The recent news that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter has decided to switch parties has dominated the news for the last 24 hours. As the major news story of its time ( They will be on to something else tomorrow, maybe the swine flu once again) this news is, on the surface, a boon to those who would like to see a filibuster proof Senate (Providing there is an eventual decision in the Minnesota Senate race, which is not a foregone conclusion). However if one looks a little closer at the basis for Specter’s decision we find that it is primarily political in nature, as, sadly, most legislative decisions appear to be in this day.

Specter was to be faced with a strong, right wing, primary opponent in 2010 and was advised that he could not win. In his lust to remain in a position of power he determined that his best chance of winning reelection was to run as a Democrat. It’s really that simple. Having seen the writing on the wall he took the path of least resistance.

Those who think that this change will suddenly make Specter a screaming liberal are sadly mistaken. In fact, he has changed parties once before and has always been a moderate who seems to enjoy holding up a wet finger rather than make definitive stands of principle. Anyone who feels that the Democrats will have, with the inevitable seating of Franken in Minnesota, an automatic 60 vote cushion in the Senate will have a somewhat rude awakening. Specter’s disapproval of the Employee Free Choice Act is an indication of how loosely he will toe the party line.

So don’t get your hopes up.

Lots of talk lately has focused on the relative merits or demerits of President Obama’s stimulus plan. People have gone back and forth saying it is too much or not enough, that it will destroy America or save us. In essence this conversation comes down to pitched battle between two of the primary modes of economic thought of the 20th century, Neo-Keynesian economics and Monetary economics as favored by Milton Friedman and the Chicago school.

To oversimplify, Keynesian economics is a demand side philosophy and Monetary economics is a supply side philosophy. Another overly simple explanation of these somewhat opposing schools of thought is that Keynesian economics offers that in times of economic hardship demand must be created by the infusion of cash into the populace by government, creating the ability to purchase, thus creating demand where there was once none, due to lack of available capital in the marketplace. Monetary policy as roughly defined by Friedman advocates that government stay out of the market and that it can be kept solvent by a steady and measured influx of capital from a source outside government.

Another simplistic way of understanding these theories is that Keynesian economics favors government intervention in the market and Monetary policy favors a totally free market. Although Friedman himself was primarily a libertarian his economics have been most recently advanced by conservative republicans such as Reagan and both Bushes. Keynesian economics has been used by most Democrats since Franklin Roosevelt.

The dramatic difference of opinion on the role of government in our economy between these two schools of thought is at the crux of all of the discussions about our current financial crisis. It is like a championship bout is being fought between those who feel government must regulate the market and be active in it when it falters and those who think the market will adjust very well all by itself thank you.

In its extreme Keynesian economics can lead to a socialist state with the government controlling business and in its extreme Friedmanesque economics can lead to a fascist state where business controls the government. Neither extreme is particularly attractive for a democratic republic such as America. Both of these economic systems were designed for the nationalist political systems of the 20th century not a modern global economy. This is why both have struggled in the last 40 years.

Hopefully from the ashes of this battle both of these 20th century modes of economic thought will be adjusted and modified to the degree that a new, 21st century appreciation of economics will emerge that has neither the roller coaster up and down markets that are the hallmark of Keynesianism nor the bankrupting, failed, trickle down, unregulated fiasco that has resulted from our latest venture into Chicago style economics.

It has been said one should trust but verify. Perhaps it is time for a new economics that will do the same, a regulated but otherwise free market for a 21st century global economy. Where are the Keynes and Friedman of this century?

This day, Monday January 19, 2009, as we celebrate the wisdom and work of Martin Luther King Jr., the world awaits the momentous occasion of the inauguration of America’s first black president, Barack Obama. We look forward to this event not simply because he is black but because the world stands on the precipice of great upheaval, economically, politically and socially. President elect Obama (thankfully this will be the last time I must refer to him that way) and his historic election represent in the minds of many Americans a break from the past, from the tired ideas of the 20th century, and hope for the future of not only America but the entire planet.

Perhaps the collective will of humankind is still being heard out there in the vastness of space, where the real decider still awaits our reunion with right thinking and action. Maybe, just maybe, we are finally getting it and are beginning to realize the challenges of the new century can be met with a true 21st century consciousness instead of the worn out world view of those who would still tell us that imperial style world domination is not only possible, but necessary.

Obama is clearly a man for whom history has carved out a place. Yet that place must also be populated with caring, loving human beings who will support him as he strives to carry us into a brighter future, who will give their every effort to seeing to it that all men and women of this fragile planet have every opportunity to live productive and successful lives. This must be done with the utmost respect for everyone, not just the wealthy and powerful, not just the intelligent or connected, but every single person existent.

