1
   

The Sixth Principle: preserve the American promise to transform our nation for the new century

 
 
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 09:29 am
Posted November 4, 2008
The Sixth Principle
by Gary Hart - Huffington Post

Endless analysis in coming months will focus on the meanings of this election, and the interpretations will be as varied as the analysts' many biases. For there is something here for everyone. This was a cyclical referendum with the pendulum bound to swing back to Democrats. The president-elect represents a new, post-Clinton, beyond centrism, post-racial, new politics, internet-driven phenomenon. The nation is fed up with neoconservative imperialists, radical fundamentalists, and failed supply-siders. And so on.

For those more interested in what happens next, where we go from here, the possibilities are intriguing. President-elect Obama can be a good president, one who reconstructs the best of 20th century economics, foreign policy, and security. Or he can be a great president, one who begins the process of the creating a new 21st century economy, new alliances abroad to address new realities, and new military structures to respond to transformed warfare.

Great presidents do not emerge from quiet times; they arise in times of chaos and crisis. Even those who enter office with modest aspirations in such times are often forced by circumstance to resort to a boldness not available to leaders in more conventional times. And if, as with Lincoln, Roosevelt, and very few others, they have a mandate, even one granted from the people out of desperation, they have the very rare chance for greatness and a place in history.

To aspire to a great transformational presidency, Barack Obama must combine with his own bold instincts policies and policy-makers who are imaginative, creatively experimental, and sufficiently confident in the sound judgment of the American people to keep us informed and involved and to engage us in the transformations that must occur. Barack Obama was elected for change, but as he himself repeatedly said, it is a question of "change for what."

The "what" is the process of governance. Moderation, pragmatism, and bipartisanship are necessary, but they do not represent a theory of governance. There have been five large governing ideas in American history: the Founders created a federated republic on an unprecedented scale; Jefferson believed in a transcontinental nation; Lincoln asserted national unity over state's rights; Roosevelt established a national community; and Truman confirmed that security was international in scope.

Barack Obama now has the opportunity to add a sixth great principle: to preserve the American promise we must transform our nation for a new and vastly different century.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 771 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
cjhsa
 
  0  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 09:35 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
I think BBB just volunteered to turn Japenese....
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 09:42 am
I disagree, we should be really tired and impatient with the extreme politics of both sides. Clinton was a response to the extreme politics of Reagan , Bush II was a response to the extreme politics of Clinton, Weve gotta break the cycle. There was a time of greater civility and bipartisan coalitions.

When we show signs of extreme politics of the left (Hint, when Pelosi and Obama start butting heads) , then we need to remind our respective parties of where we, as the rank and file, dont want to be.

Obama is the embodiment of a promise, and Im gonna hold him to it. The last 8 sorry years of ourpolitical lives we will never get back. We need to affect the repairs on this damaged nation only with the hard work of all sides. We need to put down the past and pick up our tools to fix tomorrow.

The youngsters have really restored my faith in this nation and its founding compact. They came through yesterday .
cjhsa
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 09:49 am
@farmerman,
The youngsters should not have been allowed to vote unless they were 21 or in the military. Just MO.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 09:53 am
duly noted.

0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 09:57 am
@cjhsa,
cjhsa wrote:

The youngsters should not have been allowed to vote unless they were 21 or in the military. Just MO.


Well, the day will come and you may vote then, too, cjhsa.
cjhsa
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 10:13 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I have voted in every election since I graduated from college. Prior to that, I felt I didn't have enough life experience to make an informed choice. Which is exactly my point - the people that tipped this election in O-boy's favor were largely the 18-22 year olds, who really have no funking clue whatsoever about what they have just done.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 10:15 am
@cjhsa,
shooter, we send them over to Hell and let 'em get maimed and killed, why should they not be given a voice first?
cjhsa
 
  0  
Reply Wed 5 Nov, 2008 10:17 am
@Rockhead,
I agree. I think 21 should be the minimum for active military service as well as voting and drinking. 18 should be the minimum driving age.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Sixth Principle: preserve the American promise to transform our nation for the new century
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.69 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 10:16:32