|
||
A Center-Left Agenda for the First 100 Days
At the end of this remarkable week, we're starting to look ahead to the First 100 Days of the Obama presidency. Already, we're hearing calls in the mainstream media warning the new administration "not to overreach." And working overtime, the Inside-the-Beltway Punditocracy continues to reveal its ability to ignore reality -- even while describing itself as "realist" -- with its claims that this is still a center-right nation, despite all evidence to the contrary.
But as Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman writes in yesterday's New York Times, "Let's hope that Mr. Obama has the good sense to ignore this advice...this year's presidential election was a clear referendum on political philosophies -- and the progressive philosophy won."
Obama himself his talked about needing to measure his accomplishments over the first 1,000 Days, rather than 100, given the problems he has inherited from arguably the worst president ever (my words, not Obama's). Indeed, it will take years to undo the damage of the Bush administration and the conservative ideology that has dominated this country for nearly thirty years. But the First 100 Days are still crucial -- not only in signaling to the American people and the world that the administration will take determined steps to repair this nation -- but there is a historical precedent for the need to move forward expeditiously in order to seize the moment and the mandate.
President Obama will need to be bold to deal with the challenges he faces: a cratering economy, broken healthcare system, two wars, poverty and inequality, and the stained US reputation in the world. The millions who were mobilized and inspired by Obama's campaign and candidacy also have their work cut out for them -- continuing to drive a bold agenda to respond to these crises -- just as progressives have in recent years on the war, energy independence, trade, healthcare, and other issues that are defining the new "center" of American politics and hearts and minds.
Here is a list of actions -- ones I care deeply about -- that President Obama can take in the First 100 Days to immediately achieve real and significant change. Some of these he can literally achieve on Day 1 with the stroke of a pen, others will demand coalition building and an inside-outside strategy to push legislation. Many of these ideas are drawn from good groups like the Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International USA, the Apollo Alliance, and Public Citizen. You may have others and I'd welcome hearing yours -- just post a comment.
Bush Executive Orders: As Obama himself said of his first 100 days when campaigning in Denver, "I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution."
Economic Stimulus: Stop the bleeding -- through expanded health and unemployment benefits and providing real aid to beleaguered state and local governments so they can sustain essential public services.
Iraq: Present plan and hold to your timeline for withdrawal.
Health Care Reform: Begin immediately by expanding health insurance to kids and passing the State Children's Health Insurance Program legislation vetoed by Bush.
Women's Health and Reproductive Rights: Repeal the Global Gag Rule that requires NGOs receiving federal funding to neither promote nor perform abortions in other countries.
Energy and the Economy: Announce a clean energy strategy that will reduce oil dependence, address global warming, create thousands of green jobs, and improve national security. Groups like the Apollo Alliance, Center for American Progress, and Natural Resources Defense Council have strong and concrete plans in this regard. Incorporate elements of this plan into stimulus package.
Bailout for Main Street: Work to ensure that homeowners have real opportunities to renegotiate mortgages and remain in their homes.
Poverty and Inequality: Appoint a Hunger Czar -- as Senator George McGovern and Congressman Jim McGovern call for in a recent op-ed -- who would "coordinate the various food, nutrition and anti-poverty programs... to increase the independence, purchasing power and food security of every human being." Announce your commitment to the goal of cutting poverty in half in ten years.
Labor and Trade: Reject Colombia, Korea and Panama trade agreements as currently written and ensure future agreements promote the public interest. Work towards passage of Employee Free Choice Act.
Science: Allow federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
Global Warming: Reverse the Bush EPA decision and allow California to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. Call for a new climate treaty and ask Al Gore to lead that effort.
Guantánamo: Close it, and try people in the US or resettle in countries where they face no risk of persecution or torture. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof offers a compelling idea to "turn it into an international center for research on tropical diseases that afflict poor countries... [serving as] an example of multilateral humanitarianism."
Detention: Close all CIA black sites and secret detention sites. End extraordinary rendition. Abolish preventive detention that allows people to be held indefinitely without charge. Initiate criminal investigations into programs of rendition and secret detention. End trials by military commission. End opposition to full habeas corpus hearings for detainees in Guantánamo and other similar situations. Make known the names and whereabouts of all those detained in rendition and secret detention programs.
