Pray Yourself Better: It's The American Way!
Ideological contortionist, Barack Obama, marches toward his personal goal of causing one million progressives' heads to simultaneously explode.
He obtained an essential first step toward this aim when he capitulated on FISA, a move so contradictory to the core of the Progressive movement that outraged midget, Markos "Dailykos" Moulitsas, yanked a generous contribution from Obama's bony fingers as punishment for the sneaky, immoral maneuver. Moveon.org was also unhappy with Obama, all of which brings to mind the ancient expression: If You Wrong The Progressives, Protect Your Crotch.
These burns aren't going to heal any time soon. John Kerry turned out to be an empty shell of a candidate, but Barack Obama had real potential, or so the Progressives thought. They sunk their time and money into Obama, and as thanks, he turned around and bit the hands that fed him.
Selling out his Progressive base on FISA was bad enough, but then Obama followed up his gradual tumble toward triangulation when he recently vowed to expand Bush's faith-based programs.
Defenders of Obama's latest selling-out point claim churches are an essential party of American society because the institutions provide basic services like feeding the poor. Except, churches have no business substituting for the government in anti-poverty campaigns.
If churches hold the occasional bake sale to help the Harper family pay for Little Matty's liver transplant, that's all well and good. However, any politician seriously claiming churches should substitute for government programs needs to have their head examined. It's the job of the state to care for its citizens, namely because the state is Constitutionally secular, forbidding government agents to deny care on the grounds of theological loyalty.
In a way, asking the church to step up and care for the poor in lieu of a comprehensive, meaty welfare program is like abandoning the American post office in favor of using FedEx. It's yet another dig at the innards of the American infrastructure. It's yet another way to privatize a normal function of the government. Of course, in this case, it's selling out pro bono because the church claims to operate without the explicit intent of profit. I guess we're not counting those basket donations...
Even if Obama proposed the expansion as an accessory program where the church just gets to "come along for the poverty ride," the idea is still worse than dumb, it's downright insulting. When will a progressive candidate have the courage to admit they have no business dictating moral values? When will a progressive acknowledge that triangulation brought us to this place, where the American people have no bargaining chips left? They're poor, they're losing their jobs because of triangulating land mines like NAFTA, and those jobs are not coming back. They have no health care, their food and environment are poisoned, and Barack Obama tells them to go to church and pray for a miracle.
And that's the progressive talking. Just imaging the steaming pile of shit resting on John McCain's tongue.
"The challenges we face today ... are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama explained when confronted by foaming-at-the-mouths Progressives.
Um, what? So let me get this straight: We pay taxes for a government unable to do its job. We elect representatives, like Barack Obama, to overhaul a broken system that has abandoned its own constituents, and instead of creating a bold, radical agenda, Obama perpetuates the status quo. Obama chooses to invest his trust in the church instead of in the political system that has invested in him this great and rare opportunity to fix an ailing society. He chooses to entrust a brothel of fairy tales with the safety of the people instead of a responsible, secular government.
What the hell is he thinking? Unless there's a business model somewhere where "priest molestations" plus "dangerous ignorance" equals "profit" that I don't know about, this appears to be yet another grave error from the Obama camp.
More surprising than Obama selling out his progressive base is the stubbornness with which some progressives have reacted during these gradual moves toward triangulation. One such supporter explained to me, "You can't drive the bus without the keys," meaning Obama is just faking his way into the White House with these "moderate" moves and bushels of "compromises."
But this kind of logic ignores Quid Pro Quo, where Wall Street lobbyists, who have sunk nearly twice as much money into Obama as they have McCain, will demand favors in exchange for their generosity.
Obama is already in debt, but the progressives seem to think he'll experience a kind of miraculous spell of transubstantiation during his inauguration where his past corruptions will turn into delicious wine and universal health care. It ain't, as they say, gonna happen, folks. At least, it won't happen without the motivation of a seriously pissed-off base.
Of course, the motivation of his pissed-off base was supposed to have been what was going to keep Obama on track in the first place. With that not working, progressives have few options left, and their trust is waning in the last great savior for the so-called progressive movement.
