In Obama Era: Can We Think Big and Make the Changes We Really Need?

[NicholeW.]

In Obama Era: Can We Think Big and Make the Changes We Really Need?
By Rep. Keith Ellison, AlterNet. Posted June 11, 2009.

http://www.alternet.org/politics/140538/in_obama_era%3A_can_we_think_big_and_make_the_changes_we_really_need/

Martin Luther King didn't say, "I have a complaint."

I've had a few of my progressive friends say to me, "You know Keith, I'm not that happy about the president not really going after those quirks in the Bush administration, I'm not that pleased that we haven't heard as much as we want to hear about a public option. What about 100 percent auction for cap and trade? What about these issues that we care about?"

And I say to my friends, that if the progressive movement could make Richard Nixon get out of Vietnam and sign the legislation for the Environmental Protection Agency, what can we do with this president? We cannot set our sights low, we should not settle for less, we should not gripe, we should not complain. We should organize, organize, organize!! You thought you were busy before November; you better figure out how to get even busier now, because the opportunity for us to change this thing all around are well within our grasp. The question is: Will we do it?

[lisagurl]

The question is do we want one big conforming society? I think not. How do different groups with different cultures and goals live peaceful together?  Not everyone wants Obama's goals. Many do not want security if it means losing risk and opportunity to go in a different direction.

[Suzy]

Not everyone wants Obama's goals.

But that is just it:  What are his goals?  Really?  I don't mean the rhetoric that got him elected.  What does he really want to do?  He is a politician, and we may never know.

Kristi

[DarkLady]

The real problem is that Obama would need bigger majority in congress for progressive agenda.

[NicholeW.]

I don't think that the Rep. is saying that "people should want Obama's goals." I think he is saying that people who do want things like a national healthcare option and an end to Iraq, Afghanistan, a fuller investigation on Bush-led torture and constitutional undermining, etc, need to get off of our butts and quit expecting the Administration to not only lead, but to push those agenda items that we want taken and insist through our own hard work and community and state and national action to meet the opposition with a force and passion that shows that this is where we want to go and feel that the country should go.

For too long liberally-leaning people have expected only our elected reps to do all of the lifting after the elections, that our places are to sit quietly and support them quietly while they do the work. It's obvious that they need spurs and goads to doing what will be somewhat, at least, politically unpopular and might costs votes and money in some areas.

He appears to me to be asking not "what's Obama's position" but asking "Nichole, what's your position and what are you willing to do to further it?"

Not a bad question to ask it seems to me. Not a bad question to answer either. 

[Janet_Girl]

Maybe we should remember what John Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for. Ask what you can do for your country."

We are the grassroots movement.  We want change, then we have to make it happen.

Janet

[tekla]

A president can, and perhaps even should, lead - but they can't do it all.  Without going into a long rant about how Congress has basically abrogated its role in the three power structure, and how the press, which used to help examine some of this stuff, and no longer is interested in doing so have both failed us in huge, and perhaps unreplaceable ways, let's just say, that if you look at the record to date, Obama had done a lot, far more than Clinton did, perhaps in the entire 8 years.  He - and his people - have had to make a huge effort to clean up and reconnect the mechanisms of government that the Bushies had all but destroyed, and that is actually happening. 

I think Obama's first goal was just that, to make the government function once more. 

[NicholeW.]

... Obama had done a lot, far more than Clinton did, perhaps in the entire 8 years.  He - and his people - have had to make a huge effort to clean up and reconnect the mechanisms of government that the Bushies had all but destroyed, and that is actually happening. 

I think Obama's first goal was just that, to make the government function once more. 

Nice point, Kat.

I think that's the thing that most people, regardless political pov, have lost track of if they ever had the track: that Reagan & Bush II admins were more about totally dismantling government and bankrupting it intentionally so, to quote Grover Norquist, "shrink government to a level where you can strangle it completely."

