On the Quantization of Politics and Social Relations - A Preamble

Our current means of understanding political and social relations are becoming increasingly inadequate to describe our current state. Liberalism, socialism, communism and the many isms of the last centuries are rooted ultimately in an Enlightenment understanding of classical Newtonian theory of physics. From these natural laws stemmed our understanding of how to shape and describe our politics. Yet so much has changed since the eighteenth century in physics and in society. Including the debridling of science from social science; once the fundamental starting point for social and political thought which continues to influence our way of relating to one another today.
Politics itself is changing from a classical model of absolute certainty of relations between social actors and institutions at a macro level to a quantum model of relative uncertainty of individual interactions at a micro level. Here lies the core of a new understanding of social and political relations based on quantum theory rather than classical as observed in the leaderless Arab Spring and often murky Occupy Movement. The internet creates a new social field which allows for an infinity of social outcomes since each interaction between individuals is influenced and morphed online through interactivity with thousands more interactions. Just as individual quantum particles and waves interact relative to one another to produce an infinite chaos of outcomes at the subatomic level so too do individuals and groups interact relative to each other on the internet to produce an infinite number of outcomes in the new social field. Thus the interactivity of individuals hitherto confined to the micro realm of intimate personal relationships is magnified to mass social movements and possibility of mass change in the macro realm of politics through the social field created via the internet.

More to come...

