“Everything can change, on a New Year’s Day…”

—Rage Against the Machine, “War Within a Breath”

Well, what a weird and scary year that was.

Last year began with the globe still recovering from the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, quickly forgotten in the midsts of all the fear and loathing that resulted from the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, which quickly became the single all-encompassing news event of this year. Oh, yeah, Canada also had an election, and its political situation is still more up in the air than it ever was in the States.

Did you really think McCain was going to win? Not only was he someone with a total inability to excite people through new media (Compared with Obama’s brilliant and dramatic speeches, which were effective regardless if consumed via television, YouTube or plaintext), but he was also simultaneously a brilliant symbol for that old, mean hawkishness that has flourished in American politics for decades. Obama is probably the most successful Facebook celebrity in that service’s short history; McCain wouldn’t know “technology” if it kicked him in the balls.

Could this election have been more symbolic? Here we have simultaneously one of the youngest candidates to ever run for the office, the very antonym of the, for lack of a better term, WASPs that have dominated American politics since the outset, and especially in the last decade, going against one of the oldest candidates to ever run—so much so, that the spectre of dying in office was raised multiple times throughout the campaign. Some sicknesses have antidotes. Obama was the antiBush, or at least that’s what he campaigned as—whether he’ll fulfill his promises is the perpetual question of the electorate, and especially so for this new administration.

Yet at the same time, that symbolism was greatly exaggerated by the media (Myself, included), because, frankly, huge dichotomies are way more interesting to write about (and read!) than minute differences. To focus on things like race and background are to ultimately undermine the original intent of both candidates: to form a responsible and effective government. Fortunately, it is my belief that the American people have chosen the better of the two, whose reforms might actually sink in and amount to something instead of just continuing a downward status-quo spiral.

I find it quite interesting that so much has been already said about Obama’s new “policy,” even though the man hasn’t even been inaugerated yet. I suppose he lends himself to that, with a high-profile transition team and a desire to minimalize the time taken to get out of the Bush Junta and into the Obama Presidency, but the result is that everything amounts to hype until he swears his oaths. The drug reform community especially has been rather hysterical, decrying his appointments of cabinet and taking the total failure of the Change.org website to address their issues as a de facto ominous dark cloud, moving in to raise minimum sentences or whatever it is that drug warriors do to look “tough on crime.”

Frankly, I wouldn’t expect Obama to say anything about drug reform until at least 2010, perhaps even 2012. It might even take a second presidential term. Public opinion is moving towards cannabis legalization very quickly, however, realize that this first presidential win is likely the first step in a much larger plan to wrest control of the country back from the Republicans. In my article, “Legalize by 2010″ (a timeline I still stand by), I argue one of the fundamental changes that will need to occur in American society is a wholesale demonizing of the Bush years; in other words, this entire last vicious and dytopian decade. Not to say Bush et al are doing too well; Bush’s approval ratings and some of the lowest in history, and that’s not even mentioning his disapproval ratings. However, what I argue will need to occur is historical retrospect realizing how inherently fascist society under Bush was, something that is currently only beginning to bubble to the surface now.

What will we say of how Bush used secret prisons to interrogate suspected “enemy combatants” a few years after we know to what extent this occurred? How will we look upon Bush and his security-obsessed friends a few years after it’s released how large their illegal wiretap operations were? And what will congressional hearings decide once the new administration begins to unearth how criminally corrupt these people were?

In a recent Harper’s Magazine article, Scott Horton begins to analyze how the previous administration could be brought to justice for a number of charges, specifically their role in the torture of detainees via acts such as waterboarding. He largely concludes that the best we can hope for is a multifaceted “truth and reconcilliation committee”-style inquiry, wherein experts would be given access to much of the classified information compiled over the last decade and use it to potentially appoint a special prosecutor. While the possibility of anything actually happening to Bush as a result of this is pretty low, what this would do is allow the public to realize the extent of the criminality government sank to this last decade. The resulting blow to the Republican party would hopefully kill Neoconservatism long enough for us to actually do some work with regards to fixing drug, environment and energy laws.

However, the perpetual culture war inherent in all U.S. federal politics means that Obama did not win by very much; he has to prove to the other half of the U.S. government that he’s not just another politician with eyes bigger than his stomach. This will involve mitigating the ongoing financial crisis and then likely finding an effective way out of Iraq—both tasks being large enough alone to fill a presidency. Those expecting social reforms should expect to see them once Obama has gained massive favour with the U.S. people—in other words, once he’s achieved the inverse of Bush’s performance ratings.

Right now, focusing on anything but the economy will lose support. The reason I’m guessing why Change.org was so blunt in its response (and continually unaccommodating to anyone wanting to discuss drug reform) is because the last thing Obama needs right now is a wedge issue for right-wing bloggers and radio to use as a distraction.

Meanwhile, in Canada, we appear to have taken a step backwards by awarding Stephen Harper and a slightly larger minority government. Further, a coalition of the Liberal and NDP parties (backed temporarily by the Bloc Quebecois) appears ready to replace him with Igantieff, an entirely unknown commodity. It’s all crazy as shit and I don’t want to comment on it until after parliament resumes for a few weeks, but, regardless of your opinion of Dion, Ignatieff, Layton or even Stephen Harper, this could perhaps be the closest Canada has come to legalization yet—though it will take a massive push from we, the stoners, before it happens.

In closing, I’m looking at 2009 as the start of a whole new decade. Let’s face it, ladies and gentlemen: the last decade kinda sucked. The most enduring genres of music to come out were Emo and Crunk (Which are exponentially bad together as “Crunkcore”); politics were driven by meglomaniacal power-hunger Warpigs, there was a sense of total global inaction with regards to climate change. But I have hope for this coming decade; never before have I seen people so engaged in politics, and the seeds of change have been sown.