The intertubes are clogged with the choral wailing of frustrated liberals. Digby provides a good example, but the same is available pretty much anywhere else you’d think to look.
The fact is that there is no liberal establishment willing to validate liberalism. Indeed, for reasons only they can tell us, they almost always go out of their way to exclude anyone who can readily be identified as a person of the left and rush before the cameras and into print to reassure America that they have no support. I have my theories about why that might be, but suffice to say it’s a fairly easily documented phenomenon. There is simply no space in the establishment political dialog for explicitly left policy or rhetoric.
This is exactly right. But what’s strange is that it almost seems to come as a surprise to people. Why was Dennis Kucinich the only presidential candidate who was willing to argue for single-payer health care? Because he was the only one who knew with certainty that he’d never get elected and have to try to keep his promise. No one is going to get single-payer through Congress in this country. Not now, and not in a hundred years. Were Edwards, Clinton, Obama, Dodd, Richardson, and Biden just too timid? Shouldn’t they have tried to get a mandate for change?
The truth is that our government is set up to frustrate change. Our election laws and our media landscape create a lopsided political playing-field where those who already have huge amounts of money can pretty much guarantee that they continue to get more of it and everyone else gets less. We can make arguments. We can try to move the Overton Window, but what is actually achievable in Washington DC is extremely limited. There really isn’t much sense in making a lot of promises that we can’t keep. The only times the Democrats have been able to make breakthroughs have been brief interludes when we had enormous majorities. Right now, we have a small majority in the Senate and we don’t control the House. Basically, in this situation, almost nothing can be accomplished, and even less can be accomplished on our terms. This is the context within which the president must perform.
And when the president makes budget cuts at a time when increased federal spending is one of the only ways to reduce unemployment, of course it is frustrating. But I think it shows a degree of political immaturity to not understand that the president is going to take credit for brokering a deal that both lowers the deficit and keeps the government open. The alternative wouldn’t have helped unemployment either. The alternative wouldn’t have prevented a lot of people from being hurt or inconvenienced.
Part of what is annoying me is that everything is being put through this prism where government spending goes in and a rainbow of awesome stuff comes out. Yes, in the particular situation we finds ourselves in, more government spending makes sense. But, as a general matter, our government spends way too much fucking money, which is why we are trillions of dollars in debt with no end in sight to the bleeding. When I hear people moaning that the president is legitimizing budget cuts, it just rubs me the wrong way.
Now, our spending addiction is obviously exacerbated dramatically when we refuse to raise any revenue. That’s why it’s crucially important that the president somehow succeed in rescinding the Bush tax cuts. And our priorities are all screwed up, which is why it is vital that the president succeed in cutting defense spending in any deficit-reduction package. He probably won’t succeed in those efforts though, because Washington is rigged against doing anything that makes rich people uncomfortable. You have to know this. Nothing could be easier to see.
I stopped being very idealistic when I finally got around to making myself understand our system of government. I don’t get disappointed by a whole lot because my expectations are so low. I see a real threat out there. I see a threat to our way of life and to all humanity, and it stares me in the face every single day. That threat isn’t coming from Barack Obama or the Democratic Party. It’s coming from the other side of the aisle. And insofar as the Democrats are failing to meet the challenge (and they are failing) the real culprit is deep and structural and ingrained in our system and in our laws.
You may have noticed that the right is engaged in this fight on a structural level. They go after the people who register voters. They pass laws making it harder to vote. They attack the unions. They attack MoveOn.org. They go after anyone in the media, be it Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, Phil Donahue, or Dan Rather who expresses any skepticism about the right. They built their own cable news station and took over the radio spectrum. They make it so corporations can give unlimited money anonymously. They are coming after us with real aggression, trying to make it impossible for even middle-of-the-road Bill Clinton-style Democrats to get elected in this country. If we want to defend ourselves and ever see real progressive change in this country, we have to fight on this structural stuff. In the meantime, we’re playing defense. And we can’t do much more than that.
So, I’m obviously troubled and concerned about our country and the future, but I am pretty clear-sighted about what our limitations are and why we have to settle for so little. Our problems are not one man’s fault. One man cannot fix them. But we also need to remember that we have one man standing between where we are now and an immeasurably worse situation. I think about that every day, too.
So you’re basically saying dying slowly is our only option?
