 |
|
Add to My Group
|
November 6, 2008 at 11:28:24
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 11/6/08: by Anthony Wade Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
November 5, 2008 America awakened this morning to a new dawn for our republic. The politics of division and hate were soundly rejected. The politics of fear and loathing were loudly repudiated. The nightmare that was the Neo-Con vision for America has ended with an eruption of decency and civility. Crowds gathered together to weep and rejoice that things may have turned a corner for this country with the election of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States of America. That title implies what has been sorely missing for the past decade as the warped manipulations of Karl Rove were allowed to run roughshod over the nation. We have been anything but united. We have in fact been the Divided States of America. We have allowed ourselves to be defined by forces who sought to only further drive wedges between us as a people. We were color coded for our convenience – red or blue; take a stand. We were labeled for ease of recognition – conservative or liberal/republican or democrat; pick a side. We were given a direction to lean toward – right or left; identify who you are. The object was of course to divide. To provide everyone with someone to blame. The other guy – the other side. As long as we were busy finding someone else to blame for our lot in life, we never would remember that we are all Americans. We are not supposed to be either red or blue; we were supposed to be red white and blue. The politics of hate and division worked masterfully though and there we were last night; peeking out from under the covers of a lost decade devoted to everything that can be wrong with humanity. When the nation was called for Barack Obama I could almost hear a nation exhale and hope once more. That is not to say that Obama is the panacea for all that ails us. But he ran a campaign based upon hope and not fear. He ran against a derisive and corrosive opponent, who only regained his humanity in his concession speech last night. John McCain is a perfect example of what the politics of hate can do to someone. At least in defeat, he remembered who he really was and sent forth a rallying cry to America to stand with President-Elect Obama. For that he deserves credit. But back to Obama – it is not fair to assume that he will solve it all. What made last night special was that America woke up from the fear coma the Bush Administration placed her in after 9-11. A man ran for president with a primarily positive message about representing all Americans. Not trying to divide us against each other. Not embracing the Neo-Con vision of divisive politics which has nearly ruined us for so long now. THAT is where the hope is. That our discourse can truly return to some form of civility again and that we can work together for the common good of all Americans, not just those that have the same label as us.
I say this because now it falls to the progressive movement to redefine itself. I have seen and read some things today already that give me pause. “We” did not win last night; America did. We must be very careful that we do not now become what we abhor. The idea was not to replace one bad ideological regime with another. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The problem the past eight years was not the Republican Party. It was that they had no checks and balances in a system designed to survive on them. Once the GOP controlled congress abdicated their constitutional duty to provide oversight and balance to the Executive Branch – that is where we lost our way. When party became more important than country. Here is the bad news folks. Corruption exists in all parties. If you do not think it can happen on the “left”; then you are sorely delusional. The progressive movement in America needs to divorce itself from the labels and directions used to divide us against each other or we will simply become part of what we hate. The radical left in this country is no better than the radical right. The majority of America is somewhere in the middle. It is somewhat moderate.
Our vision must an inclusive one. A large part of the problem with the hard right ideologues is their complete and utter disdain for anyone with a differing opinion. We have to be bigger than that; better than that. The framework of this progressive vision must be based simply upon the truth. Not opinions and ideologies. The starting platform should be:
1) Massive election reform starting with repealing HAVA, declaring Election Day a national holiday, open source codes, transparency in all data and the restoration of exit polling. We cannot move forward of there is no trust in our elections.
2) Ending the era of massive deregulation disguised as “getting government out of our business.” Starting with the media, financial and housing markets. We cannot move forward if we cannot trust what is reported.
3) Ending the Unitary Executive power grab and restoring the checks and balances to this country. This means ending signing statements and prosecuting any violations of law by previous administrations.
4) Restoring the Constitution. This means repealing the horrific Patriot Acts and all other legislation designed to oppress our civil liberties. This also includes closing Gitmo and ending torture as national policy. It means ending the wars of aggression against countries that never attacked us as well as the Bush Doctrine of bombing countries at random.
5) Getting money out of Washington. I know this might be more difficult, but the lobbying situation means that our elected officials are bought and sold every day in front of our eyes and it needs to stop.
I am more than willing to have a debate about more planks to the platform. Education and healthcare are obviously important. I am merely suggesting these as a starting point. The true point of the article is for the foundation to be set not on the same divisive political schemata we have seen employed for the past decade. We must be bigger than that if we are to truly progress. Yelling and pointing fingers is not progressive. Blaming others is not progressive. They are the very things we have railed against for so long now and it is my sincere hope that we can learn from. Learn what we do not wish to emulate. It is time for the progressive movement to stay in the middle of America and take in all opinions from both sides in a concerted effort to find common ground to march this country forward to better times and a more prosperous future. Let the radicals on the left and right yell and scream at each other about how they both are destroying the fabric of society. There is too much work to be done to be bothered with such distractions.
