The Democratic Party's leftwing -- comprised, for the most part, of labor, peace, racial justice, women's rights, and environmental organizations, as well as unaffiliated progressive activists -- faces some difficult choices in 2012, when it will be dealing with numerous election campaigns.
Many progressives feel a keen sense of disappointment with the Obama administration, which showed a remarkable willingness to capitulate to conservatives when the Democrats controlled congress and even more craven behavior once the Republicans won back control of the House of Representatives. Organized labor is aghast at the continuation of the Bush tax cuts and the collapse of legislative efforts to facilitate union recognition, peace groups are appalled by the escalation of the Afghanistan War and the rise of the Pentagon budget, civil rights groups despair over the absence of anti-poverty measures and the growing restrictions on voting rights, women's groups deplore the administration's capitulation on contraception, and environmental groups shake their heads at the administration's veto of auto emission standards, its green light to offshore oil drilling, and its retreat on reducing carbon emissions. Contrasting the administration's all-out effort to save Wall Street with its indifference to Main Street, many progressives wonder if they have gained anything worthwhile with Obama's election.
On the other hand, disappointment among progressive forces is a long-standing pattern, for, since World War II, they almost invariably have felt sold out by Democratic administrations. In 1948, angry with the Truman administration, many liberals joined leftists in supporting the ill-fated Progressive Party or else sought to block Truman's re-nomination on the Democratic ticket. In 1968, disgusted with the Johnson administration, they fervently backed Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy in their Democratic presidential primary challenges and, when these collapsed, sat out the election. In 1980, irate at the administration of Jimmy Carter, they backed Ted Kennedy's challenge in the Democratic presidential primaries and, when this failed, many turned to the third party tickets of Barry Commoner and John Anderson. And, in 2000, fed up with the administration of Bill Clinton, many refused to back the presidential bid of his vice president, Al Gore, and flocked, instead, to the third party candidacy of Ralph Nader.
And yet, despite this history of revolt, neither a Democratic primary challenge nor a serious third party challenge to Obama has yet arisen. Why is that? It's certainly not because progressive activists believe Obama is popular with the general public. Indeed, his poll numbers are consistently bad -- so bad that, if the GOP had a reasonably sane, likable candidate, Obama would be easily defeated.
Probably the most important reason for the quiescence of progressive activists is that the Republican party has shifted so far to the right that they consider a Republican presidential victory simply unthinkable. They have concluded that there really is a difference between the leaders of the political parties -- the difference between bad and worse.
In these circumstances, it seems likely that, in 2012, despite their qualms, progressive forces will provide at least token support for Obama's re-election. This will include endorsements and campaign contributions from unions and other traditionally Democratic party support groups.
At the same time, however, most of the progressive effort and resources will probably go into taking back control of the House of Representatives, holding on to control of the Senate, challenging reactionary Republican governors, and supporting progressive ballot propositions. In the elections, activists seem likely to put the bulk of their effort into championing the most progressive congressional candidates (such as Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts, Norman Solomon in California, Bernie Sanders in Vermont, Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin, and Alan Grayson in Florida). And the unions are likely to put significant resources into state campaigns, where reactionary Republican administrations, elected in 2010, are going all out to destroy them. After all, if they can secure some significant victories at the polls -- as they did in 2011 -- they will be able to turn the tide in the states, strengthen their hand within the Democratic party, and push the Obama administration leftward.
Of course, with nearly a year to go before the elections, the political situation may change dramatically. Furthermore, Obama -- drawing plenty of money from his wealthy backers but having alienated his Democratic base -- may go down to defeat.
But, at this point at least, it seems that the Democratic party's leftwing -- while giving tepid backing to Obama -- will concentrate its energies on candidates and ventures that it considers more deserving of its support.
Lawrence Wittner is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is "Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement" (Stanford University Press).
An 18-month review by the ACLU of the Obama administration's record on national security issues affecting civil liberties resulted in a mixed review.
The Patriot Act, for example, was renewed for another four years, but it has come under scrutiny and criticism as it has apparently given law inforcement and national security agencies a freehand to decide how to apply the provisions of the act.
US government agencies requests under the Patriot Act to Google for user search information doubled over the last year.
And now, there’s ample evidence that much of our law and governmental policy is being made in secret, again contrary to the intent of the Constitution. See “We’ve Gone from a Nation of Laws to a Nation of Powerful Men Making Laws in Secret”.
Patrick Henry said, “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." But it appears the Constitution is becoming meaningless as laws and judicial interpretations infringe on our rights for due process and privacy. Many examples are given on credible internet news sites and blogs.
The problem is, once a law or procedure firmly establishes itself, it is difficult to remove it; thus, the weakened state of the Constitution will continue and may get worse.
Invade a country without Congressional Approval
Re authorize the Patriot Act
Hire Wall Street insiders
Assassinate a US citizen without a trial
Launch drone attacks on nations we are not at war with
Harass medical marijuana users
They be all over him. But now that he is a democrat: Silence
I have a feeling that many democrats were only against Bush's actions because he was a republican.
What do you expect Obama to deliver of your preferred agenda?
