By John LeBoutillier

1) Iran—and the combined two stories of their nuclear program and their ongoing new revolution—will be the dominant news story of the year.

1a) There is a strong likelihood that the Islamic Republic itself will fall in 2010. That is what is now at stake. Not regime change—the switching of one office-holder for another within the same system—but total governmental change.

The young have decided the aging and corrupt and obscenely-rich mullahs—and the rigged governmental system which sustains them—can no longer stand. That is why these brave young people are willing to risk their lives on the streets each day facing the thug Basij militia and the VEVAK security forces, both of which—on direct orders from Ayatollah Khamenei—specialize in using terror to quash dissent.

The development of the Iranian nuclear program is a key factor driving the fomenting revolution. As the West draws a line for Tehran not to cross, the Iranian people—already disaffected by last June’s rigged elections—see their government pursuing a policy that will isolate Iran from the West and cause terrible economic dislocation for the Iranian people for years to come.

Yet the Ahmadinejad Government insists on racing to join the Nuclear Club, figuring that once they’re in the club the other club members will treat them differently. Tehran reads history this way: if Saddam had had nukes, no 2003 American invasion of Iraq. Thus, if Iran has ’em, no US or Israel aggression against Iran. Plus, they can bully the Saudis and other rich Arabs with their superior military power once they acquire these weapons.

So Iran is the flash-point for many stories in 2010.

Look for violence, hatred, ugliness—a passive President Obama refusing to side with these brave people fighting for their freedom—and ultimately for the Hand of God. “What,” you ask?

Yes, the Hand of God is at work here. Go back to 1989—the fall of the Berlin Wall followed by the almost-totally-peaceful end of the Soviet Union, the “focus of Evil in the modern world,” as President Reagan called it. How could the dreaded, all-powerful Soviet Empire crumble—without a shot being fired—if it weren’t for God’s intervention, perhaps beginning with the mysterious selection of Pope John Paul II followed by the creation of the Solidarity Movement in Poland?

Indeed, God triumphed over pure man-made evil in that situation.

And perhaps it will repeat itself in Iran—only this time there is already more bloodshed. There are also reports that some Iranian police are refusing to fire on demonstrators—always a sign of the regime’s imminent loss of power.

Pray for the creation of a Persian democracy.

So—in sum—Iran is the nation to keep our eye on in 2010.

2) Obama: is going to decline even more in the polls.

The jobs situation will continue to rot away any good feeling about his Administration. There will be more and more Americans who see him as a political fluke, in-over-his-head, incompetent, too liberal and without a clue about how to get the economy back on track. His approval rate will drop to 42%.

3) The Health Care Bill—whatever version ends up passing—will grow even more unpopular as time goes on.

Why? Because from the day the bill becomes law, every medical billing or prescription problem or denied service will be blamed on “ObamaCare.” We all have these medical glitches—but now they will be “Obama’s fault.”

4) The Democrats are going to get creamed in the November mid-term elections.

Some big names may go down. Chris Dodd in Connecticut is on the Endangered Species list; so, too, is Harry Reid. One or both will lose. Former GOP Congressman Rob Simmons in Connecticut will defeat Dodd.

In the House, there will be a strong anti-Obama, anti-Pelosi push back in November. The GOP might not quite take back control, but they will narrow the gap and force the House back toward the political center.

5) In New York, Andrew Cuomo will be elected Governor.

But the Republicans will recapture control of the State Senate.

6) In Florida, Governor Charlie Crist will lose to Marco Rubio in their GOP Senate primary.

7) John McCain will sweat all through the year about his August Arizona GOP primary.

Former Representative J.D. Hayworth will run a tough race against McCain. If the immigration issue is pushed in DC by Obama—as he has said he would—then McCain will lose his primary by either flip-flopping on the issue or sticking with his pro-amnesty position. (McCain losing his own party’s primary less than two years after being that party’s presidential nominee would be a huge story. It will happen if the illegal immigration issue is back on the front page.)

8 ) In California, it will be former Governor—and former every-other-job-in-the-state—Jerry Brown versus GOP newcomer and former EBAY Boss Meg Whitman for Governor.

She has tons of money; he is known throughout the state from his four decades in public life. It is a Democratic state reeling under financial collapse—with a GOP Governator who hasn’t gotten the job done.

Brown can be testy and nasty; Meg is nice—and a bit boring and stiff.