I’m not trying to be snarky. Not at all. You might well be right. I’m just trying to clarify.
When it comes to something like climate change, that’s how it’s starting to feel.
Some things would get better right away if we had a 5-4 advantage on the Supreme Court.
I think Citizen’s United put a fork in any hope for progressive change in this country until it can be overturned.
Our winner-take-all elections dictate an oscillating two-party system, so third-parties are pretty much limited to making short-term impacts, usually in no more than two consecutive cycles, and almost inevitably they injure their own interests more than they help them.
Without filibuster reform, we’d need 65 senators to do anything really, really worthwhile in Congress. And we’d need a House full of people who didn’t care about being reelected (or shot in the head) because even moderate change brings out the demons on the right.
So, in my darker moments, I feel like we’re dying slowly. Most of the time, I’m just glad we have a good president in change and that his reelection prospects look pretty good. It buys us time.
Troubling. Despair is a major cause of political violence. With that new poll about who has too much power it seems more people are feeling the powerlessness that’s related to it.
(Note: Political violence doesn’t refer to you in the slightest, just people in general.)
When I hear people moaning that the president is legitimizing budget cuts, it just rubs me the wrong way.
Why? So we should just give up on all the unemployed? Because that’s why people are bitching. If the economy was booming, people would be fine with it. But the economy sucks. What do you think is going to happen this June once “B-52” Ben ends QEII? If the stock market drops 1,500 points(or more).
Because, Calvin, we aren’t passing any stimulus in this Congress. And we aren’t moving the Overton Window on it either. And it isn’t doing us any good to go around pretending that the deficit isn’t a problem. We aren’t winning any converts with the message that we’re losing all the time, and we’re impotent, and our leader is a douchebag. And we’re not helping him do the things he’s trying to do right, like cut defense spending and get rid of Bush’s tax cuts. It’s just complain, complain, complain.
I mean, seriously, I wish the president had some alternative reality where he could try out all these great strategies and show you how epically they would fail. Imagine if he gave some great Keynesian speech about the need for another stimulus bill and how the time is not right for budget cuts, and then he totally failed to deliver any stimulus or keep the government operating. How awesome and effective would he look then?
The Republicans are fine with high unemployment and there isn’t any way Obama can apply more stimulus. If we’re going to grow the economy, we’re going to have to try something else. Get over it.
I am not going to get over it. So what you are saying is you are okay with more modern day Hoovervilles springing up. That 8% or 9% unemployment(U3) is the new normal. I refuse to accept that. Because, basically, you are giving a big middle finger to the 99ers, and everyone like them. You are okay with a failure of our “elites.” I am not okay with that. I expect better. I don’t know why you don’t.
His point is that being okay with it or not is meaningless, because nothing can actually be done about it absent some new check on elite power.
You’ve put all your eggs in a basket that won’t float.
I personally agree with the Keynesian analysis, but it is a broken tool. It’s not an option. We will not be reducing unemployment through discretionary spending increases. That argument was lost in very dramatic form last November.
So, other means must be devised and attempted to decrease unemployment, because we lost that battle. And asking the president to continue to wage it is not going to improve the situation. It’s deluded and flawed thinking.
So what other means are there? Because I don’t see any even bothered to be talked about.
The remaining options are: Ben Bernanke, or the passage of time.
Helicopter Ben has not and will not live up to his nickname.
And you know the easiest way to reduce the deficit? Put people to work!!
Your definition of “easy” is fatally flawed. And that’s the problem.
So what do you suggest? QEII sure ain’t going to do it. Did you hear about the talk Stiglitz gave yesterday at Bretton Woods(yes, that Bretton Woods)?
No, I didn’t hear or read his speech.
I suggest that you stop expecting the president to try to use increased discretionary spending to lower unemployment, since he is powerless to do that.
oh gee, I’m sorry. I’ll just stop complaining, it’s not like I’m a taxpayer or a citizen of this fucking country.
I’ll just sit back and wave my hand. “Whatever, President Obama. Whatever you do is Good,and who am I to question that.”
And you better be smiling, there, buddy, when you say that.
Oh I am, dataguy, I am.
because i know if I DO frown, the constitutional law professor president would have me arrested and held indefintiely without charges, in solitary confinement, to break my mind. That’s the Obama way. Heaven help whoever takes him at his word that he wants to be pushed out of his comfort zone.
