What's disgraceful and saddening is that even those of us who know better, who seem to grasp the solutions, suck at implementing them. We're not good at the common good because we're too much in love with the individual, probably more than at any time in our history. In the '30s they may have called the New Deal "creeping socialism" but they didn't say that about the community chest. Now they would. In some cases, do.

What's most disillusioning is how I came to be so fully aware of how fundamentally that separates us from the rest of the developed world combined with where we are now. You see, it wasn't something I'd ever thought much about until I read Obamas last book, while he was still campaigning. About two thirds of the way through he addresses a basic difference in how Americans and Europeans see the world generally and the role of government in particular.

America, almost from the start, was "the land of opportunity" where every man was free and no limit existed for the accomplishment of any (such was the ideal, if not always the reality. ) If you work hard and keep your nose clean you can do anything, because no jackbooted government thug will come and stop you, or take all you've earned once you finally have it. In America you can, theoretically, do anything.

Europe tends to be a little more pragmatic, recognizing that government interference is far from the only obstacle to success. Having experienced numerous epic traumas in the past few thousand years, Europe seems far more concerned that no one fail than that everyone be able to succeed to the utmost. It's a mindset that views indolent billionaire mansions just a few miles from homeless Hoovervilles as anathema. We're all the same under the skin, so why are you so selfish you think you should have more than your neighbor just because you work your butt off every day while he watches?

That's a key difference we can't underestimate, because it's at the heart of the American loss of community that's the real problem here. Chalk it up to the Cold War and Ayn Rands popularity amongst conservatives; Americans largely take the view that any form of collective organization is corrupt, inefficient and malevolent (an odd view for the self proclaimed "vanguard of democracy. " ) It's at the heart of the culture wars and the viciousness that is their hallmark, and that reveals a lot about the leadership on both sides. Many (not all) on the right loudly proclaim loyalty to the Lord of Love but are indifferent or, worse, satisfied by the suffering of those who disagree with them. I don't know how many times I've seen people I like and respect respond to suffering with little more than "they deserve it for living their lives so poorly" without any consideration for the circumstances in which those lives were lived. This is America; overcome your adversity, and if you don't, failure is the price of your moral shortcomings.

On the other hand, many (not all) on the left claim to seek the common good but often seem inclined to "eat the rich" out of spite rather than need. Even if every belly was full, every body clothed and every person housed with good medical care it's not good enough as long as ANYONE is better off than anyone else. Their abilities, talents, efforts and dedication are properly public property, and those who lack the moral integrity to recognize that and voluntarily share must be compelled to do so (an odd position for a group supposedly so committed to civil liberties. )

Everything is in moral terms now, because that makes it so much easier to demonize the opposition; they aren't misguided, they're EVIL111 They don't need to be debated, reasoned with, convinced; they need to be expunged. Which is why the extent to which a given factions leaders appeal to morality is indirectly proportional to the extent they practice it.


We need to reestablish a shared morality, though I don't how we'll do it in a morally relative age where a given acts morality depends less on the act itself than who's doing it to whom, where we can't call a convicted murderer a murderer, much less imprison him, because we have to recall the circumstances that "made" him do it, or where the just way to deal with terrorists is terrorism. It's not that far away, however, if we all decide that's what we really want and we're no longer listening to those who deny it. I doubt you'll find many Pro Choice people who want to share their toothbrush with the world; it's THEIRS, and if that makes them a bad person, they don't care. I doubt you'll find many flattaxers who think the solution to homelessness is execution; most people aren't heartless, but an increasingly competitive and individualistic society does encourage self absorption (which isn't the same as selfishness, but can look as close as makes no difference. )

I remain convinced the leadership is creating the problem, but I also remain convinced the responsibility for that is the peoples for allowing it. That's the problem with a two party system: What to do when they're BOTH horribly wrong but suck too badly to realize it? Neither side has to DO anything, only wait for the other one to fail, lose popular support and automatically propel the other back into power, no more qualified to wield it than they were last time. I don't know how we find our way back to a common good that is actually GOOD and COMMONLY HELD. I know the first step it to stop automatically dismissing people as godless or inhuman if they don't completely agree with us politically. Ignore the attacks, but note the policies, and maybe if we start looking beyond one or two parties we can find someone who actually represents us as a whole. It's likely, in fact; one very real motive Democratic and Republican politicians share for keeping the culture wars AND the two party system alive is that if the people ever stop accepting the lesser of two evils and demand true public servants neither of the major parties will be in charge. In that sense Obama needed Bush just as Bush needed Clinton, and the wiretaps, openended Iraq wars, stimulus packages and detention of foreign nationals is no better under Obama than under Bush. Wrong doesn't become right just because it's your side doing it now, which is another thing we need to relearn if we're to find our way again.

So, how depressing is it to have the "Hope and Change" candidate so accurately and thoroughly diagnose the problem and then, on election, so ineptly implement the solution? I think he introduced more legislation (and made a lot less speeches) as Senator than as President. And with the exception of Cash for Clunkers, most of it was uninspired legislation; a second stimulus package and next years budget are about the extent of his accomplishments.