Event: Election Post-Mortem.

I couldn't post yesterday; I was just too exhausted. I won't post tomorrow either; I need at least a brief break. On election night we hosted a breakfast-at-dinnertime party while the results came in, drank orange juice and ate sausage and potatoes. A loud sound went up at Pennsylvania, then Ohio, and then, when Obama passed 270, everyone freaked out. It was like crowds at the Super Bowl or Lollapalooza, only bigger and better. The champagne flowed and we all went out into the streets, and the news was all about people running into the streets.

* * * * *

Yesterday I was nursing a hangover all day long, but by evening I felt better. I met up with some friends at Metropolis, and we all took a walk. Just to take a walk. To enjoy the unexpected late fine weather and to muse on just how big and momentous this week has been.

So this, then, is my election post-mortem.

It is good that Obama won the election so decisively. Already, this one move has served to bolster our status in the world. The breadth of Obama's support has opened up states that have not been in play to Democrats in decades. The Great Lakes region was united behind a presidential candidate for the first time since 1972. The press has been quick to point out the significance of this election as a civil rights victory; they are right to do so. We should not forget that it is also a victory for Democrats, who have been resurgent since 2006, for the Left, which will (presumably) be better represented by Obama than by it would have been by Hillary Clinton, and most importantly, as an emphatic refutation of Bush-era policies of division and marginalization.
And yet... concessions are already being made and it would seem that there is little time to rest on our laurels.

It is also good that the Democrats picked up seats in congress; it would have been better if they had picked up a supermajority. I've commented to a few people in the last several days that whenever one party achieves dominance, things start to go south for them pretty quickly, and I suspect it's because interal rigor and discipline become a liability in a rush to fast action. I believe this argument, and yet it is meant to be a qualification of, not a dissent from, victory as a unilateral Democratic majority.
In the first place, the U.S. is too sheltered from the effects we have on our neighbors and the world at large. There is a pendulum in U.S. politics, but it's motion is strictly determined by a relative understanding of what is "liberal" and what is "conservative." It is fine to consider these differences meaningful, but we needn't consider them objective. While I don't believe the U.S. is definitionally a center-right nation, it functionally is at this time. Our policy needs to move to the left in general to accomodate crises that can only be addressed through action that is both democratically and collectively determined.
In the second place, the horrific damage rendered under the Bush administration, propogated by Republicans and sometime abetted by Democrats in congress over the last 14 years, and often upheld by an inconsistent judiciary, are huge in magnitude and can must be addressed by broad and sweeping executive and legislative action. Given the abysmal performance of our congressional Democratic leaders (we're all thinking of Reid and Pelosi), we need a sufficient "vote cusion" to make action possible. In our current crises, action is necessary, and therefore, Democrats and Independents should hope to see more Democrats in office.
In the third place: The Republican Party of the 2000s is much like the Democratic Party of the 1850s: it is broken. While it still stands upright, it only wreaks damage on itself and those it represents. Today's Republican Party represents not a free market but a fanged market; it represents not American patriotism but American nationalism. The riven Democratic party of the 1800s recovered, and I believe that the Republicans will as well. But first they have to be broken. They have to reconstitute themselves along their original premise of individual liberties upheld at the expense of collective prerogative, of a correspondent expectation of individual sacrifice, and of a government that tries to excise unnecessary intervention. That Republican party, a party recognizeable to Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Barry Goldwater, can contribute to our political landscape. But this Republican party, hateful, angry, alienating, divisive, invasive, unscrupulous, and increasingly regional: it is walking around broken. It is wounded and wounding, and as such, this broken party needs to be further broken. It needs to be crushed. Only then can it recover.
Now the Democrats didn't get a supermajority, but they picked up enough support to pursue an agressive progressive agenda with executive support. I do hope they use that strength with rigor and discipline. But make no mistakes: I hope that they sustain and increase it, and above all else, use it.

Finally, it is good that some good ballot amendments passed: I'm thinking most fondly on Michigan's Proposal 2, which allows research on embryonic stem cells, and California approved a bullet train, which is pretty cool, and which may in the long run offset the two other environmental proposals the state rejected. Sadly, the success of Proposition 8 in Califoria would seem to trump many progresses made around the country, as it revoked marriage rights in one of only two states where gays and lesbians can truly enjoy marriage equality. Beneath the hubbub over California, similar amendments passed in Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida. And yet... amid all this... the challenges have begun, and they are built upon firm constitutional ground.

* * * * *

It is deceptive of the graveness of our times to pretend that this election was an unmitigated vitory; in fact there is more to worry about now than ever. It is equally deceptive to underestimate the genuine power, the profound importance of what was declared last Tuesday; as Tom Brokaw said on election night, "just over 150 years ago, Mr. Obama could have been owned, as a black man." The emphasis is mine, but the emphasis is what gives this often unspoken statement its force. I think that Clay Bennett said it even better.

