|
||
The Obama Problem
In the last week, Barack Obama has handed progressives a string of stinging rebukes. First, he all but capitulated on the issue of retroactive immunity for lawbreaking telecom companies by endorsing the FISA "compromise." Next came his disagreement with the Supreme Court ruling that the death penalty shouldn't be imposed for rape. And then his flip on the heels of the Supreme Court ruling allowing the sale of handguns in DC.
It's been a hell of a week.
So, what are progressives to do? As has been evident for some time now, Obama is only loosely affected by progressive pressure. While he has moved left on some important issues, overall he has bigger constituencies to please, and he will do what he wants.
In the short term, there's probably not much we can do, as Mike Lux explains:
For me, being able to hold a politician accountable is having the real power to actually have a negative impact on something they really care about, namely getting elected and passing legislation they want to pass (although there might be a few other smaller things some politicians might care about). Unless you have the ability and willingness to mess with a politician in a serious way on either of those things, I don't think you can hold them accountable. I don't think saying bad things about them holds them accountable, I don't think holding a protest holds them accountable, I don't think starting a petition holds them accountable- unless it is affecting their ability to win an election or pass legislation....
But the only way to hold a Presidential candidate in the general election accountable once the general election season comes around is to work for their defeat or otherwise endanger their victory. For most of us, given the alternative of four more years of deadlocked government and a stubborn, hyper-aggressive President McCain, that is not an acceptable option. I see occasional commenters writing about not lifting a finger to help Obama now that he's screwed us on FISA or other issues, but I don't think very many of us in the progressive movement are there. Am I bummed, am I pissed that Obama and most of our Democratic leaders caved in on FISA? Absolutely, and there's nothing wrong with saying so. But am I going to "hold Obama accountable" for this action? Well, no, frankly. I don't think there's a way to do that without doing something far worse. It's the nature of the American political system: winner take all, no instant runoffs, no fusion voting (except in a few states). In the months before a Presidential general election, I can't think of another alternative re the Presidential race other than doing everything I can do to help Obama win.
The harsh reality is, Barack Obama can and will tack towards the center on issues that are important to progressives during the general election. We can argue until we're blue in the face that this is not a smart thing to do, and by extension, that the country is ready for real progressive leadership, but Obama will do what he wants to do. Unless we are willing to actively work against him, we have no leverage.
I am not willing to actively work against him. I'm not willing to call on people to pull their money and their volunteer hours either. But two can play at Obama's game.
To me, Obama's methods are obvious. He is selling out a constituency without leverage (progressives) to burnish his centrist image, which he believes will bring him more votes in November. Obama is practicing, as BooMan puts it, "raw political calculation." Well, guess what; I can do that, too!
I will work to elect Obama because, a la "Crashing The Gate," he is the candidate who will most likely bring about the change I want. But I realize that this raw political calculation is only a marriage of convenience. As soon as Obama is elected, I become his critic, looking to move him left.
I will use Mike Lux's second option for true accountability, and my opposition to centrist statements or legislation coming from an Obama administration will be very real. Progressives have shown they can work together to help pass or scuttle a bill. That power will be used against any and all Obama legislation that charts a triangulated path for this country as opposed to the right one.
And in the meantime, I will also work to rid Congress of conservative, Blue and Bush Dog Democrats, and build up long-term progressive infrastructure, building a progressive Congress to pressure President Obama.
I do not believe for one second that Obama or the Democratic party will necessarily bring all the change we need. No party stands for my bedrock principles all the time, principles like the rule of law, the balance of powers, the Constitution, civil liberties, opportunity for all, security through freedom, reduced corporate power, and responsible governance. Politicians will sell me out to get elected when they can get away with it, and I will sell them out to uphold these principles when I can get away with it.
As long as we don't stoop so low as to rationalize a candidate's political calculations, progressives can retain their authority while still supporting a center/center-left candidate.
But once Obama is elected, it's war. As I've said before, November is just the beginning.
Follow Jason Rosenbaum on Twitter: www.twitter.com/j_ro
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
Really?
So explain to me again why Hillary was such a TERRIBLE candidate that the left couldn't support her.
Love to hear this one.
