AMERICA WAS “FOUNDED ON COMPROMISE”?
Obama Ignores Truman: Rationalizing Tax Cuts & Cowardice
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
George Orwell
Actions of the Democratic leadership over the past few years demonstrate a grim governmental deficit; not only in spending, but also in understanding. Repeated refusals by congressional leadership of the Democratic Party to firmly stand on foundational progressive principles have resulted in loss of rare opportunity and colossal failure to actually bring about truly meaningful protections for America against the moneyed interests who are gradually succeeding in buying the rights to human well-being.
The current congressional leadership of the Democratic Party has become the perfect example of failure in learning from history; their recent endeavors demonstrate virtually complete unawareness of the warning President Harry S. Truman issued in a speech nearly sixty years ago (1952). Harry S. Truman said:
“I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.
Given the results of the recent midterm elections, Truman’s words have a peculiarly haunting echoe down through the decades since he wandered the halls of the White House. He went on to say:
“We are getting a lot of suggestions to the effect that we ought to water down our platform and abandon parts of our program. These, my friends, are Trojan horse suggestions. I have been in politics for over 30 years, and I know what I am talking about, and I believe I know something about the business. One thing I am sure of: never, never throw away a winning program. This is so elementary that I suspect the people handing out this advice are not really well-wishers of the Democratic Party.
“More than that, I don't believe they have the best interests of the American people at heart. There is something more important involved in our program than simply the success of a political party.”
Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action (May 17, 1952)
(All highlights mine)
Virtually all polls indicated that the majority of Obama’s supporters did not support his predisposition for “compromise” in granting the fiscally irresponsible tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% of Americans in Obama’s most recent surrender to his Republican masters. Obama’s pattern of capitulation to Republicans, in lockstep with other Blue Dogs in Congress, has become a destructive decay among progressives in America. Progressives must wonder if Obama is not a variety of “Trojan Horse” intentionally placed to create just such decay through deceptive infiltration like that of the infiltration of Troy via the original Trojan Horse.
http://s3.moveon.org/pdfs/pollmemo_final_120710.pdf
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/concession-on-tax-cuts-fo_n_793295.html
The phrasing of the question made a difference:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/do-americans-support-obamas-tax-cuts-deal.php
Be that as it may, what I find equally disturbing about this lack of ability to learn from history is that, among voters, so many self-labeled and apparently party-loyal Democrats attempt to rationalize and become enablers of the phoniness, sightlessness and cowardice of the current congressional Democratic leadership. In addition, two defectors from the Democratic Party in Texas recently switched their loyalty (I use the word reluctantly – perhaps financial affiliation is more accurate), to the Republican Party of Texas.
“The people don’t want a phony Democrat.”
Truman puts the present-day Democratic Party conundrum into perfect perspective (I found it telling that he called politics “the business”). The equation is not complicated, but the enablers attempt to rationalize the phoniness, sightlessness and cowardice of the current Democratic leadership by fabricating complicated scenarios that supposedly justify, or at least excuse, the colossal failure that now characterizes the Democratic Party (except where and when the media spin it otherwise). Truman’s analogy of the Trojan horse is exact, definitive, although today the Trojan horse is known as the Blue Dog Coalition, to which Obama is closely aligned. A “Blue Dog Democrat” is “a Republican in Democratic clothing”, although they may be relatively “moderate” Republicans.
Fiscal Conservative/Social Progressive
Fiscal conservatism is a political term used to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as ensuring balanced budget to be of paramount importance. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and other conservative policies are also often but not necessarily affiliated with fiscal conservatism.
One major problem is that social equality, health and viability require that those who have more give more. Thus the progressive taxation that made America great during the era that today’s Republicans so fondly, even romantically, memorialize seems to indicate that fiscal conservatives’ anti-tax/anti-spend ideology contradicts the socially progressive characteristic to which Blue Dog Democrats lay claim.
The current Democratic Party has been infiltrated by Trojan horse politicians who promote conservative principles while self-labeling themselves as Democrats, which naturally diminishes progressive representation in Congress even when Democrats hold the White House and majorities in both chambers.
As a result, the recent mid-term elections revealed that many progressive voters have essentially abandoned the Democratic Party and with good reason; the Democratic Party no longer represents progressive principles. There are progressive Democrats, but the Party, as a whole, no longer represents progressives; it may be the lesser evil because it represents more moderate conservatives while the Republican Party represents radical conservatives, but if those elected under the Democratic banner consistently allow the Republican minority to control the debate and to rule the day, then there is no effectual difference between them.
The world has changed since Truman's day; but in what ways and how much? Perhaps the major changes lie in the further development of trends that were already present in that era, such as that about which Dwight Eisenhower warned. Eisenhower warned of corporate corruption combining with a military-industrial corporate model – the “military-industrial complex” – whose tentacles we now see reaching out across the globe; a business model that tragically robs our resources, human and financial, destroys the environment, and passes on all costs to those who are least able to compensate.
Regardless of such changes, human nature has not changed all that much, if at all. Politics must, naturally, react to changes in the world, but, in so doing, must not lose connection to human nature. After all, human nature is the foundational driving force for politics, the drive to survive combined with the recognition that survival requires cooperation.
“There is something more important involved in our program than simply the success of a political party.”
I am starting to wonder if we are becoming a nation of cowards who are simply afraid to speak the truth through our votes, such as those votes exist. I’m reminded of the words in the Declaration of Independence:
“…all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
When I criticize the Democratic Party in discussions with loyal Democrats, I consistently encounter the “lesser-of-two-evils argument” when discussing the current dilemma presented by our “two-party” political system. This lesser-of-two-evils argument is becoming less and less valid as the two political parties become more and more similar in the results they produce, notwithstanding the differences in their rhetoric. Historically, Democrats have represented the more progressive minds in society, but currently the Democrats are viewed as lesser-evil primarily because they retard the results produced by Republicans, meaning that while we continue in the same policy direction, we do so at a slower pace, although in recent years even this difference has diminished appreciably.
The problem with this lesser-of-two-evils argument is that in either case, faster or slower, the “evil” plainly arrives, just in different doses. Both scenarios, however, are a net loss. Think of an x-y plane in algebra:
Everything to the left of the y-axis and below the x-axis is a negative; -3 is less of a loss than -5, but both are a loss, as neither reflects progress to the positive side of the plane. As an example, eight years of the Reagan regime might equal -5; four years of George H.W. Bush equals -2.5; 8 years of the Clinton/Republican Congress equals -4; 8 years of Bush/Cheney equals -5; 2 years of Obama/Blue Dogs equals -2 … The net yield is negative18.5; no gain, and overall loss. Electing self-labeled Democrats who represent failed Republican policies only associates those failed policies with the Democratic Party.
And until we break away from the cycle of smaller and greater losses, the negative will continue to dominate and destroy America and, perhaps most of humanity if not, ultimately, all of humanity. As Truman points out, “There is something more important involved in our program than simply the success of a political party,” especially if that party merely represents a lesser dose, a milder version, of contemporary Republican radical conservatism.
America has survived a full thirty years of Reagan conservatism, running from Reagan in 1980 through the first two years of the Obama administration in 2010. Some things are worth fighting for, even if you lose the first few battles. If progressives must lose a few more battles in upcoming election cycles in order to change the nature of the war into something winnable, then that seems to me a more reasonable approach than continuing with the destructive status quo of stagnation and conservatism that continues to enslave average Americans and citizens of other countries around the world to the drive for more wealth of a fortunate few. Average Americans may be faced with a situation in which things must get worse so they can get better.