To fall back on a common declaration these days, yes, we can. Yes, we did. Yes, we will.

Be delirious.

Be deliriously happy.

Take a day, a week, a month to feel this happiness, and as you do, use that energy to infect and infest your labor and your conversation.

We just lived through a big thing and it was good ...

and ...

... it has foreshadowed some of the hardest work our nation will ever have to do.

END OF POST.

Event: What Is Socialism? Is Obama a Socialist?

If this issue is going to be brought up in debate and discussion, we owe it to each other to confront the issue up front. College profs have a tendency to make it complicated, but as for the disputes dominating the news today, the discussion needn't be particularly complicated.

I write this as a socialist, who votes center Democrat 90% of the time, and makes occasional "fringe" comments that diminish my popularity. I consider myself a socialist because I believe that the socialist premise is correct and will ultimately lead the most stable, sane, humane, and productive society. I vote Democrat because of the two major parties their goals are closer to compatible with mine. The socialist premise demands popular support, and that this is a long-term game; one that requires generations on generations of social and cultural evolution, and I believe that compromise and consensus are the only valid means of achieving this goal, even if it comes after many tiny steps and innumerable setbacks. (I wonder if that would make me a Toynbee Socialist).

I strongly support Obama.

However, I will say this emphatically: he does not buy the socialist premise. He is not a socialist, nor a marxist, nor a communist, nor a social democrat. It is only reasonable to call someone an "-ist" or associate them with an "-ism" if 1) those terms mean something and 2) the person in question behaves accordingly.

Fortunately, these terms all mean something, and that something can be succinctly distilled.

Karl Marx was a German scholar (historian, economist, and philosopher) whose career spanned the second half of the 19th century. His argument, expounded in collaboration with Friedrich Engels, argued that history is a series of class struggles over control of the means of production. Capitalism, he argues, that is, our system of selling and trading, is based on fundamental inequality of resources that can only compound over time. Eventually the extremity of inequality will become so aggrivated that the disadvantaged masses will rise up and assume control, bringing about a classless state in which material resources are collectively owned. This is, in a nutshell, what Marx and Engels argue, and "marxism" is a term connoting a basic agreement with this premise.

"Communism" is a more-or-less direct offshoot of Marxism. It generally involves an revolutionary interpretation of Marxism developed by Vladimir Lenin prior to the Russian Revolution. Communism goes beyond predicting a revolution and outlines a specifically military answer to bring about the end of class warfare. Ironically, because communism empowers a military elite, the Soviet-style communist states of the later 20th century all involved a ruling elite with repressive controls over the press, education, the military, and so forth. This can also be said of non-Soviet style communist states such as Cuba or the People's Republic of China. They all have dismal economies and even dismaller human rights records, which is part of the reason why the Right likes to associate Democrats with Communists. Communism is not the same as Socialism, and as I said before, Obama is neither a Communist nor a Socialist.

"Socialism" predates Marxism as a social philosophy, but was heavily influenced by his writing (Marx drew on earlier examples of Socialist states, and his influence promoted the ideal of socialism internationally). In its simplest form, Socialism is a philosophy advocating collective ownership. It need not predicate itself on a fundamental premise of class warfare, and it certainly not resort to violent revolution. A number of modern nations have attempted socialism to varying degrees and with mixed-success. Socialist states in Latin America have a spotty record, although there appears to be a trend toward stability over time. Scandinavian states approach socialism with more unambiguous success, which is reflected in high taxes, low income inequality, and extraordinarily high standards-of-living.

"Social Democracy" is hybrid of Socialism and Capitalism, although in its theory it cleaves somewhat closer to Capitalism. Private enterprise is sanctioned and legally protected, but institutions deemed too important to the national well-being (such as health-care) or too powerful and influential to operate on their own (in many nations, banking systems) are either managed or heavily regulated by the government. When we think of Social Democracies the most emblematic examples are wealthy and progressive Western European states like France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. They have assertive economies dominated by some big players, but they also allow a much higher level of government intervention than we do in the U.S. But...

... here's the rub ...

... from a certain, and very fair, perspective all governments are, definitionally socialist to some extent. To socialize something is to compel collective ownership via a vis the government. The United States has a socialized postal service (though this is rarely controversial), socialized public education, and a socialized military. At times, prominent politicians (typically Republicans) argue to socialize military service: that's right, folks, the draft is socialism! This is why so many progressives roll their eyes at McCain's charge that Obama is a socialist: the recent take over of financial institutions by the White House is one of the most strident socialist acts in American history, and it was initiated and executed by Republicans!

* * * * *

In sum, capitalists argue that the latent potential in and initiative encouraged by markets trump the potential benefits of socialization. Socialists argue in response that the inequities of market systems will always poliferate, creating a society that is inherently unbalanced, unstable, and injust.

This is my attempt to overview the differences between the two philosophies in a neutral and unbiased manner.

