Barack Obama's Progressive Cannibalism

by Taylor Marsh

For months this has been going on. In fact, I was the first to point it out. Maybe the void of comment is why Barack Obama felt he could get away with attacking Paul Krugman, one of the leading thinkers in the progressive community. It's akin to going after Molly Ivins, but since she's gone, I guess Obama decided to take down one of the only progressive columnists that have our back. At issue isn't just the personal attack on Krugman because he dared to analyze Mr. Obama's health care plan, an analysis that was right on the money. The bottom line is that this proves what I've been saying for over 10 months: Barack Obama has no ideological compass. He doesn't care if it's a progressive honestly pointing out the flaws in a policy plan. All Obama cares about is the aura of him, because he has no ideological center, which he admitted himself, offering the first self-inflicted warning signal that all progressives should have picked up.

"I think that I have the capacity to get people to recognize themselves in each other. I think that I have the ability to make people get beyond some of the divisions that plague our society and to focus on common sense and reason and that's been in short supply over the last several years. I'm not an ideologue, never have been. Even during my younger days when I was tempted by, you know, sort of more radical or left wing politics, there was a part of me that always was a little bit conservative in that sense; that believes that you make progress by sitting down listening to people, recognizing everybody's concerns, seeing other people's points of views and then making decisions." - Barack Obama (on ABC's This Week)

It didn't start with Paul Krugman, though Obama's voracious appetite for anti-progressive attacks reached its crescendo with it. Obama's audacity of a smear against a leading progressive shows no political conscience whatsoever. This comes as no surprise to me. Skipping out and not being counted where it matters on the issues is what Obama's been doing all year.

Obama not being an ideologue explains so much, not only his Krugman attack, but also his revelation that Social Security is in "crisis," giving the Republicans the bone they've wanted for so long. Mr. Obama's ability to cannibalize the very essence of progressive policy by going to the right of our Democratic party foundation knows no bounds. From a DailyKos diary in 2005:

Too often, the "centrist" label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don't think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don't work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).

"Market-based ideas," hmmm, wonder what Mr. Obama is talking about? It's obvious. It's also a warning. Putting Social Security on the table, especially after progressives won that battle during the Bush era, is something no Democrat should swallow. It goes beyond not being an ideologue. It reveals that Obama doesn't care at all about anything Democratic, including one of the most important aspects of what makes us Democrats, Social Security.

So, of course, Mr. Obama has no compunction of going after the leading progressive economist, Paul Krugman, because Obama's loyalty is not to Democratic principles, but to his own agenda, which at it's core can be summed up in four words: Let's Make a Deal. Just look at the campaign's attack "Facts Page" on Krugman. Take this snippet:

THE PLAN

KRUGMAN THEN: Obama's Health Care Plan "Is Smart And Serious, Put Together By People Who Know What They're Doing." Paul Krugman wrote, "The Obama plan is smart and serious, put together by people who know what they're doing...So there's a lot to commend the Obama plan." [New York Times, 6/4/07]

KRUGMAN NOW: "The Fundamental Weakness Of The Obama Plan Was Apparent From The Beginning." Paul Krugman wrote, "The fundamental weakness of the Obama plan was apparent from the beginning." [New York Times, 11/30/07]

In the "then" section above there is another point completely left out of Obama's (ahem) "Fact Check" item:

Now for the bad news. Although Mr. Obama says he has a plan for universal health care, he actually doesn't -- a point Mr. Edwards made in last night's debate. The Obama plan doesn't mandate insurance for adults. So some people would take their chances -- and then end up receiving treatment at other people's expense when they ended up in emergency rooms. In that regard it's actually weaker than the Schwarzenegger plan.

I asked David Cutler, a Harvard economist who helped put together the Obama plan, about this omission. His answer was that Mr. Obama is reluctant to impose a mandate that might not be enforceable, and that he hopes -- based, to be fair, on some estimates by Mr. Cutler and others -- that a combination of subsidies and outreach can get all but a tiny fraction of the population insured without a mandate. Call it the timidity of hope. ... ..

