally a progressive (B. Sanders) is on the case, too.
Blame the repubs all you want, let's not forget Clinton was on the deregulation bandwagon 100%.
Had clean slate in 2008 and could only squeeze out the miscarriage of the AHCA. Republicans are just cheerleaders in our race to the bottom. As long as Europe sucks more than us, nothing is gonna change
Only deficit funding grows the economy and after 1971 USA is free to deficit spend without restrictions of the old balance
(tax = spending - "govt_debt"), and change to the new balance
(Federal Deficits = Net Private Savings+ net imports).
Govt and private sector are on opposite sides of the equation.
In short, (govt debt) is (peoples' anti-debt) and (govt surplus) is (peoples anti-surplus)! (Govt_debt / GDP) is exactly the same as (peoples' wealth/ GDP) and can be any number not limited to 100%.
USA does not need to depend on taxes to fund anything. All deficits end up as private wealth anyway. All the above have been proved with real data from the treasury and fed.
The debt ceiling is totally imaginary after 1971.