When Barack Obama was on The Daily Show recently, Jon Stewart ended the program with the question, "I wonder when he'll break our hearts?" The answer should not come as a surprise to any mature progressive -- soon. With Obama's announced intention to vote for the FISA bill which will legalize much of George Bush's illegal wiretapping policies, our hearts may be broken even sooner than expected. It is particularly disappointing because Obama's FISA retreat is not just a tactical maneuver but a seeming compromise on fundamental constitutional principals -- that under the 4th Amendment, the executive should not be able to wiretap American citizens without an individualized judicial warrant. Moreover, Obama's rightward shift on FISA and several other issues may not even represent good political strategy. Instead, it may have handed Republicans the argument that Obama does not represent a new kind of politics but that he is, instead, an old-style politician with no enduring principles who will do and say anything to get elected -- a talking point that is being repeated by every McCain surrogate with a microphone the past few days.
Progressives should not give Obama an easy pass on his FISA turnaround. We must continue to stand for the 4th Amendment protections against warrantless wiretapping, criticize Obama's turnaround, challenge the constitutionality of the FISA legislation in court, and if Obama is elected, continue to build a movement to pressure Obama and a Democratic Congress to amend the FISA act to restore Constitutional protections.
However, progressives need to maintain a nuanced view of the relationship between electoral politics and movement building. Obama's and the Democratic Congress's turnaround on FISA should not lessen our determination to do everything we can to put Obama in the White House and to increase Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. But it should remind us that electing Democrats is a necessary, but not sufficient, means of bringing progressive change to America. Equally important is continuing to build local and national progressive grassroots movements that energize and engage the citizenry and pressure the elected representatives we help put in office to enact the progressive change we represent. We need to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
There is, and always has been, a creative tension between electoral politics and movement building. Perhaps Obama's own background in grassroots organizing will lead him to be as open to popular mobilization as he will be to insider lobbying. On This Week With George Stephanopoulos Katrina Vanden Heuvel of the Nation related how Franklin Roosevelt's Secretary of Labor, Frances Perkins (the only woman in FDR's cabinet) went to FDR and demanded that he do more to protect the interests of workers. FDR told her to go out and mobilize the workers to make him do it. Among other things, Perkins organized a conference of labor leaders in the Secretary's suite, which developed a ten-point program to present to FDR, including abolition of child labor, higher wages for all workers, and government recognition of the right to organize. Much of this program was eventually enacted as part of the New Deal.
So electing Obama and more Democrats (and more progressive Democrats) to Congress is the beginning, not the end, of the story. If unions want labor laws that will make it easier to for workers to unionize, they will have to mobilize the strength of organized labor to overcome the resistance of the organized business community. If citizens want universal health care (and perhaps single payer health care which goes beyond what Obama has been willing to propose as a candidate), they will need to organize a mass movement to overcome the resistance of the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies. If the anti-war movement wants a relatively quick end to American military involvement in Iraq, it will have to mobilize millions of citizens to keep Obama from back-sliding.
It will not just be up to Obama and a Democratic Congress to bring about progressive change. It will be up to us to organize a progressive movement to make them do it.
not understand that there is a class war going on and we have been losing badly.
The shift in wealth from the middle class to the wealthy is the ignorant greed that
killed the goose who laid golden eggs. It's robbing America of her greatest asset!
Corporatism has run amok under 40 years of faux conservatism, aka FASCISM!!!
Mad as hell that he won the primary with the energy from the far left and from the hate from his supporters (not him). I won't stop complaining about the hate and hypocracy of his supporters, but I am ultimately glad he is moving left of center. The main reason I loved the Clintons so much is because they understood that you can help those less fortunate while also not turning your back completely on corporations. They understand the balance.
Having said that, I think the FISA bill stinks because of 4th Amendment violations as well as immunity for telecoms, but left of center is the best place for this country.
But ultimately, Obama will bring the balance we need to keep the entire country: Helping the poor AND wealthy, the little guy aAND the large corporations (who employ people and produce goods--they need to be more regulated though) the environment, etc.
Obama on the other hand, is just doing what he has to in order to get elected. I think we'll see a return to the same Obama his previous voting record shows when he's sitting in the oval office.
You can shoot yourselves in the face all you want, but don't take my candidate with you when you go!
after Gore, Edwards, Kucinich and Richardson. There is no way that any person familiar with
politics should expect Obama to lead a liberal, populist agenda. We will be lucky to see John
Edwards as our next Atty Gen, Dennis Kucinich as our Secretary of Labor or Dr. Howard Dean
leading a populist wave of support for universal, single payer health care, over Pharma/InsCo.
For Obama to win and survive as POTUS, he must lead from the center. Change is up to US!!
Down ticket candidates of this and future elections and building a populist movement is what
we need to focus on because populism is the cure for the debilitating cancer of corporatism!!!
We haven't completely solved the problem, but we've made some improvements. There's a lot to be said for improving a bad situation. So, I hope the author still keeps a spotlight focused on the issue, but when he goes into the voting booth he chooses to vote for the candidate who knows how to make progress on issues, without necessarily abandoning principle.
families and all the Afro-American people who wanted to come and start a
new nation No W's allowed. I am so sick and tired of people thinking he
can move every mountain and he's not even elected yet. Oh how I wish.!!!!!!!
OBAMA 08
What the left misses is there is an absolute need for a clear, progressive position to be put forward institutionally by a relatively serious organization that will not compromise with electoral politics in order to get funders of war crimes (like Obama) elected. The failure of the left to maintain such organizations has permitted the debate to move so far to the right that what was the right center only a few decades ago is now considered left. So people like Obama become identified as left when they are actually right-center.
