Did Barack Obama "Kill" the Progressive Movement?
Dana Milbank writes in the Washington Post that President Obama is "killing the progressive movement."
He comes to this conclusion after observing lower turnout for this year's America's Future Now conference. But anyone who lived through the Clinton years should have been able to predict that if a Democrat won the White House most rank-and-file Democrats would feel their job was done. There is just never going to be the kind of energy surrounding sausage-making that you get around election year politics.
Hardly Barack Obama's fault.
More telling, however, are the voices of progressive dissent Milbank hears at the conference:
Speakers at the closing session exhorted the liberals to take back America -- from Obama. "The president of the most powerful country in the world is doing all right, but there are a lot of people in this country who are not doing all right," writer Naomi Klein told the crowd. "Obama is making us stupid," she added. "Love can make you stupid."
And Leo Gerard, head of the United Steelworkers, warned that if his fellow activists don't "seize the opportunity to lead with our progressive ideas," then "Rahm Emanuel will lead." And while "Rahm has the president's back," the union leader said of Obama's chief of staff, "I don't think he has our back."But many in the audience had warmer feelings toward the Obama administration. A straw poll taken by pollster Stan Greenberg found that 90 percent of those in attendance approve of the job the president is doing, and that they have no consensus about whether to help Obama or fight him.
[]
Ellison demanded investigations of Bush administration wrongdoings -- "and anybody who doesn't want to do it in the administration needs to be pushed to do it."
But Ellison didn't sound terribly optimistic. "Our movement lacks muscle and bone density," he diagnosed.
The Bush administration and their wars gave fuel to the progressive movement in this country, no doubt. I was personally at a loss during the primary battles -- from a movement perspective, I understood our job to be to hold fast to our principles and reward candidates for hewing to them and make them compete for our support.
What happened instead was that progressives divided into camps and started projecting progressive opinions onto candidates who had never expressed them, and fought relentlessly to establish a huge gulf between two candidates whose political records were largely indistinguishable. The progressive movement became subverted into a cult of personality on both sides from which it has yet to emerge, sucked in by a media complex that really doesn't know how to cover an election or interpret politics in any other way.
But that's only part of the story of why the progressive movement languishes, and I agree with Milbank that it does. I love the sausage-making process much more than the bomb-throwing, and I find taking part in incremental victories on issues like social security, cramdown or oversight of the Fed more satisfying than thundering defeats. But I have come to understand that the institutional forces that prevent real change from happening are more formidable and more structural than I anticipated.
That isn't Obama's fault, either.
More problematic is the way that progressive leadership is sitting things out, which is what Naomi Klein is addressing. Some may feel they have to -- if the membership of their organizations are not interested in challenging the administration, many feel they can't move without splitting them. But it's a self-reinforcing problem. If the usual progressive validators aren't saying anything, people don't perceive that anything is wrong. And it becomes extremely difficult to generate enthusiasm for activism.
But Obama does bear some responsibility for the current state of affairs. The administration has consistently moved to distance itself from progressive leadership, refusing to even meet with the Progressive Caucus until recently. They have also consciously corralled progressive organizations and sought to strictly controlled their messaging. Media Matters and the Center for American Progress may have been important voices in the progressive movement at one time, but they're little more than arms of the White House now playing a zero sum game with Republicans who really don't matter. When Democrats control both Congress and the White House, nobody needs the GOP's help to pass legislation.
I understand that nobody wants to be on the outside like they were during the Bush years, but the price of a few cocktail parties at the White House -- and the threat of lost donors -- is buying a lot more than it should. There is some weakening around the edges, particularly among intellectuals concerned with finance issues (like Klein) and unions staring down a series of broken promises (like Gerard). Some predicted that Afghanistan would cause a split, but I never bought it. It's probably going to take a big, stinging Congressional defeat -- like Employee Free Choice -- before any of the progressive institutions feel they must declare themselves independent of the White House and focus their energies on movement values once again.
You can follow Jane Hamsher at firedoglake.com and on Twitter
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
Millbank deals in journalistic caricatures and is not worth reading. Basically, the Democratic party has been a liberal-moderate party for a very long time, more recently nominating DLC candidates like Clinton and Gore, nominating Cold Warriors like JFK and Truman in an earlier day, and on and on. Leftists cling to the party because there is no other game in town for them. The vast majority of Americans are not leftists; they are moderately liberal (even when they label themselves conservative). The Democratic party is the party of regulated capitalism with just enough social programs to maintain social and economic stability. It is not a leftist party and never has been (FDR was not a leftist). Barack Obama is basically in the mainstream of of a Democratic party that ranges from liberal progressivism to middle class moderation. Anyone who thinks the party is "really" a leftist party is dreaming.
