More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Tom Christopher

GET UPDATES FROM Tom Christopher
 

Obama's Surrender and a Progressive Path Forward

Posted: 08/03/11 04:20 PM ET

Facing Down the Tea Party

This year is, as every American must know by now, the 150th anniversary of the outbreak of the Civil War; after a century and a half, the conflict still seems far from over. In fact, there is a striking similarity between the events that led up to the attack on Fort Sumter and the current war of the Right on the Federal Government. Now as then, an intransigent block of political and social reactionaries has committed itself to ending governance at the national level unless it is allowed to dictate policy in every particular.

The response of President Obama to this challenge has been utterly different from that of President Lincoln. Obama let the reactionaries dictate the agenda for negotiations and this week he surrendered -- unconditionally, if the truth be told.

He, understandably, was unwilling to confront the kind of crisis that a stronger response would have precipitated.

Abraham Lincoln was not, and what ensued is instructive. The 37th Congress, the one that sat from March 4, 1861 to March 4, 1863, was arguably, the most progressive in our history. During these two years Congress passed bills which went far toward setting the stage for America's extraordinary national expansion over the next century. It was the 37th Congress that passed the Homestead Act, which eventually transferred 270 million acres of public lands into the hands of farming families and helped to make our nation's food supply the most bountiful in the world. The 37th Congress also established a Department of Agriculture to provide these farmers with improved crop varieties and conduct research into more effective agricultural tools and techniques. This same congress voted to fund the transcontinental railroad, which bound together east with west and gave birth new communities and industries across the continent; it also passed the Morrill Land Grant Colleges Act, which established our system of state universities, making higher education available to ordinary citizens. Not content with these revolutionary initiatives, this dynamic legislature also created the foundation for our first truly national currency, the underpinning of a modern economy.

Similar legislation had been introduced before 1861, but had been blocked every time by an intransigent block of reactionary representatives and senators from the South. When the nation rejected the reactionaries' agenda through the election of Abraham Lincoln, they made good on their threats and plunged the country into a hugely destructive crisis. But it was this crisis that enabled the nation to break free from the social and political gridlock of the prewar years and realize its true potential.

If we are ever to confront such crucial contemporary challenges such as unemployment, the need for health care reform, and global climate change, we need to face down the minority that is using parliamentary chicanery to block constructive debate and legislation. The Tea Partiers may make good on their threats to bring on a crisis. But perhaps, as in 1861, that is the only road to a political recalibration and national progress.


 
Facing Down the Tea Party This year is, as every American must know by now, the 150th anniversary of the outbreak of the Civil War; after a century and a half, the conflict still seems far from over.
Facing Down the Tea Party This year is, as every American must know by now, the 150th anniversary of the outbreak of the Civil War; after a century and a half, the conflict still seems far from over.
 
 
  • Comments
  • 46
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
02:52 PM on 08/06/2011
I, for one, think the civil war was a mistake. We should have let the south secede and have the feudal society that they wanted. I read something this morning that makes sense to me: blue states should join Canada, and let the red states stew in their own juices. At what point does keeping the United States united stop making sense?
08:19 AM on 08/04/2011
The first word that comes out of people's mouths when something atrocious happens in government is Obama! It is funny that while I see very well laid out arguments made by people with an extensive political knowledge, they still think that Obama had any power over it happening or not. The executive branch of government is little more than congress' scapegoat. He can propose shit all he wants but has no power over these idiots in congress who are more frequently reverting to the refusal of negotiations to try and get what they want. It's time WE the people look to more than extremist left or extremist right for out answers, I know very few people who could be described as either . Most of us lie somewhere in the middle, why the hell can't we have politicians that do as well? Sure third parties aren't going to cradle your balls, kiss your ass, and make promises they can't keep just to get votes because they don't have nearly as many people whispering in their ear while they stuff bills into their pocket. Money is already power in our economic system, and now it's the only way to get political power as well. It's time to lay these political parties to rest, neither of them are the answer and they are NOT the only option. Whyyy do we just keep choosing the "lesser of two evils"?
12:28 AM on 08/04/2011
Wrong guy in the White House
02:11 AM on 08/04/2011
Most true. Incapable of grasping the power and responsibility of the executive branch of government.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MUDPUPPY
12:20 AM on 08/04/2011
Our "unifier" has divided our nation more than it has ever been divided.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
paddles
"pro" not "re" gressive
08:04 AM on 08/05/2011
You mean Baby Bush? Yes, he certainly did.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MUDPUPPY
12:19 AM on 08/04/2011
It will be interesting to see how many that vote in 1012 have never voted before. Candidates had better consider that.
02:54 PM on 08/06/2011
The 1012 election? Was that in medieval England?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Awake-and-Sing
named after a great play written by Clifford Odets
08:06 PM on 08/03/2011
I'm not even sure if the Civil War was worth fighting.