That goes for the whining and crying crowd too. I have seen them all out in force today, claiming Obama is a secret skull and bonesman and just part of the Rockefellers or Trilaterals, or whatever else can undermine the new president before he even steps into office. Enough already! These were the same yahoos who were infecting article threads for the past six months trying to convince everyone not to bother voting because the election had already been stolen for McCain…oops. If all you have to add is a raving conspiracy theory wrapped around belligerence, please take it somewhere else. Adults are now talking. I like a good conspiracy as much as the next guy but cant we wait until he is sworn in before we make such ludicrous statements like Obama is just like Bush? If you do not have a viable solution then save the complaints. We have had eight years of complaints without solutions and it contributed to what we were fighting against. You are part of the problem.
To me, a progressive is forward moving and thinking. Progressives do not embrace the politics of hate and division. We need to rise above the rancor and revulsion of Rovian politics. Yesterday the America people rejected it. We need to take heed of that or it will be us at the end of the next revolution. In vogue is only one mistake away from being obsolete. We can excuse ourselves for fighting fire with fire during the Bush years but for now a new dawn has arrived in America and we need to rise with it. We need to lead the way out of the pit of fear and loathing. We need to extend a hand to those who we may not have liked very much and show them that they have a place in America as well. We all do. As Barack was fond of saying, we are not a red America and a blue America; we are the United States of America. For too long now those states have been divided by bitterness and a concerted effort to pit one against another. For too long now we have stumbled around in the darkness of a decade devoid of vision, with a boogeyman around every corner to keep us in line. A philosophy that said that the illusion of security was worth the sacrifice of liberty. Yesterday America rejected that – thank God almighty. Now it is time to map the way forward. We can either be a part of the problems we have fought against for so long or we can be the light – showing the way out at the dawn of a new America.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 20 comments |
|
Good and sensible Anthony
Quite frankly, I was disturbed when I started reading a day after this historical event, the nay sayers and the foolish, trying to spoil my moment but then I remembered "they, like flies", will always be there to iritate me. They use worn out language, sometimes just being cute, other times being mean spirited, but most of all wanting attention. Their arguments are faulty, as if still demanding the earth is flat. Then I remember the pictures from Grant Park, Time Square, Europe, Asia, and even 20 smiling scientist in Ant Artic. I remember awaking the next morning and my wife was smiling at me and said, "was it a dream". The battle is not over and I am sure we will be disapointed at times but it is my belief that this is a good man, who speaks from the heart and that is where I will stand. by virginius "gin" arnold (18 articles, 7 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 516 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:02:58 PM  (0+)
|
|
The path through the darkness, what if?
Several months ago I viewed a screening of the 10 questions for the Dalai Lama, I remember commenting, if the Chinese had never invaded Tibet, and the Dalai Lama never left Lhasa, the world may have never heard his words of hope and clarity. I have long been frustrated about the perceivable evils and injustice of the Bush regime, On the morning after the Barack Obama Presidential election victory. I pondered, What if there wasn't a stolen 2000 election, and what if Bush never lied our country into war or what if George W acted more presidential giving a timely responsible to poor people drowning in New Orleans? by ChrisIXXIVeritas (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 33 comments) on Thursday, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:45:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Nice Chris
Having been to Nepal and being with all His Holiness's people, he is such a striking person and in some ways, I see the same in Barack Obama. "Love, forgiveness, compassion, and self-dicipline", what words to live by. by virginius "gin" arnold (18 articles, 7 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 516 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:21:05 PM (0+)
|
|
Define "radical left", please
I found the article to be mostly positive, but since I can not recall our government or politicians EVER being composed of "radical left" Americans, I will need the author to define exactly what he means when he labels "dangerous" something I have never seen in my 53 years as an American. Please define "radical left". Certainly, I can point to numerous politicians of both parties as "radical Right", and demonstrably dangerous and nutty. I can't think of ONE I would label "Radical Left", though. Not one. by David Hastings (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 116 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 6, 2008 at 5:13:44 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Two Words
It is a shame that out of an article this long, you would only focus on two words but ok, I am saying that any extreme is dangerous. Any extreme seeks to continue to politics of divisiveness we have seen. I know the teptation will be there to want to take the power and give back what we have received for the past eight years and if that is the tactic taken, it is not progressive and will end up with the other side taking power again. I would prefer that we focus on stopping the sides altogether by reaching out to the moderates on both sides and let the extremists, be the only ones shouting. The fact that the gay marriage amendment passed in California should give everyone pause to realize that as much as this is not a Neo-Con country, it is not a Neo-Liberal country either. The focus of progressivism should not be to take up the charge of extreme liberalism - it will not work. We need to seek common ground in a politics of cooperation, not division. Be well. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 6, 2008 at 7:01:40 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: RADICAL LEFT