They go after the people who register voters. They pass laws making it harder to vote. They attack the unions. They attack MoveOn.org. They go after anyone in the media, be it Bill Maher, Keith Olbermann, Phil Donahue, or Dan Rather who expresses any skepticism about the right. They built their own cable news station and took over the radio spectrum. They make it so corporations can give unlimited money anonymously. They are coming after us with real aggression, trying to make it impossible for even middle-of-the-road Bill Clinton-style Democrats to get elected in this country.
And yet how many elected “Democrats” care about that? Look how fast they through ACORN under the bus. I wish I read somewhere why ACORN was successfully thrown under the bus, but Planned Parenthood wasn’t. Basically a lot of elites in the party don’t give a shit about the poor and downtrodden. And the President will never address this because he wants to be seen “above the fray.” So who with power will address what I quoted from you?
Great post. Thank you.
advertising itself as a part of the progressive community when it really a servant of the Democratic Party and so won’t allow open discussion of anything that goes against the Party.
the floor is yours, Don. I permit you to say anything you want.
This is just nonsense. There are plenty of regular commenters here who disagree – sometimes strongly so – with both BooMan and the Democrats. One of the reasons I value BT, in fact, is the commenters – a wide variety of backgrounds and opinions, usually knowledgable and usually without the tiresome personal attacks one reads incessantly on many political blogs.
I agree. If this blog was all about bowing down to the Democratic Party, I do not think most people would visit and comment. Booman adds a different perspective that I find reassuring, enlightening and challenging. I get upset at the policies and messaging of this White House but FDL/KOS/Salon comment sections are full on hate Obama fests. The same can happen at BJuice at times too.
I just find that you either have to hate Obama or be an Obot. Can you like the guy, want him to win, support him and yet be, critical at the policy/political decisions he makes? It just seems impossible these days online.
I’m losing faith in the notion that representative democracy is the best system. Our beautiful, well-conceived democracy is in shambles, and the bad guys have all the powerful weapons. I can’t spell out the vision in detail, but my gut sense is that we need an entirely new political architecture that releases energy from the grassroots upward. The top-down model is never going to work in the best interests of the electorate. We need to pay more attention to revolutionary societies like Bolivia. Those people have the balls to demand real change.
I woud be down to eliminating the US Senate. Such a worthless and undemocratic institution.
AMEN!! AMEN!!!
Booman, your argument is, as always, sobering and laser-focused on the real issues at play. I am optimistic by nature, but reading your work has taught me to rein in my political optimism somewhat and look at our system of government a little more coldly. To see it as the government and politics that it is, rather than as I would wish it to be.
That said, my quibble with your post is that you seem to go a little further than usual and embrace a politics of despair here. That is, a politics that sees little hope for the future, or at least for some long-term improvement in the progressive outlook. Perhaps that’s just the nature of the despair-worthy historical moment we find ourselves in; or maybe I’m misreading your post, and if so, my apologies.
But it seems to me that if our system as you describe it is the way it is – the only positive changes coming in brief periods of huge progressive majorities – it’s a system that has, on the whole, worked over time. That is, America has continued to make progress towards a better future, a more perfect union over time. Of course I don’t neglect America’s massive historical failures: primarily our domestic treatment of minorities and our foreign military incursions. Nor our current economic class stratification, psychotic Republican party, and the other problems you touch on. Overall though, I believe America’s arc of history has bended towards justice – we as people do treat each other better than we did 50, or 100, or 200 years ago. None of that improvement was inevitable. And none of it would occurred had the people pushing it forward succumbed to despair.
I have been consistently moved over the past couple years by your critical yet fair defense of Obama. I am grateful every day that he is in the White House. In my brighter moments I see his Presidency as one that steers us through a dark tide of insanity, to a place beyond some of the structural problems you describe, where progress is a little easier and a little swifter and more reliable. Where every American, conservative or liberal or in between, can see a little more clearly that we are all in this together. To a calmer, more honest place. Whether or not that’s on the horizon, it is something I always try to hope for. Or at least, that I have never given up on.
Well, Boo, sorry to rub you the wrong way, but he is. The problem isn’t that he’s legitimizing budget cuts; it’s that he’s legitimizing a certain type of budget cut. So are Democratic congressional leaders. Because military spending is off the table, and corporate welfare of all types is off the table, what “budget cuts” in this environment invariably means is “cuts to programs that don’t serve the wealthy,” and usually “cuts to programs that serve people who can’t afford to hire lobbyists.” These are exactly the programs that have been targeted so far in the Democrats’ previous continuing resolution compromises, and they’re the only type of budget cuts Republicans care about.
