Interesting piece by Tony Blankley of the Washington Times looking at whether 2008 will be a turning point election where a new way of governing is instituted.  He says FDR’s election and Reagan’s were really the only two previous “change” elections because they so thoroughly changes the direction of where the nation was heading and even Presidents from the other party worked within the broad context that was defined by their visions.  I am not sure whether this will happen in 08 because of voter fatigue with President Bush and the War in Iraq .  However, something Blankley says about economic concerns is intriguing and concerning.  It appears that while traditional measures of economic strength clearly illustrate the resilience of the American economy (especially in the wake of 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and rising oil prices), there is great, general unease out there that shows voters expressing a preference for something different.  I suspect this preference is for some stability and economic predictability.  These are two things globalization has done much to undermine.  As I have argued several times in other posts, backlash against globalization is likely unless policies are implemented to ameliorate the conditions of those who are harmed by outsourcing and the other ills associated with the new ways of doing business.  I believe in globalization, low regulation, and low taxation.  They are pillars of long-term prosperity, however, there will always be losers in this game.  We can’t nor shouldn’t expand ever increasingly welfare to overcompensate for this, but we must have a true safety net, or maybe more of a safety trampoline that will help people who have fallen bounce back up.  If we fail to do this, the nastiness of protectionism and slow motion socialization of society will commence at New Deal era speed during the phase of intense backlash.  Better to be proactive now, than regretful later.