An American Evolution

by phrolen | May 20, 2008 at 02:53 pm | 491 views | 31 comments



Op-ed

By: P.H. Rolen


 

As I sat Monday and listened to Barack Obama speak, I had what is tantamount to a personal revelation. In a crammed packed Billings, Montana high school gymnasium, Senator Obama commanded what many have dubbed as a cult like presence. I can see where the comparison comes from. Kids with mohawks made the rock on goat sign as the great orator made his finer points. Overly medicated house moms swooned in a spirit filled manner as their post modernist, emasculated husbands cheered as they hadn’t since their last 10 step alpha male seminar. Rastafarian, Montana blacks did their best Bob Marley “Get Up, Stand Up” faces, and beaded children of the children of flower children tried their best to imagine that this was the year 1969. Obama began his speech as the great uniter “I know what it takes to bring this country together” he declared to the cheering crowd “The old ways of bitter divisiveness must end and I have a history of working with folks across the aisle to make that happen.”

At that point every Obamaniac in the crowd professed a look that evoked Zellwegeresque memories of Jerry McGuire’s wife bursting into tears with the famously cheesy line of “Shut up, you had me at hello.” Then something rather peculiar happened. Rather than build on the karma of goodwill and lay out the policy for uniting Amerca, the Senator paused, settled himself, and then launched into an anti-Bush, link McCain to Bush, diatribe that would eventually last nearly half of his speech. Give the Obama credit for understanding his crowd, at that point he could have said that he wanted the folks to streak for America and the vast majority in attendance would have aptly stripped their garments and given Billings the full Monty. He did not have to placate to petty notions such as intellectual debate and substance over style. The media had its daily sound byte, the crowd had its cup runneth over, and Obama was already thinking about traveling down the road to the Crow Indian Reservation for his next speech late in the afternoon.

It was somewhere between Obama’s line about McCain running for Bush’s third term and my chuckling at watching Fox News correspondent Major Garret type away on his Blackberry as if he were on his own planet rather than being part of a historical moment (I realize I just revealed the depth of my national political experience) that a thought began to formulate in my mind. I began to have a realization as to the depth of change that we are indeed witnessing within the broader American electorate. No it’s not the change that we can believe in that Obama has been spinning. From government subsidized healthcare, to free college for all veterans, to retreat from Iraq, to handing the big teachers unions the keys to the Federal Reserve Bank, Obama couldn’t be more to the left. The policies that he advocates would make Fredrick Engels gush and Che Guevara fawn but that is neither my point nor my realization.

The thought that occurred to me was that we are witnessing the last throes of the right wing conservative movement. Even the politicians who were elected by the right and tout right wing principles don’t abide by their own philosophy nor practice the restraints in which their doctrines are so firmly rooted. Likewise, the Bush Era has marked an end to the radical tax-and-spend politics of eastern elitist liberalism and the social expansion of the “Great Society” initiatives of the 1960’s such as the welfare state and other social subsidies. To put it frankly society has come to a stale mate. We are stuck in the middle between cut taxes and big spending; peace at any cost, and pre-emptive warfare. What we are seeing right now, the status quo of today, is the result of the social revolution of the 60s/70s counter culture as well as the backlash of the Reagan revolution all put together. This year marks the political culmination of the 20th century being brought to fruition. Put shortly, it is all over folks. The 20th century that is.

What is dawning ahead of us is in my mind a great opportunity for some of the most enduring and substantive bipartisanship that the United States has seen in generations. John McCain, the self proclaimed maverick Senator from Arizona has largely built his long political career on working across the center of the aisle and has alienated large portions of his own party in doing so. McCain openly advocates for the abolition of earmarks into spending bills which would effectively end the era of special interests ruling Washington. He also calls for a return to the federalist principles of state and local rights, which is in the modern sense conservative but hardly right wing since the principle would empower cities and states that choose more socially liberal stances to implement such without outside interference. Heck, the “Big Mac” has even called for a bit of Europeanization of American politics by advocating for congressional question and answer sessions with the President modeled after the British House of Commons. To make things even more interesting, the hot rumor inside the beltway has Senator McCain nominating none other than former Al Gore running mate Joe Lieberman as his own vice presidential candidate.

