You have to be willing to accept that nationalization rather than being verboten may be the answer. You have to recognize that markets are not self-regulating, they require state intervention in order to ensure that they don't destroy the means by which societies provide for their material needs. It means accepting the proposition that the concentration of wealth is detrimental to the economic health of societies, and arguing for income redistribution as a means to attack wealth inequality in the long term.  It means recognizing that decision making rules that constitute the electorate as a function of ((individual * wealth) +(individual * wealth)) rather than individual + individual are fundamentally flawed and in contradiction to democratic principles.

This is a tall order.  I really doubt that either of the current US presidential candidates can pull it off.  Historical sequence matters, and the consequences of sequencing are drastic.

Consider the Great Depression in the United States and the 1928 election.

Al Smith vs Herbert Hoover.  The parallels are striking.  Al Smith was a "historic" candidate, the first Catholic who might become president of the United States.  Herbert Hoover was a "moderate" Republican often at odds with his own party.  Both believed that the use of popular government as a means to battle the excesses of big business was nothing less than communism.  

Smith would later become a bitter rival of FDR, supporting an attempted military coup attempt against him in the 1930s and the presidential candidacies of Republican candidates in 1936 and 1940.

Now consider a counterfactual.  What if Smith had won in 1928?  The ability of the party of the center left to move to the left evaporates.  The inability to move left within the existing party system means no Democratic New Deal, reform must occur outside of the system rather than within it.  Social liberalism must yield to one of two worlds: 1) Social Democracy, 2) Fascism.

Social Democracy arising from outside of the system means that conservative reactionaries are able to attack policies promoted by the working class to protect themselves as communist revolution against the "natural" order.  If in opposition action by the Left is crushed following the example of the Asturian revolt of 1934 in Spain.  If in power, the presence of party originating from outside of the system leads economic elites to conservative revolution to restore the order they prefer, i.e. conservative military uprising.  Civil war. Death, destruction, etc.

All this because there was no way to make the needed change in the system, requiring a change of the system.

If Obama wins this election and is "Smith-like", the change of the system must occur, because change in the system has been excluded as a possibility.

As for the possibility of reactionary revolution in America, consider that this possibility is more plausible now than it was at any time in the 1930s.  Because in the 1930s, military power was the preserve of the state.  When the coup leaders approached Gen. Smedley Butler, he turned the tables on them.

If latter day coupsters approach Blackwater's Erik Prince, will we be so lucky?

Sleep on that one, if you can.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg