Barack Obama's career timeline compares favorably with JFKs in terms of experience prior to making a time-consuming bid for the Presidency. I remember watching JFK in the Senate when he was newly elected in 1952. JFK's six years of service in the House of Representatives was not so interesting to him that he applied himself rigorously. But even by 1952 he had shown a capacity to write and speak with conviction and effect.
Barack Obama became a State Senator for the Hyde Park area of Chicago in 1996 and has been a US Senator only since 2004.
Abraham Lincoln was for many years a member of the Illinois House of Representatives. He then served in the US Congress for a single term -- two years. His efforts during the 1850s to win election to the US Senate failed.
Hillary Clinton's total legislative service wss less than that of Obama. She was elected in 2000 and reelected in 2006. That adds up to seven years.
We may say that the bulk of what is actually done consists of Secondness — or better, Secondness is the predominant character of what ''has been'' done. The immediate present, could we seize it, would have no character but its Firstness. Not that I mean to say that immediate consciousness (a pure fiction, by the way), would be Firstness, but that the ''quality'' of what we are immediately conscious of, which is no fiction, is Firstness.
But we constantly predict what is to be. Now what is to be, according to our conception of it, can never become wholly past. In general, we may say that ''meanings'' are inexhaustible. We are too apt to think that what one ''means'' to do and the ''meaning'' of a word are quite unrelated meanings of the word “meaning”, or that they are only connected by both referring to some actual operation of the mind. Professor Royce especially in his great work ''The World and the Individual'' has done much to break up this mistake.
In truth the only difference is that when a person ''means'' to do anything he is in some state in consequence of which the brute reactions between things will be moulded [in] to conformity to the form to which the man's mind is itself moulded, while the meaning of a word really lies in the way in which it might, in a proper position in a proposition believed, tend to mould the conduct of a person into conformity to that to which it is itself moulded.
Not only will meaning always, more or less, in the long run, mould reactions to itself, but it is only in doing so that its own being consists. For this reason I call this element of the phenomenon or object of thought the element of Thirdness. It is that| which is what it is by virtue of imparting a quality to reactions in the future.
Slavoj Žižek · Resistance Is Surrender: What to Do about Capitalism · LRB 15 November 2007: "These words simply demonstrate that today’s liberal-democratic state and the dream of an ‘infinitely demanding’ anarchic politics exist in a relationship of mutual parasitism: anarchic agents do the ethical thinking, and the state does the work of running and regulating society. Critchley’s anarchic ethico-political agent acts like a superego, comfortably bombarding the state with demands; and the more the state tries to satisfy these demands, the more guilty it is seen to be. In compliance with this logic, the anarchic agents focus their protest not on open dictatorships, but on the hypocrisy of liberal democracies, who are accused of betraying their own professed principles."
Capitalism, Version 2012 - NYTimes.com: "When the private sector overwhelms the public, you get the 2008 subprime crisis. When the public overwhelms the private, you get choking regulations. You need a balance, which is why we have to get past this cartoonish “argument that the choice is either all government or all the market,” argues Rothkopf. The lesson of history, he adds, is that capitalism thrives best when you have this balance, and “when you lose the balance, you get in trouble.”"
And if we move beyond the one to all,
We see the shadow cast by lives long lost;
The sad light of imprudent gambling,
The sad commitment of the young to doom.
We lack the sure capacity we need
To see the future of what we decide.
Therefore we risk, whatever else we do!
(In vanity we act to be beheld.
We even act and then behold ourselves.
We make of life a drama or a film.
Let us not make believe it is not so.
The person who is speaking speaks for you!
The depths of our frail insecurity.)
So prudence counsels us to hold it all
As we might hold a vulnerable child,
Not slighting what is rank or breeds distaste.
Yes, we would wipe the waste from helpless rumps,
And consummate our intimate transfers.
So where lies prudence in this confused maze?
Is it the foot that hesitates each step?
Is it the mind that knows not how to act?
Or is it letting go and rushing on?
Conceded there are times to risk and rush.
But prudence is the lesser move, the brake.
It is: Let’s live to fight another day.
Capitalism has nothing to do with free enterprise. It has to do with the values of nominalism, where everything comes down to the individual consciousness and the world is me me me. Free enterprise is a joyful affirmation of the grammar of Jesus in the Lord's prayer which has to do with we we we. The community wins in reality. It loses at Goldman. And we become the victims because we refuse to cut ourselves loose from what hurts us.