If we cannot move this nation and the world strongly in this direction I fear the new century will be a short one. The challenges we face are grave and daunting. If we simply hand over the responsibility to this one man, however talented, we will never be able to hand over a better world to our progeny. Mankind is driven to improve, to evolve, yet there are obstacles at every turn. Today, as our new President calls us to give of ourselves back to our communities on this day of service let us redouble our personal efforts to make ourselves better, stronger and more compassionate people.

After all, there is no one else but us who can make a difference.

One of my New Year’s resolutions, among the many I have already broken, was a vow to write more entries into this blog. It’s not easy, seeing as how I only write when I feel I have something of modest significance to say, which isn’t often. It’s nearly the middle of January and I have yet to think of any world shattering prose. To be honest I rarely, if ever, do think of anything likely to change anyone’s heart or mind. However, that should not stop me from trying.

I have several concerns as 2009 begins to settle in and we are merely days from inaugurating a new American President. The first is creeping complacency. Progressives have fought hard working their fingers to the nub to get someone elected who sees America not as a conquering empire but a helpful older brother to the world. My worry is that now that Barack Obama is to be our president there will be a letdown, a relaxing of diligence, similar to a football team playing a lesser opponent who lets down its guard, mails in the effort and gets beaten like eggs for an omelet. We cannot afford to simply breathe a great sigh of relief and go back to our daily lives content that because we have our man at the top everything will magically be wonderful again.

There are still issues which have uphill struggles if they are to come to pass. Single payer universal health care, instant runoff voting and the establishment of strong local sustainable economies all have many detractors and need our best efforts to make them realities. They will not just happen by themselves as we drive our Priuses to the co-op. A redoubling of our efforts is needed if these progressive policies that will help people’s lives are to come to pass. Get cracking people.

Another thing that worries me (yes, even though I am an optimist I have plenty of worries) is the fact that deep partisanship is so firmly entrenched in our legislatures, both state and federal. Even though the times call for strong bi-partisan leadership to carry us through the hard times we face and which lie ahead of us I fear that small minded people in government will continue to fight the creation of policies that must be instituted if we are to avoid great pain for many Americans.

I can easily imagine obstructionist legislators fighting tooth and nail to prevent the level of government investment in our infrastructure needed to both infuse the economy (read people) with money to circulate and pull us out of the stagnation we are sliding into and refurbish the physical foundation upon which that economy depends for its lifeblood. I hope this is not the case, but it seems that too many of our leaders still model the corporate world when it comes to visionary thinking and only look to quick fixes and easy solutions which have no political ramifications for their puny careers.

Join me in continuing to fight the good fight, in resisting complacency, and in keeping our leaders feet to the fire as we navigate the very rough waters into which we sail. Society as we know it hangs in the balance. Don’t let our progeny down.

As I sit today pondering the delights of the holiday I cannot help but wonder if Christmas and the other solstice holidays, with their alleged emphasis on “peace on earth, good will towards men” do not concentrate all that good will into one small portion of the year, leaving us free to be our normal mean spirited selves the rest of the year. I don’t man to go all Grinch on everyone here but it does seem to me that we all too often assign good behavior to particular holidays, using that as an excuse to behave poorly the remainder of the time.

Chestnuts roasting on an open fire is a wonderful image, full of the promise of loving our neighbors, but do our busy lives compartmentalize these positive opportunities into compact segments, much as we do with most of the other things we do with our lives, giving way to a sort of culturally acceptable schizophrenia; work now, then the drive home, then play with the kids, then sleep, then back to work, ad infinitum. Doesn’t it appear sometimes that we are radically different people depending on the circumstance; kind and loving here, cruel and heartless there. We shift back and forth into these becomings easily, never giving a thought to the fragmentation of our existence.

So we cram all of our feelings of gracious community and empathy into these short, swift, preordained periods of time and then return to our thoughtless striving for financial glory and social oneupsmanship the remainder of our fractured lives.  That conservative Uncle of yours gets the benefit of the doubt over turkey and all the trimmings, at least as long as it takes to unwrap the presents, and then its back to reviling him as a monster. We hold off our criticism about Cousin Mary’s unfortunate divorce until well past dessert, after the tryptophan wears off and we get off the couch looking for someone to dominate once again.

Perhaps this is a harsh assessment. Maybe the ghost of Scrooge has descended upon me in a fit of bah humbuggery. I just wish everyone would treat everyone else with the same loving kindness and forgiveness they muster up every Christmas day for the other 364 days of the year.

Things might be better all around.