The dynamic of such a centrist ticket would greatly alter the U.S. political landscape and put a death nail in the era of vehement partisanship and the “Politics of personal destruction.” With a unity ticket would come a strong catalyst for cross party progress and it is almost certain that the gesture of goodwill would inspire politicians from all delegations to come together for real fixes in big problems such as social security, immigration, and private healthcare. The propensity also exists for such a unified moderate front to create a schism within the system that more legitimizes many third party views and empowers those third parties in becoming assimilated within the Democratic and Republican platforms. The candidacy of Ron Paul and consistent 10% draw of Ralph Nader can be used as evidence of an upward pressure for party evolution percolating just below the surface. Perhaps the most telling evidence of transformation lies in the data of recent polls suggesting that 80% of the nation feels that American is on the wrong track. In recent weeks partisan Democrats have been trying to spin this as evidence of the nation’s great dissatisfaction with Bush. That is only half the story. The citizenry is not only fed up with Bush’s lack of cross party communication and perceived policy failures, they are also sick of a partisan gridlocked congress with approval ratings at the lowest levels since polling was invented. We the people are sick of Democrats and Republicans.

The media brouhaha and blatant biased Obama slant has up until now permeated the public perception of Obama as a uniter; like I said we see it in the daily sound bytes. However, being there in person makes the Obama road show much different and while the man is patently wonderful to listen to as an orator, he is also patently left wing and partisan in his inner messages. In the coming weeks the general election campaigns will enter full swing and downward pressure on the numerous media outlets will bring Obama’s partisanship and far left policies into focus. Conversely, a McCain camp with a Joe Lieberman VP candidacy will begin touting real unity and it will become obvious to America where such unity is possible. Obama’s popularity has seen its pinnacle in the pre Reverend Wright days and my guess is that once his record is pressed things will only get tighter for him. Of course anything is possible between now and November and even though enormous progress has been made and troop deaths are way down, Iraq still remains a volatile issue with impact potential. However, what witnessing Obamania first hand has made me realize is that the Obama candidacy is basically the counter culture revolution’s victory lap. The 20th century is over and many of the changes that that generation wanted have been achieved. Here in the 21st century the citizenry is demanding real action; 80% of the citizenry in fact. The answer to those demands is simple for those who are really looking. It is not left nor right but straight forward…..down the middle.

P.H. Rolen is a political analyst and columnist from Billings Montana. He serves as a guest editor for NowPublic.com

Add a comment Comments (31)

PEP
good stuff:

phrolen, I refuse to give this a good stuff flag--but that's all they have. It ain't enough. It's excellent.. Very well written, insightful, and simply opens up a vista from a wide, wide angle on history. Let me rephrase the flag, OK? Flag now says: Holy crap, this is extraordinary! I believe this is the single best piece I've ever read on NP, and yes, that includes my own.

Vinny
good stuff:

Phil, I like this story. It's good stuff.

phrolen

thanks a bunch Vin & PEP. Wow PEP, what can I say? Coming someone of your impeccable credentials such a compliment is means everything. I don't suppose you can make a call and get me syndicated :) LOL. Thanks for the support guys, truely means a lot.

Rachel Nixon
good stuff:

phrolen, this is an excellent commentary, thank you.

phrolen

Thank you very much Rachel!

Rob Peters
good stuff:

I enjoyed reading this. It's a colourful and interesting read from start to finish. Thanks phrolen.

phrolen

Thanks Rob, there was an effort to create this as a somewhat visual piece. I am proud that that came across.

cynthia yoo

Thanks for this piece, but nothing Obama has talked about--subsidized healthcare, college education for soldiers, pro-union policies--are radical.  Actually they're as old as good-old FDR and the forerunner policies were put in place in the 1930's.

phrolen

You are historically correct but as active policies for the government of the United States they are very radical and politically dividing. You are not wrong. please don't misunderstand me... the policies would just never be implemented in the United States... They aren't indicative of the electorate in it's entirety. For example... I am a soldier and well acquainted with education for us, however, "Full subsidization for the most expensive public universities in their state" would be perceived by not only the U.S. public but by many of my fellow soldiers as a radically left wing policy. "Fully fund education and raise teacher pay" is a blank check for teachers unions and doesn't encompass school choice nor teacher accountability and has been attempted over a dozen times in the last 2 decades with the same result, academic achievement has declined. As for subsidized healthcare; a wholly implementable policy in western Europe...for one reason, the U.S. military umbrella. Many of these nations run military budgets well under 1% GDP which allows them to subsidize citizen healthcare. With over 350 million citizens, a large defense budget, and an already huge $163 billion annual budget deficit for fy08 radical would hardly be the word to use in pondering a nationalized healthcare system in the U.S. I appreciate the debate Cynthia and greatly appreciate you for reading.

phrolen

I haven't been told of the new system yet seedplanter but do very much appreciate your high accolades.

BigT
good stuff:

Write-in candidate for President - P.H. Rolen!

phrolen

LMAO!!! Thanks Big T thats a true first for me. Id make you Secretary of Defense.

BigT

It would be an honor to serve for you Mr. President.

