Obama Is Timid Because Progressives Are Timid

I am having a lot of "oy-vey" moments these days. Oy vey, we're not going to get single payer health care, the only option that would save money and expand coverage. Oy-vey, we're not going to get a revival of Glass-Steagal, the common sense firewall that Congress established in 1933 to prevent banks from engaging in risky investment. Oy-vey, we're not going to get meaningful climate change legislation, as cap-and-trade will include billions in windfalls for polluters. Oy-vey, we're not going get real labor law reform, as the card-check provision of the Employee Free Choice Act has been tossed overboard. Oy-vey we'll never get out of Iraq or Afghanistan. Oy.

The cumulative weight of these concerns frustrates me deeply. I suspect that the Democrats may be at the height of their power right now, and every socialist bone in my body wants to blame President Obama and his political advisers. As Arianna Huffington asks in her post, if reform is in Obama's DNA, then why has he surrounded himself with centrists? Why didn't he start with a bang, like Franklin Delano Roosevelt? If George W. Bush could govern from the extreme right, why can't Obama govern from the left?

As tempting as it may be to blame the White House, the administration's centrism is not the problem. Progressives must not give the White House a free pass. But the obstacles standing in the way of change have nothing to do with the President.

To begin, the Democratic and Republican coalitions differ in a critical way. The Republican coalition is made up of groups who can get what they want without compromising with one another. George Bush could pursue pro-gun, anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-tax, and pro-war policies without forcing activists from any of these camps to compromise with each other. This is not to say that the Republican camp is free of contradiction. That said, an extreme right-wing administration can keep Grover Norquist, Richard Perle and Pat Robertson happy at the same time.

The Democratic coalition, by contrast, includes factions that disagree with each other about the optimal size and scope of the government. DLC-centrists favor a relatively smaller state while progressives tend to favor a larger state. On almost every major issue, one side has to give. Hence the liberal wing of the party which insists on a public option and yearns for single payer inevitably butts heads with centrists like Max Baucus. It's pretty hard to keep both camps happy at the same time.

Another obstacle is of course the structure of the Senate, which provides disproportionate influence to residents of small, mostly conservative states and which allows coalitions of just forty Senators to block almost anything. It is worth remembering that Senate filibusters blocked federal anti-lynching legislation that the House of Representatives passed throughout much of the 1920s, '30s and '40s.

Finally, despite the current partisan balance in Congress and the public, the American people are, for the most part, more conservative than liberal. Even after eight years of George Bush, an economic collapse, and the disastrous McCain campaign, Barack Obama prevailed by a margin of only 7 percentage points: 53% to 46%. That is an electoral landslide. But it is sobering to realize that if just 4 out of 100 people had shifted allegiances, McCain would have won the popular vote. Roughly 40% of the public self-identifies as conservative, while only about 20% of the public claims to be liberal. (The rest are moderates.)

How much can we expect from a President who presides over a relatively conservative public, whose party is fractured by a fundamental contradiction, and whose legislative agenda is held hostage by Ben Nelson? Probably not much. That said, there are at least two steps - one short-term and one long-term -- that Democrats and progressives can take to pursue real change.

First, the short-term: Senate Democrats should get rid of the filibuster. After eight years of George Bush, it is scary to contemplate that proposal. When Republicans get back into power, they would do a lot of damage if they were unchecked by the filibuster. So why take the risk?

Democrats need to have confidence that the public will reward them for passing policies that improve the general welfare, and will hold Republicans accountable for damage. The 2008 election can be understood in these terms. The public allowed itself to be snookered in 2004, but after Katrina, economic collapse and two failed wars, the Republicans were booted out of office.

If threats facing the country were minor, perhaps eliminating the filibuster would make no sense. Given that the seas are rising, that we are killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in wars that do not improve our security, and that we are in desperate need of single payer health care, real public transportation and financial re-regulation, only radical reform will solve our problems. And we will never get radical reform as long as the filibuster lives. The status quo is more risky than the elimination of the filibuster.

