I agree with most of what Prof. Bacevich says. However, "The change we need will have to come from the bottom up."

With all due respect, there actually is a candidate in this race who not only believes that, but has made it his campaign's motto (and it seems to be working out pretty well for him so far).

change will require sacrifice. It will entail settling for less . . .Nothing in Washington, on the campaign trail, or in our own households suggests a willingness to undertake change on anything like this scale.

Of course. No politician will ever run on the platform: You must spend and consume less and give the difference to the government.

It may be utopian wishful thinking, and I won't deny the allure of enjoy-now-pay-later, but I wonder whether there aren't among us inspiring examples that can both motivate and shame us into becoming a more highly evolved version of ourselves. Current example: forty or so no-doubt-underpaid Indiana telemarketers who walked off their jobs rather than read a sleazy script critical of Barack Obama. We're all on this imperiled green spaceboat together, and some of us are showing how to preserve and beautify it.

I suspect that few are expecting miracles, but the fact the Hon. Sen. Obama has spent considerable time thinking about the Constitution, both in its conception and implementation, makes the chances of his effecting positive change in the presidency considerably better. It certainly makes his failure to do so, or to try with vigor, a potential basis for severe criticism.

A reminder that cynicism about democratic central government is deep in our culture:
Congress: a laughing matter
It always seemed to me that recognizing that and figuring out how to harness that, rather than expecting to get rid of it, is often where solutions lie.

I think those that think that we are "God's new chosen people" tend to be the 1/3 diehard conservative part of the electorate. The rest are more cynical about that. And they don't believe "the rules don't apply to us." The middle 1/3 sometimes agrees with the some of proposals of the diehard conservatives, but that's not because they believe we are "God's new chosen people" or the rules don't apply to us, it's because they are chosing along the lines of a cafeteria menu.

She said it to Colin Powell.

Hi professor great to see you back. Before I get into the comments on the your post I want to say I really enjoyed your thought provoking appearance on NOW with Bill Moyers.

I think you are correct. Once power is accumulated, by a person or institution, it is very difficult to take that power away. I think it is very important for those of us on the left, and principled people from the center and right, to do our best to see that the checks and balances between the branches of government, which should always be in place, be put back in place. Let us assume that Obama is elected President in a week. He is going to have close to super majorities in both houses of Congress. To me the outcome of his potential presidency could be very positive or very negative because of this fact. But the only way for it to turn out well the American people of all political stripes need to demand that reform.

The democrats are being given a golden opportunity to reform the way our government works, for the better, and that would be the mandate of the people if this election turns out the way it looks like it will. If the Democrats listen to the people, make the reforms being called for it could signal a long golden age of Democratic rule in America and more importantly a better America where the government actually serves the people. But without due diligence on the part of 'we the people's' it could just as easily, and very likely, turn out poorly.

It is true that we are living in an era where hedonism is praised and people are encouraged to adopt a spend and spend more lifestyle.

On the other hand we often see examples of the reserve of pent up desire to "do something" worthwhile. It usually shows up when there is some touching human nature story and the affected people receive a huge outpouring of aid and sympathy.

So what we are lacking is a modern Churchill who can appeal to people's wish to make a better world for their children even if it means sacrifice now. Why we only get timid and unimaginative people running for office is an important issue.

I claim that the root of the problem is the high cost of running for office which means that only those who can raise vast sums of money (or have great personal wealth) can afford to run. And in our society the only ones with deep pockets are the wealthy and their business interests.

If we want to see more progressive policies being proposed by more progressive politicians we first need to reform the electoral process.

With $1 billion being spent on the current cycle those who make money from election cycles aren't going to be willing to give up on the gravy train without a fight and neither are the big money interests who buy office holders.

If you want better leaders then work for electoral reform.