Torture: End use in court of any evidence obtained through torture. Officially reject all memos, signing statements and executive orders that justify the use of torture. Establish an independent commission of inquiry into all aspects of detention and interrogation practices in the "war on terror." Announce administration will work for redress and remedy for victims of human rights violations for which US authorities are found to be responsible.
Protect Dissent: Ensure that the FBI adheres to surveillance guidelines. Open Justice Department investigation into surveillance related misconduct. Pledge to end all secret surveillance programs not reviewed by courts or congressional committees.
Limit State Secrets Privilege: Issue new Executive Orders that reverse the expansion of state secrets privilege and the over-classification of documents. Pass legislation making it clear that military contractors are accountable for abuses.
Roll Back Executive Power: Repudiate unitary presidency. Renounce use of signing statements as a tool for altering legislation. Pledge to abide by the War Powers Act and end abuse of Authorization to Use Military Force. (Or as Bruce Fein -- a key player in the Reagan Justice Department -- said, "Renounce presidential power to initiate war anywhere on the planet, including Iran.")
These are doable, and by taking these steps -- with deliberate haste -- President Obama would get a real start on repairing our nation and people's lives.
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
Americans need to stop their denial about theuse of automobiles. The deaths, injuries, noise, pollution and stress place a terrible toll on society. The cost of the ifnrastructure to support the uses and consequences of using them are enormous: $1.8 trillion and more. This includes: medical,roads,police surveillance,street cleaning,crime,etc.
Good comments. What confuses me as a non-American, is the American obsession with putting labels on poiticians and political pundits. How does someone become a centre-left, centre-right, far left, far right liberal, democrat, republican or whatever? Who decides who should be called what? Please tell me you guys don't leave ALL the decisions to Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity?
Thank you for the insightful, thoughtful article.
The platform of the President-elect is, BY DEFINITION, the center of this country's politics. End of conversation.
Sincerely,
Reed Young
Frankly, if Obama is going to carry on with insisting Iran seeks to use its nuclear program to acquire nuclear warfare capability, then it's incumbent on hims to go after those who are currently outside NNPT -- and they would be Pakistan, India and Israel.
He needs to drive that agenda very hard if he's not to look hypocritical.
What do you mean by "go after"? And speaking of hypocrisy, its hard for us to lecture Israel when we gave them the nuclear weaponry in the first place. Also Israel has been invaded twice and refused to use the bomb, while Iran's stated ambition is to wipe Israel off the face the Earth. NNPT consistency would be nice, but I dont see any equivelancy between Israel or India and Iran. Pakistan is obviously more nuanced.
Part 1 of 2
By 'go after' I mean use your leverage to ensure compliance with NNPT. Pakistan is in receipt of massive amounts of US aid. The US backs its government. It threatened to use nuclear weapons against India (another US ally) in 1999. Shouldn't aid be tied to compliance, especially when the principal justification for India having them is that Pakistan does (and vice versa). In the end, the fact that successive US administrations have been prisoner to Pakistan's military elite has largely reflected this bargaining chip, as John Bolton made clear not so very long ago when he backed Musharraf, arguing (correctly) that allowing these weapons to fall into hostile hands would be a disaster. But responding to blackmail is a poor longterm strategy.
India is currently getting US uranium despite being outside NNPT, so it too ought to be compelled to set out a timeline for destroying these weapons and everything that enables them. Israel is a major recipient of US aid and there's no reason why it ought to get away with such a policy AND get military aid. There's no hypocrisy here. Giving Israel the nuclear weapons was a horrible mistake, which should be corrected. Israel is currently ignoring US and UN policy in a number of areas, and it really is hypocritical to allow them to thumb their noses while insisting others comply.
Part 2 of 2
For the record, as has been noted a number of times. Iran's leadership has never stated that it wanted to 'wipe Israel off the face of the Earth'. AhmenidinejadI repeated Khomeini's formula of 1978 'eras[ing] the Zionist regime from the pages of history' and explicitly compared this to the disappearance of Apartheid South Africa and the USSR. No military action was implied. Richard Armitage, by way of comparison, once threatened to "bomb Pakistan back to the stone age' without all that many eyebrows being raised, and the US, unlike Iran, has the resources to do this and has actually used nuclear weapons in war once before.
Part 1 of 2 By 'go after' I mean use your leverage to ensure compliance with NNPT. Pakistan is in receipt of massive amounts of US aid. The US backs its government. It threatened to use nuclear weapons against India (another US ally) in 1999.
