WUSTL Photo

Professor Murray Weidenbaum, the Edward Mallinckrodt Distinguished University Professor of economics said the nation’s precarious economic climate continues to be a major concern, even as the nation’s finances gradually begin to recover.

Weidenbaum, who served as assistant secretary of the treasury from 1969 to 1971 under the Nixon administration, and as chairman of the council of economic advisers from 1981 to 1982 during the Reagan administration, is often considered the architect of Reaganomics.

“This must be the slowest economic recovery in modern times. You have to go back to the 1930s to find a recovery this slow,” he said. “At an annual rate of 2 percent to 3 percent a year…that’s not a strong recovery after a recession.”

While Weidenbaum said most economists agree that the U.S. has successfully averted a double-dip recession and opened the possibility for recovery, he noted there are still major problems to be worked on.

He said that both short- and long-term solutions are necessary to combat the nation’s ever-increasing deficit.

“In the long run, it is clear that we have an unsustainable economy,” Weidenbaum said. “In the short term, there is need for additional stimulus.”

He said the partisanship in American politics is majorly hindering this needed long-term recovery.

“The problem is, there is no common ground between the conservatives and the liberals in this election,” Weidenbaum said. “There seems to be little political pressure to adopt [practical] responses toward the economy.”

Although he served as an economics advisor for two Republican presidents, Weidenbaum does not express his preference over one party or the other.

“As an economist, I can’t say who’s right. It’s a problem of personal values. But any increase in taxes will not stimulate the economy,” he said. “There is no increase in taxes that is going to speed up the economy.”

And he says longterm tax cuts have caused a rift between Democrats and Republicans.

“The so-called Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year. Both parties believe that most tax cuts should be extended, but there is disagreement over whether people at the top bracket [should keep their tax cuts],“ Weidenbaum said.

According to Wiedenbaum, the economic system needs to undergo an overhaul and special privileges need to be cut out of the tax system.

He has mixed feelings about the Obama administration’s efforts to stimulate the economy.

“It’s an uneven record. I think the large stimulus bill did help, but it’s disillusioning when you read the details of the bill,” he said. “A lot of the spending went to special interests, which diluted the economic recovery.”

But he believes the burst of rapid regulation created in haste will create unexpected problems in the future.

“There are many uncertainties as to what the regulations are going to do,” he said. “I am not sure if we are increasing the amount of uncertainty or not.”

He thinks the regulations will serve as deterrents for American business investments.

“There are hundreds of regulations that have to be addressed under the Dodd-Frank Act, the healthcare reform the environmental regulations and the tax laws,” he said. “There is great caution from the business community on how they should invest.”

Republican treatment of the New START treaty shows Republicans’ dedication to ignoring America’s wants. The original START treaty, proposed by President Reagan and signed by President George H.W. Bush in 1991, aimed to reduce the number of nuclear weapons—a major goal of President Obama. The treaty has garnered tremendous support from Republican foreign policy experts like former Secretaries of State Colin Powell, James Baker and Henry Kissinger, among others. Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar (R-IN), strongly supports the treaty. CNN/Opinion Research polled that 73 percent of Americans support ratification. The Senate seemed to listen to the American public when the treaty passed the committee 14-4.

The problem arose when Republicans saw the treaty as a potential victory for President Obama. The second most powerful Republican, Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), has demanded more concessions to gain Republican support, slowing down the process. Even Republicans who voted for the treaty in committee now publicly oppose it. Despite the support of the American people and conservative foreign policy experts, Republicans are blocking the START treaty to portray the Democrats as weak and ineffective.

Republican obstructionism to score political points spreads beyond the START treaty. The military’s ban of openly gay soldiers hurts American security by discriminating against talented and patriotic soldiers. President Obama made repeal of the policy a campaign promise. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen both support a repeal and polls show strong American support for abolishment of this unfair law. Congressional Democrats have tried to repeal this bigoted policy but cannot get passed Republican obstructionism.

The leader of the opposition has been former moderate Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who sees no problem with ridding the military of exceptional soldiers based on their sexual orientation. He called for a hearing with military leaders about the policy; the leaders at the hearing supported repeal. Then McCain called for a Pentagon study of the policy. The study outlined how repeal would work and supported the action. Now McCain calls the study biased and demands hearings on the study. McCain’s conservative colleagues have banded together to oppose any repeal. Despite the tremendous support of military leaders and the American public, Republicans oppose repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell to prevent the President from achieving his goals.