Second, the long-term: Progressives need to do a better job of convincing the public of the legitimacy of their ideas. How many progressive groups are working with journalists to help the public understand that high taxes are good? That excessive military strength is dangerous? That gay marriage helps kids? That anti-immigrant sentiment is highly correlated with racism? That we already have a health care system based on rationing? These claims may sound dangerous, but research shows that all of them are true. Yet progressives often seem too scared of their own beliefs to do real consciousness-raising around dangerous ideas.

A colleague and I are writing a book called Selling Liberal Ideas that explains how, over a ten year period, gay rights advocates changed the public's mind about one point, the notion that gay troops undermine military effectiveness. When this work started, Generals who said that it was necessary to fire gay soldiers crushed activists who disputed them. Now, when people say that it is necessary to fire gay troops, they sound loony. By (1) identifying the central un-truth that propped up bad policy; (2) using scholarship to question the plausibility of that un-truth; (3) actively distributing the scholarship to journalists; and (4) repeating these steps again and again over ten years, gay advocates slowly changed the public's mind.

George Lakoff has said that progressives need to be more sophisticated about how we frame ideas. But I don't think he's quite right. The reason that Republicans need to work so hard at framing is that their policies are designed to hurt people, so they rely on frames to conceal what they're doing (e.g. "Clear Skies Initiative"). Since progressive policies are not designed to hurt people, we don't have to be coy about our values.

To the extent that the gays-in-the-military example can be applied to other issues, progressive groups should be more direct, honest and aggressive about what they believe, and should use research as the basis of communications with the public. That's how to change bedrock principles of public opinion. That's how to open up a space to make it safe for politicians to make real change.

So, one year after the election, what do you think Candidate Obama would think of President Obama? Tweet your response (our Twitter hashtag is #OneYearLater), or post it in the comments section.

 

Comments

[DenaSilver]

But Obama has not been timid. This is a mischaract­erization.

[S E Martin]

On health care, I think he has. Maybe not as much on other issues, but I think he has not been nearly aggressive enough on health care.

He should make the argument just like Feingold has:

Progressives want a single payer system, so a strong public option already IS a compromise. No more compromise. Congress WILL give me a strong public option, or I'll veto it.

[marinara]

progressives are spread out over what is a large number of issues. That's not news. Electing a black democrat and then finding out hes as far right as Bush, that's a surprise.

[S E Martin]

As far right as Bush? Are you serious?

I'll admit Obama's to the right of where I thought he'd be (which is why I must laugh when Fox News calls him a socialist), but he's not as far right as Bush.

Are you using hyperbole on purpose here?

[gharlane]

Belkin is wrong on several points.

1) DLC Democrats and the Baucus Caucus are not "centrists." The only place where they are arguably in any kind of "center" is K Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. They are corporatists, bought and paid for with corporate dollars, and their positions are significantly to the left of a majority of the American public (e.g. their opposition to a public option, which polling consistently shows enjoys 60-80% support among the public, especially when the questions are phrased accurately).

2) By the same token, this President is not "presid[ing] over a relatively conservative public." Belkin makes a crucial mistake of confusing self-identification of a political position with actual support of specific policies. Eric Alterman showed years ago that people were reluctant to describe themselves as "liberal" (because of constant right-wing demonization of that label, and failure among liberals to push back) but when presented with actual policies and asked whether they supported them, they consistently came down in support of POLICIES that fit the description of "liberal." Or put another way, liberalism IS centrism. But that means that Baucus, Lieberman and Nelson are a far cry from being centrists. You can't have it both ways. The public may think it's conservative or moderate, but not when you ask them about specific policy prescriptions.

Point 3 takes me over the lovely HuffPo 250-word limit, so it will have to wait.

[gharlane]

OK, now Point 3.