There is no "then" and "now" with Krugman. But you wouldn't know that from Obama's "facts" because the only goal is to cannibalize a progressive who dares rebut Obama's health care spin with the truth. Obama puts himself above a progressive with unquestioned liberal bona fides; someone who stands alone in the rhetorical world. It's not like we have a lot of op-ed contributors taking up the progressive cause in newspapers across this country. To attack a leading liberal economic writer from The New York Times makes it worse.

But Mr. Obama has never had any trouble going to the right to attack his own. There was the "Bush-Cheney lite" slam against Clinton. Now you don't have to like Hillary Clinton to understand you don't ever use right-wing talking points to attack a fellow Democrat. There was Mr. Obama ducking out on being counted on the MoveOn.org ad. But who can forget his ducking the Kyl-Lieberman vote? His campaign didn't even release a statement on it until late at night; then at the next debate when John Edwards went on the attack against Clinton on the vote, Obama stood absolutely mute. He didn't even bring it up until much later, when it was politically popular to attack on it. Never mind that he supported a similar piece of legislation earlier in the year.

Barack Obama has no intuitive passion on policy. He doesn't react reflexively. He only reacts after it's found to be politically advantageous or when his own image is in question. Look what he did with the Robert Novak rumor column. Obama turned, repeating Novak's swill, attacking a Democrat, even after the Clinton campaign emphatically denied any involvement. The truth didn't matter. It also didn't matter that there was no sourcing whatsoever on his column. The fact that it was Robert Novak didn't phase Mr. Obama. The reality that Robert Novak does nothing unless it benefits Republicans eluded Obama. If he could help himself by parroting the Plamegate traitor it was a no brainer for him.

It's like Obama's Donnie McClurkin politics of convenience. It didn't matter that the reverend believes in "conversion" therapy for gays and lesbians. Obama can simply make a statement about his support for the gay and lesbian community. Actions don't matter. After all, Obama needs to get elected and he will stand with anyone who can help him do it.

It doesn't matter that in the Illinois state senate, when votes on choice came up, instead of voting on principle, Mr. Obama voted to give others cover, because he was afraid a no vote might be too harsh for colleagues. Voting "present" on matters of choice instead of standing up was his out. It helped that Planned Parenthood and NOW got his back. But giving cover for conservatives on choice, while not standing up on principle for women voting no on legislation that basically gives fetuses more rights than a woman isn't a profile in courage. It's the politics of convenience. That it is a slap to a woman's civil rights to vote "present" on an important policy matter on principle never occurred to Mr. Obama.

So why not bring Oprah into a non-union house in New Hampshire? As an aside, Oprah runs a completely non-union house herself through her television show. Do unions matter anymore to Democrats? It depends which Democrat your eyeing. The AFL-CIO has his back on that one too, obviously taking his word that he supports them, even though his actions belie the fact. Again, like McClurkin and his "present" vote on choice and civil rights matters for women, as well as his "market-based" ideas that include Republican plans, even on Social Security, he can always just make a statement, and his charm will mollify the masses.

It helps that the traditional press is blindly swallowing Obama's spiel. What do they care? It's not the Democratic and progressive agenda at stake for them. But make no mistake about it, it is for us.

The bottom line is that Barack Obama doesn't cast votes or make a stance and fight on the hill of Democratic principles. He is not an ideologue by his own confession. He's a deal maker. But let's face it all politicians are in the end. However, most passionate progressives don't go into a room after signaling first that all items are on the table. Obama is, while also being willing to do whatever he can to get elected, cannibalizing his own and our ideals as he goes; bringing as many people along as he can, including conservatives who will have no allegiance to what progressives have worked for over decades to achieve. That's because Obama's loyalties are not to Democratic or progressive causes.

That's why Mr. Obama had no problem whatsoever taking out after Paul Krugman, the leading progressive writer we have fighting the fight for Democratic causes, economic and social, every day. Good thing Molly Ivins is no longer around, because she would likely be next.

Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh

Comments

[TheSecularist]

Mmmm..., let's see: Hillary will "mandate" health insurance for all. "Middle America, you'd better buy health insurance or else!" What kind of "plan" is that? Why don't we mandate homes for all? That'll solve our homeless problem. Let's mandate employment for the jobless; that'll take care of those lazy unemployed people who obviously aren't looking for a job. How about we mandate that everybody buy food for their kids; that would solve the school lunch problem. Rather than Obama using the Republican tactics, it is Hillary Clinton and her New York Times smear machine who are using the play book. Krugman's defense of Hill's mandate "plan" made no sense at all.

[charliemudcat]

I may be naïve, but I am at a loss as to why the solid left that represents Krugman and Klein are so uncomfortable with Obama’s language. I don’t believe he is “adopting rightwing talking points” or language identified with the Bushies. What he does do to a refreshing extent is avoid the left wing language that has dominated over the past several years and has become increasingly shrill.

At the risk of sounding a bit like Rodney King, I think if everyone settles down and looks at this with a bit less passion, we would all find things to agree on here.

Obama’s health plan should perhaps have mandates. Or not. In my mind as a rank and file voter, it makes no difference. The plan that gets passed is the one I care about. Obviously, I want it to have the right elements to offer the most universality. I think both Krugman and Obama would agree on that. Where the waters get muddy is when you talk about what will end up in a final bill. Well, excuse me for stating the obvious, but that depends a lot on what Congress looks like in ’08, how the legislation is crafted, who is seated at the table and how skilled the negotiator is.

After watching him closely over the past several months, I believe he will get passed what he can, as would any of his competitors. I don’t believe he is less liberal—just less polarizing.

You all seem to want to call him out on his liberal cred. Well, I think he’s got it. He certainly has more credibility as a liberal than Clinton or Edwards does in my mind. On the environment, he’s rated higher than Clinton at 100 for the past two years by the League of Conservation Voters. One year Edwards got a dismal 30-something.

The National Journal rates him more liberal than either Clinton now or Edwards when he was in the Senate.

[Kane]

Before you nominate Paul Krugman to the position of sainthood, perhaps you should remember how he cannibalised progressives for standing against NAFTA. Or perhaps you forget Krugman rationalizing his support for NAFTA by writing, "The opponents of NAFTA are telling malicious whoppers, while the supporters are only telling little white lies."

That's right. Krugman was on the wrong side of NAFTA. The biggest economic blunder in modern times which would expand the gap between the haves and have-nots in America, and Krugman writes, "So let's cut out the hype and see NAFTA as it really is: an agreement that will have almost no visible effect on the U.S. economy."

And now Krugman argues that insurance mandates wont harm the poor and middle class, despite the fact that the insurance companies will be in the middle of it all.

I knew Molly Ivins. Molly Ivins was a friend of mine. And Ms Marsh, Paul Krugman is no Molly Ivins.

[Dantheman99]

There is nothing wrong with a healthcare mandate. There is nothing wrong with mandates in principle. Taxes are a mandate. Can you imagine if the super-wealthy could "volunteer" whether or not to pay taxes.

Automobile Insurance is a mandate out here in California and that's a good thing.

Social Security is a mandate despite

The single-payer health care system I support is a mandate.

Obama's OWN plan has mandates for Children. The only real question is why young, healthy people should be able to opt out, making health care more expensive for everyone else. That's ridiculous.

Give everyone a voucher if necessary, but whatever we have, everyone has to participate.

Without that commitment to universality, it doesn't matter what weak cost controls are proposed.

Until a healthcare plan is universal and includes everyone and excludes no one it is weak and a different candidate should be chosen -- Kucinich or Edwards of the top 3.

[dmc2]

I'd invite Taylor Marsh to take a look at any of the Senate ranking services. According to Irregular times, Obama's "Progressive Ranking" is exceeded only by Leahy and Feingold.

http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/110byranking.html

What Marsh, Krugman, et. al, really don't seem to like is that Obama is a progressive who thinks for himself -- who doesn't tow the progressive line across the board.

