I understand that people wept while listening to Barack Obama’s speech following his caucus victory in Iowa. I think he is a fine speaker.
The main theme of his campaign is the assertion that he will bring deep and significant change to American life and government. Indeed, he seems to say that he, himself, symbolizes that coming change.
The chattering class on TV have taken to rattling on about how well his election would "play" overseas where we Americans have come to be more than usually reviled. They seem to be more interested in public relations than the expectation of revolution of some sort. They also don’t seem to wonder what sort of president he would be. But, what else would you expect from most of them?
We have been listening to this "change" talk since the first Clinton campaign for president. At that time the pop music of the 70s, was made into a clarion call for the realization of the supposed goals of the cultural revolution of the 60s. Then there was much the same kind of talk in the election campaign that gave us GWB. We were told that a revolutionary reversion to Christian morality and small town values would follow upon the election of George Bush. What we got instead was the "K" Street Project and the Jacobin driven war for Westernization and security in the Middle East. Oh, yes. There was also Halliburton, etc.
Now we are called by this young man and his rivals to believe that he (they) will change the social and economic matrix in which we live.
We think about hard things here. My question to my fellow Americans is simple.
What are the SPECIFIC changes that you EXPECT and WANT Obama or any of the others to make to American government, economic life, society, etc?
I am not interested in the touchy-feely emotional atmospherics of increased integrity, honesty, modesty, etc.
What SPECIFICALLY do you want and do you think you can get it? pl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions
1) Healthcare reform. It is a idea whose time has come. When Hillary tried it in 94, she had the insurance industry and corporate elites against her. Obama will have the corporates on his side this time around, because they are tired of the costs of healthcare eating into their bottom line. He will be able to negotiate from a position of strength. Hillary took a my-way-or-the-highway approach to this in the 90s. She got slammed. Obama’s style will get people to cross the aisle to make this happen.
2) Energy. The reason the economy was booming in the Clinton term was the digital revolution. Clinton got credit for it because it happened on his watch. Obama understands that if the government gets behind innovative environmental technology, the same economic boom can happen. He has to take on oil and auto, but it’s do-able.
3) The Neocon foreign policy elites will be relegated to the dustbin of history. Thank God. Obama will make people understand there are not military solutions to every problem. Vice President Jim Webb will be very good at fostering this change in U.S. foreign policy.
Specifics?
1) Get our military out of Iraq.
2) Depoliticize the Justice Department.
3) Enforce banking regulations.
4) Use the army to seal the southern border.
Those would be a good start.
I specifically want:
Fiscal discipline and a return to a more progressive tax code: There is no reason why Warren Buffett’s marginal tax rate should be less than his secretary’s, and there is no reason why hedge-fund managers should pay only 15% tax on their “2 and 20” when we are in such an economic hole.
It might actually be possible to get, if the democrats are smart on the PR for once: eg, “Restore the Paris Hilton Tax” and “Why Should a Hedge Fund manager pay a LOWER tax rate than you do?”.
Re: What do you want from the next President…
1. a well planned and executed retreat from Empire, i.e. fewer foreign entanglements, smaller military, less intrusive foreign policy and goals
2. universal health care achieved through a mix of public and private means
3. a national energy policy that reduces our dependence on any one source of energy and fosters more ecologically benign energy sources and seeks ever greater efficiency in the use of energy
4. a less powerful and more transparent executive branch
5. restoration and then maintenance of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution; an Executive branch that respects those rights, Legislative branch that protects those rights and a Judicial branch that serves as the ultimate and respectful interpreter of the Constitution
6. a generally less intrusive central government particularly in matters of faith and morals; less legislation and regulation that is focused on sin and morality
Colonel, you are quite right to demand of Americans that they specify what changes they would wish to see in your country, its government, society, economy, engagement with the rest of the world etc. It is a weakness of the modern democratic process in most western countriews, the US and Europe/Canada/Australia etc that politicians emit vast quantities of hot air uttering nice, feelgood, essentially empty platitudes (let us go forth as brothers and sisters, arm in arm,into the golden future, casting off the tyrannies of the past etc etc etc) while the overexcited electorate cheer and weep and throw their sweaty nightcaps in the air. I suppose that would-be national leaders feel they dare not risk throwing away their chances of victory by promising controversial, divisive and potentially unpopular policies and initiatives. The fact is that any change will be fiercely opposed by a substantial part of the electorate and any promise of moderate change will be distorted and exaggerated into major threats to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness by the too often mendacious and predatory media.
You would be right to argue that we in Europe (and Australia/NZ etc)have no right to urge upon Americans what specific changes we would hope to see enacted in their country by the new president. It is, after all, none of our business. But perhaps you would be interested to know how so many of us feel here about an America that currently is not wholly in harmony with European attitudes on many issues. So:
1 Specific policies aimed at reducing Carbon emmissions.
2 Economic policies that would result in a reduction in American trade deficits e.g. greater credit discipline, and perhaps a revival of American Manufacturing industry.
3 Establishment of a more equtable system of health care – something on the lines of the type of health services common in many European countries that provide health care free to all.
4 A disengagement from Israel and a more balanced approach to the whole Middle Eastern Israel/Palestine question.
Are these priorities for many people in America? How many candidates would see these as important and achievable?
Pat, now there’s a great question. We watched Barack Obama last night and our quips went from “35 cents” (change) to, “Ah, I get it, he’s black and, yes, that would be a change.” But my wife did keep asking, “really, what does he want to change?”
This “change” discussion typically comes in populist garb, as in, “end the grips of lobbyists and corporate America.” This is pablum, substituting for serious discussion of how, for example, we would restructure health care (including availability of prescription medication) if corporate interests had less influence, and what impact would a potentially resulting reduction of corporate profitability have on innovation or availability. These are serious policy questions and rhetoric about undue influence does not begin an intellectually honest discussion. Then again, Ms. Clinton’s suggestion of a commission to address social security was less populist but no more productive or assuring, proving that there’s more than one way to dodge a major issue.