I’m glad Obama is talking again about rescinding the Bush tax cuts. I’m glad military spending is creeping back into the conversation. But by accepting the Republican frame for months of their limited definition of which cuts are important, I fear that it’s too late to challenge the flow of the conversation. (Which, given the current composition of the House, is really all anyone can hope for.)
Obama isn’t getting credit, or hoping to get credit, for cutting the budget. He’s getting credit because he did it by cutting exactly the types of programs Republicans want cut – social spending, regulatory agencies, scientific research, and so on. The constituencies for these types of programs are overwhelmingly Democratic constituencies – which is why Republicans wanted to cut them in the first place, why the Village (who always, always prefers Democrats to move further to the right) is likely to cheer, and why so many progressives are up in arms.
Given that we have at least two more threatened government shutdowns coming this year, nobody is going to remember in 2012 that Obama agreed to cut social spending (except the people affected), any more than anyone remembered last year that he cut taxes for most Americans in 2009. Obama’s a better political strategist than I am; maybe he’s banking on the Republicans moving the goalposts so far into Crazyland that voters will be overwhelmingly repelled in 2012. Shame about all the people getting hurt in the meantime.
Let me make it very concrete. The feds have slashed aid to the states. That’s one of the reasons about 60,000 people in my state are going to lose a program called Disability Lifeline in the coming biennial budget. That program provides a cash stipend and food stamps for physically or mentally disabled people not eligible for any other government assistance, including SSD or other federal help. Without it, many of those 60,000 will become homeless. Some will surely die that wouldn’t have otherwise. That’s one example, from one state. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of similar stories, in a country of 300 million people with an unofficial unemployment rate still approaching 20 percent. And which happens to be the wealthiest country in the history of the world, only what we do with that wealth resembles the income distribution of a banana republic.
I care about Disability Lifeline’s clients and all those people being abandoned by our elected officials, and I care that nobody – nobody – in the Democratic leadership, including Mr. Obama, is making the case that their lives have any value, or that our society has any responsibility at all to help. If Mr. Obama feels like he needs to sacrifice some of those people to win a larger battle (for example, to ensure the country is not run by someone certifiably sociopathic in 2013), I understand it intellectually. But don’t expect me to cheer for it, especially when the White House is telling me that it’s the best of all possible worlds. Maybe it is for Mr. Obama. But I doubt very much that someone lying dead in a gutter somewhere in urban America cares who gets elected in 2013.
One more thought, from a different part of Boo’s post, in which Digby bemoans that “liberal” politicians never stand up for liberal policies, and Boo points out (rightly) that this is because they don’t want to make promises they can’t keep in the current political climate.
But that’s not the only reason to stand up for a policy. All one needs do is look at the other side. Right wing activists, and their champions in Congress, have for decades been demanding (and mobilizing their base with demands for) policies that had no chance of being enacted in the short term. Sure enough, few of those policies have been enacted. Yet. But demands that were far outside the mainstream 30 years ago are “centrist” today, and the playing field has shifted steadily rightward, in terms of both what is imaginable and what is acceptable in Congress, precisely because politicians on the right have consistently agitated for what they wanted, and pols on the left have consistently distanced themselves from what their base wanted and tried instead to mollify them with what was immediately possible.
This has led to two results. First, of course, is the rightward shift in what is talked about, and, over time, accepted as possible and “normal.” But beyond that, Republicans have gotten the reputation as fighting steadfastly for their beliefs. Democrats have gotten the reputation for caving, for having no beliefs, and/or for prioritizing their own power above any beliefs they might once have had. This has had a seriously corrosive effect on the Democrats’ reputation, and Obama’s habit of conceding over half of a dispute before negotiations even begin is making it worse, not better.
Good points. But please be careful to hear precisely what I am saying.
If you are writing about why single-payer is a better, cheaper, fairer, and more virtuous system then I agree with you and have written the same thing many times.
If you are calling the president weak, cowardly, compromised, or stupid because he didn’t give us single-payer then I think you’re an idiot.
See the difference?
