If you have the stamina, you should read Eric Alterman’s long opus on the state of progressive politics in this county. It’s actually about the state of all politics in this country, but it seeks to explain why progressive policies cannot be enacted despite large Democratic majorities in Congress and a president that is (or has been) rhetorically committed to them.
I have a few quibbles with Alterman’s recitation of the facts, but I want to praise his overall effort. My biggest criticism is that he fails to critique progressives. Everyone else comes in for harsh treatment, but progressives are given a pass. I think that is a mistake, but it’s interesting to think about why progressives deserve criticism. It’s largely because progressives are not familiar enough with the obstacles to progressive change that Alterman exhaustively lays out.
Alterman and I see eye-to-eye when it comes to Obama’s heart.
Personally, I tend more toward the view expressed by the young, conservative New York Times columnist, Ross Douthat, that Obama is “a doctrinaire liberal who’s always willing to cut a deal and grab for half the loaf. He has the policy preferences of a progressive blogger, but the governing style of a seasoned Beltway wheeler-dealer.” Or as one of Obama’s early Chicago mentors, Denny Jacobs, explained to his biographer David Remnick, Obama is a pol who learned early that “sometimes you can’t get the whole hog, so you take the ham sandwich.”
But the truth, dear reader, is that it does not much matter who is right about what Barack Obama dreams of in his political imagination…
…What’s more, one hypothesis—one I’m tempted to share—for the Obama administration’s willingness to compromise so extensively on the promises that candidate Obama made during the 2008 campaign would be that as president, he is playing for time. Obama is taking the best deal on the table today, but hopes and expects that once he is re-elected in 2012—a pretty strong bet, I’d say—he will build on the foundations laid during his first term to bring on the fundamental “change” that is not possible in today’s environment. This would be consistent with FDR’s strategy during his second term and makes a kind of sense when one considers the nature of the opposition he faces today and the likelihood that it will discredit itself following a takeover of one or both houses in 2010.
I wouldn’t have put it in exactly those terms, but that’s basically how I feel about Obama. I am not personally disappointed in the man, despite Alterman’s opening insistence that I should be.
Few progressives would take issue with the argument that, significant accomplishments notwithstanding, the Obama presidency has been a big disappointment.
I am not disappointed for all the reasons that Alterman goes on to spell out in painful detail. I am disappointed that Obama has not been able to deliver on all campaign promises but since Alterman provides me with more than a dozen systemic villains to choose from to blame for this disappointment, I don’t need to point my disappointment at the man who proffered that agenda in the first place. Moreover, my recollection from the campaign was that all the major candidates (Clinton, Edwards, and Obama) were criticized from the left for not offering a progressive agenda. Yet, Alterman characterizes Obama’s platform as if it were the second-coming of the New Deal. He never promised that. What happened is that economic conditions changed and required Obama to respond much as FDR had to respond, with bold rescues and sweeping reforms. He didn’t have a mandate for that because the economic collapse came less than two months before the election.
I think it’s myopic to act as though the people elected Obama because of his promises on how to rescue the economy, but it’s equally short-sighted to behave as though an historic economic collapse shouldn’t have re-shuffled his campaign promises and priorities. That’s exactly what key advisers like Joe Biden and Rahm Emanuel argued when they said Obama should drop health care to focus on jobs. Obama stuck to his guns on health care, but it was inevitable that other promises would slip. And understanding that is just as important as understanding all the other obstacles in Obama’s path.
If you thought electing Obama would guarantee that all of his promises would become law inside of two years, you are going to be disappointed. I’m not. I’m extremely happy with the president and nearly at my wit’s end with pretty much everyone else in this country. No faction frustrates me more than my own, and I’m grateful for Alterman for starting this conversation. I just wish he’d shine a mirror on himself and our movement. We need to hear about our shortcomings, too. Our biggest shortcoming is not understanding what Alterman has written and what it means for how we should feel about this administration. As I’ve said, this present Congress is the most productive and progressive Congress since 1965-66 and this president is the most successful and progressive since LBJ, and too many of us are focused on our disappointments and not focused on the right-wing threat that lurks out there with all its institutional advantages, just waiting to destroy this country, for good.
He probably has a no-better-than-human ability to endure prolonged whining.
Sometimes — ask any parent — while justice is what you want, quiet is what you’ll settle for.
I happen to think that Obama is doing quite well on the “promises front”: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
In my opinion, mitigating/modifying the filibuster, in my opinion, is the single biggest thing (besides maintaining control of the House and Senate this November) that needs to be done for more promises to be completed and at a faster pace.
