Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

From Change.gov

Posted By: sm on 2008-11-18
In Reply to: Why have civil defense. NM - For what reason?

Create a Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC): Obama and Biden will create a national CAC of 25,000 personnel. This corps of civilian volunteers with special skill sets (doctors, lawyers, engineers, city planners, agriculture specialists, police, etc.) would be organized to provide each federal agency with a pool of volunteer experts willing to deploy in times of need at home and abroad.


As far as CD in general, you seriously do not think that we as citizens should be prepared for what to do in the event of a major disaster or, heaven forbid, another terrorist attack?


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Change and Hope: Obama wants your change and hopes you enjoy starving.... sm
...while he's partying like a rock star with the glitterati.

Meanwhile, some little old lady is hoping he doesn't get a dog and sends her the dog food instead.
Yes, they're all nuts. The change they'll get is not the change they thought

I want change. Chump change. I'm voting for Obama as far as the pollsters go.

Obama is change you can believe in until you have to take it to the bank.


Our jobs have been offshored until now because of greed.  Under Obama and his taxation of small businesses, they will be offshored not because of greed but because of survival.  


You could make a difference for our country by not voting for Obama, but instead, if you vote for him, you are selling out to deception.  You are embracing a socialist, a communist, a Marxist, a liar, a cheat, and someone who legally cannot run as President of the U.S., much less the Illinois senate.  But, you make your choice.  You believe the consumate liar and his lies who sat for 20 years under the teachings of a black racist preacher filled with hatred for the U.S., whose association with Bill Ayers is recent and documented down to the fact that Ayers himself wrote Obama's best-selling book (best-selling in the eyes of far left liberals that is), who is a documented member of the socialist party, whose friends and close allies are extremists who not only bomb innocent people and are unrepenetent but who intend to eliminate (kill) 25 million Americans who they cannot "re-educate" in communist ideaology (gosh dog it, those dreadful capitalists), who refuses to hand over a certified copy of his birth certificate and educational records (my goodness, don't you have to provide your birth certificate to any number of entities who want to know if you are legal, i.e., social security, DMVs, etc., and your educational records would show if you had received aid as a foreigner and in 1963 would have shown you were a negro instead of an African-American which Obama's falsified record shows, please speck up on history), and who thinks Joe the Plumber is so stupid not to realize that if he wants to achieve the American dream, he is going to achieve it only if he lets Obama take what he makes to give to those WHO WILL NOT WORK.  I'd like to see you, liberals, give a share of your 7.5 cpl to those who don't work as hard as you, but then with Obama, that's what you will have to do.  Don't be fooled by his rhetoric that only those making over $250,00 will be taxed.  We will all be taxed, and there will be no incentive to work for any of us because we will all have to give up a piece of our pie so those who do not work can have a piece of our pie.


Here is the dividing line, folks.  We are at a crossroads in our history.  The Lord Jesus puts it this way, "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction; and there are many who go in by it."


Choose which gate you enter, the wide or the narrow.  It not only determines your eternal destination, but it determines the destination of this country.  If anyone here calls themself a Christian and can vote for Osambo, I daresay you are a liar and cheat just as he.  One cannot be a Christian and vote for a party and a political candidate who is in total rebellion to God's Word.  That is a fact, and if you think any differently, then you, too, like the Obamanation, call God a liar.  May He have mercy upon your soul.  As He makes the rain fall on the just and the unjust because He is no respector of persons, we will all suffer as this country is destroyed and our Constitution that guarantees our freedoms is trampled just as Bill Ayers is pictured standing upon our flag in total disrespect, and we will thank you liberals that we are all in bondage, reduced to third world status, just as the Israelites were in Egypt.  Only Obama ain't no Moses but a Muslim and has no favor with God, and there will be no one to lead us to the Promised Land coming from the Democratic party. 


 


I agree with change....change to socialism...
NO THANKS.
DEFINITELY Change!
We have seen where experience gets us!!!! Look at it like this...
How many of you have ever worked a job before and your "boss" (with experience) knows a LOT less about the job than you do?! Bet you all never thought of it like that, huh?!
EXACTLY! And now we have someone who wants to change all that...
and only one side is even TALKING about it. That is the side getting my vote. And this post illustrates the problem with your side..."Repugnants." How is that productive? Zero! What crossing party lines have Dems done? Zero! It should stop on both sides, but the bitterness for whatever reason you see in the Dems on this board apparently is rampant throughout the country, one only has the read the blogs. It is just beyond ridculous, beyond childish, and until our elected leaders can move past it, we are stuck to repeat the same old mistakes over and over and over. One ticket is talking about changing that stagnant swamp in Washington, that is McCain/Palin, and that is one of the reasons I am voting that ticket this time around. They get it.
so much for change....nm
nm
Change
8 years of a Republican president is enough, change is needed. America is in a very bad state.
Maybe you should change...
your name to "Mar Tar."
CHANGE, YES, CHANGE -- we need O to take the
to all the deadbeats who don't wanna work. 
The new change