On Real Senate Reform for Canada

The Senate of Canada was intended by the founders of the nation as a 'chamber of sober second thought.' In recent decades the upper house of Parliament and its members have been called everything from undemocratic to wasteful to shameful. Sober or significant would be hard adjectives to find in its description outside of a high school civics lesson. At best one might find an occasional defence of the institution in media on either purely historic grounds or by illumination of its several committee studies published each year. Although in practice Senate committees and their work, albeit perhaps important and well intentioned, are given less second thought than afterthought. So the institution continues unchanged as a legacy of the politics particular to the origin of the Dominion in 1867. The respectability of Senate and Senator have faded. Members today known more for lifetime patronage appointments with not insignificant compensation and famously absurd attendance records than any honorable title. In the same period the contemporary utility of traditional Westminster institutions in general has come under greater scrutiny.
The two-party domination of politics at Confederation has evolved into a multiparty polity in recent years. This was demonstrated explicitly this year as a traditional third party formed the Loyal Opposition in the House of Commons for the first time. Regionalism has become pervasive in federal governance; ranging from Quebecois nationalism to Western alienation to power play by individual Provinces railing against federal authority. The continued growth of population and economic power in the West has been at the centre of calls for reform of the upper house. Residents of the west coast and prairies view their ever-increasing import within the federation as being inconsistent with a House of Commons rigged quite literally in favor of their eastern counterparts. That the composition of the Commons is slanted falsely to benefit the east is an undisputed fact. Both Quebec and Prince Edward Island under the Constitution hold a disproportionate number of seats in a House pro porting to base membership on representation by population. The rise of lobbying for single issue or constituency interests will likely continue to increase with sophistication of method and recent discontinuation of electoral public financing. Calls and movements to carry greater inclusion of groups deemed historically or culturally disenfranchised or under-represented in the political sphere fuel agitation for change as well. When combined with ever-increasing partisan fervor and ideological dichotomy amongst elected officials the varied dissatisfaction with Parliamentary conventions shows no sign of waning.
Proposals for reform are myriad and rooted often in stakeholder interests. Third party proponents and oft related groups have rallied hard for some form of proportional representation. This would be a fundamental change in governance. A shift at its most basic from the trend of single party majority government to multiparty governing coalitions. The intended affect being an undoing of a two-party dominant system in favor of a plurality of parties representing a diversity of social interests. It seems doubtful however that the most significant champion of proportionality, the New Democrats, will retain their passion for this cause under current conditions. With its ascension to Official Opposition status and clear potential path to forming a government under the traditional model it seems unlikely that they will continue to lobby for electoral reform with their past excluded zeal. Changing the rules is a far more attractive prospect for a small player who would reap benefit than for a big player who would now find change a detriment to their own electoral prospects. One can hardly dispute idealism falling prey to pragmatism in politics. It does appear likely however that the cries for proportional representation will continue forward, even among elements of the newly empowered opposition.
In the case of the Senate there are two primary lobbies with competing models of reform. Both rooted at their base in differing political motivations. The first is the side which favors an outright abolition of the upper house. The second countering with a proposed greater role for the red chamber. At its most articulated extent the latter is expressed as the Triple E model. The three E's being Elected, Equal and Effective.
The abolitionists contend that every province and territory follows a unicameral, or single legislative house, model while functioning as well or better than their federal cousin. They see no need for costly and wasteful sobriety in reviewing bills already debated and passed by legitimate elected representatives in the lower house. Their case is certainly strong. Where calls for elimination of the Senate have been consistent and increasing not a single province has ever had a movement of any significance lobbying for a bicameral, or two house, legislature. The respective unicameral assemblies of the second tier of government across the land have functioned well since Confederation. Exceptions being the result of poor policy, lackluster leadership, partisanship or corruption rather than any lack of second thought. The Senate itself, as detractors point out, has no real legal authority to overrule the Commons; Nor should it as its members are unelected and unreasonably unaccountable. Add to this utter lack of democratic principle or practice an inconsistent methodology for appointing Senators. The membership can grow or recede at the whim of the Prime Minister. Regional representation is based very, very loosely on relative population. Some Senators are appointed as a reward for public service, others for their civic contributions and still more for partisan political reasons but all to a ripe old age. With such random selection criteria, plum benefits and a transparent void of accountability the ancient Roman choice of a favorite horse of the Emperor as Senator, though patently absurd on its face, seems somehow less so to Canadians. The annual expense of maintaining a stable of thoroughbred patronage far too high the abolitionist would argue.
The reformers in the second camp have a different take. Whether single, double or triple E proponents of senatorial change they do agree on a need for renewal over outright abolition. Their primary arguments are the acknowledgment of those on the abolitionist side of the debate. Reformists concede everything outlined above but attach their own corollary. They see beyond the Senate as it is to a Senate as it could be. In this view the much maligned upper house becomes an opportunity to enhance democracy and federalism. The roots of this perspective as stated earlier lie in Western alienation. From the populist, prairie-born schism of the Progressive Conservative Party, which led full circle in a generation from Reform to Canadian Alliance to a new Conservative Party, the ideal of the Triple E model has been transposed. In practice however little serious effort has been made on the matter beyond platform rhetoric and largely symbolic Senate elections.
At the heart of calls for reform versus abolition is the very Western alienation from which the notion was born. It is not in the interest of highly populated and vote rich Ontario to share an equal legislative voice with lesser populated provincial partners. The idea is certainly contrary to the constitutionally over-represented interests of Quebec. Here lies the great irony. Without eastern support resolution of western under-representation perceived to be perpetrated by eastern interests is a non starter. The very inspiration for reform is ultimately its fatal bane.
So a nation sits at the intersection of divergent partisan and social interests for and against proportional representation. Down the street from the crossroads of an acknowledged dysfunctional Senate poised between eastern abolition and western reform. It is here that a third way emerges. A route forward which finds compromise between the convergence of disparate paths. A single stone which strikes at the two birds of proportional equity and Triple E reformation. It is in this fourth E for Equity that we may find new life for an ailing yet fundamental institution of our Parliamentary democracy.
What would a Quadruple E Senate look like?

-The upper house would be composed of 80 Senators and a Speaker
-There would be 20 Senators from each of four regions: West (the four Western provinces), Ontario, Quebec, and East and North (the four Maritime provinces combined with the three northern territories)
-The Speaker would be appointed by the Government in the House of Commons and would cast a vote only in the case of a tie between Senators

Elected and Equitable
-The election of Senators would be based on regional proportional representation from results of the general election for the House of Commons; No separate ballot or election process would be required
-Parties would submit lists of Senate candidates for each region
-The popular vote for each region would determine Senate seats by party with each seat representing 5% of the popular vote (rounded) for a total of 20 seats or 100% of electors; So a result of 12% of the popular vote for the Green Party in the combined Western Region of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba for instance would net the Greens two Senators for the duration of the current Parliament
-Senate votes would be based on a simple 41 member majority with the exception of defined constitutional matters and special regional vetoes as described below
-The Senate would be dissolved and elected in entirety along with the House of Commons based on an election originating in the Commons from normal convention or confidence measures

-The Senate would have joint jurisdiction with the Commons over approval, amendment or defeat of bills through normal Parliamentary legislative procedure
-The Senate would have no jurisdiction over money bills or confidence motions; Only a defeat in the Commons could trigger an election for a new Parliament
-All bills would originate in the Commons; Senators and committees would review, amend, debate, defeat or approve Commons bills only
-Each regional caucus would be given special veto power over three specified legislative areas each. These would be deemed Vital Regional Interests:
-East and North- Energy and Natural Resources, Environment, Fisheries and Oceans
-Quebec- Human Resources Development, Official Languages and Heritage, Citizenship and Immigration
-Ontario- Industry, International Trade, Citizenship and Immigration
-West- Energy and Natural Resources, Agriculture, Environment
A veto would follow a vote by the full Senate resolved to be detrimental to a Vital Regional Interest and would require a two-thirds majority of 14 Senators from the affected region to approve into force.

