No one should be mistaken. There has not been, nor will there ever be, a purely plebeian owned and operated society of significance.

Ours, by design of the Founders and empowered by the structures imbedded within our Constitution, is a capitalist economic system run by those with the most capital, the Corporatists. Within that elite societal segment there are two major factions: the rapacious take-over strip-and-squeeze next-quarter-profit short-term-vision crowd who have dominated American politics and policy for the last 35 years, and the good steward Keynesian return-on-investment long-term strategic planning crowd who arose with the New Deal and sustained control through the legislation of the Great Society.

This latter crowd, more benign than their counterparts but Corporatist none the less, comprises the sponsorship of the Democratic Party. Now that the ultimately unsustainable policies of the Pillaging Corporatists have been brought to their inevitable absurdist criminal extreme by BushCo, the Good Steward Corporatists have returned to power. They will be the controlling faction within the Obama administration and the 111th Congress, and likely well beyond. Next week, they will issue a blueprint for their plans to restructure American governance.

This new plan embraces policies along lines much more compatible with sustaining a long-term economic and political leadership role world-wide, as well as a more equitable distribution of wealth and opportunity at home. There is no need to wait or speculate; an outline of the major topics targeted and the general course of their plan can be read now, at the web site of the Center for American Progress. A good starting point for insight to specific topics, including their perception of hierarchical importance and general approach to both existing problems and future opportunities, is within the web site here.

Those who doubt that this group is now the controlling faction of our governance should note that John Podesta is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Center for American Progress, leader of the informal Obama planning group that has operated since early spring to define both an agenda and priorities for an eventual Obama administration, and Co-Chair of the formal Obama transition and planning team while Obama mentor and probable Cabinet member Tom Daschle holds the position of Distinguished Senior Fellow at CAP.

Each of the major policy areas discussed at CAP’s website is deserving of multiple posts and in-depth discussion. I will not attempt any of that here, as there are at Corrente any number of authors with specific interests and expertise who can do a far better job of analysis and recommendations. What I will say is that understanding this blueprint is the key to finding ways to exert strong Progressive influence. Once change is begun, once the inertia of the past course is overcome and a new vector is selected, a nudge may be all that is required to redirect that impetus and achieve spectacular Progressive gains.

My opinion, and others may sincerely differ, is that while both positive and negative forces are valuable and should be encouraged the applying of various forms of lateral positive and negative force may be more productive than simply trying to stand athwart. On the other hand, where conversational political engagement does not appear to be sufficient the expectations for change now coursing through the American electorate should be channeled and directed into demonstrations and strikes; an energetic populace will be as likely effective in the current setting as it was in the 1930s and the 1960s.

All I am going to add is that I for one welcome our new Corporatist overlords. In part because the other bunch are just plain horrendous, in part because in change lies opportunity, and in part because it will be good for everyone on the Left to be able to let off some pent-up anger and frustration by involvement in positive action. Within the inherent structural limitations of our system of governance, this transition will allow us the opportunity to secure, by civil disobedience if necessary, both Bread and Roses.

[Hillarian prophylactic: Not at all interested in hearing fantasies about how it would all be better under a Clintonian regime. The differences between Clinton and Obama on both policy and philosophy are small at most and largely nonexistent except in the minds of their staunchest adherents and detractors. With either Clinton or Obama, the influence of the former Clinton power base within the DLC had already been shattered and replaced by CAP strategists; regardless of who was nominated, the same power brokers were going to assume control. As for PUMA, that movement was never functional and is now a political dead-end; no one with actual influence is listening, and no one ever will. This post was far more a caution than a joke.]