Goldman Sachs was his main compaign contributor, and he's every bit as bad as Bush and Cheney. Time to give Biden a chance.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2011/3844bill_impeach_obama.html
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2011/3849edge_nuke_war.html
What's necessary is not "winning". No one wins wars, just some sides lose worse than others. The USSR in the 80s, as powerful we are now, couldn't defeat Afghanistan and they are right next door and don't have to fly artillery across the world. If they couldn't do it, the US won't be able to either. Uninvited occupation provokes. Be glad Russia works with Iran. They're current dipllomatic efforts are working to get Iran to chill out. Iran has been fully cooperating, and isn't crazy enough to launch a nuclear attack. They know they'd be wiped out if they did.
If you're looking at currency fluctuations and betting on it, rather than on developing new infrastructure, systems, and technologies, then I imagine you're just sucked into Wall Street. If Obama was really interested in fixing it, then he needs to call for a return to the Glass-Steagal. The new Glass-Steagal HR1489 has supporters on both sides.
It was Roosevelt's personel intervention of telling the Nat'l Guard to not shoot protestors that allowed labor unions and strikers to have a significant role. If it is not the president''s role to police the streets, why did Obama threaten to veto NDAA right up until it was changed to give the president, rather than Congress, the right to detain citizens indefinitely. Not his role to have American citizens whacked, but he did.
When electing a Democrat produces the same results we'd have if the Republican were elected, then what's needed isn't a history lesson from the starry-eyed for the "far left" but even greater persistence by the progressive core of the Democratic Party. As the Republican Party veers further to the right, and the country becomes more-tightly controlled by the greediest 1%'ers in consequence, independents and moderates of both major parties will have to rethink where their interests lie and whom they vote for and elect.
Pay attention: progressives aren't whining, we're hard at work.
I am not interested in what the Left wants any more than I am interested in the Right. I want the Center to have its way, because the Center is where that majority of us who actually work a job and pay taxes and deal with reality live. The fact is that sometimes the Center is made up of Democrats, and sometimes it's Republicans.
Progressivism is not, in my book, a Leftist ideology. It's about making things better with careful consideration and an eye toward common good, not the benefit of some fringe community. I think that the reason the extreme elements of Right and Left seem to govern the same is because they are only interested in the interests of a fringe community, which to me defines them automatically as NOT Progressive.
There needs to be active, fierce, mobilization against corporate/DLC/establishment/Blue Dog/sell out Dems in primaries. Even that is difficult because the party machine rigs primaries with campaign cash allocation choices and endorsements, but that can be overcome.
Go ahead and just keep holding your nose and towing the line, and you will continue to get rolled with "tough compromises" and "difficult choices" that are willful capitulations of choice by fraudulent Democrats. There is no reason at least 50% of sitting Democrats shouldn't be defeated in primaries if progressives had any self respect or true desire for change.
Show even MORE enthusiasm than 2008. This time, we won't be campaigning in hopes of realization of the glorious progressive revolution at the hands of President Obama. This election is not a referendum on the President, as Mitt Romney is fond of saying, it is a choice. A choice between a fundamentally good man thwarted at every turn by a contrarian opposition party, and (in all likelihood) a white man born into privilege that aims to dismantle government and the middle class social security net that so many millions in this nation have earned.
As long as America remains a two-party system (and I hate to break it to Americans Elect, but that ain't changing before 2012), elections will be decided based upon the mobility and passion of the base and our ability to communicate the issues of the day to our fellow citizens. Okay, maybe corporate cash has something to do with it as well.
A screaming Tea Partier going door-to-door beats a disillusioned progressive sitting in front of the computer, all day, every day. We owe it to ourselves to propagate our vision and the stark differences in the choices that will be offered to the American people in November 2012.
F/F
As far right as the electorate seems to have gone, I suspect they (and all of us) will have to suffer the results of right-wing policies before there is any change.
I will write in a person of my choice. I believe the country has to crash and if a repub gets in it will happen that much sooner.
Isn't that what the neoncon maniacs were saying back in the beginning days of Patriot Act fever?
I support any citizen voter's right and choice to write in a candidate. I hope DJleary votes his/her conscience and I know from experience that in the past I slept better knowing that I have voted MY conscience.
Perhaps, but here's the problem: by voting FOR Obama you are voting for "bipartisanship" and so, the continuing triumph of the same key policies as those OF the Republican candidate--as to war, taxes, protecting Wall Street's excesses and advancing the erosion of our civil liberties and labor rights--so it doesn't really stop the Republicans. Voting for Obama also does nothing to stop the Blue Dogs--it actually assists and encourages them--so, if you're a progressive, you lose twice.
Don't be quite so dismissive of DJleary's approach unless you treasure the opportunity to vote Democratic and get Republican results all the same. Many of us don't.
Indeed. And Eugene Debs was given to saying, "I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it, than for what I don't want and get it." He never became President, nor has Dean, but much of what each of them fought for has come to pass. We're the beneficiaries and there's an important lesson there.
However, there is hope. The Republicans are presently in the process of tearing themselves apart. A large part of their base are the evangelicals who have become convinced by the years of propaganda their establishment types have been feeding them that any Democrat is the devil incarnate. So far this election cycle the establishment has managed to destroy every candidate the base has taken a liking to. They are currently trying to destroy Gingrich. Should Gingrich wind up the nominee, whether he wins or loses the general, there will be a giant rift between the base and the establishment.
I also believe many traditional business type Republicans are getting fed up with the Tea Party types who believe denying Obama everything that might in some remote way be construed as a success, is more important than conducting any kind of normal business. I believe the far right wing of the Republican party is well on their way to nominating their own "George McGovern".