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iRxZox4GFoIweckPDP1oRhKBlHOwD94CCDU00


This is what I am talking about.  Somebody from the INSIDE, a congressman sees our new change coming.  This is NOT THE CHANGE I opted for. 


the change who wants??
that remains to be seen, I think. I am not so sure it is the change I want. Actually, I'm not so sure it is change. Shall we not just wait and see instead of speculating?
Duh, in trying to change
 it to many more, I managed to say 'much many'.  Think that'll catch on?
This would not change...(sm)
a "christian marriage."  Unless, of course, you can show me where in the bible it says anything about legal benefits that come with marriage?
He said what he said! You cant change that.
nm
At least it SHOULD be, for a change!

change is gonna come
I gotta tell ya, I dont believe it is true.  I live in an extremely republican conservative bible belt air force area (what the heck am I doing here..smile) and the democrat party through the 1990s was doing okay but the republican party sure was flourishing.  I have seen through the 2000s the democratic party has grown quite a bit and more people moving into this rural area are signing on to the democratic party.  We also have a lot of unions here, Farm Workers and such as this is a major area where immigrant workers pick crop year round.  Well, the unions have pushed for the democratic party and its working.  This reminds me of the 1990s with Newt Gingrich, he was gonna change America.  Well he is no where now.  Americans might be apolitical most of the time but when they get fed up, they get fed up and they vote their frustration and with this administration, there is so much distrust, knowlege that Bush lied about war and our brave military has paid the price, the deficit will affect my children and my childrens children, the policies he has passed do not benefit me or the working class, only the corporations.  Change is gonna come..its frustrating waiting for the change but its gonna come.
Some things never change...

War Crimes Even Helen Keller Could See
By Mickey Z.

In a textbook example of whitewashing, if today's America knows Helen Keller (1880-1968) at all, it's the easy-to-digest image portrayed in the 1962 film, 'The Miracle Worker.' Brave deaf and blind girl 'overcomes' all obstacles to inspire everyone she meets. 'The Helen Keller with whom most people are familiar is a stereotypical sexless paragon who was able to overcome deaf-blindness and work tirelessly to promote charities and organizations associated with other blind and deaf-blind individuals,' writes Sally Rosenthal in Ragged Edge.

But, in 1909, Helen Keller became a socialist. Soon after, she emerged as a vocal supporter of the working class and traveled the nation to voice her opposition to war. 'How can our rulers claim they are fighting to make the world safe for democracy,' she asked, 'while here in the U.S. Negroes may be massacred and their property burned?' Of course, as a woman with disabilities, she was patronized by the same mainstream media that previously championed her as a heroine. The editors of the Brooklyn Eagle wrote: 'Her mistakes spring out of the manifest limitations of her development.'

Keller minced no words in her responses...one of which appeared in newspapers across America: 'So long as I confine my activities to social services and the blind, the newspapers compliment me extravagantly, calling me an 'arch-priest of the sightless' and 'wonder woman'. But when I discuss poverty and the industrial system under which we live that is a different matter.'

As the militaristic frenzy spread across America, Keller appeared at New York City's Carnegie Hall on January 5, 1916. 'I have a word to say to my good friends, the editors, and others who are moved to pity me,' she said. 'Some people are grieved because they imagine I am in the hands of unscrupulous persons who lead me astray and persuade me to espouse unpopular causes and make me the mouthpiece of their propaganda. Now, let it be understood once and for all that I do not want their pity; I would not change places with one of them. I know what I am talking about. My sources of information are as good and reliable as anybody else's. I have papers and magazines from England, France, Germany and Austria that I can read myself. Not all the editors I have met can do that. Quite a number of them have to take their French and German second hand. No, I will not disparage the editors. They are an overworked, misunderstood class. Let them remember, though, that if I cannot see the fire at the end of their cigarettes, neither can they thread a needle in the dark. All I ask, gentlemen, is a fair field and no favor. I have entered the fight against preparedness and against the economic system under which we live. It is to be a fight to the finish, and I ask no quarter.'

Keller's critique of the government propaganda campaign to stir up Americans to support U.S. intervention in the war remains more germane than ever. 'Every modern war has had its root in exploitation' Keller said. 'The Civil War was fought to decide whether the slaveholders of the South or the capitalists of the North should exploit the West. The Spanish-American War decided that the United States should exploit Cuba and the Philippines. The South African War decided that the British should exploit the diamond mines. The Russo-Japanese War decided that Japan should exploit Korea. The present war is to decide who shall exploit the Balkans, Turkey, Persia, Egypt, India, China, Africa. And we are whetting our sword to scare the victors into sharing the spoils with us. Now, the workers are not interested in the spoils; they will not get any of them anyway.'

