Barack Obama's presidency, while far from being a failure, has been something of a disappointment to many of his initial supporters. The noise from people on the far right who question the president's place of birth or believe him to be a socialist because he passed a stimulus package that many economists believe to be too small and a health care bill that will lead to millions of new customers and new revenue for the insurance companies, has overshadowed some of this. However, Obama's disappointed supporters are far more important to his political future than angry opponents who never have and never will support him.
Disappointment from progressive circles seems to be based on three things, Obama's support for the war in Afghanistan, his failure to take any strong positions on important issues to progressives such as marriage equality and the relatively modest nature of the legislation the administration has passed on key issues such as health care and the economy. These decisions can all be explained-some might say rationalized. Obama, after all, campaigned on expanding the war in Afghanistan. While the health care and economic stimulus bills are not perfect, they took a great deal of work and are better than nothing. Obama has to be careful about doing too much for his base because he risks alienating moderates. These explanations are either irrelevant; nobody cares how much work or legislative pyrotechnics it took to pass the bills, or wrong; supporting marriage equality comes at far less political cost than many think.
The immediate cost of this disappointment to Obama's political future will be obvious, but also debatable. Progressive supporters who came to the polls out of excitement and hope surrounding Obama in 2008 will be less likely to vote in 2010 after being disappointed by the president. There is some truth to this, but it should not be overstated. Turnout is always lower in midterm elections, so it would be wrong and ahistorical to expect turnout among progressives in 2010 to be comparable to what it was in 2008. Moreover, the possibility that the base of one or both parties will be angry and stay home is raised during virtually every election, but both parties make strong efforts, often with some success, to bring these voters out in the weeks leading up to the election.
During the campaign in 2008, Obama mobilized his base substantially around the notion that he was a transformative political figure. The change which was the central theme of his campaign was not just the change that Obama was going to represent following eight years of the Bush administration, but also the change Obama was going to bring to Washington and to politics more generally.
It is now, and was probably even then, obvious that the latter type of change was not likely to happen, but this was at the heart of Obama's campaign. When opponents pointed out that this somewhat amorphous but broad vision of changing politics in America was not quite realistic, Obama regularly appealed to his base to support him and refute these cynical views. Given the role that the belief in change and Obama's perceived ability to deliver that change played in his election, it would seem that the President owes his supporters more than essentially arguing that it is tough getting things done, that he is doing his best, and having supporters recite talking points describing the real, but far from transformative accomplishments of the president.
The disappointment Obama supporters feel is not simply due to their naïve expectations and hope being hijacked by reality. Many of those who are now disappointed were not naïve neophytes unfamiliar with American politics. They were progressives, angry about eight years of the Bush administration who were persuaded by Obama himself to allow themselves to have hope one more time. Critics of Obama always argued that Obama was manipulating these people. The president's ongoing failure to do anything for this important part of his base may ultimately prove these critics right, leading these people to feel not only to feel manipulated by Obama but angry at themselves for allowing this to happen.
The cost of this will not be limited to dampened enthusiasm from the progressive base in the 2010 and 2012 elections, but may also lead a large group of people stop participating in the political process. Even if they continue to vote, they will probably not continue to offer their energy, time and money, at least at the national level. People who feel disappointed, or even manipulated, by Obama will be very unlikely to be excited by any future candidates as this experience will leave a mark on their political consciousness. As these people remove themselves from politics it will not only cause short, and long, term harm to the democratic party but will increase the level of anger and instability in our already precarious polity.
Follow Lincoln Mitchell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LincolnMitchell
Unfortunately Obama and his clique are all insiders and will not heed the message. Too bad.
We must continue to vote Democrat in Congressional elections; but we need a strong progressive primary challenger. - from the progressive viewpoint, Obama is toast in 2012.
When I marched in the 60's and 70's we didn't march for Martin Luther King, WE marched to force change. Placing all your hopes that one man can change a corrupt system that's be in play long before he was born is bullchit.
LBJ didn't enact the Civil Rights Act because he woke up one day and decided out of the blue that it was the thing to do,. He was pushed to action because those of us who got off our arses and took our grievances to the street shouting loud enough for the world to hear forced that change. France has more progressive laws because they do the same.
We sit at our computers on our arses and think by typing on a keyboard that we are changing the world, well we're not. This instant gratification reality TV world that have taken over have made us too lazy and expect just because we got off our arses and voted for a man our work was done.
Well if I followed that logic I would still be entering the back doors of hotel and drinking at Coloreds only drinking fountains.
Grow up progressives, get off your couches and take your grievances to the street.
