The Obama "Betrayal" Narrative Takes Shape

President-Elect Barack Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet but we can already see that his choice of his national security team is causing problems with the liberal-left elements of his party. With Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, Robert Gates as his Secretary of Defense, and General James Jones as his National Security Adviser, Obama has surrounded himself with advisers, it is feared, who might not be able to think "outside the box." At a time when the entire world is demanding change it is understandable that this assemblage would raise concerns. The fear is that Obama, bending to pressure from the military-industrial complex, might "re-brand" the Iraq war, "downsize" it, and continue the U.S. occupation under new management. Among the anti-war movement the "betrayal" narrative is already taking shape. But no one can say with any certainty what is going to happen. I'm still amazed that America was capable of electing Obama in the first place.

Eight years of neo-conservative fantasists running American foreign policy and people the world over have recognized the folly of seeking to solve global problems through military power. It's not so much an ideological battle between left and right but a demand for a fundamentally new international role for the United States. As President, Obama assures us that "the buck stops" with him and he'll be the agent of "change" (even as he surrounds himself with Washington insiders). The concern among some of his supporters is that the advice Obama receives from the hawks inside his cabinet could overwhelm him, reinforce his cautious side, and lead him to dilute the clarion call for change that put him in office in the first place. But Obama has been full of surprises since he launched his presidential campaign and he may have a few more in store for us.

In my view Obama has assembled not so much a "team of rivals" but a "team of technocrats." These people understand the bureaucracies they will be running, as well as the moving parts of the federal machinery. The complaints coming from some Obama partisans have been fulsome, notably that there is not an anti-war voice among them. But keeping Gates on as Secretary of Defense might be a shrewd political move because it puts a Republican face on the draw down of American combat troops in Iraq. Gates will be the one who gives the press updates on the progress of the withdrawal. Diversity of opinion in one's inner circle is far better than the ideological purity and "groupthink" that permeated the George W. Bush White House.

Eighteen months ago it looked like the Democratic Party was going to coronate Hillary Clinton as its presidential nominee. Although Clinton might become an excellent Secretary of State, her nomination would have been a disaster for the Democratic Party. Clinton hatred among Republicans would have reached a fevered pitch and she was sure to run another DLC-type presidential race; an anemic campaign like 2000 and 2004 that takes the activist base for granted while competing for "moderates" in swing states. Had Hillary and the Democrats followed that strategy we might now be awaiting the swearing-in ceremonies of John McCain and Sarah Palin while we girded ourselves for World War III.

In contrast, Obama took his campaign to the grassroots and reformed the Democratic Party from below, something it has direly needed since the time of Robert F. Kennedy's assassination forty years ago. Obama is now the head of the Democratic Party and Clinton works for him. These are positive developments.

Now, let's review. The American Left has been playing defense for decades. Labor unions, which are the heart of any "Left" worthy of the name, have suffered setback after setback throughout the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush years. The outsourcing of jobs to low-wage countries, "free trade" agreements like NAFTA, and the anti-labor stance of the federal government and "right-to-work" states have decimated organized labor. If one omits government employees the percentage of unionized workers today hovers at an abysmally low 7 percent. Similarly, civil rights organizations have been playing catch up since the halcyon days of the 1960s and '70s. Even the most cursory glance at the incarceration rate of young African-American men, along with black poverty statistics, shows little progress in recent years alleviating racial discrimination and providing new economic opportunities. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division is moribund. Women's rights organizations have been playing defense as well. The Supreme Court, along with state courts and ballot initiatives, has consistently eroded reproductive rights, equal pay statutes, and even the basic privacy rights of America's women (See Gloria Feldt's The War on Choice). Environmentalists have been hammered too. There has been a wholesale rollback of environmental regulations starting from Reagan's first term to the present (See Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s Crimes Against Nature). Even as a Lame Duck, Bush is ramming through a toxic brew of new regulations as parting gifts to the nation's biggest polluters. And California voters passed Proposition Eight, the initiative banning gay marriage.

