Days of Decision

Do you remember days when you made important decisions that shaped the direction of your life? Last December 31 was a day of decision for me. Now at the beginning of Advent—the Christian church’s liturgical “new year”—another decision is in the works.

After a heart episode brought me back to Oregon in October 2007, I imagined that come the first of January 2008 I would indulge again my passion to write fiction that had been set aside to spend a year as an interim pastor in Alaska. But I was wrong.

On New Year’s Eve, thoughts began to boil up inside of me that I found impossible to ignore. As clear as it was sudden, I knew that I wouldn’t be writing fiction in the New Year. Instead, I would be writing about politics. With the most important elections in decades eleven months away, I believed that so much was wrong in our country—an illegal and immoral war, loss of human rights and civil liberties, and destructive social and environmental policies—that whatever I could do to bring these issues into sharper public focus took precedence over anything else I might do in the year.

At breakfast that New Year’s Eve, I talked with Connie about the idea. I would create an explicitly political blog with special attention to the historical context around current issues. I didn’t know what to call it, except that it should have “Janus” in it, after the old Roman god of doors, often pictured looking back and looking forward. There were, of course, words and images out of my own Judeo-Christian tradition that would have suggested that; but using Janus was a way of reminding me that this was an effort to speak to folks not only within the tradition but those for whom religious language would be a stumbling block. Connie gave the blot its name: Milo’s Janus Outlook. You can see what I wanted it to be in the first article on January 1, 2008.

Over the ensuing eleven months, I wrote 184 articles (between three and four a week), many of them cross-posted on Daily Kos, one of the one of the most widely read progressive blogs in the world. Although there were far more readers on Daily Kos than on Janus, I always had the feeling that those found their way to Janus and came back again were friends, even when they didn’t agree with my views. I owe a deep debt of gratitude to you who were regular readers there, who offered suggestions of stories to cover, who provided me with links to source material, and who sometimes shared your own stories.

Why a “blog”? A friend asked. A blog is a little like writing a note, sticking it in a bottle, and then flinging it out into the limitless ocean of cyber space. Unless someone responds, or, as was more often the case, sends me an email about an article, you really don’t know who reads your message or the difference it makes in how they view an issue. At least with a blog—unlike a newspaper article or television report—there is the possibility for interaction with others.

Blogging has its limitations, most notably that there are literally millions of blogs out there, and the image of the lonely bottle floating out in the ocean flawed in that the waters of cyber space are filled with blog bottles bouncing around waiting for someone to open and read their messages. Nonetheless, little is as rewarding as hearing back about an article from an old friend not seen or heard from in years, or from a complete stranger in some far off corner of the world adding to my knowledge of the issue. It was serious work, but it was also fun. I could have paid tuition for what I learned about the issues and the medium.

That Obama’s campaign recognized the importance of the blogosphere (the connected community of bloggers), and made use of it effectively, contributed in no small way to his success in the primaries and the general election. I suspect that it will prove just as important in mobilizing support for his legislative program.

Blogging has shaken up the world in which journalists— amateurs and professionals alike—operate as much as the telephone did in the early part of the 20th century. Every day, blogs are becoming more important sources of news for more people. Where else—not newspapers or television—can you immediately access the sources and evaluate claims the reporter makes? There are tons of blogs that are garbage, but by finding reputable bloggers (and checking their sources) you are less dependent on the “entertainment” that passes for “news” on the networks and the major cable channels. That’s why I decided to voice my political protest through blogging.

From that epiphany on December 31, 2007, I didn’t assume that I was embarking on a permanent career. For one thing, when you are my age, one of the realities that looms largest is your own impermanence. The commitment I made to myself was to write the blog through the election. No, I didn’t assume that if my candidates won I had no more reasons for concern about the issues that prompted the start of the blog. Most of my candidates did win; but there is much work to be done to see that those issues—and now the gravest financial crisis since the Great Depression—are effectively and constitutionally addressed.

But each of us has to decide what is most important for us to be doing at any given time. Events over the past three months have convinced me to devote my major energy to another writing project, still about politics, but one that does not lend itself to blogging. I will be researching and writing about human rights activities in Taiwan of which I was a part over thirty years ago and the shadows those events cast in the present. I undertake that task convinced that the story is relevant not simply to me and my family, but may fill in a few pieces missing in some larger stories. However important or unimportant in a larger scheme, this project requires more extensive preparation before it becomes public.