The tool available to us for making the needed changes – our electoral system – is broken, it no longer works. The first logical step, then, is to repair or replace that tool, or its broken parts, so that it will function again.
CHANGING THE NATURE OF THE WAR
If the current Democratic leadership doesn’t correct its direction in the next two years, then progressives who self-identify as Democrats must face a simple truth; we may need to lose a few upcoming battles in order to change the nature of the war so that the war becomes winnable.
Truman’s warning, his message, was this; if you abandon your principles, then you lose all chance of winning what you seek to win. It’s a hollow victory – nay, it’s a loss – when Democrats win elections and fail to uphold the principles that the voters elected them to uphold. This is Obama’s dilemma; he has abandoned progressive principles and in so doing has lost his most ardent supporters, without whom he will not be reelected. In the meantime, rather than accomplishing what he claimed as his goals, the reasons he was elected, he has decided that, as Truman’s Trojan horse put it, “…we ought to water down our platform and abandon parts of our program” – winning parts. And so progressives reminded Obama, as well as the other congressional Democratic leaders about the principles they have abandoned and about the costs of doing so, for which these leaders should be appreciative. Instead, we have Obama chastising Progressives for standing for their principles.
Obama calls Progressives “sanctimonious” and denounces a “purist position” inferring that such principles do not matter, that they are not worth making a stand. He then goes on to pervert history in such a fashion as would make Karl Rove, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and all the rest of the Bush regime proud. I want to take a look at some of his historical perversions.
Obama’s self-defense is based on his statement, “This country was founded on compromise.” Was it? Was America “founded on compromise”? The American colonists tried in vain to reason and compromise with the King of England and his corporate co-conspiritors on pricing and taxes. When such attempts failed, the colonists declared independence and went to war to found this country. Going to war does not fall within the realm of “compromise”, but, instead, results from a failure of compromise. In other examples, compromises with Native Americans resulted in one betrayal after another of treaties, which also led to wars in the name of greed and profit. No compromise there, either.
Obama goes on to say, “I couldn't go through the front door of this country's founding. And you know, if we were really thinking about ideal positions, we wouldn't have a Union.”
Obama infers that compromise led to emancipation of African Americans. Is that the case? If memory serves, compromise failed, the Southern states decided to secede (declare independence like the original American colonies), which led to the American Civil War, and it was the result of that war that eventually created circumstances in which such emancipation could only begin. We are still fighting that war. This does not fit the definition of “compromise”.
Most recently, the Democrats in the Wisconsin State Legislature put the lie to Obama’s assertion about compromise – the majority of Americans support the union strikers and what they represent; not Republican oppression, not Obama’s predisposition for capitulation labeled compromise. This little band of defiant Democrats has reinvigorated the spirit on which America was founded, which is not the “compromise” of Obama. Fighting for what is “right” is what America was founded on, even if she has not always lived up to that spirit. Compromise?
Were the accomplishments Obama attributes to compromise truly the result of compromise, or were they the result of wars stemming from failure of compromise? I argue the latter, not the former. Obama is wrongly, and to my perception, spitefully, rewriting history in an Orwellian attempt to deceive, to mislead.
Obama states, “…we finally get health care for all Americans …” which is unequivocally false. He then trivializes the victims of this falsehood, as well as his own betrayal of the single-payer system he promised he would fight for, saying, “…but because there was a provision in there that they [Progressives] didn't get, that would have affected maybe a couple million people …” A couple million people? Per the CBO:
• Total uninsured in 2019 with no bill: 54 million
• Total uninsured in 2019 with Senate bill: 24
million (44%)
Obama gives us a number that is one twelfth of the actual number of “affected people”. Implicit in his statement is that those 24 million people are/were insignificant and not worth fighting for. I make that statement with a clear conscience because, as has been well documented, Obama forfeited this point BEFORE negotiations ever began. It is easy to recognize, and impossible to deny, the self-serving nature of Obama’s trivialization – nay, his total dismissal – of approximately 24 million Americans, especially considering that they were most certainly among his supporters.
Yet, in justifying this tax-cut deal, what number of Americans does Obama denote as being significant enough to surrender for – not fight, but surrender? “Two million Americans.” (Occurs at about 0.38 into the video)
Essentially, Obama is willing to stand up against his base in order to betray their principles but won’t stand up against Republicans to defend those principals. Obama also fails to mention that not a single Republican voted for this healthcare bill that he touts as a major accomplishment of compromise. In fact, in the final passage of the bill, there was no real compromise aside from congressional Democrats watering down their platform and abandoning parts of their program so they could pass the bill through “reconciliation”:
Mr. Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress settled on a strategy in which the compromises needed to align the two versions [of the healthcare bill] were stripped down to only those measures that fit within a budget reconciliation bill, which under Senate rules could not be filibustered, a move that paved the way for passage.
Being forced to resort to the procedure known as “reconciliation” refutes Obama’s assertion of “compromise”. Compromise: the definition infers mutual concessions; if one party capitulates because the other party won’t concede anything, it is not “compromise”.
And at the top of the current Republican agenda as they take control of the House of Representatives is the undoing of as much of that bill as possible, as well as blocking funding for as much of it as possible, now that they have a majority in the House of Representatives. This doesn’t fit the meaning of “compromise”. Obama’s unwillingness, or perhaps inability, to fight the tough fight is a frailty that may have pushed him to the desperation he exhibits in the behavioral examples I’ve presented and this bodes unfavorably for progressive developments in the near future.
Should we be grateful that Mr. Obama refused to stand up for the “maybe a couple million people” (24 million Americans) that will – not “might be” – affected?
If Obama had actually made a stand, a real stand on this, he might be permitted to make this argument, but he gave away his advantage before the “debate” (I use the word loosely) ever began. He doesn’t get to dismiss those 24 million Americans he betrayed so thoughtlessly, both before the negotiations began and in his recent statements, as “maybe a couple million people” and then use “two million Americans” as justification for the damage this Republican tax-cut deal will ultimately harvest; damage of which we are now seeing only the beginnings crop up around the country.
And let’s not forget about Obama’s cohorts in Congress; those who refused to hold the criminals of the previous regime accountable for their crimes, and have perpetuated those crimes. Is this compromise? Is this upon what America was founded? Despite a history checkered with criminality, it was upon a set of worthy principles and the willingness of a group of progressive thinkers that America was founded and Obama has, in company with his Blue Dogs and Republicans, betrayed those principles and, instead, emulated the historic criminality.
It is telling that when Obama finally truly stands up to someone, it is the progressive block of voters that supported him and elected him to whom he directs his ire.
Beginning in 2006 when Obama supported the FISA vote that absolved criminals of their criminality and when Pelosi, et al pronounced, after gaining a majority in the House of Representatives, the rule of law as being “off the table”, I and others have said that these non-representatives are complicit in the very right-wing anarchy Obama promised to change, the crimes he promised would be accounted for. Those of us who have taken the “sanctimonious purist” position have been blamed for the Democrats’ diminishing rise in Congress, blamed for presenting the very same warning Truman expressed nearly sixty years ago: “There is something more important involved in our program than simply the success of a political party.”
