The Progressive Populist Moment

Back in 2004, I wrote an essay predicting "the progressive populist moment" was at hand. Katrina vanden Heuvel disagreed. It turns out I was premature. In this year's Democratic primary, the activists and rank-and-file of the Democratic Party have been the magnet pulling the candidates towards a common platform of ending the Iraq war, misguided trade agreements, and economic injustices that have ruined the lives of so many Americans. The movements for peace, justice and economic reform should be proud of the contributions they have made to public opinion.

It was not so long ago that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were hawkish neo-liberals, eager to prove that they were neither peaceniks nor mindless populists. Now they appear as solid progressives in sync with the broad base of their party.

In tonight's debate, Hillary Clinton personified the empathy of Franklin Roosevelt while Barack Obama invoked the new spirit of John F. Kennedy. I thought Clinton excelled with her wrap up, which led to a standing ovation. She succeeded in expressing a deep empathy for working families. Obama won on the issues of Cuba, Iraq, and held his own on health care against her severe attacks. They seemed equal on their opening statements, what they would do on Day One, Mexican-American issues, and Bush earmarks. Once again, Clinton's attacks seemed to bounce right off Obama.

Her performance might re-ignite her campaign, but also could be a memorable farewell, a dignity in defeat, for which she will be well remembered and honored.

Comments

[TheMisfortuneTeller]

I don't know about You-Know-Her "moving" anybody with her "words" -- what did THEY ever accomplish? -- but I really wish she had acknowledged Clint Eastwood in his movie "Absolute Power" telling his injured daughter in the hospital: "We're going to be just fine." I mean, coming after her cheap and smarmy "Change you can Xerox" blunder, she could at least have the honesty to admit her own "plagiaris­ms."

[rwilliams1961]

As I watched, I wondered, too, if this could get her campaign started again.

As an Obama supporter, I hope not. I don't believe she's best for the country or the party.

[research]

Let's hope they really are as populist progressive as they have learned to appear.

[GhiaccioPronto]

Any progressive would cringe at the lionization of Kennedy, the red baiting "neo-liberal" and his masters of war. No thanks, I'll stick with FDR, third term + and all.

[Advocate123]

John F. Kennedy:

Cut Taxes,

Pro-Life,

Anti-Communism,

Pro-Religion.

Would he even be allowed to be a Democrat today?

[Thatcher]

Yes he would. That's the great thing - everyone's invited to the party! In fact, many Democrats hold those beliefs. The tent is big enough!

[research]

I wouldn't want his policies now. Times were more conservative back then. I never fell for the whole "Camelot" thing. But compared to Nixon he was fantastic.


peace Corps, the Moon program, test ban treaty, civil rights, medical care, all good.


But, changed immigration away from per country of origin limits so we get mostly Mexicans, instead of a mix from around the world.


Kennedy faced a crisis in Vietnam. The Administration's response was to assist in the coup d'état of the Catholic President of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem.[21] In 1963, South Vietnamese generals overthrew the Diem government, arresting Diem and later killing him (though the exact circumstances of his death remain unclear)[22] Kennedy sanctioned Diem's overthrow.


In 1963, the Kennedy administration backed a coup against the government of Iraq headed by General Abdel Karim Kassem, who five years earlier had deposed the Western-allied Iraqi monarchy. The CIA helped the new Baath Party government led by Abdul Salam Arif in ridding the country of suspected leftists and Communists. In a Baathist bloodbath, the government used lists of suspected Communists and other leftists provided by the CIA, to systematically murder untold numbers of Iraq's educated elite — killings in which Saddam Hussein himself is said to have participated. The victims included hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers and other professionals as well as military and political figures.[2­8][29][30] According to an op-ed in the New York Times, the U.S. sent arms to the new regime, weapons later used against the same Kurdish insurgents the U.S. supported against Kassem and then abandoned. American and UK oil and other interests, including Mobil, Bechtel and British Petroleum, were conducting business in Iraq.[28]

Wiki.


As to tax cuts, it was part of a tax reform, which included tax increases for some and cuts for others. Kennedy was killed by the conservatives before the tax reform left the congress.


The Democrats I know are all: Pro-life but pro choice, anti-communist but not against all social programs, pro faith in God but not religiously dogmatic or fanatical.



