A Message to Obama's Progressive Critics
Five short weeks ago, Barack Obama won a decisive victory against John McCain - winning 365 electoral votes to McCain's 173 and winning the popular vote by 9 million - the largest popular vote margin ever for a non-incumbent.
After a strategy of expanding the electoral map, nine states that George Bush won in 2004, went to Obama - some by significant margins. The Obama victory changed the course of politics - from a candidate who bucked the system saying no to PAC and lobbyist money, to a disciplined campaign, tht beat expectations at every turn, building an unprecedented grassroots movement and raising record sums of money that dwarfed his Republican opponent. Campaigns in this country will never be the same.
Now comes the hard part - assuming the presidency at a time when there are more major problems facing our country and the world than at the beginning of any administration. Our economy is in shambles, affecting people at every income level. Nearly 500,000 jobs were lost during November alone. Retirement and investment accounts were shattered as the Stock Market dropped by historic proportions. Record numbers of families are being forced from their homes. Banks are hardly making loans to anyone right now. Auto manufactures and auto dealers have seen their sales drop between 30 and 40 percent.
We have a war with Iraq that needs an exit strategy and attention by our new president and his foreign policy team. There is unrest with Iran, Pakistan, North Korea and a host of other countries. We desperately need to repair our Nation's reputation around the world. And we need to do all we can to protect our soldiers overseas and our people here at home.
Nearly fifty million Americans have no health insurance, left vulnerable and one catastrophe away from bankruptcy or worse yet, death. This number will increase if we see unemployment continue to grow.
Every day that goes by, where the U.S. and other countries fail to stop the irreparable damage of global warming, is a day closer to changes in climate that we may never gain back.
I could go on and on. The point I'm making here is that our new president, the Congress and all Americans must come together to solve these problems. This is not a time for the left wing of our Party to draw conclusions about the Cabinet and White House appointments that President-Elect Obama is making. Some believe the appointments generally aren't progressive enough. Having worked with former Senator Obama for the last two years, I can tell you, that isn't the way he thinks and it's not likely the way he will lead. The problems I mentioned above and the many I didn't, suggest that our president surround himself with the most qualified people to address these challenges. After all, he was elected to be the president of all the people - not just those on the left.
As a liberal member of our Party, I hope and expect our new president to address those issues that will benefit the vast majority of Americans first and foremost. That's his job. Over time, there will be many, many issues that come before him. But first let's get our economy moving, bring our troops home safely, fix health care, end climate change and restore our place in the world. What a great president Barack Obama will be if he can work with Congress and the American people to make great strides in these very difficult times.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
As pointed out, these terms, liberal, conservative, progressive, are just another "divide and conquer" strategy. As what many would consider a radical, I do not feel represented in the discussion of progressive values. As a radical, my major departing value is around energy, both where we get it and how we use it.
For me, I see the nuclear issue as the difference between real progressive values and everything else. I admit I am passionate and ideological on this issue, and now am seeing it being allowed "on the tabe" for consideration in the Obama administration.
No. That is the line. There are no reasonable reasons to go nuclear, even if the promises about being carbon-free were true.
There are ideologues on both sides of the issue, but the only ones being admitted in to the White House appear to be those Ideologically in favor. Guess what kind of proposals he'll get.
Nuclear is an economical black hole and produces waste that, while bad in its own right, also happens to be a coveted technology for developing nuclear weapons.
We need to set a better example, and show we can use conservation and renewable energies to meet our needs.
And re-evaluate what our needs really are.
The entire debate on Obama's appointments misses the major point. What Obama is trying to do is to achieve a balance of viewpoints for his decision-making. What he is actually achieving is a balance of current political viewpoints. The Democratic Party has moved to slightly left of center in recent years while the Republican Party has moved further to the right. A political balance will thus end up to the right of center. Unfortunately nature does not give a damn about our current political views. What is important to achieve a true balance is to have the issues confronting our country represented by a true balance of ideas. This is necessary for effective decision-making. Obama's appointments to date do not reflect this. The ideas are out there for true debate. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is correct to be concerned with what they are seeing. Effective government in these tumultuous times will require programs to solve long-term problems and not get along in the short-term.