Let them go form their third world theocracy where a few wealthy families hold all economic and political power, "Rev." Pat Roberston is named Secretary of Religion, and education is very low but everyone owns a gun.
10:28 PM on 08/03/2011
Without the Civil War, Northern industrialists would never have become rich enough to won the government. Their descendants would thus consider all that blood well spent on their behalf.
06:35 PM on 08/03/2011
"Obama let the reactionaries dictate the agenda for negotiations and this week he surrendered -- unconditionally, if the truth be told."
Yes, he capitulated on this issue just like he has every single time there has been stout opposition, starting with taking the public option off of the table in very beginning of the health care fight, rolling over and playing dead on the Bush tax cut extension, not requiring that there actually be some revenue increases in the debt bill, etc. The TEAvangelicals know that all they have to do is wait him out and he will cave. The man has no backbone!! He tries too hard to get concensus, and then refuses to draw a line in the sand. As on of the other comments notes, you sometimes have to get a little bloodied in fighting back. President Obama won't. And the middle class pays the price.
gmikejake
resist evil
05:59 PM on 08/03/2011
Thank you Tom Christopher for an article that addresses the widely held conservative myth that only "free market capitalists" built the economic foundation of this nation. And thank you for a reminder that progress is possible in the face of adversity.
05:54 PM on 08/03/2011
Harry Reid was the one who blocked the debate - he wouldn't let a debate occur in the Senate after the House submitted their balanced budget bill.
Also you suggest we need health care reform (along w a few other issues listed in the article), didn't we get that w ObamaCare? I think not, just a bunch of new taxes, fees and now the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Democrats solution to improving health care in the US - NEW TAXES:
Obamacare cost to taxpayers over 10 years: $210 billion
-2013 is a 2.3% excise tax on medical device manufacturers and importers
-this year, new annual fee on "branded" drug makers and importers, which will raise $27 billion
-$15.2 billion from raising the floor on medical deductions to 10% of adj.gross income from 7.5%
-2018 40% "excise tax" on high-cost health plans (for those who can "keep" their existing plans, remember that promise?)
-new annual fee on health insurance providers starting in 2014, estimated to raise $60 billion. This tax, like many others on this list, will be passed along to consumers in higher health-care costs.
05:50 AM on 08/04/2011
And don't forget the waivers granted to many companies (probably Obama backers) who are exempted from Obama care--and surprise, surprise, AARP was one who backed Obamacare and now suddenly has a waiver. Guess they think it's a grand idea for some of us BUT not for them. So some companies will have to abide by Obamacare and some not--isn't this curious? No one needs AARP anyway--I think it's for stupid people who can't call an insurance company and find out the cost for Medicare or supplemental insurance.
09:21 AM on 08/04/2011
The waivers are an absolute DISGRACE! And naturally, its mostly swept under the rug by the mainstream media. The fact they did these waivers is wrong on so many levels not to mention that it totally undermines what they were trying to accomplish a ObamaCare and is further validation the program is a scam to the American people.
02:56 PM on 08/06/2011
Not if we had single payer.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Redgriffin
05:11 PM on 08/03/2011
There is a problem with this report in that it forgets that President Lincoln made the most far reaching of his political writings of his life and Presidency when he said..."We of this Congress and Administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. The fiery trial trough which we p[ass will light us in honor or dishonor to the latest generation. As the situation is new so we must think anew. We must disenthrall ourselves then we can save this nation...." before the 1863 Message to Congress Lincoln had been an unexceptional President who steered a center and thus safe course .

After this statement he began to be the President that is remembered in history he allowed the enlistment of the first black regiments in the US Army and emancipated the slaves . What I'm saying is that it is time for the Democrats to get behind the President and support him openly even if they feel that he doesn't support them.'They must form bridges to the Republicans who will talk to them to form legislation to help this country but most of all they must put the Tea Party on the Defensive so that the President can lift their boats along with his and win his reelection in the 2010 elections along with the reemergence of the Democratic Party. They must disenthrall themselves then they can save themselves.
08:00 PM on 08/03/2011
Redgriffin, exactly where in the Galaxy do you hail from? Since you are obviously a new arrival, welcome to Earth. We are not quite as evolved as some of the other species you must have encountered. On this planet, the Republicans are united in destroying all traces of the Democratic Party. No building of bridges, no lifting of boats. No candy canes, Unicorns or rainbows. No "putting the Tea Party on the defensive" by this avoid-confrontation-at-all costs President. Your very peaceful nature will probably be offended by the total war we have been forced into to save the Middle Class and poor from economic extinction. Maybe your next stop will be better.
12:31 AM on 08/04/2011
Sounds good Red, but many of us have already been "behind the President" and are now utterly exasperated by the fecklessness of this poll. Tired of the double speak and capitulation.
I want him to move on.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
JimR
05:06 PM on 08/03/2011
"Obama let the reactionaries dictate the agenda for negotiations and this week he surrendered -- unconditionally, if the truth be told." It's not telling the truth at all, actually. The Tea Party hated this deal.
shessomoney
Liberal Elite-Made In U.S.A.
06:25 PM on 08/03/2011
And as a matter of fact the TP did not even vote for the bill.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gryphon87
Tax The Rich at 91%
06:45 PM on 08/03/2011
Yes they did, 32-28 out of everyone in the "Tea Party" caucus.
scipio2009
Alan Wolfe's "The Future of Liberalism"
05:04 PM on 08/03/2011
I don't know about you but, frankly, I couldn't be more proud of my president, a man who stood tall, adamantly refusing to throw this country into a crisis, relatively on par with the Civil War, to make a principled political point.

