Seizing the "Obama Moment:" Which Side Are We On?

The question of how progressives can seize the so-called "Obama Moment," as my colleague Bob Borosage calls it, is an important one - and it is critical that the question be asked right now -- before the election, rather than after. (This will be the central focus of my questions to Michael Moore in the Meet the Bloggers discussion this Friday.) Though the media's horse race coverage and the Left and Right echo chambers' "win at all cost" psychology would have us believe that elections are ends unto themselves, our Founders envisioned them as means to ends -- instruments by which the people's will is debated, politicians are pressured, and a mandate is crafted.

Luckily for progressives, America has aligned with us on economic issues, ready to sculpt a populist election mandate. As a new poll by the Drum Major Institute shows, the center of American public opinion is far different from the center of opinion in Washington and Wall Street that says "centrism" and "moderation" are continuing the kleptocratic financial and trade policies championed by the Goldman Sachs twins, Bob Rubin and Henry Paulson. Unlike the Royalist Right, progressives don't have to manipulate the public with the kind of faux populism that packages, say, tax cuts for billionaires as a supposed panacea for the working class. We can offer the real thing: a real populist agenda for higher wages, fairer trade policies, universal health care, a better regulated financial system and a strengthened social safety net -- and we can do that knowing the vast majority of America is with us.

But before we can assess an "Obama Moment," we have to know if this is an actual "moment," or whether this is a mirage, like the one when Bill Clinton promised to oppose NAFTA, and then rammed it through Congress "over the dead bodies" of the progressive movement?

If we are serious about developing the tactics and strategies to bring about real change after the election, we have to first know if Barack Obama is even with us. That is the great unknown at this theoretically transformative "moment." The question that the Illinois senator still hasn't convincingly answered is that age-old question haunting all economic issues: Which side are you on?

When I interviewed Obama two years ago for the Nation magazine, he seemed to yearn for an elusive Third Way on most major economic issues -- a middle-ground that can somehow simultaneously satisfy the insatiably greedy corporate profiteers that populate Washington, D.C. and the vast majority of Americans who live outside the Beltway and are getting eaten alive. This likely stems from Obama's disposition as a conciliator and bridge-builder who eschews challenging economic power. Then again, it conflicts with his much-touted history as a supposed Saul Alinsky-style community organizer. (Alinsky was, ahem, no shrinking violet.)

And so while Obama indeed has a website full of nice policy proposals, Bob is right. He has yet to really take a side in what is (and always will be) a binary confrontation between capital and labor -- a confrontation that capital has been winning for most of the last generation, as evidenced by declining wages, eroding health care benefits, and raided pension funds. In fact, a candid examination of Obama's campaign suggests that when the senator does give us a glimpse of his answer to the "which side are you on" question, he is telling us he's not on the vast majority's side.

For example, back in July, the media had a field day berating John McCain's top economic adviser, Phil Gramm, after his comments blaming the middle-class for the recession. Progressives (rightly) used the moment to point out the outrage of McCain ever appointing a top executive at a major investment bank like Gramm as his top economic adviser. Yet, almost no one bothered to question why Obama long ago appointed Gramm's boss, Robert Wolf, as his own top economic adviser.

Similarly, Obama's first major announcement after securing the Democratic nomination was his decision to hire Jason Furman as a full-time economic adviser. Furman's claim to fame is serving as the apprentice to Rubin (the man who jammed NAFTA down America's throat), and defending Wal-Mart's wage and union-crushing economic model. Furman quickly packed Obama's economic team with other Wall Street titans and neoliberal extremists, all but ignoring progressive voices from esteemed institutions like the Economic Policy Institute.

Even now, as Obama knows his major challenge is to win working-class constituencies, Bloomberg News reports that his campaign is "tilting towards Rubinomics" while the Wall Street Journal documents his campaign aides aggressively "trying to wrap themselves in business's embrace by wooing some of the best-known chief executives."

What this all means is that the messy, disorganized and all-too-deferential circus of progressive institutions -- from labor unions, to D.C. think tanks, to grassroots groups, to the Netroots -- has to move beyond Partisan War Syndrome, and into a movement posture. We must get out of thinking that the cure-all is the election, and realize that while elections are important, constant -- and often confrontational -- pressure against both parties has always been the only force that makes real progress. Whoever is president -- whether it is Obama, the economic progressive; Obama the Wall Street sycophant; or McCain, the Bush clone -- that transpartisan movement pressure will be the deciding factor between "change" and "more of the same."

Of course, the propaganda telling us to look only through red and blue lenses -- to think only in caveman-ish Obama Good, McCain Bad terms -- is powerful. You can't turn on a television, listen to a radio, or read a blog (except for maybe CAF's!) without a superheated -- and often fact-free -- partisan screed searing your face off.

But the process of maturing from Partisan War Syndrome to movement psychology should -- theoretically -- be aided by The Who's iconic song "Won't Get Fooled Again" ringing in our ears. On many issues in the 1990s (from welfare to Wall Street regulation to trade issues), the new boss -- Clinton -- was the same as the old boss, and the results of being fooled still scar our economy today. Though many younger people's sense of political history stretches only back to the outrageous Clinton impeachment, it is undeniable that the reactionary economic policies that are crushing our country were uninterruptedly carried out from Reagan/Bush through Clinton to the present -- and getting fooled again this time around could take our economy over a cliff we haven't seen since the Great Depression.