"The problems I mentioned above and the many I didn't, suggest that our president surround himself with the most qualified people to address these challenges." Nice reasoning. Conservative= better qualified. Progressive=less qualified. Jeez, why didn't you just go to work for Bush? Is this what we contributed our money and time for? What's next, is Barack going to re-nominate Monica Goodling to pick prosecutors who have the right Christian values and aren't lesbians?
Who during the campaign described Obama as a hyper-liberal? It wasn't Obama. It wasn't even the Democratic Party. It was McCain/Palin, the RNC. and guys like Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Riley. So Progressives suddenly started believing folks that they consistently regard as habitual liars like Limbaugh, O'Riley and Hannity when they descirbed Obama as super-liberal?
I couldn't agree more.
My own original retort this post was censored. It mainly pointed out:
* that Obama has left out the rehabilitation of 2 million incarcerees and uplift of some 50 million other lower middle class and poor Americans (who are "doing time" leading lives of quiet desperation) from his "change" agenda;
* that Barack appears to primarily be oriented to restoring the (Clintonian) status quo ante Bush and running the country and the world on behalf of the same old oligarchal interests, but more moderately and with a human face; and
* that if present trends continue our country might continue its slide into fascism while self-regarding itself as nominally "progressive".
It's the truth about our Not-Great Society and its new leader that either Hildebrand personally or someone else at HuffPost thinks is hell.
Barack had the chance to create a dynamic genuine "public interest presidency" as committed to the common good as Bush's has been to the private interests of the privileged few. But that is NOT what he's about and his appointment of a slew of establishmentarian centrist mediocrities shows it. He says he wants a "team of rivals" but is personally uncomfortable having anyone near him who is remotely to his left. (It's a reprise of his Harvard Law Review tenure where he appointed conservatives to senior editorships over minorities and liberals.)
The sad truth is that Obama is headed for a desultory presidency, one of his own making.
Eric C. Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, California
You don't know that...none of us do. I am surprised that an attorney would make such a conjecture and one that is based on very flimsy evidence. It is most assuredly not who Obama picks for his cabinet positions, but the fact that they will carry out the policies and the vision he has for the country.
And that country is in crisis. You first of all need seasoned, experienced personnel, and secondly you need to base your choices on sound judgment not ideological purpose. Another thing that many of us Liberals or Progressives forget is that it will take all of us to extricate ourselves from the Bush morass and to restore the foundational footing of our country. And as well that there will be second and third tier choices who will most likely be more productive in achieving that end than the more visable, figurehead, senior cabinet picks.
Give the man time to show you what he intends to accomplish. If he can do that with a diverse group of people and ultimately all of us in partnership, does it matter that you consider particular cabinet members as less progressive than you'd like? Many people of various political stripes are interested in the common good of this country...if there is that common denominator which we seek, it is that we are all Americans first.
2000 responses to this post, and I am wondering, how do you define: Progressive? Liberal? Are they synonyms? If not, do they meet somewhere in policy and/or ideals? Can you give examples of legislation that you would consider progressive? How about liberal legislation that is not necessarily progressive? Is there such a thing? Which Senators or Representatives do you think are liberal? Progressive? Both, perhaps?
I ask all this because I think much of the disagreement that is going on is in our definitions, more so than in Obama's actions.
That comment seems like a good summary. To which I'd like to add this:
Traditionally it is people who are afraid of thinking and speaking for themselves who prefer labels over action. Traditionally it has been the Republicans use abels to divide Americans.
I am not suggesting that those who are proud to adhere to such labels are afraid of thinking for themselves. I am, however, suggesting that those who are having convulsions about the President-elect's Cabinet do not have any evidence for drawing the laughably distraught conclusions about President Obama's administration, simply because there is no Obama administration yet.
Question authority, remain skeptical, but remember first you need some guise of real authority to define your embryonic gripes before posing questions or announcing skepticism about an Obama administration. Otherwise, being disingenuous is required to believe that words, after all, mean more than actions. President Obama has taken no action.
