That freerepublic post is hilarious.
I feel for anyone that shares his catastrophic nightmare vision of the USSA... when it comes down to it, a lot of average workers, who are well informed about politics and the workings of their country would fall neither left nor right, liberal nor conservative, socialist nor capitalist, libertarian or fascist -- not in any sort of clearcut black and white terms. I can't fathom why people still see things in such simple terms. NOTHING political should be boiled down to such divisive and damaging dychotomy.
Clinton and Blair both cut their cloth on the idea of a third way, of appealing to all sorts of sensibilities. No-one wants to sacrifice the "sweat of their brow" as bioshock recalls it, and be taxed, but in the same breath -- plans like Obama's resonate with people because the disproportionate earnings of people at the top -- like CEOs and the investment bankers that are widely blamed for the current climate -- that is all percieved as unfair. The 'free market' isn't percieved as free by normal people, its percieved as toxic, and manipulated by the most priviledged in society, to the detriment of the average citizen. Again though, while a lot of those people would love to see the screws turned on such people, a lot of people understand that if you tax business in a way that hurts business, you lose business... to other countries for example. There has to be a balance, an intelligent approach to fed budgeting and state budgeting, a measured response that suits the context that the country and each state finds itself in. That should always be the case. And personally, it strikes me, that Obama is the candidate closest to offering that.
You can never please everyone, you can never please both sides, and sometimes that adage of being jack of all trades, master of none is true. But being more centrist, left on this, right on that, a mix of the two as appropriate -- maybe thats the best way to break the cycle of the electorate swinging, era to era, across the aisle whenever it wants some sort of mess cleaning up. America really shouldn't fear introducing so-called 'socialist' programmes that the country needs -- I don't care what anyone says: healthcare shouldn't be a commodified, premium product. Not exclusively. It should be every free citizen's right. If you can afford premium healthcare and health insurance, then even with a national healthcare system, you could still take it out. That's how it works in the UK, and although its not perfect, its a great system. America could actually learn from that decades old system and avoid for example - "post code lotteries", where standards differ geographically, or the drawn out debates around certain drugs / drug-companies needing to meet FSA-style approval first. It could even pioneer some sort of opt-in/opt-out funding system to calm and allay the fears that peoples' hard earned money is being pissed away because of the lifestyle choices of others. There could be a model that is implimented on a state by state basis, per referendum. America has the potential to lead in these areas, improve quality of life for all, and pull up that quality of life to the standards that many in other parts of the world enjoy. Thats nothing to be afraid of imo.