What changes would I like to see? (a) Social security and Medicare are good and fair programs. Make the arithmetic changes needed to sustain them. The perpetual handwringing is a refusal to accept that everything has a cost; there is no free lunch. (b) Control our annual deficit and the debt. While we don’t need balance each year, running up huge deficits and debt concommitantly degrades our economic strength and robs us of a future. We cannot run a nation on a Mastercard mentality. (c) More adequately enforce existing laws, including laws regarding securities markets and the environment. Our Constitution allows regulation of interstate commerce; this is part of our national structure. The notion that free markets solve everything is as silly a fantasy as the notion that government can devise and run markets. The truth, as in so many things, is in the moderate middle. I know, nobody likes moderates these days.
There is my wish list for change. Three basic items. Of course, a rational foreign policy would be nice but that’s just too much to ask. Mostly, I wish for sufficient change to feed the parking meter or buy a Coke.
Colonel,
I’m not that interested in changing the “the social and economic matrix in which we live.” For me, by far the most important change in direction I’m looking for is a stop to the direct attacks that Mr. Bush and his cronies have made on the foundational princples of our republic.
Is Obama the man to restore constitutional democracy? I’m not sure – Ron Paul is the only candidate who has made noises to that effect, but I have as much chance of being elected president as he does. I am certain that Clinton, Guiliani, and Romney would have no interest in overseeing a diminution of the power that Bush has arrogated to the presidency. Edwards might, but I am generally skeptical of his econmic policies. Huckabee appears nearly as fiscally liberal as Edwards, and he seems to be totally ignorant of the world beyond the USA.
I guess that leaves me with McCain or Obama. Would a vote for McCain be a vote for the Republican machine that brought us the last 7 years of misery? Do I take a chance on a kid like Obama? He reminds me an awful lot of Bush in 2000.
Re: What do you want from the next President…
1. a well planned and executed retreat from Empire, i.e. fewer foreign entanglements, smaller military, less intrusive foreign policy and goals
2. universal health care achieved through a mix of public and private means
3. a national energy policy that reduces our dependence on any one source of energy and fosters more ecologically benign energy sources and seeks ever greater efficiency in the use of energy
4. a less powerful and more transparent executive branch
5. restoration and then maintenance of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution; an Executive branch that respects those rights, Legislative branch that protects those rights and a Judicial branch that serves as the ultimate and respectful interpreter of the Constitution
6. a generally less intrusive central government particularly in matters of faith and morals; less legislation and regulation that is focused on sin and morality
I’d like a “free lunch” and a “bicycle built for two”.
Seriously, I’d like the following (if Santa will oblige next winter):
1. A Constitutional Amendment safeguarding privacy rights against Government warrantless surveillance (I thought that the 4th Amendment did this, but apparently it is too quaint for the current Administration).
2. A constitutional showdown where the Supreme Court rules that the Executive Branch does not have Executive Privilege…ever. Supporters of EP insist that voices and opinions will go unheard if there is no EP because they’re afraid. Tough! With no EP, folks are going to have to be careful that their opinions describe things that are legal, moral and ethical. If they can’t handle that, so much the better. I don’t want opinions that can’t meet that test.
3. A constitutional showdown where the Supreme Court rules against the use of the coverup-for-illegal-activities fig leaf called “State Secrets Privilege” except in the most judically reviewed circumstances. Classifying stuff that is illegal (the Terrorist Surveillance Program for example) is already itself against the law. The Supremes ought to put their money where their laws are.
4. A law ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court that any subpoena authorized by a majority of either body of Congress must be served by the appropriate US Attorney (this includes even when the Executive Branch says that it won’t allow the service because of Executive Privilege. See 2 above).
5. A law that allows a majority of either body of Congress to authorize a Special Prosecutor with full, unlimited powers to investigate and bring charges against any person in Government. No Executive Branch approval is required or desired.
As to “foriegn policy” which is the life-blood of your Blog Pat and for which I’m eternally grateful, I’ll wish that the discussions and opinions continue to flower without the need for any fertilizer. *g*
Repair of the physical structure of the country Universal single payer health insurance. Guaranteed retirement pensions. Increase of the birth rate. Return to constitutional rights. I do not want equality of income. what I want is to reduce the existential anxiety.
A brief list:
-A universal health care program
-An energy plan that reflects the needs of citizens, not corporations
-A more intelligent approach to dealing with ‘terrorism’ (ie. international police-type action, not a military-led ‘war’)
-New heads of the EPA, FDA, FCC, Dept of the Interior, etc. that are not industry sock puppets
-Severe restrictions on how lobbyists are involved in writing legislation
-Undo the damage of the Cheney/Bush administration (restore habeas corpus, FISA guidelines, etc.)
That’s just off the top of my head. Whether they are doable or not is anybody else’s guess but mine, since I consider all of the above to be straight ‘common sense.’
If I were to wish one change, it would be campaign finance reform, repealing the ridiculous ‘money equals free speech’ ruling, and providing public financing, and an equal footing for all candidates. That one will never fly, unfortunately.
I’m a great fan of rhetoric, and I’m somewhat old-fashioned in thinking politicians should have a command of it. But you’re right in suggesting that rhetoric is only effective as a means of persuading people to support specific action. I remain skeptical of the “change” Obama proposes, because it still seems to me that he is suggesting that it can be transformational yet somehow non-threatening. In the specific areas he mentions, health care, energy policy, and foreign policy, change will in fact require someone’s ox to be gored, and it won’t be limited to a few Gucci-clad K Street lobbyists.
In these areas, however, it doesn’t trouble me that some oxen will have to be gored. I think we need to figure out how to make health care more universally available in our country, which will likely mean that some of it will no longer be available on instant demand. I think we need an energy policy that seeks transformational change away from fossil fuels, which will likely mean paying more for the fossil fuels we consume and more for our beloved cars. I think we need a foreign policy that disengages us from the failed attempt to remake Iraq in a semblance of our own image, with a serious plan to withdraw all American troops coupled with active engagement of Iraq’s neighbors in trying at least to keep Iraq’s troubles from spilling over its borders. And I think we need to rollback the police state being built in our own country, with adequate tools being given to our security professionals to do their jobs that reflect the technological innovations of the last 30 years, which still does not require wholesale repeal of the Bill of Rights.