I hope you can tell, at a glance, and in consideration of these observations, that Obama is not a socialist of any stripe. He does favor a few limited socializations. I say a "few" because only one of his initiatives -- health care -- will involve this on a large scale. I say "limited" because his health care plan does not dissolve insurance agencies or health care coverage (which would be a feature of any authentic socialist system) but instead provides a government alternative, much as the USPS is an alternative to FedEx or the UPS.

In the past, the Republican Party could honestly claim to be "less socialist" than the Democratic Party, given that they generally believed in less regulation by government. It was Reagan who put an end to this, with his massive expansion of the military and his embrace/invocation of a Religious Right that has been attempting to socialize religion in a very real way. Look at attempts to legislate marriage on the national level as the most conspicuous example; contrary to many on the Right there is little precedent for this in American history, with the possible exception of Prohibition. We all remember how that went.
The only remnants of the "small government" policies of the Republican Party are their continual provisions for repealing progressive taxation (ie. taxation that draws more heavily from the rich than the poor) and some areas of (typically economic) deregulation. Their governments are nevertheless at least as cumbersome, expansive, and socialized as those of the Democrats.

For those who assume socialism is an insult, a derogation, I'm posting this in part to show that it isn't. It is, like all systems of economics and government (including capitalism) neutral. It can only be evaluated by what it enables people to do and what it prevents them from doing. As such, it ought to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Cuba makes socialism look pretty bad; Sweden makes it look pretty good.

But Independents and Republicans and Democrats who stiffen at the notion of Socialism in general should take comfort: Barack Obama is no socialist. His support for the Wall Street bailout (like McCain's) is predicated on the assumption that markets are a workable premise, and this assumption fuel his plans to give a tax break to the middle class, to expand education as an incentive to global competition, to promotion of clean energy as an economic motivator.

Socialism isn't bad.

More: There's no reason to consider Obama a socialist.

Event: Obama's Speech in Flint, and Other Good News.

The Washington Independent: Obama Laces into McCain's "No Change Express"

The Flint Journal: Presidential candidate Barack Obama promises at Flint appearance to help auto industry refashion itself.

I wish I could have been at this. I would've waited for hours and hours...

It's icing on the cake that the Journal actually avoided making one of the innumerable puns that presented themselves. "Obama Ramped Up Flint for Change," or "Candidate Obama Says Flint Auto Change Soon." The Journal can write good articles, and I'm glad when they don't derail them with lame headlines.

Actually, Flint has had several pieces of good news lately:

Flint Journal: We're rolling again: Flint spots get another movie close-up; This time it's 'All's Faire in Love' with Christina Ricci and Bill Engvall.

It seems that puns have been traded off for run-on sentences.

A worthy compromise.

Event: The Executive Branch is a Committee, with an Economic Example of Why it Matters.

Thesis: Stop thinking about whether they are likeable or not... there will be time enough for that later.
As much as the presidency is a person, it is also an institution, and we would more accurately make responsible decisions in presidential elections by thinking of the office as a very powerful and ideally coordinated committee, with the ballot in the chairmanship. The vice-presidency, members of the cabinet, and appointees to other governmental position can have as much stake as the office-holder him or herself.

Which is why, unlike the claims of the McCain campaign, there is no responsible way to make a choice here based strictly on the personality and temparament of the choice. Candidates' views on the issues are of paramount importance, because this will determine the appointments they make.

Consider, for example, the following:

New York Times: In Candidates, 2 Approaches to Wall Street.

Event: Why I am giving Obama my hard earned cash; because I want you to as well.

To kick this off, I won't recap the last year-and-a-half of election drama except to say that this, I believe, is more important than any other election I've experienced except perhaps 2000. Which may be a tie. I have many reasons for believing this, and I'm sure you have many thoughts on the subject too, but the most eloquent and trenchant observation I've heard on this comes from outside of the United States, in an article my mom sent me yesterday.

guardian.co.uk | Jonathan Freedland: The world's verdict will be harsh if the US rejects the man it yearns for.

Now the British don't necessarily have the right to speak for the whole world, but then, of course, certainly neither do we. We behave as if we do, and Freedland's observations strike me as spot on as to the likely response.

'For America to make a decision as grave as this one - while the planet boils and with the US fighting two wars - on the trivial basis that a hockey mom is likable and seems down to earth, would be to convey a lack of seriousness, a fleeing from reality, that does indeed suggest a nation in, to quote Weisberg, "historical decline".'

Another way to put it is we don't want to have to resort to a reprisal of this: Sorry Everybody.

So I am feeling today in particular that I do not want McCain to be elected, and if I cannot count on large numbers of Americans to take the high road, by which I mean, to critically scrutinize this choice and make their decision responsibility, than maybe my own efforts have to go beyond a check in a ballot. If the stakes are as high as I say they are, then I should put my money where my mouth is.

That is what I am doing.

Today I will make a substantial financial contribution to the Obama campaign.

Please consider doing this as well.

Click here to make a donation to Obama/Biden for President.