This is really turning to a familiar pattern. It wasn't really much different with Bush. We were told that we would we greeted as liberators. We were made to believe that the weapons of mass destruction would be found. We were promised that the troops would be out of Iraq in 6 months. We were offered the prospect of an oasis of democracy in the deserts of Middle East. We were testified that the corner would be turned next year... Then next year... Then next year. And so passed 8 years of Bush presidency. The Republicans were obedient. The Democrats were complicit. The media was soft. We were told to wait. Just wait and see. And we waited. And waited.
Follow me below the jump!
And while we were all preoccupied with the wars, Bush dropped the ball on the economy as well. We were told that the financial system was sound. One or two investment banks failing was not a big deal. Tens of thousands of foreclosures were not a cause for concern. Greenspan assured everyone that the markets were correcting themselves. We were asked to have faith in the system and wait. Then came Paulson. He also advised patience. Then in one week, we were told that the system was on the brink of collapse so please sign below for $700 billion. There was absolutely no time. We couldn't wait... And after a few maneuvers, the bailout was passed. The single largest bailout allocation in the history of the world. But a curious thing happened next. The money was not going to be used for what is was appropriated for. Apparently, the urgency to save the system was not so urgent. Oh, and by the way, the money was pumped directly into the banks and still the credit pipeline was not opening up.
So, you must be getting the groove by now. When we are told to wait and see, things don't turn out as we are promised. When we are told there is absolutely no time to wait, things don't turn out as we are scared to believe, either.
And there arrived Obama on the scene with his message of "Change" and "I mean it now!". Change was not only necessary but also urgent. And starting with a couple of thousand followers, mostly progressives (and not African Americans, for example, until Bill imploded in SC that is), he snowballed into a movement. It was not an avalanche, though. The establishment fought him tooth and nail to the bitter end. Hillary wouldn't concede before she had not only nearly destroyed her opponent with body blows which would later prove ready-made weapons for the Republicans but also unleashed the demons of racism and bigotry in OH, PA, and many other parts of the country. Up until July, Obama's coalition was made up of the non-DLC progressive types and his foot soldiers were the young and the liberals. Only after many promises, the full scale and scope of which we are recognizing only now, Hillary agreed to get on board and her folks unwillingly re-joined the party. The damage and destruction she inflicted was so deep and broad that even on election night, the margin of victory was a meager 7 points, despite the colossal failures of the incumbent party, the comedic (or tragic) candidacy of McCain-Palin, and the impending economic abyss the country was facing.
In short, Obama was catapulted to his candidacy by the progressives and he won it by the unwavering dedication and support of the progressives. And all of this, with the fixed and determined slogan of "Change, we can believe in". So, not only are we promised "change" but we are also asked to "believe in" it with the implicit evaluation that what passed before as change were empty promises. Furthermore, we were presented with the eloquent and powerful frame of the "urgency of now". That was all fine and well. And people voted, and vote they did with great numbers but still not resulting in an overwhelming landslide.
OK, what now? Obama has not made a single "significant" appointment that would signal progressive change and he seems to be intent on adding insult to injury by making unneccesary symbolic gestures to the wingnuts. And here comes the advice from the high priests of public opinion and political strateg(er)y: "wait until you see him in office". Alright, that we can do too. It's only one month away anyway, isn't it?
But here is my question: Having already witnessed the utter meaninglessness of both "wait-and-see" and "no, we can't wait a single day" arguments, aren't we entitled to a bit more specificity anymore? Yes, we don't want to rush things unnecessarily and instead exercise some patience. But at the same time, we don't want to waste another 4, and possibly 8 years, until everything comes crumbling down completely. So, can we agree on a timetable? Until when are supposed to wait to see some (any) progressive policy implementation before we raise uncompromised criticism and mobilization? Please contribute to this discussion and vote for the poll as well.