By marrying the diverse interests of proponents of Senate reform and proportional representation the plan presents a new bridge to ford an old impasse. Partisan, social and regional interests could be transcended to create real momentum for needed change. The coupling of special protections over defined Vital Regional Interests only solidifies the motivation for compromise. The fourth E represents the possibility of finding common ground for a plethora of hitherto competing partisan, regional and social interests sufficient to realize the elusive goal of real Senate reform for Canada.

On the New Roman Army

The Roman Empire was perhaps the greatest civilization in history by power, influence and longevity. The very notion of political and social hegemony today is based in large part on the expanse of classical Rome. As such it also provides the historical prism through which to view the decline or perceived decline of modern powers. The comparisons to modern America are obvious and many. Although such application of past to present is sometimes overstated or oversimplified and often overused by proponents and detractors alike this does not undo the historical imperative of learning the lessons of what has transpired before us.
Roman imperial might was rooted ultimately in the coercive power of its legions and its economic ability to maintain them. For centuries Roman infantry and tactics dominated every battlefield and opponent of the ancient world. All of this changed however on August 9th, 348 at Adrianople. It was here in modern Turkey that the supremacy of the mighty Roman army came to a lasting end at the hands of Gothic tribes. Although the Empire in the West would continue for more than a century it was at this place many agree that the real ascendancy of Rome was lost forever. Though we point to 476 as the official end of the glory that was Rome it was at Adrianople that its fall became a matter of time rather than an avoidable outcome. The Romans at this battle remained the most highly touted infantry in the world but were simply no match for the Gothic cavalry and the new tactics associated with it. The crushing defeat was certainly not the beginning of the end for the fabled army. It was rather the climax of a longer deterioration spread over many years which culminated on the battlefield that day. A clear demonstration that the mightiest military the world had known had become a shadow of its former self. Rome had failed to adapt to change. The end result being the end of Rome itself.
Romans were certainly familiar with innovations in cavalry and other military technology. Their leadership was often in the forefront of its development. They failed primarily to develop these assets however for economic reasons.
-The decline of a strong agricultural base leading to urbanization resulting over time in high unemployment and unprecedented drain on treasure to support basic social services in cities
-A depletion of resources produced by conquest resulting in higher and higher taxes on citizens to support the army
-Strains on resources in an attempt to adapt to the new cavalry model which was prohibitively more expensive than traditional infantry
-An almost constant state of operational deployment along widespread frontiers far from Italy itself
-Army 'reforms' which tended to rely heavily on select units only without proper replacements, rotation or retention policies
-Declining public infrastructure to support growth in commerce as greater resources were diverted to military ends, and
-Escalating public debt and currency devaluation evolved primarily to support ongoing wars on the frontiers.
The factors listed are certainly simplified and hardly exhaustive of the many and complicated issues which led to a long and steady decline of the Pax Romana. There are indeed more associated with just the decline of the army itself. This does provide, albeit limited, a basic and useful general context for understanding the ultimate failure of the army and its role in dissolution of the Empire itself. This is not an exploration of Roman upheaval however. Rome simply provides the backdrop for a viewing of current events. It has been said that the failure of history is a failure to learn its lessons. Looking at the points above one can not help but be struck by the potential enormity of present failings.
The United States Armed Forces are certainly the greatest that have ever been seen to date. Their awesome might unparalleled in the annals of history. Even Roman greatness pales in relative comparison. Yet this global leviathan of American power exhibits troubling symmetry with its long extinct predecessor when viewed through an informed scrutiny of history.
The decline of the American manufacturing base today is akin to the loss of the agrarian base of antiquity. With American manufacturing receding its national trade deficit grows. The comparison of reduced exports can be easily extended to the diminishing treasure of frontier conquest experienced by Rome. When combined with ever-increasing demands on the state for social services from at least the Great Society onwards it paints a clear comparison. The tax burden of government at all levels can only increase markedly in coming decades. The demographic perfect storm of the Baby Boom and entitlement expectations only solidifies this course. The underlying health of the United States economy is in jeopardy.