Because Sen. Clinton started pretty right of left, triangulating her way through the primary season. Sen. Obama is taking a bit of that on during the general, but the further left or right a candidate starts the less they have to move to the middle to moderate their image for independents and cross-over voters.
One could also say that those who start more towards the center don't have to move to the opposite side... but that rarely is how it turns out. Those who start in the center usually feel the need to move further towards the opponents side in an attempt to peel away some of the opponents base.
Honestly though, the author is pretty correct. ANY democrat would be better than Sen. McCain. We should be looking at putting as many nails in the coffin of the GOP and conservatism as possible. This means voting for Democrats in every position on every ballot. Once they are in if they are not progressive enough we replace them, but most conservative Democrats are better than most moderate Republicans on every issue.
Though only part I disagree with the article is the statement about a progressive congress forcing Sen. Obama more to the left. I believe he is pretty progressive to begin with, but without a progressive congress he needs to build a power base and ensure that he is on the "correct side" of the bills working their way through the Senate.
**Bunch of hail weather friends, eh?
Obama has ALWAYS stated that he supports the death penalty in instances of heinous crime. He gave two examples. One, mass murder. The other, crimes against children. He's being WHOLLY consistent. He has fought for, and won, concessions at the Illinois state level, to ensure that ALL confessions are taped. Makes it a lot harder for the police to be duplicitious. He thinks things through. His supporters need to do the same.
I can't believe he wants Obama to be MORE LEFT!!! This guy should go live in Cuba.
How woudl I move to Cuba? Seriously!
Obama makes John Kerry & Al Gore look like Men of Steel. The more I see him, the way less I like Obama.
What a ridiculous piece.
Of course, there is always another option to pressure a presidential candidate. Congress is the fulcrum of power under our constitution.
Without authorization, and resources, a president has no power to act.
The failure of "progressives," is that they have not focused on electing a Congress which will strip the Presidency of its means to act independently - which will deny him the resources to act without seeking prior approval from Congress.
How would "W" have invaded Iraq if the forces were not available for him to act; were he required to approach the Congress not only for approval, but the manpower, and, taxes to invade.
To halt a president, you only need to place at his disposal the limited authorization and resources necessary to immediately defend the territory of the nation - provide more, and he has the latitude to do more.
The post-World War II history of America is the history of the deliberate enlargement of the powers of the Executive Branch over against Congress.
To reverse it requires effort to elect those who will hold the president on a short leash, and accountable to the affirmative consent of Congress. The current Congress is completely incapable of doing this.
Change begins with Congress, not the Presidency..
http://pogoprinciple.wordpress.com/
There are parallels to the situation with the religious right after Bush was put into office. They figured that they now had a President who would criminalize abortion, force gays back into the closet, make kids pray to Jesus prior to classes, etc.
I see the exact same attitude now on the left. It's the left's turn! Obama is supposed to put Condi Rice on trial for war crimes, redistribute wealth, bring peace to the world, etc.
The truth of the matter is that neither the right nor the left are going to ever get a President who going to play Santa Claus for their whims and desires.
You know, I so wish I hadn't seen it coming. i so wish I was shocked. I so wish I had dreamed the little dream with you all, but I never did. I don't yet know if he is Forrest Gump or The Manchurian Candidate, but I do know for sure he ain't nuthin' but the thing he always most said he was not: a pol, Oh yeah. A pol. And you are all surprised? Dear God, you all really are desperate for change, aren't you? So desperate that you have been willing to believe rather than think, to adore rather than work hard with. I so hate doing the I -told-you-so dance, but it's just irresistable. And it has only just begun. We shall see what we shall see... I just have a feeling I already know. Sorry, guys. It happens to the best of us -- we get used and taken for granted and then we see that we've just been being played all along. Too bad for us.
Grow up and appreciate that real change is not moving to your perspective but first of all getting elected and then doing what is necessary to bring this country together. It's not just doing what you want.
You're going to wait until November to go to war? That's a losing strategy. If Obama gets elected, come November you will have no leverage. Once he has your vote he doesn't have to listen to you anymore... and guess what...he won't.
Troller alert. Just commenting to make problems. Look at the profile. Look at the profile.
It's become obvious over the last week or so that progressives are just as interested in having a puppet in the white house as the neocons are, as long as they get to pull the strings.
