(Note: In the following piece, I am expressing only my own opinion as one person who writes regularly for the Huffington Post. Each Huffington Post writer is free to post his or her own views with no central editorial control and I do not purport to represent any official view of the Huffington Post, which, to the best of my knowledge, does not exist.)
In one of the Obama administration's periodic slaps at his liberal base (e.g. Robert Gibb's attack on the "professional left," Rahm Emanuel calling liberal Democrats who criticized Blue Dogs "f*cking stupid") last weekend Obama's reelection campaign released a video of Obama speaking to a bipartisan group of college students about the principle of political compromise and claimed that if the Huffington Post had been around when President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, its headline would have read "Lincoln sells out slaves."
The timing of the video release was a bit curious -- it was recorded at a private meeting in March, but the Obama campaign released it as Obama was proposing cuts to Medicare and Social Security in the hopes of compromising on a "grand bargain" to reduce the deficit, as though such a "grand bargain" was somehow equivalent to Lincoln's actions in the middle of a Civil War in which over 600,000 Americans died.
Moreover, for this Huffington Post writer, Obama over-simplified both the history and the contemporary politics in an attempt to elevate "compromise" from a political means to a political end and to justify a strategy of preemptive unilateral compromise against a Republican Party that has no interest in compromise.
First the history: Despite popular myth, the Emancipation Proclamation of 1862 did not proclaim the freedom of all of the slaves but only slaves in the states of the Confederacy who were at war with the Union and not those in border states that remained part of the Union. Slavery was only abolished everywhere in the United States by ratification of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in 1865, shortly after Lincoln's death.
But abolition was not, as Obama would have it, the act of a single man, Abraham Lincoln. It was the product of a great mass movement for abolition fought over many decades by courageous Americans, many of whom had no compunctions about criticizing Lincoln when they thought he was wrong. (Remember that Lincoln did not run for president in 1860 as an opponent of slavery). As prominent Abolitionist leader William Lloyd Garrison once said,
Little boldness is needed to assail the opinions and practices of notoriously wicked men; but to rebuke great and good men for their conduct, and to impeach their discernment, is the highest effort of moral courage.
While abolitionists did not, as Obama implied that the Huffington Post would do, denounce the Emancipation Proclamation as a sell-out, they did point out that despite its symbolic value, it did not actually free any slaves -- it only applied to slaves in the Confederate states over which Lincoln, as President of the Union, had no power. Abolitionists continued to press for a constitutional amendment outlawing slavery throughout the United States.
In fact, the conflict with Lincoln led to a split in his Republican Party before the 1864 elections with a faction of abolitionist Republicans nominating their own third-party presidential candidate, abolitionist Gen. John C. Fremont -- who had been the first Republican Party candidate for president in 1856 -- on a platform that called for constitutional amendments outlawing slavery and protecting the civil rights of former slaves. In response, Lincoln's Republican Party adopted a platform also supporting a constitutional amendment to end slavery. Fremont eventually withdrew from the race out of fear that his candidacy could throw the election to the Democrats who advocated a separate peace with the Confederacy under which slavery would continue. But pressure from Lincoln's left led directly to his going beyond the Emancipation Proclamation and supporting the complete abolition of slavery.
Enough on correcting Obama's history. Let's discuss the present. When discussing "compromise," Obama confuses means and ends. He elevates compromise to the level of a principle, rather than as a sometimes necessary tool in moving towards achieving principles. In fact, it's sometimes hard to determine if Obama has any particular principles at all, other than "compromise" and "bipartisanship" as an end in itself.
As a progressive, here are some principles that I believe in:
This Huffington Post writer -- while often critical of Obama's compromises -- does not unilaterally reject political compromise. (In fact, in my day job, I negotiate deals for a living and fully appreciate that compromise is often part of getting a deal closed.) In judging Obama's compromises, I ask two questions: (1) Does the compromise get us closer to implementing vital principles, even if we don't achieve those principles in a single step? (2) If so, is this the best deal that's possible or has Obama compromised more than necessary, or even given in not just on details but on principles?
Based on these criteria, I have often found Obama wanting. Obama's "compromise" principle follows a consistent pattern. His opening bid is to move more than halfway in the direction of Republican principles. When Republicans refuse to consider Obama's compromise proposals and take the economy hostage, Obama unilaterally offers up further compromises without getting anything back in return, which only encourages further Republican intransigence.
• When Obama first appointed his economic team, he did not appoint "a team of rivals" but a "team of Rubins," drawing all of his principal economic advisors from Wall Street's allies like Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Peter Orzag and Rahm Emanuel, rather than including some advisors with progressive views similar to those of Joe Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, or James Galbraith.