The last two items will mean that there will be additional bloodshed in Iraq that will be blamed on us for leaving before political stability had been achieved, and that some bad guys may slip through our security precautions who might otherwise have been caught in the Cheney dragnet. Both are prices I think we must be willing to pay for regaining broader influence in pursuit of our national interests in the foreign policy sphere and maintaining our republican way of life at home.
Putting a halt to political momentum is much like turning the tide, its a very specialized job and requires a unique workforce. During the last seven years we have watched while our freedoms have been assaulted in the name of a movement dedicated to political consolidation. The Unitary Executive, with its signing statements, its shady privatization deals, and its increasing lack of transparency represents a trend that has its own momentum regardless of Party. Giving up the high benefits that come from that political theory will take a particularly brave individual. Some have attributed economic growth in China and Russia to an Authoritarian Capitalism. The theory of the Unitary Executive, so beloved by Addington and Cheney, fits very well within that same basic fascist framework. When a future President tries to tear away at the progress made in that unfortunate direction he or she will face terrible opposition from within their own party and from the agents of big money. What I would like is a brave and dedicated President. To use a popular culture reference, someone like the town sheriff in High Noon.
Obama is not my first pick but quite a few people I have talked with are primarily interested in his purported ability to bring together Republicans and Democrats to end bipartisanship and “get things done”. I sure have my doubts about his capability to do just that. It’s not a question of can he be a uniter. We don’t need one at this time. We need to repair some of the damage done by this Administration before it becomes the norm. (excessive signing statements, executive privilege, secrecy, etc.)
I’m parphrasing from another blogpost somewhere on the intertubes:
What we need is Truth and Reconciliation.
Truth without Reconciliation would be progress.
Reconciliation without Truth is a dangerous fantasy.
1. A President and administration that researches before it decides, consults before it decides, thinks before it decides.
2. A President and administration that researches before it speaks, consults before it speaks, thinks before it speaks.
3. A President and administration that believes that ALL Americans need to be represented and that the NATIONAL interest is paramount to the administration’s interest.
4. A President and administration that have read and understand the Constitution of the United States and KNOW that their oath of office is to defend the CONSTITUTION rather than the “homeland.”
On health care: I would like a real shift to preventative and holistic approach to health, not a get-fat-pop-a-pill medicalized version. This would include:
– Universal Medical Care in some workable way
– A system to encourage public-private-charity partnerships (see CHCPs in Scotland for an example in action)
– More and more creative health spending, including health promotion campaigns (a la Truth Campaign), free preventative medicine, ect
– Adoption of the WHO’s Ottawa Charter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Charter_for_Health_Promotion)
I won’t give my entire list but here is a very big one.
Climate Change, unlike weather, comes in on cat’s feet. You have to pay close attention to notice it. Fortunately scientists around the world have been paying close attention. Increasingly the rest of us are paying attention too.
I want Obama or the whoever wins to take the actions necessary to make dramatic reductions in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. That is a first step to regaining U.S. credibility in the international arena where the real fight to prevent run away climate change will be fought.
We are running out of time. We cannot afford another President who sticks his head in the sand on this issue.
Col., I agree, Obama is a fine speaker. But in speaking, there are two aspects which are really important, “form and CONTENT”, not, “OR CONTENT.” My Father taught us the difference between voters and politicians. “Voters take as few words as possible, to say as much possible. Politicians take as many words as possible to actually say as little as possible.”
Everybody, last night, talked of “Agents of Change.” What and WHY are we changing, as you say, w/specifics. We need to focus on NEEDS, not wants. We must remember, we can take a bad situation and make it even worse. This is the time we really need to slow down and just walk. Take some time to get your bearings from history, traditions and also from the future. “Move out, to your positions!”
I’m really not for “change” in the sense of what we got with Clinton and GWB.
What I’d like is return to our founding constitutional principles. I would like echo many of the same ideas proposed by Mad Dogs.
1. Transparency in government and legislation. Limiting the use of “state secrets” defense. Open book on the writing of legislation – all the drafts and changes and their authors published instantaneously on the internet. My fellow citizens are quite capable of making good decisions.
2. Enshrining the right to privacy by clarifying the 4th amendment and making explicit the probable cause rationale for surveillance.
3. A non-interventionist foreign policy that promotes US national interests (not Likudniks) and that respects people and cultures for who they are. Using the force of our ideas and example to foster better relations and stability.
4. Fiscal discipline and elimination of moral hazard. Government accounts to something like GAAP. Investment in infrastructure here at home and the focus on building productive assets not just financial paper shuffling.
5. Enforcement of existing laws in a transparent manner including securities regulations.
6. Stopping the cartelization of big media.
7. Transparency in campaign finance – everyone should know who the ultimate donor to any campaign is – candidates to propositions.
Specific changes: (1) National health insurance and a public health system at least as good as France’s. (2) Effective measures to mitigate global warming and other environmental problems. (3) An education system that produces high school students at least as well educated as Japan’s. (4) A reduction in the power of the executive branch.
Expectations: My desired changes won’t happen. Our politicians serve powerful interest groups that aren’t interested in these changes.
Dismantle the empire. Close all foreign bases. Close most of the bases in CONUS. Reduce defense spending by 50%. Reduce the Marine Corps down to a small commando force, and take them out of the embassy’s.
Universal health care.
Take peak oil seriously.
Hard look at our entire food situation. Bring back local food production. Reorganize the USDA.
Outlaw torture for once and for all.
Carpet bomb K Street.
I would like healthcare reform. It isnt just those that have low paying jobs that worry about getting and paying for healthcare. I paid $6,000 out of my own pocket this year for medical expenses, that is WAY too much.
I’d like to see a complete overhaul of our international alliances and foreign policy. There needs to be a genuine national debate about the best course for the US in the international arena.
This discussion MUST include Israel and rational discussion whether our support of the apartheid state is in the national interest or not.
We need to talk about the recent loss of privacy and rights at the hands of the US government and how we can get it back.
Will we get any of this? Maybe some movemment on healthcare depending on who is elected, the rest, forget about it.