Follow Allison Kilkenny on Twitter: www.twitter.com/allisonkilkenny
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I agree that FISA is b.s. but I understand the calculus there. I am not religious and have no problem with giving money to programs at churches, just like programs at secular institutions, to deal with POVERTY, a serious and pervasive problem. There is no separation of church & state problem if the money goes to secular programs at the churches, the programs cannot proselytize and they must follow federal anti-discrimination law. If you want to stop giving churches breaks, then take away their tax exemption. This is not a separation of church and state problem.
"There is no separation of church & state problem if the money goes to secular programs at the churches" ???
DISAGREE! Scientology has all sorts of "secular" programs. It is against the Constitution for the government to give money to religions!!!!!!!!!!
I agree. I am no fan of institutionalized religion, but at the present time, the government does not have and will not have in the near future the money to reinstate the secular welfare programs it once had in place. The churches already have organizations in place to provide services, and usually provide the best bang for the money, as statistically more of the dollars given to religious-
Before you go off on faith based initiatives, I would challenge you to volunteer at a homeless shelter, after school or out of school program, or job training program, or refugee relocation program operated by a church. My experience is that these programs do just as much good as programs operated by sectarian nonprofits. They also do the work without any emphasis on religion so why shouldn’t they be able to apply for the same government grants as the sectarian non-profits doing this work?
I am one royally perturbed progressive and Obama just lost my vote when he sucked up to the evangelicals and promised to perpetuate their faith-based initiatives. I guess I'll have to do a write in for Dennis Kucinich now .... What a disappointment this man is. They should throw him out at the convention.
OK, I know I'm a conspiracy theorist and a crazy lefty liberal by many standards.
And hey you may not be,... you may actually Love Kucinich and be repulsed by Catholicism like your history shows... I'm just curious why the similarity with the Obama bashing along the same timeline. it may just be coincidence. but it is weird.
Ahhhh it looks like everyone's history skips memory around april until june. What is Arriana doing? :) Sorry retro, only took me ten minutes...
Sorry, but I think a candidate should have a little loyalty to his base. It was Move On who brought him to the dance not the religious right. I'm beginning to see that we selected as a candidate for President a person who is Republican light. He was supposed to bring real change. Now it looks like it is going to be same oh, same oh. One of the things I liked about both Clinton and Kennedy is that they had people in their administration who could speak to them and they would listen and then make their own decisions. Watching the way Obama has thrown Clark, and Move On under the bus, lets me know he is no better than Bush. If he had said some of these things before the nomination, I'm sure many of us would never have voted for him. If there is no difference between the candidates why is he any better than McCain? Edwards said he would protect his administration from too much corporate influence. We were lead to believe that Obama would do the same thing. By saying he is voting for immunity for corporations who spied on the American people he is going back on his word. He will wait a long time for me to send another contribution. He's just another hack.
I am a MoveOne member, and belong to a church, as do many of my congregation. People of faith are not primarily evangelical, and certainly not primarily the religious right. In 2006 polls, a majority of those who attend church at least once a month voted Dem. Evangelicals are less than 25% of American Christians.
"Defenders of Obama's latest selling-out point claim churches are an essential party of American society" ???
Oh yes, but that does NOT mean that our government should be giving MONEY to churches!
So now we see that Barack Obama will NOT uphold the values of our Constitution, Bush won't be impeached, and world war will continue led by the USA.
I could BARF on Obama.
Have you really only been on HuffPo for 3 days? John Cornyn pay well?
I've been here for YEARS. Who is John Cornyn?
Perhaps he is just being Machiavellian (I mean that tactically, not as a moral indictment). Given the nature of presidential election campaigns in recent memory, that should be expected. Try to appeal to a broad base, especially those who are unsophisticated politically; those who vote for a Party because of tradition rather than reason. Then, after achieving victory, enact the reforms which would unwise to discuss during the campaign but are necessary.
"Perhaps he is just being Machiavellian" ???
Well, aren't they all? But we thought Barack would be different because he was a man of the people.
You say "enact the reforms which would be unwise to discuss during the campaign but are necessary.
So you agree with Barack that America NEEDS to outsource social programs to churches? This is the kind of REFORM that America needs?
I don't want to be part of such an "America". What happened to our Constitution that says NO MONEY TO CHURCHES! Do you realize that Scientology is a church?