I completely agree. I don't understand some progressives extreme aversion for anything Republican. I have Republicans in my family voting for Obama because of some "non-liberal" stances. Listen, Teddy Roosevely was a progressive and he was a Republican. I think they really didn't know too much about Obama and they are blaming him because he didn't spoon-feed them all his views (They could have read his books). They are just complaining to cover up their own interests so people still take them as serious, reliable investigative journalists. In addition to the MSM they are slowly exposing themselves as partisan hacks as the ultra right they keep yapping about. Most Americans are simply tired of this polarization and have moved on to Obama.
I've always counted on Obama being a practical politician. That is, he'll do or say what he needs to to win. Winning is how you get to do things.
Obama has seen the GOP in past elections get the uninformed vote (a huge demographic) by turning controversial votes into slick campaign ads. I can visualize all the "He won't keep America safe" ads that would be made if he voted against FISA.
Obama has created a huge movement that is expecting something very dramatic from his presidency in the way of change, and if he plans to abandon that movement, he'll strangle it in its crib. I can't believe he'll do that. When he starts making cabinet appointments, you'll know which way the wind is blowing and whether he really was just another false hope.
From many of the comments in this thread, I'd say that there are those who have no real idea of how politics in the USA actually works. Politics isn't pretty. As I've stated before, and I think it bears repeating, all politicians are, at best, damaged goods. Somehow, though, certain pathetically naive people allowed themselves to think that Obama was some sort of political Second Coming. Then, Obama turns out to be a practical politician, as you accurately described him, and suddenly Obama is the Great Satan to the self-congratulatory (and reality-challenged) ideologically pure, and being willing to compromise makes you a dittohead! Sadder and sadder.
Part I
People who engage in a lot of self-righteous finger-pointing about Democrats who were opposed to the civil rights movement make me very suspicious. Methinks their real agenda is not what they would have us believe. Do the trolls who try to make a big issue about Sen. Byrd's *former* membership in the KKK really care about the civil rights of black people? Hardly. So, when people write things that certainly seem to mean that in general, Democrats were bad and Republicans were good during the Civil Rights Movement, I think I am entitled to suspect the motives and honesty of that person. How about the unpleasant reality that the racists/segregationists largely moved to the Republican Party? Was everyone who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 an idiologically pure progressive? I think not.
I am also deeply suspicious of anyone who still seems to consider Ralph "A legend in his own mind" Nader a hero. Whether or not he was a hero back in the old days, this is not the place to debate that, but I have noticed from past discussions that not everybody agrees that he was a hero back then. Anyway, that was then, and this is now, and now he is clearly a deeply embittered man who only wants to cause trouble.
Part II
So, who to vote for? It ought to be painfully obvious that those on the right would love to have people vote for either McCain or even Nader out of a desire to punish the Democratic Party for its sins. Well, it is a political party, therefore it sins. That's the ugly reality of politics in the good ol' USA, like it or not, no matter how ideologically pure you are. Do those who call themselves "progressives" really want to be manipulated into doing the bidding of those on the right (plenty of them have been active on this thread), those who are the vehement enemies of everyone to the left of Atilla the Hun? Evidently, some do. Sad.
Since you are referring to comments I made I will respond although I think you are the troll. There is no self-righteous finger pointing going on except by you. You began your lengthy discourse by speaking about how the leftist progressives were of the old "meme" and said that they accomplished nothing and produced Ralph Nader who you decided to refer to as a mouse.
When I said it was progressives who fought to give all the right to vote and to end segregation you disagreed. The only issue made was that the Democratic party does not wear a halo either and it has always been comprised of different factions. Referring to those people who choose to confront the status quo when civil liberties are at stake have always been referred to as leftist and/or extremist within their own party.
I pointed out that the leftist progressives had indeed produced great changes that everyone in this country benefits from today.
You would prefer we go along with compromise now but we won't because we are not ditto heads and will always use critical thinking when judging a candidate. I suppose your heroes are Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Denny Hoyer.
I love people who cause trouble - Ghandi, Eleanor Roosevelt, Hillary Clinton in the old days, Dennis Kucinch, Ron Paul, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Rosa Parks, Cyndi Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn - I love them.
