A year of intense campaigning with more than five billion dollars spent, a million attack advertisements, and about 500,000 speeches culminated in Obama’s victory Tuesday night. Media attention leading up to election day focused almost exclusively on which wealthy male with orthodox beliefs and  an inoffensive personality would rule the United States for the next four years.

Meanwhile, a host of popular referenda concerning the legalization of same-sex marriage in Washington, Maryland and Maine, and the legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington, passed with much less controversy than would have been imaginable just a few years ago.

All in all, the night could hardly have gone better for American liberals and the majority of Bowdoin students. This is why I found it slightly crazy that after witnessing the sweeping victories of liberal policies and politicians, the person sitting next to me turned and said, “I know I voted for Obama, but I almost wish he hadn’t won so that things would have gotten really bad.” Nuts, right?

However, the sentiment is not as insane as it may initially seem. Firstly, the differences between Obama and Romney were overemphasized by both campaigns. Little attention was drawn to the fact that both Obama and Romney supported the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows for indefinite detention of U.S. citizens arrested on American soil without due process of law. Both candidates supported the PATRIOT Act, despite its blatant violations of civil liberties. Discussion concerning the nature of America’s relationship with Israel during the foreign policy debate was really just a contest of who could better appease Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 

Most importantly, both campaigns were largely funded by members of the same Federal Reserve and Wall Street banks and corporations, including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, and General Electric.

Lenin reputedly said before the Bolshevik revolution, “The worse, the better.” What he meant was that the worse the living situation gets for the majority of the population, the greater the chance that people will rise and demand a more egalitarian society.

What choice do Americans have when no politician is capable of making a legitimate attempt to enter presidential politics without pandering to the powerful conglomerates and corporations for economic support? Television turns politics into show business. Politicians don’t offer ideologies—they sell images of what people would like leaders to be.

Would it even be remotely possible for the obese William Howard Taft, 27th U.S. president, to be elected now—at a time when visuals and emotions supersede ideals and rational discussion?

In “A People’s History of the United States,” historian Howard Zinn remarked “The American system is the most ingenious system of control in world history. With a country so rich in natural resources, talent, and labor power, the system can afford to distribute just enough wealth to just enough people to limit discontent to a troublesome minority.”

We are those to whom the system distributes just enough wealth to maintain an interest in the perpetuation of the status quo. Without soldiers, police, salesmen, firemen, the system would crumble from beneath. Bowdoin students are the pre-professionals of the future: the doctors, the lawyers, the teachers. We are among the more privileged of the population; without us the established system could hardly survive. In this way, we serve as its guards.

Those who profit most from the establishment are least likely to change it. History has shown that they are also willing to go to extreme lengths in order to prevent change.

It is pertinent here to remember the words of U.S. Air Force bombardier Yossarian in Joseph Heller’s novel Catch 22: “The enemy is anybody who’s going to get you killed, no matter which side he’s on. And don’t you forget that, because the longer you remember it the longer you might live.”

So as excited as some of us may be at the results of the election, we should always remember to not get too excited. It is only when the guards of the system refuse to cooperate that society can be changed. As long as our iPhones and SUVs keep us complacent, life isn’t going to get better for the rest of the world any time soon. Conditions may superficially improve, but for true change to occur, they might just have to get worse first.

A year of intense campaigning with more than five billion dollars spent, a million attack advertisements, and about 500,000 speeches culminated in Obama’s victory Tuesday night. Media attention leading up to election day focused almost exclusively on which wealthy male with orthodox beliefs and  an inoffensive personality would rule the United States for the next four years.
Meanwhile, a host of popular referenda concerning the legalization of same-sex marriage in Washington, Maryland and Maine, and the legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington, passed with much less controversy than would have been imaginable just a few years ago.
All in all, the night could hardly have gone better for American liberals and the majority of Bowdoin students. This is why I found it slightly crazy that after witnessing the sweeping victories of liberal policies and politicians, the person sitting next to me turned and said, “I know I voted for Obama, but I almost wish he hadn’t won so that things would have gotten really bad.” Nuts, right?
However, the sentiment is not as insane as it may initially seem. Firstly, the differences between Obama and Romney were overemphasized by both campaigns. Little attention was drawn to the fact that both Obama and Romney supported the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows for indefinite detention of U.S. citizens arrested on American soil without due process of law. Both candidates supported the PATRIOT Act, despite its blatant violations of civil liberties. Discussion concerning the nature of America’s relationship with Israel during the foreign policy debate was really just a contest of who could better appease Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 
Most importantly, both campaigns were largely funded by members of the same Federal Reserve and Wall Street banks and corporations, including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, and General Electric.
Lenin reputedly said before the Bolshevik revolution, “The worse, the better.” What he meant was that the worse the living situation gets for the majority of the population, the greater the chance that people will rise and demand a more egalitarian society.
What choice do Americans have when no politician is capable of making a legitimate attempt to enter presidential politics without pandering to the powerful conglomerates and corporations for economic support? Television turns politics into show business. Politicians don’t offer ideologies—they sell images of what people would like leaders to be.
Would it even be remotely possible for the obese William Howard Taft, 27th U.S. president, to be elected now—at a time when visuals and emotions supersede ideals and rational discussion?
In “A People’s History of the United States,” historian Howard Zinn remarked “The American system is the most ingenious system of control in world history. With a country so rich in natural resources, talent, and labor power, the system can afford to distribute just enough wealth to just enough people to limit discontent to a troublesome minority.”
We are those to whom the system distributes just enough wealth to maintain an interest in the perpetuation of the status quo. Without soldiers, police, salesmen, firemen, the system would crumble from beneath. Bowdoin students are the pre-professionals of the future: the doctors, the lawyers, the teachers. We are among the more privileged of the population; without us the established system could hardly survive. In this way, we serve as its guards.
Those who profit most from the establishment are least likely to change it. History has shown that they are also willing to go to extreme lengths in order to prevent change.
It is pertinent here to remember the words of U.S. Air Force bombardier Yossarian in Joseph Heller’s novel Catch 22: “The enemy is anybody who’s going to get you killed, no matter which side he’s on. And don’t you forget that, because the longer you remember it the longer you might live.”
So as excited as some of us may be at the results of the election, we should always remember to not get too excited. It is only when the guards of the system refuse to cooperate that society can be changed. As long as our iPhones and SUVs keep us complacent, life isn’t going to get better for the rest of the world any time soon. Conditions may superficially improve, but for true change to occur, they might just have to get worse first.