This is an excellent article and full of well-reasoned advice. However, there is no such thing as a radical right, and Mr. Wade misunderstands the meaning of the words,"radical left." The word "radical" means getting to the root of, that is, finding the fundamental cause of a problem. Rightists do not attempt to do this because they define the problem in terms how best to continue the perpetuation of unhindered market capitalism. This is reactionary, not radical. Social economic institutions all over the world are evolving into some form of socialist structures. This has been long seen in most of the Western European cultures, and now is playing out in Latin America too. Radical leftists are merely leftists that know that Marx wrote that socialism was not a choice, but the inevitable result of the evolution of capitalism. They will seldom do anything to upset the applecart so long as the government in power is taking positive steps toward providing for all of the people of the nation. Their "radicalism" stems not from their actions, but from their analysis of the root cause of suffering in the world. Where capitalism declares war on its own people, radical leftists fight back. Where capitalism is evolving peaceably into socialism on its own, radical leftists join with any ally in pushing progressive legislation, and often make the best polemicists for the cause. Mr. Wade, I think you are confusing the people that want to rain on the parade with the radical left. Anyone from the radical left has to be hopeful right now that a new era of peace and social change benefiting the great mass of Americans is at hand. by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:52:17 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: well
Perhaps it would be less confusing if i said "extreme" as opposed to radical? I do not want the overall message lost in the minutia. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:43:46 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: neo-liberal
Do you mean to say that what happened in California should lead us to follow them? To allow their predudice inflamed voting due to the mass fear tactics and lies televised and funded 50-70% by the Mormon church which overturned equality of marriage in the California constitution as judged by the California Supreme Court(equal rights for all-except the gays) to lead us to do the same? A vote by the people if called after the judicial decisions of racial or women's issues would never be considered. Why are we allowing a majority to vote on the profoundly unalienable rights of a minority after a supreme court ruling in this case? Yes we need to all come together for the greater good, and I posit that the religious opinion of some about the unalienable rights of others does not belong amending the core constitutional equality of the constitution or you may be suprised at the next group to have to spend $45 million dollars educating the public in preparation for a polular vote that the opposition runs mostly in the churches away from public view. The old "First they came for..... and I did nothing because I was not a ..... . Please explain how I came to be so extreme as to be left behind to the Right for just wanting to not have to discuss my papers (versus marriage right this way please) at the times we are must vulnerable. (as example---when some one is dying, or has died --a marriage carries one experience and these are my papers carries a 50/50 coin toss as to in you are treated to someone's load of prejudice and treated as subhuman with NO legal recoarse. A person's opinion of me is not my concern, being vulnerable to someone's self justified prejudice is. Are you suggesting that the RR assault on me is justified and my daily stepping out of the box they make for me and asking you and everyone to open their humanity to see me, is "neo-liberal" and part of the problem? by Susan Lee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:18:17 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: sorry
Your posting is very confusing. I cannot figure out what you are actually asking me. I referenced the California vote as proof that the country is NOT Neo-liberal anymore than it is Neo-Conservative. That is not disputable, it just happened. If you wish to argue whether or not it should have been voted on or not has nothing to do with what the vote was. If you want to complian that certain sources funded the anti-campaign that also does nto change what the vote was and thus the point i was making. If you want to have a separate debate about the merits of same-sex marriage it would seem this thread is not the place. Do an article about it and i will be happy to have that debate. There are problems inherently involved with allowing same-sex marriage that have nothing to do with "prejudice". Be well. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 12:48:00 AM (0+)
|
|
NO THANK YOU
I agree that progressives should try to find common ground to present a more unified vision for changing our national priorities, but I do not agree with your feeble comparison of the radical Right and what you perceive to be the radical Left. You state: "It is time for the progressive movement to stay in the middle of America and take in all opinions from both sides in a concerted effort to find common ground to march this country forward to better times and a more prosperous future." Although I agree with many of your priorities, your call for a scramble to the middle of the road is not very progressive. Pat Buchanon is also advising President-elect Obama to govern from the political Center, and I know you do not share his political beliefs, but you are both spouting similarly nonsensical rhetoric. by Blaine Kinsey (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 181 comments [80 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:36:13 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Sigh - more attacks
I had an entire response ready but I have decided to not bother with people like you anymore. You clearly have some kind of an axe to grind. You take what was a hopeful piece, designed to map out the future and turn it into "condescending", "feeble", and then attack me on "leading" and "anointing" Everyone can see those arguments are silly on their face. As silly as quoting an article of mine from 11 months ago - ignoring the plethora i have done since then, and erroneously claim that I am "bandwagon jumping" when I have written about Obama for the past six months. You have proven my point and I thank you. Don't worry about my credentials. I am sure your ten articles since February far outweigh the hundreds I have done since this site started. Be well, but please, try to be more substantive and less transparent in your agenda next time. Maybe people will take you more seriously then. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:14:57 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: ANTHONY