This is Harry S. Truman’s “sanctimonious purist” principle that Obama and the current congressional Democratic leadership have lost. If success of the political party overrides the well-being of the average American, then average Americans must abandon that political party. If average citizens continue an apparent prefernce “…to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed,” then changing the source of failure is an impossible task.
Given the events of the past two years, progressives and Democratic voters must organize in such a way as to pose a serious threat to the status-quo of the Democratic Party leadership; nothing else will adequately demand their attention. At the same time, a serious movement must be mounted toward making needed electoral systemic changes to repair the broken tool, the electoral system, because it is the only tool we have and if it’s not functional, we can’t do anything that must be done.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
libbyliberalnyc
Beth Winegarner
SnippytheGrammarDog
Paul Nevins
Chauncey DeVega
Belinda T.
Salon.com
Comments
I'm on my way out the door. I'll be back in a while to comment.
Yep. If there's anything the Obama administration has been consistent about, it's in shitting on the people who elected him. It makes me wonder how he hopes to win in 2012.
I had a very strong positive response the first time I heard Obama speak. Now I don't recognize anything about him, even the way he moves his head seems unfamiliar, he seems stilted or false somehow. I can no longer stand to hear his speeches, he seems like a stranger. More than his words have changed and I can't put my finger on it, he's just wrong somehow.
Maybe it rubs off when you're around all those phony people and humans subconsciously mimic others around them for group acceptance. Second hand is good for clothing, not for staffers, sleeping with the enemy never goes well.
I stay away from caca people, they want to co-sign my caca so I'll co-sign theirs. Better to have friends who tell you when you stink, one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. The President has surrounded himself with moldy fruit, now he's rotting before our eyes and we're stuck with him until 2012, we better start looking for a new horse now. This term is just future bad history and we have to make do, I think we need to look for his replacement right now. Not when it's too late.
I don't know why the "Progressive Left" doesn't start its own Political Party. You must know by now that you are not going to convince the Democrats to adopt your agenda.
.
A lot of this is what I satirized in my own blog posting. Obama is bent, just like most Americans.
nana, your point is well taken; what I find dumbfounding is that he started that trend BEFORE he ran for president and, still, ...his poll numbers are up, and there is nobody on the horizon that looks like a serious threat to him and the status quo ...
Doug, despite my constant harping about Obama's failings, I agree that he was the better choice of the choices our overlords granted us. That is precisely the problem I'm addressing here. Thanks for commenting.
Just so you know, I appreciate your unique perspective on things like Obama's apparent transformation. While I never perceived him as so many others did, your comment has opened my eyes to what I do, nonetheless, perceive as a transformation of his presence. But looking back in time, I believe this perceived “transformation” is only a misconception.
Your assessment, “future bad history,” is an accurate one, I think. And sad. The historic opportunity that the horrific Bush/Cheney devastation presented were totally wasted, pissed away. And for what? I can only see maliciousness in anything I can possibly imagine as motives.
I feel your pain. I think money is the key to any new political party; if I were not scratching out a survival from paycheck to paycheck, and were instead independently wealthy, I would throw everything I could behind such an endeavor. Money is always the problem.
Thanks for dropping by, reading and commenting. I don't have to add to your comment; we appear to be on the same page. I'll just say that I have been pointing out his shortcomings since before his election. It just wasn't particularly difficult to see who he was.
My problem is with the collateral damage of wars...real and metaphoric. Because gore was too corporate to win enough liberals, we got bush and two overseas wars and huge deficit making tax breaks.
Now because Obama isn't liberal enough we've got walker elected who is taking away the right to collectively bargain. In states like south Dakota horrible laws being passed restricting women's rights over their bodies.
The trouble with "lesser evil" is that it's all theorical until it hits you in the face. Did anyone predict that electing bush would rip apart the country, and the economy in such a short time?
I guess I'm just thinking outloud.
In the matter of Bush v. Gore, I think the issue was really more a matter of an illegitimate interference by the Supreme Court that was unbalanced in a right-wing direction. It has been all down-hill since then. While Gore was probably more closely affiliated with corporate interests than we would like, I truly think that if Gore had actually assumed the presidency instead of Bush/Cheney, America and much of the rest of the world would be in a somewhat different state than it is today.
I think the 2000 Supreme Court decision that appointed the Bush/Cheney administration, rather than letting the legal process of recount determine the presidency unleashed an era of lawlessness in America that had not existed in over a hundred years or more. Unfortunately, when the Dems had a chance to reverse that trend, they failed to even try, and instead chose to excuse it and perpetuate it and as a result, we find ourselves where we are today as a society in decay.
I hope the events in Wisconsin will spark a renewed American spirit that takes us in a better direction.
I appreciate the complimentary comment. I hope others also see the urgency I feel and which inspired this essay. I don't believe Obama is an idiot, so his actions are particularly disconcerting to me. But he's not alone; Pelosi, Reid, and the Blue Dog Dems have been sadly lacking in true leadership, and they have certainly not done their duty of “representation” of those that elected them. Is it any wonder that the Republicans regained so much in one mid-term election?
Albert Einstein is said to have commented that "a good definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over even though it never gets the desired results." By that definition we're all nutty as fruit-cakes.
I have come to think that we are barking up the wrong tree by expecting governments provided by either/any party to work well for us. I strongly suspect that the political parties, who both (or all) work within that structure we know as "The System", simply CANNOT, because of the structure within which they are obliged to work is itself flawed, do that which we elect them to do.
We are in the position of one who takes an old, broken down, rusted out hulk of an automobile from the scrap yard, puts in a new motor, and expects it to do the job of a fully functioning car. When it can't do so, we keep changing the motor. I doubt that a zillion "changes of motor", i.e. changes of political parties as government, it going to create a government that functions properly on behalf of the citizenry.
It may be time to drop the assumption that "The System" is perfect. It may be time for us to consider designing a "System" that meets our needs. It may be time to create a system from a consciously derived plan, instead of just continuing on with the one the "grew" from roots of feudalism, by way of industrialism into a form of "wild capitalism".
Just as we learned to build homes instead of just finding caves or other natural shelters and learned to grow crops and husband animals instead of just digging roots, collecting berries, and hunting wild animals, it might well behove us to "design & build" a socio/economic/political "System" instead of depending on the one that just sprouted like wild oats.
I cannot see us making any further progress under this system. We see more and more evidence that it is badly broken right now. We see no reasonable means by which it can be made to work for us much longer. It really is time for a change. And no, I do not see adopting socialism into the "System" as a "change". That would be like changing the seat covers on our old junk-yard wreck as well as putting in a new motor. The basic structure will still limit the possibility of it ever doing the job we need it to do.
We would very much seem to be in need of a whole new, functioning concept, designed for a purpose, and built in place of the broken one we now have. The questions in my mind are; will we see the need for this, and will we actually get involved in doing it? The corporations are making good progress at building the basis for a corporatocracy. Unless we build something that can counter their efforts, we'll soon find out what they have in mind for us. I doubt that we'll like it much.
.
William Butler Yeats must have know Crazy Jane.
He writes several poetic thoughts about Crazy Jane.
`
I may be tooting?
View FreshFarm/
Bernie Prince
&
Ann Younkers
`
google?
White House Farmers Market.
I Love Michelle Obama. sighs.
I shook Michelle's hand twice.
