It was not.
You might at this point accuse me of forming a "circular firing squad," or perhaps paint me as an idealist preferring "the perfect" ahead of "the good." I'm not saying that there would be no difference between the Obama administrations and a McCain or a Romney administration. I am saying that Obama's election was not the result of a revolutionary moment. Mr. Obama, like Mr. Clinton, embraced the third way, and continued the overall trajectory of Reaganism.
Mr. Obama has made progress around the edges, but has largely kept the status-quo intact. Mr. Obama continued the bailout of the banking interests that plunged the world into recession. Only a single banker was sent to jail. Like his Democratic predecessor, Mr. Obama has doggedly pursued neoliberal trade policies that hurt workers. He attempted to dismantle Social Security. The key "achievement" of the Obama administration has been the Affordable Care Act, which is another third-way solution in the same vein as Medicare Part D.
Much like Medicare Part D, the ACA does actually help many people. It also harms others who are compelled to purchase for-profit insurance programs that don't meet their needs. High deductibles and extremely narrow networks ensure profits for the industry and bestow actual benefits for some and not others. The ACA is a classic third-way program that puts business interests first while attempting to make a positive change. Only in the shadow of Reaganism could a Democratic president enact a program, designed by a conservative think tank that forces people to participate in a privatized market that ought to be socialized, that is hailed as the greatest liberal accomplishment since medicare.
The dismantling of the progress made by the revolution of 1932 is a bipartisan activity in the shadow of Reaganism.
My goal is not to be overly critical of Mr. Clinton or Mr. Obama. Their presidencies are the products of their times. I don't believe that presidents shape history as much as they emerge from it. I also don't believe that revolutionary moments are single instances of time, but rather growing shifts in the consciousness of a society. It's only the effect that appears as a distinct event.
There are signs that we may be moving towards the next revolutionary moment.
The black community is rising up against injustice, in spite of the government's attempt to stop them with violence. This threatens the status-quo.
After years of protests that have also been violently suppressed, there is now widespread opposition to neoliberal trade policies.
As a nation, we accepted the creeping surveillance state that followed 9/11, but after the revelations of Edward Snowden, people are demanding an end to domestic spying.
Support for gay rights in the United States has grown so quickly that even a nakedly partisan Supreme Court could not deny public sentiment.
Growing support for ending the prohibition of marijuana is indicative of a larger rejection of the failed War on Drugs that targets minorities and the poor.
Occupy Wall Street was violently suppressed. It is still criticized for failing to effect change or to morph into an electoral movement, but I believe this perspective ignores its accomplishments. Before OWS, the political conversation was about how much austerity to impose on the working people of the United States. After the protests, the conversation was about inequality.
I don't believe in perfect candidates. I don't believe that presidents change the nation. Candidates emerge from the consciousness of the time, and their accomplishments are bound by the spirit of the times. There has been a lot of debate here about the relative merits of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton ahead of the next election. Neither one is a savior. I think a more interesting question is, which candidacy is the product of this moment in time?
Mrs. Clinton in my estimation, is a creature of the establishment, cut from the same third-way cloth as Mr. Obama and Mr. Clinton. This is not to say that she would be a poor president nor that she would be indistinct from a Republican administration. Simply, Mrs. Clinton is the candidate of the Democratic establishment, the same establishment that has championed third-way policies that have protected the banks and the existing power structure. Some Democrats at local levels and in the Congress have achieved progress within this structure, but Democratic policies at the presidential level echo the values of the DNC.
Mr. Sanders is miscast by the media as an insurgent candidate attacking Mrs. Clinton from the Democratic Party's left flank. Closer to the truth is Anthony Weiner's ill received critique of Mr. Sanders presence in the Democratic Primary:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
