Polls show Americans angrier and more polarized than at any time since the Vietnam War. That's not surprising. We have the worst economy since the Great Recession and the worst politics in living memory. The rise of the regressive right over the last three decades has finally spurred a progressive reaction. Occupiers and others have had enough.
Yet paradoxically the presidential race that officially begins a few months from now is likely to be as passionless as they come.
President Obama will be supported by progressives and the Democratic base, but without enthusiasm. His notorious caves to Republicans and Wall Street -- failing to put conditions on the Street's bailout (such as demanding the Street help stranded home owners), or to resurrect Glass-Steagall, or include a public option in health care, or assert his constitutional responsibility to raise the debt limit, or protect Medicare and Social Security, or push for cap-and-trade, or close Guantanamo, or, in general, confront the regressive Republican nay-sayers and do-nothings with toughness rather than begin negotiations by giving them much of what they want -- are not the stuff that stirs a passionate following.
Mitt Romney will surely be the Republican presidential candidate -- and Romney inspires as little enthusiasm among Republicans as Obama does among Democrats. The GOP will support Romney because, frankly, he's the only major Republican primary candidate who does not appear to the broader public to be nuts.
But Republicans don't like Romney. His glib, self-serving, say-whatever-it-takes-to-win-the primaries approach strikes almost everyone as contrived and cynical. Moreover, Romney is the establishment personified -- a pump-and-dump takeover financier, for crying out loud -- at the very time the GOP (and much of the rest of the country) are becoming more anti-establishment by the day.
At this point neither the Republican right nor the mainstream media wants to admit the yawn-inducing truth that Mitt will be the GOP's candidate. The right doesn't want to admit it because it will be seen as a repudiation of the Tea Party. The media doesn't want to because they'd prefer to sell newspapers and attract eyeballs.
The media are keeping the story of Rick Perry's cringe-inducing implosion going for the same reason they're keeping the story of Herman Cain's equally painful decline going -- because the public is forever fascinated by the gruesome sight of dying candidacies. With Bachmann, Perry, and Cain gone or disintegrating, the right wing-nuts of the GOP have only one hope left: Newt Gingrich. His star will rise briefly before he, too, is pilloried for the bizarre things he's uttered in the past and for his equally bizarre private life. His fall will be equally sudden (although I don't think Gingrich is capable of embarrassment).
And so we'll be left with two presidential candidates who don't inspire -- at the very time in American history when Americans crave inspiration.
Instead of a big debate about the basics (how to truly restore jobs and wages, financial capitalism versus product capitalism, the place and role of America in the world, how to rescue our democracy), we're likely to have a superficial debate over symbols (the budget deficit, the size of government, whether we need a "businessman" at the helm).
This means political passions are likely to move elsewhere -- finding their voices in grass-roots movements, social media, demonstrations, boycotts, and meet-ups -- on the Main Streets and in the backwaters, and only episodically in the mainstream media or in normal election-year events.
In some ways this may not be such a bad thing. The regressive right has had thirty years to build itself into a political power. Newly-energized progressives (Occupiers and others) need enough time to develop concrete proposals and strategies. What's the rush? If polls are to be believed, most of the nation is progressive, not regressive (witness last Tuesday's results in Wisconsin and elsewhere). So it is, after all, only a matter of time.
Yet viewed another way, a passionless presidential race may be dangerous for America. The nation's problems may not wait. They require bold action, and soon.
Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.
Follow Robert Reich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RBReich
Ashwin Madia: Romney Clueless on Veterans
Wendell Potter: A Determined Dog Goes After Insurers Again to Save Consumers Billions
 |
 |
|
| 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 |
systems continuosly at odds with transcending spiritual values that appear antiquated thanks to politically correct yet often false credences. What is amazing is that people are falling for it. We need people that are less outlandish, sober in their thinking, humble with actions that when the calling arises, meet challenges with true belief and selfless heart. This is what distinguishes a political candidate from a statesman.
Society's picker is crooked.
We should be evaluating these candidates at least once for how disordered their personal lives may truly be and how this taints their world views. Wouldn't you be curious? After all he or she may be sitting in the oval office deciding what the next military challenge this nation may be in. Thus raising this dilemma to a national security
issue as well.
Many of us drive and we have to pass a test to obtain a license to operate a vehicle. Surely you would
expect a physician to have met at the necessary credentialing to practice medicine with a state license. It would be just as wise that a presidential candidates or anyone in high office be tested for disorders of personality, otherwise the risk would be to replace one disordered incumbent with another regardless of political views.
