By Gary L. Flowers
NNPA
“This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism” - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
I read an article on Sunday, July 11, 2010 in the Washington Post entitled “Reform” (with form spelled upside down) by Michael Lend with little concurrence. Not only was the word reform disjointed, but also yellow-colored arrows flowed from the word in haphazard directions akin to its misdirection of American public policy history.
Human history advises that to respond to extraordinary times extraordinary measures are necessary. For example, in response to the threat of a collapsing society the Nubian (Ancient Egyptian) Pharaoh Akhnaken radically shifted his people’s belief of many Gods (polytheism) to that of one God (monotheism).

While there were many critics in the short term the world community—not just Ancient Egypt, for the most part—accepted the new deity disposition. The religious world was brought closer together as a result.
In more recent times when South African president Nelson Mandela negotiated racially inclusive, multi-party elections he did so against the prevailing political winds but in concert with, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King that “the moral arch of the universe bends toward justice.” The South African political model helped to diminish racial and ethnic intolerance around the world.
In short, extraordinary times require extraordinary policies for the greater good. We live in such times.
No one with reason can doubt that issues facing the United States today such its nationwide unemployment; addiction to oil and other fossil fuels; and the meltdown of American financial institutions need swift and certain responses on a broad scale.
With such historical footing the perspective by Michael Lend on public policy offered by the Obama Administration seems imbalanced. Mr. Lend opines, “...each complex, giant problem must [not] be addressed by one complex, giant bill.” He goes on to say that politicians (the President implied) are “seduced by comprehensive reform because history tends to glorify presidents and legislators who pass big, definitive laws.” Not true.
Most presidents advocating massive policy changes do so, not for glory, but because they face massive challenges. Duh. 
For example, President Abraham Lincoln did not issue the Emancipation Proclamation for the potential glory. On the contrary, Lincoln did so to save the Republic from divisionary collapse through Civil War. America is closer to a more perfect union today. 
In 1933, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt assumed the presidency following the complete crash of the American stock market. Accordingly, he pushed the formation of a national Social Security system and the Glass-Steagall Act to separate financial institutions engaging in investment instruments. Social Security is a valuable to all Americans today, and the Glass-Steagall Act was sound public policy until its repeal under the Clinton Administration and Republicans in 1998.
Likewise, President Lyndon Johnson ushered through seminal legislative policies such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Voting Rights Act of 1965; the Fair Housing Act of 1968; not to mention the Medicaid Program. All four pieces of legislation have reformed the American legislative landscape for the greater good. 
Unlike Mr. Lend’s assertion that such sweeping legislation was not enacted with a “big bang” in the first 100 days of previous presidential administrations misses the point. In particular, he states that the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act came about only by smaller civil rights legislation in 1957 and 1960. What he fails to recognize is that the “sweeping” 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education led to the civil right legislation of 1957 and 1960, not such legislation leading to later reforms.
What many (including Mr. Lend and Tea Party members) view as “sweeping” change must be viewed in an historical context. So far, the Obama Administration’s push and passage of health care reform sought to right the wrong of the cost and lack of health care access to Americans. Similarly, today’s fiscal reform follows the most lucrative money grab by American banks via predatory schemes in United States history. And the proposed regulations and restrictions proposed by the Obama Administration on oil drilling are a result of at least 8 years of unregulated or under-regulated oil companies who have profited from poor public policy. In other words, what seems radical must be contextualized by the unrighteous period of public policy that proceeded.
In actuality, Obama reforms in health care, oil drilling, and of the financial industry are relatively moderate and replete with concessions to opposing political views. However moderate, the Obama Administration policies are progressive. To oppose such policies is by definition regressive and not in the best interest of America moving forward.
Reform equals progress.