She urged workers-the ones who do the fighting and dying-to strike at the heart of America's drive toward war. 'Strike against war, for without you no battles can be fought,' she declared. 'Strike against preparedness that means death and misery to millions of human beings. Be not dumb, obedient slaves in an army of destruction. Be heroes in an army of construction.'

Excerpted from the soon-to-be-released '50 American Revolutions You're Not Supposed to Know: Reclaiming American Patriotism.' 


Not yet but you're trying to change that.

LOL, well some things never change. SM
Sounded to me like you said VN and Korea were civil wars, but it must be a Republican thang! 
I need to change tactics...

I should probably refrain from any dialogue and perhaps just correct posts that are obviously erroneous (like the one about poverty in the U.S.).  Correcting factual errors on their posts would probably be a full time job.  Besides I enjoy the research and learn lots!!


Thanks for reading and thanks for your comments.


Nothing will change your mind but others should know.
Africentric church
A visit to Chicago's Trinity UCC
by Jason Byassee

One of the brightest points in Barack Obama's rising political star has been his ability to talk about Jesus without faking it. Beginning with his rousing "Audacity of Hope" speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and continuing with his book of the same name, Obama has shown that he can speak about his Christian faith in ways that are authentic and broadly appealing.

Little wonder that his enemies have tried to turn that strength into a liability. Right-wing bloggers and TV pundits have been targeting Obama's church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, and its pastor, Jeremiah Wright, complaining that its self-proclaimed Africentric Christianity is separatist or even racist. Obama's campaign has itself pulled back a bit from being identified with Wright. In February it revoked an invitation to have him give the opening prayer when Obama announced his run for the presidency.

Africentrism (that's the term Trinity prefers to Afrocentrism) is wholeheartedly embraced at Trinity. One of the church's mottos is "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian." Its choir is regularly decked out in brightly colored African dress, as is Wright when he preaches. The church emphasizes its connection to the African diaspora: it sponsors trips to western and southern Africa, the Caribbean, and Latin American countries with significant African populations. Julia Speller, a leader at Trinity and author of Walkin' the Talk: Keepin' the Faith in Africentric Congregations, notes in her book that the church offers courses in Swahili and that its youth programs, Intonjane and Isuthu, take their names from Swahili words for coming into manhood and womanhood. The congregation celebrates the Kwanzaa holiday and Umoja Karamu, a Thanksgiving Day service that narrates the story of the black family from its West African origins to today with dancing, drumming and storytelling.

Bible courses at Trinity emphasize the African roots of Christianity, focusing on the account of the Exodus and such passages as the psalmist's promise that Ethiopia would stretch out its hands to God (Ps. 68:31), and the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. In his preaching Wright goes out of his way to describe Moses as "an African prince" and his wife as a "raven-black" beauty. He declares that Jesus himself had "nappy hair" and "bronze skin" (he cites Rev. 1:14-15). Otis Moss III, who will succeed Wright upon his retirement this summer, says that the church is proud of its "Africanity," proud that "when we talk about Sudan, we have Sudanese present."

African Americans have generated distinctly black forms of Christianity since they arrived on these shores. The significance of these forms has been appreciated in mainline seminaries and churches for at least two generations. Trinity is well within the mainstream of the black church, and is remarkable in the mainline world only for its size and influence and for its handful of celebrity members, like Oprah Winfrey and hip-hop artist Common.

Critics have pounced especially on the church's "Black Value System," by which members affirm their commitment to God, the "black community," the "black family" and the "black work ethic," and disavow "the pursuit of 'middle-classness.'" One hatchet-job report in Investor's Business Daily, pointing to the Black Value System (a statement written not by Wright but by church members in the early 1980s), concluded that there is "little room for white Christians at Obama's church." Black conservative pundit Erik Rush said the church has embraced "things African above things American," and he claimed that this should be as alarming as a Republican presidential candidate "belonging to the Aryan Brethren Church of Christ." Tucker Carlson of MSNBC described Trinity as having a "racially exclusive theology" that "contradicts the basic tenets of Christianity." Sean Hannity of Fox News confronted Wright on TV and asked how a black value system is any more acceptable than a white value system. Hannity also suggested that Trinity's emphasis on black values contradicts Martin Luther King's famous hope that people would be judged "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

Follow link for more.
Not afraid of change...
It's not the change that scares me, but the fact that my money will be going to pay for someone else to have something I can barely afford for my own family. Already too much of it goes for that - think foreigners that get Medicaid to pay for all of their doctor visits. And yes, lots of legitimate claims are being denied, but do you think that's going to change when the government has thier hands in it? That's what's really scary. I don't even trust the government with the money they already get from me - what's going to happen when they get more, and more power to boot? The insurance industry needs a complete overhaul, that I agree with, but as far as letting politicians take over? I'm thinking that's not really the best plan.
Change....away from NeoCons.
nm
Hope, Change....

