Barack Obama will be a president with a talent for communicating and uniting that could rival or even surpass Ronald Reagan's talents in that regard. That will be an immediate gain for the USA, in a big way. I look forward to that change; it will be like night and day compared to the last eight years.
Going forward, we obviously have some big problems to solve, and many of them are economic problems. "Obamanomics" seems to be the label his economic program is guaranteed to earn — regardless of how his administration's program actually ends up taking shape.
It seems to me there are two different umbrellas under which it could evolve: one I will support wholeheartedly, and do whatever I can to help; the other I will resist vigorously. I'll decide which approach to take as soon as I see which of two possible definitions "Obamanomics" seems to be settling on.
We can all agree that we have problems, and victims of those problems. But we can't unite to attack the problems or help the victims until we've come to general agreement on who the problems and the victims are, can we?
Here are the two possible umbrellas under which Obamanomics could take shape, to attack our "problems" and help the "victims":
"Obamanomics" — choice 1:
The problem: Rich people.
The victims: Non-rich people.
"Obamanomics" — choice 2:
The problem: Dishonest, greedy, incompetent people.
The victims: Honest, moral, productive people.
I will vigorously support "Obamanomics" if the second version wins out over the first version; if it doesn't, I will resist. Right now, in the wake of the Obama campaign, my thoughts boil down to good news/bad news, as follows.
• The bad news: Obama's campaign rhetoric, expertly-crafted to win votes, seemed to favor the first version of "Obamanomics";
• The good news: It was campaign rhetoric, expertly-crafted to win votes — but still "morphable" into the second version of "Obamanomics."
Which will it be? We'll see.