PEP

Me! Me! I want Direction of Communications/Media.

phrolen

NO WAY PEP!!!     Secretary of State

PEP

Wow. OK, I'm honored to serve.

First we get you elected to your state legislature, then to Congress. It's do-able, you know. :)


phrolen

Believe it or not PEP....thats the plan for real....got the paperwork for forming my PAC today

eastvanray
good stuff:

phrolen, I like this story. It's good stuff.


 


Very insightfull analysis.  Well thought out and presented.


I would differ on one point though.  That of  "Bush Era has marked an end to the radical tax-and-spend politics of eastern elitist liberalism and the social expansion of the “Great Society” initiatives of the 1960’s" 


I would contend that George W. Bush is one of the most liberal "borrow and spenders" in American history.  And having all but refused to use his veto he has been a failure in so far as any efforts to stop the growth of the size and cost of government.  If mixing church and state make one a conservative in the US then so be it I just hope that brand of conservatism never crosses the border to my home in Canada.

phrolen

I see what you are saying. We in fact do not differ at all, I in fact agree with your assessment of Bush. However as you say he is not a tax and spender but a borrow and spender....Caught right in the middle of the Great Society and the Reagan Revolution. Low taxes..drunken sailor spending

eastvanray

I met Ronald Regan and George Bush is no Ronald Regan.  Bush doesn't understand that being a fiscal conservative means cutting spending along with cutting taxes.  He is a Big Government Republican.

phrolen

ceartainly true

PEP

Finally, my new security system is in. Whew! The first guy they sent yesterday was an all-day clunker.


So tonight they sent me a real professional. As the election returns started coming in, we began talking about Obama. The security guy is  African-American. I'm not.

In essence, we found that we agreed on every single topic we raised. And we both found that we don't believe Obama is electable, and we agreed on all the reasons why. And neither one of us liked seeing the race card played.

Cynthia, I think that Obama is indeed pushing the envelope, and has some radical elements in his campaign--the Rev. Wright and the beliefs of Obama's church, and Obama's ties to a home-grown terrorist whose bombs blinded one young boy. And I think that Obama's ties to Tony Rezko, who's the old school of Chicago dirty politics and "buy what you want" aren't any change at all.

There's a world of difference between emotional rhetoric and, as phrolen points out, the common sense world of what will actually get implemented.

I truly believe that Hillary Clinton actually would implement more liberal policies (and ones with common sense,too) than Obama. And no, I'm not a Clinton supporter.

Obama is radical,but not liberal. And most radicalism is a whole lotta rhetoric. Until something gets blown up.




eastvanray

So you think Obama will get less done?  Given that I can't remember the last time a government did something that made my life better I guess he would be preferable.


 


"The government that governs least, governs best" - Jefferson

PEP

I don't think I said that Obama would get less done, which is a big big big gulp, so to speak. Here's what I said: "I truly believe that Hillary Clinton actually would implement more
liberal policies (and ones with common sense,too) than Obama." That's a more focused perspective.


Although I'm generally dubious of the "we're from the government and we're here to help you" thing, I have to say that actually, many things get done that are government-driven that are good. Really.         ;}

For example, I'm liking some muchly-improved roads around here. We all might value the improved weather forecasting and weather warning systems we get from the hard work of NOAA, NWS, NSSL, NASA, and the satellites up there. To name a couple.





eastvanray

Agreed.  There are some limited valuable things that government can do.  Most of them had been identified over 100 years ago.  I get worried when I hear a politician say they have a NEW way for government to make my life better.


      “I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ``needed'' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests,'' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.” - Barry Goldwater (a great politician and American)

PEP

"I get worried when I hear a politician say they have a NEW way for government to make my life better."


Then you must be very, very, very worried about Obama getting elected.       ;}

politisite
good stuff:

phrolen, I like this story. It's good stuff.

eastvanray

I am not woried for me as I am Canadian and our governments have tried every crazy idea ever to come out of a Berkley-inspired John Maynard Keynes smoke-in of a left wing think tank.  I worry for the US.  Not that Clinton would be much better.  In fact she could be worse only because has contacts and is always willing to grease the machine, she might actually get some of her ideas off the ground.  Someone said that voters get the government they deserve.  After 8 years of Bush I  think Americans deserve a break. 

jeffhollett

If it's ever ok to have a black president, or someone of color, I think now is the best time.

phrolen

Jeff...unlike many Americans I don't believe race is or should be an issue. It is not ok for me any time to view a race through the lenses of color... Just stick to the issues...it's a lot less dogmatic and impractical that way

Sign In or Join Add a comment

Your email is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

May 20, 2008 at 02:53 pm by phrolen, 491 views, 31 comments

is reporting from

closeSign in to NowPublic