Off the top of my head:
1. Out of Iraq and talks along the line of Col. Lang’s “Concert for the Middle East.”
2. Refocus on Israel/Palestine with us as a truly impartial mediator.
3. Repeal Bush tax cuts.
3. Single payer universal health care.
4. A more vital role for SEC:
i. beefing up the anti-trust division (financial services, telecoms, cable companies, big media, Hollywood studios/tv networks, etc.)
ii. Wall street investor protections, such as severing the compensation link between research and banking divisions that taints investment advice.
5. ensuring “net neutrality.”
6. reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine.”
7. Repeal the odious “Bankrupcy bill.”
8. Al Gore in as Energy Secretary (with special focus on saving our car industry by offering incentives to Detroit to produce fuel efficient cars. If a 35 year old mechanic in Nebraska can retool Hummers to get 80mpg on biodeisal using standard GMC parts and retool Neil Young’s 1960 Lincoln Continental to get 100 mpg, so can Ford. http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead-messiah.html
9. weed out the Bush/Cheneyites from the federal bureaucracy.
10. No pardons for any former elected officials should they be indicted/convicted for war crimes or other crimes while in office.
It is notable the Pat is constraining the consideration of the reasons for voting for Obama. Did all the Obama supporters caucus for “change”? I am not so sure. Did none of the Hillary supporters caucus for change? Hillary sure was emphasizing her ability to “change” Washington in her ads. I live in IA, and I caucused for him because he plain and simple has shown better judgement than anyone else. I agree that the rhetoric (of all the candidates) is much pablum. We do not elect kings, so most of what candidates say is hollow.
Who else running got it right on what was wrong with our approach to Iraq? Obama had the good sense to know a war in Iraq would be a distraction that would be much tougher than the cheerleaders thought. (To be fair, Ron Paul gets points for that, too.) That good judgement was what first attracted me. Obama’s other positions seem to reflect a sober rationality.
Yellow Dog- With all due respect, the idea that Obama, a very well-spoken and bright former law professor is anything like Bush was in 2000 does not get off the ground. People who were paying attention (I lived in TX then) knew GWB was a hands-off lightweight running on the family name. That GWB and Obama share relative inexperience is not enough to make them substantially similar IMHO.
Respectfully,
I’m a great fan of rhetoric, and I’m somewhat old-fashioned in thinking politicians should have a command of it. But you’re right in suggesting that rhetoric is only effective as a means of persuading people to support specific action. I remain skeptical of the “change” Obama proposes, because it still seems to me that he is suggesting that it can be transformational yet somehow non-threatening. In the specific areas he mentions, health care, energy policy, and foreign policy, change will in fact require someone’s ox to be gored, and it won’t be limited to a few Gucci-clad K Street lobbyists.
In these areas, however, it doesn’t trouble me that some oxen will have to be gored. I think we need to figure out how to make health care more universally available in our country, which will likely mean that some of it will no longer be available on instant demand. I think we need an energy policy that seeks transformational change away from fossil fuels, which will likely mean paying more for the fossil fuels we consume and more for our beloved cars. I think we need a foreign policy that disengages us from the failed attempt to remake Iraq in a semblance of our own image, with a serious plan to withdraw all American troops coupled with active engagement of Iraq’s neighbors in trying at least to keep Iraq’s troubles from spilling over its borders. And I think we need to rollback the police state being built in our own country, with adequate tools being given to our security professionals to do their jobs that reflect the technological innovations of the last 30 years, which still does not require wholesale repeal of the Bill of Rights.
The last two items will mean that there will be additional bloodshed in Iraq that will be blamed on us for leaving before political stability had been achieved, and that some bad guys may slip through our security precautions who might otherwise have been caught in the Cheney dragnet. Both are prices I think we must be willing to pay for regaining broader influence in pursuit of our national interests in the foreign policy sphere and maintaining our republican way of life at home.
What great suggestions! What a great question!
a) Single payor health insurance for all Americans administered by the Federal government. It works for the VA, the best health system in the US with the best computer system and medical record keeping software. I am struck hard by the fact that all the posters mention it nearly always first. Wow.
2. Government regulation of fossil fuels used for transportation…regulation interpreted broadly. Increase the role of trains and reduce the role of trucks for merchandise transport. A direct tax on foodstuffs, for example, that must be transported, out of season, across thousands of miles.
4. A foreign policy focussed on sane fossil fuel usage. That would include engaging Iran…and every other group in the Middle East. We have it in our power to bring Israel to heel overnight via our “foreign aid”. That is the way to reduce tension in the Middle East. If there have to be American troops in the Middle East, let them be in Gaza and Jerusalem.
5. Regulate the “financial industry”. No more “off the books” entities that destroy our economy.
A) Universal healthcare. I am presently uninsurable on the open market and, as a result, am married to my job with its group policy.
B) Less war, more talk. I would like to see a negotiated end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some rapproachment with Iran. I think those are doable. If we can’t enter into negotiations with some reasonable likelihood of success–Pakistan to my mind–we should just stay out. Only if an international situation seriously adversely affects US security should this country go to war.
C) Promote the rights of labor organizing. Good things flow from this.
D) Reduce the deficit. Balance the budget.
E) Israel-Palestine. Lean on Israel to get it done.
F) Reconsider free trade agreements.
Lots of good suggestions. I’d add (in order of increasing unlikeliness):
1) Let’s declare an armistice in the War on (Some) Drugs. I suspect drug prohibition has trashed more American lives more directly than all the foreign policy botches of the last half century.
2) I’d like to see some serious laws, with real teeth, regulating how public AND private organizations use personal information of all kinds. Soviet citizens may have had more privacy than many Americans have now.
3) Seems to be the same characters always turning up in our egregious blunders, from Iran-Contra to Iraq. Isn’t it time for some serious investigations and **prosecutions**?
4) Generously subsidize Israeli emigration to the U.S. — and treat travel to Israel the same way we treat travel to Cuba or North Korea. End direct and indirect subsidies to Israel, and treat charities that collect money for Israel just like those that collect money for Hezbollah and al Qaeda.
Col. Lang,
With respect I think you’re asking the wrong question here, especially judging the responses you’ve received so far. One can’t, ISTM, ask what we expect of a potential President without acknowledging the capabilities and limitations of the office. The laundry list that many commenters listed here provide ample examples of this as many are wishes that no President can deliver.