I don’t think 2012 is going to bring about a period of progressive change, mainly because the economy is going to be so awful that the GOP wins by default.
Obama will have no choice but to slash spending and raise taxes.
What’s disappointing is that by taking half the loaf on the stimulus, he set himself up for failure later on…and so help me, I don’t think Obama will get a second term.
All the truly great things this President and this Congress has done won’t matter for shit if unemployment is still 9%+ in November 2012.
But “half a loaf on stimulus” was the only loaf on offer. President Collins and President Nelson were going to spend $800 billion, and not a dime more. Where they got that magic figure, I don’t know, but it was important enough to filibuster over.
Then force them to filibuster … hold rallies in Maine .. like Atrios said .. don’t settle like they seem to be
Yep. I agree completely. In hindsight, letting collapse continue until the Republicans were forced to back down would have been better.
Read this essay by Intel Founder Andy Grove in Bloomberg Business Week: Andy Grove: How America Can Create Jobs”
And then compare it to Obama’s speech in Kansas City about green jobs and building “Green Impact Zones”.
I suspect the narrative is being built, the organizing will commence soon and the policy debate over jobs will take place after labor day.
by Wilson Carey McWilliams is well worth a look. Published at the tale end of the 1960s, McWilliams took issue with much of the New Left criticism of traditional American politics and polity and the idea of a liberal individual dominance in American political culture.
McWilliams’ argues instead that American political culture is actually an unfolding of “fraternity” over time (which includes women as well as men) that advances a politics of compassion and love grounded in the small d democracy of associations, communities and other relational groups.
Underneath all the policy battles and electoral jockeying, this is where I think President Obama is actually heading. A call to our better natures, a recognition that a politics of morality and civility — how we treat our compatriots at the dawn of life, at the end of life and in the shadows of life — to paraphrase Hubert Humphrey, is what is needed at this moment in time.
I especially recommend McWilliams’ chapters Fraternity and Modern Politics and Fraternity and the Myths of Identity which discusses how modern American politics and political thought had become unmoored from the ideas of the democratic polity of the Greeks and of the romantic and Judeo-Christian visions of community and brotherhood.
This is really interesting – thanks northcountry. I’ll have to check it out.
I find it hard to believe that progressives are upset because President Obama hasn’t accomplished everything he promised yet. Especially considering that he has accomplished or set in motion quit a lot. I can see there would be frustration at the attempts to gain bipartisanship and what that has wrought. I think that and the lack of combativeness by the administration have left progressives feeling depressed and so any negative frame becomes more acceptable — finger pointing is easier when you are depressed. Compound this with his decisions on allowing prosecution of former administration officials and on not pulling out of Bush administration privacy practices and I can see why some progressives are not happy. Then you have the likes of Olbermann who for all they’ve don for the cause are sounding like prima donnas. Lets get one thing straight, Obama is not faultless when it comes to Afghanistan or the oil spill or any one of a small handful of issues, but he doesn’t deserve Olbermann’s continued wrath for any of it.
As I said before, in the end real issue is that he is use a right-wing mindset to accomplish what he DOES accomplish. And that is fucking dangerous. It makes people think in terms far closer to the Tea Party. Framing is what explains the utter unstoppable dominance of the right against all reason and facts. Get people to think a certain way and certain avenues are closed to them.
The thing is, Obama’s method will only make it worse and when the country thinks in a “right” way, all the accomplishments are in danger of being rolled back or gutted with people cheering them on.
If I thought Obama REALLY believed in Progressivism I’d be more willing to give him a pass but there’s been little dog whistles and lots of hippy punching.
Obama how are we supposed to move the country left if you are fighting it every step of the way? Government doesn’t create jobs? I don’t care who you are talking to that is completely unconscionable and outright lie.
MNPundit, I’d be interested to hear more about Obama’s “right-wing mindset”.
Based on my limited knowledge of Obama’s background, I can think of four major influences—all progressive—that contribute to Obama’s public use of language and his habits of mind.
So here’s a president from a multi-racial, multi-ethnic family, spiritually rooted in the institution that has arguably done more than any other in the US in the past two generations for the cause of human freedom, with an abiding interest in and respect for our democracy’s constitution and how to think about it, and a practical (though brief) education in how to build political and social power for progressive change.
All four factors tend (I would argue) toward a progressive mindset. All four also tend toward having a healthy respect for one’s opponents, and more importantly, for one’s potential allies.
You are absolutely right about the right-wing threat. For the last 18 months, they have been trying everything they can think of, from the Tea Party to Sarah Palin to the Citizens United decision — eventually something is going to stick. They haven’t been able to get any anti-Democrat and anti-Obama traction over recent issues like unemployment and the BP oil disaster, but I expect a national security scare will be ginned up before November.
