The 2008 election of Barack Obama was moving, not only for me and others who voted for Obama, but also for many who didn't support his candidacy. At one point everyone appreciated the historic barriers that had been crossed, and were grateful for the new more inclusive political landscape. We were also sobered by the grave risks to the world as a consequence of a financial crisis brought about by widespread fraud, the exploitation of uninformed investors, lax regulation, and greed.
Now, two years later, a new election has resulted in a loss of 60 democratic seats in the House of Representatives, and 7 to 9 seats in the U.S. Senate.
For the first time in the Obama Administration, the Republicans will have control of congressional committees, and the power to issue subpoenas and investigate the government, or anything else of interest. We haven't seen Republican investigations of a Democratic Administration since the Clinton Administration. Now we will see lots.
The Republicans will claim a mandate to cut federal taxes, spending and budget deficits. Two of three of these objectives might be feasible. Three of three is highly unlikely.
With most of our money going to the military, social security and paying the federal debt, and tax cuts for high income persons, and Republicans promising permanent tax cuts for wealthy and corporate taxpayers, it will be a rough go for anyone seeking to protect or expand federal spending on domestic social programs, or foreign aid unrelated to military adventures.
This election was partly a statement about the direction of the country, and the lack of a convincing story emulating from the White House about how the country will get back on the right track. Why did Democrats appear tone deaf during this economic crisis? For one thing, political leaders from both parties have first and foremost appealed to potential campaign contributors, and in particular, corporations with durable interests and deep pockets.
Some say $4 billion was spent on the election. This includes corporate money newly liberated by the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. This may have been a tit for tat or a deliberate escalation, in addition to spectacularly poor judgment. The Supreme Court arguably broke precedent as a consequence of Obama's breaking of the public financing system in 2008. Conservatives on the Supreme Court were concerned that the current rules could benefit the Democrats more than the Republicans in the 2012 election.
Money for campaigns isn't given without expectations of influence, and politicians in both parties understand what donors want.
It's hard to develop a public narrative and a legislative record as a champion of the underdog when you spend so much time pandering to giant corporate interests.
It's not that the Democrats in the White House and the Congress have not done many good things - they have accomplished quite a bit. The economy would be much worse than it is today. Some helpful changes will be made in student loans, and the health care reform bill, while flawed for not dealing with cost controls, does make it easier for persons with prior conditions to buy insurance. In countless areas the Obama Administration has made the government more effective and better prepared to deal with the challenges of protecting the environment and worker, consumer or civil rights. (More on the positive achievements here).
But there are also very visible areas where they have compromised, delivered very little, or made things worse.
In the areas where I work, which includes policies regarding intellectual property rights and innovation, I have made a few notes of some of the positive and negative surprises we have seen over the past two years. This is not exhaustive -- I don't have the time for that. But it does illustrate the frustrations that many feel following the change we voted for (and expected) in 2008. In short, I was:
What are the lessons from all of this?
First, one thing that can't be repeated enough is that the public continues to underestimate the corrosive impact of our system of financing elections, which is basically legal bribery. This has pretty much destroyed the Democratic party as a defender of consumers and workers. Not every elected official, or every vote of every official has been corrupted by campaign contributions. But the pressing need to raise more and more money has a huge impact on the overall state of affairs, and it is just getting worse.
Second, it is possible to push for useful reforms, if they are easy enough for the public to understand, and there is a real effort by some political leaders with enough fame, power and/or charisma to make people pay attention. That's what we though we were getting with Obama. But so far, that type of communication seemed to have disappeared after the 2008 election. Maybe now that Obama will be running scared for the 2012 election we might see more of this -- if he doesn't spend all his time trying to raise a billion or so in fat cat contributions.
Follow James Love on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jamie_love
Steve Clemons: Jeb Bush: Silky Sullivan Surprise in 2012?
Richard J. Mouw: Conviction and Civility in American Public Discourse
spin, irresponsible media attention etc., frequent flawed journalism ( if you can call it journalism),
in addition to being totally offended and disgusted by the scare tactics by exaggerations, distortions,
inaccuracies, if not outright untruths.. and lack of transparency of how they were paid for.
As many know, in the UK campaign ads are only allowed for 30 days preceding election... so populace is not barraged for months of BS. Hopefully the conference on media reform in April, 2011 in Boston
will address some of these issues.
The media has to be more circumspect and responsible to the public, and campaign laws need to be examined carefully.
Campaign Finance, the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K-Street and Corporate Media Monopoly are the diseases. All of America's other problems are merely the symptoms.
Secondly, before my first reply, I had posted a perfectly rational comment about needing reform in campaign finance laws and and that media needs to examine its own responsibilities to the public..
Huffpost deemed it ??? or lost it. ... nonsense. where is it ?
California, generally seen as forward leaning politically, has voted to move in reverse -- back to the government-growing, tax-and-spend liberalism that has brought us 12.5% unemployment, job-killing environmental and business regulations, and ubiquitous taxes. Except for rejecting marijuana legalization, the other approved ballot initiatives blindly perpetuate the militant immigrant, labor union and environmental special interests that have crushed California prosperity for the foreseeable future.
What this election should have been for California is a therapeutic intervention to change its addiction to big government. Sadly, the election results will read like an obituary of failed progressive political policies and has beens. The national political trajectory is changed with this election; and it will leave California behind as a failed state.
California has wiped out on the conservative wave election. This confirms California's status as a failed state under the oppression of militant immigrant, labor and green special interests. The once "Golden State" is broke and broken.
"Alabama has the most regressive [conservative] revenue plan in America, and has thrown out a welcome mat for any business that would have it in exactly the way conservative economic theorists say they should. Moreover, the state has been doing this since 1901. According to the aptly-named "Laffer Curve" and the supply-side, trickle-down economics ascendant in America for the last thirty years, Alabama ought to be roaring with industry.
Instead, the once-bustling Florence industrial park is now a collection of small businesses and charity warehouses in the shells of former textile mills. The cotton farmer here who once sent his crop from the gin to the mill now sends it to India or China to return as a t-shirt. That's a classic third-world development trap, and a fair way to state the case: Alabama, like West Virginia, is a part of America's third world.
If conservative economics had any validity at all, population growth shouldn't have been virtually flat since 1978. Alabama remains one of the poorest states in America. The empirical evidence Alabama provides is that tax cuts for the rich, culture wars, and leaving the poor to starve in ignorance do not create prosperity."
http://crooksandliars.com/matt-osborne/we-can-all-live-alabama
Completely different countries with completely opposed ideals and morals.
I refer to 1994, Gingrich et al taking over. What was the message to Bill Clinton from that?
Answer: none. Same with this midterm election: no meaning, no message.
The American people received no protection from the American press by exposing the party of demagogues--the radical extremist republican party of demolition, obstruction, and hate.. President Obama and the Democrats are not to blame the spineless American press is!