Take universal health care, for example. While it’s nice to know if a candidate supports the concept as well as how they might implement it if they had a free hand to do so, the simple fact of the matter is that the plan will ultimately have to come from Congress to the President’s desk. A President can only sign or not sign whatever Congress passes. The President can advocate a specific course of action and influence the process through a variety of means, but Congress does not have to listen. I therefore view with some amusement the detailed plans on health care and such that candidates publish because the final legislation that reaches the President’s desk will likely be very different provided the legislation reaches his/her desk at all. Huckabee’s “tax” plan is perhaps the most egregious example – does anyone really believe Congress – even a Republican dominated one – would ever pass such a measure?
So when I see a candidate pledge to do something that falls outside the powers inherently available to the office, I take what they say with a large dose of salt. The same goes for wish-lists of what we’d like to see from a potential President.
On such issues, a candidate’s ability to politic for their favored position by herding the cats of Congress is at least as important as the position itself and is arguably more important that the details of the candidate’s plan. Judging such capacity to persuade the legislative branch is, however, subjective at best and will always be subject to events and circumstances beyond any potential President’s control.
So I will limit my response to those issues the President has sole or a majority of influence over – principally foreign policy, how they would use executive orders and nominations. Since I’m running short of time, however, I’ll detail them later in another comment.
I am impressed. I cannot add to much I’ve seen here,
only prioritize.
I think the purpose of a candidate at this point is not that he or she has specific policy beliefs (I know most of their beliefs from past interviews)but that they have the ability to use the pulpit to get them done. This is the critical element that a good public speaker brings to the job.
John Schmitt comes closest to my list. I would add to it the brokerage of a fair resolution to the Israeli Palestinian dispute with a real carrot and stick approach.
1. Retreat from Empire, i.e. fewer foreign entanglements, smaller military, less intrusive foreign policy and goals
2. universal health care achieved with incentives to be healthy
3. a national energy policy that reduces our dependence on any one source of energy and fosters more ecologically benign energy sources and seeks ever greater efficiency in the use of energy
4. a less powerful and more transparent executive branch
5. restoration and then maintenance of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution; an Executive branch that respects those rights, Legislative branch that protects those rights and a Judicial branch that serves as the ultimate and respectful interpreter of the Constitution
6. a generally less intrusive central government particularly in matters of faith and morals; less legislation and regulation that is focused on sin and morality
All
My post and question were intended to elicit a difference in answers between a desire for policy change and a desire to change our system of government. The reference to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions was a hint. Almost all of you so far want policy changes, not system changes. There were a few who wanted to bomb K Street. I sympathize wih that although the effort would probably take out my club which is just around the corner. Elizabeth Edwards told the clown Matthews a few minutes ago that she wants to change “the way things are done in Washington.” That is very different. She also made reference to her shared background with Matthews as a “child of the 60s.” This is a remark that is only understandable as an appeal to revolutionary change. THAT, is the “real deal.”
Andy
I doubt the sincerity of your protestations of “respect.” pl
I have asked this question many times. Yes Clinton has used the word “change” but really Obama has run his campaign on “change” and “bringing the country “together.”
There are many things I would like to change but here are a couple:
Bring the fairness doctrine back;
Strengthen labor unions
Healthcare as a fundamental right for all Americans
Israel isn’t always right
Balance the budget.
But I want to see Obama use more than rhetoric about bringing the parties together. I want him to get the requisite number of Republican Senators to cross over and vote against their lame duck president and pass the SCHIP expansion. If he can do this, then he can have my vote. Until then, all this holding hands and sitting down at the table talk is empty rhetoric. And by the way Karl Rove isn’t going to retire anytime soon
Senator Barak Obama has proven that he can organize effectively on the local and state levels. If he can extend that organizational ability — and I think it looks as though he can — to the national level then America under his leadership can perhaps accomplish the one thing more practially important than anything else: namely, what he has “rhetorically” called “changing the mindset that leads us into ruinous wars in the first place.” This means:
(1) An end to Warfare Welfare and Makework Militarism. Specifically, a reduction in the Military/Industrial/Lobbyist/Pundit complex by at least 25% annually — or until the Pentagram learns about (a) transparency and (b) basic, generally accepted accounting principles. In other words: “Where did all the billions go and to whom did you give it and for what?”
(2) Universal health care (of the sort our politicians enjoy at taxpayer’s expense). Here in Taiwan we have this and I pay 35 dollars a month for both my wife and myself (which reasonable expenditure recently allowed me to have a cancer successfully removed from an ear). For contrast and context: My youngest son who lives in New York pays 1,300 dollars a month for, as he puts it, “bare medical and really shitty dental” coverage. Disgraceful. He should have the same coverage that his junior Senator You-Know-Her enjoys.
(3) Abolish the C.I.A. because it “Can’t Identify Anything” (and seldom-if-ever could). As one movie critic of The Bourne Supremacy fantasy movie put it: “these guys couldn’t steam open an envelope.”
(4) Restoration of the progressive income tax.
(5) Reinstatement of the FDR Era regulations (gutted during the Clinton Administration) that prohibit banks from speculating (i.e., gambling) in the stock market with their depositors’ money.
(6) Elimination of Republican Party politicians from the American government to the extent that they can no longer — as in FDR’s era — meddle in the political life of the nation. President Obama can probably not accomplish all of this in one four-year term; perhaps not even in two. But if he can at least reduce the Republican Party caucus in Congress to where they hold their reactionary meetings out in a remote corner of the parking lot (without heat in winter or air-conditioning in summer) with only one copy each of Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged for their collective “libertarian” reading material, then all else good should follow — practially AND rhetorically speaking. For as the supremely practical rhetorical master FDR once said: “We have nothing to fear but fear [meaning the rabid Republican Party] itself.”
I think our Colonel may be rather slyly noting the enthusiasm of the Jacobins of the Cheney and Addington persuasion for real change, as opposed to us real conservatives with our attachment to the Constitution and even old Washington ways of effecting change.