We've been battered by Nixon's "Silent Majority," Reagan's "Moral Majority," Bush the Elder's "Thousand Points of Light," Bill Clinton's "New Democrats," Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America," and Bush the Younger's "Compassionate Conservatism." A recent study from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education shows that from 1982 to 2007, adjusted for inflation, the cost of college tuition and fees has increased 439 percent, and health care costs have gone up 270 percent. The social safety net is in tatters and the rich have gotten richer while the rest of us struggle just to get by. For my entire adult life the Republican Right has set the nation's agenda. We should think about these things before we start dissing Obama for not being progressive enough.

Progressives seem to demand either ideological purity or squabble over how their particular identity or interest group is being neglected or ignored. This lack of unity is one of the reasons why the Right has been able to dominate our political discourse for so long. The point is we should build on the Obama ascendancy, push him toward taking politically uncomfortable stands, and stay engaged and organized.

Be forewarned: This whole "change" experiment can snap back very quickly to a Bush retread if we're not careful. Examples from our recent history abound. Just six years after a Republican president resigned in disgrace after a torrent of corruption scandals the GOP came roaring back with the "Reagan Revolution." And the last time we elected a Democratic president the Republicans won fifty-seven seats in the House of Representatives in the first midterm election.

Looking back, President John F. Kennedy did not start out his presidency doing much of anything for civil rights. But after the Freedom Rides and the battles over the racial integration of the Universities of Mississippi and Alabama, grassroots activists prodded him to take bolder action. The result was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We have the opportunity to do the same thing to President Obama. Obama has told us repeatedly that he is going to need the help of an aroused citizenry if he is to accomplish what he promised during the campaign. Let's call his challenge. The Left has already won a small victory by pushing Obama to drop John Brennan as his possible CIA head because of his support of Bush's detention and interrogation programs. Let's keep up the pressure.

If Obama says he wants to keep American soldiers in Iraq to "train" the security services, we should demand that he remove them all. The U.S. military has no legitimate role to play in Iraq after all the damage it has done, and other Muslim countries (preferably outside the Middle East) are capable of providing any "training" that might be necessary; or maybe an international contingent under United Nations oversight could take on the task. All U.S. military personnel and private contractors should be "redeployed" out of Iraq. We should turn over Balad Air Base to the Iraqis so they can use it as an international airport, abandon the "Green Zone" and the rest of the bases, and begin paying reparations. The political pressure on Obama will have to be overwhelming to make this happen. Instead of whining about "betrayal" why not hold Obama's feet to the fire through direct citizen action? Stay mobilized and ready for battle.

We finally have an administration and a Congress that might listen to the concerns of the progressive-left community. If Obama can achieve his key foreign policy goal of disengaging military forces from Iraq in sixteen months, and then begin to move the nation toward economic recovery and a system of universal health coverage, his presidency will be a success. We might then be able to build on these successes and open up new possibilities for social change.

But we have to give him the chance.

Comments

[DuPageDem]

"Progressives seem to demand either ideological purity or squabble over how their particular identity or interest group is being neglected or ignored. This lack of unity is one of the reasons why the Right has been able to dominate our political discourse for so long."

This ignores the biggest roadblocks to progress: Politicians who are bought and paid for by our corporate overlords, and a compliant conglomerate-owned media.

[Livvy]

I think the Obama has betrayed us crowd is about as large as the PUMAS were and just like the PUMAS is being super-sized by the Republicans hoping it will cause problems for the Democrats.

This is not to say there are some on the left who genuinely feel this way. Perhaps they are now wishing they had voted for McCain-Palin or something. I am hoping that most of them had bothered to read about Obama before they voted and if so recognize that he is behaving as advertised.

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

Read Jeremy Scahill's blog today on the page one -- he raises totally valid points -- but the question for the "Left" is "what ya gonna do?" -- If the peace movement were stronger Obama wouldn't have the luxury of "rebranding" the war -- if he thinks he can keep 50,000 troops in Iraq and not hear about it from his base -- Obama is going to have a Bay of Pigs on his hands.

[elo]

Dr. Tantillo, who blogs from a branding perspective, blogged last month about the difficulty--and importance--of Obama staying true to his brand.