Unlike many of you out there, I am not good at multi-tasking, especially when it comes to writing projects. For the past eleven months it felt good to invest all of the time I had in research and writing my articles on current issues each week. Connie shared my political concerns and was amazingly tolerant of my constant preoccupation with the blog. For her encouragement and patience I am everlastingly grateful. As difficult as it will be to let the blog go, at least for a while, I want to spend the time and energy I have on the Taiwan project. Be assured that when I can share it I will.

In the meantime, I do not intend to remove Milo’s Janus Outlook from Blogspot. As comments are made on earlier articles, I will continue to be notified and respond as appropriate. If events occur that I feel compelled to write about, I will. If you have written something you would like for me to consider posting here, send it to me. However, one of the realities of blogs is that with fewer new articles there are fewer visitors.

Before too many months pass, I hope to be able to report enough progress on the Taiwan project that I may return to writing fiction or political blogging. Because we do not know what the future holds for any of us, the important thing is diligence in the task(s) at hand.

The Psalmist says that we should “number our days that we may gain a wise heart.” (90:12) I take that to mean a sense of mortality is a necessary part of gaining wisdom, an acknowledgment that we don’t have unlimited time to accomplish what we believe important. Today, we stand at the beginning of Advent, twenty-nine days from the New Year. Should the number of your days and mine extend into 2009, let them be days of gratitude and learning that prompt us to act. How else do we accomplish anything worthwhile?

- Milo

It's Not 1929, But...

That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t pay attention to history. I believe in a linear view of history where the future is undetermined, and not a wheel of endlessly repeating events with no possibility of “new” or any real meaning for “future.” Instead of discovering a pattern in the present that fits one in the past to understand where we are and are “determined” to go, our “lessons from history” must always be suggestive and not conclusive. For historical inquiry to be helpful in addressing issues in the present, we look for patterns in the past that were and weren’t helpful in their time with a view to creating something of value to humankind in the present. This is where I’m coming from. What about you?

As the financial crisis has unfolded over the last few months, the national attention has been drawn back to the advent of the Great Depression, epitomized by the cover of Time Magazine in its November 24 issue with the image of Barack Obama embedded in a picture of FDR. There are significant parallels between 1929 and 2008; and there are equally significant differences. It is critical to distinguish between them.

In the rush (should we say “panic”) to see in our present that earlier period, Daniel Gross wrote a serious article with a cute title, “Don’t Get Depressed, It’s Not 1929,” in which he points out some of the obvious differences between the periods.

The credit debacle of 2008 and the Great Depression may have similar origins: Both got going when financial crisis led to a reduction in consumer demand. But the two phenomena differ substantially… the economic trauma the nation suffered in the 1930s makes today's woes look like a flesh wound.

"By the afternoon of March 3, scarcely a bank in the country was open to do business," FDR said in his March 3, 1933 fireside chat… In 1933, some 4,000 commercial banks failed, causing depositors to take huge losses. (There was no FDIC back then.) The recession that started in August 1929 lasted for a grinding 43 months, during which unemployment soared to 25 percent and national income was cut in half. By contrast, through mid-November 2008, only 19 banks had failed. The Federal Reserve last week said it expects unemployment to top out at 7.6 percent in 2009. Economists surveyed by the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank believe the recession, which started in April 2008, will be over by next summer. (Of course, back in January the same guys forecast that the economy would grow nicely in 2008 and 2009.) But don't take it from me. Take it from this year's Nobel laureate in economics. "The world economy is not in depression," Paul Krugman writes in his just-reissued book The Return of Depression Economics. "It probably won't fall into depression, despite the magnitude of the current crisis (although I wish I was completely sure about that)."

Before you tell yourself not to be depressed about the prospect of depression because Paul Krugman has said that we are not in depression, consider that this Nobel Prize winning economist first wrote about a return to depression (not recession) economics, and he wrote it in 1999. As he looked at the economic crises that had swept across Asia and Latin America, he said that those crises were warning to us all, like diseases that have become resistant to antibiotics, the economic maladies that caused the Great Depression were making a comeback.