He has been around a long time; she hasn’t even voted in most elections—a shocking revelation for someone who wants to run the biggest state after never holding a governmental position before. You can bet Brown will make a big deal out of this. It hurt Caroline Kennedy here in NY a lot. Not voting is inexplicable.

He can argue that he knows every nook and cranny of state government; she can argue that she will make Sacramento run like a business.

He is Mr. Inside; she is Mrs. Outside.

Who wins?

Meg Whitman—by 3 points.

And right away you will hear talk of her for Veep on the 2012 GOP ticket. After all, California is 55 Electoral votes – one fifth of the total you need to win.

9) The economy will grow in 2010—but not quickly—and not enough to reverse the horrendous 17.5% underemployment picture.

The perception of the bad economy will not change in 2010—or 2011—and thus Obama and incumbent Democrats will suffer greatly for it. He better pray that this perception changes by 2012, or he is a goner.

10) Al Qaeda will soon implant bombs right into the abdominal cavity of suicide bombers—and equip cell phones as detonators.

Can our airport screening machines look into someone—like an X-Ray machine—to see these objects? (Hey, if drug cartels use people as mules with swallowed condoms filled with heroin and cocaine, why won’t their terrorist cousins do the same thing?)

11) On The Right: Sarah Palin will continue to dominate the scene in 2010—and suck all the oxygen away from other potential 2012 GOP candidates.

Romney, Pawlenty, Huckabee, Barbour and any others just get no coverage whatsoever compared to her.

11a) The next Conservative Leader will emerge onto the national scene in 2010. He is not prominent as of today.

11b) The Tea Party will be more popular than the Republican Party.

11c) If this new Conservative Leader can harness the passion of the Tea Parties and the built-in structure of the GOP, he can sweep the nation in 2012.

12) A controversial new book will emerge in 2010 that will reveal the truth about Obama’s past.

The publisher will be under pressure to quash the book. The so-called Mainstream Media will attack this book. But when it finally comes out, it will sell over a million copies hard-cover and several million in paperback—and the truth about many of the controversies in Obama’s past will finally be revealed.

Happy 2010 to you all!!!

About the author: John LeBoutillier is a former U.S. Congressman and a nationally recognized political commentator. He has been a frequent guest on many national talk show programs and is author of the book Harvard Hates America. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.

John LeBoutillier can be reached at: johnlebout@johnlebout.com

He keeps an archive of his articles at: JohnLeBout.com

Published originally at EtherZone.com
Photo: sean808080

President Obama defends his decision to boycott the recent United Nations anti-racism conference – and the UN replies

Consider this. Currently, the preferred method for determining whether or not employees want a union to represent them is a private-ballot election overseen by the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB provides detailed procedures to ensure a fair election, free of fraud. Employees cast their vote confidentially, without peer pressure or coercion from unions or employers. Union activists claim widespread employer abuse during organizing drives, but the NLRB found that employers abuses are the rare exception, not the norm, in organizing elections.

However, labor activists (including those in New Hampshire) argue that a card check system that would replace the current private-ballot system is needed to protect workers’ free choice as to whether to join a union. By replacing private-ballot elections with “card-check” elections, the legislation would let unions organize a workplace if a simple majority of workers signed a card. Thus, the “Employee Free Choice Act” (EFCA),” is the No. 1 priority for organized labor. The pending bill does not require the secret ballot vote unless at least 30 percent of workers call for it. Seen by the AFL-CIO as a way to boost union rolls by hundreds of thousands, the hotly-contested and emotionally charged bill has become this year’s No. 1 election issue for organized labor. Mr. Obama has promised union bosses that the Act will become law in 2009 if he wins the presidency in November.

If statistics to the contrary are incorrect and most employees really do in fact believe Congress should replace private ballots with publicly signed cards to protect workers’ choice, then the nature of union organizing could be subject to radical changes almost immediately. But without the protection of the secret ballot, workers could well be subject to coercion and deceptive practices by pro-union forces. Mandatory card check union drives will mean that millions more American workers could be forced to face a “choice” between 1) joining a union and paying union dues or 2) being fired. Obama, of course, is a strong advocate of this as it ensures him strong union support in his campaign for the presidency.

