Obama Will Break Our Hearts -- But Progressives Need to Walk and Chew Gum at the Same Time

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.

Comments

[speakingtruth2power]

Those who want a balance between corporations and the needs of the people do

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!!!

[AbbieXHoffman]

Disgruntled HRC supporter here who fully supports Obama.

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.

[appetite88]

Our system helps corporations. The people who need help are the small business owners who get screwed left and right.

[Johnnn]

There is a paradox here: If Hillary and Obama are the same on the issues, why does BHO have to move to the center, which is where Hillary already is, ready for November?

[tbone99]

Because he doesn't have to pretend anymore, now that he's won the nomination.

[suigeneris]

Because Hillary has always moved to the center. The Clintons were major pioneers of triangulation in the Democratic party, right from the start of the DLC.

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.

[Krikkit]

Why is it that you single-issue Democrats are so intent on undermining the Democratic candidate by framing Obama's FISA stance consistent with Greedy Old Pervert talking points?

You can shoot yourselves in the face all you want, but don't take my candidate with you when you go!

[appetite88]

The Constitution and its protection is not a single issue. I'd be interested in knowing why you support Obama if you don't realize that.

[speakingtruth2power]

I am campaigning for Obama, contributing and volunteering as well, but he is my fourth choice

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!!!

[rlkinny]

One of the things we Democrats have been really good at over the last few years is taking uncompromising, principled views which accomplish nothing to achieve our goals. (In fact, it sometimes even creates fodder for the Republican ridicule machine to label us as elitist.) I think what we're seeing now, when people talk about taking a more "nuanced" approach, is an understanding that you can make progress towards a goal by taking steps to achieve it -- through negotiation, finding common ground with your adversaries and implementing change that both sides can support. Clearly it's not perfect, but it is practical. That seems to be what has happened with Obama's position on the FISA bill. As I recall, the comments that he's made about why he's supporting it are based on the fact that the bill will restore the lawful use of the FISA court. To some people that may not be enough; to other people it's a significant step in halting the egregious (fascist) actions of our government.
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.

[appetite88]

The Democrats in congress have been taking a nuanced approach, not an uncompromising prinicipled approach, since 2006. Where has that gotten us? Nowhere. Has Bush taken an nuanced approach to getting his way? Forcing his way to war, pardoning wrongdoers, lying at every turn.... Democrats don't want to fight fire with fire because they have something personal at stake. We need a little more principle working for us.

[edwarvir]

I wish there was a way I could buddle Barack and Michelle Obama and their
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

[Nonamnesiac]

This is a debate I've heard all my life, and I'm an old fart.

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.

[Ged2012]

Obama is a realist. He is fully aware that he cannot do all things by himself. Compromising with someone does not mean that we agree with the person. In fact, we make compromises BECAUSE we disagree with the person concerned.

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.

[RoboA2008]

I think we are punch drunk from an age where Bush has had to never nuance or adjust his positions for the good of the nation. He has basically come up with a policy and threw it against the wall of a Congress that offered him no opposition. There is a lot of bad work and policies to undo. We also have to reconstruct the nation. From this day forward we have to govern in a way that the most people benefit and that we unite interest groups. For example affirmative action may be changed to reflect income regardless of race. This is coming from a black man who would be opening up a priveledge to others for the sake of fairness and inclusion. I am sure there will be those who call me out on this but... So let Obama find his way to best way to heal the government and let us present our views to him with passion but fully expecting that our way may not always be what is best for the country in general.

[Frank Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger]

See Frank Dwyer's Profile

I hope I wouldn't have had a "nuanced" view of slavery, or lynching, or Jim Crow segregation; of Wounded Knee or the Trail of Tears; of Hitler and his "final solution"; of Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot. You can't have a sophisticated walk-and-chew-gum-at-the-same-time "nuanced" view unless an issue has two sides. Some issues don't have two sides. I would be ashamed of such "nuance."

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.

[tbone99]

Thanks Frank , for a thoughtful post- I can vote for compromises and was prepared to hear the war pullout would take longer, the budget would be less social net than I would like and I'm pretty sure his healthcare bill added up to nothing., However not sure that I can willingly vote to undo the Constitution and vote for retroactive immunity for corporate and administrative lawbreakers.What is the next law they plan to break that they will want "immunity " for?

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?

[mmogu77]

You could use a lesson in nuance. There's a difference between America's deeply flawed democratic system, even with a wiretap "compromise", and fascism. Under fascism, the Huffington Post would be banned and you could be arrested for posting your comment.. The nuance isn't about compromising on slavery or lynching or Hitler. It's about how best to bring about progressive change and create a more perfect union. Nuance means combining electing imperfect but generally forward-thinking candidates, and building a progressive movement to make them do the right thingk

[Frank Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger]

See Frank Dwyer's Profile

I'm so eager to be taught. But I'm still a little confused. Tell me, as you define fascism, would I be arrested as the country was sliding into it or only after the fascists had secured their power? What do you call that interesting state before fascists have the power to put people like us, nuanced or not, in jail? Would you remember to blog, if you can, and let those of us without such insight or nuance know when we should start to worry? I would have thought the confirmation of an Attorney General who testified that the President has the right to ignore whatever laws he pleases might make the use of the word "fascism" permissible. (Hitler needed a special law to achieve that, Bush has it by fiat.) I would have thought taking the impeachment of an admitted war criminal off the table might be cause for worry. And, I admit it, I thought this wiretapping business was a big slip down that slope. But I'm okay now, I won't worry until you tell me. Just don't forget.

[nomobull]

the fact that the msm wants to make this so big makes me question not obama but them.

[Krikkit]

Exactly! MSM is owned by the corporate puppet masters (NOT hyperbole) of the Greedy Old Perverts. Instead of wallowing in self-aggrandizing pride, the NO FISA crowd should be asking themselves why the GOP is giving them so much air time.

But they won't, because they are wallowing in self-aggrandizing pride...

[ksyellowdog]

The organizing began in earnest almost 4 years ago in Boston. It was a natural growth of the Dean and Kucinich campaigns. We combined to form what would become the Progressive Democrats of America.

[LeeScho]

Miles:

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.

[mmogu77]

Actually, if you read my post, that's just my point. I expect Obama to often disappoint. My argument is that only an organized movement can force politicians, even relatively good ones, to do the right thing more of the time. "Break our hearts" was just a humorous quote from John Stewart to make a point.

[LeeScho]

Thank you. I read the post and I do believe that I got your point.

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.

[culturevue]

HuffPost's Pick

Interesting that no one commented on the last sentence. That is the only way a truly progressive agenda can ever be accomplished.

[tc399]

The Fourth Amendment just disappeared. No one is accountable for anything. The Patriot Act effectively removed civil liberty. All the President has to do is declare a state of Emergency. Which he just did two days ago. No one seems to have noticed. He now has ZERO Congressional or Judicial oversight, and we can't make anyone do anything.

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.

[Krikkit]

What the bloody hell are you talking about? Did you even read the bill? No? Then you must be in congress...on the Republican side.

[FearlessFreep]

"It will be up to us to organize a progressive movement to make them do it."

At least Ralph Nader is doing his bit.