Alas, with the Wall Street boom and financial wheeler-dealers making vast profits, the international crises of the 1990s faded from view. But as Krugman points out in an expanded work published this month titled, The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008, depression economics have come to America and that a replay of the 1930s seems all too possible. Against that backdrop, don’t take too many of Gross’ valium-coated assurances that since this isn’t 1929, we are not entering a depression.

What Gross and Krugman agree on, and what the Great Depression teaches us, is that time is of the essence. Last week, Krugman pointed out

There is, however, another and more disturbing parallel between 2008 and 1932 — namely, the emergence of a power vacuum at the height of the crisis. The interregnum of 1932-1933, the long stretch between the election and the actual transfer of power, was disastrous for the U.S. economy, at least in part because the outgoing administration had no credibility, the incoming administration had no authority and the ideological chasm between the two sides was too great to allow concerted action. And the same thing is happening now.

The good news, said Gross, in his don’t-be-depressed article

After the 1929 crash, the nation had to wait more than three years for a president who simply wasn't up to the job to leave the scene. This time, we've got to wait only two more months.

If you listened to Obama’s radio address on Saturday (you can watch the 3.5 minute presentation on YouTube here, and you can read the transcript here), or heard his press conferences yesterday and today, I think you will appreciate his sense of urgency. Obama is well aware of what happened in the 1932-1933 interregnum and seems to be doing everything in his power to prevent something similar from happening now.

It is not simply a matter of haste, but of the need for good judgment. On Friday, conservative columnist David Brooks, who was anything but a fan of Obama during the primaries and election, wrote about his enthusiasm for the team the President-elect is building. One may not agree with them, he said, on everything or even most things, but “a few things are indisputably clear:”

First, these are open-minded individuals who are persuadable by evidence. Orszag, who will probably be budget director, is trusted by Republicans and Democrats for his honest presentation of the facts.

Second, they are admired professionals. Conservative legal experts have a high regard for the probable attorney general, Eric Holder, despite the business over the Marc Rich pardon.

Third, they are not excessively partisan. Obama signaled that he means to live up to his postpartisan rhetoric by letting Joe Lieberman keep his committee chairmanship.

Fourth, they are not ideological. The economic advisers, Furman and Goolsbee, are moderate and thoughtful Democrats. Hillary Clinton at State is problematic, mostly because nobody has a role for her husband. But, as she has demonstrated in the Senate, her foreign-policy views are hardheaded and pragmatic. (It would be great to see her set of interests complemented by Samantha Power’s set of interests at the U.N.)

Finally, there are many people on this team with practical creativity. Any think tanker can come up with broad doctrines, but it is rare to find people who can give the president a list of concrete steps he can do day by day to advance American interests. Dennis Ross, who advised Obama during the campaign, is the best I’ve ever seen at this, but Rahm Emanuel also has this capacity, as does Craig and legislative liaison Phil Schiliro.

I am grateful that we have to wait only two months to wait for new leadership and not three years, as in 1929. I am grateful for a President-elect who takes history seriously. I am grateful for the use he and his team are making of the present.

I hope you have a good Thanksgiving!

- Milo

Transition—Things That Bother Me

And Things That Don’t

After this last week of Transition (week two and a half of eleven), I’m glad I took a week off to write about dogs. Several of you told me that you were glad I did too. But I was glad that Obama and his transition team didn’t take the week off. And, I’ll tell you why.

But first I want to tell you some of the things that didn’t bother me this week. I wasn’t bothered by the decision to let Joe Lieberman keep the chair of the Homeland Security committee. While my personal preference would have been him to be appointed as ambassador to Antarctica, the likely dissent of the penguin population notwithstanding, I wasn’t bothered by the decision that was made because it was the solution preferred by the President-elect. I wasn’t bothered by all of the blithering over the blogospheres Right and Left about the possibility of Wife-of-Bill-Hillary-Clinton being named Secretary of State, at least as long as I was not coerced into reading about it.

I wasn’t bothered about that decision or any of the others that have been made-and-announced and those that have been made-but-not-announced because I want Obama to have the people around him that he believes can best help him achieve his objectives as president. I am proud that he doesn’t seem to be surrounding himself with yes-speaking-cronies. As in the case of Lincoln, creating his own “team of rivals” says something about the self-confidence of the President-elect as well as his sense of this Union's dire straits.