Please read my post again. Your interpretation is not accurate. I said nothing about churches in my post. It is unwise for true reformers to speak candidly as it would frighten much of the population. Humans react emotionally to something before they begin to think about it. Machiavelli, although he has a bad reputation ,was very astute. He said, in sum, that whomever is the BEST person to lead need not follow the ordinary norms of behaviour and accepted morality when dealing with those who seek power for their own benefit, not the people's. We do not know how Obama will behave in office based on what he is saying and doing on the campaign trail. People tend to treat what politicians say when they are campaigning as a fait accompli. I would apply the same analysis to John MCCain. I get a strong "Machiavellian" vibe from him. I think he is pandering to the right-wing base, but will discard them when no longer needed.
I am not in general an optimist, and I certainly have to admit that Obama's approach of late is a little disconcerting, but I have to wonder if we on the left aren't jumping to conclusions. Why isn't anybody asking questions?
This rant is typical of stuff I have seen in other progressive spots this week: DKos, TPM, Firedog. The thing is, though, nobody is asking the man WHY he is saying these things--they're just screaming to high heaven because they don't like what they're hearing.
Before the Reagan years, there used to be an element of subtlety about statesmen and politicians. You knew that when an otherwise rational guy started hedging his bets that he had something up his sleeve, and most people were willing to trust him to show his hand when the time was right. That all changed in the 80s--instant wish gratification demanded we know everything NOW, and the ability to size up character and integrity went out the window.
Will somebody please sit down with Barack Obama and ASK him what the deal is rather than speculating? I think there's a method in his madness.
Okay, I'll go sit down with him. I'll keep you updated.
My daughter did field work at the University of Chicago while getting a degree in social services administration. She worked closely with Catholic Charities that was providing services to the poor. It's safe to say her opinion of "faith-based" programs changed dramatically from that experience.
I think Obama's progressive base should organize a concerted effort to temporarily drop all support--to by god teach him a vital lesson, one that I think many progressives themselves are missing:
Without progressives he is as marginalized as if he suddenly find himself without a couple of key states he thinks he has in the bag; it doesn't sink him, but it raises a lot of questions and removes any margin for error.
I have defended him to some degree, but there is a limit to my generosity; he needs to know that if he goes much farther with this centrist nonsense, we will punish him for it.
And if he pretends that it doesn't matter, well...hey
Appeasement was a controverisal term recently; Obama needs to learn that appeasement to his base is a necessity.
Oh right. Some of you sound like PUMA, the Clinton bunch. If he does not perfertly hue to your ideal, you will give the election to McCain. Brilliant strategy to promote the progressive agenda. Not.
I believe the word "temporarily" was used here.
If you read the entire comment you will see that I said temporary; but yes, it could become more serious than that.
Are you so much of an Obama supporter that you will now vote for him not matter what he does?
I will give him a wide path, but even on a wide path he is pushing his luck.
A temporary withdrawal of support would at least get the message across that progressives are NOT blind followers.
But perhaps you are; to each his own....
I luv your screen name Rolo
obama is the right's real horse in the election now. i d/k for how long that's been true. but the big money right has known for bush's whole second term that he will not be succeeded by a republican. they have had plenty of time to make other arrangements. obama had to have very powerful help to get national recognition within a few weeks of deciding to run. newsweek and rolling stone have fawned from the beginning. as usual, progs went the electability route and demanded nothing from obama before jumping on the bandwagon.
it's only started. the foreign tour where euros and 3d worlders will trample themselves to touch the hem of his garments will set up the iraq sellout and his de facto support of the occupation. then, sometime after the landslide he will make the center-right, pro-business court appointments.
mccain no longer matters. obama is a man who could have, in the midst of the conservative wreckage, moved the center behind a progressive agenda. no such luck. in a few years progressives will disappear in the dem party. obama has swallowed the progressive left whole. it's finished within the democratic party. p.s. the time-honored black-progressive alliance is dead in obama's new center right offensive. black america has found it's leader and white liberals are now damaged goods. conservatives have- with obama- pulled off the most breathtaking strategic triumph in american political history. it will define the political spectrum for this century.
Very reasoned analysis. Thank you.
I'm writing in Kucinich in '08. It's sick to me that politics trumps principals and it only does because we sheeple "vote for the lesser of two evils."