The Defense budget only continues to bloom in these conditions. With the brief exceptions of demobilization in the 1940's and 1990's after the Second World War and Cold War respectively military expenditure relative to all measures has grown almost unabated for decades. Massive expenditure on procurement continues at quick pace. Competing to stay in advance of real and perceived threats abroad while maintaining massive Cold War-appropriate heavy forces. It is noteworthy that most units and systems known to be among the most effective in recent operations in the Near East and elsewhere did not include traditional massed armor or new fifth generation stealth aircraft. Though these elements account for much of new procurement spending each year they seem to have little battlefield utility. Asymmetrical threats such as those employed effectively by terrorists and supporters on the ground or increasingly against sophisticated and critical information networks have emerged as most urgent. Yet American policy has not adapted well to these new dimensions. Resources are diverted to procure capabilities to counter past adversaries or unlikely scenarios. The United States operates hundreds of installations around the globe to support large formations, operations, deployments, potential deployments, protection of allied interests and so on. A network of neo-imperial outposts in every corner of the world. With many large formations never seeing deployment in combat because they are either unsuitable or deployed in static other units have borne the formidable brunt of the so-called war on terror. The age of the Roman infantryman dominant on the far-flung frontier battlefield is over. American policymakers need to apply this lesson of their forebears.
The combination of decreased revenue and massive expenditure on foreign wars since the start of this century has only ballooned already questionable federal spending, deficits and debt. For those who subscribe to contemporary notions of massive spending reductions without revenue increases there is an unspoken reality apparent. The last decade was one of negligent fiscal irresponsibility on both ends of the spectrum. Republicans funded two major overseas wars and cut taxes simultaneously. Democrats lacked the moral courage or efficacy to act as an effective opposition and then did nothing substantive to reverse course on spending. Both sides are equally responsible for the fiscal crisis today and neither has presented a reasonable alternative. The miniscule expenditure reductions complete with massive revenue increases popular on the left and the revolutionary virtual dismantling of the federal government embodied in the Tea Party on the right are both beyond the rational whatever their guise. What is certain is that the military-industrial complex, as dubbed by no less a heroic hawk than General become President Dwight Eisenhower five decades ago, is not sustainable.
The world is changing. Economic and technological might are becoming not a means to military supremacy but a hegemonic end on their own. This is certainly not to say that there will be no need or use of armed force moving forward. To state this would be naivete in pollyannaish measure. Physical coercion or its potential remains at the root of social and global order. Economic growth, technical innovation and social progress are linked at their most fundamental to this foundation of order. It is in economics, resources, technology and information that we observe the emergence of the new theatres of operations. Where tank battles are replaced by hostile takeovers, invasions become ethnic conflicts within failed states threatening commodity production, and computer viruses hurl virtual megatons against critical military and civil network assets. It is in this space, in a global economy of unprecedented competition between individuals, corporations and nations, and a digital landscape upon which physical security or vulnerability is increasingly dependent, that the future of warfare resides.
The simple fact is that Rome had limited resources for their military endeavors. Their choice was ignorant over-extension. They chose to maintain large infantry formations along the frontiers while attempting to develop more costly cavalry units which combined to form an unaffordable drain on finances. America likewise finds itself in a similar conundrum with infinite demands and finite means. Its forces are deployed in large numbers throughout the world. They remain mired in two major wars after nearly a decade of continuous infantry operations. They consistently provide strategic, C4I and logistical support to overseas allied operations. They operate a strategic umbrella of deterrence for friends and competitors now expanding to anti-ballistic missile systems. They face daunting challenges defending their own territory due to heavy reliance on reserve and National Guard units in foreign operations and related chronic retention issues. A plethora of procurement requirements have been made acute by wear on equipment of all types in a decade of combat. At the same time they face the task of meeting the challenges of future warfare detailed above. All of these factors must also be considered within the context of fiscal and economic crises at home and abroad.
Like Romans of old Americans face difficult times and even more difficult choices. Domestic constituencies, active and seductive lobbying machines, ideology, genuine pride in an impressive military heritage, and collective fear all grip the nation into staying the course of an unsustainable status quo. As in domestic challenges, from unaffordable social entitlements to crumbling social infrastructure, America like Rome lacks the political will and courage of leadership to do the right thing. Americans deserve and more than that are in desperate need of the conviction of country over party and people over self. What is becoming uncomfortably evident is that the United States appears doomed to repeat historic errors without swift and sure correction. Its unsurpassed security apparatus on the precipice of becoming a new Roman army. For if fear of partisan consequence continues to trump the possible national consequence of indecision then American world leadership may be destined like an ill-fated Roman to die upon its own sword.