If Barack Obama is a reformer, he could be the first one ever to become President of the United States having done almost nothing different in the name of reform.  Consider:  What has really changed?  In a positive way? 


He did not change politics in Chicago.  By endorsing crooked machine politicians who reward their campaign donors and door-knockers with a government salary.  By backing a mayor whose aids and appointees sell city contracts in exchange for campaign contributions.  By endorsing an alderman who pulls a gun on her colleagues.  By failing to endorse the rare candidate who has a chance to win and change something in Cook County.  By covering up the excesses of the Chicago Teachers Union, knowing just how abysmal the city's public education is.  By earmarking funds for a radical Catholic priest who ecourages blacks to hate whites.


Obama did not change politics in Springfield.  You can't reform a state like Illinois by voting present 130 times to avoid controversial issues.  By teaming up with a state Senate Majority Leader whose main concern appears to be placing every member of his family somewhere on the state payroll.  By backing for statewide office a financier whose family bank lends money to organized crime.  By negotiating to minimize the impact of welfare reform.  By writing letters to get state grants for someone who just paid you $112,000.   By co-sponsoring nearly any bill that helps Tony Rezko and his friends make money from taxpayers for building uninhabitable slums where rodents roam and sewage backs up in kitchen sinks (Obama said he did not know the condition of the buildings; however, all reside in his senate district and it had been well reported in the media). 


Obama has certainly not changed politics in Congress.  You can't reform Washington by earmarking a million dollars for your wife's employer after they double her salary (this can be verified on line...I was amazed!!...if I were him I would back off the earmarks thing and lamblasting Sarah Palin...this one could come back to bite him big time).  By voting to throw away money on ethanol, farm subsidies, and the Bridge to Nowhere while much of New Orleans was still under water.  By reaching across the aisle on ethics reform, only to pull your hand back and bury it in your pocket.  By earmarking funds for your campaign contributors.  By suddenly deciding its time to leave Iraq when you start running for President.


It's not that Barack Obama is a bad person.  It's just that he's like all the rest of them.  Not a reformer.  Not a Messiah.  Just like all the rest of them in Washington.  Just like all the other liberals. Well, that is not entirely true. Most liberals in Congress know more about foreign policy and how diplomacy works than Obama.  And most of them, nearly ALL of them...believe that babies born alive have a right to medical care.


Obama's radical ties don't make him a radical.  His ties to Communists don't make him a Communist.  His ties to a terrorist don't make him a terrorist.  But his continued relationships throughout his public life show an important influence in his public career.  What ideas are so important to Barack Obama that he desperately seeks the approval of Black Commentator and the New Party, but drops the Democratic Leadership Council as it if were a molten porcupine?


These connections do not disqualify Obama from the presidency.  But they do raise questions about his judgment.  By what criteria does a man choose his friends and end up with the likes of Tony Rezko,Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers?  How does he choose his advisors and end up with people who chat with terrorists, advocate reparations for slavery, and praise Hugo Chavez a a champion of democracy?


What sort of nominations does such a man make as President?  What kind of diplomacy does he pursue, give that so much of diplomacy consists of reading, understanding, and judging others' intentions and character?


That is why these ties deserve scrutiny.  If Barack Obama becomes President, his good judgment, or the lack thereof, will affect the entire country.


--From "The Case Against Barack Obama"


This does not change the fact that CNN has not
You see, I know my candidate. He is very careful with his votes. There must have been something HIGHLY, HIGHLY stinky for him to have voted no on Katrina finding in view of the 36 other times he did everything humanly possible to help out. Cetainly you didn't have time to read it, but I feel certainly others will at least glance at the list. Don't blame you for being a little touchy on being exposed for posting half truths on the board. It does have a tendency to undermine one's credibility, especially if you let it become a habit.
Yes, let's change the subject, shall we? NOT

nm


works for me too. Now there is a change I could ...
believe in... :)
I agree with Sam. It IS change I can believe in. nm
nm
Plans for CHANGE! LOL
x
Sorry, you can't change my mind...

I trust in the majority of the American people to know true honesty, goodness, and grace when they see it.


All the greasy left smear tactics in the world, cannot change that.