`
@ www.freshfarmmarkets.com/
On the FreshFarm W.H. video/
See Michell's genuine real joy\
I love her warmth. She so reals\
Michelle shakes hands with daps\
`
apology?
My son-
Michael is on the farm interview.
Michael will really be POed at me.
OP -
OP in `Nam's war meant Oscar PaPa.
If in a three-layer-lush canopy jungle`
Drafted soldier-grunts would ask if `
In scary jungles - grunt ask comrade `
`
OP - Oscar Pa Pa 4- 6 patrol - If color`
`
If Ya color is green-safe - Break Squelch`
OP- Break Squelch Button Twice. If not`
WE knew the NVA may open-fire. No kill!
Flashback.
A Keeper.
Thanks Rick Lucke. Let's Never QUIT/Cower.
`
QUIT?
FBI knows why.
I wrote no QUIT.
I use to get threats.
Bush's cronies kill!
I best shush up too.
No blurt out all tho.
This is to be reread.
So we coddle our wealthy, our privileged, our ersatz royalty. We do not hold them accountable for the end results of their greed or the damage that they do in the name of profit.
I believed Obama was a "community activist". I believe him when he said he wanted us, Americans to have a dialogue. I have yet to see any dialogue. All I see is greedy Americans hating all progressives because we want to grow our country, because we want to fund our infrastructure and school our children and heal our sick and feed our hungry. We want to maintain our country. Well god forbid. Not allowed.
Americans want to be millionaires. We want to be Republicans with a heart - just not a big heart. Only big enough to keep the blood, the money flowing through us.
Americans are in danger of becoming a nation of scumbags.
When I saw Americans screaming at a handicapped woman at those "town hall" bullying festivals, telling her to pay for her own medical bills. AND when I did not see the President speak out against what was said, use this as an example to shake Americans awake in our collective unconsciousness, when NO ONE spoke out against it except a few pundits I knew then, at that minute, we were sunk.
EVERY SINGLE ACT OF LEGISLATIVE UNDERMINING should have been reported to the American people by the President. Every day if necessary, pointing out how OUR agenda was being sabotaged.
EVERY SINGLE week we should have had a president imploring us, talking to us, rallying us to his side to demand our agenda.
What we got is not what he sold. I don't buy his compromise song and dance. I never have and I never will.
Every single paragraph of this article is true and well said and excellent and I commend you.
However, I think we are hopeless. I think our country's time has come and gone. If I were younger, I might feel differently. I don't see Skypixie's solution ever happening. American's are too busy paying credit cards off and mortgages and buying clothes and food to think about revising our political system.
It's just not going to happen. We're going to have one pseudo democrat after another until it's our grey fascist corporate three systems of government lovefest.
We don't get the government we deserve; we get the government the majority deserves, unfortunately.
About 15 or so years ago my company was doing a small job through a remodel contractor and, unlike most of my new home related jobs, I had to meet with the owners. I always did my own sales work. Anyway, I forget how I found out the nice old fellow was a PoliSci prof at TU, and a local Dem party poobah, as I wisely never talked politics with customers unless they asked.
We talked politics.
The point of my query was asking why the Party had become reactive...why they let the Repubs frame the issues instead of proactively defending traditional Dem positions. While his wife was a bit captivated by what I was saying, he, being a 'company man' had the same blind spot I still see among many loyal Dems today.
During the years that followed, I came to realize they're reactive because they want to be. Clinton was "proof" to the New Democrats that their abandonment of economic populism was the correct strategy. I have no doubt that the money being heaped upon them helped influence that decision.
So, the Dems screwed their labor base at almost every opportunity, trading agreement-ing their jobs away, and substituting the relatively inexpensive defense of workers for corporate cash and glitzy media strategy campaigns.
Gore, running behind by the time the 2000 DNC happened, used his acceptance speech to push populism - "the people against the powerful." At the time, I thought it was a bit out of step with economic reality, but he did surge in the polls and did win the election. Of course, the New Dems claimed it's why he "lost."
That was the last example of true economic populism coming from a Dem pres nominee.
Kerry in 04, in critical Ohio, as polls showed 65%-ish of Americans deeply concerned about job outsourcing, offered this: (I may be paraphrasing a bit) "I will give tax cuts for businesses that keep jobs in America! Yes, I know that a conservative position coming from a Democrat is unusual.........."
No, you horse-faced bontz, it sounds like capitulation, and it's one reason you got your ass kicked.
After the 08 election Obama claimed he was also a "New Democrat," and I was cautious enough and listened closely during the campaign and was neither fooled or surprised. He's so captured by ND ideas and corporate support that I have zero respect for him, politically speaking. The Dem's only "advantage" is they'll sell you more slowly and at a slightly better price.
I call Obama's shtick "passive-pragmatic." I'm sure you get my drift. He didn't even make a weak attempt to push for at least some version of the single payer system an overwhelming majority wanted. He ignored the cries of the workers...as he polished the banker's shoes. He didn't express the anger of Americans, and ceded that to the Repus, who channeled it into creating the Tea Party.
To those idiots who keep defending him as better than the alternative....I ask them what form of blindness has made them not notice that a 63 seat swing in the House IS the ever-lovin' freakin' alternative.
Anyway, you have made a good detailed case for what I've been saying for some time, and I'm sure what you've also known for some time. Obama lets the GOP frame the issues because he wants a largely GOP corp-coddling outcome. He won't even tell Americans what they already know...a device that used to be considered Smart Politics.
Now that Obama has confirmed the Dem leadership doesn't give a shit about their voters, it's about time people woke up to that fact. They have become codependent enablers for a slightly sociopathic Dem machine. It's like one of those movies where the hero finally gets in position to slay the antagonist -- only to realize that what they thought was their partner in the battle is standing behind them, ready to plunge the knife into their back.
The Dem Party is dead to me, as those still heroic members cannot gain enough influence to matter. I'm even more prone to make some snide-assed remark towards my TV when Obama is babbling than if yet another GOP corp tool is on the tube.
However, pragmatically speaking, it would be easier to reform the Dems than to start a 3rd party. But too many don't pay enough attention, and too many of those who do are fooled by futile "hope," and are still waiting for Obama, et al to "change."
If any populist movement is to be successful, it has to happen outside of the Party and then work its way back in.
Good piece, Rick...
...and good luck, Rick.
Of all my posts, the ones with the least page views are the ones critical of Obama.
To say none of you understand our Black Hawaiian Fearless Leader is the understatement of the millennium.
He's Black, but he's not. He's Hawaiian, but he's not. He was on food stamps while attending the best High School in the whole world ... ad nauseum ... you guys simply do not have the experiences necessary for the "real" Obama to compute ... and you guys are smart, cool and want what's best for the world!!!
Yet, you overlook political realities in ways that seem at best sophomoric; at worst romper room.
So, so, so hard is it to step back and see it all. Things are changing ... for the better ... I would remind others who were there that many thought the 60s revolution failed at the time ... packed up their bags and went home, tails between their legs ... then, we got this modern world of computers and a web hosting OS! All, repeat, ALL, done by post-Woodstock hippies, many who "went country" to lick their wounds, and ended up starting the Well.
Have you all any idea what it is like to be Obama ... I mean, the man has actually had to stop using teleprompters most of the time, while probably even Gaddafi still has them! No politician, ever, in our country has been the first Black (who isn't black) before. The Hate is so palpable and prevailant it nearly defies description.