The area in which Republicans care least about Americans is the Bush tax cuts. Congress must make a choice whether to extend the tax cuts to all, let them expire for all or extend them only for those making under a certain amount. Congressional Democrats advocate for these tax cuts going to those hit hard by the struggling economy, while reducing the budget deficit by not giving a tax break to the rich. Democrats propose not extending the tax cuts for the two percent of the population making $250,000 or more: According to the Congressional Budget Office, doing this will reduce the debt by one trillion dollars over the next decade. The Republicans have stuck up for the rich, calling for a full extension of the Bush tax cuts. As much as the Republicans accuse Democrats of redistribution of wealth, one of every eight dollars that Bush sent out in tax rebate checks went to the wealthiest thousand Americans.

The polling on this topic varies more than the START Treaty or Don’t Ask Don’t Tell because the framing of the question by various partisan polling firms changes the results significantly. One of the best nonpartisan pollsters, Gallup, polled the topic and only 37 percent favored extending tax cuts to the rich while 15 percent supported ending the Bush tax cuts and 44 percent supported tax cuts only for those making under $250,000. Other nonpartisan groups show similar support for repealing these tax cuts for the rich, but despite the American public’s opinion, the Republicans have held tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans hostage by rejecting cuts that do not include the rich.

Recent Republican action shows that they still care more about scoring points and defeating President Obama than representing America. They have not kept their views secret: The Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell (R-KY), said their goal in the Senate was to defeat President Obama in 2012. This strategy could work but at the great expense of the economy, civil rights and American global prestige.

Audrey Westcott | Student Life

What will this mean for us, as Americans? Well, obviously an era of prosperity! Look at the recent Fox News Op-Ed by John Lott, in which he proved, beyond a shadow of a statistical doubt, that Republican election gains naturally correlate with upward moving stock prices, or rather that Obama’s improvement in the polls correlates with downward moving stock prices.

Either way, yesterday’s results mean that we have officially gotten out of our economic slump! So now, how do we go about accomplishing the change that Republicans promised with their Pledge to America? It’s fairly simple, considering the fact that nobody is going to negotiate about anything because that is what the Republican candidates promised their constituents.

First, our goal is to cut taxes. Not just extend the Bush tax cuts but also literally cut all taxes out from the United States. Why should we even pretend that isn’t the direction we are going as a country? The left likes tax cuts almost as much as we do, so why not skip so many years of partisan bickering when we can just abolish taxation as it is and let things go which way they will?

And if any of them try to stop us, we can just call them socialists and gain even more seats in the next election because that is what taxation does really, redistributes the wealth…which is socialism.

This might sound like a bad idea, considering the fact that we still have to spend money on things like the military and Social Security. But nobody notices that Social Security does more than stop the retired from being poor or help children missing a parent get some extra money; it clearly stops people from working where they could be. Wouldn’t it be preferable (for the economy) to have people over the age of 65 working again? Let’s just cut it!

As for the military, we know that private corporations do things better than government in all cases, so why not have them just keep us safe and protected? Their own self-interest will obviously be to protect everyone effectively, so why even bother having a military? We already have private military companies in both Iraq and Afghanistan; let’s just go the whole nine yards!

Without taxation, we will have no place for the federal government, and smaller government is better. The key to getting to this goal is to use the new divided government to our advantage. It is time to start calling our representatives and telling them not to negotiate on anything. While this may seem counterintuitive, it will all become clear when it comes time for a new budget to be drawn up. President Obama will definitely not sign a budget that severely reduces the size of government, so it will shut down, just like in the Clinton years.

And here is when we start doing things differently, so pay attention. President Clinton and Newt Gingrich came to an agreement, and the federal government wasn’t shut down for a huge amount of time. If our representatives don’t want to negotiate, the government will be deadlocked and shut down for as long as we want it to be. And how long do we want it to be? Well, forever of course. Smaller government is always better, and without things like unemployment insurance, people will be forced to get themselves up and start working again, giving a huge jolt to the economy!

So when the federal government shuts down a year from now, make sure you understand that it wasn’t because our representatives are stupid and don’t want to listen to us. The federal government will have shut down because we asked our representatives not to negotiate. Negotiation is not beneficial for the country. Why do things like that when it is in your ideological camp not to negotiate in the slightest? We asked for ideological purity, we made sure we got it, and the goals of that purity will be the shape of things to come.