Good-bye
Riiiiiiight. The instant you open your mouth after Jan. 23rd, "pragmatic" Democrats will tell you to shut up and let Obama do whatever he wants lest you cost them gains in the 2010 Congressional elections.
There is no such thing as right, left or center, as far as Obama is concerned. Obama makes intelligent decisions on issues! If you decide to label the decision left, right or center, that is your label and your problem, not Obama's. Obama does not engage in divisive politics where everything is black or white. He understands that there is a gray area sometimes. For those who only believe in black or white, when Obama makes a decision that is outside of their dividing line, they call him a "flip-flopper". Actually, Obama is only doing the right thing, no matter what side of the line his decision falls. That is not "flip-flopping", rather, it is intelligent decision-making. Once those who think in only in black or white understand this, they will understand Obama and stop making their lame analysis of his alleged shifting positions.
Spoken like a true believer.
How did you acquire such insight, might I ask? Is there something I could read to bring me up to speed?
The point is not that he moved to the center I agree (the blog post got it wrong). The point really is that he has taken a stand that is unconstitutional regardless of his reasons.
four months ago -
"I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty. There is no reason why telephone companies should be given blanket immunity to cover violations of the rights of the American people - we must reaffirm that no one in this country is above the law.
"We can give our intelligence and law enforcement community the powers they need to track down and take out terrorists without undermining our commitment to the rule of law, or our basic rights and liberties. That is why I am proud to cosponsor several amendments that protect our privacy while making sure we have the power to track down and take out terrorists.
"This Administration continues to use a politics of fear to advance a political agenda. It is time for this politics of fear to end. We are trying to protect the American people, not special interests like the telecommunications industry. We are trying to ensure that we don't sacrifice our liberty in pursuit of security, and it is past time for the Administration to join us in that effort."
What intelligent reason is there to change this position?
1) Every seat in Congress counts. A President Obama without a powerful Democratic majority is spinning wheels.
2) Telecoms are big (Democratic) campaign contributors. Surprise.
3) The removal of civil liability still leaves in affect CRIMINAL LIABILITY. These companies can still be prosecuted for lawbreaking.
Summa: you may not like these rationalae, but they are intelligent reasons, n'est-ce-pas?
The problem is, I am a democrat, but not a progressive. I disagree with many progressive principles. I am against gun control, I beleive in creationism, I am against gay marraige while for civil unions, and believe in the death penalty. Many progressives disagree with me, and I cannot align myself with someone or a party who bleieves these things and won't budge towards the middle. Have mostly voted democratic my whole adult life, and won't vote republican in November. I agree with democrats on many issues, such as, the economy, Iraq, taxes, and healthcare. But as we get more far left people I get worried, my social feelings will not be compromised, and a choice between an awful George Bush, and someone who wants to take my guns, I will vote for Bush every day of the week. Give a democrat with a conservative social agenda and I will always for that way. Or give me a conservative republican with some good ideas for the economy (Mike Huckabee) and I will vote for him. So if the neocons are on their way out, and the Huckabees are the future of the right, I may jump on that train at somepoint if the democrats keep moving away from the center.
Just so you know Huckabee once said he wants to ammend the consitiution to conform to the bible. I like Mike, but as a person who choose to be agnostic I find anyone who wants their believes to change the face of history to be very arrogent. Huckabee had some great ideas for the the economy, but I believe they were kind of a dog and pony show in the sense that all his plans are like going from point A to point D with out B and C. I suppose he could have found some good behind the scenes works to get his plans done, but to me he has to show commitment to the small details and you know show he not just looking out for the religious right, before he could be the new face of the GOP.
It begins.
Indeed, Obama is a politician who wisely does what is necessary, within reason and without serious compromise to his principles, to achieve his goals. Pragmatism, at times, must rule and the end does justify the means.Those who are locked into a position, left, or right, without willingness to change or compromise are unrealiastic. Those who know Obama say he is honest and a person of integrity. Where he has changed his position, I am willing to give him the benefit of any doubt. Despite a few minor doubts of my own, I truly believe he is our best hope for the reform that is badly needed in our government and the country. Hang in there everybody. Be of good cheer, better things are near!
"wisely does what is necessary"
You have got to be kidding. What drivel.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
