A caution worth noting

The Wall Street Journal has an editorial worth noting for those who support Senator Obama. One need not hold the Journal's political or economic biases to recognize some of the wisdom inherent in it's cautions.
Hopefully, Democrats will recall from their own experience in the past and the more recent experience of the Republican Party how easily those in power can be corrupted by electoral power. Protecting members of one's party who abuse the trust of the people destroys the legitimacy of the Party's mandate to govern. It's incumbent upon the vast numbers of citizens mobilized by the candidacy of Senator Obama to remain engaged in the political process. To maintain contact with their representatives in Washington to validate the direction the new majority will take the country. A representative democracy demands no less. Even if holding your nose is necessary, remain connected to your government. If you don't, interests who do not have your best interests at heart will seduce your representatives.
Contrary to the Journal's assessment that the election appears to herald a restoration of an "activist government", I would argue that we've had an activist government. The activism has been in favor of the "haves" in the country rather than the country as a whole. I am constantly confounded by the "class warfare" cries in some corners. If there is a "war", there's only one army on the field. And, it's not fighting for what's been called "the average American". "Average Americans" have a history of being seduced into supporting policies which are not in their long term interests. It's time to recognize how language can be used to subvert one's best interests.
"Medicare for all", is not a profanity. For many, it is a recognition that America is one family. And, in well functioning families, risk is shared. We all have a chance to voice our opinion, if we take it, on how it should be structured, But most families take a dim view of individuals who want to profit off the troubles of family members.
"We have some harsh decisions to make". The business climate is not a partisan issue. Avarice and greed is neither Republican nor Democratic. As the cycles of American capitalism historically have demonstrated, without the ability to monitor and regulate economic activity, the entire economy will suffer from those two individualistic characteristics.
"Union supremacy". The bias inherent in how the Journal casts this issue must be apparent to anyone interested in fairness. The issue is not union supremacy, the issue is employees having an opportunity to interact with employers with protection from repercussions. We all have an opportunity to voice our opinion how that relationship is structured if we accept our civic responsibility. Those who have no interest in equity for labor, are organized.
"Taxes". I, for one, have long supported lifting the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. It's at minimum a legitimate subject for discussion for the country. For me, it's not an issue of socialism vs capitalism. A societal(family) need has been identified. How does the society(family) best meet the need? That's a legitimate subject for discussion.
"The green revolution". No topic is more important to our progeny. It is incumbent upon citizens to be knowledgeable of the competing interests. Financial interests should not be determinant in social policy.
"Free speech and voting rights". Am I the only citizen of the United States who finds it unconscionable that the citizens of Washington, D.C. have no voting rights in Congress? In this "Leader of the free World". Felons in several states have their citizenship rights restored after completion of conditions. If reclamation of people is the goal of a justice system, no less can be expected.
Perhaps, in a effort to appear fair, the Journal acknowledged, "Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way." Well, the Democratic Party remains a huge tent. In some ways, many Southern Democrats continue to share a lot of positions held by Republicans. Even with a veto proof Senate, there will be vigorous debate in the Democratic Caucus.
My plea is twofold. Should the Democratic Party win by the margin anticipated by many, that those elected maintain their equanimity. Actively resist the temptation to abuse their power. Second, the electorate maintain a high level of both interest and involvement in the democratic processes of change.
There is a tension in this society between "the individual" and "the whole". While there may have been value in the frontier past to idealizing the "rugged individual". I would suggest the realities of the modern world demand more of us who are interested in "the whole" than providing cover for those interested only in the individual. I recognize this is a values position. Many will disagree with it. That's part of the discussion I believe America needs to have.