Excellent Booman, you’re not the only one who thinks the president is good. I’m not disappointed at all in him. I am disappointed in a hell of a lot of democrats, though.
So .. no disappointment over stuff like this?:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_07/024670.php
“I’m extremely happy with the president and nearly at my wit’s end with pretty much everyone else in this country.”
I pretty much agree with this wholeheartedly. People can bitch and moan all they like but the fact won’t change that Obama and the Democratic Congress has been incredibly productive and literally progressive towards liberal goals. When Congress gets in the way or delays, Obama tries as much to go around them within his power; witness EPA vs carbon, PTSD cover for vets etc.
Even leaving that aside, the alternative is so much worse it’s not even worth considering. And by alternative I mean a vote for a republican or not voting, since both are going to mean the same thing in November. This is not a lesser of two evils question. This is a question of deep dark evil vs good but maybe could be better. There simply is no comparison and both parties are NOT on the same side of the scales.
I agree wholeheartedly and find Booman’s take so eminently reasonable and the Republican alternative to even blue dog democrats that I wonder about the motivation of all the poutrage set. Surely it should be obvious that now is the time to circle the wagons, protect the backs of all our candidates and GOTV. Anyone’s thoughts?
So you aren’t concerned about this?:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_07/024670.php
Well, I’ll bite if no one else will.
Sure it concerns me. And just about every week, there’s something out of the White House, or out of a top-ranking Obama appointee that concerns me.
But, with all due respect to me, it’s not all about me.
Overall, Obama and his administration are moving the country, and its government, in a better direction than we’ve been moving for years.
I can encourage him when I agree and criticize as constructively as possible when I disagree.
Or I can harp on his failings and thereby give aid and comfort to the Republicans who are the only other option for political power in the country we live in.
So me calling them out because they’ve given up on improving things re: the employment situation is giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Got it!!
So is it Nader or Kucinich in 2012? I agree with calling people out and all but sometimes you’ve got to give a little credit.
Sorry, poor choice of words on my part.
By all means, let’s keep pushing for (among other things) more on reducing unemployment.
My preference is to “call out” the real obstacles to progressive change—in this case Senate Republicans.
I’m not shy about reminding the Obama administration that their 2009 policies were aimed at getting unemployment down around 7.5% by now. But in terms of actually getting something done about it now, strategically and tactically it makes more sense (in my view) to attack the Republicans.
I wouldn’t worry about your poor choice of words. They have been deliberately mischaracterised. Politics is a business of choice between what’s on offer. If you don’t like what’s on offer, don’t vote, that’s fine. But in my view you really have to NOT like what’s on offer. A criticism here or there about messaging, or priorities or some such isn’t enough it seems to me otherwise you’ll never vote since there is always such criticism to be had. And yes, push the people you support to do things you want, that’s all fine and good. But don’t feel betrayed if they don’t think the same as you, and don’t do it in a way that enables the republicans to gain power. It’s really not that hard. Boo does it all the time here; critique and support, critique and support.
When you say “concerned” it is unclear what you mean? Do you mean “concerned” for the people suffering, for the Democratic majority, for the President or for all three. Let’s assume Steve Benen’s column is totally right in that Axe’s comments evidence a White House not prepared to fight about something which they know they’ll lose. What is really lost? just the fight, right? Or do you think that by fighting they will somehow get the idiots in Congress to change their stance? If so, then I appreciate your concern because there is a possibility that something can be done. I am not sure I agree that this is possible however.
On the other hand, if are concerned about the politics of it all, I would trust Obama and the admin on this score – they’ve pretty much always exceeded or confounded expectations in the political field and I think they are better placed than you or I in this regard. Again this is not a ‘i trust obama’ thing but I do think that the people with the biggest motiviation to get things right politically are the people within the Obama administration.
So, not really concerned no. Certainly that report does not make me think that Obama is less good as a President than I previously thought.
Amen. Well said Booman.
I did expect that Obama would accomplish quite a lot but was not prepared for him to have to work under such difficult circumstances, most notably the Republican’s complete disregard for anything good for the country with their “Party of No” tactics. I really thought McCain was genuine in his concession speech and was going to fade into the sunset trying to do what was good of the country.
Another of those unexpected and disapppointing events has been the continuous whining from so-called progressives about one thing or another. Not only the complaining but the complete lack of acknowledgment of the Obama administration’s accomplishments.
To me, the biggest accomplishments are all the small day by day things that are getting done to move the country in the right direction and those go largely unnoticed by the media and the liberal blogs.