As far as I am concerned “dire straits” is not an overstatement; and that brings me to the things that do concern me at this moment of transition. On Wednesday and Thursday, the Standard & Poor’s index of five hundred stocks fell by more than 6 percent, something that hasn’t happened since July 20 and 21, 1933. Floyd Norris, who reported this happy news, added that the panic in the Great Depression was triggered by collapsing commodity prices, prices that have fallen rapidly this week.

Since I had been already thinking about FDR’s transition in 1932-33, my mood wasn’t helped this morning when Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize winner in economics and voice that I have come to trust most on the financial crisis, jerked me back in time to that other transition.

Everyone’s talking about a new New Deal, for obvious reasons. In 2008, as in 1932, a long era of Republican political dominance came to an end in the face of an economic and financial crisis that, in voters’ minds, both discredited the G.O.P.’s free-market ideology and undermined its claims of competence. And for those on the progressive side of the political spectrum, these are hopeful times.

There is, however, another and more disturbing parallel between 2008 and 1932 — namely, the emergence of a power vacuum at the height of the crisis. The interregnum of 1932-1933, the long stretch between the election and the actual transfer of power, was disastrous for the U.S. economy, at least in part because the outgoing administration had no credibility, the incoming administration had no authority and the ideological chasm between the two sides was too great to allow concerted action. And the same thing is happening now.

That “disturbing parallel” is disturbing indeed. As Krugman points out, our transition is not quite as long as it was for FDR—he was not inaugurated until March 4—but he also points out that crises move quicker now.

Most obviously, we’re in the midst of the worst stock market crash since the Great Depression: the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index has now fallen more than 50 percent from its peak. Other indicators are arguably even more disturbing: unemployment claims are surging, manufacturing production is plunging, interest rates on corporate bonds — which reflect investor fears of default — are soaring, which will almost surely lead to a sharp fall in business spending. The prospects for the economy look much grimmer now than they did as little as a week or two ago.

I wonder what FDR would have done about our “Detroit” crisis. When I polled a group of friends (who I suspect all voted for Obama) at lunch last week about bailing out the auto industry, I found no support, about what the three corporate-fly-your-own-plane execs found from the congressional committee when they brought their tin cups to Washington this week. Krugman again gave me pause.

Now, maybe letting the auto companies die is the right decision, even though an auto industry collapse would be a huge blow to an already slumping economy. But it’s a decision that should be taken carefully, with full consideration of the costs and benefits — not a decision taken by default, because of a political standoff between Democrats who want Mr. Paulson to use some of that $700 billion and a lame-duck administration that’s trying to force Congress to divert funds from a fuel-efficiency program instead.

What Krugman is saying is similar to what I heard the President-elect on his interview on “60 Minutes” last Sunday evening:

...let's see how this thing plays itself out. For the auto industry to completely collapse would be a disaster in this kind of environment, not just for individual families but the repercussions across the economy would be dire. So it's my belief that we need to provide assistance to the auto industry. But I think that it can't be a blank check.

At the risk of repeating myself, I think we need to follow Obama’s lead on this matter in order not to make a terrible situation more difficult for him. With Congress about to go into a recess that in other election years would last until January, I thought the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate hit the right notes with their “send us your plans and we’ll consider a special session beginning December 8.” I don’t know what more they could do. Why the automakers didn’t come with detailed plans in hand is another question.

There are a couple of other things that bother me in this transition—two wars, for example. Since we have only one president at a time and Obama is not yet it, all the President-elect can do is to prepare for what his administration will do after January 20. I don’t know what that means in the case of Robert Gates who looks to be asked to continue to remain as Secretary of Defense. In a unique way, he will have two masters in this transition. How can he prepare for what Obama will want him to do after January 20 and do what Bush wants him to do in the meantime? I have a lot of respect for Gates, but this will surely complicate transition planning on Iraq and Afghanistan for Obama.

The Gates situation is there for any to recognize. Obama wants him in the Cabinet; he’ll figure out how to manage it. There is a different problem that is not so visible; and it is truly Rovian. Did you see the article in Tuesday’s Washington Post about how the Bush administration is moving to protect key political appointments in the federal agencies?

Just weeks before leaving office, the Interior Department's top lawyer has shifted half a dozen key deputies -- including two former political appointees who have been involved in controversial environmental decisions -- into senior civil service posts.