If you conservatives loved Kennedy so much, why did you kill him?

[dmthurman]

cut taxes,
Even Democrats don't like taxes, and we really don't like deficit spending. We happen to think that sometimes taxes are needed, and when we get out of hand, and we have, and we will, the republicans are suppose to slap us silly. That's how it works. Unfortunately it appears that the republicans have forgotten that they are the party of fiscal responsibility so I suppose It's going to be up to us again to straighten it up...:D

Pro life
There is nothing wrong about pro-life as a nation we have just never bothered to discuss it. We scream at each other and call it a day. Hopefully we can eventually calm down and find a common ground on this topic. This of course would be disasterous for the Republican party.

Anti-Communist.
Errr, are we now pro communist, did I miss something, I'm going to become a republican if we did.

Pro-Religion
The democratic party is not an escape from religion, we embrace religion. what We do not embrace, is intolerance in the name of religion, nor do we embrace intolerance against religion. I have a joke, "What's a religious fundementalist that doesn't go to church?" An atheist...­..;D

[Quaoar]

Would Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, or even Richard Nixon be allowed in the Republican Party today? Not if the neocons, theocons, and other assorted loonies had anything to say about it.

[LVpsychron]

You must not have been there. JFK was the one who represented the new generation. At the time, the WWII leaders controlled everything, while Kennedy and others who actually fought the war were just beginning to be old enough to gain power. The attitude of the powerful was that if you weren't like everyone else, you weren't adequate. Kennedy helped us feel like it was up to every individual to do what needed to be done for our country. He led us to the moon, he gave us a sense that we were participants in the society, not outsiders. I can't imagine how you saw him as a "neo-liberal", and I don't see the "masters of war" charactization of his cabinet? either. He's not the one that made the mess in Vietnam, it was Johnson. The Bay of Pigs was a farce, but in those days people had been fighting wars to protect the known world, and Korea was still rather fresh. Isolationism was seen as trouble, not something positive, and the domino theory was predominant. We were "fighting" for racial equality, and the schools were being desegregated. People volunteered to go to war to protect the USA from the perceived evils of communism and danger of nuclear holocaust.

I suppose I don't know exactly what a "neo-liberal would have been in those days, but I think most of those of us who lived through them thought of Kennedy as a liberal (we didn't use the word "progressive" in those days as nobody had shown us the difference). We really don't know what he would have done for us, given the normal opportunity.

Maybe you really meant that you prefer Hillary to Barack, but why put Roosevelt up and Kennedy down? To many of us, both are heroes and worthy of lionization.

[GhiaccioPronto]

A "neo-liberal" would be some one who out red-baited nixon by portraying eisenhower administration as soft on communism, and soft on defense. He swiftboated them with the "missile gap" The "new frontier" was the Democrats political answer to the marginalization of the "old left" progressives like Henry Wallace and Adlai Stevenson. I assume the term "neo-liberal" is tom hayden's cunningly disparaging term for what is aka "new democrat" It fits Kennedy perfectly. The "new left" progressives which the "new democrats" and "neo-liberals" replaced, portrayed themselves as following in the tradition of the "old left" which was eradicated by the cold war.

[GhiaccioPronto]

No amount of reverse engineering can make JFK a progressive, to pull that off we need the sacred Kennedy mythology.

Hayden slyly branded the "new democrats" as morphing into "neo-liberals" post 9/11. Anointing obama with the martyrs mantle seems apt. It rings true that the fondly remembered inspiration that masked Kennedy's out red-baitin
g of Nixon and swift-boating the eisenhower administration with the "missile gap" bears a remarkable similarity to the way the Obama faction strives to out Clinton-bash the Right.

[eddiestardust]

LV,

Thanks for saying that!

[Querent]

So John Foster Dulles, Robert McNamara, and Dean Rusk weren't the masters of war? They certainly were the apologists for the concept of a clash of civilizations by proxy. They were another generation of tough guys who don't do any fighting themselves.

[Thatcher]

Tonight - Clinton had to "hit this one outta the park" just like she needs to do on March 4. I agree that her closing statement was strong - she needs to show more of that side of her if she wants to do well on March 4.