Some of the liberal critiscism is legitimate (such as the build-up in Afghanistan), but the clear majority of it is on issues that Obama himself cannot fix, either due to congressional vote problems or Republican obstruction. I just don’t get it.
…if he pursued progressive ends when he has unfettered power to do so. But he doesn’t always do that, especially on foreign policy (e.g., Afghanistan) or civil liberties (e.g., continuing W’s policies on a number of fronts).
That makes it hard for progressives to believe him when he or his supporters claim he would do more but is hamstrung by Congress.
In any case, progressives are to the left of wherever US politics is at a given moment- BY DEFINITION! Our job is to drag the country along. We therefore have to accept compromise in the moment as a step toward our eventual goals.
I have only one beef with Obama and it concerns the people that he picked to form his administration. Bullshit politics aside, the one thing Obama had complete control over is the type and character of his cabinet and White House advisors and staff. The promise he made during the election can only be achieved with a corps of specially motivated people with unique and creative skills. For the most part Obama failed to do this and surrounded himself with his campaign managers and general Washington beltway political hacks from the Clinton administration.
Strong creative people are necessary to problem solve the multitude of problems left behind by the Bush administration. This deficiency has reared its ugly head in the recent revelations that Bush holdover personnel in key regulatory departments were allowed to remain in their positions and thus create problems for the Obama administration. These people should have been sent packing immediately after Obama became President.
World problems consistent with humanity in the 21st century also need strong creative people capable of addressing these problems. So this is my beef with Obama. It was a wonderful opportunity that thus far he has missed. For me “beer and hamburger” summits does not start to measure up to what I expected from Barack Obama and his administration.
I’m with you on this. His appointment of the economics team is a major fault and the lack of prosecution of the war criminals another inexplicable mistake.
Otherwise, I think he has done better than could be expected in the prevailing political climate.
I agree almost completely. The test of Obama being a disappointment would be to think of somebody who would have done better at this time in his/her presidency under the circumstances Obama walked into. I can’t think of anybody. Clinton? Kucinich? Sanders? Edwards without the screwing around? Stark? Gray? Some might have rallied the lefty troops a little more, but any of them would have had a hard time reaching Obama’s level of actual accomplishment, let alone surpassing it.
I think the disappointment is really with America. Even the most dedicated cynics among us let ourselves imagine for one shining moment that Obama’s election signaled some geologic shift in the American ethos. Didn’t happen, of course, and in retrospect was a really silly idea. But after the open corruption of Election 2000 and all that followed, you can’t blame a guy for grasping at a little hope where he finds it. It’s inevitable that the national disappointment would settle on Obama rather than trouble us with a mandate to make our own change.
A couple quibbles:
I think it matters deeply. What we believe about Obama’s basic aspirations and political dreams directly determines how much slack we cut re the disappointments and how much credibility we give him when he’s making the hard, no-win decisions. I think Obama’s inscrutability and the low-connect between his talk and his actions has made his problems worse.
Somebody has to keep the “progressive” vision alive. Presidents are not in position to do that because it would require always being out ahead of what’s doable now. That job falls to the lefty contingent, and we’ve done a really shitty job of articulating a coherent range of proposals that grow out of progressive ideology — or even of articulating a progressive ideology. Ain’t our job to just keep heaping Obama with adulation. OTOH, it also ain’t our job to keep whining because he didn’t do exactly what we wanted when we wanted it. The pathetic bawling that Obama still hasn’t stopped the oil spill is a perfect example of the kind of addled fantasy country some of our best friends seem to live in. That’s unlikely to change until we’re ready to fight for the kind of radical structural change we’ll need in order to survive as a society.
Some of the folks who regular read my comments might think that the triple-digit temperatures here have tectched me a mite in the haid. But here goes.
The problem with progressives in July 2010 is that they are engaged in too much meta-conversation at a critical time to push for change. And too many have exalted notions of voting with moral purity. Any Southern progressive will tell you that our votes have not had that moral purity; we have voted for Blue Dogs because the Republican was more obnoxious. Hell, we’ve even campaigned for Blue Dogs, knowing that our disappointment in their votes was going to be less that the damage that their Republican opponents could do. You see, moral judgments most frequently come as a decision between right and wrong or good and bad. They come as right and more right or wrong and less wrong; good or better or bad or worse.
We are in an election in which for a lot of folks the decision is between bad and worse. And what makes this more problematic is that this election is critical if we are not going to be jerked back into the Republican garbage of the last 30 years. Any honest progressive revolutionary not besieged by nostalgia for 1960s or besotted with the revolutionary romanticism of youth could tell you that. “Let it become worse and take to the streets” is a formula for great moral failure. OK. I’m done with my meta.
