Barack Obama received a blast last week from one of his former Harvard law professors who made the case that he "must be defeated." Roberto Unger's argument boils down to a damning indictment spelling out charges that the President has betrayed the progressive cause and those who militated for his election. The alleged betrayal is all the more painful, Professor Unger says, because it reveals a man who never was what he claimed to be. Deep down, he is a conventionally conservative person -- not just a politician who bowed to electoral expediency. Moreover, he claims that Obama has nailed the lid on the coffin of the Democratic Party that has veered sharply away from its historical constituency and principles. The President's actions and rhetoric are having the longer term effect of skewing the nation's political discourse far to the right of where the locus of the American people's interests and sentiment lie. Hence the conclusion that the man must be stopped now lest the damage reach the point of irreversibility.
Democrats, and especially liberals, seem to have lost sight of the historic opportunity that was presented to Barack Obama after the election. The nation was at the nadir of the financial crisis that had discredited Republican philosophy, Republican policies and Republican politicians. Anxiety was at its zenith. Exposing the deep flaws in the economy, the crisis also highlighted how the system worked to the disadvantage of now badly hurt -- and scared -- salaried Americans. A revival of progressive thinking, and with it electoral dominance, was in the cards. Instead of seizing the historic occasion, though, Obama soughtonly to patch up the status quo ante. So he calculating chose the course of stocking his administration with tainted establishment figures while setting out on the quixotic mission of conciliating the opposition. Hence, dinner meetings with William Kristol and George Will, currying favor with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell in the name of a fictitious bipartisanship. From today's perspective, with the benefit of inside the White House accounts by the President's own people, it is crystal clear that Obama never even entertained the thought of fashioning a new liberal majority in the country. It just wasn't in him.
Unger's bill of particulars extends to civil liberties and foreign policy as well as domestic affairs. The White House's aggressive actions on surveillance, detention, mistreatment of illegal aliens, prosecution of whistleblowers, and government secrecy constitute a concerted assault on the bedrock values and laws of the American republic. As to foreign policy, he claims that Obama's strategy relies more on muscle than brains. The so-called "war on terror" has been pushed into more and more places, Afghanistan saw a drastic escalation, and a military confrontation with Iran looms as the White House has ruled out any reasonable accommodation of Tehran's own valid security interests.
In summary, the Obama administration has been to the right of Richard Nixon. Nixon who signed the Clean Act, offered a more far-reaching health insurance plan than Obama's, never called into question Social Security or Medicare, upheld financial regulation, reconciled with China, did not tick off names (including Americans) on kill lists and whose Watergate sins pale in comparison to the egregious acts of the past three years. This will not change. There are two certainties about a second Obama term in the White House. He will do nothing that challenges either orthodoxy or established interests; and he will do only that which conforms to his self-defined personal political interest and image.
Unger's counsel is that progressives vote for Mitt Romney as part of a scorched earth policy that will leave re-fertilized political terrain on which to cultivate a new progressive movement. An alternative is just to stay home -- to vote 'no.' As Will Rogers once urged, "don't vote, it just encourages them." Encourages them in the mistaken belief that they have a mandate, and have been legitimated.
There is truth to the underlying premise that the choice is between a mainstream Republican (circa 1980) and a Republican cipher yoked to the far right agenda of the Tea Party and their camp followers. The principal practical difference is merely the pace at which the United States becomes an outright plutocracy. The direction is the same. For Unger, and for those who share his viewpoint, there is one outstanding inhibition: what a Romney presidency would mean for the Supreme Court. The Court majority's unrestrained dedication to advancing a set of political, economic and social doctrines that point the country back to the golden days of the 1890s raises the stake. Even on this score, Obama's critics point out that he has rejected the idea of appointing an articulate advocate of a liberal bent cut in the mold of Paul Stevens. Indeed, one of his appointees -- Sonia Sotomayor -- has shown a disposition to side with the ruling 'conservatives' on a number of criminal rights and social policy issues.
For the overwhelming majority of liberals/progressives, a cultivated pragmatism will dictate a vote for Obama -- contre-coeur -- with quite a number exposing their own insecurities and credulity in pleading that the President deserves to be viewed as some kind of heroic champion fighting against great odds. In addition, they dispute the prediction that a true progressive Democratic party will arise Phoenix-like from the ashes of another resounding defeat. That is a compelling appraisal -- although not on the grounds usually offered.
Progressive ideas and policies are not out of sync with what the populace wants. Real financial regulation, protecting Social Security, shedding our imperial ambitions abroad, taking the Bill of Rights literally -- those are winning positions. Rather, it is their sell-out by Democratic Party leaders, their corruptibility by money, their weakness for trendy palliatives like charter schools, their lack of honesty in addressing their constituents and their better selves -- therein lies the reason for the Democrats' deformation and defeat.
The unlikely prospect for a progressive revival stems from our dominant political culture and social malaise. Pervasive self-centered disengagement from public life and public responsibility, the takeover of the media by doctrinaire 'conservative' and corporate interests, the compromised 'intelligentsia,' consequent abandonment and, thereby, de facto disenfranchisement of a large chunk of the (potential) electorate -- together they militate strongly against a progressive renaissance. These are the harsh realities of our situation.