Bush succeeded in that respect. They literally bankrupted, monetarily and emotionally and in many respects constitutionally and morally, the government. And the congressos have silently, for the most part, stood by supporting that with their inaction, their own participations and the ever-present ability to succumb to status, prestige, money and power. And people have seen it, but not realized, due to the complicity of the press in the affair (for many of the same reasons as the congressos have had) and in being unwilling to explain sensibly not "just the facts, ma'am;" but also what those facts mean and imply and will give birth to.

To make government function once more seems like a small task. However with the active participation of four admins (2 Reagan, 2 Bush II) and the less-active but certainly tacit hands-off approaches of 3 others (Bush I & 2 Clinton) we have a government that resembles nothing so much as a train-wreck.

That emperor has no clothes, you know, the emperor who says "the Constitution is sound and the country is doing well." Neither of those points have been totally true, and more often than not have been totally untrue, for more than 30 years.

N~   

[daisybelle]

Nice point, Kat.

I think that's the thing that most people, regardless political pov, have lost track of if they ever had the track: that Reagan & Bush II admins were more about totally dismantling government and bankrupting it intentionally so, to quote Grover Norquist, "shrink government to a level where you can strangle it completely."

Bush succeeded in that respect. They literally bankrupted, monetarily and emotionally and in many respects constitutionally and morally, the government. And the congressos have silently, for the most part, stood by supporting that with their inaction, their own participations and the ever-present ability to succumb to status, prestige, money and power. And people have seen it, but not realized, due to the complicity of the press in the affair (for many of the same reasons as the congressos have had) and in being unwilling to explain sensibly not "just the facts, ma'am;" but also what those facts mean and imply and will give birth to.

To make government function once more seems like a small task. However with the active participation of four admins (2 Reagan, 2 Bush II) and the less-active but certainly tacit hands-off approaches of 3 others (Bush I & 2 Clinton) we have a government that resembles nothing so much as a train-wreck.

That emperor has no clothes, you know, the emperor who says "the Constitution is sound and the country is doing well." Neither of those points have been totally true, and more often than not have been totally untrue, for more than 30 years.

N~

So if the goal here is activism, what is your agenda Nichole?

You and other have pointed at every predecessor of Obama all the way back to Nixon (with the exception of Carter and Ford - although I do believe most would agree they were at least if not more inept that the mentioned Bussh II, Clinton, Bush I , Reagan, or Nixon).    But let's not point fingers, let's talk about why people should stand up and voice how they want this country changed (or not).   I see three posts from you and yet not one speaks to an issue.

Well I will bring one up.   How do you feel about Patent reform?

Sen P. Leahy has an agenda which will undermine the small entity filer.  They want to make it more difficult for the plaintiff of an infringement case to sue by forcing them to sue in the district that the defendant resides in.  The guilty parties have an easier time of stealing from Patent-holders.   And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

This is personal to me as I have invested significant time and funds to develop a product.  The product went to market and multiple entities copied our idea and competed against us.   Not only that these entities actually copied our marketing text for their sales campaigns ( i.e. copyright infringment ).

D
Post Merge: June 11, 2009, 03:36:54 PM

we have a government that resembles nothing so much as a train-wreck.

I think we had a government on the rails.  The rails may be rickety  and prone to give but still capable of getting from point A to Point B and back again in circles.   Seems now the Train is off the rails and going where ever Obama wants.  The fear is that there are no rails ahead to let us know where we are heading (good/bad or indifferent).

Just a thought

[NicholeW.]

...  How do you feel about Patent reform?

Sen P. Leahy has an agenda which will undermine the small entity filer.  They want to make it more difficult for the plaintiff of an infringement case to sue by forcing them to sue in the district that the defendant resides in.  The guilty parties have an easier time of stealing from Patent-holders.   And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

This is personal to me as I have invested significant time and funds to develop a product.  The product went to market and multiple entities copied our idea and competed against us.   Not only that these entities actually copied our marketing text for their sales campaigns ( i.e. copyright infringment ).

Wow, now that (the bolded portion) came as a huge surprise, daisy!!

And funding for better road-surfaces on I-95 (and a reasonable configuration of I-95 and the NJ Turnpike instead of the current idiotic amalgamation) is important to me personally due to having to drive into northern NJ rather frequently.)