The strategic situation is that the narrative is against Democrats gaining seats in Congress in an election which based on performance and the failure of the other party to provide an alternative policy would in other times be a slam dunk. The revolutionary act is to change the narrative by a convincing Democratic victory in November. Or if anyone has a better idea for changing the narrative — one that has some promise of working — let me know.
What that means is that progressives should get out and actively campaign for the most progressive folks left in primaries. And then go all out to elect the full Democratic slate in November. If you are in South Carolina, that means that you campaign hard for Alvin Greene — because with all of his limitations and faults Alvin Greene is most likely a damn sight better than Jim DeMint for the country. He doesn’t have to talk in the Senate, he just has to vote. And going all out for Greene can mean that Vincent Sheheen becomes governor and a few more down-ticket Democratic candidates win. If Alvin Greene is disqualified and a new Senator must be appointed, a Democratic governor could do the appointing. As for his obscenity charges, compare his behavior with that of Johhn Ensign who remains in the Senate or David Vitter who is running for re-election. What has happened is that he has been cleared of suspicion of other people financing his campaign and the prosecutor will not pursue him for his gaining a public defender. That’s what I mean by decisions between bad and worse.
This election must be like the 2002 election, which is what gave W the power to accomplish his ill-considered agenda. But instead of the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that the GOP has been peddling, we must regain the sense of promise of the 2008 election. Stop grousing; start talking about the progress that the hard work of a lot of people has accomplished in spite of the stone wall of Republican opposition. And when Lugar votes with the leadership, it is indeed a stone wall.
Republicans can be put on the defensive over the obstruction of extension of unemployment benefits, their failure to jawbone their buddies on Wall Street into taking the risk of reinvesting in the US, and their sanctimony over a deficit that by and large they created. But to put them on the defensive requires persistence; they are used to brushing off criticism, arguing with non sequiturs, and other tricks.
And that greatest of institutional advantages that Republicans have – control over the national dialogue in the media. Obama showed how to get around that in 2008. You do it with strong field operations, flawless canvassing and active get-out-the-vote campaigns–friendly but relentless. You don’t want to convince someone to vote a certain way; you want to find who already is convinced and ensure that they mark their ballot for the Democratic slate.
Once Democrats have solidified their power, we can then nitpit about which Democrats are not progressive enough. Because the overlap in voting records between Democrats and Republicans is really quite minimal. Mike McIntyre, as Blue Doggy as he is, is much preferable to the local equivalent of Sue Myrick or Virginia Foxx. And what overlap there is, is between Republicans in more liberal states and Democrats in more conservative states.
Bottom line. The victory in November will not be about policy or ideology or governing philosophy. It will be about control of the narrative.
Tarheel Dem, it’s always a pleasure to hear some good old-style Southern preaching on a Sunday evening.
I declare, I feel a little like I just got out of the Sunday evening service at the First Baptist Church of Southern Liberalism. (And a fine church it is.)
Thanks mightily for your kind words.
There are a couple of churches in North Carolina that might be aptly called the First Baptist Church of Southern Liberalism. Myers Park Baptist Church in Charlotte was the first church in town to desegregate back in the 1960s; its then pastor Carlyle Marney was active in the civil rights movement. And Binkley Memorial Baptist Church in Chapel Hill has been open to gay couples for the past decade and a half. If North Carolina ever allows same sex marriage, I’m sure that Binkley Memorial will have one of the first weddings.
BTW, neither of them are members of the Southern Baptist Convention. I tried to find their current affiliation to no avail. I believe that Binkley is affiliated with both a northern Baptist association and an African-American Baptist association.
And giant puppets. Because if there are no giant puppets, I’m not turning out.
You have to make your own giant puppet.
I’ll have no problem in my area of NoCal voting for my Dem reps — they’re either clearly a tick or two to the left of Obama or, as with Jerry Brown, offer the promise of being not only clearly superior to their Repub opponent but also have a good gov’t track record of accomplishment.
Such is not the case with the glaringly bad example for party loyalty you dredge up in the middle of your post, one Alvin Greene of SC, a joke of a phony Dem who somehow snuck in for the nomination under what look to be suspicious Repub-gaming-the-system circumstances.
Sorry, but there are times when party loyalty asks too much, as JFK once said.
Though in the case of Greene, I’m not even sure the SC Dem Party is asking Dems of that state to vote for him. So far all I’ve heard is that they haven’t been able to find any legal reasons to exclude him as party nominee. And it would seem negligent of them, at this point, to just passively accept a clearly bogus nominee instead of working to place a true Dem on the ballot as a 3d party choice, if that is still legally feasible.