Well, you lost ME this year! I am changing my affiliation to Independent in the fall. I have had it with all this current spending to bail big bankers out and then introducing another entitlement program when Obama is trying to cut the ones we have that are underfunded! Stupid. I paid into SS all my working life (since 15 1/2) and now that I'm about to collect thetre are means testing & cuts on the way...not helpful after all the money most of us have lost in pension & house valuations. I went to a TEA (taxed enough already) party my 30 yr old Iraq Vet nephew sponsored & I'm splitting my votes after checking voting records. So far, the blue dogs, some of them, will receive my backing. And all these takeovers of businesses I doubt O has any knowledge of; not to mention his "czars" being appointed & expanding govt jobs, giving/allowing illegals to get the stimulus jobs when our own citizens are hurting. I could go on... you people obviously don't care. O sounds more & more like he thinks he's a king every day.
I feel this article has an agenda and that is to devide the progressives and democrats. We have had 8 misserable years of the Bushies and Cheneys and more than 8 years of the GOP (Grumpy, Old, Party) Where it was a free for all like an indefinite frat party. When everyone left , the frat house had been destroyed! Burned! Its going to take years if not decades to put this mess back together again. Right now this country is hanging by a hair. How dare you demand so mush in 100+ days. Obama said he would work on these things but certainly not everything in 6 months. He is not Superman and no one anticipated what happened last Sept. Lets give him a time!
You, I predict, will be saying the same thing four years from now. "Oh, Obama had so much to do, he couldn't do it so now we have to give him another term." Or. "He couldn't alienate the right and (so-called) moderates in his first term, but he will come through for the progressives in his second." On the war crimes and civil libertarian issues, alone, he has set his course and is headed in the same direction as George Bush. The time for progressives to speak out is now.
He's already alienated a lot of my family so I wouldn't count on a second term.
When are Americans going to learn that there is a very MINOR difference between the two parties in our present day? I see wonderful left wing and libertarian ideas from intellectuals all the time that bring the BIGGEST fear to the elites running this country. During the election, these elites projected these ideas onto the LEADING candidates in our corporate media. They need people like McCain, Obama, Clinton, etc. to maintain the existing order. Unfortunately, THIS website and others gave no press to Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney who really had progressive and true liberal ideas that the people could support. The reason these people got ignored is because they could challenge the existing "power base" that runs this country. Obama is trying to CHANGE things by not upsetting this power base and he will fail. The only individuals that will be forced to suffer during our time of CHANGE is the hard working American people.
Agreed
The enemy is not the pragmatic centrists but apathy combined with senatorial and congessional dinosaurs who have achieved personal success over several decades by promoting the current malaise. Most of the old guard were re-elected out of habit. Imagine what would happen if people who worked on the Obama campaign put the same effort into unseating the old guard in the next primaries. Fear of crushing defeat might make even the most unlikely politicians vote for the people instead of against them.
Now, here is someone with an ounce of sense... defeating the powers that be & putting in temporary guest legislators sounds more promising to me...yerm limits; most people would support that if the "politico's" don't scare them with how "much they'd lose from their seniority positions" which is malarkey if we'd all do the same thing, term limits... no power elites!
With all of the important progressive issues that Obama has quietly back away from, I am surprised that the voice of dissent isn't a bit louder already.
During the primary campaign, Obama expressed many positions and made many promises that appealed to the people who gave him his primary victory. Once he had that primary victory in hand, he started distancing himself from those positions and promises. Nevertheless, his acolytes continue to project on Obama positions that he doesn't or won't support. Now in office he continues backing away. His acolytes profess belief (wishful thinking?) that it is all part of some Grand Strategy, and that he is really on Our Side.
He has done some good things since assuming office, and I am thankful for that, but when it come to economic and foreign policy, the wars are being expanded and the Global Financial Interests are still being served.
It is hard to tell a democrat from a republican, once they get power.
Total Agreement.
See William Bradley's Profile
No.
No what?
Good article.
I am a die hard progressive.
I always knew that O was no progressive. I love what you wrote about projection. So true.
I fought hard FOR his campaign however because I believe he has integrity and is intellectually honest. Look how he handles a press conference compared to boooosh.
I don't have to fool myself either .... he is a centrist type building a big tent.
It's funny to me when people say O is a liberal.
Die hard progressive? No your not. You fought hard for Omana who you knew is not a progressive. You are a die hard Democrat.