But, I would imagine that just like me you need to expect that the personal importance of this or that piece of legislation is NOT going to be overwhelmingly important to an entire cadre of "activists."

"Just a thought."

I think we had a government on the rails.  The rails may be rickety  and prone to give but still capable of getting from point A to Point B and back again in circles.   Seems now the Train is off the rails and going where ever Obama wants.  The fear is that there are no rails ahead to let us know where we are heading (good/bad or indifferent).

I presume that you thought that the Bush II presidency and admin was one of the best the nation ever experienced? I suppose that you and I ride different trains. (btw, is there passenger service at all in TX?)

In that regard I would imagine that nothing anyone is going to write will convince or even titillate you into believing that perhaps the Obama admin appears after 130 days to be at least marginally more inclined to follow the Constitution rather than ripping it apart?

"Just a(nother) thought."

[lisagurl]

How do you feel about Patent reform?

In a world that has free trade and open markets, the one that does it cheaper wins. There is very little enforcement of patents, as the cost to the government would increase taxes to the point that we would be working for the government. ( what a concept)

[tekla]

Oh Daisy, you say 'agenda' like it's a dirty word.  It's not.  Consider the following.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It's the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America.  Sorta our national agenda to a point.  No.  Not to a point.  It's the MoFo adgenda to beat all other agendas.  Nothing wrong in that.  We may well disagree as to how best accomplish it, but there is no doubt that we are dead set on accomplishing it, come hell, or, high water.

Listen.  Elections have consequences in a democratic republic.  You love that when you won.  You can't bitch when you lose.

[Michelle.]

"I hope he fails."

Ditto here, Rush.

[daisybelle]

In a world that has free trade and open markets, the one that does it cheaper wins. There is very little enforcement of patents, as the cost to the government would increase taxes to the point that we would be working for the government. ( what a concept)

The enforcement of a patent is up to the Patent holder going through the court system.  Trust me -- I have seven cases.  Three have settled (most of the settlement money has gone to expenses to the attorney so far), 2 have default judgements against them, and the final two are the ones that also committed copyright infringement whic we are in settlement discussions.   The fact that five of these will probably go about of business after the end of our suit does not affect me in the least.  Good riddance!!

This is actually not true.  "In a world that has free trade and open markets, the one that does it cheaper wins."   The alternative sloution to my patent actually sells for more..... it was the cheap models the bonehead infringers made that destroyed credibility in the product.   But the is just a small niche of what my intellectual property covers.

The Patent reform suggested by the Senator from Vermont will squash the little guy inventors around the country.  Or do you all believe the Gigantic Corporate Machine should all the power to steal from the little guy too.   

What I was suggesting was a outcry of topics that you would stand up for?  I plan to do whatever type of lobbying against this reform as I can.

I completely understand the I-95 deal.  I had issue with the Palmetto expressway when I lived in Miami, the I-93 downtown corridor through Boston when I lived there and I-35 corridor though Austin.

As far as the agenda -- All I hear is stand up and Change...  WHAT???  Martin Luther did have a dream and he stated it eloquently.   What do you want to change at the federal level to make this a better country?

Or was all Obama really calling for was a change in leadership?

D

[NicholeW.]

Or was all Obama really calling for was a change in leadership?

Yes, daisy, those personal interest thingies can really get us all roiled-up. Any of us, but they mostly are the purview of our personal concern and it's hard to rouse any real outrage for "the little guy."

Same with the designs of our superhighways. Some seem to have been designed by traffic engineers or even, sometimes, civil engineers! Goddess forfend that notion ever becomes universal!!

But a lot of times they seem designed to suit some other prupose entirely that has nothing to do with "readiness," transportation or highway safety and ease of use.

My thoughts on your last sentence are this.

If that was ALL he was calling for and it was accomplished, then, like finding four lawyers on the ocean bottom, it's a good way to start.

Nichole

[lisagurl]

What I was suggesting was a outcry of topics that you would stand up for?

An end to large governments and corporations. Have any entity over 5 million people or 1 billion dollars self destruct.