While my personal take on this is admittedly biased since much of my adult working life was spent representing employers in Labor Relations matters, two things strike me: first, a “card check” system, which effectively requires employees to declare publicly their support or opposition to unionizing suggests to me a greater likelihood for coercion than a secret ballot method. Second, and taking a realstic view, the reason employers are so worried about card check is that the ability to conduct a strong pro-employer (and possibly even anti-union) campaign will be negated. Still, numbers don’t lie. In 2007, the number of workers belonging to a union accounted for 12.1 percent of employed wage and salary workers. In 1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent. Were it not for successful unionization in the in the public sector and in education, it is clear unions as a force would have become a historical footnote. Whether this is the result of employer abuses (as the anecdotal stories of activists would have you believe) or the fact that workers simply don’t want unions, the fact remains that under Obama, organized labor will have its greatest opportunity in years to change the membership landscape.

I personally believe that most workers do not want the government to force them to reveal their choices to anyone and want the right to keep their votes private. But again, I have a strong bias here.

Predictably, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest business lobby, has launched the Workforce Freedom Initiative, a counteroffensive against the AFL-CIO’s efforts. This is un-American,” said Chamber President Tom Donohue whose annual salary is somewhere over 1.8 million American dollars and who has aggressively transformed the Chamber into a pro-business and pro-Republican powerhouse–a transformation that has not received unanimous acclaim, but that’s a story for another column.

Barack Obama is pro-union. Being pro-union means being pro-card check. And a card check system means it will be easier to organize employees into unions even if the workers impacted do not want it. The House passed the card-check bill last year by a 241-185 vote, but it was blocked in the Senate where Democrats fell nine votes short of the 60 votes needed to end a GOP filibuster. If the “if’s become reality, look for this to change.

Ironically, in the end, the voters will decide by secret ballot.

. . . it’s been a long time since we had a president who said unions are a good thing – Barack Obama

. . . We’re ready to play offense for organized labor. It’s time we had a president who didn’t choke saying the word ‘union.’ A president who strengthens our unions by letting them do what they do best: organize our workers. – Barack Obama

. . . We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed. – Tom Donohue

About the author: Ted Sares, PhD, is a private investor who lives and writes in the White Mountain area of Northern New Hampshire with his wife Holly and Min Pin Jackdog. He writes a bi-weekly column for a local newspaper and many of his other pieces are widely published. URL: http://www.tedsares.com/

Courtesy: IdeaMarketers
photo credit: Barack Obama

There has been much ado about Obama’s “bitter” comments. I consider myself a middle-class worker who lived and worked in the Midwest most of my life. I think lots of people get bitter, but not for the reasons Mr. Obama seems to think. 

You see when you work hard, put in long hours to get that promotion/pay raise, you get a real sense of accomplishment when you achieve it. But then you look around and see perfectly able-bodied men and women who have no intention of working for a living, receive their checks from the government, their food stamps, free health care and the many other “benefits” of not working, you’re absolutely right that I get bitter. Oh and then the stimulus package comes out and “hey, you make too much money to get one!” Of course I do.

Obama is right – there is a great deal of bitterness within the middle class. He has got it wrong on the causes. We are bitter that working hard and getting ahead is penalized at every turn. The more you make the higher percentage of taxes you pay. And now that is going up too. Does anyone care that 10% of the population is paying 90% of the tax burden? Does anyone care that over 40% of the population pays NO taxes at all? How fair is that?

We are bitter that when you do make more money and try to save for retirement, you are penalized by paying atrociously high capital gains taxes. Yep and that’ll go up too when one of the current slate of presidential candidates gets elected. Cause for more bitterness, you bet!

We are bitter about the possibility of the estate taxes being re-instated. Is it fair for the government to “take” over 60% of assets we have saved for our children? I’m a farmer’s daughter and if the current estate tax laws were not in place when my parents passed away we would have had to sell the property just to pay the taxes. That is not fair and another reason to be very bitter.

We are bitter that no matter what the every day citizens of this country wants and votes on, the elitist politicians always know what is really best for us. We cannot possibly know how to take care of ourselves and our families. When did we as a society decide that it is the government’s job to “take care of” us? We didn’t. Our representatives and I use that term loosely, apparently only care and work toward getting re-elected. How can they get the most votes, whether that be what’s best or fair, is never in the equation. And lots of people jump on that bandwagon when it benefits them. You promise someone they won’t have to pay any taxes or promise free health car or free anything, they’ll vote that way. Problem is that nothing is free. Somebody is footing the bill. And unfortunately, the portion of workers that are paying is swiftly dwindling. We are already at 40% paying no taxes. What happens when that number goes to 50% or more? Who is there left to pay the bill. We are fast approaching a socialist state where the government provides all, and make no mistake about it; they will control every aspect of life also.