I see. He’s not compromised because he compromised with the corporations and opposed the public option (though not in public.) He’s not weak because he never fights politically (except with liberals.)
I’m awaiting your praise for Obama supporting cuts in Social Security and Medicare. Doubt I’ll have to wait long.
I’m saying none of these things, actually. I fully understand your points about Obama responding to what he sees as politically possible at any given time. The part that frustrates me is that more often than not his vision as to what is politically possible is short-term – he’d rather put lipstick on the pig than point out that pig is all that’s presently available, and while we’re doing what we can with it, shouldn’t we be thinking of getting a cow or a horse as well?
For two plus years he’s been acting more like a legislator than an executive leader when it comes to advocating policies. That search for compromise and common ground is very effective at winning incremental improvements. But it cedes the floor in terms of preparing the way for broader long-term change. It also makes unreasonable opponents appear far more reasaonable. And in a time of economic and cultural crisis, to not even make the case than we need more than incremental change to our broken system is simply not very good leadership.
Good post and good comment thread. I particularly liked Calvin Jones’ point highlighting the difference in the handling of Acorn and Planned Parenthood by the Democratic elites.
If you folks need to be reminded of some of the good things about America, check out the American Experience PBS show that just ran tonight on WHYY in Philadelphia. It will be played and repeated on various PBS stations around the country this week. The show is called “The Great Famine” and it’s not about Stalin’s famine in the Ukraine in the late 1920’s. It is about the earlier and nearly unknown famine of 1921 that ravaged Russia from the Ukraine to the Volga to the Urals. The show describes the wonderful American rescue effort that saved millions (unfortunately millions did die).
The rescue effort was led by a great American humanitarian and competent technocrat, Herbert Hoover. The person most responsible for all the death was the man who directed unsustainable confiscations of peasant food supplies right up the start of the famine. I refer to the genocidal totalitarian V. I. Lenin.
American ain’t that bad compared to the alternatives. Go Obama 2012.
I do not believe that slowly dying is our only fate.
(Although, as Booman indicates, when one considers right-wing views on climate change — or for that matter war — we are facing impending doom. But here I’m addressing the “life” of liberal and left-wing views.)
I believe that we have a wealth of potential and talent. And I truly believe that the younger generations are much more liberal than those who have had the most influence on society the last 3 decades. I also believe, sadly, that the right-wing is getting so much and pushing things so far that economic populism may be on the horizon. And of course there are the changing demographics of the electorate to consider.
What I’d most like to address, though, is where the right has us beat: the structural stuff you mention. While I’m reading your blog post, directly to the left I’m seeing the message “Keep the Conservative Momentum Going.” It’s an ad from the Heritage Foundation. I remember leading up to the 2010 elections all I saw were ads for Rick Scott (I live in Florida), and I pretty much only read liberal blogs. When the right-wing has enough money to even waste it on Daily Kos and your site, we know that we’re fighting from a weak position. That’s one great thing about Obama: he knows how to raise money and soon his campaign images will be ubiquitous again. That’s no solution though.
I want to fight for our values more so than for specific individual candidates. We on the left must be spending time and money every day to educate fellow citizens to our point of view. The other side is doing it, and has been doing it for dozens of years. They have unlimited corporate money in support of their agenda. But we aren’t helpless. We have many rich liberals. And I truly believe that we have greater numbers of regular folk who just don’t know what to do to fight.
Time was we could rely on the media to accurately inform voters and to uphold a standard which would have wholly rejected things like “Obama is a foreigner/Muslim” or “the Clintons were murderers.” I guess that’s why the right took aim at the media and screamed “liberal bias” so much that now the news media bend over backwards to accommodate even the most extremist views of the right. No longer are most reporters willing to inform the public if it conflicts with either ratings or will lead them to be tagged as “liberal.” Those days are long gone, so we must do it ourselves.
This comment is too long. More on this later…
choral wailing:
Obama is incredibly weak.
He’ll get reelected. But to what end?
If we are going to vote for a Democrat to end the FDR/Johnson “safety net”, count me fucking out.
It all depends on the Wednesday speech. If he buys into the Repukeliscum shit, he’s dead to me. We have now seen that the Repukeliscum are cutting the NIH budget, which is my point of no return. Obama agreed to a failure to end the Bush tax cuts, and now the piper is being paid – we are cutting research.