"President Obama will need to continually listen to the electorate, respond to the pragmatic core and the center. Real marketing —i.e., knowing your Target Market and its needs— will preserve the promise of the candidacy from the rigors of the presidency."
http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2008/11/09/brand-winners-barack-obama--retail.aspx

[Fein]

Yes Joe, you're right. We are still going to have to fight to end this war. I remember when Obama changed his campaign rhetoric to include provisions for 'advisers' to stay in Iraq. 'They' obviously
got to him.

And Obama's belief that Afganistan is a 'good war' is a bad sign as well.

I don't see why we accept our government running these 'wars for money' when the costs could easily have paid for a health care system.

[blahx3]

The point is moot if they follow the law....but who expects a Clinton to do that??
Quoting Judicial Watch.....
You see, the Ineligibility Clause (Article 1, Section 6) of the Constitution provides that "No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time."

And unfortunately for Hillary, a January 2008 Executive Order signed by President Bush (during Hillary Clinton's current Senate term) increased the salary for Secretary of State, thereby rendering Senator Clinton ineligible for the position.

This provision was designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption. (President Ronald Reagan reportedly did not appoint Senator Orin Hatch to the Supreme Court because of this provision.)

There's no getting around the Constitution's Ineligibility Clause. Hillary Clinton is prohibited from serving in the Cabinet until at least 2013, when her current term expires.

And now Hillary is attacking us. Her spokesman smeared us by calling us a "fringe group." Why? For pointing out that the U.S. Constitution – the supreme law of the land – should be followed by President-elect Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton.

[eden4barack08]

You're sadly mistaken there. All they do is revert the pay back to what it was before the raise in question. It's been done before, it'll be done again. They always find ways around the Constitution, luckily this one is legal.

[eden4barack08]

Let me tell you something: this "betrayal" bogus, is nothing but the Republican's latest move at trying to avoid sinking into further irrelevancy after their crushing defeat.
They're the ones promoting this "Democrats are angry at Obama" bull. None of it is true.
And here's proof:

"A USA Today/Gallup poll released December 2 found that 94 percent of Democrats "approve of the way Obama is handling his presidential transition." The poll also found that 89 percent of Democrats approve of Sen. Hillary Clinton's nomination to be secretary of state and that 79 percent of Democrats approve of Obama's decision to reappoint Defense Secretary Robert Gates.:"

OK? Many of us may not be ecstatic about some particulars, but as the poll shows, we're all willing to trust our PEOTUS' judgement as we did by voting for him. And we won't start complaining until further into the administration, IF we feel something's not being done.
For now, it's the leaderless and purposeless Republicans that are screaming nonsense, as they always do, not us!

[Territc]

Everybody is finding fault before Obama is even inaugurated. I'm assuming the past two years have taught you all nothing about our next President. He runs the show, he sets the rules and everybody else follows. His campaign was run in this manner, his message never changed and irregardless of what people said he should do, act or respond he never wavered. Don't for a moment think that Obama did not have his Dream Team Cabinet picked out before he started running for the Presidential election. He knows what he is doing and he will be the best President ever.

[siney]

sage advice, mr. polermo...

[duze]

Barack Obama will be one of the finest president this country has ever seen. But he must surround himself with the best people available. Hillary Clinton isn't one of them. Why does she continually refuse to leave the building. She just has to win something one way or another. I don't think Obama should turn his back on her. How did Bill become such a large part of this equasion? It's disgusting.