Given the opportunity to prescribe constitutional change, I would recommend the following:
— Fixed terms for federal judges, especially Supreme Court justices (15 years or so);
— Extension of the terms of members of the House of Representatives to four years, staggered so that half of the House is elected every two years;
— Reform of the Senate to reduce the ludicrous overrepresentation of the Delawares and Wyomings relative to the Californias and Texases — it need not be strictly proportional, but the current system distorts national priorities.
— Elimination of the filibuster (preserving a right to extend debate, but not to block legislation).
— Abolition of the Vice Presidency, as Mr Cheney has usefully illustrated just how dangerously unaccountable an office it is, coupled with selection of the Acting President (if needed) from the Cabinet, with presidential election within 90 days to complete unexpired term.
— True popular vote for the Presidency — no electoral college.
— Greater limitation on presidential veto — much lower supermajority threshold, and no pocket vetoes.
— No recess appointments to last beyond the time Congress next convenes.
— Limitations on “executive privilege” and “state secrets” privilege to ensure accountability of government.
I would add respect for Habeus Corpus and a broadband policy that recognized the importance of upstream bandwidth.
Col. Lang,
With respect I think you’re asking the wrong question here, especially judging the responses you’ve received so far. One can’t, ISTM, ask what we expect of a potential President without acknowledging the capabilities and limitations of the office. The laundry list that many commenters listed here provide ample examples of this as many are wishes that no President can deliver.
Take universal health care, for example. While it’s nice to know if a candidate supports the concept as well as how they might implement it if they had a free hand to do so, the simple fact of the matter is that the plan will ultimately have to come from Congress to the President’s desk. A President can only sign or not sign whatever Congress passes. The President can advocate a specific course of action and influence the process through a variety of means, but Congress does not have to listen. I therefore view with some amusement the detailed plans on health care and such that candidates publish because the final legislation that reaches the President’s desk will likely be very different provided the legislation reaches his/her desk at all. Huckabee’s “tax” plan is perhaps the most egregious example – does anyone really believe Congress – even a Republican dominated one – would ever pass such a measure?
So when I see a candidate pledge to do something that falls outside the powers inherently available to the office, I take what they say with a large dose of salt. The same goes for wish-lists of what we’d like to see from a potential President.
On such issues, a candidate’s ability to politic for their favored position by herding the cats of Congress is at least as important as the position itself and is arguably more important that the details of the candidate’s plan. Judging such capacity to persuade the legislative branch is, however, subjective at best and will always be subject to events and circumstances beyond any potential President’s control.
So I will limit my response to those issues the President has sole or a majority of influence over – principally foreign policy, how they would use executive orders and nominations. Since I’m running short of time, however, I’ll detail them later in another comment.
1) A balanced-budget amendment with accountability and benchmarks – i.e. deficit/shortfall triggers a general election.
2) Publically-financed elections w/ RICO-type statutes & penalties.
3) More states using caucuses for national elections.
4) Elimination of Presidential pardons and Exec privilege.
5) Same-day, same-time elections on national holiday.
Though these are all worthy policy changes the commentators here are discussing, and though many of the proposals have significant popular support, I doubt any of them will be enacted without a fundamental change in the system. Therein lies the difficulty in separating the two types of change. The voters, uneducated and careless as they now are, can always be misinformed and misled every 2 or every 4 years, as necessary, by the mass media. In contrast the corporations and special interests that desire to control the government have the means to hire experts full time to pore over and draft complex legislation, lobby government officials, and mount PR campaigns cleverly disguised as grassroots movements. These interests are destined to win the game against the larger citizen body for the same reason that any professionalized corps in any field (science, military, business, etc.) normally beats amateurs–especially when numerous other distractions are demanding these amateurs’ attention. In this case, one of the main distractions for the “amateur citizen” would be consumerism, but there are others, of course.
The only sort of reform of the system that would likely be productive would be a return of as much power and responsibility to local government structures, a development which would allow direct, as opposed to representative, democracy to flourish again, and as a consequence FORCE ordinary citizens to pay attention to and take responsibility for their own governance. This is the most difficult reform imaginable, but in my view, it’s the only one that would produce any significant and lasting results, so it should be tried anyway. Fortunately, it does have one advantage: the Powers that Be are so infatuated with their own omnipotence and the all-importance of strong, centralized, national government that much of the work of rebuilding local political institutions and powers could sprout up “under the radar”, and in a way that simply seeped up in the spaces “unclaimed” by the national or state governments. One can imagine several such areas: civic education, co-operative local food production and small-scale manufacture, certain kinds of public transportation, etc.
As a stopgap measure, and, if nothing else to spark discussion and put pressure on the elites, I would like to see a mass movement take off for the National Initiative for Democracy. Google the phrase if you’ve never heard of that proposal. Keep in mind that, as far-out as it may sound at first, something very similar has been used in “stodgy” Switzerland for over a century, with seemingly salutary effects.
My thanks to the Colonel for giving us the belated opportunity to make up such a great set of Christmas wishes.
I read this post first thing this morning, and all day long I’ve been thinking about what a change wish list should look like, and I finally came to the conclusion that that the call for a retreat from empire is the only change I think is truly important for this nation today.
(and a hat tip to John Schmitt and others for staking out this territory first!)
That is, I find myself believing that a retreat from the insane combination of American exceptionalism and financial greed that motivates our imperial tendencies (and has for years) is the necessary predicate for most (if not all) of the other changes suggested here.
For example… we have state secrets because we need them to maintain an empire that works against the best interests of both Americans and everyone else, and we can’t afford to develop clean new energy technologies because we’re spending our treasure on empire (including protecting our oil supplies!)
And we spend way too much on health care because the corporate culture that arises from lobbying on behalf other empire-related beltway bandits has created a similar culture of corruption for all venues of government, including such purely-domestic non-empire topics as health care for all Americans.
So I vote for “lose the empire”. I don’t think that step alone will get us all the way to the promised land, but I bet we could see it from there!
It’s not likely any of my recommendations would be enacted by a future American administration:
1) A return to the Rule of Law and the immediate dismissal and prosecution of all those who contributed to its irrelevance during this present, criminal Administration’s tenure.