When the Obama administration came into office, America was in crisis mode, losing 700,000 jobs a month, and the markets were plummeting. The problems were just as vast as they were abundant. The Obama administration focused on getting the country back on track, cutting taxes and investing in infrastructure projects in the stimulus package, which according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has created or saved 3.3 million jobs.

With the market unstable, Congress passed emergency legislation to help troubled companies minimize job losses, save themselves and prevent worse economy-wide damage. Many of these companies have repaid Congress with much of the given money. To prevent repeating these actions, Congress passed financial reform to regulate more effectively and protect consumers.

With America spending significantly more per capita on health care (and not living longer for it), Congress passed a health care reform bill that not only increased competition by establishing health insurance exchanges, but also eliminated the practice denying patients coverage based on pre-existing conditions. The plan aims to make Americans healthier and make health care cheaper for both the patient and the government, reducing the deficit by $143 billion over the next 10 years according to the CBO.

Democrats improved the economy even at their own political expense. Despite all the conservative accusations of draconian Obama tax hikes, the administration cut income taxes by $116 billion for 95 percent of Americans. Few Americans know about it because they cut taxes the most effective way: They stopped taking money out of individuals’ checks. Sending rebate checks is better politically because people see the check and recognize the tax cut, but sending out millions of checks is costly and less economically effective. Unfortunately for Democrats, this more effective strategy cost them credit: A recent poll showed less than 10 percent of Americans knew that Democrats lowered taxes.

Despite the progress made, the problems were deeper than originally thought, and the economy has not improved as much as needed, leading many voters to look for alternatives to the party in power. All of this progress—passing financial reform, stabilizing the economy, cutting taxes for 95 percent of America—has been done by Democrats. Many voters look to Republicans for new ideas and fresh faces, but this alternative is the same irresponsible and political doublespeak that got our country in trouble the last time the Republicans were in power, during the Bush administration.

The Republicans claim to be committed to fiscal discipline and reducing the deficit. They have put out their “Pledge to America,” which lays out what they plan to do. The Republicans have committed to do what they usually do: eliminate a woman’s right to choose, deny homosexuals the right to marry and undo all the progress made by the Democrats. What’s more important is that the pledge says little that is concrete related to the economy. It commits to reduce spending, but it does not mention specific cuts. Republicans say what voters want to hear but refuse to say what voters need to hear.

While Republicans do not commit to policy specifics, they do commit to John Boehner and his House leadership team to lead their reform efforts. But many of them led during the Bush administration. They are responsible for many of the failed policies like the deregulation that led to the recession and a corporate handout disguised as a Medicare reform bill (that according to the CBO, contributed more to the debt than the health care bill, TARP and the stimulus bill combined).

How do the Republicans manage to get away with passing themselves off as the party of fiscal disciple, especially when Bill Clinton was the last president to balance the budget? Certainly they have some members willing to do the hard things, but their leaders care more about their corporate donors than their constituents. The Republicans can do this because they are more committed to playing politics than the Democrats are. For them, rhetoric is not a means to sell their policy; it is their policy. They stick to talking points and hope people accept their lies as truth. A health care bill that lowers costs and expands coverage turned into death panels that kill Grandma. Preventing bailouts and keeping big business responsible turned into institutionalizing bailouts.

In a time of difficulty, we need a party that works to improve our country, not one that cares more about rhetoric than America’s future.

Election season has hit the University, as an open Senate seat, multiple seats in the House of Representatives and local and state offices are up for grabs. As a result of the possible turnover, student groups and individuals either have been or will actively campaign for issues and candidates.

According to senior Kat Berger, the president of the College Democrats, the group has started the semester by focusing on voter registration.

“Our first focus of the semester has been voter registration, because we think that the student voter turnout will be very important in the outcome,” Berger said.

While the Democrats’ campaigning has not started yet, the group has been polling its students to gauge their interests in what they want to campaign for. According to Berger, the Democrats will do phone banking for U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-St. Louis), the representative for most students at the University, on Monday. In addition to Carnahan, the College Democrats also have plans to volunteer for Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D), who is running for Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond’s (R-Mo.) open Senate seat against U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), and County Councilwoman Barbara Fraser (D-University City), who is running for state Senate in the 24th Senate District, which contains the University.