The transfer of political appointees into permanent federal positions, called "burrowing" by career officials, creates security for those employees, and at least initially will deprive the incoming Obama administration of the chance to install its preferred appointees in some key jobs.

Similar efforts are taking place at other agencies. Two political hires at the Labor Department have already secured career posts there, and one at the Department of Housing and Urban Development is trying to make the switch.

My Republican friends may argue that this is a practice of every outgoing administration, but they would be wrong, at least in gargantuan degrees. I have argued elsewhere that one of the critical problems a new administration will face is restoring integrity to federal agencies. After re-election in 2004, President Bush set about to politicize federal agencies in a way that had not been attempted since President Nixon after his re-election in 1972. Under Rove’s direction the administration was far more successful than Nixon in enforcing control over the agencies. The Bush administration is doing all it can to extend its influence through what will be “moles” (and I don’t mean the small insectivorous mammals of the family Talpidae) in the agencies. Although the action is completely in character for what we’ve come to expect of the Bush administration, it still bothers me.

A friend and I were talking about FDR in the thirties and the situation Obama now faces. My friend said he thought Obama will know what to do. What worries him is whether or not the American people will accept what is required to save the nation. I think he is right to worry about that. What's bothering you in this time of transition?

- Milo

Rescue of a Human

[Update at the end]

It is one thing to have a steady procession of cats and dogs through our house for stays as short as overnight and as long as a couple of months as Connie provides foster care for them in preparation for their being adopted at the Humane Society of Central Oregon. It is quite another to go down to the shelter on Saturday mornings and put neckerchiefs on dogs that we suspect may get passed over because they are older, not a popular color, or not a “more desirable” breed.

The cacophony of barking can be deafening. For some, the barking is an attempt to get our attention. For others, it seems to come out of a desperation not understanding why they are cooped up in this place. Sometimes, more distressing to me are those who don’t bark at all, ones that seem to be completely intimidated by their surroundings or who have given up in despair that is written on their faces.

We go in on Saturday mornings before the would be adopters come in. The neckerchiefs were cut and sown the week before. One of the attendants, whose compassion for them seems endless, opens the kennel and holds the dog while Connie ties and fluffs it. I hold the neckerchief bag. We are told that the neckerchiefs make a difference in calling attention to these dogs that may so easily be passed by. We hope so. I am always saddened when I come back the next Saturday and find dogs still wearing the ones we put on the week before. It takes all of my resistance not to take these dogs home with me and add them to the two we already have.

Maybe you’ll understand that when we received the following message today from another friend who cares for these animals, it had special meaning.

I rescued a human today.

Her eyes met mine as she walked down the corridor peering apprehensively into the kennels.

I felt her need instantly and knew I had to help her. I wagged my tail, not too exuberantly, so she wouldn't be afraid.

As she stopped at my kennel I blocked her view from a little accident I had in the back of my cage. I didn't want her to know that I hadn't been walked today.
Sometimes the shelter keepers get too busy and I didn't want her to think poorly of them.

As she read my kennel card I hoped that she wouldn't feel sad about my past. I only have the future to look forward to and want to make a difference in someone's life.
She got down on her knees and made little kissy sounds at me.

I shoved my shoulder and side of my head up against the bars to comfort her. Gentle fingertips caressed my neck; she was desperate for companionship. A tear fell down her cheek and I raised my paw to assure her that all would be well.

Soon my kennel door opened and her smile was so bright that I instantly jumped into her arms.

I would promise to keep her safe.

I would promise to always be by her side.

I would promise to do everything I could to see that radiant smile and sparkle in her eyes.

I was so fortunate that she came down my corridor.

So many more are out there who haven't walked the corridors.

So many more to be saved.

At least I could save one.

I rescued a human today.

I know, this is projecting human emotions onto a dog, and in scientific studies that is a definite no no. But I have lived with dogs long enough to be suspicious of anyone who says they know what these creatures feel and don’t feel, or know or don’t know. My suspicion is that they know more and in ways that as humans we can’t imagine. Unlike any other animal, over thousands of years, dogs have been bred to be companions to humans; it is now, quite literally, in their genes.