Shouldn't aid be tied to compliance, especially when the principal justification for India having them is that Pakistan does (and vice versa). In the end, the fact that successive US administrations have been prisoner to Pakistan's military elite has largely reflected this bargaining chip, as John Bolton made clear not so very long ago when he backed Musharraf, arguing (correctly) that allowing these weapons to fall into hostile hands would be a disaster.
But responding to blackmail is a poor longterm strategy. India is currently getting US uranium despite being outside NNPT, so it too ought to be compelled to set out a timeline for destroying these weapons and everything that enables them. Israel is a major recipient of US aid and there's no reason why it ought to get away with such a policy AND get military aid. There's no hypocrisy here. Giving Israel the nuclear weapons was a horrible mistake, which should be corrected. Israel is currently ignoring US and UN policy in a number of areas, and it really is hypocritical to allow them to thumb their noses while insisting others comply.
Part 2 of 2
For the record, as has been noted a number of times. Iran's leadership has never stated that it wanted to 'wipe Israel off the face of the Earth'. AhmenidinejadI repeated Khomeini's formula of 1978 'eras[ing] the Zionist regime from the pages of history' and explicitly compared this to the disappearance of Apartheid South Africa and the USSR. No military action was implied.
Richard Armitage, by way of comparison, once threatened to "bomb Pakistan back to the stone age' without all that many eyebrows being raised, and the US, unlike Iran, has the resources to do this and has actually used nuclear weapons in war once before.
Start a program to increase availability and use of mass transit and railroads.
Use the "bully pulpit" to talk about conservation & energy efficiency
Move away from cap and trade and toward a carbon tax
Reduce rather than increase the size of the military
Stop the foolishly insane war on drugs
Free Samuel Adams for all cyclists who do not own a car (I'll be swimming in beer!)
Conservatives and pundits can deny it all they want, but this election signaled a drastic change in philosophy and governance in this country. I hope the hard right does 'double down' on their failed tactics and thus end up (I hope) permanently marginalizing themselves.
Now for some opposing thoughts:
I pay for my own health care; I'm not interested in paying for yours, especially if you're in this country illegally.
I wasn't stupid enough to "qualify" for a morgage that I couldn't afford; my bank can count on my check every month, because I'm a responsible adult who takes care of himself and his family.
If you don't think late term abortion is murder, then you don't understand what it is. I don't want Roe v. Wade reversed, but limits need to be set.
I'm tired of hearing about econmic stimulis packages to energy, banking, insurance and whomever else the feds feel needs one. Government is big enough. We're trillions of dollars in debt and almost every one of the points listed above calls for more government spending. WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.
And, for God sakes, please stop referring to this election as some sort of liberal mandate. You guys could have carted out anybody to win after 8 years of Bush. I think you should be shocked that it was this close.
I pay for my own health care as well, and I have as a part time student who didn't qualify for any kind of student rates - it's really expensive. But following a car crash that resulted in a single trip to the ER, it was entirely worth it.
I'm not interested in Obama's health care plan just because of a lofty, idealistic belief that we can provide for everyone in our country. I'm also interested in it because it ought to result in lowering the cost of health care which has spiraled out of control in this country. We're on pace to spend more on health care as a percentage of GDP than we do on taxes - think about that.
Survey results generally report that 25% of the voting-age population consider themselves to be "liberal"; 35% of the voting-age population consider themselves to be "conservative"; and 40% of the voting-age population consider themselves "neither" or "not sure". These ARE NOT statistics defining us as a "left" or "center-left" nation. The battle between Lefty Loons and Righty Rockheads is what got us here! What we need is a centrist and moderate leader!
The data clearly shows we are becoming more liberal and less religious. The General Social Survey (GSS) (see http://sda.berkeley.edu/index.htm for access to this and other survey data) shows somewhat surprisingly that even during the so-called conservative revolution, ordinary voters did not vote what they believed (liberal beliefs but conservative voting). The conservative movement was a skillful attempt to seize power and persuade people to vote against their own beliefs (see Lakoff's book for how they did this - Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, self-labeled as "the Essential Guide for Progressives"). The media perpetuate the idea that we are a right of center nation; the sociological data shows otherwise. Anyone including the media can examine the data, it's on the Web with all the tools needed for querying. Also it's worth noting that just because someone calls themselves a conservative does not mean they are. That's why it's important to look at data on actual beliefs rather than broad classifications.