“It’s a really interesting race because it’s usually a Democratic district and she’s a great candidate, but the Republican (John Lamping) is picking up a lot of steam,” Berger said. “One of her main issues is college affordability, so we want to help her out.”

In addition to the Democratic campaigns, students have also gotten involved in local Republican campaigns.

Junior Philip Christofanelli spent full days of his summer working on various Republican campaigns. He served as social project coordinator for state Sen. Chuck Purgason’s (R-Caulfield) Senate primary campaign against Blunt. Christofanelli helped Purgason’s political consultant run the campaign.

Christofanelli also served as an advisor in Robyn Hamlin’s successful GOP primary campaign in Missouri’s 1st Congressional District. He also worked on the state auditor campaign of state Rep. Allen Icet (R-Wildwood), for whom he did door-to-door work.

Finally, Christofanelli helped the opposition to Proposition B, which would place restrictions on dog breeding mills. He helped get the message out about the proposition and worked on voter fraud security measures.

“My involvement has been curtailed since I started school,” Christofanelli said, “But if Robyn Hamlin needs help with anything, I can answer questions or train volunteers for her. I try to make it to her volunteer meetings.”

In addition to his roles on these campaigns, Christofanelli is also the president of the University chapter of Young Americans for Liberty. Among other things, the group supports non-interventionist foreign policy, the use of gold and silver as legal tender, small government and a constructionist understanding of the Constitution.

“We don’t support any party, but Republican candidates are typically the ones advocating the principles we support,” Christofanelli said. “We stick more to issue advocacy.”

While the group focuses more on issues and less on partisan politics, and while other members of the organization are not as active on campaigns as Christofanelli, there are still plans for possible future events during the election season.

“We will probably host candidates and have them meet the students,” Christofanelli said. “We try not to be too heavily involved in the elections, but we like presenting candidates to students and letting them know what their positions are.”

Berger is looking forward to an active campaign season. The organization plans to help Democrats outside Missouri, such as in the race for President Obama’s old Senate seat in Illinois.

“We are thinking of doing out-of-state races, since most people are not from Missouri and might want to get involved in out-of-state politics,” Berger said.

Berger has noticed a high level of enthusiasm throughout the organization, especially among underclassmen.

“The incoming freshmen and sophomores now are so much more politically experienced and motivated than the older classes were, because they had Obama’s campaign when they were still in high school,” Berger said. “They are really excited now because it’s the first time they can actually vote, so there’s a lot of enthusiasm in our group, especially from a lot of the freshmen.”

The Tea Party movement arose in 2009 out of protests in response to the current debate over health care and the financial crisis. Critical of Democrats and mainstream Republicans alike, “tea-partiers” believe in constitutionally limited government and the supremacy of the free market. Followers favor interpreting the Constitution based on the original intent of its founders. The movement is attracting the attention of the political mainstream. Demonstrably, Sarah Palin, former Republican vice presidential candidate and porn muse (“Nailin’ Palin”), spoke at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville.

I have several critiques of this particular political ideology. First of all, I believe the Constitution should be viewed as a living document­—there is no reason to believe the Founding Fathers were inviolable in their judgment, and social progress does occur, necessitating new interpretations. This unshakeable belief in the unquestionable judgment of the Founding Fathers strikes me as somewhat naïve. Secondly, and more importantly, the movement’s extreme adherence to minimalist government is based on a superficial understanding of the notion of “liberty.” The group defines liberty as the free market, gun rights and limited taxation—essentially, the ability to “do” something without restriction, mainly in economic terms. But, these values don’t take into account other ideas of freedom—freedom from hunger and freedom from economic exploitation, for example. Unrestrained capitalism doesn’t result in a perfectly competitive, ideal market. Not regulating businesses, for example, can lead to monopolies and too-low wages for workers. While superficially unrestrained capitalism grants the individual “liberty” to do what they please with their money, it is difficult to see where the freedom lies in a job that pays too little. Absolute faith in the free market also assumes that everyone will get what they deserve, based on hard work and merit. But this is not always a reality. Case in point: Paris Hilton. Gun rights also allow citizens the “freedom” to arm themselves easily; but, what happens when one person’s easy access to a gun interferes with another’s freedom to live safely? While there is no easy answer to any of these issues, it is important to take into the account the idea that “freedoms” and rights do conflict with each other—a fact this movement seems to ignore.