Lets re-cap: He got elected and made the strongest moves for the People we've seen since Roosevelt. Then, his political acumen forced him to hunker down to win in 2012, which he will ... at the point the flood gates are open ... hopefully with a blue house. If/when this happens, the new new deal changes everything forever and for the world's greater good. If, as mentioned here, his ties to the street (he is a Punahou elitist, you guys just don't understand what that is) which are there to keep the markets (evil as they are) stable and his triangulation (totally necessary to win, at least in a conventional campaign, the only kind a sitting prez will ever run) inspire the type of thinking here that led to Gore's demise- then we are all literally doomed.
If all this anger is, instead, channeled to win back the house and keep the Senate- the world averts a meltdown and we may someday leave this green planet after all ...
I agree with nearly all of what you say, Rick, as usual ... but, reality bites. It is harsh as Gov. Walker's heart is cold.
We, the educated class who fancy ourselves in a Salon, are the problem ... our, and I am PE #1, high and mighty attitudes just don't fly with the hoi polloi ... all our time would be better spent doing what is happening now organically in Wisconsin- distilling, yes, DUMBING down the message so the scared, confused and brainwashed white folks of the South and the Midwest can digest it in a way that gives them, too, ownership.
I've been screaming about how the Gilded Wolves have perfected divide and conquer from day 1 ... win that fight and we win the war.
Cheers
I very much like the term “financial affiliation” instead of “party affiliation.”
I think instead of just “surrender” you mean “unilateral surrender,” since it's possible to surrender after a fight. He just doesn't seem to wait long, I agree.
I think by far the better choice would be for the liberals to take back their party. I agree with you about the problems in many cases but the cost of starting anything new as opposed to housecleaning the existing party is huge. I'm on the side of the unions this week even though I'm not 100% pro-union on every issue. They should be there. Then we can talk details. But if we want a compromise, I'd rather see a pro-union Democratic party than an anti-union one, even though I'm in between, just because we already have an anti-union party on the Republican side. We need better choices and the Democrats are making the choices far too narrow. As for a third party—there are already such things going nowhere so it's not just accepting a delay, it's possible nothing would ever converge, as has happened for the Green party (a party with some mostly reasonable principles but no compelling candidates).
A progressive caucus needs to form within the Democratic party and push for change from within, and it should start with a campaign to primary Obama. That's a good litmus test of who understands the problem. Anyone who honestly thinks Obama is serving the cause of progressives doesn't understand the problem.
Au contraire, Pierre, it was Reagan who started us down the very unmerry path to Voodoo Economics. But the hoi polloi are looking for the next Reagan. Christie? Walker? Daniels? Kasich? Palin? Bachmann? Huckabee? Newt?
God help us -- if you're not dead or too disgusted.
Change the system; agreed 100%. I have been harping on that for almost as long as I’ve old enough to vote. What’s the best way to do that? I think we would have to start by changing particular aspects of the current system. Removing money from the election process should be front and center, perhaps? “One person, one vote” has a nice ring to it; maybe we can make that happen?
Art,
Thanks for adding your, uh, unique “approach” to the issue. Reading it once requires that it be read more times to find all the buried treasure therein.
Jan,
I would have to say that I think history supports your position on this matter and that it is also my view. Any “hope” I have is quite subdued and in touch with the historic realities of recent decades. But, at least I do have a little hope, finally.
Monkey,
You write, “We're going to have one pseudo democrat after another until it's our grey fascist corporate three systems of government lovefest.”
This is also my view. I not only see no genuine effort to make the changes we need, but there is a willful reluctance by so many people, intelligent people, to even believe for a second that the value of accomplishing that end might be worth a few lost battles along the way. It is this FEAR of losing, I think, that is the biggest obstacle to this. And I agree also that Obama’s pissed away yet another opportunity by mostly ignoring the events in Wisconsin. It causes one to wonder how he could not see some of the opportunities he has not capitalized on.
Snippy,
We’re on the same page. I’m glad you stopped by. And, no, I don’t see any sign of a real tipping point. I think real disaster will have to strike before we will, and even then, if things continue the way they are, it might be too late by that time to get us back on track; we’ll just devolve into something totally different. “…twilight of the American Dream”? Very likely.
I’m glad you made it back. The “reactive” posture of the Democrats is troubling. George Lakoff writes about this regularly and always makes great points. But at this point, I think the Democrats just play the same game as the Repugs but use different tactics. As you suggest, “… they're reactive because they want to be.”
And this is why I thought the warning from Truman seemed so appropriate at this juncture. There are so many who still ascribe “principles” to the Dems that no longer apply. They fear losing more than they fear losing principles and so we’re screwed. They don’t recognize that they’ve already lost by using that approach.
The populist approach has always represented supposed American values, but that changed when corporations were allowed to exist in their current forms and they’ve grown and grown until they are essentially our government. The White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives are just different departments of the company. I think John Edwards was on the right track, but most of the Libs and Dems were so enamored of the potentially historic development of either, the first black president or the first female president, that they couldn’t see straight.
Regarding “passive pragmatic”; I think that people tend to misuse the word “pragmatic” as a means of justifying bad decisions. It’s really all just judgment calls, even my saying that. Pragmatism merely refers to judging actions by their outcomes, so what is and what is not pragmatic is determined by what your goal is. In the current discussion, it becomes important to know what the goal is, as suggested by Truman. Is the goal just a win for the party or is it to bring about a principled societal change? If Obama is “pragmatic” then it is because his goals do not represent those of Progressives.
As you say, “…Obama has confirmed the Dem leadership doesn't give a shit about their voters, it's about time people woke up to that fact.”
Another thing you wrote really hit home with me. You wrote, “I'm even more prone to make some snide-assed remark towards my TV when Obama is babbling than if yet another GOP corp tool is on the tube.”
I have the same experience and have found it deeply disturbing, but haven’t bothered to put it into words, so thanks for that.
Thanks for reading and commenting. I hope your optimism is worth your effort, ultimately. I am a little confused by your perspective, though.
I don’t see that things have changed for the better, as you suggest. I also don’t see the “…strongest moves for the People we've seen since Roosevelt,” to which you refer.
What I see is a sly version of the old bait-and-switch; show one thing and do another.
We’re squarely in speculation land with what might happen between now and the 2012 elections. But history is a good teacher and oftentimes a good projector of future. The old adage that those who forget the past are destined to repeat it seems appropriate here.
It seems a weak position to defend Obama on what MIGHT happen when what he and others have done so far over the past 4 or more years indicates a damaged future. I can’t ignore the facts of the past in order to cling to what amounts to empty hope. Let me just say, I hope YOU are right, though, about 2012 and Obama will suddenly become a totally different president than he’s been up to this point if he gets re-elected, which does seem likely at this point.
You and I have discussed, ad nauseum, the problems facing our current political landscape. You suggest a “progressive” movement within the Democratic Party, but that already exists. The system, in its current form, simply will not allow the changes that must occur. If we can’t get the money out of the equation, then what we see is what we’ll have from here on out.
As for unions, as long as we have corporations as they currently exist, unions are perhaps our single best defense against them; the government has made it clear where its loyalty lies, and it is with corporations against average workers and Americans.
I just don’t know what it is that you are seeing.
Regarding the possibilities of third parties, it is clear that they have not been overly successful so far. But there have been indications that they present a sort of viability to the American public. While I think the Tea-baggers are definitely a problem, their presence reveals that it is possible to make inroads through that process.