3) Lakoff is right about framing, and Belkin is wrong when he thinks Lakoff is suggesting liberals and progressives be "coy" about our ideas. As the demonization of the term "liberal", which I noted in point 2, demonstrates, framing and use of language IS important. It's possible to be accurate, strong, and use emotionall­y-resonant language, all without lying or being "coy." Quite the opposite. Correct, accurate framing of "liberal" policy ideas would highlight how they help the vast majority of people. And it's this that the Obama administration has failed to do -- not the progressives. Had Obama come out swinging on Day 1 of the health care debate, identifying the real villains in this fight (the for-profit insurance industry, which doesn't contribute a dime to actual provision of care but merely skims money off the top in exchange for the "service" of being a money conduit, he would have had a much larger swath of the public behind him. But Obama has failed to articulate and harness populist outrage -- that is, President Obama has failed at that. Candidate Obama was quite good at it. Something has changed, but it ain't progressives.

[gharlane]

Alterman, "Think Again: Conservative Media, Liberal Nation"
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2005/07/b873695.html

A Pew Research Center for People and Policy poll conducted in May 2005 throws this misperception into high relief, confirming a trend that has remained unchanged for decades. ...The poll shows that on most of the most important social issues facing Americans today, the public mind is much further to the left than it is the right.

For example, a staggering 65 percent of those polled favor providing health insurance to all Americans, even if it means increasing taxes, while 86 percent say that they favor raising the minimum wage. ...

On another tax-related issue, the Pew poll finds that by about a two-to-one margin, most of the electorate would give higher priority to reducing the federal budget deficit than to cutting taxes. Speaking of money, Pew notes that "over the past decade or so, the number favoring more aid for needy people has increased from about 50 [percent] to 57 [percent]."

Finally, while the president, along with a majority of his conservative allies, continues to support drilling for oil in environmentally sensitive areas, the poll finds that a full 77 percent of those polled believe the country "should do whatever it takes to protect the environment," while a large majority of 63 percent subscribe to that view "strongly."

So sorry, Dr. Belkin, the idea that the American electorate is "relatively conservative" is horse pucky.

[S E Martin]

I agree.
It irks me to no end when people say "liberal media." Bull!!

I would refer anyone to the lectures and writings of Noam Chomsky on this issue.

Also, I forget the authors, but the book is called: "The Myth of the Liberal Media."

If you ask me, even MSNBC, minus maybe Maddow, is quite conservative really.

[S E Martin]

Wait. In number 1, you said that the Baucus caucus is to the LEFT of the public on the public option. That's wrong, correct? It would be to the right of the public on the issue of the public option, correct?

[Artemis34]

"obstacle is of course the structure of the Senate..."

Agreed. You say:

1) get rid of filibuster.

I understand this only takes 50 votes plus the VP as the 60 vote rule is merely procedural.

I say:

2) weight the vote of each senator based on population.

We make have to have a constitutional convention to change the structure of the senate, but they are holding the country back. We'll probably need a constitutional convention to get public campaign financing anyway, so change the structure of the senate at the same time.

[Artemis34]

Progressives "should use research as the basis of communications..."

I don't agree.

1) there has been plenty of research used and
2) the general public is not responding to an intellectual argument.

It has to be personal and it has to be emotional.

What Republicans and conservatives have been doing is using focus groups and market research to determine what "will sell" their products.

And they've done a great job of packaging their products. Who could oppose something we let be called the "PATRIOT" Act? It is certainly false advertising, but it is also effective advertising.

This is gorilla marketing folks! We need a gorilla marketing arm of the Democratic party to get progressive movement.

Let's face it, on our side, a lot of people voted for a nice package and effective advertising when voting for Pres. Obama. Let's build on that.

[IGGHY]

Don't blame progressives. We got him elected. He didn't get himself elected. Just look at the way he is governing. You don't think he could have ever gotten himself elected, do you?

[lastpost]

“I suspect that the Democrats may be at the height of their power right now”

We have just begun to fight (without the use of violence).

“As tempting as it may be to blame the White House, the administration's centrism is not the problem.”

