What can we expect to eventually become reality according to the agenda of the new far left Obama and Congress:
Well, I for one hope for some basic competence in governing. Katrina, in my opinion, is all to symptomatic of the inability of Bush to actually govern. There was no excuse for that kind of gross negligence.
I hope accountability will return. And not the kind of partisan bickering that is likely under the remainder of the GOP that focuses on small, insignificant matters as a means to obstruct, but rather serious accountability like that from the Iran-Contra scandal.
I hope that the rule of law will return. One of the great foundations of this country is the respect for law and rule by it. We won the revolution partly because of this (read up on the American and British campaigns in New Jersey near the start of the war. The brits pillaged. The americans at least attempted to respect property and when they took gave a receipt so compensation could later be claimed). We earned respect around the world for this. Guantanamo, Iraq, secret prisons, illegal torture, illegal wiretapping all ruined that. Without respect, alliances mean nothing. Without respect, the US cannot achieve its aims abroad. Europe, from what I can tell, is willing to help us again because of the prospect of the US returning to the rule of law. Terrorists are confused, because if the Great Satan respects the law, how are they evil?
Now onto your points.
Forced unionism.
Obama has yet to pick a Sec. Labor. With this economic crisis and huge job losses, Labor could be important. His economic team is fleshed out and not one major pro-labor person on it (his team is really quite centrist overall).
Further, what is bad about unions? In Denmark, Norway, and Sweden there is an agreement between the LO (their version of the AFL-CIO) and the employer federation (think something roughly equivalent to the Board of Commerce). This agreement set up an arbitration court for labor and employer to work out differences without having to resort to strikes and lockouts (thus you generally don't hear about things like air-traffic controller strike because they largely don't exist). It recognizes the power of collective bargaining on both sides. It works best in Denmark, but a recent example is in Sweden, where employers agreed to increase wages by 7% over 2 years. Sweden has no minimum wage because of agreements like this.
The unions realize that they are part of the economy, and work to ensure that its members are productive and aren't scamming the system. Union membership isn't forced, but is still extremely high.
I should also mention that Denmark and Sweden, with their high percentage of unionized labor, are the 3rd and 4th most competitive economies in the world, respectively. Only the US (1) and Switzerland (2) beat them. Little to no disruption of production is good for the economy, as Boeing is right now painfully learning. They lost millions due to a strike by their union. But what if there was a system like that in Scandinavia? Might have still happened, but less likely.
The important thing to take away from this is that unions and these agreements are actually good for capitalist economies if done right. Screaming communism doesn't help anybody, because nobody is looking to implement communism.
Socialized medicine
Ask GM. And Ford. And Chrysler. Is this a good thing for their busienss? Unequivically yes. Part of the reason why they can't compete with foreign auto-makers is because no other foreign auto-maker has to pay for the health insurance of its employees and retirees. Which means a greater margin.
It's unlikely that we'll implement a single-payer health care system, but there are numerous benefits to it. First, insurance is cheaper the greater the number of people paying into it. That's why small companies have difficultly being able to afford health care for their employees. They just don't employ enough people to make it cheap enough. So what would happen if you had every tax payer pay into a health care system? Overall, it would be cheaper for each person. Second, about choice. Under our current system, you do have a choice. You can pick a doctor who's part of the plan or you can pick a doctor outside of your plan, which will cost you a lot more and negates the point of insurance. The third option is to pick a different plan, but unless you're wealthy, can you really afford a plan not offered by the company you work for? Under a single-payer system, all the doctors in the country would be a part of the health care, and you don't have to worry about going outside your coverage. Third, a single-payer system would also help drive down the total cost of health care. Currently, the US spends more money on health care per person than anyone else in the world, and we do not have the best health (or health care) in the world. Why are we throwing away our money if a system like the British or Canadian has shown that its cheaper and more effective? How can you be a fiscal conservative and advocate the less inefficient method?
Weaker smaller military
Obama has already said that he wants to increase the number of personell in the military. And with Iraq and Afghanistan still going on, it's unlikely that he will try to decrease the size of the military and strain ourselves even more. That said, there are more effecient ways to solve problems than to spend billions of dollars blowing things up and killing people. Let's use some of that money in investments in the US to actually help us instead of kill others, and let's use our diplomacy for a change.
Paramilitary civilian government controlled services required upon every young person
From change.gov:
Obama and Biden will call on citizens of all ages to serve. They'll set a goal that all middle school and high school students engage in 50 hours of community service a year, and develop a plan for all college students who engage in 100 hours of community service to receive a fully-refundable tax credit of $4,000 for their education. Obama and Biden will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.
It's a work in progress, but just what is wrong with asking Americans to serve their country in ways outside of the military? If you want people to have in interest in the country, what better way than to give them a direct link to it? The arguments I've seen against this so far essentially say that this takes away power from the church and would indoctrinate these people with what the government wants them to think. As to indoctrination, that's what churches do to begin with.
Besides, organizations like the Peace Corps have done a tremendous amount of good for the world and our country.
So called (miss called) Fairness Doctrine essentially eliminating right wing talk shows in the media, highly expanding what is regarded as hate speech.
The Fairness Doctrine was eliminated in 1987. It required broadcasters to air controversial issues of public interest honestly, balanced, and equitable. It says nothing about hate speech. Further, from June 2008:
"{Obama} does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," but that he "considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," adding, "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."
FCC fairness doctrine - Wikipedia
A non-issue, really.
I'll do the next 5 later.
Oh, and yeah, I was one of those who helped turn Colorado blue.
™ Version 4.2