Gary Hart: America’s Next Chapter

[babylonsister]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/opinion/25hart.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

America’s Next Chapter
By GARY HART
Published: June 25, 2008


THE novelties of race and gender have largely distracted the nation from the more profound aspect of the 2008 presidential election: This campaign presents the potential for a new cycle of American history.

The idea that American politics moves in cycles is usually associated with the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., but it has an even longer currency. Ralph Waldo Emerson noted the political oscillations between the party of memory and the party of hope, the party of conservatism and the party of innovation. Henry Adams believed that “a period of about 12 years measured the beat of the pendulum” during the era of the founders. Schlesinger, borrowing from his historian father, estimated that the swings between eras of public action and those of private interest were nearer to 30 years.

What matters more than the length of the cycles is that these swings, between what Schlesinger called periods of reform and periods of consolidation, clearly occur. If we somewhat arbitrarily fix the age of Franklin D. Roosevelt as 1932 to 1968 and the era of Ronald Reagan as 1968 to 2008, a new cycle of American political history — a cycle of reform — is due.

snip//

Senator Obama’s attempt to introduce the next American cycle should include, at minimum, three elements. National security requires a new, expanded, post-cold-war definition. America must transition from a consumer economy to a producing one. And the moral obligations of our stewardship of the planet must become paramount.

These themes and the policies that flow from them, if made the centerpiece of the 2008 election (perhaps along with alternatives that others might suggest), could produce the mandate required to begin a new historical cycle. This post-New Deal, post-Morning in America era would be more in tune with the current century and its realities than the continued political circling that confuses most Americans, who repeatedly and overwhelmingly report that they know America is adrift.

They are right. And they are right because they instinctively realize that old politics, old parties and old policies are increasingly irrelevant to our lives, to our revolutionary times and to our country’s future. The next cycle of American history is as yet unframed, awaiting a national leader who can define a new role for government at home and a new role for America in the world of the 21st century.

[Demit]

1. What an intelligent essay! Smart overview of where we stand today. Thanks for posting it.

[asthmaticeog]

2. It kills me a little every time I read some brilliant essay by Hart.

To think that we could have had that new era under HIS stewardship a couple of decades ago if he could have kept it in his pants. America's puritanism combined with his recklessness deprived us of a leader who would certainly have been truly great, a Philosopher-President of a sort. I still have wild respect for the guy, he's a brilliant and thoughtful statesman, but the regret still stings.

[babylonsister]

5. Hopefully someone in the next admin can make some good use

of Mr. Hart.

[biermeister]

3. From the Huffington Post re: Iran

Gary Hart

Unsolicited Advice to the Government of Iran

Posted September 26, 2007 | 03:22 PM (EST)

Presuming that you are not actually ignorant enough to desire war with the United States, you might be well advised to read the history of the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor in 1898 and the history of the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964.

Having done so, you will surely recognize that Americans are reluctant to go to war unless attacked. Until Pearl Harbor, we were even reluctant to get involved in World War II. For historians of American wars the question is whether we provoke provocations.

Given the unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, you are obviously thinking the rules have changed. Provocation is no longer required to take America to war. But even in this instance, we were led to believe that the mass murderer of American civilians, Osama bin Laden, was lurking, literally or figuratively, in the vicinity of Baghdad.

Given all this, you would probably be well advised to keep your forces, including clandestine forces, as far away from the Iraqi border as you can. You might even consider bringing in some neighbors to verify that you are not shipping arms next door. Tone down the rhetoric on Zionism. You've established your credentials with those in your world who thrive on that.

If it makes you feel powerful to hurl accusations at the American eagle, have at it. Sticks and stones, etc. But, for the next sixteen months or so, you should not only not take provocative actions, you should not seem to be doing so.

For the vast majority of Americans who seek no wider war, in the Middle East or elsewhere, don't tempt fate. Don't give a certain vice president we know the justification he is seeking to attack your country. That is unless you happen to like having bombs fall on your head.

[fiorello]

4. A vitally important subject! But I disagree with Hart...

If Obama wins (yes?) it will be a unique opportunity - with Dems in control of Congress - to redefine the national agenda.

But it must be based on tangible results that benefit people. And we have two years to show results.

Re-defining national security (most important, but a long-term project), producer society and environmentalism are all good and fine - but will not build a new consensus for the Democrats. Roosevelt and Reagan produced changes because they provided direct benefits (real or imagined) to people. Roosevelt: the government will help in time of need. Reagan: screw civic responsibility, go out and be selfish! And Obama?

The most important defining change should be: rebuilding civic culture (Obama's words). And it should focus on health care reform.

Some 65% of people support Obama's health care plan. And its a tangible issue - one that people will see directly. They won't see the other stuff (such as changing the tax code to favor working people rather than the super-rich).

The other important defining change is to do a reasonable withdrawal from Iraq.

If the Dems can achieve this - it will provide a solid basis for a new political era. And it will buy time for the more abstract, long term issues Hart mentions.