Problem for her is - she didn't do "exceptionally" well. Except for the closing line, the debate was a draw. In fact, my wife found Clinton's closing line to be pandering and insincere (while I didn't). If this debate is a foreshadow of things to come on March 4 - she is in trouble. She can't win Texas and Ohio by 1-4 points - she has to win by 10 in order to put the Obama momentum on its heels. She had to do that well tonight in the debate - and it didn't happen.

You know - as we look back at recent presidents (Reagan to the present) - it has been the general election candidate to show themselves to the people that have won the elections - not the traditional politician facade.

Reagan was inspirational to Americans in 1980 because his personality (or acted persona) drove people toward him. Same with Clinton. And in reality, same with W. Whereas - Mondale, Dukakis, H.W. Bush (in 1992), Dole, Gore, Kerry showed more a traditional "stoic" political personality - and lost.

Obama and McCain (whether you love 'em or hate 'em) show personality instead of just politics - and people, for the most part, are drawn to that. If Hillary had only learned that from Bill, for he learned a lot from her over the years, she would be in a much better situation now than she is.

[ikkytito]

What John McCain shows Personality-Wow Then I'm Mother Thersa

[Querent]

Then I presume you'll be showing up in the morning to help care for the lepers.

[jezuzhchryst]

My favorite outcome here is Hillary as President for 8 years and Obama as President for the next 8 years. Backing each other up and punching out the bad guys. Do not underestimate what the reactionary party will throw at them to humiliate and belittle these two fine human beings. The Democratic holy grail is helping each other live better lives and the Republican holy grail is tax cuts for the rich. In a democracy that should be a no brainer.

[jayne]

Lovely post, Tom; thank you.

[independentrepublicrat]

The problem with Hillary's wrap-up tonight is that she neglected to mention the fact that she helped create the war that has resulted in "fragile human conditions". Listening to her wax poetic by stealing words from charlatan Edwards after accusing Obama of plagiarism, all I could think of was yes but you helped create all of that suffering and you still won't admit anything wrong with your decision or apologize for the maiming and destruction that resulted. However, once again she got emotional about possibly not getting the nomination and cried for herself at the end of the debate. At least I know for sure that she really cares about becoming president enough to cry again and again.

[J E Mugford]

The higher tone and recognition of common ground gave the debate a tone that established a firm foundation for the progressive movement within the Democratic Party. While Senator Clinton showed her qualities well, both as a truly committed progressive and as a person, it was Senator Obabma who really managed the tone of the evening - his management of timing and pace was artful and respectful to Senator Clinton, something that showed his willingness to work with her in the future.

[Jen326]

I don't know what debate you were watching, but I didn't see dignity represented by Hillary Clinton. I saw a woman that was literally starring down her opposition, trying to intimidate him, a woman that would rather change the subject than answer questions, a woman that would rather personally attack Obama than have an honest policy debate, and a woman who appeared so fake and disingenuous to actually make me get angry at my TV.

As frustrating as the irrational hatred for Hillary Clinton exhibited by some people has been during this election, the credit she has been awarded by some people for a genuineness that just isn't there has been just as dumbfounding. From the beginning, she has acted as a queen about to inherit her throne. The more it looks like democracy is taking over and the throne may go to someone else, she has resorted to negative attack tactics and her has campaign has openly considered sneaky tactics to take away delegates already awarded to her competition. I don't know what that is, but "dignified" it is not.

[Mariel]

Yes, Hillary's statement at the end of the debate was moving, and true; she said that she and Barack would both be fine, whoever won, for both had support systems, but the people out in the country would NOT be fine unless change is made, and she wanted the party to make it. This was the statement which won the standing ovation. It was a wonderful statement and made me think much better of her in every way. I can't really see someone who can sincerely say that as some globalist stooge--at least not a heartless one.
I would like to see her win with Obama as her VP or vice-versa, for a very strong VP is needed in case of accidents. She would be happy in the VP's mansion in Washington, but would Bill? I think she deserves the nomination but I would like to see Barack go along as VP--or vice-versa. We need two Presidents in case one expires, which is very likely, I am afraid.

[ayc]

What do you mean by deserves the nomination? How does anyone deserve the nomination?

[tommjk]

"Deserves the nomination" as in is more qualified for the job. Defensive much?

[ATLiberal]

The VP thing is not going to happen either way. Why? B-i-l-l.