Just watch and see.....
Sorry, this does nothing to change my mind.
Only tells me that like many other soldiers, McCain came back from war and decided that the life he had wasn't the life he wanted now. It does happen - doesn't make it any easier on those left behind, but it does happen. What we're looking for in a president is someone with expereince in government, not experience in marriage. If that was the case, we wouldn't have found Bill Clinton in the closet with Monica! And yes, I left pretty much the same comment on the board at this site. My vote is still for McCain.
if you already have insurance you don't have to change - nm
x
I agree....nothing will change what is to be.
And this may just be a forefunner...maybe he loses this time and runs again in 4 years? Maybe he runs again in 8? Now might not be the time.

All that being said...I am not voting for him because I think he has some religious meaning...I am not voting for him because I think he is a socialist and I think that is wrong for this country.
You got that right...there is nothing you can say to change our minds!
:D
I could use some hope for change but
I don't need the money.
Afraid? You bet. I do not want change that O wants.
He keeps changing his mind.  You want change?  Boy are you going to get change.  I am afraid a lot are going to regrete who they voted  for down the road when welfare will be spreading around, electricity rates skyrocket.  No more small businesses because people will be taxed over 250,000.  Oh wait.  It will be 200,000.  Oh wait.  It is 150,000 by Biden.  Oh wait.  Now it is 120,000.  Next it will be 42,000.  Gosh, cannot make up their mind.  I could go on and on.  The O says it is going to be difficult for us because he needs to "kill people's expecations" if he is president.  HE FREAKS ME OUT.  Been reading up on the GREAT DEPRESSION and about Hoover.  Also been hearing reports of O's plans and he will probably put us through the biggest Great Depression in history.  He will kill middle class first and then it will be welfare and the rich. 
change can be good or bad

I normally don't post on this board, but for all of you caught up in the "Obama palooza" remember that change can be good or bad.  Be careful of what you wish for.  You might not like the change that is coming.  As an MT for one of the big companies we have seen a lot of "change" and none of it has been good.  It has all benefitted the upper management and none of it trickled down to the MTs, even though they told us these "changes" were for us.  That said, my husband and I plan to hide our money from BO by using every tax evasion strategy we can; 401K, offshore accounts, more writeoffs and hope in 4 years everyone has had enough of "change."


They are revamping the change.gov
The agenda items were basically block copied from the campaign site. As JtBB posted, the items are still up on the campaign site.
So if he did change it to not mandatory
I don't get the outrage. He did something that appeases his critics, but still they complain.
Change the subject? LOL
I thought we were talking about ILLEGAL.  Isn't that what you've been ranting about....Obama not being a "legal" citizen?  So how is asking about ILLEGAL parents natural born citizens changing the subject?  I don't notice any explanation as to where in the Constitution it says ILLEGAL parents can give birth to legal citizenship to their children.  I do believe that the Constitution just might be referring to kids born to LEGAL immigrants being automatic citizens.
The story behind change.gov...

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/12/20/document-drop-the-story-behind-changegov/


What I said is that a triple IQ would be a welcome change
That is a positive statement that supports the notion of an IQ, i.e., intelligence quotient, as in some intelligent leadership. There is nothing there about high or low. I just want leadership that demonstrates some semblance of intelligence.

It does not matter if W's IQ is 1000. If it speaks stupid, thinks stupid, looks stupid and acts stupid, the chances are, it's, well, stupid.

I don't spend any time on the sites that speculate about IQ or report widely varying ranges of the IQs of candidates or EITHER party, since those claims can produce nothing more than a subjective conclusion. I also do not pursue illogical arguments which state Obama's SAT/LSAT scores in one breath and in next, accuse him of not releasing that information. For me, SAT scores and IQs scores are 2 mutually exclusive concepts unless and until someone produces a resource that can argue otherwise.

Here's the fact. I accused no one of anything. I made a simple statement that a triple-digit IQ would be good for the country, implying someone who can walk the walk and talk the talk. Since my reply was within the context of Bushisms, which any self-respecting American can agree are embarrassing and not worthy of the highest office in the land, I did not feel the need to conduct exhaustive research in support of somebody else's statements.

I want smart leadership. So sue me.
Change the subject? You are the one
can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If no one believes this, who are all those people interviewed that voted for O and cannot tell you why? They all had a fairy tale image of him. That, my dear, is much more documentably effective than your stereotyped opinions.
Loose change....(sm)

How many of you have seen the video "Loose change," and what did you think about it?  If you haven't seen it, I"ve provided a link below.  Warning...this is a really long video- a little over an hour long, but I thought well worth it.  Whether you agree with it or not, it really makes you think.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE


well, I think the 78% of people who want to see change definitely have me!
Have a good weekend !
Oh, he's bringing change all right.....LOL.
nm
Hope and change you can believe in..... sm
Well, looks like O is keeping that promise. America is CHANGING for the worst, I just HOPE we can survive it.
Change is our only option
I'm not debating that. What I'm debating is the idea that passing the same kind of garbage through for the taxpayers to pay for isn't change. And I don't blame Obama for that - I blame the loons in Congress for that, especially when I hear them say things like "The American people don't care."