Since the beginning humanity has adopted and relied on the animalist tactic of imposition. That method has served the purpose of keeping us around for this long. But it cannot continue to fulfil that function in view of future requirements. Appreciating that, after so many lifetimes of perpetual reinforcement isn’t going to occur instantaneously. And it certainly isn’t going to happen if we have to resort to force to enforce it.

[BlackLight]

Huh, what?

[Conservoprogressive]

Can I contribute something as food for thought? There are A LOT of people like me out there, who are fiscally conservative but socially "libertari­an"(person­al choices are conservative, but we don't feel morality should be legislated).....who agree with you guys on many of the issues. But, there is one issue that seems to be a big thorn in the side of mainstream America, that they see as a "failure of progressiv­ism"....an­d that's welfare fraud. I'm a pediatrics nurse, and I see it DAILY. Families coming in with their kids, their address is the local Sect 8 housing, they hand us a medicaid card...and mom has a Blackberry, dragon-lady airbrushed acrylic manicure, nice clothes, etc. The kid has rotten teeth, is bordering on obesity and is unclean. We also see the Sect 8 housing every day, and there are satellite dishes all over the roofs and nicer cars than ours in the lot.
That situation causes a lot of anger, and it's getting worse in this economy. People gravitate toward the Republican Party because they *think* it's a way to stop this. They see Democrat policies throwing more money into this. What do you all think can be done? We want to help those who are truly helpless, and those who need a temporary hand up. But...4 generations of welfare in a family, and they're flaunting nicer gadgets and gizmos than we can afford? Is this making sense?

[cliffsiderock]

That's really is the heart of the problem with government entitlement programs. Like medicare, gov programs are plagued with billions of dollar of fraud and abuses per year and those who really need help get short changed in the end. This is why I work with my accountant every year to figure out the optimum amount to donate to specialized charities like Compassionate international: http://www.compassion.com so that the maximum possible of would-be tax money will go to charities instead of the government. The advantage of private charity is that they know what they are doing and unlike the government, they are held accountable by independent third party organizations such as the American institute of philanthropy who will rank and grade them and you can target the money to help those you want to help. I have no problem helping poor children or the disables. I just don't want my money go to those parasites like the ones you mentioned in your posting.

[Artemis34]

Nope. We have separation of Church and state for a reason.

Religious charities should not do the work of government.

Even Jesus said "Render unto Caesar [government] that which is Caesar's [government's]"

While Christ himself would not have judged the needy [When I was in prison...] many of our pseudo-Christians would judge the needy and use the aid to force them to submit to pseudo-religious dictates not their own.

Lord, Protect us from your followers!

[scottpot]

Do you realize that defense budget is $ 600 billion dollars and billions are wasted? Welfare Queen outrage is a distraction from the billions Americans are spending to make Defense contractors, banksters, insurance companies athletes,actors,and television news anchors rich. And I mean rich,with multi-million dollar salaries.We the people are paying for all that waste and excess.

[cliffsiderock]

But that's the deal: Government-run programs waste money whether it is for defense or welfare or insurance. This is so because they have no incentives to NOT waste money and run their operation efficiently period.

[mikekc]

Are President Obama and Democratic leaders timid because they lack a passionate base, or is it because they beneift in the form of tremendous current and quid pro quo future wealth by enabling the status quo to continue and not making too much of a ruckus to truly change anything? If we know one thing about President Obama by now it's that he is a progressive in words but not actions.

[Artemis34]

I'd say according to his words, he is a moderate, a centrist.

Yes, we should have PUBLIC campaign financing. Maybe that way we can buy some public servants.

[olephart]

Many Democratic "leaders" are indeed timid. Obama and Reid are certainly underwhelming but neither is a Progressive. Other non Progressive Democrats are simply bought off corporate prostitutes usually termed "conservatives or moderates". Saying Progressives are timid is to ignore the two 800 pound gorillas in the room.