We are bitter that “illegal” immigrants (NOT legally here immigrants) come here and get free schooling, free health care and pay no taxes! I am not a racist but I am furious that our government constantly talks about the need for more taxes when they give away those taxes to people who do not contribute. And this is not only true of illegal immigrants. There are programs in place now to give tax refunds to citizens who pay no taxes. What’s up with that? Just craziness but hey who am I? Just another bitter, white, middle class, Midwestern, gun-totin’, bible thumpin’ racist.

About the author: Catherine Marzullo is currently living in sunny southern California but she is originally from not-so-sunny southern Illinois. She is retired and has a vacation home (cabin) in the Missouri Ozarks near Branson. Collecting Metlox cookie jars is one of her hobbies and she has quite a few in her collection.

Courtesy: EzineArticles

Being a new comer to the Congress, still not tainted by its corrupting politics, especially after Nixon’s Watergate scandal, the American people trusted Carter more than any other 1976 presidential candidates, and elected him president.

Since his first day in presidency Carter had implemented reforms on the internal front. His first step was the reduction of unnecessary expense by reducing the size of White House staff to one third, and the reduction of government agencies from 300 to 30. He appointed record numbers of women, blacks, and Hispanics to government jobs and signed legislation to increase the payroll tax for social security. He declared unconditional amnesty for Vietnam War-era draft evaders. He pushed for legislature providing equal state aid to schools in the poor as the wealthy areas. His deregulation acts lessened government control over transportation and travel industry, and over the interest rates to encourage people to save their money. He created the United States Department of Energy to encourage conservation and research in alternate energy resources. He was the only president who installed solar panels on the White House, later removed by President Reagan. Carter’s Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act preserved 103 million acres as national parks in Alaska.

Carter’s two major acts were cutting down the defense budget by $6 billion during his first month in office, and his unilateral removal of all nuclear weapons from South Korea and his intention of cutting down the number of American troops stationed there. These acts gained him the enmity of all military industries.

Carter’s foreign policies could also be considered different and non-aligned with the line of previous presidents. One of his most controversial acts was the signing of the Panama Canal Treaties in September 1977 transferring the control of the canal to Panama. Carter considered American control of the canal a form of occupation.

Pursuing his vision of completely vanishing nuclear weapons from the face of the earth Carter signed the SALT II Treaty in 1979 with the former Soviet Union reducing the number of nuclear weapons produced and maintained by both countries. He later had to face the Soviet Union due to its invasion of Afghanistan that led to administration’s fear of Soviet expansion to reach the oil-rich Persian Gulf. Carter announced the “Carter Doctrine” of not allowing any other outside force to gain control of Persian Gulf. He also terminated the Russian Wheat Deal and financed Pakistan’s president Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq to train Afghanistan’s freedom fighters.

Carter’s Iran hostage crisis was the major factor for losing his 1980 election. After the Iranian Revolution of 1979 the Shah was granted a temporary asylum in the US for the duration of his cancer treatment. This had exploded the bottled Iranian anger against the US since the American overthrow of Mosaddeq’s democratic government in 1953. The Iranians raided the American embassy in Tehran and took 52 Americans hostage. For their return the Iranians demanded the return of the Shah and his wealth back to Iran. After the failure of the military operation to secure the release of the hostages, Carter, with the help of Algerian diplomat Abdulkarim Ghuraib, opened serious negotiations with the Iranians culminated in the release of all hostages. Yet the hostages were not released until January 1981 moments after Reagan was sworn as president due to secret deals between Reagan and Iran, known as Iran-Contra Scandal. An important result of Carter/Iran negotiations was the establishment of Iran-US Claims Tribunal that had awarded over $2 billion to the American claimants against the Iranian government. This tribunal was considered the most important arbitration bodies in the history of International Law.

Carter’s legacy that won him the Nobel Peace Prize was the signing of the September 1978 Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt despite the peace talk stalling by Israel’s Likud Party. The Accords led directly to the still-standing 1979 Israel/Egypt Peace Treaty.

After his presidency Carter immersed himself into global humanitarian affairs. He established the Carter Center to promote democracy, mediate between conflicting countries, monitor electoral process in different countries, and improve global health through controlling and eradicating preventable diseases. He also devoted time and effort for Habitat for Humanity; a volunteer program that helps the building and the purchase of homes for low income working families. Besides his Nobel Peace Prize, Carter had also received the Albert Schwietzer Prize for Humanitarianism.

