Governmental Transformation.How Will it Come About?

Game-changing

Pluto in Capricorn has begun the transformation of the American government soon to get into full swing with the Obama Presidency. It's gone beyond the ususal game to a much bigger one already. The old-style negative campaign of character assassination and nonsensical competition is kaput and serious work is ahead. No wonder the oldsters are stunned, confused, and awkward. Not too quick on their feet, eh?
Obama is a political scientist who took theory and applied it in the streets of Chicago, then to law-making in the Illinois legislature, and on to the US Senate. He is a talented, innovative politician and a grand experiment is in the wings as Uranus heads into Aries.

"This is exactly what he did here in Illinois. He disarmed the republicans while getting most of what he wanted in his progressive agenda. He drove the republicans crazy. But, they always gave in. And he is using community organizing principles. He taught Alinsky to new organizers and he taught about power, etc. He applies a lot of what he learned to his politics and in this campaign. His Camp Obama was run by former associates from his organizing days and they are also on his ground game. That's how he built up this great national organization in the early states in a matter of months. It is fascinating to watch him doing this and no one has a clue. The pundits are their usual brain dead selves in not seeing what is going on. The bloggers are too angry to step back and see what he is doing and how he manages to work with republicans, but has one of the highest progressive records in the Senate. And this is partly how he has managed to run rings around Clinton and her fearsome machine. Obama has a much better chance of getting progressive policies passed than Edwards does [December comment]. Clinton is simply not progressive."

"I agree that Obama is no fool. I have one addition to this article and the posts here. He's stated that he will open up the discussion to the public. When he brings these parties to the table to deal with health care (for example) it'll be on C-Span and the internet. Disclosure/exposure. This is not naive. Using technological tools to empower the people revolutionizes our political conversation."

"The problem -- that insurance and drug companies are so powerful -- is merely a symptom of the underlying issue: the American people aren't paying close enough attention. Obama's method strikes right to the heart of that issue. Until you get people to pay attention, the entrenched interests will always override the masses. That's why his plan to have a two-way conversation with the American people by holding townhalls and virtual townhalls with American citizens and his cabinet members holds promise."

"The 'Theory of Change Primary'. Hope and bipartisanship are not things that Obama naively believes are present and possible -- they are a tactic, a method of subverting and breaking the unified conservative power structure."
From political analyst Mark Schmitt

These are some comments I picked up in a discussion at the The American Prospect. And this one, from another site, particularly interested me:

"We are right now in a similar position to the one America encountered in 1800, when Jefferson was running for President against the very powerful Federalists. The Federalists were conservatives with attitudes much like our present conservatives. They believed in government and an economy both run by the elite and well-born, tight restrictions on voting (property owners or well-to-do only franchised), and government restrictions on freedom of speech (Alien and Sedition Acts) backed by the use of the militia and the courts to maintain order. Jefferson offered Democracy, in which adult males had voting rights and that people could rise from any social status to be competent to run government offices. Sean Willentz, in his excellent book "The Rise of American Democracy", describes the election of Jefferson in 1800 as a democratic revolution.
It is interesting that, like Obama, Jefferson entered office by agreeing to reach across the aisle to work with the Federalists, and to the great disappointment of many of his "Republican" (as the present Democratic Party was then called) supporters he did not automatically remove qualified Federalist officeholders and replace them with Republican cronies. Jefferson also did not describe in advance what he proposed to do in great detail, although Willentz makes the point that one letter he wrote during his second year in office described his intention to eradicate the Federalist Party. Which he did.
It's a fascinating story, with many parallels to today's situation. And as Digby points out, history doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. The emotional decision behind a big, revolutionary political change is - I think - one of those rhymes. As a wonk myself, I don't like the lack of advance warning regarding the decisions that are going to be taken, but I think that in American society, the economy and politics are all changing so rapidly that only a primarily emotional decision is going to work. If you really want the facts and predictions, then you are a conservative clinging to the status quo, and as we can tell from the last two decades, the status quo has failed. Obama is offering the leadership that our current political leaders can't or won't offer. I think we are in for an interesting ride with this guy."

No one knows how it will all play out, but many are anticipating changes and unusual developments. Definitely improvements, although incremental and over a somewhat lengthy stretch of time. Good change comes slowly. And with personal investment.

My understanding is that in times of wealth, a conservative government is there to maintain the status quo. In lean economies, redistribution is required. Then comes the progressive government. Right on cue.