I've been thinking a lot recently about an article I read some years ago. The author had asked about 50 people how they would define the word "power". There were the usual responses one might expect, such as "rich and famous", "strength" or "being able to have anything you want". But one particular definition jumped out at me -- and has stuck with me ever since: "power is the ability to get things done".
How would each of the major political parties today define the term "power"? And how does that perspective shape each of their agendas and approaches to governing? When asked in a 2004 Time Magazine interview what he thought the major differences were between the Republicans and the Democrats, President Bill Clinton said:
I think the Republicans are better at understanding how to get and keep power. They've shown that since 1968. The Democrats tend to be more responsible in the exercise of power but sometimes don't understand how to get it or keep it.
At the risk of distressing some superstitious Democrats with just two days left before the election I've been wondering: what would happen if Obama were given an ACTUAL mandate this Tuesday? What if he were to win decisively (including in traditionally Republican states) and also gain a filibuster-proof Senate? How would he and the Democrats use their power to lead the nation?
Consider that following President Bush's narrow victory in the 2004 election with 51% of the popular vote and 34 more Electoral College votes, he claimed:
I earned capital in this campaign, political capital and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. When you win, there is...a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view.
Most telling, he pledged that he would "work in a bipartisan manner with everyone who shares our goals".
So what did "The Great Divider" proceed to do fours years after a bitterly contested 2000 election where the Democratic candidate actually won the popular vote, deeply dividing the nation? He used the pretense of an artificial mandate to continue dictating and imposing a completely partisan agenda, further deepening the divide.
In contrast, a clear mandate would give President Obama and the Democrats a refreshing opportunity to demonstrate to the American people (and the world) that such power can be transformative and healing, rather than divisive. That it can be used to bring about real change with an agenda that truly tries to address the needs of all the people, not just some. That power can be used to actually get things done rather than using it solely to maintain it. That promises made by a presidential candidate in a campaign might not be empty but actually delivered upon. President Obama and the Democrats might even redefine what it means to be "patriotic" with "American values" in the 21st century, something which has been distorted by the Republicans during the last eight years as part of their "divide and conquer" strategy.
There will undoubtedly be a reflexive tendency for many long-serving Democrats to use their newfound power to aggrieve what they perceive as previous abuses by the other party. This will be particularly true after increasingly negative attacks by the Republicans in the last throes of the election. Such a Democratic reaction would be a huge mistake and merely continue the cycle of gridlock which has plagued the nation for far too long.
President-elect Obama must lead his party by example in the same manner he has acquitted himself so well in the campaign. He needs to remember that it was his simple yet eloquent statement that "we are not red states and blue states, we are the United States of America" that thrust him on to the national scene four years ago and inspired the hope for change that so many now embrace.
As Uncle Ben so poignantly reminded Peter Parker/Spiderman: "with great power comes great responsibility." Starting January 20th, President Obama will hopefully have the chance to show all Americans, particularly those that doubted him and did not support or vote for him, that is a concept he truly understands.
With or without a filibuster-proof majority in the Congress, an Obama victory sends him to Washington with a lot to prove. In the minds of many, expectations will be higher, some will look for (or even hope for) signs of weakness and failure, and he's stepping into one helluva mess. It's not the best time in history to take over in the Oval Office. But after selling his supporters on the idea of hope and change, perhaps they'll be unafraid to hold his feet to the fire if he starts going off course (which is REALLY a new concept in D.C.) and that's very good.
"With great power MUST come great responsibility [emphasis mine]."
Obama not only understands this, but in his actions and policy decisions up to this point, he has repeatedly demonstrated that he not only respects the careful, thoughtful, and evenhanded application of every form of power, but that he also respects the needs, voices, and potential of the American people.
Should he remain firm in his propensity of listening before speaking, studying before moving, and considering all sides in light of numerous variables, Obama stands a good chance of giving us the power, as citizens, to be more involved in our government, and giving politicians and companies the framework to prevent self-interest continue to derail our nation.
www.framingtheissues.com
PERFECT for a National Socialist take over.
in a monopoly market forces are distorted- that's the only reason two guys who have been completely wrong about everything important got 1/2BIL$ in contracts- they sell war, deregulation, and global warming denial- profitable for the few- misery for the rest. i hope you didn't buy a gas guzzler last year when limbaugh was still selling those.
limbaugh and hannity aren't conservative- they're salesmen of GOP talking points and proven liars and now the Party of Lincoln is the Party of Limbaugh. stations that play them are using the public airwaves to blast out a coordinated uncontested repetition of propaganda- soviet style- and that's on the public airwaves and illegal.
Let's curtail free speech!
Perfect.
With Obama we will get more free market fundamentalism at home: he keeps telling us how he loves the free market. Are you not listening?
On foreign policy expect more of the same: neoliberal and muscular. Again, are you not listening to what he says he will do? More military spending, more unilateralism, more troops in Afghanistan, more expansion of NATO, more sanctions on Cuba (recently rejected at the UN by 185 to 1), more pressure on the left democracies in South America, etc.
And he's pro death penalty and anti gun control...
Actually listen to the this deeply conservative man instead of projecting your unrealistic hopes.
What's conservative about understanding that reinforcing the base (the working class) of a "pyramid" makes the whole economy stronger? What 's "conservative" about exposing neo-con-"free"-market-fundamentalism for what it really is-untempered competition, degenerating into self-destructive corruption? How can Obama be a unilateralist when he's stated, unequivocally, that he is willing to have diplomatic relations with those who have been deemed enemies by the Bush administration?
And what is wrong with the sustenance of hopes, and dreams, even if they are deferred, or never materialize?
Indeed, Bush spoke sincerely when he said that he would "work in a bipartisan manner with everyone who shares our goals." Today however most Americans have rejected those goals of endless war, cronyism, socialized corporate risk and destruction of our environment.