I think the fear of losing is choking us, even as we are losing. As you say, “Anyone who honestly thinks Obama is serving the cause of progressives doesn't understand the problem.”
Yes, when I hear suggestions about likely Republican candidates for 2012, it is beyond appalling to think they could be seriously considered by ANYONE as viable presidential material. Just absolutely SCI-FI material. Just plain scary as hell!
And it is, as you say, clear that the Republicans can screw up as much as they want and their will always be plenty of support for them. Unexplainable.
What I find more disturbing is that the Democrats have seemingly adopted that playbook.
Jambo,
Good luck finding those candidates that are not owned by someone in the current system. The system has BECOME corporate ownership.
I failed to make myself clear. I don't just mean "change the seat covers and try the starter again".
Look sir, at the structure of our modern governmental systems. They are pyramidal in shape. Look also at our economic structures, they too are pyramidal in shape. Look at our social hierarchy (yeah, the one that we don't have - no classes here - hah!) another damn pyramid.
At the peak of every pyramid is a small group of the elite. Often the same people in each pyramid. In the political arena we kid ourselves that we are a democracy because we get to chose who that elite will be. Really? By voting for one out of a handful - two for all practical purposes, of candidates? This is it? The be-all and end-all of democracy?
Y'know, it might actually work to some shabby degree if we were all voting for the man and the man ran things once we elected him. It might help if the man we elected was our servant and expected to do the bidding of the electorate. I don't ever remember any politician who really considered himself to be the people's servant. And I've lived for 70 years.
We should start with being honest with ourselves. We do NOT elect servants; we DO elect masters. To all intents and purposes any elected politician owns the electorate who voted him in. No, no, don't bother to protest. It's true and you know it's true.
That person we elected was supported by two very important aids. His political party is one and the people who fund his campaign are another. But that aid gives them special consideration. In the case of the party, the elected man is expected to obey its dictates. This is no secret; we all know it. In the case of funding, the funders also get very special consideration. We know that too. Then there are the campaign workers; they too are owed a 'return'. And so it goes. By the time a candidate gets elected he owes so much to so many that those who voted for him are, what, 10th? 20th? 50th? Too far away to worry about until the next election, or just before it. This doesn't work out in practice the way we expect it to in theory, now does it?
This here electing of 'servants' who are actually masters but masters who don't consider us worthy of respect and who in their turn have masters to answer to just isn't getting air under its wings, y'know?
So how about this: Since all the trouble and expense of electing someone to represent US - not a bunch of other folks - US, isn't working let's think about a change in this method of choosing those who will look after "we, the people".
Think of this-
1-We don't want or need masters
2-We need people who will be responsible for meeting our needs
3-We don't need political parties - they defeat democracy, not enhance it, by putting the needs of the party before all other needs.
4-We don't need career politicians. We already know that that leads to cronyism and corruption and under-the-table-deals.
5-We don't need politicians who can be influenced by lobbyists. In fact lobbying ought to be illegal. It directly works agains the interests of the electorate.
So how about we get rid of all that. How about we all be up for participation in government. How about every voter being available to be called upon to serve. Let's do it by lottery. (I hear you roar!)
Take a moment and think about it. People chosen by lottery would be as honest as your average citizen, as capable as your average citizen, as willing to serve others as the average citizen, and as good at doing it as mostly honest, good, decent fine people can be. And do you know why? because they would BE YOUR AVERAGE CITIZEN!! Not some damned elite or lap-dog of the elite - regular Joes & Janes.
If chosen by lottery to serve one term only - no career politicians
If chosen by lottery - they'd be fully representative of the population in regard to gender, age, colour, wealth, etc., etc.
If not associated with a Political Party - no allegiance to or need of the Political Parties. Parties are only there to gain power and they don't serve the people in any way.
If selected from the normal population, they would understand the needs of the population.
They could actually represent the people instead of "other interests".
Now I know that this is a really weird way to select the servants of the people but it is well summed up in a phrase that we used to think meant something. It goes like this: "Government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people". Crazy idea, huh?
.
I'm with you for the most part; I don't know about a "lottery" but I think the entire system is broken, political and societal. And I'm not entirely opposed to term limits at this point simply because having them eliminates the need for representatives to worry about re-election. At this point, I am the mind that that serves better than any negatives arising from term limits.
The point is, though, we have to devise a way of moving toward these changes because we can't just foist them full-fledged in one motion. We will have to break this movement toward the sorts of changes you suggest into steps, so we would need to decide a first step, or first couple of steps to start the motion. Given the pyramidal structure to which you refer, it seems like removing money from the campaign process would be a good first step. In so doing, we remove much of the very cronyism and special interests to which you refer, as well.
Again, I realize me pontificating about Punahou doesn't mean much to most ... so, What is the oldest school west of the Mississippi? Ha! trick question- it is actually my Alma Mater! But, Punahou is a close second, and has graduated multiple Senators of multiple US States, multiple Congressmen, now a US President, too many Hawaii State elected officials to list. MORE GENERALS AND ADMIRALS than any other high school in the country. More self-made billionaires than any school I'm aware of. The founder of the commercial Internet. Many, Many professional athletes. Many, Many well known entertainers (Kingston Trio, even!) and the list just goes on and on and on with even so-called average grads with achievements in business and education and science and everything which go un-noticed out of their prospective circles, oh, and my personal favorite: more famous and professional surfers than I can list here, it is for sure #1 all time in our Sport of Kings- you see, Punahou, a school where the vast majority from our little island go directly to the Ivy League and have for centuries, is, indeed a KING MAKER and lots of famous and accomplished wahine as well. Now, since he went there pretty much his whole life, and knows far more of these folks than I ever will ... just what do you think rubbed off on him? How does all this compute?
I am incredibly optimistic, despite my difference of opinion on how he coddles his wall street elite friends (true, it disappoints, but when you are prez you HAVE to worry about the markets, even moreso when your scumbag opposition grasps any number they can to wave to the world, and when the re-election you need to finish changing the world relies on public perception of those numbers) as I do believe they belong behind bars ... I think he learned how to steer an aircraft carrier from all those Admirals from Punahou.
Aloha Kakou
As I said, I “hope” you’re right. I do have one question for you. How does a man attain goals to which his actions are antithetical?
You assume Obama’s goals are what you want them to be. His actions indicate otherwise. I don’t base my perspective on race, religion, what school he went to, who he rubs elbows with or anything else you mentioned; I base it solely on the man’s actions, which speak louder than his eloquent words.
If his goal is to change direction from the destructive mechanisms of the GOP/Right-wing, I fail to see how appeasing those mechanisms will accomplish that.
Too much fantasy by Naderites gave us, and the world 8 years of hell ... I'd like to forgive them, but so far have not.
I am not certain what you mean when you say "remove money from the election campaign". Are you referring to the proposal that all candidates be funded by the government with little or no financial input from private sources?
We have that up here in Canada and it is a disaster! First; let's understand that government has no money. Any money it spends is OURS! So it is not "the government" that finances election campaigns, it is us. As campaigns get more and more expensive to fight, where do you think the political parties will go to get more money? Right, the "government", i.e. us, the taxpayers. Eventually the costs of such campaigns will become prohibitive but the politicians won't care about that a bit. Why should they? They just pass a law increasing their allotment for each election campaign and the money will come pouring in. This is no improvement on the present system at all.