The whole premise of living in a society governed by laws is the relinquishing of some freedom—the freedom to bash one another’s brains in with rocks, for example. Touting “freedom” as an absolute guarantee of social stability is absurd—it comes into conflict with other values such as justice. It’s more difficult to get a fair shake in the legal system without a lot of money, for example. Equating liberty with a lack of economic restraint can lead to great disparities in wealth as well as exploitation; it also sells short the concept of liberty. Freedom implies choice and opportunities, but it’s difficult to pursue a “free” lifestyle when you’re miserably poor. People rarely like to be told what to do, so “liberty” and “freedom” are popular catchphrases. However, in order to have a civil society, individual freedom has to be weighed against societal good—a concept that the Tea Party movement seems to miss. My point isn’t that we should live in an Orwell-esque society, dominated by censorship. The concept of individual liberty has an important place in politics. I am merely suggesting that it is not the only value one should use when evaluating the government. I, for one, wouldn’t oppose to limiting the “freedom” to bash my head in.

Natalie is a freshman in Arts & Sciences. She can be reached via e-mail at ndvillal@artsci.wustl.edu.

There is no shortage of public figures vying for approval; but the less-published but potentially more-important news is that there are many citizens, both ordinary and extraordinary, who have changed public policy without nasty campaigns and official elections.

One such example is Theodore Olson, a Republican lawyer who has chosen to represent same-sex couples’ efforts to overturn California’s ban on gay marriage. To say that Ted Olson is a Republican or a conservative is an understatement. This is the man who headed the Office of Legal Counsel under Ronald Reagan and advised Republicans in their effort to impeach Bill Clinton. He was responsible for George W. Bush’s presidency after persuading the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore and defended the president’s claims of expanded powers during wartime.

Yet though Olson is a Republican, he does not blindly subscribe to all notably Republican viewpoints. Olson doesn’t follow the knee-jerk reactions many politicians have built careers upon, and when approached by a team looking for a lawyer to challenge Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage in the state, he did not abandon his political principles but rather rose to them.

There is a difference between standing for equal rights and fighting for them. Those who are not quick to jump on any political bandwagon but bring about positive change by thoroughly examining all perspectives exemplify this difference.

Olson’s choice to argue on behalf of two gay couples in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a federal case challenging Proposition 8, wasn’t well received by many of his Republican colleagues. Fortunately popularity was never Olson’s priority, which highlights a fundamental problem that exists with our current political system. In order to get in the position of making laws and upholding the Constitution, one must adhere to a set of rules. These are not the rules laid out by Jefferson, Madison or Washington when they scripted our nation’s principles, nor are they the democratic rules of our government; rather, they are the rules of a political party, rules that stifle our country’s potential.

As a Democrat, I would be lying if I said I fully analyzed every aspect of the issues I’ve chosen to represent. It is easy to pick a side, develop a belief system and belong. Why second-guess health care and national security? Why not allow Republican ideals to immediately raise red flags in my mind simply because they are Republican?

Olson and many others like him who take the more difficult road and question their own beliefs have shown me why. Olson believes in equality under the Constitution; he believes in freedom from government interference and in individual liberty. These are the rules that drive him. Olson took on the case because he sees gay marriage as a civil-rights issue and has found no legitimate argument for why same-sex couples should be denied the fundamental right to marriage. True to form, he has sought out all perspectives but has found no legal precedent behind the opposition’s claims. “They had all sorts of intangible instincts and feelings about what’s ‘right,’” Olson told Newsweek of both friends’ and adversaries’ arguments. “But I didn’t hear any persuasive response.”

The danger of politics stems from the inherent separation it creates. Clear political lines have been drawn and it seems it may take an outsider to cross them. Olson’s reasoning is simple: “This is not a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American one, and it is time that we, as Americans, embraced it.”

For the first time in more than 36 years, Massachusetts elected a Republican to represent it in the Senate, making Brown the sole Republican in the 12-person delegation. In addition to the implications this vote has on the state of Massachusetts, the national implications are even more significant: Republicans now possess a filibuster-proof 41 members, enough to block cloture from their Democratic colleagues.