...Katrina,
great list, here is mine:
1) The war which is draining money and soul from the national body politic needs to stop immediately.
2) Introduce a multilingual program to educate the newly arrived Americans regarding the necessity of controlling their birth rate as an essential element of citizenship. No more than 2 children! needs to become the law of the land.
3) Repair the infrastructure of the country through WPA inspired projects administered by local labor contractors.
4) Swords into plowshares. Guns into butter. Leave Chavez and Morales and Castro alone. Sever ties to Columbia military.
5) Extend the military and congressional universal health care system to the entire population.
6) Electrify the planet with renewable energy and promote efficient energy use reduction technologies.
7) Let the show trials begin! Everyone in the government who was or is still involved in faking the need for war in needs to be charged appropriately, tried, and if found guilty needs to serve the penalties specified in the law. Everyone, all the way up the ladder to the White House.
9) The creation of a federal agency under congressional control which has complete authority over a universal Paper Ballot Voting System (PBVS) administered by the states.
Thank you Katrina for understanding and telling the truth about the USA’s relations with Russia.
I have been a regular visitor to Eastern Europe every year for the past 5 years. I travelled to Ukraine shortly after the start of the Georgia-Russia conflict. Being very concerned about travelling to Eastern Europe at that time, I followed the “news reports” very closely. It was well documented in the US news that Georgia provoked the hostilities in Ossetia. It was well known in Ukraine that Georgia was the initial aggressor. As a result, Russia reacted with a terrible and over-extended punishment of Georgia.
I was astonished upon returning to the USA that the story had flip-flopped and now Russia was depicted as the aggressor. Another lie started by the Bush administration?
I don’t know. But I do know the general tenor of Ukrainians where it pertains to NATO. As one of my friends said:
“We want and need the European Union for growth. We have supported the USA and sent our own troops into harm’s way (Iraq); but joining NATO will open the door to terrorism in Ukraine.”
NATO is dead and without US militarization it would disappear from Europe and Asia entirely.
On this Veteran’s Day, it would be a step forward to shed the fear based cold war reactions of this nation, and try to establish diplomatic understanding with Russia instead of this incessant saber-rattling provocation that can do nothing but end badly.
I hope Obama yields to no one when introducing his progressive agenda. In my opinion this country is too far to the right. In my lifetime (1953) the single greatest travesty in moving this country to the right was when Bush Sr in 1991 replaced Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. It will take decades to undo the damage that this has caused this country. There was no attempt to choose a jurists from the middle. Instead Bush Sr picked a young conservative judge from the far right to replace a Supreme Court Associate Justice who among his many accomplishments argued Brown Vs Board of Education in front ot the Supreme Court before he was an Associate Justice.
I love you, Katrina--seriously.
Your list is a little too long, though.
Half your items should be done in days 1-10; the other half might take up to 1000 days.
The only one I'd really quibble with is the mortgage one, which is too vague.
The one I'd be most surprised to see is the last one, to roll back executive power. I agree with you totally, but I think it goes against the grain of all American history.
Great opening list, and doable. Some items might go beyond 100 days, but a great start none-the-less. I don't think of it as right or left but more in line with the founding fathers notion of America and freedom.
It's not 'Stimulus' to give more money to the unemployed and states. The only thing that will stimulate for sure is more unemployment and more irresponsible state spending.
Real economic growth is propelled by the Incentive to profit. SInce business profits ultimately pay for absolutely EVERYTHING, taxes, salaries, healthcare, etc, we may want to bear this in mind when making policy.
The 'Employee Free Choice Act.' is un-apologetically Orwellian--what could be more un-liberal than the tampering with sanctity of the secret ballot? Hey unions, Putin called, he wants his policy back.
Same goes with free trade with Columbia, Korea, etc. To be in agreement with Hugo Chavez, usually means either being wrong, or being paid large sums of cash.
Speaking of stifling dissent, it's borderline paranoid schizophrenic behavior to at once fear secret NSA wiretaps while simultaneously seeking to suppress 'right wing' radio through the re-imposition of the equally Orwellian 'Fairness Doctrine'.
Regarding presidential signing statements, it might be helpful to remember that while the president does not make or adjudicate the law, he is in charge of enforcing it, which after all, does presume some degree of interpretation and discretion.