[Desiderata]

I think Hillary Clinton's ending remarks (borrowed from John Edwards__gawd how I miss him)were enough to snatch victory from defeat in Texas.

Looks like Pennsylvania has a good chance to decide this Democratic Presidential race once and for all.

[mikekev58]

I keep hearing that she borrowed, stole, or otherwise used a John Edwards' remark. What was the exact quote he used, when did he use it? I'm being honest, I would like to know. It would seem foolish for her to use unattributed remarks when one of her (apparently) best remarks (from her supporters' point of view) was the change by Xerox remark.

[ayc]

Ben Smith's blog on politico has the quote, and there is also a quote floating around from 1992 - Bill Clinton that is strikingly similar.

[evekendall]

This was reported on Politico.com:

Clinton Tonight:

You know, whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about.

Edwards the December 13 debate:

What's not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what's at stake is whether America is going to be fine.

------------

From Edwards' exit speech in New Orleans Jan. 30:

"this son of a millworker will be just fine, now we have to make sure America will be fine."

[dtd]

Bill Clinton 1992: "The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time."

Hillary Clinton Tonight: "You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country."

Edwards the December 13 debate:

"What's not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what's at stake is whether America is going to be fine."

Hillary Clinton Tonight:

"You know, whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about."

[HowardRoarke]

That's the sad part. You may have been right, but after making a pointless deal about how crucial attribution is on words, she finally borrows the perfect words to say who she is -- and trips right over her own clunky "xerox" attack.

So according to her reasoning, he isn't inspirational, and therefore she isn't sentimental. I think its all "silly season" stuff, but if we have to ignore her own attacks to take her seriously.­.. Even the RNC is supposedly distributing this - that should get some coverage in TX.

[RedQueen]

Tom Hayden writes:
"It was not so long ago that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were hawkish neo-liberals, eager to prove that they were neither peaceniks nor mindless populists. Now they appear as solid progressives in sync with the broad base of their party."
-----
Oh, come ON! "Solid progressives"? Are you delusional? (And if "attacks seemed to bounce right off Obama", it could be because he's as plastic as Clinton, who in any case MADE no attacks, but rather simpered.)

Has either of the pseudo-democratic identity twins said a word about poverty, homelessness, any of that? Anything about the reliability of the voting process? About impeaching the crusader coup? Nooo.

"Solid progressives"? That's ridiculous, wishful thinking . . .

Pray for the convention to name John Edwards the nominee, or a whole lotta "the broad base of their party" will be voting for McKinney or Nader, or writing in Edwards.

[GreatGoodKid]

A whole lot, like 3%?

[RedQueen]

A whole lot [of "the broad base of their party" will be voting for McKinney or Nader, or writing in Edwards], like 3%?
-----
Well, there's no telling what the percentage will be, what will happen in Denver, what shoes are yet to drop from the various carpet-bags, what other candidate/s may surface.

But some voters -- particularly actual Democrats -- aren't up for any more AIPAC hacks and corporate tinkers (regardless of gender, sexual preference, or hue of birthday suit), waffling on the war, on taxes, on the abolition of the "middle" class.//

[ATLiberal]

I guess you didn't watch the debate. Obama spoke quite specifically about helping homeless veterans.

[RedQueen]

"Obama spoke quite specifically about helping homeless veterans."
-----
Well, I heard about as much as I could stand -- and the notion that homeless "veterans" (some living in the streets since the Viet Nam war) constitute a greater obscenity than OTHERs, particularly women and children, panders to the soldier-cult, the enforcement arm of male- (and, as this fake love-fest forgets at the peril of underclass/"urban" people of color, white-) supremacy.

Both of these fakes -- are we seriously expected, all evidence to the contrary, to conclude that Obama's "progressive" because he was friends with two reconstructed Weathermen in 1995?? -- put me to sleep, and not even utter antipathy to Clinton's phatic braying makes Hayden's closing suggestion (approximately: "she's cute when she submits") anything but icky.//

[leftLibertarian]

The only thing that matters is for the Democratic Party to impeach the criminals Bush and Cheney.

All else comes in second

[happytrails]

The only thing that matters is for the Democratic Party to WIN so it can save SCOTUS. And THEN go after the criminals.

[ayc]

I would like to see the constitution restored.