Party loyalty has its limits. I draw the line clearly with the joke candidate Greene.
Beyond that, the Obama admin can be doing a better job in trying to give Dem voters something positive to vote for, which motive voters usually need to show up in numbers at the polls. He needs to be doing more to shore up the horrible economic/jobs/housing situation that some Dem incumbents are having hung around their necks by R opponents. At the least, O needs to be out there going for more major economic stimulus for Main St, even if it falls short in Congress. That would nicely sharpen the differences for grumpy folks deciding which party to punish.
Make the effort, make it about something big which directly helps people rather than supply side, take your case to the people using the bully pulpit, and watch as grousing Dems and formerly O-voting indies show up at the polls to vote our way.
O needs to make clear — because right now many Dems are uncertain, for good reason given some of O’s advisors and O’s centrist ways — that he’s going to be choosing jobs over overblown concerns about the deficit.
concerns about the deficit are not overblown. But we have to be clear about short-term vs. long-term.
You have to spend money to make money, and someone has to make money for the government to get any revenues.
Since no one has any money, or they’re not willing to risk it, the government needs to go further into debt to get out of debt.
Because this is counterintuitive and because we really do have crushing long-term debts (which do include Social Security), this is a very hard thing to sell to the public.
We just have to keep at it because Congress is not currently going to spend the money, and they have solid short-term reasons from refusing to do it. It won’t create that many jobs before November and they’ll get hammered at the polls unless the public at-large accepts this counterintuitive argument.
Because this is counterintuitive and because we really do have crushing long-term debts (which do include Social Security)
Social Security is not a problem. Health care costs are the problem.
keep telling yourself that. It won’t make it true.
Social Security is only a problem if those “intragovernmental transfers” in the Public Debt account never get paid back (transferred back) to the Social Security Trust Fund. The problem that Social Security has is politicians using Trust Fund monies to offset the deficit. This is an federal government accounting convention that must be changed.
The demographics are a short term problem that might very well be offset by immigration. The operating assumption of the fearmongers is that every age cohort going into the future looks like the Boomer age cohort. They don’t.
The primary weakness in payroll tax revenues at the moment is the large unemployment rate. And you have to look beyond the 9.7% rate to understand that and underemployment rate of 17% or so is a killer for payroll tax revenues.
The major issue however is military spending. Sec. Gates has raised the question of whether we can afford to have a Navy composed of $6 billion aircraft carriers, $9 billion submarines, and $3 billion surface ships. There are similar questions that need to be asked about other branches of the military and especially about the “black budget” items. A second issue is unprosecuted fraud and recovery of fraudulently paid out money from military contractors. The third is the ability of military contractors to lobby Congress, something that many domestic programs explicitly prohibit in their contractors. Which explains why many of the military contractors have gotten extensive contracts with domestic programs of federal agencies.
If Obama wants to build a “new foundation” for the US, the money has to come from somewhere.
TarheelDem, you’re right; cutting the military down to size (say, a budget equal the the sum of the #2-#11 military nations for starters) is a huge potential source of investment capital. Cutting health care spending (say, spending 1% of GDP more than the next industrialized nation). Banking and investment profits as a percentage of total corporate profits (say, back to where they were in 1980…or 1970…or 1960).
Combined, those three cuts free up hundreds of billions of dollars (at least) a year that could be used to:
*Rebuild existing infrastructure (water & sewer, mass transit, roads and bridges, dams and harbors);
*Build new infrastructure (high speed rail, clean energy, broadband);
*Invest in people (human capital—education, youth jobs and internships).
And there’d still be money for deficit/long-term debt reduction.
And that’s without even getting into tax policy….
The problem with that argument is that the revenue hasn’t been raised to pay that money back. If you are talking about our debt, that obligation is real.
So the question is whether the Congress has the courage to raise revenues or to cut Social Security and Medicare.
The debt obligation is real but irrelevant to the Social Security issue. That’s what Al Gore’s much ridiculed lockbox was about–restoring those intragovernmental transfers back to the Social Security Trust Fund.
You see a lot of folks who do have 401(k)s don’t understand that for many workers Social Security will be the only income they have. And more workers are falling into that category. Some of those 30- and 40-year old libertarians now cheering this on will be among them, but they don’t realize that yet.
