When Obama first came onto the scene, he seemed to advocate for all sorts of leftist policies, or at least was very good at pretending to advocate for them.  In truth, if we look back, he was always a centrist, and expertly danced around making any serious commitments to moving left.  He was always, since he first appeared on the scene, a product of the “Chicago Machine”, which is all about gaining or maintaining power vis-a-vis the status quo.

Now, 2 years later, the pendulum shifts the other way, with the Republicans gaining hugely in the House and significantly in the Senate.  The reason many Democratic activists and party leaders cite for this shift is not their failure, oh no, but a growing apathy amongst their constituency.

As if the two things are unrelated.

Barack Obama, much to the criticism of the left, ceded too much to Republicans and the right, who sought to shoot him down regardless of any concessions he made.  Because it was never and probably has never been about compromise, but about control.  Even if Obama forwarded a completely right-wing agenda (and one could argue he has with regards to foreign policy), the Republicans would stand against him, simply because he is not a member of their party.  They will never concede that any of the changes they want could be brought about by a Democrat.  No, they need to be the ones to control and be rewarded for any changes that occur.

So the question that so many people asked of the Democrats was: “If they’re going to shoot you down, anyway, why not just push the agenda that your constituency wants?”  After all, the Democrats had virtually unchallengeable power and did not much need the Republicans for anything.  Yet in spite of every concession made – and perhaps they weren’t concessions, but the Democrats showing their true colors – the right would paint them as “socialists”, paint this picture of “government as enemy”, which is ironic given that it was part of the government itself making the claims.

In truth, Barack Obama is no closer to being a socialist than John McCain would have been.  He is, on nearly every point, the enemy of socialism.  But American exceptionalism being what it is – by this I mean their exceptional gullibility and capacity for boundless ignorance – the people on the right ate it up.  The people on the left just sighed, because for all their enthusiasm in 2008, nothing much had “changed”.

In 2008, the Democrats had the advantage of being the minority party, of being the party standing in clear opposition to George W. Bush, who by this time had become near unanimously condemned by the American public and the international community.  They had the ability to say they would “change” what was currently happening.

Now in 2010, after 2 years of the Democrats holding all the cards and doing not much of anything to deliver on those promises of change, the advantage shifted to the Republicans as the party not in power, to be able to say that things would change simply by virtue of a shift in power.  What people fail to understand, it seems, is that a change in party does not necessarily mean a change in policy.

George W. Bush was much more of a radical than Barack Obama.  He brought about a ton of changes, more with respect to Clinton than Obama has with regards to him.  But it had nothing to do with disillusionment with Clinton.  It had to do with fear, starting with 9/11 and proceeding from there.  People will make all sorts of irrational decisions when they’re afraid.  So, barring catastrophe, it has never been the case that a change in party represents a change in politics as usual in Washington.

It could be argued that the 8 years of Bush was enough of a catastrophe to warrant another serious change, and indeed it was that sense which enabled Obama to gather so much momentum.  What he has done with that momentum, however, is to attempt to re-establish the Clintonian government, which was anything but radical.

It has been a running trend that the party of the President suffers serious losses in the following midterm elections.  Why?  Because every 2 years, at least, but more likely every day, people pine for “change”, in one thing or another.  And when, following pendulum shift and pendulum shift – Republicans ceding power to Democrats and Democrats ceding power back to Republicans – no such change occurs, it leads to a surge in enthusiasm from the President’s political opponents, and a surge in apathy from the party’s constituency.

Had Barack Obama actually been a socialist President, he would’ve brought about changes that this country has never seen, and the same sort of opposition would’ve gathered.  However, in how such changes increased job growth, mitigated the increase in poverty, stood up for the everyman, provided everyone with comprehensive healthcare not for profit but because it is a necessity, forwarded a real civil rights agenda, and improved our image around the world, perhaps the opposition would’ve come only from the contrarians and the irrational fringe, rather than average disaffected citizens who in large numbers just wanted to see something different.

It’s ironic, really, that people cry for change, yet they are so afraid of the kind of change that is actually needed.  Socialism, because they don’t understand it, because it is so different from what they know (and they know so very little) and because it still – somehow – is tied to anachronistic Cold War fears, became their Red Herring.  But had the Democrats actually advanced an agenda that even hinged on socialism, and people saw the kinds of positive changes that it could bring about, they might change their tune.