[helen]

Sorry, but I find your premise wrong. Progressive voters have been quite clear.

Deliver on your promises or lose elections.

[marxmarv]

Why do you think the D party would rather give credence to a leftist organization that's not them than lose to the R party? One hand washes the other.

[HMDMSR]

The Democratic Party's Rainbow Coalition of would-be radicals will never deliver the goods. We're about to get the black dude thing out of our blood, but do we really need to go through the motions of electing phony gay, Latino or feminist radicals, just to be sure every hypocrite has had a chance?

If we want change--real change--we have only to look back to the 19th century to find a body of thought that can deliver the goods. But, we have to be radical enough to put this program in motion.

[mravka]

You should read Slavoj Zizek's latest book "First As Tragedy, Then As Farce".

[marxmarv]

Faved!

[Artemis34]

I'd say the Republicans throw us people like Palin, Bachmann and Steele is much more cynical and phony than any Democrat.

What exactly are you proposing? Public campaign financing?

[Ameriki]

Give me two days as President...one day to type up the executive orders and one day to sign them...and I'll show you "timid".

[BlackQueen40]

Until the Democrats get a spine and actually stand up to the Republicans and use the rules governing the Senate to push through legislation the way the Republicans have done time and time again through the years the Progressive message and agenda will never get traction. It's only after people see the benefits in their everyday lives that people will finally realize that being Liberal and a Progressive are good things. I have no hope that we will see anything like that out of the Democrats, though. The one thing they know how best to do is to snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat. Yes, the Democrats are timid. They are so worried about getting re-elected that they will never actually stand up for what's right. They promise us Liberals and Progressives the moon and never deliver. We were told majority in the House, 60 votes in the Senate and control of the White House and they could deliver. Well, this year we've seen what's been delivered: Nothing.

[EuroRant1]

Dear Queen, Couldn't agree more.

Reagan had a Democratic Congress for a majority of his 8 years and used the "Bully Pulpit" to get his agenda through. I remember it being said that LBJ used to call congressmen at 2 & 3 in the morning until he got their attention.

Why is Obama trying to apese these lame idiots? He has got to start busting heads? Going to schools to talk about "education" on the evening after a bad election is a bad sign. It is now time he start naming names and explaining to the American people, that love him, just who the bad apples are in Congress. And why are you constantly playing to the Repugs ... they did not elect you ... we did ... Mr President - playing to the middle NEVER works.

You said it best ... "I'm not interested in being a centrist or rushing to the middle, in the sense of just splitting the difference with a radically ideological Bush administration. And that’s how I think we got into trouble in many instances, was we just kept on splitting the difference until you find out you don't stand for anything, you just keep on compromising." -- Barack Obama

[BlackQueen40]

Thanks for the reminder of President Obama saying that. Now I wish HE would remember he said that! The American people knew what they were voting for, they knew what his positions were and they elected him on the basis of those promises. It's time he started kicking butt and taking names. He needs to start appealing to the American people just as he did during the campaign. We are with him if he will just get out in front of the Congress and LEAD. When the Republicans start whining about being left out and President Obama gets asked about it, he can say, "Look, I tried to work with them but you've seen them saying NO to everything I want done so there comes a point in time when you just have to decide that if you are going to do what's good for the American people you have to move on by the ones who are blocking your way.".

[mnyegele]

Great!

Progressives need to be made of sterner stuff than mocha lattes. I give Belkin kudos for one great idea =- Get rid of the filibuster. I looked up the nuclear option in the Wikipedia - We need to demand that the Democratic leadership forget bi-partisanship and resort to the nuclear option.

The rest involves work and stamina. Obama did not promise us a rose garden. We must work for the justice we want. We can begin by joining forces with MoveOn, BoldProgressives, and Organizing for America.

(And yes, for me beer is off-the-menu, While I wouldn't share a beer with Obama, I'd certainly share a low-fat mocha latte - with an emphasis on LOW FAT.)