Change? Yes plz, but keep the pennies.

Sphere: Related Content

If one word could sum up this campaign season, I don't think anyone would disagree that the word would be 'change'. But what does that really mean? It actually means a lot more to the democrats than the republicans, and actually could have decade reaching implications. To understand change you must understand the recent history of the democratic party and American politics.

The democratic party, like the republican party, brings together various ideologies under its big umbrella. If we lived in a multi-party system, this would be completely un-needed, but by forcing all ideas into pretty much 2 parties (3rd parties throughout modern American History only worked if you had a well known figure running) you get this very result. So, the primary season is really all about which ideology is going to present its front to the public for this campaign season. Now, that is obviously an over-simplification because another important part of American politics is compromise - and that is why you have some seemingly inconsistent positions held by pretty much every candidate. (at least publicly, during the election cycle)

The democratic party lost the south during the Civil rights movement. During the entire Cold-War they had to tread carefully to avoid being conflated with commie bastards. Therefore that shaped its stance as being very pro-war. Remember, Vietnam is a result of Democratic presidents (And Eisenhower to a much lesser extent). JFK had the bay of pigs and handled the Cuban Missile crisis via gunpoint politics. However, the post-LBJ years have definitely been marked by a republican era. (Carter and Clinton were the only democratic presidents)

However, occurring during this same time, the democratic party really tried to re-shape itself from smoke filled rooms and political machines to a more diverse party that represented all groups(partly because of their radically changing base from FDR-LBJ). This is why their primaries/caucuses generally have far more rules and their delegate selection even required quotas for a while. The old party bigwigs didn't cede all power however, and this is why we have super delegates of the democratic party today. The change however, came in half-hearted measures and policies and the American public just simply didn't buy it.

After 30 years of mostly second-rate status and much corruption; Enter Bill Clinton. He promised a new way, and actually created yet another Idealogical group called the New Democrats. However, his new way lent more to his absolutely charismatic way than anything else. His 'moderate' social positions ripped the democratic base apart. His 'neo-liberal' economic policies lacked oversight because of republicans constantly trying to paint democrats as tax and spend. The problem arises because when you don't have a Bill Clinton, his actual actions in office are indistinguishable from a moderate republican, except for a few key areas - which happen to be unpopular with the american public. The New democrats fell lock-step in with the old party bigwigs who still held power from the social progressives, and they sought to move the party in that direction in the past 20 years. So, to recap, the democratic party has tried many different strategies in the past 40 years and they really haven't worked so well. The reason is because 'politicians' and 'politicing' (or making sure their party can gain control over all 3 branches of government) have become more important than actual 'policies'. I'll make another post on how the republicans have out-maneuvered them on this like a Cheetah to a turtle.

Cue Obama.

Obama is not beholden to the Democratic Leadership Council (The New democrats that have dominated since Clinton as discussed earlier, and have only gotten more corrupt) and all of its terrible policies. In fact, He isn't beholden to anyone, taking only small donations. He actually talks social change, something that has been left to rot since the Civil rights movement. Remember, Bill Clinton is the one who passed the Defensive Marriage Act, for example. The democratic interests however, are represented by Hillary Clinton. She is the quintessential politician. One could even call her a future Reagan or LBJ. The old democratic interests combined with her chicanery and political ingeniousness is also the reason that Hillary is still in the race. Old habits die hard, and so do political interests.

The era of political haggling that produces terrible legislation which is only meant to give momentum to the next election cycle could come to an end. Winston Churchill's prophetic words of the 20th century still apply to today, which shows just how permanent of a problem this has been:

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.

Consequences the world 70 years ago solved with the very half measures he was talking about. The next 40 years could be dominated by social progressivism and government policies that focus on oversight as much as what the policy is trying to seek. The 'bite' of passed legislation therefore won't be softened by political interests. Obama, unlike very many previous democrats, isn't a 'socialist' or anything close to it. His economic policies are actually fairly moderate for a democrat. However they focus on people, rather than political lobbies, and that is where he differs from almost every other candidate of the past half-century - and the 'New Democrats' who said they sought that very thing. His social policies also speak to a time again of moving forward, instead of the recent talk of moving backwards.

Watch the race. Watch what Obama is saying. Watch how Obama begins to articulate his general election policies. Watch how the media reacts. Watch how other democrats react. This election could be the most important election of this next half century. Of course, Obama could very much not live up and could turn out to be a Carter all over again.