He’s getting ready to shoot himself in the head, I believe. Will he pull the trigger?
you’re half right.
when it comes to PROGRESSIVE change, nothing can be done.
REGRESSIVE changes, espcially those that help the rich, happen often and easily.
“And insofar as the Democrats are failing to meet the challenge (and they are failing) the real culprit is deep and structural and ingrained in our system and in our laws. “
Yes, it’s called “big Money” and those of that tribe should be hauled off and shot.
Kind of the flip side of the Gabby Giffords situation. We don’t need to start shooting each other.
Historically, violent change has not worked out too well.
You’ll be happy now. I keep seeing all these news reports that the President is going to establish the Bowles-Simpson report as the baseline for deficit reduction.
is that directed at me or booman, calvin?
because I don’t think deficit reduction is anything we should be doing right now.
Do these reports come from the same sources who were absolutely sure that the President was going to call for cutting Social Security in his State of the Union speech?
Were we a couple months off? Sorry. I’m sure Obama won’t call for cuts in Social Security and Medicare tomorrow, right? Right?
I’m just going to wait and see. After months of hearing people proclaim that Obama is never going to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell or that he’s going to announce a plan to cut Social Security any day now, I’m just a little bit skeptical of liberal crystal balls these days.
“Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.”
Odd thing is that liberals are considered “left”. They’re about as milquetoast centrist as can be. The real “left” has been cut out of the national conversation since the early 70s. Carter, Clinton, Obama? Leftists? Liberals really ought to be finding a way to include the likes of Chomsky in the dialogue in order to establish that they aren’t raving “commies”. With nothing on the left to push against liberals are the default leftist radicals in the conversation.
I agree with BooMan’s sentiments.
But what is so utterly frustrating is that coming out of the 2008 elections Democrats did have those supermajorities where solid progressive changes seemed tangible. The failure of those majorities to roll back the excesses of the Bush years (particularly when it came to individual rights/liberties, military engagement and tax policy) was shameful and gutless.
As for now, I agree that there is not much that can be done except that Democrats should simply refuse to touch the social safety net all together. They were successful in 2005, why not use the same play book now?
The Republicans are going in for the kill.
They would dearly like to eliminate the social contract.
When I feel close to despair about a situation, I turn it around 180 degrees.
The good thing is that the Republicans are no longer trying to mask their hatred for everyone but themselves.
People in this country, for the most part, are not stupid. We can figure out what is what.
Voting is true power. To say that money outweighs votes isn’t true. That is a self defeating attitude.
A lot of money is spent in election campaigns to try to fool people into believing lies. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.
The poll numbers about the budget show that the Republicans badly miscalculated how it would play out.
I bet Boehner is not at ease about his extremists when it comes to the debt ceiling. He can’t really control them.
One thing that is not being done and it needs to be, is explaining in great detail what would happen if the US defaults. People don’t know and the MSM is tossing this around like a football on a Sunday afternoon.
Information is power and this is something we need to know.
The good part of all this is that finally it is out in the open and technology like the internet is partly responsible for this.
I am rambling, but I’m tired, so pardon me.
Feelings aren’t facts.
Agree, very interesting that they’re being so direct about destroying unions, stealing WI (seems they’re being hasty and seems it’s not playing well). Also, look around at the rest of the world. most ppl are up against difficult situations. Things are much more difficult for elsewhere than they are for us, fewer options and often much less freedom to act than we have. Not that that’s a good thing, just that it makes one more patient with our problems.
Booman, I get what you’re saying. But this realism doesn’t fully explain how the right can constantly double down on its rhetoric and ideology.
Plus, the president didn’t have to escalate in Afghanistan. Politically, he embraced it as the good war. But he didn’t have to go all in on it. So now we’re spending 2 billion a week to blow up wedding parties and have “kill teams” featured in Rolling Stone. Nice.
He campaigned on escalating Afghanistan. He used wiggle words to do it, but it was clear to me that he thought the biggest failure of Bush’s military policy in Afghanistan was that Bush put too many resources into Iraq and “took his eye off the ball” in Afghanistan.