[neuroburger]

Lessee, he runs his primary on an ostensibly "anti-war" platform, essentially beating Hillary "nuke 'em all and let Jhvh sort 'em out" Clinton because of her hawkish support of what the democrats have been pleased to refer to "bush's (sometimes they throw in "illegal" but that buck stopped with Nancy "it's a buy in, not a bailout" Pelosi, didn't it) war" in iraq....he promises "change" we can believe in.

instead of even an MODICUM of "change" ANYONE can believe in, we get an assortment of stealth neocons, "scoop jackson" democrats, DLC water-carriers for the PNAC and an odd mixture of Clintonistas and Reaganites - and to top it all off, an attorney general who pals around with Gangster Capitalists who have to "pay protection" (ie, political support) to the terrorists who are conveniently enough, making central america "safe for united fruit" and pretty damn UNSAFE for union organizers (quelle irony!)

anybody who still believes in that "change" was anything more than a slick campaign slogan hasn't bee paying much attention

[allonfla]

He didn't run on anti-war, he has only stated that he is anti Iraq war. How can you say he was anti-war when he has stated that we need to do more in Afghanistan and that he will never hesitate to protect this country. And what about a speech he gave at an anti-war rally where he said he isn't AGAINST ALL WAR JUST DUMB WARS. Get the plugs out of your ears and the fairy dust out of your eyes. This is man is exactly who he said he was. Maya Angelou said that when people show you who they are BELIEVE IT.

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

All I'm saying is that the progressive community must organize and mobilize and apply pressure on the new president or he might wait it out. Jack Kennedy was sent hundreds of pens and ink because he promised during the campaign to end housing discrimination "with a stroke of a pen" and then failed to do so. Finally, bowing to pressure JFK did the right thing -- he didn't avoid it because he didn't agree with the left -- he needed the pressure to force his hand because who wants to bring the political hassle? In JFK's case it was the Southern segregationist wing of the Democratic Party. So, let's do the equivalent of sending Obama pens and ink on keeping a "training" force of American troops in Iraq, which is a terrible idea. "Training" Iraq's security services is a euphemism for controlling Iraq. JFK also had his Bay of Pigs early in his term -- Obama might have his own Bay of Pigs and I will try my best to support him when he's attacked and ridiculed from all sides because I believe in what he wants to accomplish for this country. He'll respond to pressure from the left, he has to. Stay mobilized! And to the comments trashing labor unions -- maybe you can tell me how we can combat the capitalists without unions?

[justafarmer]

Joseph, I think you gave a very well thought out analysis.
I'm one of those "weird" Americans...registered Republican (only because our local [Kentucky] county elections are ALWAYS determined in the primary election [read=don't bother going to the polls in November because it was already a done-deal in May]...
Since I got to vote for the first time in 1970, I've been a pinball....bouncing my vote from Dem to Rep to Ind to weird third parties. This is the very first time that someone I voted for president actually won.
All of this crap being thrown at Obama now BEFORE he takes office is just a load of, well, crap.
As for unions, full disclosure here, I'm a widow of a steelunion guy and now married to an IBEW guy. And I'm a former Teamster (writers union are Teamsters, I don't know now because I quit the union more than two decades ago when my dues went up at the same time my income went down)
Capitalists vs union workers...I want to see the bigbucks management guys try to survive just ONE day doing the work my husband does (powerline repair/maintenance...oooh! and then on a storm break when their electricity goes out and temperature is below freezing with hellacious winds or 90 degrees with 100% humidity and working16-18 hours a day for a month without break) ... THEN tell me the union guys are getting paid too much!
I'd pay to see THAT!

[luvangelHussein330]

Lefties and progressives are so busy playing defence that they don't know when to play offence to the point where they are getting in thier own way. Ripping Obama apart over the slightest thing, rumors ans reports that aren't even voming from him...it's starting to get pathetic

[Coolcat101]

IF, IF, IF. People who criticizing Obama keep using words like "if." Nothing is etched in stone. People are so battered by Bush, they are like the abused woman who either keeps going with abusive men, or drives the good men away by acting like a victim. This is how the progressives are. They're so used to complaining under Bush. He's gone, but the need to complain is still there.

[hardybear]

To try to understand your metaphor ... are you asserting that formerly-abused
women ']drive] the good men away by acting like a victim'?

And what would those behaviors be?

[listeningpost]

Um, paranoia, jumping from shadows, projection?
Just a guess.

[Cambridge9]

I believe that all of these choices will be 'team' players after January 20th. As our President-elect noted in answer to a question from a reporter - paraphrasing "The vision will come from me". I'm confident that this man is choosing 'adults' who will follow his lead.