I know there's a channel for everyone's taste and I know it's not news either - they're all opinion shows.

I'm not trying to garner support for anything or promoting any kind of fear. I see too many people just get so nasty on this board to people who are only giving their opinion. If you don't agree with me, that's fine - tell me why you don't agree instead of personally attacking me. Maybe you know something I don't that would change my mind on something - I can guarantee you won't change my mind with nasty comments.

Maybe you didn't go to Harvard (I didn't either), but that doesn't mean that we're not intelligent people and can't debate things that are important in this world. Don't believe everything you hear or that you read - that's why debate is a good thing and I'd honestly like to hear your thoughts on why this stimulus package is such a great idea - without the suicide pact, thank you =)
Have to change info on $13 tax cut.

Just heard they don't expect it to kick in until NEXT year, then the year after that will be the whopping $8.


An economist stated when Reagan put the tax cuts in, it took a whole 5 years for the plan to take effect; i.e., economy to pick up, so batten down the hatches. We're in for it if Iran doesn't get us first.


Agents of Change


by: Susan G. Kerbel, Ph.D., t r u t h o u t | Perspective




Obama

Supporters of Barack Obama holding torches and signs in Szabadsag "Freedom" Square, Budapest, Hungary. (Photo: AFP / Getty Images)




    Exploring the psychology of social change reveals warning signs and opportunities for progressives as Obama takes power.

    Now that progressives have attained their goal of electing Barack Obama president and established the presence of a political mandate for change and, putatively, progressive ideas, what can we expect will happen next? What do we now need to learn to maximize our momentum in the wake of this exceptional, momentous reaffirmation of the democratic tradition in America?

    Now that we have won the political argument, the next step is to work on creating the cultural and socioeconomic changes that must follow if we are to build a truly progressive society.

    Consider the upcoming changes for the progressive movement from the vantage point of the psychological dynamics that any human organism undergoes when faced with the changes in identity that accompany any life transition. There are forces that seek change, and those that fear and resist it.

    This is what I expect will happen next, and indeed, seems to have begun to happen already:

    Now that Obama has been sworn in, progressives will go through a momentary backlash of self-doubt. Is this really happening? Can we trust that this is real? Are we able to do this? Are we ready?

    This self-doubt typically can play out in a variety of ways. For example, the old guard Democrats of the DLC may try to take credit for Obama's sweeping victory by positioning themselves in the new administration in a way that seems to undercut all the energy and commitment of "new" and younger progressives who were swept into civic engagement by Obama's campaign. The media, in turn, tries to play this as business as usual among the Democrats and emphasizes disillusionment and disappointment among the previously hopeful new participants in the political process. The message is that the youthful energy, inclusiveness, and new ideas of the Obama campaign have turned out to be an illusion.

    The important thing to remember when this happens is that this is a momentary and expectable development. It will pass. We must not allow the mainstream media to make too much of it, or believe that storyline ourselves. Remember: Obama's victory was a ratification of change, and change - personal, cultural, or otherwise - does not happen in a straight line.

    The most important development I anticipate for progressives, now that Barack Obama has been sworn in as the 44th president, is that our roles as progressives will have to change. Up until this point, we have been the underdogs, not just for the past very long eight years, but also throughout the entire arc of the advent of modern conservatism, dating back to the election of Ronald Reagan. Although Bill Clinton held office for eight of those years, and represented a reprieve from staunch conservatism in a number of ways, the zeitgeist of the country was far from a progressive one. It has been a very long time that the progressive movement has been pushing Sisyphus' rock uphill. We have been the underdogs for so long that many of the newly engaged foot soldiers of the Obama era have no recollection whatsoever of this country being any other way.

    We've been the underdog for what has seemed like forever - and now, all of a sudden, we're not. We won. We were victorious. But what do we do with the victory? And what pitfalls lurk under the surface in the transition from victor to whatever comes next?

    From Underdog to Change Agent

    First, we are going to have to get used to being victorious, to wielding power. At first blush, that does not seem to present any difficulties, but that would be a naive position to take.

    The progressive movement is about to be called upon to undergo a change in identity. A positive change, to be sure, but a change nonetheless. All changes, even positive ones, create stress for the party that is changing. Witness the fact that positive events such as marriage and getting a promotion register high on ratings of major life stressors, alongside negative events such as divorce and loss of a loved one. Moving to a new place to live is high on the list as well - an event that can be construed as either positive or negative, depending on the point of view of the relocating person.

    The point here is that all change induces stress, regardless of whether we choose to view it as positive or negative, because we must manage shifting external demands just as we are learning about new capabilities in ourselves we may not have been aware of before, or practiced utilizing.