2) Commit to serious charges of treason against all those who have committed TREASONOUS ACTS while working in or for the U.S. government, starting with the countless malevolent members of the Bush2 administration and their mercenaries.
3) Introduce a law designed to break up the media cartels, moving the control of radio, newspapers and tv channels to the communities they serve. Restrict the number of media outlets individuals and corporations can either own or control in the markets they live and/or work in.
4) Ban ALL corporate donations to politicians and their “pet projects”.
5) Ban ALL third party political ads.
6) Restrict personal political donations to a maximum of $5000 per individual and $10,000 per family or residence.
7) Fine people a nominal amount if they don’t vote. And then collect it.
8) Provide matching government funding for any party or individual that garners 5% of the popular vote in their category – ie: municipal, State, or National Senate and Congressional races.
8) Count all marked-with-a-pencil ballots by HAND with representatives of the political parties present as witnesses, NOT as participants.
9) Detach the ship of State from the chains of Faith! Stop all government funding of Religious organizations and programs immediately. Why is the American Government in the business of subsidizing delusion?
10) Come home from Iraq and spend half of the saved money on Americans living in the United States of America.
Cieran
Is it a good sign that Amazon delayed delivery? By the way I am working on finishing Volume 2 “The Ranks of Death. pl
I’d like to see a new Constitutional Convention…I think the document produced in 1787 is out of date…It’s not the Qur’an, the Bible, (or even the Book of Mormon…)I do not believe the Constitution’s specifics are “timeless” in that theological way. Attempts to elevate Constitutional language to the level of ‘scripture’ as has been done with our present document has got to have some kind of realistic time horizon, don’t you think? 200+ years is a pretty good damn run, isn’t it? I think many of us can relate to the feeling of release when our elderly Aunt Millie, suffering from a metastasized cancer finally passes. She fought bravely and she made a good damn run of it. God Bless Her! That’s how I feel about our Constitution……(not to mention the fact that a Constitutional Convention would, I believe, by its very existence re-affirm Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison’s Spirit of ’78, Wouldn’t it???)
Col. Lang,
I have to wonder why you continue to doubt my sincerity and on what basis you make this judgment. I’d seriously like to know.
I’ve spent almost a year now commenting over at Phil Carter’s site, Intel Dump. It’s where I spend a lot of my commenting time. Several of the “regulars” there post here, including Publius, FDChief, Fasteddiez, Seydlitz and probably others as well. We don’t agree on everything but I would be quite surprised if any of them would call me insincere or a provocateur as you have alleged. You have their emails, why don’t you contact them and ask?
I’ve even referenced your site several times in various fora including last April where I stated, “I don’t know if anyone here read’s Pat Lang’s blog. If not, you should.” Why would I do that if I did not respect your opinion? More here from September and here from November. I’ve never had a negative thing to say about you anywhere which is what makes the aspersions against me here quite vexing.
As for the matter at hand my attention to detail failed me and I did not pick up on your link.
On questions of policy and systemic change I’ll briefly give my opinion:
First the systemic changes I would like to see (briefly) which I freely admit have a snowball’s chance:
1. Significant electoral reform to make elections more open, informed and representative of the American people. IMO the current system created and sustained by the two parties is broken and the primacy of media and money in politics creates a nasty self-perpetuating feedback loop where candidates have to whore themselves in order to compete. Although not without problems, I think mandatory public funding of campaigns and a requirement to provide equal time to all candidates – not just the media darlings – will probably provide a net benefit. For example, I think a big reason Biden and Dodd did so poorly is because the media largely ignored them. To me election reform is fundamental to solving all the other problems in government.
2. Open government at all levels. Some here have mentioned executive privlege, which I agree with, but I would extend such measures to the legislative branch. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander and both the executive and legislative branches need to be more transparent in their affairs. We are still battling to get CRS reports universally available for instance to say nothing of mysterious amendments, earmarks and who Congress members spend their time with and get advice from.
Those for me are the two biggest and would, by themselves, go along way.
On the policy side of things with regard to Presidential candidates here are my thoughts in general:
1. We should have a diplomatic presence with every nation that will allow it. I would send an ambassador back to Syria and tell the Iranians we want to reestablish our mission in Tehran unconditionally (and tell them in private that we’ll hold them accountable for the embassy’s security) as well as North Korea. The goal here is not just diplomatic effort, which is worthy in and of itself, but other benefits a formal diplomatic presence brings, some of which Col. Lang has first-hand experience with. Additionally, daily contact with officials from the host government provide insight and a greater understanding of that government.
2. We need to make our actions more closely match our ideals. We can’t do that in every case, but the last 7 years really represent a low-point. Any intelligence gained from Gitmo, renditions and the rest has not been worth the cost and hypocrisy is universally derided.
3. We need a real foreign policy strategy and doctrine for the 21st century – ISTM we’ve been muddling along for almost two decades now. The next President should initiate a national discussion on what that strategy should be and work to implement that consensus strategy.
There are many others (many of which are in the new post on the subject), but I think these three are three of the most important and are achievable by a President with the will and moxie to do so.
spirit of ’98 !
Too many weird and unprecedented voting irregularities have occured in regular and organized manner within the last 8 years.
So I’d like to see a major changes in the voting system.
Keywords: Bush vs Gore, Tom Delay gerrymandering,Texas re-redistricting; Davis is ousted in CA by Arnie; Ohio, Diebold, ES&S and Hart, voter suppression; caging; Karl Rove; Ohio Board of Elections; voter intimidation; voter fraud
The changes I would like to see would be
1. Universal Health Care I’m a nurse and I see what hard lives people have when they have no medical insurance or limited insurance.
2. The end to lobby’s such as AIPAC, NRA etc etc
3. Campaign finance reform
4. An educational system that is not at the bottom of the industrial nations.
5. The end of torture as acceptable interagation.
6. A president that can complete a sentence without making a multiple of gramatic errors.
Colonel,
It might be a good idea for your club to find an new location.
Everyone: Please note that “matthew” is a different person from “Matthew.”
I’m struck by how many of those posting their wish lists for change on this thread are focusing on the minutiae and mechanics of governance and on pie in the sky policy making rather than on pursuing the hard, realistic changes and choices that would permanently remove the root causes of the USA’s predicament. Like my grandmother used to say, “You can’t see the forest for the trees.”