• Although Obama was advised that in order to bring unemployment under control, a stimulus package in the order of $1.2 trillion was needed, Obama's opening bid was on the order of $700 billion dollars. He then negotiated a package that was made up nearly half of unstimulative tax cuts. Rather than reducing the unemployment rate below 8% as Obama administration officials promised, unemployment is now 9.2% as the stimulus is coming to an end. This alone could lead to Obama's defeat in 2012.
• Rather than proposing Medicare For All, and then perhaps compromising on a health care reform package with a strong public option, Obama began with a health care plan modeled on Republican proposals originally set out by Bob Dole and implemented by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, then made backroom deals to give away the public option and to ban Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices.
• A few weeks before the BP oil spill, Obama proposed expanding offshore drilling in the hopes of gaining Republican support for the previously Republican idea of cap and trade. He gained no Republican support and a few weeks later, BP began gushing oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Meanwhile, with no Republican support for the Republican-originated cap and trade concept, it died a quiet death in the Senate.
• Rather than demanding that the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans expire at the end of 2010, Obama began his negotiations with Republicans by offering to extend the Bush tax cuts on everyone. Instead, he could have demanded the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans expire, and if Republicans failed to vote for this and allowed all the tax cuts to expire, gone to the American people and forced the Republicans to renew only the middle class tax cuts in the lame duck session.
• Obama's negotiations on the debt ceiling with Republican hostage-takers who threaten to blow up the economy if they don't get their way has been the most egregious of all. He offered up a plan made up of 75% spending cuts to 25% "revenue increases" (God forbid, not tax increases). When Republicans remained intransigent, he offered a plan with less than 10% revenue increases. Now he seems prepared to back a plan with all cuts and no guaranteed revenue increases, while cutting social security and Medicare. Moreover, he has adopted Republican talking points that reducing the deficit -- not growing jobs -- is the key to improving the economy.
One even begins to wonder if Obama doesn't view these points as "compromises" but actually has come to believe they represent the best policy. Has Obama now become captive to the conservative Washington consensus that the key to fixing the economy is austerity?
Obama's compromises fail the test. They don't move closer to implementing the Democratic principles that he should stand for. And they give away far too much, and fall far short of being the best compromises possible.
Chris Weigant: Another Debt Commission? Really?
House Leaders Call for Short-Term Rise in Debt Ceiling
Boehner Debt Plan Seeks Two Boosts of $1 Trillion and $1.6 Trillion
IMF urges swift lifting of US debt limit
Obama to Banks: We're Not Defaulting
Franc Reaches Record Versus Dollar on Debt Ceiling; Yen Rallies
Among House Republican freshmen, debt-ceiling uncertainty reigns
If it wasn't for the SC appointments I wouldn't care if he won or lost.
IMHO that is the question of the last two 1/2 years, and one which I doubt we will ever know the answer to.
The question you didn't ask was--"And what does it take for him to stand up for them?"
Keep up the good work.
Why did you ask? did you want Mr. Mogulescu to ship you some Kool-aid, come up with a catchy-catchy hocus -pocus slogan and find a huge batch of gullible people to vote for him?
That said , I believe Obama wants one thing more than anything else:comity.
While it is my opinion that some truly horrible people have taken control of the Republican party , the Republican party exists. Millions of (misguided) Americans subscribe to what they believe are it's principles. And what their leaders - in Washington , Wall Street , on the radio and TV , and , of course , in the pulpit feed on - and feed to the people is resentment and a kind of paranoia.
The leaders are beyond reaching , but the people are not. But they cannot be reached by isolating them , or treating them like the ugly stepchild.
Sure , he could say you're a bunch of ignorant fools , but how does that help the nation get over this madness? It would only feed it more.
I believe he is working towards a better America , not just a better deal.
Lincoln, of course, felt that he would lose border states and alienate large segments of the population if he moved too fast on the abolition issue. Though he personally loathed slavery, he didn't feel the country was ready for any radical moves in this direction. The Emancipation was as modest as he could make it. Were Lincoln's compromising tendencies unprincipled? Were they bad for the country?
Love him or despise him, Obama's writings and actions show him to be a student of Lincoln.
"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution... If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
I'd also like to know which country in the world is being governed with progressive principles. Some capture economic policy while pushing against racial equality. Others shout "PEACE" from the safety of the US's shadow. Still others tax their citizens "fairly" while serving as safe havens for the world's tax cheats.
As a progressive, I prefer progress over unproductive chants of principle. I celebrate successes while refusing to be satiated. And, like Republicans, I support MY elected leader; one who has spearheaded historical investment in "progressive" interests, passed numerous laws to protect some of the most ostracized among us, and led this country to almost a year and a half of continual job additions -all while working with a party whose leader said his most important priority is making Obama a one-term president.
I like your line, "As a progressive, I prefer progress over unproductive chants of principle. I celebrate successes while refusing to be satiated."
It's our duty as progressives to push our agenda, make noise & create discomfort but I won't let myself get an ulcer worrying that the president isn't nudging the wheel forward.