    Progressives are about to experience this firsthand. We are no longer the powerless underdogs fighting rear guard actions against the relentless rule of a regressive, repressive majority. Now we are in charge. And we are going to have to get used to it.

    The second aspect of this change from progressive underdog to majority player and holder of power revolves around how we will wear our new role. This is a more optional change. But I believe we have an unprecedented opportunity to rewrite the script of how victors behave in the American system, as part of the effort to bring not just political but cultural and socioeconomic change to our country.

    If we are to win the cultural argument, and not just the political one - in other words, if we are to build the just, sustainable society that progressives have dreamt of and talked about for so long - then we are going to have to treat our victory differently than we would have under more "normal" circumstances.

    It is patently obvious that Obama's victory was no ordinary victory; it was a sea change on numerous levels. It was the culmination of a lifetime of work for civil rights activists; an overwhelming statement of agreement with values of the progressive movement by a majority of voters; and a reaffirmation that our electoral system, and our democracy, despite voter fraud and the shredding of our Constitution by the Bush administration, can still function.

    On top of this, the magnitude of the problems that our nation and the world face at this moment in history is staggering: war, national and energy security, economic meltdown, and a raft of social ills that have festered for eight or more years without balm. That was no ordinary election, and this is no ordinary post-election. We have a mind-boggling array of issues to attend to. Creating the needed changes in our national infrastructure, commerce, and culture will require some heavy lifting indeed.

    Ask anyone who's ever built a pyramid - some genuine heavy lifting - and they will tell you what's needed is cooperation. We as progressives cannot fix the magnitude of problems in this country on our own, even if we are now putatively the majority.

    So, the invitation that appears before the progressive movement is to shift our identity not from underdog to victor, but from underdog to, eventually, agent of change. If we are to ultimately do the work that has been set before us, we must shift from being adversarial to cultivating cooperation. We have to learn to work with the people who even recently may have strenuously opposed us.

    Doing What Is Needed

    This will not go down easy for a lot of progressives. There are activists who have labored in the trenches for so long that relinquishing an oppositional stance in relation to conservatives may be functionally impossible, at least at first. And there are doubtless progressive political operatives and members of Congress who have their own battle scars that will not fade any time soon.

    Indeed, it is understandable - and I would encourage it enthusiastically - to enjoy our victory for a good long moment, in order to settle into the mantle of leadership we have worked so long to earn. But we cannot afford to bask in the moment for long.

    My point here is that prior elections have kept Democrats and Republicans in a perpetual pendulum swing where one lords their power over the other after an electoral victory, because the battle is so hard won, and there is the perception, often quite accurate, that our opponents would not be especially gracious to us if the roles were reversed. And indeed, we are not especially generous when it is our turn, because now we want the other guy to know what its like to be on the bottom of the pile for a change.

    The problem with this thinking is that, well, there's not much thinking in it. It's an emotional knee-jerk reaction - and one of the many reasons why citizens have been cynical about politics. There is a playground quality to making your opponent pay after you've won. In that sense, the Democrats (though they haven't won as often) and the Republicans (who have held the upper hand a lot) are very much alike.

    Given that this is no ordinary moment in time, and no ordinary victory at hand, there is an opportunity for progressives to find a way to be the better men and women, to take the high road and work to forge the partnerships we need with those who we know may not agree with us.

    President Obama, no doubt, embodies this kind of graciousness himself. He serves as a model of how to move forward in working with our former opponents - even if his efforts have initially, and ultimately quite foolishly, been repudiated by Congressional Republicans. As our president is so fond of saying, he cannot do it all alone. Individual citizens are going to need to participate in the challenging work ahead of us that is necessary to rebuild our country. The likening of these times to the Great Depression certainly carries with it the implication that, in fact, all citizens will need to be called upon to pass successfully through this transition. In effect, we will all need to be ambassadors for progressive values in our own lives in order to enact en masse the creation of the vital and humane society we have held dear in our minds all this time.

    Indeed, I would argue that, as progressives, it is our moral obligation to do better as victors than historically we, or our opponents, have. If we are to have the integrity of our beliefs, if we are to act in ways that are consistent with what we claim to profess as humanistic and creative thinkers who believe in the democratic experiment, we must strive to do this. Putting aside our differences and declining to vilify those who have vilified us is what we will be called upon to do in order to build the bridges and coalitions we are going to need to build.

    The challenge moving forward is to learn how to engage our opponents in the larger work we must undertake together to repair our nation and society. Defiance, gloating and animosity will not work. There are techniques that progressives can learn in order to do this, which is the subject of another essay entirely. But before we get to that, we must make the transition from enjoying the spoils of victory to transmuting ourselves into agents of positive change, into seeing ourselves as catalysts, or midwives if you will, of the new society and economy we must build.