It also helps the Obamas of the world for the clear left to vigorously attack Obama. When Obama gets attacked by what is a clear left organization, it gives him cover to move to the left. But when nearly all of the so-called progressive organizations are thinly-guised fronts for the Democratic Party, their refusal to push what all know is both the morally correct and progressive position and hold Obama accountable means that Obama does not have any pressure or argument to which he must respond. If he does, he looks radical.
We need to help Obama. And the only way to do that is have a firm political will in issues we are passionate about. And it all starts with electing him President. Once he is in Office, we need to help him, for the Republican party would not take his Presidency lightly. The GOP would certainly aim to win back the White House after four years, and the best way to do that is to never cease attacking Obama once he is President. That's why we need to be vigilant in pressuring the GOP during the Obama administration, for they have all the tricks under their sleeve to slime him. Hell, they could even make us hate Obama.
Anyway, I don't currently have a "nuanced" view about fascism. I think Obama will win in a landslide, and I agree that it will be a lot better for the country and the world if he does, if he trounces poor incompetent unqualified embarrassing foolish McCain.
I think so, but I'm not sure. Is Obama part of the Democratic leadership, the centrist corporatists salivating that the big trough is almost theirs? The non-opposition Opposition Party that represents the most formidable obstacle to a progressive party? These Vichy Democrats, men and women like Schumer and Feinstein, are worse, in my view, than the worst Republicans, because we wouldn't have Mukasey, Roberts, or Alito without their inspired collaboration. But Obama is not Schumer or Feinstein, is he? I didn't think so. I hope not.
As I said, I think he'll win, I hope he does, but if he votes for the wiretap "compromise" he'll have to win without my vote: because one of us, the one without such enlightened "nuance," doesn't compromise with fascism.
How come millions of Americans in jail for victimless crimes like mj possession don't get amnesty? How come millions of hardworking undocumented workers taking care of our kids , old people and food supply can't get amnesty?
But they won't, because they are wallowing in self-aggrandizing pride...
Are you in love? Infatuated? Are you emotionally strung out for Obama, weepy and forlorn and seeking a candidate who will "hold" you? Are you leaving each and every encounter with him mouthing the words, "call me."?
Break our hearts? Get some therapy.
He is a politician. A good one. Compromise is the lifeblood of his profession. He will do that. Sure, at some point compromise cuts into the muscle of principle, though the density of that muscle is adjudged differently by well-meaning adherents.
No parent, no lover, no spouse, no child, no friend, no relative, no boss, no subordinate employee, etc have ever risen to the full measure of all of my expectations, nor have I to theirs. There may very well have been some hearts broken in those direct or personal relationships. My choice for councilperson, mayor, governor, senator, representative and president is not such a relationship. They cannot break my heart. They can, at worst, challenge my judgement, and, hopefully, always strengthen my resolve.
Unlike you, I do not expect Obama to often disappoint. Perhaps yours is a greater emotional investment with his candidacy than my own investment. If so, I need to back off and not ridicule your commitment. What bothers me is that the man is not even elected yet and we are acting like jilted lovers, like he has cheated on us. We are hedging our bets on him, wondering if he seems too good to be true, preparing to pounce on him at the first sign of him flirting with a contentious idea or position.
I do, however, appreciate your proportion. Progressives need to be organized and constantly pulling him left of center. But they need to do so by the hand, not by the neck.
At least Ralph Nader is doing his bit.
You aren't going to get a progressive agenda without an election, and even if there is one, it's not who votes that counts....it's who counts the votes.
My main reason for voting for Obama is the war in Iraq it has to end. This war is wrong and the fact that oil companies are moving in to ravage for oil sickens me and makes this war doubly IMMORAL. So if he can accomplish that he will get another 4 more years from me.
Carol
And to do THAT will logically require a fulfillment of Obama's Requirement and Promise
And what is the Obama requirement? Contact our U.S. Representatives.
A primary reason that we don't have Health Care for All with non-profit single-payer national health insurance is that American citizens have not contacted their U.S. Representatives.
All political parties and political philosophies need to support that health care be a human right. But we citizens must communicate the need.
We can have Health Care for All ... ALL of the other industrialized countries have it for their citizens, who live longer than we do and they pay MUCH less for their health care. We are 28th in the countries of the world for life expectancy and 19th out of 19 countries for minimizing the number of deaths from preventable diseases.
There is something SERIOUSLY wrong with this picture!
We too can have Peace of Mind regarding health care.
Follow the Schedule!
Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate
And to do THAT will logically require a fulfillment of Obama's Requirement and Promise.
http://www.ninenineohnine.org/pages/Obama_Requirement
And what is the Obama requirement? Contact our U.S. Representatives.
A primary reason that we don't have Health Care for All with non-profit single-payer national health insurance is that American citizens have not contacted their U.S. Representatives.
All political parties and political philosophies need to support that health care be a human right. But we citizens must communicate the need.
We can have Health Care for All ... ALL of the other industrialized countries have it for their citizens, who live longer than we do and they pay MUCH less for their health care. We are 28th in the countries of the world for life expectancy and 19th out of 19 countries for minimizing the number of deaths from preventable diseases.
There is something SERIOUSLY wrong with this picture!
We too can have peace of mind regarding health care.
http://www.ninenineohnine.org/pages/Peace_of_Mind
Follow the schedule
http://www.ninenineohnine.org/pages/Schedule">Schedule
Bob the Health and Health Care Advocate