Is Meaningful Change In Washington A Pipe Dream
I campaigned and voted for Barack Obama for president and am satisfied he's performing in that role as well or better than any alternative from either party. Nevertheless, because of politics his actual accomplishments have not been as substantive as I, and others who voted for change, had hoped. I lay most of the blame on the legislative branch of government and am resigned to the belief that body will continue to hinder meaningful change and progress throughout his term of office.
The economy, perceived financial favoritism and the perception Washington is doing little to improve the situation is probably the major reason Obama's approval ratings have fallen. The country sees in the nation's capital a legislative body beholden to lobbyists and that favors financial and other interests. There's great resentment about the financial favoritism shown to banks and special interests that's been compounded by the cavalier manner in which many recipients have operated since receipt of public funds. I suspect the single publicity feat any administration could foster would be to take punitive measures against the "too-big-to-fail" and other "big bonus" institutions. Breaking up at least one bank into one of more smaller units, confiscatory taxes against huge bonuses and stock options, and incessant hounding of senior management in those institutions would probably all sit well with the general public. It may well be the time for substantive political populism is at hand and a political party that wholeheartedly adopts that approach could be the one that rises to the top in voter opinion rankings. A significant GOP win in 2010 could serve to make determined populism the only hope for Democrats to hold onto their governing position in 2012.
If Obama proves to be a single term president, and that's a distinct possibility, I would also expect his successor to be one, as well. The nation's dissatisfaction with Washington has been growing and the cause of the discontent is not one the public can easily rectify. It's possible to turn out a President in a national election, but it's not possible for the nation to replace the Senate or the House. Those incumbents are elected on a regional basis and too often constituents believe their representatives are the "good guys" and it's the others who are problems. A discontented national electorate, sick and tired of Washington lobbyists and bought-and-paid-for legislators safe from replacement, may continue to blame the White House incumbent and vent their unhappiness by replacing him or her. However, since they can't change the legislative branch, there's not much chance they'll achieve a goal of meaningful change. Obama could be the first in an age of single term presidents.
Is it time to reconsider our form of elective government and switch to another system? Are there other ways for an aroused electorate to really bring about change in the current system? If the Senate and House can't be turned out en masse, is there any reason to believe meaningful change will ever be possible?
Bond Shands
Palm Springs
The economy, perceived financial favoritism and the perception Washington is doing little to improve the situation is probably the major reason Obama's approval ratings have fallen. The country sees in the nation's capital a legislative body beholden to lobbyists and that favors financial and other interests. There's great resentment about the financial favoritism shown to banks and special interests that's been compounded by the cavalier manner in which many recipients have operated since receipt of public funds. I suspect the single publicity feat any administration could foster would be to take punitive measures against the "too-big-to-fail" and other "big bonus" institutions. Breaking up at least one bank into one of more smaller units, confiscatory taxes against huge bonuses and stock options, and incessant hounding of senior management in those institutions would probably all sit well with the general public. It may well be the time for substantive political populism is at hand and a political party that wholeheartedly adopts that approach could be the one that rises to the top in voter opinion rankings. A significant GOP win in 2010 could serve to make determined populism the only hope for Democrats to hold onto their governing position in 2012.
If Obama proves to be a single term president, and that's a distinct possibility, I would also expect his successor to be one, as well. The nation's dissatisfaction with Washington has been growing and the cause of the discontent is not one the public can easily rectify. It's possible to turn out a President in a national election, but it's not possible for the nation to replace the Senate or the House. Those incumbents are elected on a regional basis and too often constituents believe their representatives are the "good guys" and it's the others who are problems. A discontented national electorate, sick and tired of Washington lobbyists and bought-and-paid-for legislators safe from replacement, may continue to blame the White House incumbent and vent their unhappiness by replacing him or her. However, since they can't change the legislative branch, there's not much chance they'll achieve a goal of meaningful change. Obama could be the first in an age of single term presidents.
Is it time to reconsider our form of elective government and switch to another system? Are there other ways for an aroused electorate to really bring about change in the current system? If the Senate and House can't be turned out en masse, is there any reason to believe meaningful change will ever be possible?
Bond Shands
Palm Springs
A copy of this blog has been posted on MyDesert.com
Comments