Pres. Lincoln was faced with a terrible and awful choice to make, but it was a choice that he needed to make and did so, even while knowing that doing so would lead to a level of war that he likely couldn't comprehend. Arguing over debt, as far as I'm concerned, will never be grounds to throw a country into similar circumstances and ought never to be.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gryphon87
Tax The Rich at 91%
06:45 PM on 08/03/2011
I couldn't be more disappointed. I hope he is primaried.
scipio2009
Alan Wolfe's "The Future of Liberalism"
07:42 PM on 08/03/2011
And that's why, for the most part, the voice of folks in your sphere of politics are ignored, out of hand. Sen. Bernie Sanders(I-VT) in the Senate and Rep. Dennis Kuccinich(D-OH) in the House. That's it.

You're "disappointed", hoping for the POTUS, who currently polls at 70% within the Democratic Party, to be primaried, because Pres. Obama took the stand that forcing the U.S. economy into conflict, that could be paralleled to the impact that the Civil War had on our country, was something that he refused to do.

No criticism for Congress, Speaker John Boehner(R-OH), the "Main Street Republicans", or anyone else who had a vote, an actual say in the matter. In the race to 218 votes in the House, even if you ignored all of the teabaggers, you still had ~150 Republican votes and 195 Democratic votes in play.

And yet, rather than doing the complicated work of actually laying the blame where it ought to lay, with Congress, specifically the Republicans, clowns come to this site, crying about the POTUS refuse to act by fiat, laying the very grounds for impeachment proceedings, which some of these same folks, calling for "executive action", will join the effort to impeach him for.

hilarious
08:28 PM on 08/03/2011
@scipio2009: "couldn't be more proud of my president, a man who stood tall.."
Whoa! You had me there for a minute. I thought you were serious! You're quite the kidder, scip.
scipio2009
Alan Wolfe's "The Future of Liberalism"
05:30 PM on 08/06/2011
believe whatever you want to believe. facts don't lie
scipio2009
Alan Wolfe's "The Future of Liberalism"
05:04 PM on 08/03/2011
In the face of having near 240 votes, in the House of Representatives, against near anything that President Obama could possibly propose, with a near 100 folks reflexively against any idea that President Obama even thought about putting forward, with the "sad truism" being that these folks would've even block a presidential resolution asserting that the sky could be considered bluish, you're on here crying about what again?

The game, if we ought to call it that, is a rather simple one; if you get 60 votes, to end debate in the Senate, 51 votes, to pass a bill in the Senate, and 218 votes, to pass a bill in the House, you win. It's not rocket science.

You point to Pres. Lincoln's response to, what you openly call, a similar scenario, but you openly ignore the fact that Lincoln's decision, to fight an "intransigent block of political and social reactionaries", ended up costing the lives of over 650,000 soldiers, with the total number of casualties likely surpassing 1 million, once civilians are counted.

According to John Huddleston, per Wikipedia, that amounted to"ten percent of all Northern males 20–45 years of age died, as did 30 percent of all Southern white males aged 18–40."

Even with that, as a comparative event, the case could be made that our current situation is, in some ways, even graver.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cbk780
My personal blog: AgileCriticalThinking.com
05:01 PM on 08/03/2011
If we are to face down the minority who is holding this country hostage, it has to happen because the people do it.

The president cannot do it by proxy.

The news media cannot keep saying "they all act like spoiled children," equating the actions of responsible politicians with the blackmail and bullying of the extremists.

Until the people demand honesty in the news and governing ahead of ideology on the part of the politicians, we will continue to get the same old stuff.

Charlie
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rmhopper3
04:24 PM on 08/03/2011
Fine I see the logic of your argument and perhaps it was not time to hit back, However I have discovered the hard way many times that bullies like these do not give up...eventually you are going to have to confront them and be willing to get a little bloodied or let them run rampant and as sad as it sounds maybe we need some big blow up to shake us out of our Reaganesque fairy tale slumber..Maybe the people of this country will see their true colors if we force them into a color and are willing to swing back