Beth at Bat’s Neighborhood

They say that the failure of GM or Ford would have a staggering impact on the U.S. economy. ABC News reported last night that the Center for Automotive Research estimates that the failure of a major U.S. automaker could cost $125 billion in lost annual income and $50 billion in lost tax revenue. But even among those who believe that the federal government should act to prevent such a failure, is there anyone who is not conflicted about bailing out the leaders of companies who have so stubbornly, self-righteously failed to innovate, failed to demonstrate any vision -- in short, failed to lead their companies into the future? As Thomas Friedman says on the Op Ed page of this morning's NY Times, "How could these companies be so bad for so long?"

The Detroit automakers are poster children for the merits of "creative destruction." It's hard not to wonder, if we pour tens of billions of dollars into these companies, what assurance we have that they won't burn through the money and fail anyway. And if we allow them to fail, what new industries -- more relevant, more innovative -- might rise to take their place? But that's small comfort to the hundreds of thousands of people who would be out of a job. As I said, conflicted.

But a bailout is no guarantee jobs won't be lost. Robert Reich notes that when the government bailed out Chrysler in the early 1980s, a third of its employees lost their jobs. On NPR this morning (and in his blog) Reich asserts that "in exchange for government aid, the Big Three's creditors, shareholders, and executives should be required to accept losses as large as they'd endure under chapter 11, and the UAW should agree to some across-the-board wage and benefit cuts. The resulting savings, combined with the bailout, should be enough to allow the Big Three to shift production to more fuel efficient cars while keeping almost all its current workforce employed."

I was inspired by the advice offered by Alice Walker in an open letter to Barack Obama. In essence, she has two suggestions for the new president:

[M]ake a schedule that permits sufficient time of rest and play with your gorgeous wife and lovely daughters... We are used to seeing men in the White House soon become juiceless and as white-haired as the building; we notice their wives and children looking strained and stressed. They soon have smiles so lacking in joy that they remind us of scissors. This is no way to lead.

...I would further advise you not to take on other people's enemies.”

The full letter is here: http://www.theroot.com/id/48726

In today's New York Times, Frank Rich describes the day after Election Day: “The festive scenes of liberation that Dick Cheney once imagined for Iraq were finally taking place — in cities all over America.”

I watch a lot of “talking heads” — pundits, journalists and commentators discussing the events of the day and reflecting on their implications. Since the election on Tuesday, many of these discussions have involved expressions of awe at the historic nature of the Obama victory. Some observers note that rough times lie ahead, but have decided that it is appropriate to take some time to bask in the moment even though the future no doubt holds disappointments and even some disillusionment for Obama’s supporters.

I notice that I am not as concerned as some that an Obama presidency will disappoint. The reason is that my own highest priorities for Obama — the changes I am most desperate to see — are the ones that will be easiest for him to achieve, and in some cases that he will achieve simply by taking office.

The first of these is an end to the Bush administration. It would be difficult to overstate how betrayed and resentful I am for the degree to which the current administration has mismanaged the country and abrogated the constitution. All Obama needs to do to fulfill my most fervent wish for the country is to not be Bush. And there is no question that Obama is not Bush.

Second is that my country end its practice of torturing people and denying them due process. The new president can do this unilaterally. I trust he will.

Third is that we have a president who is intelligent and even intellectual. Nicholas Kristoff writes in today’s New York Times:

An intellectual is a person interested in ideas and comfortable with complexity. Intellectuals read the classics, even when no one is looking, because they appreciate the lessons of Sophocles and Shakespeare that the world abounds in uncertainty and contradictions, and — President Bush, lend me your ears — that leaders self-destruct when they become too rigid and too intoxicated with the fumes of moral clarity.”

All Obama needs to do to fulfill this imperative is take office.

Fourth is that we have a president who displays a mastery of public speaking and appreciates the power of rhetoric to elevate public discourse, create possibility, and appeal to the electorate’s principles and aspirations rather than their fears and prejudices. Obama has already demonstrated that he is such a politician. I have no doubt that he will be such a president.

Fifth is an end to rhetoric from the White House that vilifies the opposition — accusing those who disagree with the administration’s policies of being traitorous and anti-American.

Sixth is that the United States start to restore the good will it once enjoyed among the community of nations. As the reactions of people throughout the world demonstrate, Obama has begun to accomplish this simply by being elected. And because President Obama will have more direct control over the nation’s foreign policy than he will over domestic policy, it will be easier for him to shift our posture toward other countries away from swaggering, with-us-or-against unilateralism than it will be to undo some of the other damage wreaked by the Bush administration.

And seventh is a halt to the march toward a right-wing majority on the Supreme Court. There may be some question as to just how liberal any Obama nominations to the court will be, but we can be sure that he will not be nominating another John Roberts or Samuel Alito.

These are my highest priorities. Their achievement will transform the political climate in this country, and arguably the country as a whole. Of course, these are not the only expectations that the country has of Obama. And many of the things that he will need to do — mitigate the financial crisis, lift the economy, get us out of Iraq, prevail in Afghanistan — will be far more problematic. But I’m willing to take what I get in those areas. It’s going to be a long, tough struggle dealing with these challenges, and both supporters and opponents of the Obama administration will be by turns dismayed, alarmed and disappointed at what they perceive as missteps, bad decisions and missed opportunities. But even though I don’t expect always to agree with the Obama administration, or applaud all of its actions, I am confident that my concerns will continue to live in the context of my profound sense that the Obama presidency is a represents a giant step toward restoring the dignity, integrity and humanity of the United States of America.

Terry Gross interviewed Bill Moyers on the NPR program "Fresh Air" yesterday. Moyers said one of the reasons the Bush administration is leaving behind a legacy of "incompetence, corruption and cronyism" is that "people who don't believe in government are likely to defile government."

Click here to listen to the full interview.

I started this blog in part because the election of Barak Obama yesterday felt like a new beginning. I was struck by the first paragraph of a story on the front page of the New York Times:

From far away, this is how it looks: There is a country out there where tens of millions of white Christians, voting freely, select as their leader a black man of modest origin, the son of a Muslim. There is a place on Earth — call it America — where such a thing happens.”