His decision to escalate in Afghanistan was one of the least surprising things he chose to do because he told us all on the campaign trail that he was going to do it if he were elected. The main difference between him and McCain in that respect was that McCain wanted to continue to split forces between Iraq and Afghanistan and Obama wanted to push to get out of Iraq so he could commit more troops in Afghanistan. Clinton’s rhetoric was similar to McCain’s. As far as I was concerned there was no good choice when it came to Mid-east policy among the three candidates likeliest to become President – it was a question of settling for the lesser evil with Obama who at least said he wanted forces out of Iraq (even if he did just want to shift them to Afghanistan).
Sometimes I wonder if people watched the same campaign in 2008 that I did. I swear the choice was between a hard right candidate who was pandering to the base and rapidly looking like he was losing it and a center left-ish candidate who was a hawk on everything he didn’t consider to be “stupid wars” and looked to be the second coming of Bill Clinton. Which is what we’ve gotten – except that Libya may turn out to be a stupid war gotten into with the best of intentions. I know all of the candidates were substantially to the right of me both on economics and on foreign policy, and I don’t consider my reformed-libertarian self to be all that liberal.
It’s a bit question-begging. Obama supported a lot of things as a candidate. But apparently escalation if Afghanistan is something he can unreservedly deliver on.
What a candidate says and what he can or must do in office are very different things.
But, as a general matter, our government spends way too much fucking money, which is why we are trillions of dollars in debt with no end in sight to the bleeding.
That’s bullshit. Complete bullshit.
Our problem is REVENUE. Federal tax receipts have fallen from 20% of GDP in 2000 to less than 15% (projected) in 2011. That’s roughly half of the budget deficit right there. You can see problem right here, in one simple, easy to understand graph.
Now, our spending addiction is obviously exacerbated dramatically when we refuse to raise any revenue.
What spending addiction? What the hell are you talking about? The US spends less than most of it’s peer countries – and gets a lot less because the US puts more into blowing shit wedding parties in the Middle East and Central Asia. And while spending has spiked in the past few years that’s expected because of the largest recession since the 1930s. That spending spike will end when employment recovers, though that will take two or three years.
You want to be a strong supporter of President Obama in 2012? Great. Knock yourself out. Just don’t get the facts wrong.
Yep, if we had 4% unemployment and medical costs similar to Canada’s, we’d be in the black. Unfortunately, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans, nor BooMan, thinks this is worth fighting for.
“I think the biggest problem is revenues. It is simply unrealistic to say that raising revenue isn’t part of the solution. It’s a measure of how far off the deep end Republicans have gone with this religious catechism about taxes.”
~David Stockman, Ronald Reagan’s Office of Management and Budget Director
I have to agree with PeakVt here. It’s not true that we “spend too damn much money”–in fact, we spend significantly less as a percent of GDP than any other industrialized democracy. The problem is that our tax rates are also much lower. It seems that you have (unwittingly, perhaps) bought into a core republican meme.
Perhaps I should have been clearer. We are committed to spending far too much fucking money. Our overall spending as a percentage of GDP is modest compared to European countries. But, excluding the two world wars, it’s at historic highs right now, and it will grow out of control if we don’t figure out to reform Medicare (pdf).
The universe delights in proving such hyperbolic statements wrong. Bravo. Another great application of Murphy’s Law engineering.
That aside, I think that the liberal-progressive-left — that coalition of sometimes incompatible ideas — is missing the point of how politics work. They, having voted for a President, expect the President to move Congress. Of course, that’s not the way it works. The President was forced to compromise with the “stakeholders” because of folks like Ben Nelson and Mike Ross and other Democrats who were in the pockets of the health care industry. In previous times, it would have been possible for constituents to move a Republican member of Congress to change their position; an ideological member of Congress doesn’t listen to constituents so long as they know where those 170,000 votes are coming from. This is the different environment from what FDR and LBJ faced; they had Republicans who would vote for their initiatives.
This political situation is not sustainable; it results in the collapse of one party or the other. In 2009, it looked like the Republicans would have to moderate or die; they have used money to avoid either fate. Right now, the donkey is looking a little pekid.
From what I have read on the left blogosphere, what rubbed folks the wrong way was the celebratory language about a major political capitulation. The politics of this might work well; the current public opinion has been very positive about this compromise. And the public might punish Republicans for pulling the same stunt on the debt ceiling. So the politics might at some point might result in a huge backlash against Republicans that will color 2012. I am not optimistic about this.
