Netroots Nation Frustration and the Impediments to Progressive Change
I just returned to Seattle from Netroots Nation, the yearly gathering of progressive bloggers, journalists, and activists. Last year, in Austin, the atmosphere was absolutely electric, with the election approaching and a clear sense of battle lines drawn, victory within reach. Also, lots of great parties.
This year, at least from my limited perspective, the atmosphere was more muted, the panels less exciting, and the parties both fewer and less fun. Some of this could just be me getting to be an old fart, but others I spoke to had similar experiences.
The tone of the conference was, in part, related to a general frustration among progressives.
I wouldn't say the "netroots" (I hate that damn word) have turned on Obama, this sensationalistic HuffPo story notwithstanding. New pieces from Robert Kuttner and Jane Smiley represent a growing frustration with Obama's pursuit of bipartisanship, but overall, Obama's personal popularity is still plenty in evidence. The sense, rather, is that we are witnessing a tsunami of progressive enthusiasm, organizing, and, um, Hope crash on the shoals of the status quo ... and the status quo isn't budging. Bit by bit, the giddy high of those days following Obama's election is dissipating. It's dispiriting.
The dynamic is most obvious around health care, and in my panel Thursday morning, one of the things I discussed was what that battle portends for the battle over climate legislation when it resumes in the Senate this Fall.
Depending on who you believe, heath care is going to come to a vote anywhere between the end of September and Thanksgiving. I'd say there's around a 30-40% chance that enough conservative Democratic Senators defect that the whole project crashes and burns in a cloture vote (60 votes are needed to overcome the threat of a Republican filibuster). There's around a 60-70% chance that the Senate produces a watered-down, incrementalist bill that doesn't come anywhere close to the fundamental changes needed in U.S. health care insurance and delivery. (It looks like the public option is the latest thing to be compromised away.) And there's about a 1% chance of a genuinely good bill passing.
How did this craptastic state of affairs come to be? Without dragging this post out forever, here's a short list:
- NO is easy. The Republican opposition does not have to do any education of its activist base. The grounds for opposing every Democratic initiative are the same: fear of creeping socialism, with an undercurrent of racial and revanchist sentiment. So there's this large army of wingnuts that can be mobilized quickly and easily, on any issue that comes up. By contrast, explaining the public option, or co-ops, or cap-and-trade, or offsets requires a patient campaign. And even then, it's hard to work up passion for that kind of technocratic detail. Long story short: on the ground, in terms of tangible grassroots activity -- calls to Congressional offices, presence at public town halls -- the right is kicking the left's ass.
- The filibuster. This "process issue" is difficult to make sexy, but it's absolutely central to the difficulty in advancing the Dem agenda. It's only in recent decades that 60 votes has become the default threshold in the Senate; it has fundamentally changed the political landscape. I asked Rep. Jay Inslee about it at NN, and his answer didn't contain much cause for hope:
- Blue Dogs Senate Dems are bad people. Partly thanks the new 60-vote requirement, "centrist" Democratic Senators like Max Baucus and Ben Nelson have accrued enormous power. Their states went for McCain; they face no serious challenge (no election until 2006 for Nelson; 2008 for Baucus); they receive lavish support from special interests; and finally, importantly, they are not good people. It's important to speak about this directly, without euphemism. They could decide to use their political power to insure better healthcare for millions of people or prevent catastrophe for low-lying developing countries. Instead they slow the process to a crawl with substanceless, affective appeals to "fiscal conservatism" for the "folks back home," thin cover for acting on behalf of their corporate funders.
Two notable features of these lamentable facts.
First, they are structural. It's really hard to see what Obama or progressives can do to change them except at the margins. Too frequently people talk as though Obama or Waxman just aren't trying hard enough -- the Green Lantern theory of domestic politics. They aren't powerless, of course, and it would be nice if the progressive caucus learned to throw its weight around more. But the fact that the US system of government is riddled with procedural chokepoints is not something one can will away. The filibuster could theoretically be fought, but we seem to be a long way from that being a live possibility. And finally, it's hard to see what leverage Obama has over conservative Dem senators whose states didn't vote for him.