On a Straight Deal for America

In times of crisis Americans have looked to their leaders. More specifically to their President. It is in this single individual, this embodiment of the republic, that citizens have placed their aspirations. The results have ranged from the landmark precedent of Lincoln to a Square Deal from one Roosevelt and a New Deal from another. Examples of executive pilotage in national storms are many. Their destinations as varied as their courses through the consideration of history. Yet as this generation moves through a crisis which may see the undoing of the Pax Americana of the previous century crises in the country are met only by crises in Washington itself. The result is a momentum shifting from hopelessness to helplessness. Where is the inspiration of previous generations in need of a star to guide them through their long night?
The world needs America. America needs a light in the darkness. Both need President Obama to fulfill his promise of hope. His attempts at playing moderator to competing political interests have failed. In such dark days the American people do not look to legislative leadership but to executive action. The President needs to present a plan. America needs a Straight Deal.
The Straight Deal is a balanced approach forward. A combination of pain and gain. A pragmatic and honest course which anticipates a long voyage together wrought by rolling sea and unseen obstacle but with a better destination beyond.
The current crisis is unlike those of the past in several respects. Traditional Keynesian fiscal tools are not available due to burgeoning debt and credit issues. Indeed those who prescribe Keynes fiscal model forgot a key dimension. Such fiscal ideas are based on repaying the treasury in good times so as to maintain health for cyclical crises as they occur. Stimulus spending is limited simply by government having let its debt continue to build over decades. The dichotomy which exists in federal politics today is also unique to this era. The fiscal absolutism manifested in the Tea Party Movement precludes any tangible possibility of real compromise between Democrats and Republicans. It may have taken over two centuries but the warning of President Washington against the danger of political parties seems to have come to fruition at the very apex of his nations power and peril. The President can not therefore present a grand plan of spending and stimulus. He simply does not have the resources or the political capital to execute such a vision for government.
The Straight Deal must encompass several elements. It is absolutely paramount that it levels with Americans. It must be clear and honest that America's problems are immense but not insurmountable, and that no solution will be easy or quick or without sacrifice. It must be comprehensive and based in long-term objectives. It must first and foremost include a reasonable and immediate plan for reinvigorating a stalled economy prioritizing job creation. It must show near term progress on deficit reduction. It must include a real and sustainable fiscal solution for the national debt. It must include an aggressive vision for future national success. It must include spending cuts, revenue increases and tax cuts targeted at creating conditions for employment in private enterprise. It must provide stable economic conditions for at least several years to ensure predictability for business. Finally it must make a clear statement, once and for all, that wealth and employment are a product of the private sector.
Some general suggestions.

-A long-needed change in policy and posture to ensure the priority of strong national security, protection of vital interests abroad and fulfillment of alliance commitments and obligations with greater reliance on smaller, highly mobile and lethal forces
-Immediate large reduction in overall procurement including review of all current projects based on the priorities set out above
-End the troubled Fifth Generation fighter programs and opt for suitable Generation 4.5 alternative while concentrating resources on Sixth Generation development to maintain future advantage
-Massive reduction in overseas facilities, formations and deployments including reducing basing and staging assets to a handful of strategic locations, and firm removal of all regular forces from Iraq and Afghanistan by 2012 and 2014 respectively
-A greater emphasis on future warfare including a shift from large, offensive armored formations for high-intensity combat engagements to limited counter-insurgency, special operations, rapid reaction, lethality of force multipliers, strategic deterrence, non-proliferation, intelligence and most notably information security

