As President Obama returns to Hollywood in search of campaign dough from the "Hollywood progressives," it is a moment to praise Matt Damon, who speaks with clarity and conviction about his disappointment with President Obama.
Let me state my conclusion at the beginning. For those who seek my advice (and some have) I say it's perfectly fine for Hollywood liberals to give money to Obama, so long as it is understood that this is only the beginning of a great bloodbath battle for the future of America, supremely financed by far-right millionaires and special interest fortunes, who so far (sadly) have shown far more commitment with their money, energy and time than many "Hollywood liberals."
Most Democratic insiders (of whom I am a dissenting insider) will say that Obama's "compromises" come from "realistic" needs imposed by the "realities of politics." Of course, most Democratic insiders who say this are paid by higher level Democratic insiders to say this, and the fact that they dominate the progressive voice in the mainstream media does not make their talk even remotely true.
The problem that Obama has with depression among many progressives has nothing to do with the "realities of politics," and everything to do with the fact that Obama has governed to accommodate and submit to those realities, not change them as he campaigned in 2008 as a champion to do.
When Matt Damon says that Obama has misinterpreted his mandate, he is absolutely right not only in the moral sense, but in the most politically practical sense. What is astounding and incomprehensible is the degree that Obama and too many Democrats have surrendered on first principle policies where the majority of voters agree with the progressives.
The retrograde attacks by the right that now seeks total power against programs vital to women, and the poor, and unions, and the earth itself, are outside the boundaries of traditional American politics. We should be mobilizing the majority that opposes these attacks to defeat them, not systematically negotiate the terms of our incremental but repeated surrenders, capitulations and retreats.
This should be said because it is true:
When various White House aides spent two years demeaning progressives calling them names such as "the professional left" and "the left of the left" (for doing things such as supporting the public option that the president said he supported, which was also supported by a solid majority of voters) the White House was insulting many of the people the president now asks to donate money to his campaign.
The "professional left" insult is most grating because so many of the people who surround Obama have used his presidency as a revolving door to make vast sums of money from such sources as Citi, Bank of America, General Electric, Boeing and so forth.
This is perfectly fine and fair to do, for those who choose this course, but it is not the change that Obama promised. It is the insiderism and status quo that Obama promised to change
It is inconceivable that the people John Kennedy inspired to come to Washington would have done this. It is inconceivable that advisers around Kennedy would have demeaned those who fought for Kennedy in 1960 the way many advisers to Obama have demeaned those who fought for Obama in 2008. It is glorious that young people who flocked to Kennedy in 1960 remain inspired to this day, and indescribably sad that so many young people who flocked to Obama in 2008 have become disillusioned by the result.
Matt Damon is absolutely right when he criticizes Obama for failing to fight for first principles that Damon (and I, and many progressives, and many of his young champions in 2008) thought we were fighting for, and believed we had won, in 2008.
So, as Obama hits Hollywood for the dough, my advice is: go ahead and give to Obama. But understand: a long list of great historic achievements by great Democratic presidents, and the very notion of progressivism itself, are under attack by aggressive, powerfully financed, and (by historical standards) extremist forces of right-wing radicalism and special interest greed.
In this battle Obama is our ally but not our champion. In 2008 he had won the mandate to lead these battles, but as Damon says he has misinterpreted his mandate. He has foresaken this role, and left the leadership of the great historical battles for progressivism to others while he maneuvers around the political center and center right, and raises funds from the special interests.
Jack Kennedy said: life is unfair. It is. We thought we had won in 2008, but much of what we thought we had won has been lost, surrendered, or violated. That is sad and unfair. But what is, is.
It is fine, and even desirable, for Hollywood progressives to give money to Obama. But there are huge battles underway for the future of America, with enormous consequences for America and the world.
Matt Damon is right, and for Damon, and Hollywood progressives, and young people, and liberals, and women, and workers, and those who would defend the planet from the fierce attack now being launched by those who pollute it, the bottom line is this:
Supporting Obama is only a modest beginning of a much larger political war that those of us who call ourselves progressives must fight like hell to win.
It is from this class, the donor class, that most money for politics derives. Both parties, especially now that unions are practically powerless, supplicate the donor class for funding, and both would do the bidding of their erstwhile beneficiaries. Obama is a politician who made voters believe the things he said on the stump-- no small achievement in this cynical season-- but had neither will nor inclination to make good on what he said, whenever the interests of the powerful might be threatened. He needs their money for re-election, and is determined to get it, in Hollywood, on Wall Street, all over this great land of ours, er, theirs. And we are free to vote for whomever we wish.
You state: ‘I say it's perfectly fine for Hollywood liberals to give money to Obama, so long as it is understood that this is only the beginning of a great bloodbath battle for the future of America, supremely financed by far-right millionaires and special interest fortunes’
But over the last decade unions and liberal groups have been the largest fund raising special interests as they seek to increase their rent seeking.