Their point might have validity if they could point to the success of their orthodoxy in bringing about progressive change at the national level. But they can't. In fact, I can't point to one single progressive that has even won the Democratic nomination, much less the White House. The only remotely liberal Democrat to have won the White House in the past 40 years was a Southern evangelist.

But some of us are pointing to the Democratic gains in 2006 as a sign that "now is the time to really stick it to these Republicans, not compromise with them." From what I understand, however, very few of the new Democrats who put us over the top in Congress won by subscribing to this progressive orthodoxy either.

So why the pressure on Barack to adopt a losing strategy? Is that what we want in November, to be looking forward to four to eight more years of Republican rule because Paul Krugman says that our nominee must stand for forcing people to buy health insurance? Or because Paul Krugman somehow knows for an absolute fact that I'm going to be able to collect Social Security when I retire in 30 years? Or because certain GLBT leaders can't exist in a political tent that also includes an "ex-gay" evangelical gospel singer?

Barack Obama is smart enough to know that you don't build a new progressive majority by covering your ears to any idea that doesn't fit within the orthodoxy and refusing to talk to or work with anyone who doesn't subscribe to all of it.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

This post is unnecessarily acerbic. I'm a huge fan of Paul Krugman *and* I support Barack Obama for President. I cringe when I read Krugman's columns criticizing Obama-- because they're probably true. I trust Krugmans' judgment and accuracy. However, since a little-- no, a lot-- of skepticism is (almost) always a good thing, I also wonder if Krugman has other motives for singling out Obama for criticism.

It's quite apparent Obama is not liberal enough for most liberals.

But Hillary Clinton *is* liberal enough?

If Obama's supporters were to flee to Kucinich, that would make sense. But attacking Obama, unless it's for his relative lack of experience, should *never* help Clinton. Not only is she less liberal, she's also more divisive. She wouldn't be able to get much done, even if she did have a more liberal plan for America.

I actually like Hillary and would support her. But her current supporters often make no sense. First they attack Obama for not being liberal enough, then they say we should support the candidate whose last name is associated with Marriage of Defense Act, Welfare Reform, Sister Souljah, Carville, triangulation, globalization, NAFTA, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War and the (potential) Iran War.

[ystasino]

Individual mandates are what Mitt and Arnold want:

"The individual mandate create some additional problems, at least as we analyze them. It makes it very difficult to determine and monitor who is in the system and who is out. It would require tracking individuals as they move in and out of jobs, as they move in and out of the insurance market. And it would mean, if you provided a subsidy scheme to support low-wage individuals, a determination as to when their income reached some arbitrary level as to what kind of subsidy they would still be entitled to. It would require, in our view, the IRS to engage in an enormous administrative oversight of our health care system." - HRC, 1993

[ystasino]

Hillary in 1993 on mandates

"The individual mandate create some additional problems, at least as we analyze them. It makes it very difficult to determine and monitor who is in the system and who is out. It would require tracking individuals as they move in and out of jobs, as they move in and out of the insurance market. And it would mean, if you provided a subsidy scheme to support low-wage individuals, a determination as to when their income reached some arbitrary level as to what kind of subsidy they would still be entitled to. It would require, in our view, the IRS to engage in an enormous administrative oversight of our health care system."

[click212]

Thank you, yes this is something I've been aware of and I wonder why the pundits don't pick up on that aside from you. I wonder why the MSM is so ready to give Obama all the rope he needs. Maybe because he's their golden boy and he will keep the status quo, alive and well.

How blind are we, let me count the ways.

[MacTheBlogger]

Two things:

First, the writer's knee-jerk hatred of all things free market is amusing. I realize that, to "progressives", government bureaucracy is the all-healing panacea to every problem imaginable, but she's a bit over the top. I wish the "progressives" would have a bit more faith in the individual. Why they are so willing to hand so much power and influence to a government is a mystery.

