Judism

Since the end of the Johnson administration the Democratic Party has

based its existence on one single point, "We are not Republicans." Indeed, the argument can be made that even Johnson, in his campaign against Goldwater relied primarily upon the same political point. To be fair, Mondale, in his run against Reagan, tried to differentiate himself from Reagan by saying he would raise taxes to balance the nation's budget. Mondale and McGovern, alone among the host of Democrats since Johnson have been willing to speak plainly to the people about the need to properly fund the government because government is a good thing in their lives. Before everybody jumps down my throat, I recognize that Bill Clinton did indeed push through a general tax increase early in his first term. He did so in an environment of "reinventing" government, bringing it to heel and so forth, shrinking it and deregulating this and that, primarily the financial services industry. He did it to balance the budget not to re-enforce the social services network that used to protect the middle class. After his and his wife's spectacular failure to bring a modern health care finance system to the nation, he seemed to learn his "lesson" and never again tried to do anything to the safety net other than shrink it. He became Republican light and, through the "New Democrat" movement, attempted, with great success, to make the entire Democratic Party over in that image. Al Gore, to his credit, in the late stages of his campaign for the Presidency, did reveal his progressive, liberal beliefs in a strong government that would be aggressive in its protection of the American people. This "Al being Al" period of his campaign took him from far back in the polls to a popular vote win. (Probably an Electoral College victory as well but that is another story.) Unfortunately, whatever else you may say about George W. Bush, he knew how to be President once he captured the office. He also knew what he wanted to do and took advantage of every opportunity and asset at his disposal to move the country in the

direction he chose. As a consequence, Bush, who never had much of a majority in either house of Congress (He faced Democratic control in one House of Congress or the other for four of his eight years in office) and, accept for a few months following 9/11, was never very popular with the public, did just about whatever he wanted whenever he wanted to do it. He was able to do this because he was resolute, even all the while pushing criminally incompetent policies upon the nation and the world, and because the Democratic Party stands for absolutely nothing other than they are not Republicans. Because Bush's Presidency was such a failure, that single point of political "philosophy" was enough to elect Barack Obama President and give Democrats huge majorities in both houses of Congress. Barack Obama came to Washington with the overwhelming support of the nation and the world. He came to office with a huge mandate to be something other than Republican light. Unfortunately, he came to Washington with no notion of how to govern or lead and he has done neither. President Obama is, however, the prefect expression of a Democratic President, post Johnson. He does not appear to have any bedrock political beliefs other than attempting to be nice to everybody. On the simple strength of his not being George W. Bush, Obama won the Presidency, was awarded a Noble Peace Prize before he could find the White House bathroom in the dark, was lauded and worshiped by American liberals and Europeans of all political persuasions, etc. He has done nothing but push through whatever horror the finance industry wants and whatever that health care thing turns out to be. Had he had any idea about what he wanted to do for the country other than treat it as a huge "community" he wanted to "organize" he could have, in his first six months, pushed through anything he wanted. Oh, I know he would have faced real resistance from Blue Dogs and Republicans, it wouldn't have been a slam-dunk, but had he attacked resolutely and forcefully, taking his arguments to the districts and states of recalcitrant

Congressmen and Senators, he would have prevailed. That is what a leader would have done. But, in order to be a leader you have to believe in something. Obama, being the perfect expression of a Democratic President, post Johnson, did nothing during these crucial first months. Indeed, he did nothing during the first year. While Republicans and Blue Dogs were shell shocked, uncertain if their talking points still worked or not, he diddled and "organized" and looked for bipartisan consensus. He squandered his opportunity for greatness and the nation's chance to remain free and fair. He, by his resolute refusal to act, surrendered us to a corporate elite who have their lackeys, in both parties, govern us in their best interest. The ongoing debt limit farce is a wonderful illustration of Obama's refusal to lead. Not only is the President allowing the country to drift into an uncertain future, he is managing now to lose the PR battle over whose fault all this is. While I have no idea what the consequences of a national default will be, I feel certain that Obama will end up getting the credit for those consequences, if they are bad. Republicans have declared a class war on the middle class and the poor. So far, there is no one fighting back. One good thing though, we finally have an answer to the question posed decades ago by the opposition to the War in Viet Nam: "What if they give a war and nobody comes?" The side that does show up wins, that's what.