The fact is, that unlike the astro-turf rent-a-crowds that the unions employ, there is a groundswell of general dislike for a big government that takes from the hardworking men and women of this nation and rewards its friends and punishes its enemies. Obama embodies that type of government. It is awful. Time for him to go.
Kai
Always happy to oblige liberals in their pursuit of the truth. Here is one link from the non-partisan group that tracks the money in politics.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Ouch, I love it when a liberal is faced with the painful truth.
1. ActBlue (100% dem. Which is the ‘secret donor’ front for the Democrat Party)
2 American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (94% dem. These guys are really just trying to ensure that their Democrat puppets keep their juicy bid-rigged contracts in place)
3 AT&T (They are on the fence since they have to pay off both parties to keep their industry highly regulated in their favor)
4. National Association of Realtors (They are on the fence but I have no idea why)
5 NEA (81% Dem, 5% Rep.)
6 SEIU (78%D, 2% Rep.)
8 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
9 Laborers Union
10 American Federation of Teachers
11 Teamsters Union
12 Carpenters & Joiners Union
13 Communications Workers of America
14 United Auto Workers
15 United Food & Commercial Workers Union
16 National Auto Dealers Assn (Wait these guys favor the Republicans 63%, Democrats 32%)
17 Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union
And the list goes on. It isn’t until the 16th on the list that you get a group that favors the Republicans. As the list continues it is easy to see that unions are buying elections. As they say, follow the money.
Let me know if you need more.
Kai
Why Obama Will Get Second Term in White House: Ralph Nader (1) - Bloomberg.com
"April 27 (Bloomberg) -- The stars are aligned for Barack Obama’s re-election in November 2012. He won’t join Jimmy Carter to be the second Democrat in 120 years to lose a second term.
Five things are playing in Obama’s favor.
First, the Republicans -- driven by their most conservative members in Congress -- will face a primary with many candidates who will advance harsh ideological positions. Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Donald Trump and others might as well be on the Democratic National Committee payroll. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s reverse Robin Hood plan to cut more than $6 trillion in spending over a decade will provide the outrage, stoked by a sitting president possessed of verbal discipline.
[snip]
Obama is averse to conflict with corporate power and disarmingly expedient in compromising with Republicans, leaving the latter to argue largely among themselves. The political duopoly lets the tactical Obama use the Bully Pulpit to his political advantage, even if his principles perish. Obama can look forward to four more years in 2012. "
It is important to have the courage to support principles that may lose.
Otherwise we are just sheep.
Some believe it is good enough to vote for the lesser of two bad choices.
For them, that is fine.
I would prefer to withhold my vote, and money, unless there's a candidate that will, in actuality, represent my interests.
Obama has proven that he is not interested in supporting my interests - that of a small business owner.
Instead, he has chosen to work hard to enhance the interests of executives of big banks, multi-national corporations, healthcare insurance companies and war profiteers - at our expense.
Obama has not shown any effort to grow the economy and jobs - just the opposite.
Instead Obama spends more on country-building Iraq and Afghanistan - to the benefit of war profiteers.
Obama has simply broken the trust of the poor and middle-class - everyone but the top 2% and corporate interests that are already served by Tea-Publicans.
What would you propose? Primary? Grin and bear it? What options do your conclusions offer?
When he was first elected, he thanked his supporters.
Then he told us, our job was not over.
Unfortunately. too many people leaned back, crossed their arms and waited for the magic to happen.
Obama made a lot of compromises in his legislation.
No, nobody got everything they wanted.
Life's like that.
However:
Now, there is a muzzle on the health insurance industry.
Now, the federal government is reestablishing limits on the bankers.
Now, for the first time, the USA took a limited role in a foreign intervention.
Many of us seem to want a clear, final, complete resolution to every thing that's wrong.
And we want it in 90 minutes.
Like the movies Matt Damon stars in.
Well, It took three of those movies to make that story arc.
And there are more in production, I hear.
Life and politics are hard work.
And your are very lucky if you get more than half of what your really want.
When progressive organizations showed up in Washington to ask what they could do - the Obama administration basicaly told them to shut up and stay out of sight. Progressive organizations would have mobilized their supporters but the White House defunded those that didn't toe the new neo-liberal line and the rest understood that in order to just stay in business, they would have to basically lie down.
Basically, Obama lied in his campaign - his actions off-camera immediately following his election were far different than what he had led people to believe on camera.
I highly recommend that you read Matt Taibbi's article "Obama's Big Sellout" and Ari Berman's article "Jim Messina, Obama's Enforcer" which detail the painful beatdown Obama and his cronies have administered to progressives.
The only reason I can imagine to vote for Obama again would be to avoid more far-right Supreme Court justices--and I'm not at all convinced we would get even that from this Trojan House for the power-that-be in the corporations and the military.