But in rethinking Hillary, I think I might have been unfair. We all know Obama has not fought for Main Street. The tiny things for Main Street he has done have been so overblown in significance it has convinced me all the more of the error I made. You go down fighting if you have integrity. People should not be asked to wait while a leader asks his opponents if they'd be willing to give a few crumbs to Main Street, and if they are willing which ones. And what is behind giving crumbs anyway? Is it to prevent mass revolt? In fact, even Hillary's speech is a kind of plea to women to not revolt. Nevertheless, Hillary might have accomplished more for Main Street and certainly more for women if elected. She had more to prove and accounts to settle, especially around health care. Women just might have had the platform to fight more visibly. I think the Democrats could really rupture the turmoil of the next election by running Hillary in 2012 and giving her administration a shot at it. What would Hillary do? But please, let Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan rest in their political graves. Be innovative.
Here's an excerpt from a recent speech Hillary gave in San Francisco that I find encouraging:
There will be a temptation on the part of those observing or covering this summit, perhaps on the part of those of us attending it as well, to say that our purpose is chiefly to advance the rights of women -- to achieve justice and equality on their behalf. That is a noble cause, to be sure, and one close to my heart.
But at the risk of being somewhat provocative at the outset, I believe our goal is even bolder -- one that extends beyond women to all humankind. The big challenge we face in these early years of the 21st century is how to ... ensure shared prosperity for all nations and all people. We want to give every one of our citizens, men and women, young and old, greater opportunity to find work, save and spend money, pursue happiness -- and ultimately live up to their... potential. (Hillary Clinton's full article).
Now, I've excised words I find blind echoes of the status quo, damaging words, the same old same old. I removed words that act as ropes of the patriarchy (and its byproduct the class system). Ropes that entangle us into blind confusion and thereby blind order. Ropes that tie up our unpredictable imaginations and toss them overboard. Ropes that we are born hanging onto in order to survive on a day to day basis. I excised words I think Hillary might have excised if spoken from her potential. By the way, I could keep going with this rope list. These ropes get into everything.
I will say it's pretty amazing how excising just a few words can shift the conversation to a discussion on how to bring out the best in Hillary's speech, that of creating a global environment in which each individual has the opportunity to reach his or her potential. As it stands, Hillary is right. No such environment exists right now. But if language controls our era, and if all it takes is a few words to shift the conversation, then excising the words that lead to same old path is a good first step. What do we have to lose?
Not only do we need a new approach to the global economic paradigm but to the religious paradigm as well. Not the one being shaped by the Global Austerity Works Program. Let's run from that one, that same old same old. We need one free from the damaging trickle down, voodoo or shared sacrifice economic gospels. Since the current system is too inflexible to fix in order for Hillary's goal to be realized, we have no choice but to change it. It's time to let go--for good and for real. Once we find that new approach, one that focuses on egalitarian structures set up to help each person and all communities to reach their potential with or without money, we can take our leap into our new era. Until then we will most likely spin and spin and spin until we burn ourselves out. Until then, Hillary can never reach her own potential. And neither will the rest of us.