Do not underestimate the personality disordered .
"We have the worst economy since the Great Recession and the worst politics in living memory. The rise of the regressive right over the last three decades has finally spurred a progressive reaction..."
It's taken Progressives too long to make a move, but let us hope, pray, and act to see that the move continues until the full overtake of Republican Seats is complete, as complete as humanly possible. The voters are tired, angry, and frustrated. Not a good combination unless you see it from the Progressive perspective of turning the tide. We didn't think we'd have to go further over the economic cliff first, in order to be heard, but we were wrong.
It's time for serious changes. This is what we believed Obama meant when he made campaign promises about single payer hp, and other promises, but we were wrong. Now we have to hold his feet to the fire of determined letters and calls. Never letting up. We have no other options.
Senators say that the best way to be heard is to mail physical letters, not just send emails. I believe this is accurate. Calls and letters do have an impact.
As a candidate for what.
"Instead of a big debate about the basics (how to truly restore jobs and wages, financial capitalism versus product capitalism, the place and role of America in the world, how to rescue our democracy), we're likely to have a superficial debate over symbols (the budget deficit, the size of government, .."
See:
http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=3129
" leaks of U.S. proposals that would give new privileges to multinational pharmaceutical firms to jack up medicine prices fueled growing controversy about the deal. The agreement would set binding terms on financial regulation, land use, service sector regulation, food and product safety, and a vast array of other non-trade policies to which all countries would be required to conform domestic policies – with indefinite trade sanctions imposed on countries who fail to do so."
What if NO ONE VOTED FOR PRESIDENT on election day? If not one person voted then the House of Representatives would vote in a candidate to meet their needs. However, by having ALL of the people NOT vote on election day would send a very strong message to congress. Probably, one that they couldn't live down and it may be well worth a try at this point in the game.
I believe that all of WE THE PEOPLE are tired of settling for the best of worst candidates and we ALL deserve better...DON"T VOTE ON ELECTION DAY...
We cannot rule out the unexpected. A month ago who would have guessed that a movement like 'Occupy' would have sprung up in the gray, sterile soil of corporate governance and spread not only across the country but around the world at the speed of light.
We have basic physics on our side. You know, for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction? This nation is like a fault line that appears inactive when in fact massive amounts of energy are building up behind it. At any moment, the fault could slip, completely changing the landscape. Those manufactured divisions that the 1% spend so many resouces on creating and trumpeting in their media could fall away like the autumn leaves and leave the 1% shivering in the winter wind.
We might even have a economist, who has been calling out to the tone deaf, money hungry Democratic suits for past three years, throw his hat in the ring and elbow the war loving Wall Street mascot out of the way.
OCCUPY AMERICA!
The GOP had an excellent opportunity to regain the White House in 2012, but they blew it.They
blew their chance of firing up the independent voters. In the 2008 elections Obama did well with independents because he talked about Hope and Change. Many individuals felt he would place a check on Wall Street greed, eliminate country club capitalism and limit the power of special interest and lobbyist. The GOP instead of ceasing on America's growing dissatisfaction with Obama, chose to align themselves with country club capitalist and greedy Wall Street bankers. They refused to agree on raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans. They completely mismanaged the immigration issues. They continued to let an extremely vocal segment of the party dictate a hard-line stance on immigration, as opposed to a more balanced approach, such as those proposed and supported by the Bush Administration.
Professor Reich is absolutely correct about 2012. It will be a relatively predictable race with a few moments,however, just like in boxing , the reigning champ normally prevails in the close fights.
Both left and right want to change the system, but they cannot stand each other.
Until they realize that they are being abused by the same entrenched corporate interests,
nothing will really change. Their agendas seem very different, but they could find common points.
--rid politics of pernicious influence of big money
--fundamentally reform our financial system (the Fed too)
--task our military with defending our country rather than policing the whole world
I think both OWS and TP movements could agree on some such minimal platform, unite along its message and execute the necessary changes in the political system. After that we can go back to our dividing political points (role of religion, policy towards Iran, the bearable amount of welfare...) and fight over them in the reformed political arena using standard democratic mechanisms.
The middle class folks of both conservative and liberal persuasion should focus on reforming the system, rather than having their complete political agenda implemented. United we stand, divided we fall. It is as simple as that.
As long as we keep bickering over abortion, gay right and similar "important issues", the Wall Street crowd keeps laughing all the way to their too-big-to-fail banks.
The most liberal thing Obama did was force the Romney healthcare plan on the nation.
Aside from that Obama reenacted all of George Bush's bad legislation