The current system is gamed ... certainly you realize that the wealthy are almost as likely to be Democrats as they are to be Republicans, and the political battles we witness (as mere mortals) are expressions of philosophical, social and ideological battles between them. Some of those differences are substantive, but there are also broad areas of general agreement. It is in those areas of agreement to which you point ... corporate control (which includes various forms of national socialist support provided by whatever Party is in power), protection of investment banking security, and taxation. Do you realize that the last time the very wealthy did not exercise direct control was during the New Deal (the bane of the right), when income tax rates for the upper 1% was close to 70 or 80% (and maybe higher ... I am making this claim from memory, and could have it wrong).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Reagan's schtick, of course, was to undo the New Deal. In as many ways as possible. So yes, deregulation was one tool for doing that (and, as part of the deified Reagan legacy, Republicans continue to deregulate at the drop of a hat ... and look where that has gotten us, by the way; life is ever so much cheaper and the products or services ever so much better now that ownership of all previously regulated industries has continued to concentrate in fewer and fewer hands). But remember he also took on the Air Traffic Controllers and began a continual war against trade unions -- so that membership of unions today is roughly equal to pre-Depression levels (and lower, if one just looks at the private sector); and even though the Right despises unions, the poor hapless working-class stiff who has sided with the Republicans does not realize that most of the trappings of our middle class society to which they aspire (or middle class Republicans speak loudly of "protecting") were brought about because of unions. An educated middle class also poses danger to the ruling elite, so Reagan also began the process of destroying public education in this country, and reneging on the promise of universal and free opportunities for higher education. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> I watched Barack Obama's speech yesterday. It was a marvelous speech. There are many parts of it worthy of deconstruction and analysis. It was a complex, nuanced analysis of racial issues in this country ... there were three or four major threads woven throughout the speech, and all were connected to the central idea of moving forward. It was not about simply one thing (as FoxNews and conservative commentators seem to think), but I have faith that principled people will give it the attention it deserves (as opposed to the knee-jerk reactions I heard coming from the mouths of Juan Williams and other talking heads on the Right). Right now, I would like to focus on just two parts of that speech, as both are relevant, here. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> (1) He correctly linked white anger (particularly southern-white anger) directed towards African-Americans to Ronald Reagan. Not many people have yet recognized the lessons Republicans learned from the George Wallace campaign, and how they deftly used their massive (and national) political machinery to apply (and perfect) the coded language Wallace developed to tap into (and, in fact, create) resentments against "welfare bums" and "criminals". Part of that political machinery includes the tightly woven network of conservative think-tanks and conservative talk show hosts -- all of whom built careers (as Obama correctly pointed out) built on increasing people's fear of crime in the streets and cadillac mommas stealing their tax dollars, to which they later added fears of affirmative action taking jobs or educational opportunities, and fears of drug lords, gang leaders, and even rappers (and their posses) that personified the mysterious threat of black maleness. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > He returned to this same theme later in the speech, when he said: Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > There is no pandering here. Nor is there any blame -- as the FoxNews talking heads attempt to convince their rabid listeners was intended. It is merely a description of what happened, and continues to happen, in a world where the middle and lower classes are set against each other by the very people who are shipping the jobs overseas and who control the means of communication in this country to constantly put wedges between people who otherwise have common interests. And that leads to the second point he raised and -- as above -- returned to on multiple occasions. To wit: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > (2) That this anger (coming from both the black and white communities, but mistakingly directed at each other) misdirects attention away from the real culprits in what he called the "middle-class squeeze": a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. -------------------------------------------- > There's more, but that will have to do for now. If you didn't watch it, watch it again and listen for (a) historical insight, (2) precise analysis, (3) accurate targeting of the issues that must be addressed, (4) a clear description of the issues most important to him, and yes (5) hope that we can do these things and move forward, breaking the cycle of recrimination (and possibly guilt) by finding common goals and dreams. It was not a speech designed to make you stand up and rush out the door to do battle ... it was a thoughtful, contemplative and inspiring address about potentiality and what we have yet to accomplish. -------------------------------------------------------------------- > I am not yet a dedicated Obama supporter, but my interest has most definitely been piqued.

(2)