Brown’s five-point margin of victory has already inspired allegations from the White House that Coakley ran a lackluster race, and one that took victory for granted. Ironically, even reliably Democratic states now oppose the Obama administration’s health care overhaul. According to Public Policy Polling, a well-known Democratic polling firm, 48 percent of voters in Massachusetts now oppose the Democrats’ health care plan.

Most significantly, the same Independents whom the President persuaded in the 2008 election are now deserting his agenda in droves. This follows an important pattern seen in New Jersey’s and Virginia’s gubernatorial elections. The President personally campaigned for the Democratic candidates in these states, but Independents voted Republican. The same forces, those of change and hope, which propelled President Obama to the White House, have accomplished the same feat for Brown’s election in the Bay State.

The question now becomes whether health care reform will become a reality, and it is my belief that in its current form, it will not. I believe that something needs to be done, for it is a complete and utter disgrace for this country to have more than 40 million uninsured Americans. Insurance companies should no longer have the right to arbitrarily deny medicine prescribed by a physician, and especially in regards to those individuals with pre-existing conditions. However, Democrats would be wise to attempt a bipartisan effort this time around. The American people have demonstrated, most notably in Massachusetts, their rejection of the current health care bill.

The Democrats have warned that Scott Brown will not be immediately seated in the Senate, so as to deny Republicans the necessary 41st vote to block this health bill from advancing in the Senate. This threat strikes me as the utter heart of hypocrisy. The people of Massachusetts have spoken, and even some national Democratic leaders have conceded that health care is dead in its current form. As New York Democrat Anthony Weiner, a fierce advocate of the public option, said “I think you can make a pretty good argument that health care might be dead.”

Furthermore, the President will need to start a bipartisan effort and stop simply paying lip service to the notion of collaboration with Republicans in order to achieve truly meaningful health care reform for the American people. I can say with certainty that if the people of Massachusetts wish for change a mere year after Obama was sworn in, the Democrats appear to be in trouble with other Congressional races in the November elections. It is not inconceivable that Republicans can pick up Senate seats in Connecticut, Nebraska, Nevada, Louisiana and North Dakota, to name but a few races.

In the end, health care needs to be reformed, and one way or the other it will happen. If both sides, Democratic and Republican, can put aside their differences and compromise, then surely reform will happen and the United States will be a better country for it. For a country which in 2006 spent $6,714 per person (comprising 15.3 percent of GDP on health care), it is morally unjustifiable that reform should not happen.

Isaac is a sophomore in Arts & Sciences. He can be reached via e-mail at iamon@artsci.wustl.edu.

Rachel Yoon and Jeremy Lai

The recent election could have afforded me an opportunity to no longer have to do without, or so I had hoped. I was in the library when CNN announced that Obama had won the presidency. After the announcement, unsurprisingly, I wasn’t really interested in doing work. I was stirred, and went out looking for the mob-style street celebration of my dreams. Unfortunately, I didn’t find much.

I was not, however, without some success. After driving the length and breadth of St. Louis looking for action, I came home to find a little bit of energy on the Loop. Among the most ardent individuals I came across was an elderly African-American woman incessantly shouting, “We did it!” And although she seemed pretty convinced that somebody had indeed done something, the lady never specified exactly who “we” were or what “it” was. In reality, either “we” or “it” could have been any number of things. “We,” for instance, could have referred to the lady’s particular ethnic group, and very understandably so. Alternately, it could have been alluding to the Democratic Party. On an even grander scale, she could have been applauding the country at large, and hopefully she was.

As the nation begins to move forward in the wake of a Nov. 4 packed with historical significance, it’s of critical importance that the country starts reintegrating its conception of “we.” The nation can no longer be perceived as two distinct camps whose sole aim is political posturing. The country once again must strive to become a coherent unit, particularly in light of the challenges it now faces. McCain may well have said it best in his concession speech when he urged all Americans to unify in “offering our next president our goodwill and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited.”

To be sure, the responsibility of re-assimilating America is a bipartisan obligation. The burden falls neither solely on the winners nor on the losers. America must move forward as a single country. A realization of this obligation necessarily implicates all those by whom that unit is comprised. The “we” to which the lady I met on the Loop was referring has to be all-inclusive.

In movie scenes depicting mob-style street celebrations, there are always houses on both sides of the street. As a metaphor for the present situation, this aspect of those scenes is particularly relevant. If America is to move forward effectively, people with homes on both sides of the street need to rush out and work toward creating something to celebrate.