Rising Social Security costs are not the reason for the deficit – economic stagnation, giving a blank check to the military, and the Bush tax cuts are. If the obligations for that debt are real, let some of the folks who brought Bush to power and cheered his tax cuts in a time of war pay for eliminating the deficit and bringing down the debt. Apparently the obligation for our debt is not real enough for Pete Peterson to donate a billion dollars to the IRS fund. Or for those who made out like bandits from the overall bailout of Wall Street to ask for more progressive income taxes. Or for high wage workers whose payroll taxes are capped to say remove the cap.
Right, the revenue has not been raised to pay that money back. That is not a problem with Social Security as an entitlement. That is a problem with a Congress unwilling to deal with reality.
This issue needs to be put on the agenda before November although the strategy of having a lame duck vote was trying to avoid it becoming “political” so that Democrats could make the “tough choices”.
And yes, I have a dog in this hunt. Social Security is the major income for my wife and I. The Republicans will not stop until they cut current recipients off their benefits. They are nibbling at this just like they have nibbled away women’s right to choose and policies for gun control in urban areas. Give them this and there will be another crisis in 2012 that demands and end to “entitlements”. Well by golly, they go first. End unlimited retirement benefits for all federal elected and appointed officials. There is not reason that millions of Social Security beneficiaries should have to cut back so that Dick Cheney can continue to receive his multi-dip lavish federal retirement.
well, yeah, the ‘crisis’ with Social Security is that we now have to pay for it instead of using it as a subsidy to keep people’s taxes low or our budget high, depending on how you look at it. But the point is that we now have to pay for it. It’s no longer a net positive for our revenues, but a drain. The drain is paid for in one sense, the so-called lockbox, but the chits in that lockbox are not paid for. So, from an appropriators’ point of view, Social Security is now a major crisis. Of course we should have raised the revenues to match the chits, but we didn’t. So when you look at our debt, Social Security is a major part of it. And no one really wants to raise taxes at the moment, even on the wealthy.
I don’t mind the hardline on Social Security. It’s the correct negotiating position to take. Concede nothing at the outset. But there are going to be changes made. My guess is that they will propose taking a little bit out of everyone’s hide, but not too much in any direction. They’ll raise the retirement age a year or two, cut benefits slightly for those in their twenties, and raise the cap on the tax modestly.
About Alvin Greene: Investigation of the source of the money showed that $9000 came from two different payments from the US military, just as Greene maintained. The other $1440 could easily have come from his brother or his father. They could find no evidence that he asked for a public defender, only that he accepted one when proffered. The obscenity case is still out there but its one of those IOKIYAR type of cases. And on policy, Greene has been consistent; he thinks the government needs to do something about unemployment; that is his sole campaign plank. The SC Democratic Party Executive Committee chose not to invalidate the primary after a three hour hearing of evidence and a one-hour executive session. The current thinking is that it is a fluke of a low-turnout election–an outlier. And if you do a side-by-side comparison of Jim DeMint and Alvin Greene from a progressives viewpoint Greene is the better candidate. What does that say about DeMint. If elected, there are members of the Congressional Black Caucus who would reach out to Greene (probably not Jim Clyburn out of embarrrassment) and could reason with him. And most likely he would be a reliable vote for the President’s 2008 agenda.
About sitting out: That part of the progressive movement that thinks sitting out is an option need to understand that given the fact that they are localized in only a few districts (somewhat self-selected in my opinion) they have no power to extort Obama to do or say anything. All they can do is spoil progress towards freeing the country from the Republican death grasp. You might not like that but even after 42 years in the wilderness, progressives have not worked energetically to change that. They let primary dates pass even after threatening to primary various Blue Dog candidates. They are not recruiting and training candidates. They are not establishing themselves in Democratic Party institutions. They have been engaged in more meta-conversation than in looking to the future and what has to be done. And then they expect the Democratic Party to snap to their issues because they are “the base”. In some areas progressives might represent the margin of victory just by voting in an election but I doubt that in any Congressional are progressives “the base”. And independent progressives don’t even claim to be the base. What we have here is short-term thinking.
About Obama: One of the things I’ve noticed about the way Obama moves issues is that he does two things that drive progressives nuts. He plays a rope-a-dope strategy to discover exactly what it is that the Republicans have in the way of support. It is the same strategy he used against both Clinton and McCain. And he co-opts Republican issues without necessarily accepting Republican solutions. Regardless of his personal opinions, he knows what he can and can’t accomplish and does a whole lot of finessing in order to get even half a loaf. And he knows how to get saner Republicans to take themselves out of the looniness. He maneuvered Specter out of office; so progressives better make sure that Sestak wins. He tried to maneuver Judd Gregg out of the Senate unsuccessfully; a move that angered the right wing and caused Gregg’s retirement. He switched a seat in NY from Republican to Democrat. Sure he lost some.