No, ... This president is barely distinguishable from his pathetic predecessor. He welcomes Lobbyists into the People's House, ... and occasionally releases the lists of his guest, ... our guests.
This good man, for whom I campaigned and donated hard earned cash, ... has seemed a bit slow and a bit too comfortable in the two years since he promised us change. And now, it may be that he is out of time before he even got started. His achievements are less than monumental, and his political efforts less than effective.
Mr, Obama should never have gotten comfortable on the couch in the Oval Office, ... for if he had committed to six months of using his Majority, ... America might have been made different!
Keep him!
1. If President Obama is a Corporatist, why do the corporations feel the need to spend 100's of millions of dollars to lobby against his policies?
2. with the Republicans in Congress wholly owned by big business, with the Democrats in Congress being payed off by big business, with the media, both "liberal" and right wing owned by big business, with half the people in our Country being ditto heads, a third in the tea party, HOW did you expect this President to breeze into office and change Washington in two years by himself?
3.Do you think with our economy in a fragile recovery and millions out of work, now is the time to institute smothering reforms? The reforms the President has achieved are amazing in this climate. Sure some things could be better, but is now the time? Can we wait until people have jobs to see what the President will do?
4. And finally, many here have said they are disappointed in the President. How disappointed do you think he is in you?
- They're playing chess, he's playing checkers.
"HOW did you expect this President to breeze into office and change Washington in two years by himself?"
- FDR did it in 100 days.
"Do you think with our economy in a fragile recovery and millions out of work, now is the time to institute smothering reforms?"
- Yes. There is no other time when it can be done.
"How disappointed do you think he is in you? "
- Rahm Emanuel has voiced Obama's disappointment in progressives - for being progresive - calling us "retarded" "morons" on "the left of the left" who should "meet their Waterloo."
Apparently our votes don't matter? We got him elected, we can get him unelected, either in the primaries with a strong progressive challenger, or by not showing up on election day - I would rather have a Republican Republican than a Republican DINO.
By all means vote Democrats for Congress, that we have to keep. But cynical liars like we have in the White House?
Obama out in '12.
2. He had a Majority in both houses, ... and blew it!
3. "Smothering Reforms"? You mean like controlling the Banks that nearly ruined us? Like Insisting Bush Tax Cuts die when they expire? Like restoring constitutional guarnatees like Habeas Corpus? Hardly radical ideas, ... they were the law before Republicans ruined this country!
4. He works for us. He needs to get his ass in gear and stop whining. 15 Million Americans are out of work long-term and they don't have the luxury to care what President Obama thinks of them!
2. Please see my point 2 above, the first sentence.
3 and 4 ) First, this is the hardest working President we have had in years. Second, you want him to create jobs AND institute radical reforms which will stifle job creation. The reforms we have are good for this time. When the economy improves, reforms can improve, if needed.
http://ballastaway.wordpress.com/
This article misses a three key area of disappointment, the failure to prosecute the crimes of the Bush administration, the use of executive orders to continue the worst of Bush's policies, and broken campaign promises.
Bush and his cronies committed war crimes. They invaded the sovereign of Iraq, a nation that posed no immediate threat to the US, in direct violation of US laws prohibiting such action. Bush carried out domestic spying on US citizens. Bush approved torture tactics used at Baghram, Gitmo, and elsewhere. Obama's response has been to move forward, and not look back. Of course, this is precisely what law enforcement is about. By letting Bush get away with this makes our nation look very bad internationally, and sets up a dangerous precedent.
Then, there are Obama's executive orders. He signed an executive order continuing the practice of rendition, whereby, the US uses a third party to kidnap people, transport them to a different country to torture them. He has not used executive authority to repeal DADT in the military. He has not used executive authority to reinstate posse comitatus.
Broken campaign promises: Lets start with Afghanistan. He promised to have troops out in 6 months. He promised a public option for health care. He promised genuine financial reform. All promises broken.
"He promised a public option"
He promised genuine financial reform: He delivered it.
Personally, I just think he wanted to be president and struck a deal with Clinton and the DLC to get that done, filling his administration with their cronies. I don't think he cares about anything else but 'being president.' It is a tragedy for himself, who will end up a one-term president without progressive help, and for the nation, which has had to deal with two stolen elections and incompetent foreign policies and wars and economic destruction previously under Bush.
I don't think we'll be able to salvage the Constitution or its representative democracy. The question now is how we can salvage the republic and keep it from going under financially.
Only progressives have that answer, because it cannot be accomplished by a vampiric private sector dominated by global-economy monopolies. But we have been so marginalized, I'm not sure how we can get the message out.
Buy American where you can find it and send that crap made in China back to fill their landfill. Why return the containers empty?