By Carter Bundy
For many of us, Nov. 4, 2008, will go down as one of the greatest days in American history. There are so many ways in which this election is a watershed moment for this country, and even for the world.
The racial component of the election of the first African American president (bi-racial, which is a growing and overlooked component of the American population) is simultaneously the most superficial change but also the deepest. For a nation with 250 years of slavery and 100 years of apartheid to elect an African American after a mere 44 years of legal equality (and less of de facto equality) is stunning.
The only minority candidate from a small (about 12 percent) minority of the population I can think of who has been elected in any country is
Obama outperformed Sen. John Kerry’s 2004 numbers with every ethnic group: whites, Hispanics, Asian Americans, Native Americans and African Americans. The universality of Obama’s win is a sure sign that we are moving closer and closer to Dr. King’s dream country where each man (and woman) is judged by the content of his or her character, not the color of his or her skin.
End of an error
As meaningful as it is, there’s much more to this election than smashing a racial barrier. We’ve all seen the bumper stickers that read “January 20, 2009 — the End of an Error.” Most of us take it to mean the end of W’s nightmarish 8 years of foreign policy blunders and economic ruin.
But the size and scope of the repudiation of the national Republican Party seems to signal a bigger watershed moment: the end of unquestioned fealty to multinational corporations, fossil fuels, insurance companies and hostility towards public service.
For 28 years, American leadership from both parties, and even the American people to some degree, have bought into hard-core conservative philosophies: government is incompetent and evil; trade agreements sans rules are good for all; and the poor need to find their own bootstraps. Nov. 4 was an invitation to revisit those ideas.
Conservatives weren’t all wrong
I say “revisit” — not “reject” — because in some ways, there’s sense to each of these conservative ideas: Government can be run badly, particularly if the people running it loathe it at the same time, or use it to dole out taxpayer-funded favors to big corporate contributors.
Free trade is a fantastic fuel for economic prosperity if — and only if — it’s not really being used as a way to undermine basic environmental, consumer and worker protections.
The poor do indeed have a responsibility to work hard to provide for themselves and their families. But especially as we go deeper into the information age, ensuring that everyone has the same educational, extracurricular and economic opportunities as the rest of us is a necessary component of “bootstrapping.”
Where conservatives have gone awry is in their hard and fast applications of the most superficial of ideological clichés, without any awareness of the real world frictions that require pragmatism.
This election is a mandate to change everything from the economy to health. If I were advising President-elect Obama, I’d ask him to focus his first year on three domestic issues (in addition to the myriad foreign policy decisions he’ll have to make):
Trading up
First, President-elect Obama has a mandate from people in
This helps workers and citizens in foreign countries by making their communities and worksites healthier, cleaner and safer. It also helps
We can create a positive, upward spiral in the health and prosperity of both countries, rebuilding a strong, vibrant middle class in
Energizing the economy
Second, President-elect Obama has a clear, bipartisan mandate to change our sources of energy. Even Sen. McCain, decades-long advocate for fossil fuels, put windmills in his TV ads. Lifelong Republican oilman T. Boone Pickens has had millions sign up for his wind- and natural gas-based energy plan.
American companies will make huge profits. American workers will get good jobs that can’t be outsourced. We’ll be less reliant on energy from dangerous parts of the world. In the middle- and long-run our energy costs will plummet. We’ll have better air, land and water quality. That means better health, better hunting and better fishing. What’s not to like?
Helping health
Third, President-elect Obama knows that the American people are sick of the current health-care system. Even for those with insurance, it often doesn’t deliver as expected, costs are out of control, it’s the leading cause of bankruptcies, and our American companies are losing battles with foreign companies who don’t have to worry about health costs.
While many favor even more aggressive health-care changes than what Barack has proposed, his plan is more likely to succeed and is a strong step towards universal coverage and lower costs. It’s not ideological; it’s pragmatic. He needs to act on this quickly and forcefully, and in doing so, will greatly mollify Americans’ insecurities about the pitfalls of becoming ill.
Eyes on the prize
What the new administration shouldn’t do is tackle issues that are all flash and no substance. Chief among these is the fairness doctrine. Yes, the airwaves are public property. But as with public spaces like
Beyond the fact that it’s a massive affront to the First Amendment and free speech principles generally, the fairness doctrine is impossible to enforce. Not difficult — impossible.
If Rush bashes a moderate Republican like Sen. Susan Collins for not being conservative enough, who gets the rebuttal: a liberal who thinks Republicans should move left, or a Republican who wants to defend Collins?
What if Ed Schultz decides Obama’s not being progressive enough? Is the new government-mandated response supposed to come from the Obama administration, or from a conservative who thinks Obama’s already too liberal?
Worst of all, who gets to monitor and decide how to regulate all this speech, and who writes the “approved” talking points in rebuttal? If the rebuttal isn’t sufficiently harsh in tone, does the mandate require a re-do by someone a little bit angrier?
What if the person reading the approved talking points is being facetious? Does that count, or do you have to sound like you really mean it? And who makes that call again? Talk about thought police.
Trust me, anyone who has gamed this through could give you a thousand variations on these serious questions, with no cogent answers in sight.
Dems: eyes on the prize. We need change in people’s lives, not on KKOB. Don’t like 770? Call in more. The number’s (505) 243-3333. Let’s fix our economy, trade, energy and health care, and let those who want to stay stuck in the last 28 years criticize all they want. Our constitution demands it, and we can take it.
Bundy is the political and legislative director for AFSCME in