I thought your article was excellent and only mentioned the "radical left" distinction as a political scientist because these words are terms of art. Please do not take it as criticism in any way. As progressives, we must use words with a common sense of what they mean. The best way to do that is to give them the meaning ascribed to them by political scientists. If I offended in any way, please forgive. by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:01:50 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: No
I was speaking to the other guy. I responded to you. You are correct, perhaps i used the wrong term and should have went with "extreme" as opposed to radical. Point taken. I think any extreme ideology will not work. It will be divisive by nature and will only force people away from what you are trying to do, other than the fringe. This is not a fringe country, on either side. Thanks for your comments, they were helpful. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:19:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: YOU CONFUSE YOURSELF
You can stop sighing about my attacks because your response is all about childish attacks on me rather than an attempt to address the banality of your muddled vision for change. If you cannot reach common ground with people like me, and we actually do share some common ground, you cannot be taken seriously. By claiming that my arguments are silly on their face, you have proven my point that your arrogance belies your professed appeal for compromise. You then further condescend by sarcastically exclaiming that my ten articles far outweigh the hundreds of articles that you have written for OpEdNews. Perhaps you are right; perhaps my articles outweigh your articles because your opinions are so much hot air. by Blaine Kinsey (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 181 comments [80 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:45:15 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thanks for saying that
I also get tired of all the childish comments. They have little weight and are many times "copy and paste" ideas they have heard elsewhere. If you will notice, many are from people who do not id themselves and publish no articles. Let us ignore. by virginius "gin" arnold (18 articles, 7 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 516 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:37:24 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: THANK YOU FOR THE MISINFORMATION
You state that you get tired of all the childish comments, but you defend Mr. Wade's childish comments by misrepresenting my comments. I doubt that you have read any of my articles, but that did not stop you from making misleading comments about people who publish no articles. If you disagree with me, that is fine, but contrary to your erroneous allegation, I did not borrow my comments from anybody, and a quick check of the tally sheet shows that I have been less profligate with my comments than you have. You are also entitled to ignore me, but if you choose to scold me, you should be more honest and more direct about it. by Blaine Kinsey (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 181 comments [80 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 11:33:05 AM (0+)
|
|
Blaine
When you come into my thread like a petulant little child, making inane accusations and silly comparisons, you get treated as such. There is no common ground with someone who clearly does not seek it. You are one of the extremes i wrote about in this piece and i thank you again for showing everyone what I meant. For clarification - the argument that I was bandwagon jumping was silly. You used an article from 11 months ago, ignoring the 20 i had done over the last six months for Obama. It was transpartent in it's silliness. The point about the article disparity is that YOU were mocking my credentials, when you have all of ten articles to your credit. You were mocking my ability to provide a voice for progressiveism when I have been writing here from the beginning and you have been here since February. These remain valid points. Thanks again for proving the point of my article. I do appreciate it. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:24:36 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: ENJOY YOUR SELF-IDOLATRY
Maybe I was too harsh on you, but your childish response to my criticism shows that you were eager to engage at that level rather than to acknowledge any deficiency in your opinions. I am not seeking common ground with you because I am not prepared to worship you, but you pretended to be seeking common ground in your article. You stated: "Our vision must an inclusive one. A large part of the problem with the hard right ideologues is their complete and utter disdain for anyone with a differing opinion. We have to be bigger than that; better than that." Apparently you cannot bring yourself to be bigger and better than that. by Blaine Kinsey (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 181 comments [80 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 6:59:01 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Blaine Blaine
Look, if you came into the thread for a serious debate then you would have asked your questions, or disagreed reasonably and not attacked me left and right. You continue to do so, now calling what i write, "sludge." Take a look in the mirror and realize that the problem starts with you. I seek no one to worhsip me or wash my feet. You just continue to dig yourself in deeper because you cannot bear the thought that maybe you came in here too strongly. My response was VERY tempered. You can ask Rob how my responses used to be with people like you. And what I mean by that are people who say things and then blame other people for pointing out what you said. YOU mocked my credentials. I could care less what reason you make up after I point out the lunacy of your accusations. YOU did not seek a debate, you sought to deride me and try to insult me. Keep responding Blaine. You only continue to make yourself look foolish. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 12:53:35 AM (0+)
|
|
YOU ARE HALF-RIGHT, ANTHONY ANTHONY
I should have been more diplomatic, but I did you a favor by giving you an avenue to distract from the contradictions within your article. I will accept that your responses were the best that could be expected from you. You probably lack the humility to admit it, but these exchanges have made us both look foolish, and if you should choose to respond, this time I will turn the other cheek and let you have the last word. by Blaine Kinsey (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 181 comments [80 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 9:34:08 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