The longing for a left-liberal establishment is rather interesting in that “left establishment” is either an oxymoron or a right-wing description of Cold War Russia. What the left needs is a movement, something it hasn’t had in forty-some years. What the left has always operated through is a movement. Some of us folks who worked long and hard to preserve the notion of liberal-progressive-left politics in a movement are now old, tired, and unable to do what we used to. A lot of younger folks longer for a respectable way of making change; there doesn’t seem to be one. And the real youngsters eager for change are ready to go but lack the institutional memory to know how to proceed.
So we have folks in Wisconsin trying to reinvent the wheel until some older movement folks and the AFL-CIO begin putting logistical structures into place. And then it starts to snowball to the point that the governor uses the only army at his disposal–the state police controlled by the father of the Assembly and Senate leaders — to suppress the protest. And then energy gets sucked off into the courts and then strategically moves to the recall elections. But in the move to electoral politics, can the movement be sustained? Who is going to do that work?
We don’t have an establishment; we have institutional memory of how to get things done that we are not tapping.
Case study: John Nichols’s book The “S” Word talks about the planning and organizing for the 1963 March on Washington. A. Phillip Randolph, who was seventy-four allied with Dr. Martin Luther King and his network, could tap all of the unions politically aligned with the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, and all of the Socialist Party folks he had worked with over 40 years. He had Bayard Rustin and Eleanor Holmes (Norton) work on the logistics, which, in addition to arranging and setting up the venue at the Lincoln Memorial, required arranging 2000 buses, 21 special trains and 10 flights to transport people to the march who otherwise couldn’t afford to go. In addition, local groups that could organized their own buses and coordinated that with Rustin and Norton’s team. And there had to be serious planning and acquisition of parking space for all the buses and for the cars of people driving themselves into the march. The other part of the strategy was how to get the media to cover it.
But that did not occur all at once. That was the result of a sustained movement that occupied A. Phillip Randolph’s life — starting with organizing the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, getting war industries in World War II desegregated, getting Truman to desegregate the military, …with always the understanding that the existence of the movement and the fact that thousands of people could turn out to strike or demonstrate (or could be held back) was what provided Randolph’s leverage with FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, and LBJ. Because politicians above all can count votes. And when those votes can’t be divided because of some event or media campaign, if in large enough numbers politicians listen or leave to go to work for a lobbyist.
What we lack right now is a unified movement that transcends the party system.
We expected Obama to make OFA that movement. Shame on us for wanting to obey the great charismatic leader when he calls and tells us that we are appreciated and could we kindly get out after pushing this issue. We expect what never was—a president to make a movement. A Congress to make a movement. A movement makes a president; a movement makes a Congress.
Now here’s the Catch-22. It is damn hard to keep a movement going when you have to work at another job (o work at funding an activist organization), raise a family, and keep up with personal networking to expand the movement. And as Tom Hayden and Dennis Kucinich and many others have discovered, getting elected to office takes you out of the movement and puts you in the limited role of “ally”.
And the status quo always has the advantage because they can use money to defend money, setting up advocacy organizations at the drop of a hat, with adequate if not lavish funding to buy their own activists.
The fixation of so many progressives, liberals, lefties on Obama, whether in criticism or defense, missing the point and saps energy that could go into more effective change.
Once again, people power beats money power every time. That’s why money power devotes so much money to separating people and creating antagonisms.
I totally disagree. No one expected Obama to move Congress. What we did expect Obama to do was 1) remember that he has the little D behind his name 2) pick policies from that flavor of the political spectrum and 3) actually do something intelligent about the negotiation for those policies.
I give him some credit for health care. However, even that was done with a clumsy, clueless lack of D-ness. He never even THREATENED the public option. He sort of mumbled “public option” now and again, but NEVER with any conviction.
And I have NEVER in my years of watching politics seen a politician who is so wretchedly horribly bad about negotiation. The man simply will not threaten. You can’t win against insane people unless you are willing to go strongly at them. And he is not willing. He is a terrible terrible negotiator.
His ideal is bipartisanshit. And it is SHIT. He begins by conceding the high ground, and then is amazed to see that he has no pants. For instance, the extension of the tax cuts. He simply gave that away, and got nothing for it. NOT A SINGLE FUCKING THING FOR THE BEST CARD WE HAD.
By the way, I’ll just have you know that this post has inspired me to quite politics and prepare to leave the country. I am serious. My wife and I have been talking about it before for the last year or so but now we are really starting to research.