What other choice was there? Let's see...voting for McCain, not voting, or a write-in? I also knew Obama would disappoint real progressives (including me), but I fought very hard for Obama's election. I do believe he will listen to the people when all is said and done. I just hope it is sooner than later.
Nineteen-percent of the electorate call themselves liberals.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/21/obamas-new-electorate-pol_n_206249.html.
The President wisely didn't come to office to replace a group of far right-wingers who hijacked their party with a far left-wing that would hijack his.
"There isn't liberal America, or a conservative America... there is the United States of America."
The same guy who said at the 2004 Democratic convention, echoed it in his books is now governing from that core conviction. He's doing what he said he'd do.
Obama is not a progressive.....he is a centrist. Jimmy Carter was our last progressive President.......even Clinton was a centrist. We have Repub and Repub Lite, which may taste better than Repub, but it is full of empty calories and broken promises.
as a person who has done my share of bitching about Obama I want to give him a thumbs up for finally making reconstruction money for dislocated New Orleans and stopping the imminent eviction of Katria victims , many of them elderly and disabled ,from Fema trailers. Instead of taking them to court (!) the governmnet has decided to sell the trailers which are safe for $5 to their residents.The high formaldyhyde ones (about 25% will not be sold ), instead those people will get immediate housing assistence.
Way to go, O!
And my appreciation the community groups who stayed on the issue .
How is his new voiding of e-check for jobs thru new stimulus plan strike you? I don't like this Friday development at all...here again, pandering to Latinos for votes, but not thinking of American workers who need jobs,
This is becoming a perfect example of the voice of the people being pitted against a -mostly unseen,
nihilistic and powerful adversary... Showing a big Max baucus grin, but being run from the board rooms of the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, making sure that single payer NEVER sees the light of day.
You'd think some smart leader who actually has a grip on what's being formulated would step up and reflect and amplify the voice of so many who want single payer, but all we get is the constant slap down of those who are more and more obviously bought and paid for, like Max Baucus, who see their chance to be re-elected coming more from the dollars of lobbyists then from the voices of constituents.
Here's a couple of great links with FACTS from Bill Moyers, God bless him:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/watch.html
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05222009/watch2.html
Come on, progressive voices... Stay strong. Educate and enlighten your friends. Keep fighting these greedy bastards and just tell 'em outright to stop insulting our intelligence, because we're gonna see they get FIRED if they don't begin to answer to our call for single payer ! ! !
.
Sorry, I'm for choices, not single payer...no more fed agencies & fed workers with benefits better than reg'l. citizens. See why you keep losing the centrists?
Barack can't give the Repugs anything to rally around and distract the public until he gets health care, education and climate change legislation passed. Then, he/we can push the other issues.
I'm hoping this is his strategy. But the repugs are never going to stop rallying , no matter what he does so I'm not sure this is a feasible plan
The only one's who kil-ling the Progressive Movement is, so-called progressives. Particularly the one's at that conference.
There is a difference between "being" a progressive and "doing" progressive things.
I think President Obama likes "being" progressive, eating organic food, holding arts concerts, poetry readings, acting the part of an intellectual. But when it comes down to "doing" progressive things Obama has always preferred to defer to some future date.
Whether defending gay people, or blue-collar workers, or standing up for environmentalists and the slow food movement, Obama would rather we hide our passions out of temperance for the other un-progressive side of the country. Problem is, not all of us have this luxury of hiding who we are or what we believe, because we don't think there is anything wrong with what we believe or who we are.
The fantasy of a progressive leader to lead us into a more enjoyable future is really just a fantasy, and in some sense, an un-progressive belief. The progressive movement doesn't need leaders with titles, it needs average citizens, neighbors, communities, this is the bedrock of progress thought and behavior, not political circles. Democracy, civil rights, every meaningful movement was not the result of one leader, or really any member of the political class, but ordinary, forgotten, tough everyday people who like John Brown, are obsessed with a more egalitarian life. Progressives have a history of political defeat, but also a history of being right at every turn.
"I think President Obama likes "being" progressive, eating organic food, holding arts concerts, poetry readings, acting the part of an intellectual. But when it comes down to "doing" progressive things Obama has always preferred to defer to some future date."
...these are 'progressive' things? You're saying intellectual=progressive. Talk about a leap! I know lots of intellectuals who aren't 'progressive'...I think you need to look up what Progressive actually means before you extrapolate and say someone is doing Progressive things when you don't have any idea what those would be.
Well, start a Progressive Party. The Repubs need a Conservative Party, different than their core base too if you ask me.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