Later in his life Carter gained more enmity from the American power elite when he voiced his concern about the increasing influence of the religious right on American politics, when he visited Cuba in May 2002 meeting Fidel Castro and addressing Cuban public on national television, when he upheld the results of the 2004 Venezuela’s recall election choosing Chavez as the president, when he criticized Bush and Blair for waging war “based on lies and misinterpretations” against Iraq, when he denounced Vice President Dick Cheney as a “disaster” for the country and a “militant” who has had an excessive influence in setting foreign policy, when he urged for the closing of the Guantanamo Bay Prison in Cuba, and most importantly when he published his book “Palestine: Peace not Apartheid” and for his criticism of Israeli aggression within Palestine and against Lebanon. Carter criticized Israel as an obstacle to peace in the Middle East for its continued violations of the UN resolutions, its usurpation of Arab land and its oppression of the Palestinians. He condemned the Israeli apartheid wall; a barrier that separates and jails Palestinian communities. He also referred to the barrier caused by the ignorance of American people of the realities of the Arab/Israeli conflict due to the timidity of American media and politicians of criticizing Israeli oppression less they are labeled anti-Semite and deprived of Zionist funding. Carter explained that criticizing Israel in the US is a political suicide.

Political suicide or not, Carter decided to tour the Middle East in another attempt, maybe his last, to mediate between Israelis and Arabs. Having monitored the Palestinian elections in 2005 and 2006 and recognizing Hamas as the democratically elected Palestinian representatives, Carter declared his wish to meet with Hamas leaderships in Gaza and in Syria. Despite the criticism of the American administration and the Israeli government to his wishes Carter explained that advancing the peace process in the Middle East requires the involvement of Hamas and Syria.

Visiting Israel Carter was ignored and disrespected by almost all the Israeli officials. The only Israeli officials who met Carter were President Shimon Peres and Avigdor Lieberman, the leader of the extremist Yisrael Beituna, only to chastise him for his decision to meet Hamas officials. Yet Carter was not discouraged, for not all Israelis oppose contact with Hamas. A poll by the Israeli daily Haaretz newspaper published in February found that 64% of Israelis supported direct talks with Hamas over a ceasefire and the release of Israeli soldier Shalit. Former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami and former head of Israel’s Mossad spy agency Ephraim Halevy declared that Israel needs to engage Hamas in dialogue.

Israel gave Carter a tour of Sderot, an Israeli colony built on Palestinian usurped land, to show him the damage caused by Qassam rockets, which he called a “despicable crime”. Yet Israel barred Carter from visiting Gaza; an indication of how severe Gaza siege is. Even one of the well known international political figures is forbidden to visit Gaza. The aim was not to give Carter the chance to make a real comparison between the devastating damage to Gaza’s infrastructure and civilian homes caused by Israeli air and tank raids to the little structural damage caused by the “silly” Qassam rocket (as described by Palestinian President Abbas) to Sderot colony.

Yet after meeting with Hamas representatives in Cairo and being familiarized with the situation in Gaza Carter joined other world humanitarian leaders such as Nelson Mandella, Desmond Tutu, and all UN Human Rights representatives in describing the situation in Gaza as a crime and an atrocity. He said “It’s an atrocity what is being perpetrated as punishment on the people in Gaza. It’s a crime …I think it is an abomination that this continues to go on … Palestinians in Gaza are being starved to death”. Arab leaders should take a notice from Carter on how to defend their Palestinian brothers rather than contributing to their starvation.

At the end of his trip that included Israel, Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia Carter concluded that “The problem is that Israel and the US refuse to meet with someone who must be involved … There is no doubt that both the Arab World and Hamas will accept Israel’s right to exist in peace within 1967 borders”. Worth to note here that such an existence was militarily forced on Arabs on occupied Palestinian land.

Hamas, one more time, had offered a 10-years truce to Israel if it withdraws from all land occupied since 1967, and would accept the right of Israel to live in peace as a neighbor. Yet Israel and the US administration refuse to accept Hamas as the democratically elected Palestinian government, and refuse to accept all its peaceful gestures, falsely labeling its legitimate right of self defense against Israeli terrorist occupation as terrorism. They also refuse to accept the Arab Peace Initiative that would guarantee peace and security to Israel. Israel has plans for more expansions and is getting ready for another war against Lebanese Hezbollah expected to take place during the coming summer.

Still a presidential outsider to the American power elite, Carter will not succeed in changing the political landscape of the Middle East. Yet his genuine peaceful efforts will definitely have an impact on the perspectives of the Western, especially American, people, who will recognize Israel as what it is; a terrorist state. This is an important step towards peace.