Entitlement Spending
-Conduct a comprehensive review and realignment of all social insurance programs to ensure sustainability through and beyond Boom retirement
-Raise the eligibility age for Social Security and Medicare to 70 for those born after 1965
-Introduce immediate means testing for Social Security and Medicare benefits while ensuring that the benefit ceiling is sufficiently generous to discount only the wealthiest while providing for all middle and lower income Americans
-Consider consolidation of Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP and Obama Healthcare provisions into a single more efficient joint national healthcare plan in collaboration with state governments
-Involve medical practitioners, pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, state and federal agencies in a comprehensive and sweeping examination for reform of health care to ensure sustainability, efficiency, cost-effectiveness and positive outcomes for all stakeholders; Do not involve elected officials in this process
-Couple an extension of Unemployment Insurance benefits with reforms aimed at creating pathways to employment such as continuing benefits during training or skills development and continuing somewhat reduced payments for those who accept low-paying, part-time work to transition from unemployment to nominal employment to full employment to prevent falling further into economic despair and placing burdens on social welfare systems

Discretionary Spending
-Set a shortlist of federal spending priorities to ensure that critical programs are effective and sustainable and view all cuts through this lens
-Conduct a broad independent review of all federal spending programs to maximize efficiency and reduce duplication and costs
-Slash all non-prioritized programs
-Eliminate earmarks and similar pet projects which do not serve the national interest
-Place a freeze on the compensation of all elected federal offices

-Make tax changes effective until 2020 to provide a stable and predictable environment for economic growth
-Make changes based on the sound assumption that low taxes on the wealthy may create wealth but do not ensure distribution of wealth through job creation as evidenced from the current economic situation
-Reduce nominal tax rates for low income earners, stabilize current rates for middle earners and markedly increase rates for top earners ($500,000+)
-Tax bonuses at double the maximum rate for financial services executives as reparation for federal intervention
-Slash business taxes from 35% to 20% maximum rate and similar reductions at all rates from large to small to foster an environment for job creation
-Offer a two year exemption for all new business startups
-Offer a $4800 one time tax credit for any small business which hires a new full time employee and keeps them for at least one year, concentrating on every small business hiring one person rather than having fewer corporations hire many
-Create a lifetime personal capital gains exemption of $100,000 to ensure a positive investment environment for most Americans
-Tax investment income and capital gains at normal rates beyond this ceiling
-Simplify the tax code for personal and business applications, closing loopholes and allowing only limited exemptions for both
-Extend current payroll tax reductions

Strategic Investment
-Federal spending priorities for future national competitiveness must include serious and sustained funding for Infrastructure, Education & Training and Research & Development
-Create a National Infrastructure Fund to commence shovel-ready projects as soon as possible while offering a long term strategy and predictable funding process
-Create a National Innovation Scholarship to pay 100% of college tuition for up to four years for any math and science student in the top 10% by national standardized academic performance criteria
-Create a comprehensive GI Bill for the 21st century (GI21) to provide real opportunities for the heroes of Iraq and Afghanistan, including a similar benefit for families of the fallen
-Simplify regulation for patent approvals including FDA mandates on pharmaceuticals

Political Reform
-Pledge from caucuses in the House and Senate that rules will change to ensure that legislative procedure will reflect majority rule and not the super majorities which have evolved over time to entrench gridlock
-Comprehensive campaign finance reform must be included in any package which will have any meaningful consequence in returning political power of the people to the people

It is likely that even a sincere, long-term, balanced plan will be untenable given current political circumstances. It can form however a comprehensive program for a second Obama term. If a reasonable platform with promise for the broad middle of the American polity is in fact rejected by the opposition it can only have the affect of squeezing the extremist Tea Party elements out of the critical centre. A case can then be made that both executive and legislative control is required to end the gridlock in the capital; and the better use will be made of it this time.
Obama must do so in a manner which borrows from Republicans in a unilateral compromise which steals their political momentum. The current situation pits the President in a reactive position against fiscal absolutism. He must regain the initiative and force his opponents to deal with a comprehensive plan rooted in responsible centrist solutions. He must not forfeit his confidence. This is a political plan to be certain but not partisan in intent. A vision for tomorrow simply can not wait another day. America needs leadership in the here and now.
This will of course require the hitherto elusive unity of liberals and moderates within his party. Surely such a coalition can be built and sustained for one election given the crisis at hand and the Republican alternative looming large since the 2010 elections. If the President can chart a middle way and demonstrate clearly the support of his caucus the election next year can be fought and won as a single effort with a single message. One party with one plan led by one man. The President must find a new path for governing and leading. The crisis has been thrust upon us and the time for action is overdue. America needs a Straight Deal.
This page of history belongs not to Congress or candidate unknown. It is time for President Obama to claim his place as one of his predecessors did. The moment is come to put his feet in the right place and stand firm.