So, if you have a place in your life for a canine friend, or perhaps a second one, consider one of these with a neckerchief, or one that should have a neckerchief but doesn’t. You just might get rescued.

- Milo

Update: In addition to the stories in the comments below, the posting of this piece on DailyKos has generated a lot of stories, all compassionate and some of them quite incredible.

FDR and Barack Obama

At his press conference last Friday, President-elect Barack Obama said he had been talking with former presidents and reading some of the writings of Abraham Lincoln. I was glad to hear that he was seeking the counsel of these former presidents, especially Lincoln. I had been thinking about Franklin D. Roosevelt.

FDR had been especially in my mind because of a visit I had with an old friend on Election Day. She had her ballot out on the table and was going to make sure it was dropped in a voting box before the end of the day. She told me that she has voted in every election since she was 18 years of age. She recalled that the first time she voted was for FDR in 1932. You can do the math and figure out her age. I was struck by the historical parallels between the election in 1932 and 2008. Now I recognize that we need to be careful about making too much of these parallels; but since more and more we are hearing that we are facing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression I was drawn to a little reflection on that election seventy-six years ago.

Although stricken with polio and paralyzed from the waist down, Roosevelt refused to give up his desire to be active in politics. In 1928, seven years after he had been stricken, he was elected governor of New York. He followed the political trajectory of his relative Teddy. The first stop for both was Assistant Secretary of the Navy; the second was Governor of New York; and the third was the White House.

Roosevelt’s opponent in the 1932 election was Herbert Clark Hoover who had taken office just before the depression hit. He didn’t cause it, but he also seemed incapable of dealing with it. What else Hoover lacked was Roosevelt’s unique ability to persuade and reassure.

In a foreshadowing of Obama’s themes in the just concluded election, FDR focused his campaign on the common people who were being hurt by the depression. His speech during the campaign, “The Forgotten Man,” established the main themes of his campaign:

It is said that Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo because he forgot his infantry--he staked too much upon the more spectacular but less substantial cavalry. The present administration in Washington provides a close parallel. It has either forgotten or it does not want to remember the infantry of our economic army.

And the common people listened to him. Roosevelt won in a landslide, winning 472 electoral votes to Hoover’s 59.

Two days after the election, Adolph Berle, one of those known as FDR’s “brain trust” presented the President-elect and his cabinet-to-be with three stark “either/or” statements of the dire situation they faced:

First, there would either be economic recovery or there would be a revolution.
Second, there would either be social reform of a restored economy or attempted political stabilization in a disintegrating one.
Third, either the "recovery" Hoover claimed was in progress would arrive, or FDR would have to clean up the mess.

I spent some time this week reading and listening to Roosevelt’s first inaugural address on March 4, 1933. At this “History Matters” website you can read his address, but at the “Sounds of History” website you can actually listen to the address as it was broadcast to the nation on radio. As I listened and read at the same time, I was struck by the relevance of FDR’s words seventy-five years ago for today.

I will only include some selections from his twelve-minute speech. Although I hope the ones I select convey the spirit and heart of FDR’s focus, the selection will subjective. But you do have the option of reading the entire speech yourself.

Before reading the speech, I did not realize that his words, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” came from this address and from the first paragraph. I was glad to see them in context:

I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impels. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

…our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men…

The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men…

Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now.

Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our natural resources…

Finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order; there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people’s money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.

There are the lines of attack. I shall presently urge upon a new Congress in special session detailed measures for their fulfillment, and I shall seek the immediate assistance of the several States.

Roosevelt became one of America’s most beloved presidents, but he was also one of its most vilified, especially by the wealthy. Unlike Obama, Roosevelt came from wealth, which made his identification with common people reprehensible to those who, in the title of H. W. Brand’s new biography, considered him a “Traitor to His Class*.” Roosevelt was called a communist and socialist for his “New Deal” legislation that was directed at common people and that rescued the economy. Roosevelt’s failings—and he had them; the most notable for me was his internment of Japanese Americans during World War II—do not negate the assessment of his presidency made by The Economist in a review of Brand’s book:

Roosevelt was the greatest American president since Lincoln, his colossal abilities tested by personal illness, economic catastrophe and world war. He used every tool to hand to direct the United States in peace and war: party, bureaucracy, Congress and the media of the day. Whoever wins the presidential election of 2008 will find those levers rusted, weakened or twisted. His task will be to reconnect the presidency to the country and to the world—something that will take the talent and character Franklin Roosevelt brought to lead America from the nadir of economic distress to the zenith of power.