Elias Akleh is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Source: Global Research.ca

As evidenced by the effects of the Fairness Doctrine from its inception to its repeal, its true objective is to muzzle free speech. This is the true goal of the Fairness Doctrine. Since its repeal, the explosion of the variety of talk radio has been tremondous.

There is also another, subtler assumption within in this question, which is inherent in the question. The unspoken assummption is that government has the “ability” to create a level playing field and more importantly, government has the “responsibility” to do so.

This assumption made by both Republicans and Democrats, can be evidenced by the rise of the “size” of the Federal Government since the 1930′s.

In the 1930s, 12% of the national income was consumed by government. Since then, 44% of our national income is consumed by government spending, and if we include the 14%, the cost of of government mandated regulations, this raises the amount consumed by the federal government to 56% of our national income. Milton Friedman stressed the need importance studying the effects and costs of government mandated regulations, because these costs are not covered nor do they budget for them. In addition, there are “no” budgetery controls for these costs. These figures were taken from a website called, “The Grandfather Economic Report”, created by Michael Hodges, who descrbes himself as a concerned parent and grandfather. The website is: http://mwhodges.home.att.net/

The reason for this rise in the size of American Government is socialism. This is the root belief behind the expansion of governmental regulation in the United States.

It was a governmental agency, (The FCC), that created the, “The Fairness Doctrine”. This regulation was not voted in by Congress nor was it debated by the general populace. It is another example of how the attitude of “government knows best”, has permeated our society since the 1930′s.

I am always get nervous when I see the government attempting to over-step its bounds using vehicles such as the Fairness Doctrine. There are many reasons for this nervousness as evidenced by the above statistics, but also because many people in the United States have bought the assumption that we “need” the government to take away all obstacles, to smooth over all problems, to regulate all issues, to take away all our worries, to mediate all disputes, and to protect us from all forms of harm. The Fairness Doctrine is a small example of that attitude.

The American public ultimately decides who they will listen too. If Liberal’s and others, can’t seem to sell their ideas, than maybe they should revisit their premises, or marketing strategies, or even, God forbid, to re-examine their liberal beliefs and values to determine if they are truly the voice of the American public, as they maintain.

In conclusion, the Fairness Doctrine inhibits free speech. It is also a reflection of the belief that big government has the ability and duty to “regulate” speech in America, especially if it helps Liberal’s! It is socialistic in nature and a reflection of the rise of socialism in America since the 1930′s. It is also a attack on the free market concept in America where the market, i.e., the public, determines what they will or won’t buy.

Please note that I am not a Conservative, Republican, Libertarian, or a card carrying Democrat! I am a registered Independent. I am 1/2 Native American, but I am more American than Native. I say this because I believe in the Constitution, the Founding Father’s concept of small government, individual rights and the only economic structure that can obtain and maintain these ideals; capitalism.

About the author: Visit Ray Blacketer’s personal and business web site,  http://rblacketer.ipower.com/

Source: EzineArticles

But if Americans want change, what exactly does that mean?

For starters, American’s are tired of self-serving political rhetoric, lousy institutional management, constant acerbic infighting, and endemic legislative failure. The economy is in big trouble. There is a long list of unresolved issues. Most Americans believe Washington is incapable of doing its job. We no longer trust the administration. Many believe Congress is useless.

Yes. We want change. Big time. We want a government that actually works. Like the one described in my book “Detensive Nation.”

Fat chance. Political instability is inevitable.

Our political institutions and the people who run them are far more interested in self preservation than reform. Sure. Hillary talks about change. Barack uses the word freely. And even John seems to understand something is wrong. But none of them has the intellectual depth to comprehend the scope of the changes America so desperately needs. And then there is the issue of leadership. Although Barack has the requisite skills, he doesn’t have the wisdom. John has the wisdom, but not the charisma. Hillary has neither the personality nor the wisdom. Given our choice of candidates and the institutional obstacles they face, constructive institutional transformation is highly unlikely.

So here we are. In this election, most Americans will go to the polls with a vague fear that something is wrong. If our political institutions fail to deliver meaningful leadership on the issues of change, then voters will go to the polls in 2012 with a sense of outright desperation. And if our politicians, – be they democrat or republican, liberal or conservative – fail to deliver meaningful reform by 2016, then I predict we the people will be looking for alternative political institutions.

What do you think?

Ronald R. Cooke, author, Detensive Nation

Originally published on SearchWarp.com for The Cultural Economist Tuesday, March 04, 2008