My Last Democrat

The following appears on the Back Page of today's Style Weekly.  It is republished here for those who do not ordinarily read this Richmond paper.

Four years ago in this space, I presented an argument entitled "A (Liberal) Case for McCain." I argued that — given a struggling economy and the mess left behind by President George W. Bush — the winner of the 2008 election likely would be doomed to a one-term presidency.

This was especially likely, I contended, if the extremely inexperienced Sen. Barack Obama were elected. My fear was that a President Obama would be defeated for re-election by a hard-right Republican. McCain as president, on the other hand, likely would seek to govern through bipartisan consensus — his longtime pattern as a senator — and make room for a truly progressive Democrat in 2012.

Re-reading that piece today, I find no reason to apologize. During the first three years of his presidency, Obama did indeed show signs of inexperience. Even in passing his signature legislative initiative, the Affordable Care Act, he and his congressional allies allowed the right to set the terms of the debate — which still hampers his re-election bid.

Moreover, the health care act wasn't great legislation. It ended up an exceedingly complex mishmash that failed to control rising costs and failed to provide the public option cherished by most progressives. At the same time, this moderate legislation came to be deemed — by most Americans — far more radical and socialist that it actually is.

All in all, I've been disappointed with, but hardly surprised by, the Obama presidency. But while I make no apology for my choice in 2008, I will confidently cast my ballot for the president in November.

I will still, in a sense, be voting for the lesser of evils. Obama has only begun to attack the concentrated power of wealth, greed and arrogance that characterizes America's corporate class. Even now, there's nothing Rooseveltian in his rhetoric or his actions.

Nor has the president outlined a persuasive vision for America's future. He has done the absolute minimum to address global climate change and to reduce American dependence on fossil fuels. He continues to believe that more schooling is the same thing as better education. And — though he seems to have persuaded most Americans that he is a Christian — he's avoided his duty to protect the secular essence of our Constitution.

Still, beginning with the killing of Osama bin Laden, Obama seems to have figured out how presidents act. And clearly he's finally come to understand that the Republican Party has so utterly embraced the strategy of "rule or ruin" that it cannot be treated as a partner in government.

Besides, in 2012, there seems to be no viable alternative. As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney appeared to be an intelligent, practical and forward-looking statesman. Since that time, his pursuit of the presidency has been so single-minded that it's no longer possible to say with certainty in what he believes on any subject.

I cannot imagine entrusting power to a man whose entire political philosophy seems to consist of reading the latest polls. If Obama is the lesser of evils, he's also a known commodity who has grown steadily in stature during his first term. Romney, on the other hand, no longer is the impressive statesman who once governed Massachusetts. Today, he's become a mere shadow — entirely devoured by his lust for a presidency which has become, one would almost say, his preciousss.

There are other considerations, of course. Feeble start though it was, the Affordable Care Act is a step in the right direction. Its repeal, promised by Romney, would create chaos for the health care system and for millions of American families, while solving nothing.

If Obama has been a timid environmentalist, the Republican Party —Romney apparently included — seems actively hostile to preserving the environment.

If Obama's attempts to restore the pre-recession economy are more fanciful than realistic, the Republican pledge to restore the Reagan prosperity by delivering government into the untrammeled power of multinational corporations would be, for most Americans, a living nightmare.

Finally, allowing Romney to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices would cement the rule of corporations, authorized by the vicious 2010 court ruling in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission.

All in all, Obama represents a tolerable evil; Romney, a surrender of democracy to the power of greed and arrogance, unwittingly supported by the power of bigotry, ignorance and
superstition.

In this space, I have argued for the formation of a third party founded on the principles historically associated with the liberal Republicanism of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. Such a party would offer a genuine alternative to a major-party duopoly which offers savage political competition, but nothing like a vision of a realistic American future.

After 2008, I swore off voting for Republicans for good. After Nov. 6, I intend never to vote for a Democrat, either.

But if Obama gets my last Democratic ballot, I sincerely hope he wins.