And at this point, I'd rather be disingenuous than hysterical and conclusory like so many of the comments.
Finally, in 2008, "Left-wing," Liberal," "progressive," "conservative," etc., and are not meaningful to sincere and intelligent debate. So shame on you Mr. Hildebrand for riling up this frenzy.
The only meaningful criterion for a President in 2008 is whether you are a "pragmatist" or "ideologue." Bush is an ideologue. Obama is a pragmatist. Progressives should be pragmatists, by definition. But it doesn't matter where you are on the political spectrum in order to qualify as an ideologue.
Left, right, center who gives a damn? Most of us just want to eat....
To the lawyer who posted above...People in jail eat every day, and don't have to pay rent so I think we can get to their problems down the line...
A renewed Justice Department might be helpful to those who actually shouldn't be inmates...
But I've seen enough "Lockup" to know not everyone can be rehabilitiated...
And it might also be nice to see some of that health reform policy go to helping low and moderate income mentally ill folks get some help...might keep the jails a little less crowded...
Mr. Hildebrand, you say that "now" is not the time for the "left wing" of the party to draw "conclusions" about Obama's picks for his cabinet.
Here is the problem with your request. It is misaddressed. The person you want to address is Mr. Barack Obama since it was he who raised questions about about Hillary's fitness to serve in a foreign policy capacity and it was he who concluded that she lacked judgment.
Moreover, it is not the "left wing" of the party that opposed Hillary's foreign policy. The war in Iraq which Hillary supported and supports to this day and supported during the primaries was opposed by 2 out of 3 Americans and the 30% who supported the war tended to be Bush republicans. IOW, the entire democratic party opposed the war, with the exception of the DLC extremists in the center who congregated around Hillaryd and will be serving with her as advisers at State.
Nor was it the left wing of the party which brought up Obama's previous judgment of Hillary's fitness at the press conference following Obama's choice. The press brought it up to which Obama replied "The press is going to have fun with this and that is what you are now doing.... you are having fun".
Not my idea of fun at all.
It's never a bad time to question authority.
sorry, steve,but, us 'liberal lefties' have gotten the shaft from both parties for too long. you want our votes ,but not our issues. you want our support and donations,but,you give us no voice in cabinet positions. ESPECIALLY when it comes to foreign policy. and, by the way, we ALL know hillary was not the 'best and brightest' pick, for SOS. that was an obvious 'politics of the past' 'deal', to get her and bill to campaign for barack. you're making a big mistake throwing the left under the bus. if barack wants to be successful, he had better not turn on us.
I cant help feeling we were placated to get him elected and we got a MCCain presidentcy after all. I guess we wanted a voice in this adminstration , thought we had one, but dont..We really wanted a JFK president and it looks like we get a Reagan president.. We cant afford anymore republican policies..The world has had enough of that..
"This is not a time for the left wing of our Party to draw conclusions about the Cabinet and White House appointments that President-Elect Obama is making."
That's fair, but I note you make no indication about when IS an appropriate time to criticize the choices Obama makes.
The left has a place, Steve. It's our job to hold the party's feet to the fire and make sure it delivers on its promises. Don't forget that it was Clinton who gave us Don't Ask, Don't Tell and signed anti-consumer legislation like the DMCA and the Telecommunications Act into law (to say nothing of VP-elect Biden's role in those travesties), and it's a Democratic Congress that his spent the past two years kissing Bush's ass and offering only the barest token resistance to a President whose approval rating is below 30%.
So, all right, I'm willing to bite my tongue and not criticize President-elect Obama until he actually assumes office. Fair's fair.
But once he assumes office, don't you dare tell me to sit down and shut up and accept everything he does. I have high hopes for him, but when he disappoints me I'm going to say so.
The liberals are here to keep the Democratic Party honest. It's fair for you to say "Hang on a minute," but come Inauguration Day, you need to stop saying "Shut up" and start saying "Thank you."