It is a s thoughtless and short-sighted as the idiotic "tax the companies" that re-appears all the time. Nobody looks beyond the first step to see where the money really comes from. Every penny that companies pay in tax is recovered by them from their customers; and guess who their customers are - yup, us! We KNOW this is true, yet we go around hollering for the government to "tax the companies". Neither the companies nor the government is loathe to have such taxes increase. Hell the companies usually add on an extra few percentage points to their prices when they are taxed more and laugh all the way to the bank. Have you not noticed how the companies profit from increases in the sales taxes we pay? Tax goes up 1%......price goes up 4%....Bwahahahahaha! (Load up another wheelbarrow - we're off to make a bank depo$it!)
This same thing happens with funding for political parties and for candidates. They'll bleed us dry even faster than they do now. AND those extra taxes we pay so that they can do this WON'T EVEN BE TAX DEDUCTIBLE as our campaign donations are now. Slurp!! Slurp!! Oink, oink!
The left is making a huge mistake by demanding more taxes and higher taxes so as to try to force the elite to pay more. It hasn't ever worked in the past and I see no way for it to work now. WE end up paying those extra taxes on our incomes and when we buy products that have increased in price because of the tax increase. We pay those higher prices out of what is left of our pay-cheques after our increased taxes are withheld. What do we use for brains?!! We're cutting off our noses to spite our faces!
Not to worry. The whole system is in a slow but sure state of collapse right now. Those who expected it to be another 1929 style crash will be disappointed. This will resemble a mud slide - slow at first but unstoppable, inevitably picking up speed until it washes over us.
I doubt that any new or different way of doing things can be initiated now. Our only practical option is to await the end of this mess and be prepared to step in with a new system when the time is right. This means only that we need to convince many, many people that it is possible to do things differently when the opportunity comes.
.
I'll check out the Web site when I have a little more time; I think I've seen it before. If it's the one I recall, there is much misrepresentation and "bait-and-switch" in what is listed there; let me get back to you on that.
As for none of us having a clue about the man, I think watching him, listening to him, and seeing the results after 4 years has given us a fairly good picture of the man. He is a Blue Dog Democrat -- a Republican in Democrat's clothing. Until I actually SEE something that refutes that, it will be my perception of him.
I appreciate your optimism, but I think are in denial, frankly. Obama has continued virtually every one of Bush's biggest wrongs.
The idea behind my statement about the money is to remove the inequity that money creates, which is clearly one of the major problems. So, the idea would be that nobody could spend more than anybody else. There are probably a number of ways in which this could be accomplished. But, it would definitely make an improvement. The other benefit is that fundraising becomes less important which frees up more time for actually doing the job they are elected to do. As it now, they spend too much time fundraising and worrying about where the money comes from and who they will owe what in exchange for the donations.
Hell, under those terms, I might even run.
;-)
Band aids won't even start to work..
.
I haven't presented a "solution" but rather a suggestion for one step to move us towards a solution. I think that if you have some other suggestions on how to implement changes, then you should present them. Just saying we need to change the system doesn't take us anywhere. What do you see as the process to bring about those changes?
Do you see a different first step? I'm not saying I have all the answers, I'm just making some suggestions. I agree with you that we need MAJOR changes, but I'm not seeing how you think we can accomplish what it is you think needs to be done.
On November 4, 1980, I sat and wrote a letter to a friend who had voted for Reagan and told her all the things I foresaw happening. I'm sad to say that I have been right about most of them.
Part of me really wanted to believe what Obama was selling. There's part of me that still does. But today was just too much. The Gitmo decision has convinced me that he will not stand for what is right. Only for what he thinks will keep him in his imaginary sense of "middle," which becomes more and more right wing.
You are right in everything you have written. I have nothing to disagree with.
I think we are fed hokum from day one in this country. The whole codswallop of the American dream keeps so many people in line--that if they just work hard enough, they can be prosperous and happy. Yeah. Some do achieve it. But how many people spend their whole lives chasing the chimera?
I'm sad today. Tomorrow, I'll get up, dust myself off, and figure out what to do. Maybe writing to the president will be cathartic. I still know that we're better off than we would have been with McCain/Palin, but that feels more and more like saying getting the flu was better than getting pneumonia.
Thanks for writing this.
I really glad you dropped by and commented. I understand when people say "We're better off than if the alternative had won." I have felt that way myself. I'm not sure, now, though.
I think the longer we do what we are, and have been, doing, the longer we avoid the changes we really need. We're just postponing the inevitable and the longer we do, the worse it will be when it finally arrives.
Obama has indeed been a deep disappointment. But he is a creature of the culture in which he lives, and like many others he often fails to rise above that culture.
It seems to me that we as a country and culture are in a period of decay and decline, and this is due in part to the loss of the idea of the "public good." Things today are "disposable." New Orleans, one of the cultural treasures of America, gets 80 percent destroyed, and we let it continue on in a semi-destroyed condition. Jobs are destroyed, industries are destroyed, and that's Ok. Millions are without health insurance and other millions are bankrupted by medical expenses, and that's Ok. Millions are unemployed, some for years, and that's Ok. Millions lose their homes, and that's Ok.
While millions of people are on the edge of existence, the big concern of our -- "our" -- elected representatives, is the welfare of the rich and corporations.
This is the culture in which we live, and Obama is part of that culture. What we need are representatives who can rise above the culture, who can have a vision for the future that once again includes the idea of the public good as a central organizing principle.
There is a passage from the Bible, the Book of Proverbs I think, that comes to mind: "Where there is no vision, the people perish." It's clear that Obama doesn't have that vision. He has compromise, he has business as usual, and he has a big white flag ready at hand for when he needs to surrender. But not a vision. He may be "better than the alternative," but that's not saying much, and not what we need.
“…the loss of the idea of the ‘public good.’ …the big concern of our – ‘our’ -- elected representatives, is the welfare of the rich and corporations.”
Regarding the concept of “Obama is better than the alternative”; I’ve said this elsewhere, but it bears repeating, and I think you understand my point when I say it: I’m not sure Obama’s presidency really is better than the alternative.
I understand the idea that McCain/Palin in the White House is the stuff of nightmares, but there might be other ways to look at things. Eight years of the Bush/Cheney nightmare gave us a huge open door of opportunity, but Obama and the current Dems in Congress pissed it away. The clear problem is that the current Dem leadership doesn’t care about anything as much as they care about trying to be re-elected, regardless of what principles they betray in the process; precisely the kind of thing Truman warned against all those years ago.
And just so you know, I appreciate the humor of your including a quote from the Bible here.
;-) But it’s definitely on point! Thanks.
Thanks for your appreciation; I hope this piece delivers a broader perspective regarding the state of progressive politics than just "Obama POV's".
It was good to see yet one more reader of this post, which I thought had exhaled its last gasp of life. One of the problems we currently face is that even though there are plenty of individuals who would serve the public if they were to acquire a public office, we can’t even get them to a point where we can vote for them.
There really is not much we can do at this point, short of armed revolt, which is something I think events in Wisconsin are pointing towards. I’m not necessarily advocating armed revolt, by the way.
But we have reached a point at which a very small minority has full control of the flow of virtually everything; they control the flow of information through the news media, they control the flow of candidates from which we can choose by making it so prohibitively expensive to run for office (and by control of media) and they control the main flow of money through our economy.