But the Democrats, whose agenda has never changed, and is virtually the same as that of the Republicans (i.e. to stay in office), dared not push that far left, because rocking the boat too much apparently leads to major losses.  It’s a strange conclusion to come to, though, given that all historical evidence points to the contrary, that the pendulum shift is the status quo, that each party will rise and fall with unflinching regularity.  All evidence was that the Democrats would lose big regardless of what they did or didn’t do.

One would think that the only way to change this dynamic, to halt the pendulum shift, would be to swing the damn thing so far left that the pendulum would snap off altogether – sending the country in an entirely new direction.  Of course I couldn’t say with any certainty whether or not it would go flying towards rejuvenation or disaster, but a look around the world at other countries that have successfully instituted leftist policies, and at those that have failed miserably by instituting far right policies would suggest a positive outcome.

I realize that this is a very simplistic analysis, and that surely Democrats, well-trained in public policy, law, and everything else it takes to hold their positions, know all of this.  If so, then one can only come to the conclusion that the pendulum shift, despite all their campaigning and rhetoric, is within acceptable parameters, and that they are content to let things play out as they will until it shifts back the other way.

Change, though?  Of the sort required to keep their constituency enthusiastic?  That would be too risky, might cost them too much, might eventually lead to some President instituting radical changes that throw the country into a downward spiral, make us hated around the world, trample all over civil liberties while providing for the triumph of big business.

Oh, wait.

So better to ride out this down tick in public opinion and wait for the inevitable backswing, right?  Sure, so long as they have no intention of changing anything.

I must also point out, if it is not abundantly clear to anyone reading this, or who has ever read anything I’ve written, that no part of my decision is about apathy. Quite the contrary, in fact.  And so, if apathy is anyone’s reason for not voting, I would encourage them either to vote, or to truly understand the many legitimate reasons not to do so.

In random order:

1. I don’t support any of the candidates running in my state – that is to say, I oppose all of them
2. I question the wisdom of voting for the lesser of two evils
3. The outcome of the Citizens United vs. FEC Supreme Court case ensured that the next election would be more about money than the last, and indeed, 2010 is breaking all sorts of spending records
4. Republicans, or at least the social conservatives amongst them, openly act against my interests and everything I stand for.
5. Democrats pretend to act for my interests and in favor of the things I stand for, or otherwise remain completely quiet on those issues, and only to shift their position or compromise once in office.
6. In some perverse way I want to sabotage Democrats – who by default are the ones I’d be voting for as the only viable candidates who are even remotely amenable to my interests – just to show people on the left how utterly ineffectual they are and make a case for putting our energy behind actual leftist candidates
7. Along the same lines, I want to see people get what they ask for, and laugh when it blows up in their faces.
8. I refuse to reward any who continue to place the interests of corporations above those of the people – and that would be both Democrats (see ridiculous Healthcare bill, silence on marijuana legalization) and Republicans (see: deregulation, tax breaks, mass privatization).
9. Because I follow the money and don’t like where it leads.
10. Real changes – for the better or for the worst – seem to only ever occur during or in the aftermath of a catastrophe (See: Roosevelt after the Great Depression or George W. Bush after 9/11/2001)
11. Because compromises just aren’t enough for me anymore, which in effect aren’t small victories, but a maintenance of the status quo.
12. Neither party dares to challenge the moral hypocrisy of the Israeli government
13. Not much will change regardless of which of the two parties controls Congress; if a Democratic president and a filibuster-proof majority didn’t change anything, then neither will a Republican majority, which is not at all likely to happen, anyway.
14. My “right to vote”, as determined by my status as a citizen, is undermined by corporate personhood.
15. Not one candidate has the balls to address the issues with any real critical depth, that is, beyond the talking points
16. I am exasperated by the cheeky self-satisfied and utterly disingenuous self-righteousness of liberals (here I mean voters, not candidates)
17. I am exasperated by the raging self-sabotaging ignorance of conservatives (again, I mean voters)
18. Voting continues to be an excuse for people to believe they’ve “done their part” to affect change, even after it’s been shown that nothing has actually changed
19. Not one candidate speaks out against American Imperialism
20. Many of these points presume that my one vote actually makes a difference.  Statistically, it doesn’t.