Our President-elect Barack Obama faces not only the severest economic crisis faced since the one FDR faced in 1933, he has, at the same time, to contend with two wars, and the collateral damage of an eight year assault on the American ideals of justice and civil liberties. He will need the “talent and character” of FDR, and more.

- Milo

Hope in Action

[Milo’s Note: A friend sent me this report on the celebration Tuesday night at Democratic headquarters in Bend, Oregon. But Mary also told of how she and her daughter had worked in the national and local races. I asked her if I could print her report as a guest column and she agreed. I know it is not a scientific measure, but there has not been another election where I can remember as many of my friends all over the country being actively involved “in the trenches” as in this election. I suspect that many of you have had similar experiences. Was the motivation desperation or hope? Desperation is sometimes the condition necessary to jump start our hope-in-waiting to hope-in-action. Whatever it was, the nation owes you thanks!]

I’ve enjoyed reading your articles, and I agree that one of Obama’s unique gifts is his cross-cultural understanding. I also agree that his gift is desperately needed now. I think that the other countries of the world are so excited about him because they understand his gift and its importance.

My daughter and I were at the Bend Community Center on November 4, watching the returns with Democrats and local Democratic candidates who put on a big party for all the supporters. We had several big screen TV sets and pizza, salad, and beverages for one and all. My daughter was hired by Future PAC, a political action committee, to be a field director for Judy Steigler’s campaign, and she had a number of door-to-door canvassers working under her. It was easy for her to hire canvassers due to the economy and people’s need for work.

I did a lot of phone canvassing for Judy, as well as some canvassing for Barack Obama and Jeff Merkeley. I really enjoy talking with the voters. Of course, by November 3 people were sick of all the political calls, but I just decided that this was democracy in action and even though I sympathized with people I kept making my calls.

At the election night party we had a great turnout. It seemed like no time had passed before CNN declared Obama the winner and great rejoicing erupted from the crowd. People were jumping up and down, hugging each other, screaming, and then grabbing for the cell phones to notify their friends. People ran outside and popped balloons and cheered. It was so exciting to be part of it, and later as I talked with young people I realized that for many of them it was the first time they really felt hope and eagerness for the future.

Poor Obama now has a great load of expectation on his shoulders, not only from his fellow Americans but from Kenya and the whole world! I hope people will realize that due to the economic circumstances and the great number of critical issues that must be dealt with that they will have to be patient because not everything can happen at once. He is not the Messiah returned!

Anyway, I and many, many friends and family members are joyful and hugely relieved at the election’s outcome. My daughter told me something sad, however. A man she works with is very fearful because he is convinced that Obama is a terrorist. Obama’s election has frightened this man, and my daughter is not sure what to say to bring him comfort

We must keep in mind that there are many people who are very scared or angry. I hope Obama can reassure people and bring us together as Americans.

Anyway, we can continue to live by hope.

- Mary

Obama

[Milo's Note: I received this poem from my good friend in Anchorage, written on election day. I asked for and received his permission to share it with you. Thanks, Jim!]

Obama

James A. Campbell

I shall not forget this day….
the jaunt on icy streets
in the light of an ever fading November sun
to leave my dot of ink
and feed my judgment to the hungry machine
that counts and connects the dots to a new day.

Hopefully.

Too long this damnable anxious night
like a stuffed head aching
and bowels churning
from an influenza of buffoonery,
this raw rash burning through the night
from an arrogance,
a cowboy insolence,
pitiful excuses and false hopes
of “mission accomplished”
uttered in cadence of
four garbled words
and a brain fart.

No ointment worked
to soothe the embarrassment of this man,
whose legacy is soon over.

Hopefully.

You could feel it
standing in line.
This was not just any dot on the page day.
…civic duty with a yawn.
This was the day of “the mark.”
The sacrament of vote,
the communal sigh
of the fever breaking
in the echo of one once dreaming
for our children
from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
This is the day in the fading sun of winter
that I placed my dot on the swell of memory
of the long winter shared
with others waiting,
waiting to say, “yes we did…
yes we did.”

Hopefully.