About the Catfood Commission: The current narrative is that the Catfood Commission will recommend cuts in entitlements, especially Social Security and Medicare, finess the termination of the Bush tax cuts, and not do anything about military spending. The current legislative situation is that those recommendations will come the House, be considered on an up-or-down vote and the ones that pass will go onto the Senate and do this in the lame duck session of Congress. That means that the public reaction to the the current narrative (the actual report won’t come out until after the election) will determine what gets approved and what gets scrapped. Or if it is offered as an inseparable package, whether it passes or fails. That vote is why progressives must work everywhere for Republicans to lose offices and must make sure that folks understand what is at stake in this vote. Because the media are going to sugarcoat it. For example, age discrimination of workers over 40 is a huge problem; how exactly are 65-70-year olds going to find work if the retirement age is upped. Are folks under 50 cool with the Boomers getting full Social Security benefits and theirs being delayed or reduced? Given the collapse of the stock market, it is wise to privatize both 401(k)s and Social Security? What is the vested interest in the Chair of Black Rock Securities (Pete Peterson) in privatizing Social Security? If Social Security is privatized, what restriction will be placed on fund management fees and how does that compare to the current operating costs of administering Social Security?
I see this move as Obama’s creating some emotion in the base if they will only get angry and get moving instead of sulking.
Once again, the 2010 election is about narrative. The narrative that progressives and Democrats need to prevail in establishing is that the Republicans have gone too loony to govern and that is why voters repudiated them and supported Democrats.
It seems to me that if you bitch about Obama, you’d have hated FDR. People forget that FDR had majorities we can’t even fathom today, didn’t face a right a wing noise machine or reflexive Republican filibusters on everything, and had liberal Republicans to reach out to and with all that look at the original Social Security he passed.
Social Security at its inception had benefits that were negligible, and the program excluded agricultural workers, domestic workers (meaning blacks and Hispanics got nothing), the self-employed, railroad employees, government employees, clergy, and those who worked for non-profits. The original Social Security bill offered no benefits for dependents or survivors, and included no cost-of-living increases. It was garbage. It only improved later.
If Obama had passed such a waterd down piece of shit the left would have gone insane.
People also forget the second thing FDR did once in office. The second act to become law under the New Deal, after the Emergency Banking Act, which was a progressive piece of legislation, was a conservative bill, the Economy Act. It cut salaries of government employees and benefits to veterans, the latter by 15 percent. Arthur Schlesinger, in The Coming of the New Deal, writes that literally an hour after signing the banking act, Roosevelt outlined this bill to congressional leaders, saying the next day and sounding more than a little like some Robert Rubin progenitor had been whispering in his ear: “For three long years, the federal government has been on the road toward bankruptcy.” (And maybe one had: Schlesinger notes that Roosevelt’s budget director, Lewis Douglas, was certainly no Keynesian.)
Let’s also not forget FDR cutting back on spending and throwing the economy back into recession, stacking the board of his National Industry Recovery Act with center right people including a Reynolds Tobacco executive as it’ head.
Oh yeah, he also threw Americans in internment camps.
Oh, and he also did nothing for Universal health care.
Oh, and that watered down piece of shit he passed called Social Security didn’t pass until his 3rd year in office.
Oh, and the minimum wage didn’t get passed until his 6th year in office.
With all that, he was the best. Thank goodness for him. My point is FDR wasn’t the FDR everyone makes him out to be. For every supposed non liberal thing Obama has done you can pretty much find something equivalent with FDR.
Overall I’ve really pleased with this administration.
Excellent comparative description. If we fritter this all away in November with the so-called progressives staying home, the teabagger Palin world we will be forced to live in will be one incredibly sad and scary place.
So why can’t we learn from the past? Because that’s what you are saying, is that we don’t, and can’t.
Calvin Jones, I understand volagsrule to be saying first, that the good old days weren’t always all that good. So that’s one thing we can learn from the past.
Another thing we can learn from the past is that, as bad as things are now, they could be worse. Yes, we have the tea partiers now, but at least we don’t have the KKK of the 1870s… or the 1890s…or the 1920s…or the 1950s. Yes, Obama’s not a true progressive, but at least we don’t have FDR, or LBJ.
Oh wait. For me, one use of history is that it helps me understand and interpret our own times. Studying history roots me more deeply, so that I’m better able to survive the storms of life and politics.
We can learn from history, and one lesson from history is it’s tough (if not impossible, but that’s a different discussion) to change human nature.
Another lesson is that every generation has its progressive heroes and heroines (often more of the latter)—every one of them flawed and imperfect as we are. It didn’t stop them either.