I've been batting the phrase "paradigm-shift" around for a while now. With all the changes we've experienced in the past 20 years, with the changes imminent on the horizon — both for good and ill — the concepts, problems, ideas and beliefs that simply didn't exist 15, 10, even 5 years ago (when did you first hear the word Google?), could we be in the midst of a paradigm shift? (I am HARDLY alone in this thought, as you can see here.)
Watching Tuesday's historic election, and listening to the discussions after Obama's victory was declared, I saw another sign of a paradigm shift. A lot can be made of Obama's victory, and it will take time to see if any of it rings true years from now. But I realized that, for all the overblown rhetoric, all the exaggerated emotion, there's a fundamental change that took place last night.
Barack Obama is 47 years old. When he was born, there were parts of this country where his father could not have ridden in the front of a bus, would have had to use a separate entrance at hotels, could not ride in a taxi with a white man. Today, a black man is President-elect — that should be an earth-shaking realization.
The realist in me says that this is all well and good, but now comes the time to live up to the promises and rhetoric. The cynic in me points out that, if it fails, if Obama's presidency doesn't live up to its promise, this paradigm shift could just as easily become a footnote in American politics… an aberration caused by dissatisfaction with a deficient presidency and the glimmer of false hopes.
But I sit here today hopeful. Change was promised, and Obama's speech Tuesday night set a tone that I hope will carry forward through his presidency. He spoke of unity, of erasing the divisions that have separated us (and been so exacerbated the past eight years), he spoke of work and hope and struggles ahead of us. He's got a hell of a job ahead of him and I can only hope that he lives up to every ounce of hope and faith and pride his supporters (and I count myself among them) have directed toward him during this campaign.
Four years from now, we need to be better off than we are today. Today I trust that we will be.
Watching Tuesday's historic election, and listening to the discussions after Obama's victory was declared, I saw another sign of a paradigm shift. A lot can be made of Obama's victory, and it will take time to see if any of it rings true years from now. But I realized that, for all the overblown rhetoric, all the exaggerated emotion, there's a fundamental change that took place last night.
Barack Obama is 47 years old. When he was born, there were parts of this country where his father could not have ridden in the front of a bus, would have had to use a separate entrance at hotels, could not ride in a taxi with a white man. Today, a black man is President-elect — that should be an earth-shaking realization.
The realist in me says that this is all well and good, but now comes the time to live up to the promises and rhetoric. The cynic in me points out that, if it fails, if Obama's presidency doesn't live up to its promise, this paradigm shift could just as easily become a footnote in American politics… an aberration caused by dissatisfaction with a deficient presidency and the glimmer of false hopes.
But I sit here today hopeful. Change was promised, and Obama's speech Tuesday night set a tone that I hope will carry forward through his presidency. He spoke of unity, of erasing the divisions that have separated us (and been so exacerbated the past eight years), he spoke of work and hope and struggles ahead of us. He's got a hell of a job ahead of him and I can only hope that he lives up to every ounce of hope and faith and pride his supporters (and I count myself among them) have directed toward him during this campaign.
Four years from now, we need to be better off than we are today. Today I trust that we will be.
Comments
But, anyone who expects Obama to do anything about it is fooling themselves. It is dependence on government as a savior that sticks the US behind the 8-ball.
If we want to get on track WE have to start doing something about it. If my children are going to be prepared for this world, I have to make sure of it. Not the village, not the schools, not Obama. ME.
Did "no child" empower to take control of your children's education? The answer is "no." Did "trickle down" work this time and empower the working class with anything more than service-sector jobs--or give the economy anything better than a virtually job-less recovery period? The answer, again, is "no." Look at the number of working Americans who couldn't afford new homes--isn't that one of the issues at the core of our current economic dissaster?
Get over myself? Because I didn't submit a corollary to my statement? Of course it shouldn't be a hindrance. I would think my opinions and politics I've posted on these threads make my position on that obvious.
"Did "no child" empower to take control of your children's education?"
This is a different point altogether. I say people need to take personal responsibility and accountability to heart. That government will not be our savior. And, you point to a government program? To what end? I don't see your point. For the record, I despise NCLB. Always did. But, it was never meant to empower me to do anything. And, to follow my original point that government should not be your savior - it shouldn't.
"Did "trickle down" work this time and empower the working class with anything more than service-sector jobs--or give the economy anything better than a virtually job-less recovery period?"
Not sure how to respond to this. Supply side economics is not a government program, nor is it intended to "empower the working class" to do anything. As a finance and accounting professional, I'd be happy to discuss what supply side economics does and is supposed to do...but, I'm not sure that's what you're looking for either.
Job-less? Not even close, as we saw 5 million new jobs under Bush and a historically low unemployment rate. Could it have been better? Yeah. But, he had to deal with 2 recessions, 9/11, etc. Clinton saw 20 million jobs created under his watch. Very nice. Of course, many were due to the .com boom and the losses (approximately 3.5 million) all hit Bush's term.
As for service-sector jobs? Are you complaining that we don't produce enough in this country anymore? If you are, I agree. And, it also has NOTHING to do with supply side economics.
"Look at the number of working Americans who couldn't afford new homes--isn't that one of the issues at the core of our current economic dissaster?"
No, it's not. The government interfering in the housing market to GET loans for these people so that they COULD buy homes despite not being able to afford them is one of the issues at the core of our current problem.
Typically, government interference is bad. It's a generalization, to be sure. But, it's usually correct.