Secondly, on virtually every score, climate is worse off than health care. The right-wing is just as motivated and organized as they are on health, but the progressive coalition is fragmented. The policy options aren't as well understood; there isn't single rallying point equivalent to the public option. On climate/energy there are far more "centrists" in positions of power to appease to get to 60 votes. (And it's important to understand that "centrist" is a situational description. When Dems are in power, it means "a little weaker than whatever the Dems come up with" -- see: stimulus bill. When Republicans are in power, it means "a little closer to the Republicans than the other Dems" -- see: Bush tax cuts.) There's even less credible leverage over Dem senators; voting against Obama's climate agenda will not threaten the reelection of a single Southern or Midwestern Dem.
I'm afraid this is a depressing post, but it's just become clear that structural features of American politics make it so change averse that virtually no progressive electoral sweep is enough to do the job. And however difficult those features may be for health care, they're worse for climate. At this point, chances seem to be split pretty evenly between total failure and the passage of an utterly defanged bill.
Or as Jon Stewart put it: "And now, cap-and-trade -- naked, bruised, and humiliated -- is off to the Senate to get skull-f*cked."
Follow David Roberts on Twitter: www.twitter.com/drgrist
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
STUCK-UP INTELLIGENT MIDDLECLASS
Being born with a middle-speed brain, they are the 30% of society who supervise, manage and law enforce the day to day affairs of our Empire USA. Problem is, they think to slow to out-smart the fast thinking rich, and think to fast and careless to grasp the harmful way they enslave the harmless, us the slow and careful thinking laboring class.
Most profound, we the 60% who hard labor generate all your wealth and you don't even know we exist. Don't even know we were the half of voters who stayed away from the polls last November.
Here in Sen. Nelsons's state we already have public option. If someone doesn't have health insurance and has a serious illness or injury, the public chooses one of these options: pancake feed, raffle, polka dance, spaghetti feed and the public pitches in to cover the costs. Every town and city in Nebr. has as on going fund raiser. While they are well meaning and from the heart, they don't raise enough to cover one day or treatment. Recently the brother of a friend of my daughter was seriously injured in a car accident. No insurance. Now the family and friends are organizing a baseball tournament to raise money.
Remember the Old Testament definition of rape? A woman had to call out for aid or it was not rape, it was adultery. I know this is is a piggy male-centered example but I am making a point.
We did elect Obama as an agent of change. He made clear promises.
But it is beginning to look like he is in bed with Wall Street, the insurance companies, Big Pharma and "Clean Coal"
Now he is backing down from the public insurance option and Gibbs is saying that is consistent with Obama's previous positions.
"That's why any plan I sign must include...
http://www
He has to talk directly to the public.
Obama needs to articulate the differences between his objectives and those of the special interests. If he does not squawk, and instead tells us what great deal we are getting, then he is a collaborator and it is not rape, it is adultery.
I believe the blue dogs days are numbered anyway. They rode in on Obama's coattails in districts that are predominantly republican. There will not be the passion that brought out everyone in 08 to push for Obama in the midterm elections. The republicans have successfully brought out the crazies and with a D next to their name in midterms they can forget it.
Not true. The Republicans were able to push through their "welfare reform" and "contract with America", even with a Democrat (Clinton) in office. The "Reagan Revolution" was another example where the Republicans were able to push through their agenda.
The Democrats needs to grow a pair of balls and just push through their agenda without fear of "offending" the republicans. Demographics favor the Democrats in the long run, so why this fear of offending the Republicans? Why do Democrats always worship at the altar of "bipartisanship" when the Republicans never do?
Democrats, you were put in office to change this country. Start making some damn change, or the only change next time will be your asses voted out of office... just like in the 90s.
Blue Dogs Senate Dems are not bad people. They are representing their various states who send them to Washington. Their position on healthcare is not because they receive campaign contributions from interest groups. Here is why.
Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer are supporting public option healthcare legislation. Both received more campaign contribution money from healthcare industries than any Blue Dog Senate Dem. New York is a blue state that supports government programs. Blue Dog Dems are from red states that celebrate unbridled individualism and are averse to government program. Senators vote according to the wishes of their respective state. It is nonsensical to want Blue Dog Dems to vote against the interests of the states they represent.
David Roberts:
There is always a reality check in the face of bogus claims. Some of the Progressives behave like teenagers and hence their frustration in the face of political realities are very understandable. Let me cite few examples.
There is this illogical claim making rounds that President Obama has mandate per the last election. It is false. President Obama only won 28 states. President Johnson won 44 states; FDR won 42 states; Reagan won 44 states; Nixon won 49 states; George H.W.Bush won 40 states.