Democratic leadership may be weak and without vision, but it is well-intentioned. The Republican Party, at this point, is so committed to corporate "rule or ruin" that it cannot be deemed either rational or patriotic.

America needs more alternatives than the two major parties, but this year, the choice is clear. 

The Wisdom of Canute

One of my favorite legends from English history is that of King Canute, the eleventh-century Danish warrior-king whose reign briefly interrupted the rise of the Anglo-Saxon monarchy begun by Alfred the Great.

The tale has many versions.  This is my favorite.

Wearied by his courtiers' flattery, Canute commanded that his throne be placed on the beach at low tide.  Then, seating himself in all his majesty, the King commanded the ocean not to rise.  He repeated his command from time to time until the waters lapped about his feet, his ankles, and finally his knees.

Canute commanded that his throne be carried back indoors, and from that time forward, whenever a courtier grew excessive in his praise, Canute would remind him of the sea's reverence for his earthly power and majesty. 

Whatever the truth of this story, it fits with history's overall appraisal of King Canute as a shrewd ruler.   The legend itself credits him with a kind of wisdom which often eludes kings - and our times, democratic majorities - i.e., the ability to distinguish between wishes and facts. 

In our own country, both Left and Right have often acted as though mere opinion could change the laws of nature - including human nature.  Such wishful thinking almost inevitably results in bad public policy.

One glaring example of magical thinking in American politics may be found in our continued belief that extracting, transporting, and burning fossils fuels solves anything. 

That we are addicted to fossil fuels is, if lamentable, not yet fatal.  But it's an addiction we need to break because it isn't - like an addiction to coffee - essentially harmless.

For one thing, fossil fuels don't exist in inexhaustible supply.  While estimates vary, most experts agree that we are nearing - if not past - the point at which half of all oil reserves have been pumped out.  When you consider that we've used up about half of the planet's oil in a century - and that there are far more of us now, using a lot more oil per person - it seems clear that our dependence upon this commodity will soon have to end.

Very soon, indeed.  Oil companies - like all intelligent agents - tend to go first for the "low-hanging fruit", i.e., the oil that's easiest to pump and refine.  More and more, we're having to find oil deep in the seas, with the resulting risks of ruptured wells; or in polar regions, with the added  costs and dangers of shipping oil over long distances; or in oil sands, with the added economic and environmental costs of its extraction.

Oil, as an important source  of fuel, is in its last few decades.  And, while it lasts, it will continue to grow rapidly more expensive as growing numbers of Asians, Latin Americans, and Africans compete for a resource which used to be reserved for the use of Europeans and North Americans.

For the time being, natural gas seems to be picking up some of the slack.  But we're beginning to wake up to the dangers and costs associated with "fracking" - and, as these inevitably come to light - Americans will begin to question the value of a fuel  source which, like oil, seems to offer only a few decades of relief from the need to change our ways.

Moreover, these arguments completely ignore the simple reality that fossil fuels - all of them - contribute to global climate change.

With respect to climate change, our time is beginning to run out.  There are still, of course, climate-change skeptics.  But the past decade has seen a steady movement of former skeptics - especially scientists and hardheaded realists like corporate, military, and national intelligence leaders - into the camp of the persuaded and alarmed. 

With the exception of the ever-flexible Mitt Romney - and other Republicans who want to be nominated by their increasingly irrational party - there has been no comparable movement of believers into the ranks of the skeptical.

Energy and the environment don't figure to be a major issue in this campaign.  Both major-party candidates will be trying to convince us that they know how to "bring back" jobs and economic prosperity.

The problem, of course, is that no one can "bring back" an economy based on fossil fuels - or at least, not for long.  The next economy will be based on new assumptions - and new energy sources.

John Adams said it well, five years before the Revolution.  "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

It's time Americans began facing the stubborn facts of an over-populated, energy spendthrift world - and looking for someone to lead us forward into a new economy based on sustainability and renewable energy.

King Canute would have understood that.  His fleets were powered by wind-power and the strong arms of his Viking warriors.

And he was wise enough to know when the tide was coming in.