The supporters of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seem to be coming out in equal force to match the protests of the Mir-Hossein Mousavi supporters.  To me, even if the election was a fraud and the outcome was more like Ahmadinejad 50.5% vs. Mousavi 49.5%, that’s still millions of people who supported Ahmadinejad.  While Mousavi sounds like the better candidate to me, and Ayatollah Montazeri sounds better still as a Supreme Leader than Ali Khamenei, ignoring the strong support behind Ahmadinejad and Khamenei would be no more democratic than a corrupt election.

It sounds to me like the changes in Iran will have to be piecemeal – a re-education of the people to understand what is wrong with the Islamic Republic as it is, so that eventually someone like A-Jad would not even be a contender.

At the same time I realize that maybe the results could’ve been inverted, with Mousavi the overwhelming winner, but…who really knows?  While I’d like to say I support the “Iranian people”, I don’t think they all feel one way, and I don’t know how they feel in any case.

Just because the dissenters are the ones twittering and blogging doesn’t mean that they represent the majority.  The older and/or less technologically savvy – which could include the poor who simply do not have access to the internet – may not support Mousavi.  They may not support Ahmadinejad, either.

To be clear, although I have defended him in other posts, because I think that he is misrepresented in Western media, I do not support him in any capacity as a politician, and I am as wary of him and his government as I am of my own.  I think politicians as a species are a corrupt sort, and therefore I do not trust them.

I am also skeptical of pro-Western sentiments coming out of Iran, not because I support the anti-Western conservatives and extremists, but because I am wary of propaganda, and wary of any attempt to exploit the wishes of the Iranian people to bolster Western interests.

In summary, my stance is going to remain neutral.  It is not for anyone in the West to say what the Iranian people want, since we just plain do not know.  President Obama, I think, has taken precisely the right stand in the matter.  For now, we wait.  And watch.

Yet, the latest estimates place the voter turnout at somewhere around 63-64%, which isn’t much higher in percentage terms than 2004. Apparently it’s a few million voters more, which I suppose is significant, but if we’re looking at the percentage like we do test scores, then America as a whole gets a “D”. D for disappointing, because if that’s the percentage that voted, we can expect a much lower percentage to realize that their role in our (sort of) democratic process doesn’t end once they step out of the voter booth. Any hopes of having a galvanized electorate to hold the new President to a higher standard, to make him accountable to his campaign promises are “D” for diminished.

There are many reasons. First is that during the Bush administration, which has run roughshod over the rights of Americans and citizens of the world, there was really no sense of hope. People organized and spoke out, but in the end we still had to endure 8 years of awful, and all it may have done was ensure that Bush goes out with a dismal approval rating. Now with Obama, however, there is that inkling of hope, that possibility that the world could really change for the best. The bad thing about this, though, is that should the change we want fail to come, then it will be that much more painful because we dared to hope.

Second is that Obama has consistently moved towards the political “center”, against the ideology of many of the people who supported him, to maximize his electability. From a purely political standpoint I understand it, but I can only hope that he returns to his liberal roots. Furthermore, as many progressive commentators have observed, Obama got the vote of the left by default. He did not have to work for it, and so he was not held accountable BY the left.

Just because it was the people in the center – those ever hard to define “independents” – who may have pushed Obama over the line, he would not have even been a contender were it not for the the people on the left who voted for him in huge numbers. The left MUST hold him accountable after he has taken office, MUST have his ear more than the lobbyists.

The economic and political climate changed dramatically during the Presidential campaign, and in a way that no doubt gave Obama the edge where he previously might not have had it. Because of that, we can expect him not to be able to deliver on all of his campaign promises. There is one promise that he MUST keep, however, and it is one of his first – to not succumb to “special interest groups”.

As of now, I am concerned about his choice of Rahm Emmanuel for chief of staff, given that man’s background and history as not only a quintessential Washington insider, but a member of the pro-Israel lobby. While I am not someone who thinks that “pro-Israel” always has to mean “anti-Palestinian” or “anti-justice” – I’d like to see peace for all people in that region – that is what it has amounted to historically. The choice of Emmanuel represents – especially to the people of the Middle East – a maintenance of the status quo instead of any real “change”.