McCain or Obama... they are now clearly two sides of the same coin, IMHO.
"white liberals are now damaged goods."
I agree, and for myself, this is the last time I pay any attention to the CROCK of LIES that is American politics.
We democrats are just simply in love with losing. George W. Bush used "faith based" programs to reward the white southern evangelical churches that organized for him and put voters in the booths. But it works both ways. Black churches are virtually inseparable from Black politics, and Barack Obama is sending them a message. The man is trying to put together an organization to identify, register and deliver millions of new voters, many of them minorities who heretofor didn't participate in the political process and vote at a 95-5 clip for democrats. A very important cog in this effort will be the black church, with it's ability to connect to its community, communicate a message, identify potential voters, get them registered, and get them to the polls. So if Barack Obama is sending them a message that there might be a little something for them down the road to support their charitable mission, that's a big problem??
"So if Barack Obama is sending them a message that there might be a little something for them down the road to support their charitable mission, that's a big problem??"
Barack already had the black church. He didn't need to send them a little something. The big problem is that Barack would continue the unconstitutional programs of Bush. Barack Obama knows the Constitution, and ignores it. THAT is the PROBLEM!
"Unless there's a business model somewhere where "priest molestations" plus "dangerous ignorance" equals "profit" "
This is almost the best line of the year for me. As a life long committed atheist I have watched the rise of fundamentalism in all religions with utter disgust. The fact that Sen Obama in whom I had such hopes, considers it necessary to pander to the lying, thieving scum that constitute the patriarchy of all religions sickens me.
It is also another desertion of his GLBTQ supporters. How many of these evangelical churches actively work against the rights of GLBTQ folks? Will there be a litmus test for these churches? Why am I always forced to pick the lesser of the two evils? I have only voted for one president because I truly believed in him - Jimmy Carter. None since then.
"How many of these evangelical churches actively work against the rights of GLBTQ folks?"
Good point.
I don't even like the fact that my voting precinct is in a church. Religion is offensive to me. It's like social terrorism "believe this fairy tale then do as we say or you'll burn in hell". WHAT?!? I don't want a penny of my taxes going to support this stuff and I don't want these people on my doorstep. (I have a gaggle of Jehovah's witnesses in my neighborhood who apparently have me on their "project" list).
I still want Obama to win but I think my next contribution will be $0.01. We need to send the message they understand. Leaving a penny for a tip is worse than leaving no tip at all.
Great idea! Let's start the "pennies from true progressives" campaign!
I think people are missing that Obama is thinking long while everyone seems to be thinking short. Keith Olbermann's recent segment on FISA makes clear that Obama has left doors open to criminal prosecution of telecoms /white house officials. Of course Obama can't tip his hand by saying that publicly ...
I've seen the difference between church based programs for the poor and underprivileged and those sponsored by state and federal programs first hand.
These church organizations understand the local needs of the community. For instance, how is the government going to figure out which local drug addicts are bilking the system. Or that a neighboring organization is providing enough food to cover the local needy populous so perhaps they should shift their energies to giving out blankets..
You ask, how could the government be so out of touch in addressing the pressing needs of local constituen
Look, atheism is cool and all but seriously, no one is suggesting forced prayer at schools. Obama is saying f#ck the ideology, lets do what works to further progressive aims. Obama never used the words "abstinence only," so as to pander to the out of touch arm of the religious right. Abstinence only have failed to help teens. Church based programs have had incredible success in addressing the pressing problems in their communitie
Many of the churches are corrupt also-- hate to say it, but its true. After the riots years ago in DC there was no city council, no government organization to help rebuild the city, so some churches took leadership and voila-- nothing happened.
If you want to know the neighborhood-- hire community organizers.
"These church organizations understand the local needs of the community.
The proper way to provide services to the community should be via SCHOOLS, not churches. Our government should improve public schools and provide local services that way, paid for by tax money. It is WRONG (unconstitutional) to give money to churches.
Marylin, our schools don't even get the resources to teach our kids. Now you want to make them into social organizations? That sounds profoundly unrealistic.
And no, it is not unconstitutional to give money to churches. You need to read the constitution.
Here we go again, intolerance for a candidate with diversified opinions.