Second, the fact that a politician is NOT a partisan sheep, NOT a robotic ideologue, should be considered a GOOD thing. The FACT is, both the Left AND the Right have good ideas, and we should look to take the best of both when dealing with problems. This simplistic winner-takes-all, one-size-fits-all mentality that has paralyzed the political process is childish and destructive. Nice to see that Obama has an open mind.

We need less partisan sheepism and more mature reason and cooperation. Obviously this writer disagrees.

[itsnotmyfault]

Obama presents an attractive political package. He is bright, articulate, well mannered for public discourse and ... for me has been a bit troubling. What has been said by Ms. Marsh rings all too true. And to be truly mean spirited about it I think Obama is overwhelmed with infatuation for himself which trumps all consideration for the issues of substance which so vitally need to be addressed now.

My sense about him started early on when he incessantly harped his anti Iraq from even before the beginning position. But look at his actual record regarding Iraq, once the war began and he has failed miserably to distinguish himself in any substantive way from any of the other Democratic candidates.

His willingness to cannabilize his own by his rightwing attack strategy against his Democratic opponents, and in a very real way beginning the heavy lifting for the GOP in the national campaign smacks of a sense that his becoming the nominee is more important than assuring any Democrat is victorious in '08.

And a really small point. Admittedly Hillary pointing toward some first grade paper Obama wrote indicating his desire to be President... really inane. But Obama claiming his overseas experience when he was 8,9 & 10 qualifies him as experienced in foriegn affairs...even stupider. Its like what was said about our current idiot in the whitehouse...his qualifying experience in foriegn affairs...he once ate at an International House of Pancakes.

[nightslider]

good lord Obama flapping his pretty smile again? all the while pontificating hot air, this is no surprise.And all the while the Naderites are rubbing their grasshopoper legs together and producing chirpy sounds.
Thats all they are capable of doing; witness the task of actually reading krugmans analysis's of Obamas latest plan that; isnt a plan, but a copy of someone eles's efforts. (Edwards)

But hey! when your intellectually challenged anything is permissive, just smiling like a sock puppet works> OBAMA IS A BAAAAADDD CHOICE for dogcatcher, why would you let him near the Oval office? so he can make a deal??

[PeaceCzar]

It's easiest to just quote Paul Krugman's closing remarks in his column on Obama:

"I’d add, however, a further concern... Mr. Obama just isn’t that serious about achieving universal care — that he introduced a plan because he had to, but that EVERY TIME THERE'S A HARD CHOICE TO BE MADE HE COMES DOWN ON THE SIDE OF DOING LESS."

SNAP!!

Obama's missed something like 25% of his votes in the Senate, he is certainly no trailblazer, and he brings hope & change? Good gracious...

[trumpcoward]

Yes. Finally someone on the Huffpo gets it.

While I oppose Obama's ideological fuzziness from a policy position and not a political position (Ms. Marsh seems to be a HRC supporter, and I am not), she is dead right about Obama. To me, a candidate's stand on healthcare and SS are a barometer for that person's progressive bona fides. Obama not only fails on these policies but proves himself more interested in political posturing than doing whats right. Most all liberal healthcare experts believe that a mandate is necessary, and without it, not only are you creating a poor system but also ensuring insurance companies will continue to dominate.

However, what is more scary are all of the reflexive Obama supporters on this site. Why do you support Obama? Is it because his face is on every magazine? Or is it because he seems so nice? Maybe it because most of the "liberals" here are more interested in happy stories than policy and politics. Well, for my money, Edwards has much better policies and is much more likely to win in the general election. But a Obama does seem nice.

[cynara]

"The bottom line is that Barack Obama doesn't cast votes or make a stance and fight on the hill of Democratic principles. "

This is my biggest problem with Barack Obama AND Hillary Clinton. They talk a good game, but what bills to end the Iraqi occupation or save the constitution have they sponsored? And what bad bills - to give immunity to telephone companies or give money to Bush with no strings attached to continue the Iraq war have they lead the fight against.

I want a leader of the United States who LEADS, with principles and ideas. Not a politician who follows the polls.