The difference this time is the absence of "The Spectre of Communism^TM. The collapse of the Soviet Union, unanticipated as it was, emboldened "neo-conservatives", using Neo-Classical Economics augmented by Hayek's libertarian individualism which was buttressed by Ayn Rand's novels, to press on with the roll-back of The New Deal after capturing the House in '94. So we had "the end of Welfare, as we know it" and the repeal of Glass-Steagall under Clinton and then just enough of the "sheaple" voted for "W" so that the five Republican Supreme Court Justices could award "W" the Presidency.

There is plenty of anger amongst the electorate, but in times of danger, people, and especially sheaple, tend to revert to craving a strong traditional leader, like moths to the flame. Real change involves breaking the hold of the financial elite over Washington, redistributing large portions of their ill-gotten gains to the sheaple they have fleeced and de-legitimating the noxious rhetoric that has, by now, been written into the brain structures of at least two generations of voters.

The best hope for accomplishing those goals is to mobilize and direct that anger and despair into a political movement that is capable of accomplishing that change. From a psychological point of view, anger is a road out of depression. The key lies in channeling that anger into constructive actions.

The danger is that violence perceived to originate from political opponents of the existing order plays into the hands of right wing leaders by alarming their followers and recruiting back into their fold loosely affiliated "independents".

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

This FDR?

If Obama had done half as much during his first year as Roosevelt did in his first two months, nobody would be complaining.

Well, except the Teabaggers. But they're insane.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.