Can progressives mature? It is a tough to know -- and it brings up uncomfortable queries that ask progressives a version of the same question we must ask Obama: which side are WE on?

For instance, can truly progressive groups in Washington match the powerful corporate front groups and faux "centrist" think tanks that get so much attention? Will labor leaders pining for recognition in elite D.C. revert to their quadrennial "thank you, sir, may I have another" attitude when it comes to presidential candidates' footsie with Wall Street? Or will they start making real demands on these candidates, White House Christmas lists be damned, knowing that these candidates are, after all, benefiting from the blood, sweat, tears (and dues) of unionized janitors, truck drivers and teachers? And will much-vaunted Internet-based "grassroots" organizations continue serving only as partisan mouthpieces, or will they actually start organizing pressure against both parties?

How we answer these questions about ourselves -- not the whims of Barack Obama or of the same Democratic "strategists" who have destroyed the Democratic Party -- will decide whether this is, indeed, an "Obama Moment" that sees real change forced into legislative reality, or whether this election is merely a televised fiddler recital as America burns.

This post is part of the ongoing "Obama Moment" discussion taking place at the Campaign for America's Future. Check it out here.

Comments

[WorkingClass]

Y'all might as well have nominated Hillary.

[nippersdad]

It is really refreshing to see commentary which rises above the lesser of two evils syndrome and gives historical context to the problems we face today. It is absolutely true that all of our problems were not caused by the right wing in a vacuum; there have been many facilitators within our own Party that do not get the recognition that is their due.

[ratcityreprobate]

Obama appears to be in a frantic dash to distance himself from the folks that secured him the nomination. He is not doing so well in the polls either. Might there be a connection?

[southernsepia]

Here's the thing. If Obama doesn't win what will you get?

Is it better to be a lone voice in the wilderness, or someone with a seat at the table.

I don't understand the progressive naivety that says I want it all, when they are aware that it is very unlikely. I think you guys are a part of the problem. Of course corporate power rules but unless you are going to buy the major media outlets it will be very difficult to convince Joe six pack of this.

Look at the polls and ask yourself why Mc is still competitive, the game is rigged. You have to get in to make change.

[frustratedinohio]

Talk about naivety. You aren't really going to get a seat at the table. Not literally, of course, but not figuratively either. Also, McCain is still high in the polls because of the war hero stuff. Not because of rigging.

[Lemeritus]

X or x. What's the difference?

[Halsey]

David,

You are just too intelligent for your own good..that's a compliment. Thank YOU for pointing out the Rubin's of the world..MY GAWD...people just won't get that Bill Clinton was NOT a populist..he was a repub/lite­...period.­.end of story...I remain so very disaapointed in him.. Robert Reich was a great cabinet member..but..he left...(too progressive I think)...HE's the one I'd like Obama to have on his advisor list.

Would someone explain to me, how a liberal (Rubin)...can justify making gazillions of dollars for moving money around...there's no benefit to our country's infrastruc­ture...jus­t bonuses to Wharton MBA's...

I believe Obama is doing what he thinks he needs to do to win...handlers are the bane of the political system. I also believe that Barak WILL do GOOD once in the White House...at the very least..he won't bomb Russia..and might just put off installing those missles in Poland...talk about baiting the Bear..
WTF...does not suffice.

Peace.

[CabrilloBob]

Mr. Sirota's arrow strikes the mark with his incisive assessment of the circumstance we now find ourselves: that searing pain in the neck after being mousetrapped! It is turning out Mr. Obama is about conventionally establishment as one can be. Even now he may be trying to think of ways to shore up the eastern front.

I listen daily to the progressive radio talkers. Instead of projecting progressive agendas they are spinning every which way they can to cover our champion. Is McCain really an US citizen?!! Arghh! It has become right wing on the left.

Mr. Sirota posits the possibility of gathering to a movement to force change and accountability. Maybe. However I do not think there will be any movement until the pain becomes unbearable and not at all if we become zombies.

One way to convey a strong message of discontent that may get notice: Unseat Nancy Pelosi on her first term out as speaker of the house. Do it by supporting Cindy Sheehan massively anyway you can. Think that might get some attention?

[Frank Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger]

Just for the record: have you been holding Nancy Pelosi's feet to the fire? Or Schumer and Feinstein's feet (they gave us, by themselves, a fascist Attorney General) to the fire? Or any of the non-Opposition Opposition Party leaders' feet to the fire? Or all the supine committees who allow their subpoenas to be flouted and who stop their "investigations" well before they embarrass themselves by turning up one of the many smoking guns that would force them to fulfill their Constitutional duties? It is not the Republicans who have deceived and betrayed you: they are clear about what they want and what they will do to get it. The enemies you have to deal with before you can even battle the Republicans are the Vichy Democrats. You should be holding Obama's feet to the fire now, with your vote conditional on his actions, not his promises. I was holding his feet to the fire when he voted for the FISA compromise. He failed, and I won't vote for him. But you go ahead, hold his feet to the fire after you vote for him. That will be very effective. Be vigilant! Let him know how you're going to punish him if he fails you after you elect him.

[Frank Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger]

This comment was meant to be a reply to the previous comment by Estreet 1964.
Thanks for this excellent post.

[Estreet1964]

I am and will be an enthusiastic Obama supporter in this election. However, I am more than ready to hold his feet to the fire if he starts showing tendencies of being "same as the old boss". We do need a movement, and the old ways of doing things will not get us out of the mess we're in.