That returns us to the question of whether or not to vote at all. Abstention is hard to justify on practical grounds. Yet, there exists for some an instinctive resistance to placing their personal imprimatur on Barack Obama. How can one approve what he has done? How can one express approval of the man himself? Can one do so with a clear conscience? This question cannot be cavalierly cast aside as an exercise in vanity, as a naïve indulgence of misplaced moral purity. It is true that the morality of individual action and ultimate ends always co-exists uneasily with standards of political ethics. But the two cannot always be reconciled. Is it unreasonable for someone to feel in his heart that he cannot tolerate pulling the Obama lever -- that the act itself sullies and degrades who he is? That it could even hamper his future ability to carry on as a public person with a sense of integrity unimpaired? I personally do not find it unreasonable.
Dean Baker: The Regulation Monster
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Please consider the case of 24-year-old cancer survivor Tessie Goheen, and her reliance on the Health Care Reform bill which Barack Obama guided through Congress to continue to provide her with her critical day-to-day medical support:
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Breast-cancer-survivor-implores-state-to-drop-challenge-to-Obamacare-144304225.html?c=y&tab=video
And then please, if possible whatsoever, re-consider having even an iota of humility and ability to review your own across-the-board condemnatory opinions and commentary regarding the worth and integrity of Barack Obama as a human being and as a US President.
Sincerely,
Dan Mohr
Seattle, WA, USA
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
As long as we accept the lesser of two evils argument or the "electable candidate," the Party's will run the show... it is a self fulfilling prophesy.
"Our nation cannot afford a return to the heavy-handed unilateralism of the George W. Bush years. President Obama owns no magic wand, but he has shown the ability to work with others and the courage to make tough decisions. He has kept his promise to extricate our troops from Iraq, fought terrorism without alienating our allies, begun a transition to local control in Afghanistan, moved to reduce the danger posed by nuclear weapons, and reduced our dependence on foreign oil."
Thank you, Ms. Albright.
Please don't throw your fellow American citizens under the bus because you're unhappy with President Obama not being all you wanted him to be. Even if you discount all the opposition he had to deal with, and even if he is not the moderate liberal you thought he would be, it makes no sense to use this election as your time to "look elsewhere." It's too late for that now. If you truly fear "moving the country farther to the right and deeper into the clutches of the big corporations and big money," then you must not espouse dropping Obama from office now. We will all suffer from the results of that short-sighted thinking.
(Gailmaries ponders...) You know what? I've re-read your note a few times, and all you do is refer to "enlightened votes" as "they." Never "we" or "I," which has now convinced me you are more likely to be a wolf in sheep's clothing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one who really dislikes the policies and tricks of the 'Right Wing' in America, would ever do what s/he can to help put the lying, conniving Repug Mitt Romney in the White House.
Who are you to say that this writer or any other has no 'business writing an article on this blog"? Your problem is that you don't want to deal with anyone willing to actually think. You sound more like one of today's right wingers than a genuine progressive or liberal or traditional Democrat, which Barack Obama is not, and neither are you. It's narrow minded, intolerant individuals like you, blindly swallowing the sellouts Obama and the Dems serve up, that are the problem with today's Democratic Party. Your the perfecte xample of everything wrong with the Party and where it's headed.
At least with Obama our social fabric will contain some conscience and compassion and empathy for the people who are not wealthy. America has always promoted itself as the Land of Opportunity", where even the poorest child can get good public education and decent health care, and the elderly and sick are cared for and kept from poverty. The Republicans are in the process of closing off the public institutions which make us a humane people to each other.
If Obama is not re-elected, this specific election will be the one that allows the Republicans and their zillionaire corporate backers to effectively destroy those institutions. R.I.P. middle class, because you did not make the effort to become informed, become observant, and think critically about the process through which the "trickle-down" lie never trickled down, your jobs went offshore and never came back, along with corporate profits and wealth, your retirement funding was gambled away by Wall Street corporations (with impunity), your earnings were plundered by the profiteering sharks of health insurance corporations. It has been said that, "Him that has, gets." You haven't seen the half of it yet. Vote for Obama.
This is why we'll lose in November: the far-left claiming that Obama's done nothing for them or made too many mistakes in his first term. Then suggesting that we don't vote for him to "teach him a lesson". This was the mindset instilled in voters in 2010, and we all know the results; is there any reason this election will have a better outcome if Romney becomes president? What's at stake, here? Not just the Supreme Court, which has proven again yesterday that they prefer a move to plutocracy to an untainted democracy.
He's right in saying that progressive ideas and policies are not out of sync with what the populace wants, but it's been increasingly clear for years now that what the populace wants matters less and less to politicians. Corporate interests have been given better gloves for which to keep a stranglehold on not just lawmakers, but the democratic process. Allowing a Republican president will ensure that progressive ideas are not only struck down immediately, but outlawed as well.
If you're fed up with Obama, suck it up and vote anyway, whether it be for Democrats or Republicans. We have nothing to gain by protesting with inaction.
oh yeah, that worked so well in the past we got eight years of ronald reagan and eight years of g.w. bush.
what every happened to learning from history?
I for one will be voting either Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson, but staying home may be a valid option too.
yeah, that worked so well in the past we got eight years of ronald reagan and eight years g.w. bush.
when will overfed ivory tower leftists face the fact that they are wrong about losing in order to win?
answer: never, because they are as obstinate as rick scott and allen west.
we have the same set of characters on the far left as we do we the far right.