I'm as lefty liberal as they come, but I don't share your "when he disappoints me" attitude as it's self-fulfilling--you'll be disappointed because you've already decided to be so. Obama's going to do things I don't like and I'll voice my opinion too, but I'm going to do so after researching what the options were and possible outcomes. I'm liberal because of my view of fairness in the world--not because of ideology. Liberal idealogues are really no better than conservative ones in that they operate from a perspective of how they think the world should be rather than how it really is. We need to move past ideology to pragmatic decision-making based on what IS.
you are not as lefty-liberal as they come.
Excellent post.
1) Sets Context
[
Five short weeks ago, Barack Obama won a decisive victory against John McCain ... the largest popular vote margin ever for a non-incumbent.
After a strategy of expanding the electoral map, nine states that George Bush won in 2004, went to Obama ... The Obama victory changed the course of politics - from a candidate who bucked the system saying no to PAC and lobbyist money, to a disciplined campaign ...
]
2) Identifies Challenges & Goals
[
Now comes the hard part - assuming the presidency at a time when there are more major problems facing our country and the world than at the beginning of any administration.
]
3) Proposes Method Of Achieving Goals
[
Our new president, the Congress and all Americans must come together to solve these problems. Some believe the appointments generally aren't progressive enough. Having worked with former Senator Obama for the last two years, I can tell you, that isn't the way he thinks and it's not likely the way he will lead.
]
I want to add that President Obama will be more effective BECAUSE he selects his employees by skill and knowledge, not personality type and past affiliation. We have seen the effects of strict party-line employment practices for eight years, and they have been instrumental in the Bush administration's miserable failure. The "Left," of all groups, knows this and should quit whining about not having their guys heading every agency and bureau. Grassroots effort
First of all, Obama never turned his back on PACs -- he broke that promise early on in the primaries -- and the claim that the major share of his funding came from the grass roots has been shown to be pure myth by a recently released campaign funding study.
More so than a call to unity, this editorial reads like an attempt to silence the voice of true progressives while promoting Obama as something he is not -- a leader independent of his own corporatist and PAC controllers. His handlers are turning out to be a consortium of neoconservatives and neoliberals, two sides of the same coin; that is, if those grand paradigms can accurately be defined meaningfully beyond the base goals and objectives of free market capitalism and its exploitations wearing the lipstick of Kissingerian "Realpolitik."
By the way, Kissinger loves Obama. Now that's a red flag in itself. Brzezinski is ecstatic. We're sending a surge to Afghanistan to make sure the pipeline routes are secure and still calling it a "war on terrorism." The "Big Game" is on as never before (Google it) and we are calling this "change"? Get real! And now we're going into Africa (if you've been paying close attention you can see it happening before your very eyes).
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Disingenuous from beginning to end.
[
First of all, Obama never turned his back on PACs
]
His promise was that PACs will not set his policies, not that they are not allowed to help him get elected.
[
His handlers are turning out to be a consortium of neoconservatives and neoliberals, two sides of the same coin; that is, if those grand paradigms can accurately be defined meaningfully beyond the base goals and objectives of free market capitalism and its exploitations wearing the lipstick of Kissingerian "Realpolitik."
]
Your jargon is more obscure, but that false association with persons and ill-defined ideologies echoes the McCain campaign's smear tactics, which drove polls down with each attempt. I found that extremely entertaining, and cause for rational hope for the typical US voter, after all.
The average GOP voter, however, did not choose Ron Paul and can ki$$ my a$$.
[
By the way, Kissinger loves Obama. Now that's a red flag in itself.
]
Kissinger is a partisan hack who the MSM cynically grants the status "qualified professional" for their only purpose, audience-expansion via scandal and partisan/ideological *personal* suspicion. He mouths off about liking Obama for the single purpose of giving lemmings like you fodder for your baseless speculation.
Is reason a left wing idea? Civil rights? The Constitution? Sensible management of the Earth and its resources? How about opportunity for everyone, and not just the rich and powerful? Science, biology, and fact-based decisions? Is it a liberal agenda to plan for the future, and not just the next election?
Then call me a Left wing Loon.
You forget he reneged on his public financing pledge and that his donations were mainly BIG FAT CATS and that he neglected to keep track of exactly who contributed...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