There are some Progressives who are always making reference to President Johnson’s legislative achievement on 1964 Civil Right Bill when comparing to how President Obama is dealing with healthcare legislation. In 1964, Democrats had 68 Senate Seats. LBJ won election with 61.1% votes. President Obama won with 52.9% votes. It is comparing apples and oranges.
A key requirement in politics is being able to make the critical distinction between rhetoric and reality. To look the cold hard facts in the eye and not blink.
Why hasn't the much hoped for Progressive Rapture occurred?
Well, it certainly isn't due to lack of faith!
But, the Democratic Presidential ticket in 2008 were not and are not progressives. They are at best moderate reformers.
There aren't that many progressives in the legislative branch.
There aren't that many real liberals in the legislative branch.
You won't need the ballroom at the Mayflower for the progressive/liberal caucus. A coat room will probably do the trick with room to spare.
There's a whole wing of the party Blue Dogs etc that are Democrats in name only..
Did Obama betray us or is the opposition simply so powerful that he must do their bidding?
I am beginning to think that Obama is a DLC corporate-appeasing Democrat. I hope I am wrong, but we have to look at the things Obama is doing that are outside of the control of Congress.
The Wall Street bailout: His agents did not negotiate the best deal for the public.
The Senate was not in control. He was in control, along with his Secretary of the Treasury (Geithner) and the rest of his crew.
I know we needed quantitative easing (deficit spendiing) to restore liquidity. However,
1.the bailout went to the wrong places - China did better
2. it was not accompanied by new regulations
3. there is not much transparency
4. and most important: Obama failed to use legal means to defuse the derivatives problem, which is still a looming threat.
Remember, FDR closed the banks. FDR would have stopped the derivatives with a moratorium.
Absolutely. That is why we need a dictator to get anything done. Bush and Cheney got their agendas through.
OK so the GOP has corporations; and the Dems have the media...in
I love these folks who always talk about clean energy...
Look up Light Pollution and start reading.
Remember "Earth Hour"?
We waste a heck of a lot...at least $10 Billion per year, on lighting including $8 Billion inside and at least $2 Billion on outside lighting.
Want to check my stats?
All you need to do is to check out the stars from suburban America...
Solution?
Turn off some uneeded lights, Use lighting fixtures that direct light down to the ground...w
well, progressives spent most of the first 100 days asleep...d
and then we spent a lot of time wondering why he didn't call us back. i've been disappointed in our own movement, for the lack of good language, that can effectively stand for something more progressive than obama, while still working with the white house and the congress.
obama is a process leader, who is aware that he needs to be inclusive of everyone, including the republicans and republican voters. he's trying to hear their voice, while bringing them real leadership--more than the gop really does for itself.
progressives don't even have that process leader who is listening to all our different voices, w/in the movement. we've been bogged down with our own discussions, and paralysed by the leadership vacuum from obama's promotion.
it's time to open up that little black book and do some calling ourselves. who are our sexiest leaders? ask them out. wear that black dress & go to that health care rally. call your senator and talk dirty about dirty energy and tell 'em to call u back anytime they like. get that webcam out and do some amateur vids. we can't just sit at home, waiting by the phone.
If the system is so change adverse, how did the GOP manage to totally f#ck up the country and the world over the last 30 years of their dominance?
I call bullshit. Dubya was extremely effective at making horrible things happen. We can be extremely effective at making good things happen.
First, you have to WANT to make good things happen and Obama seems limited to making good things happen for corporations.
...and what would YOU call good things?
alexis d is completely right.
jmpurser is right.
When the president is against honest, positive, change for the majority of Americans, our "good things" are not going to happen.
We thought we had a new and honest leader in Obama. We were wrong. He works for the corporations, especially banksters and all corporations tied with the military-i
Yes, alexis, "we can be extremely effective.
That's change I can believe in. Not the current Chump Change.
Yes, that's my point. They were ruthless, lying, torturing, murdering thugs, and that is what it takes to overcome the inertia of the system. This leaves us in the classic governmental paradox - only a power hungry megalomaniac can accomplish anything, and he will only accomplish evil.
Definately, the system is change adverse.
we elected a minority president who campaigned on CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN.
what did we get? a status quo president.
a Trojan Horse for sure.
God Help the US
God help us if he does everything he wants. We might as well move to Europe. Maybe every week when I get my paycheck all of the neighborhood could come over to make sure we even everything out and everyone gets the same amount even though most of them sat at home and watched soap operas all day long. That would be be just great!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