First paragraph -- helping the rich does not help the economy. Helping the poor does. (Plus it's the decent thing to do.) Doing nothing doesn't work -- Hoover proved that.
"Employee Free Choice Act" -- you're misstating it.
Air-quotes "Free trade" with Columbia -- the fat cats on Wall Street have complained that when they outsourced all the American jobs to India, now the Indian employees want raises. So let's outsource jobs to Columbia.
Fairness Doctrine -- doesn't "suppress" right-wing radio, it would simply dictate that if you allow Rush Limbaugh to spout off for ten minutes, you then have to allow ten minutes of Air America. Gosh, why don't I have problems with that?
Signing statements -- if the president doesn't like a law, he has theconstitutional choice to veto it. If his veto is overriden by Congress, he then has the right to ask the Supreme Court to throw out that part of the law. He may not say in a signing statement, "That does not apply to me." The Constitution (that "goddamn piece of paper," according to GWB) does not allow signing statements. George W. Bush, just like Democrats and (surprise!) Republicans, is not above the law.
RogueWino, let me point out one thing you've overlooked, I'm sure -- come January 20th, President Obama is now legally able to read _your_ mail, and tap _your_ phone_, and declare _you_ an enemy combatant on his own authority. Sleep well.
"Fairness Doctrine -- doesn't "suppress" right-wing radio, it would simply dictate that if you allow Rush Limbaugh to spout off for ten minutes, you then have to allow ten minutes of Air America. Gosh, why don't I have problems with that?"
One reason why you should have problems with that is that all political views should not be treated as equal. The idea that radio must treat every idea expressed equal to the opposite idea would be an enforced violation of the true concept of free speech, Not to mention that many political ideas have not one but several contrary ideas. Should all of them be equally required to be expressed?
The points you were trying to make and commicate ended up being confusing. Let's take the last point regarding signing statements. The priviledge of this presidential "tool" has nothing to do with a President's ability to interpret law or create law .... even though GWB has tried to create law based on the fact that believes he can .... the discretion part of your statement is and should be called the ability to 'veto'. No one is trying to supress Rush or Mark Levin ..... and the fact that you are worried about free speech is good .... because for the last eight years broad vocal decent of the President and his policies was stifelled and supressed. How often did you hear about Iraq and Afghanistan vets receiving sub-par treatment from our government when they returned home without limbs, and sevear head and psychological wounds - not at all. I can go on and on about what we have not been told, as well as the lies we have been told .... or the F....You attitude that GWB and his cronies have exhibited towards the country that you hold so dear. Why aren't you angry about the liberties that have been taken away from us ..... why doesn't the fear of the NSA and other organizations tapping into your conversations - as they have with soldiers and american's oversees - give you pause or lead you to believe that this president has lied and cheated and that laws have been
The last two paragraphs :
The fairness doctrine idea wouldn't be raised if the so-called deregulation of media ownership had not created half a dozen large corporate owners who are not interested in serving the people of the country. There are so few opportunities to counter the poison that is spewed by the likes of O'Rielly and Limbaugh that it is essential for the fairness doctrine to be brought back!
Signing statements : the comment " does presume some degree of interpretation and discretion " - this would appear to be a reasonable statement to make until one tries to apply it to the current President - who has shown a total disregard for the common good, no respect for the constitution(which he took an Oath to Uphold), the disastrous occupation of Iraq (it is immoral to call it a war) and the resulting murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians (who had no say in the matter) and the more than 4000 personnnel from the US armed forces ( who also didn't have a choice - because their commander failed them). This occupation of Iraq as is well known lead to the spread of Al-Qaida into Iraq, where it did not exist before!
Interpertation and discretion are possible if there is a mind that is rational and can actually reason, I believe there are serious doubts about the extistence of such an entity in the present occupant of the white house.
The progressive agenda was not on the Presidential Ballot, and many progressive initiatives that were on state ballots were defeated.
Now lets talk about the other lie being told by the press, the record voter turnout, nationwide it was the same as 2004.
Compared to Reagan and Nixon's victories, Obama doesn't come close to having what most would call a landslide victory.
Oh Katrina, can't we take a break from this "!00" day stuff. Obama has too much important stuff that needs to be done post haste, without this childish pressure for 100 days. If he can't, he loses and all the pundits will be all over him. Please restrain yourself on this 100 day advice.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