You can howl about constitutional reform, health care, Middle East involvements, labor rights, the erosion and/or cancellation of individual liberties until you’re blue in the face – but until you put a stop to the money machine’s well-oiled, malignant influence over your government and CRUSH THE MEDIA OLIGARCHIES TO DUST, not one single thing you want will come to pass.
As it is with all things, you have to start with the basics of what’s needed to effect the changes you want – you can’t build a castle on sand – you need to dig down to bedrock if you want to create a foundation for your castles in the air.
In my opinion, anything less is a wasteful wringing-of-hands and fruitlessly, self-absorbingly masturbatory.
I want:
Capitol Hill shut down and all representives sent back to their districts where they can do their duties, read bills and vote by modern communication methods, have lobbist visits duely noted by their local newspaper and not be part of the incest club in DC.
Otherwise I want the Ethics Committee in congress to be a revolving committee of ordinary citizens overseeing our politicans ethics.
An ethics and loyalty rule preventing politicans from joining outside and inside conflict of interest and possible conflicts of interst organizations and sitting on boards like the Israel project, the Black Caucus, the Jewish Congress caucus, the Iran Freedom org.,the Free Cuba committee, ad nausum…ad nausum.
I want new tougher laws for white collar crimes and a special set of laws for politicans who use their office for personal financial gain and trade legistation for money.
I want immigration laws enforced and immigration as a whole to be revised to reflect the true original intent of refugee needs instead of citizenship available to just special skills or cheap labor and political ethnic preference.
AIPAC registered as a Foreign Lobby.
Dual citizenship voting rights abolished.
For the military to be run by the military from the Pentagon to the PBX with civilian oversight leadership weighting in primilary in the decision to go to war, not the stragety of war.
For the US to have to adhere to the Geneva conventions and international law.
A Supreme Court ruling that money is NOT speech.
For Section 514 of ERIS to be revised to remove the legal immunity of insurers or in lieu of that, Not for Profit health care to be established for everyone.
For all laws regarding retirement and pensions to be same for both private and government employees.
I want a tarrif system for imports into the US by US multinationals based on a percentage difference of the average wage they pay cheap labor abroad in relation to average US wages in the same industry.
For all government expenditures, ALL of them,every single one,from congress to every agency, to be published semi annualy in every major newspaper in the country.
I want public financing of political campaigns. I want PACs outlawed.
I want every state to have a recall button for firing their representives. I want the public to have impeachment rights for presidents and their adms.
Colonel:
Is it a good sign that Amazon delayed delivery? By the way I am working on finishing Volume 2 “The Ranks of Death. pl
It is a good sign for you (i.e., demand outstrips supply), but not such a good sign for me! But I just got an e-mail informing me it’s now shipped, so there’s my good omen.
I see from the Rosemont web site that your book may have some common ground with “The Killer Angels”. Did you know that Joss Whedon (one of the better storytellers of our day) created a science-fiction television series based on his reading of Shaara’s book?
The series is called “Firefly”, and it’s on DVD… there’s also a feature-length movie called “Serenity” that covers the same cultural ground (Serenity Valley is Whedon’s analog of Gettysburg). The Alliance is the busybody imperial power that must export its governmental arrangements to every corner of space now that it’s won the civil war, and the protagonists are led by some of the rebels (Browncoats).
I’d say that it’s the best television I’ve seen in the last few decades, but that’s definitely a case of “damning with faint praise”!
Congratulations on the popularity of your new book! Good luck finishing the next!
Cieran
Glad to hear you are going to get your book.
I have read “The Killer Angels” several times, including just after its publication. I used to give copies of it to my cadets at West Point. The style may have infuenced my writing, although I think I owe more to Hemingway and Conrad. Like Sharaa I wrote on this book for many years, so it is a highly polished artifact.
It is set in 1863 so Gettysburg is inevitably in the story, but my “take” on the events of the battle is different from many of Sharaa’s. For example I spend a lot more time with Harrison (the scout) than Sharaa does. He incorrectly indentifies him as a civilian scout. In fact Harrisons was a CS Signal Corps lieutenant who had been attached to Longstreet for the campaign. Quite a lot is known about him.
I also think a lot better of Jubal Early than Sharaa.
I am very familiar with the “Firefly,” “Serenity” group of productions. Very good stuff. I wish there were more of it. As you say, the “browncoats” are pretty clear in their identity and style. pl
Colonel:
I am very familiar with the “Firefly,” “Serenity” group of productions.
Why am I not surprised?
And here’s some quick feedback from a long-time reader of this site… your posts of late have caused me to do a great deal of reading, thinking, and learning. Some of this may be simply be the times (lots going on in the world these days), but I do believe that you have managed to create a site where your gentle facilitation of discussion, and the incredible diversity of informed opinions you encourage here within this virtual community, results in something truly singular, and incredibly beneficial.
It’s the only place on the web that I visit every day, and it’s definitely the most interesting and edifying corner of the virtual universe that I know of.
Thanks (to you and your readers) for that!
1. Roll back the Empire
2. Single Payer
3. Middle East entanglements, energy dependence, and global warming are all the same problem. Seek the solution.
Probably the best thing to do is have no expectation at all. From experience, any political candidate will just about say anything to get and then stay in office. With Clinton, one could call this pandering. With Bush, I’ve heard his tactics called bullying, but they are usually fear mongering. Remembering the last two administrations, how effective were they in their domestic and foreign policy agendas? Clinton did little in either sphere and if we are to believe Robert Reich’s blog (robertreich.blogspot.com), Clinton’s domestic agenda was coerced by Greenspan and Fed policy. Bush has inflated the Federal Deficit, weakened the dollar until we are on parity with the Canadian dollar, destabilized the Middle East, and basically left a mess for his successor to clean up. Nixon fared worse than Johnson did if people recall. He had to resign in disgrace. He got us out of the Vietnam War as he promised, but we invaded Cambodia and bombed Cambodia under his administration. So, the reformers can promise all the reforms they wish, but until they know what they are being handed to them by this administration, they won’t know if they can keep those promises or aspirations.