    Ignoring Feelings at Our Peril

    How on earth are we going to do that?

    Well, first I'll tell you what we are not going to do - or at least what will very likely not work for the majority of progressives if we default into doing this. We are not going to float feel-good platitudes about how we are going to simply "let go" of our feelings of resentment towards neo-cons that have been developing over the past eight years. The conservative junta has trashed much that progressives hold near and dear, and have worked mightily to dismantle the fabric of our nation. They have institutionalized a nastiness and mean-spiritedness in their governing and their media that has shredded the ability of our nation to hold civil discourse on nearly any topic of substance. We can not simply be asked to forget this. When the wolf is standing at the door, you don't invite him in for tea.

    No, instead, I would recommend that we acknowledge openly and vociferously the damage done by the neocons to us - not as a media event to be parsed and misinterpreted by pundits - but as a sort of within-group purge, an opportunity for progressives to speak among ourselves about what we have been through in order to relinquish it and become ready to assume the responsibilities of leadership.

    It is not unlike the shift from Apartheid in South Africa - there was a need for the Truth and Reconciliation Committee to hold open hearings on the injustices of the fallen regime, in order for citizens to let go of the pain of that era and move on to something new (although in our model there is no power to grant amnesty from prosecution for perpetrators).

    The danger is, if we skip this step - if we move directly to pushing the progressive agenda forward without reflecting on how we feel about what toll it has taken to get here - we risk the dark impulses of revenge and unconscious anger tearing apart the coalitions we need to build. The emotional energy around the presidential election, and by extension, the cultural transition we are about to enjoin, is considerable. Do not underestimate the importance of emotion in the political equation. If we do not acknowledge our quite understandable desire to make the Republicans and neo-cons pay for the damage they have done, they will sense this unbidden energy and exploit it as our weakness. They will help us self-destruct on it. We must not let that happen.

    The advantage of intentionally addressing the lingering animosity that progressives quite understandably may feel towards the conservatives we are now tasked with working with to rebuild our country, is that making conscious the desire to express anger towards conservatives and seek revenge against them gives us the power to decide what to do with these feelings. These feelings will not ambush us if we take the time as a group to acknowledge them.

    Acknowledging in a collective setting that many progressives feel the same on this score will allow us to set these impulses aside. And in so doing, it will allow us to reclaim a strong, and even fierce, voice that we can use to work with the conservatives in a way that holds them accountable for their transgressions without seeking blame or retribution.

    Accountability and Cooperation

    Note that the endgame of working through our negative feelings towards the conservatives is not to roll over, Neville Chamberlain style, and forget everything that was done to us at the hands of the conservatives. Rather, it is to open a way to gather our strength and determination as we hold the conservatives accountable for the errors of their ways, past and present, as part and parcel of learning to work together in coalitions with them. If we are angry, subconsciously or not, we are not empowered; we are reactive, and letting fear of being overpowered again decide what we are to do. If we have a handle on our darker feelings, we can make conscious choices about them, can set them aside, and can confront wrongs in clear conscience, even as we reach out to our former opponents.

    Once we have moved through this process, we will be ready to assume the mantle of power that we have earned. We will be in a position to choose whether we will act as victors rubbing our former opponents noses in their loss, or as intentional catalysts for change, both building coalitions and requiring accountability and responsibility from ourselves as well as our opponents. Once lingering negative feelings have been aired, we will be ready to try on our new identity.

    Enjoining the progressive community in an intentional discussion of where we have been and what comes next as part of forging our next collective identity also addresses the fact that progressive forces are now the majority in the executive and legislative branches. Without a permanent stalemate, without an enemy to push against, progressives may be unnerved as to how to act. We no longer need to be locked in combat. This is not to say that we are suddenly free of opponents - or that we are free of the need to hold our leaders' feet to the fire and demand they act on their progressive promises - but there is no longer a need to be constantly in a state of battle. This will probably be unnerving to many a progressive. And yet this gives us an opportunity to change the terms of the game, to allow at least some of what we contract with our conservative opponents to be less oppositional and adversarial. There is not nearly as much to push against. We will have to figure out how to remain engaged with moving ahead the issues under these radically different circumstances. A forum such as the one I'm suggesting may help to engage activists who would otherwise not have an easy time finding a place in the next phase of progressivism.

    And so I suggest the creation of a forum for progressives to discuss the impending changes in our identity, our relationship to power, and all that has come before, in an effort to get ready for what comes next. A place to safely relinquish the battle scars, call them what they are, and begin to collectively create our next identity as makers of change. The time, shape, and scope of this is up for debate, although certainly sooner rather than later (say, within the first three to six months of Obama's presidency) would be advisable. But that it should take place is clear. The dynamics of change are in play, and we would do well to attend to them.

    There is a wonderful future to be built. Let's go.

    -------