As a result of all that, they also control, to an extensive degree, the legislators who might be able to change things if the system were working properly, which it isn’t at this time. So, it is a “Catch 22” problem; the system needs change but the system is now structured in such a way as to prevent that change. What does that leave us?
Rated.
Thanks for stopping by. I have to say, though, that your comment seemingly reveals you either did not read this overly long post, or you missed my point. Note that I say, “…seemingly”, as I reserve consideration for the possibility that there is some other motivation for your comment. I remain appreciative of your input, however, because you bring some interesting points into the discussion.
Your overriding perspective seems to be clearly stated when you write: “There has never been a pro-worker bourgeois party, anywhere, in any nation, during any period of capitalist development.”
I agree with that statement to an extent; my agreement is contingent on this restatement: “There has never been a purely pro-worker bourgeois party …”
The reality, though, is that there have been political platforms that were more and less pro-worker. Truman was pro-worker, overall. Truman, even in his issues with strikes, did not support corporations over workers, as the current trend does and as Obama and his cohorts have done.
Truman’s presidency, to my limited historical knowledge, has long been somewhat controversial. But my purpose in including what he said in the speech I cited has solely to do with the truth of what he said which is supported by the clearly documented stands he made in support of average Americans, which is something the current Democratic Party is sorely lacking.
But I’ll address your comment more directly:
First, I’ll say you have overstated Truman’s issues with labor unions, since he was a staunch supporter of them. I challenge you to support your assertion that Truman “savaged the unions.” It is true that he did battle with some of them in unique circumstances, but overall he was a supporter, even vetoing Republican legislation that actually DID “savage” workers’ rights, the Taft-Hartley Act, a Republican measure that labor leaders called it the "slave-labor bill”, but which Congress passed over Truman’s veto. The specific examples you raise do not support your assertion, as they were multifaceted and intertwined with complexities of many issues other than workers’ rights. Truman supported “collective bargaining” rights. I don’t think you have your history any straighter than I do.
Truman advocated a continuation of “The New Deal” through his so-called “Fair Deal” that supported increasing Social Security benefits, unemployment relief, a minimum wage increase of over 50%, and a national healthcare plan. Congress, controlled by the Conservative Coalition, rejected his proposals. Truman sought civil rights for blacks; housing programs; and programs for the poor; and the repeal of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, which as I mentioned above, labor leaders called the "slave-labor bill”. The Fair Deal became a divisive platform and the Republican Congress and the subsequent Democratic Congress were both against the plan. Where does that place Truman?
LBJ credited Truman’s efforts in civil rights for many of his own policies in his “Great Society” programs, especially Medicare. Truman’s firm stands on some policies that advocated for average Americans caused many in his party to turn against him. Many of the divisions that occurred in the Democratic Party, such as the conservative racists leaving the party, were a result of Truman’s firm stands on racial equality, poverty, labor rights, national healthcare, etc.
So, my purpose in my reference to Truman is not to proclaim my reverence of him. My reference to Truman’s speech and his message is in response to Obama supporters who have lost their vision, lost sight of the fact that if your only goal is to get your party re-elected regardless of what the party is doing, then there really is not much point in electing them. This is my perception of the current Democratic Party and its most vehement supporters; they blame people like me for the recent losses in the mid-term elections instead of recognizing the truth of Truman’s words; a truth that is resonating throughout today’s political landscape. Given the choice of someone like Obama and someone like Truman to represent me, I’ll take someone like Truman who is willing to truly fight for the principles he was elected to represent instead of selling them out.
Thanks, again, for your discussion points.
I don't think it's a question of the lesser of two evils. This Manchurian man, according to the above Right/Left description of him, is the ONLY evil and must be stopped before it's to late. Clearly, the ones who have the clearest shot at it are those who have been most committed to this cause - the RepubliKlan/Tea Party. According to Greg Palast and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. , all of the electronic and bureacratic means were in place to steal the election the last time and seal Rove's " permanent Republican majority," (i.e., "complete corporate rule"), but damn it if all those N-words didn't come out to vote for one of their own, plus all those damn naieve young people., etc.
I don't think it makes much sense to ompete with the knuckle draggers in trying to take him out. They've got unlimited resources. Think about it. They've got the corporate sector, which has assets in the multiple tens of trillions. They also got 1500 radio station, Fox news, millions of boots on the ground guns in hand fanatical Christian activists and militia members, plus all of their blogosphere mobsters midnight meth heads and organized swarms funded by the Koch Brothers and Rove who can and do shut down switchboards and internet servers etc. of media outlets, companies, schools, etc. if they don't like what they see or hear. What do we have? The unions with their dwindling billions in assets and shrinking membership, Pacifica Radio, and some blogs. Do the math. A trillion is 1000 times a billion.
Naw. I say let them take all Three branches of Government. Then we can quietly and under the radar go about the business of creating our own bottom-up movement like the Tea Party to give our representatives the backbone to go up against the trillionaires and their weaponized mobs, while Amy Goodman and Rachel Maddow mobilize the masses on our side. And the great thing is, we don't have to do anything except join in the chorus of denunciation of the Dems and Obama between now and 2012.
Now THAT sounds like a plan :)
I’m glad you commented here. And I appreciate the “R” because, in part, I can’t tell exactly what your perspective really is (I sense sarcasm, nothing else). Clarify that for me if you feel so inclined. Are you an Obama apologist?
And I have been confronted on a face-to-face level by conservatives with whom I work who have dumbfounded me with their apparent total disconnect from what exactly has been occurring since Obama’s election. They condemn him simply because he has a “D” next to his name in the political registry. They, like so many supporters of the Dem Party, seemingly miss the reality of what is happening.
The point is, exactly, that no matter how hard Obama tries to be accepted by Republicans, it isn’t happening, and in the meantime, the nation continues down the same failed path that those same Repubs sent us down.
But it’s important to note that Obama has not done this on his own; the entire Dem Party has been equally, if not more, complicit in this wasted opportunity. You have mistakenly concluded that I blame Obama alone; yet, if you read carefully what I’ve said, not only here but elsewhere, I see far more people involved than just one man. But Obama is still responsible for his actions.
You suggest, perhaps sarcastically (again, the current medium of communication is deficient for me to discern with confidence), “…creating our own bottom-up movement like the Tea Party to give our representatives the backbone to go up against the trillionaires …”
But whether sarcastically, or not, this is precisely what is needed. Short of armed rebellion, this is our best shot, in my view, of neutralizing the corruption of the current two-heads-of-one-party system we are confronted with. The only way we have to stop putting power in their hands is to simply stop putting it in their hands.
The 2008 election was a door of opportunity wide-open; the Dems walked up to it, closed it, and walked away. Now, here we are …
Lastly, I commend your level of creativity in your comment; it was an enjoyable read, regardless …
_______________
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/03/09/the-rotten-heart-of-white-conservatism-the-nonsense-argument-that-is-white-people-are-oppressed-in-the-age-of-obama/
The tea-baggers are following the usual Republican playbook, working up the various prejudices of their base ignorant majority, whether racial, or religious, or elites (intellectual elites), etc. That's nothing new; it's not something that appeared with the "age of Obama".
What I'm concerned about is the lack of anything that counters that Republican ignorance. It seems clear that the Dems aren't up to the task.