Why are we progressive liberals jumping all over Obama every time he says or does something we do not entirely agree with?
This is insane, the man is trying to reach out to all Americans not just the handful that propelled him to the democratic nomination, and he is now castigated as a turncoat pandering traitor.
Get real people, you cannot get elected in America unless you appeal to a broad range of voters. Fortunately Obama is in charge and not the liberal pundits who would basically sink his ship before it has a chance to sail.
This buyers remorse attitude is pathetic, have faith in our original decision that this man is a true intellectual and will change the destructive policies of the Bush administration.
Quote: "Why are we progressive liberals jumping all over Obama every time he says or does something we do not entirely agree with?" Unquote
It would just be nice, If "our" candidate would say and do ANYTHING I could agree to, lately.
In fact, since June 4th, BO talks and acts like he was replaced by a republican clone!
I have to agree here.
How dare we force candidates to pass an ideologica
Personally, I have no problem with churches and mosques working to fight hunger, poverty, etc. Further, I have no problem supporting their efforts with tax dollars so long as there are safe-guards in place to ensure there is no religious discrimination or evangelizing taking place.
Does that mean I lose my Progressive membership card?
What kind of understanding of democracy do YOU have?
OF COURSE WE are telling OUR CANDIDATE what he HAS and HAS NOT to do!
Candidates act ON BEHALF and AFTER THE WILL of their constituency! A decent, democraticcally elected office-holder acts like he was REMOTELY-CONTROLLED by his electorate!
That's the pure sense, it's the ESSENCE of democracy!
Anything else is bogus.
"How dare we force candidates to pass an ideologica
That test is, will the candidate UPHOLD the CONSTITUTION?
"Personally, I have no problem with churches and mosques working to fight hunger, poverty, etc" ???
Me neither. I think it is admirable. BUT it should not be financed by the government.
" so long as there are safe-guards in place to ensure ..." ???
Ooops, you created another government bureaucracy.
Look, there's no reason we can't expect someone to not change their politics mid-way through the race... Its a policy that's led to failure. Americans don't really care about politics they will vote for whichever candidate is more likable, more trustworthy. If Obama says one thing (he's for change) and then capitulates-- he will lose the race. The middle is only a place to be run over by cars. The republicans haven't won by running towards the middle-- they shifted the whole playing field to the right. Ground Control to major O.
Agree wholeheartedly. I'm not religious and Bush's tactics and belief in Revelations scares the Begeeziz out of me,... so why am I not freaking out like some of my (usually comrades) fellow liberal bloggers?
Are the progressive liberals (and I say that as a member of the clearly diverse group) so foolish to think that one candidate would fit a perfection mold? We are trying to win the White House after eight years of Bush/Chene
CALM THE HELL DOWN! All religion is never going to go away people! My God! Why not work within acceptable boundaries and not try to pull so far to the secular godless Left (which is the only reason you get the pull back the other way sooooooooooo hard!) There has to be COMPROMISE. Wake the hell up. If someone is at the helm who is not a radical Revelations "Let's bring about the end of the world ourselves to help out Jesus' return" but does find the good in religion..
Please.
It's the UNITED States of America, not The UNITED States of the Progressive Left.
And I'm a lefty liberal from Jersey. All family gatherings I have to defend and argue in not such like-minded surroundings at times.... but I do it. He's being INCLUSIVE. Why are Democrats trying to blow this... What is wrong with my party. I despise organized religion and yet his "efforts" don't repel me. Interesting blogs this morning. Didn't think my group was sooooooooooo radical and just as non-inclusive as the right's counterpart. Either some are trolls from John Cornyn's Senate office trying to rile the masses.... or my guys just like to forget middle America and see if we can have a President of just the Coastal Northern states. (Generalization of course)
"All religion is never going to go away people!" ???
And that is not the point here or the goal. Of course, religion is not going away. I've got no problem with people practicing their religion UNLESS it includes politics. Keep it private. Keep it out of government.
"have faith in our original decision that this man is a true intellectual and will change the destructive policies of the Bush administra
Now you made me smile. Have FAITH you say, that Obama will "change the destructive policies of the Bush administration", when right before your eyes he is doing the opposite. There is faith and then there is reality.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
