Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Progressive Obama Critics Should Study FDR
Last week, some progressives expressed betrayal at Barack Obama's support for a "compromised" FISA bill. While FISA's telecom immunity provision is not a front burner issue for many, it is a hot button issue among the netroots, a community that has strongly backed Obama. Meanwhile, recent stories in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and other traditional media describe Obama as moving to "the center," further alarming some on the left. This early progressive criticism of Obama comes amidst celebrations of the 75th anniversary of the New Deal, created by our best and most progressive president, Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt is often held up as a model for Obama, but some on the left apparently do not realize that FDR was a pragmatist who made deals with the proverbial devil--in his case, Southern segregationists--to get his progressive economic plans enacted. Those expecting Obama to follow a consistently left-wing agenda misunderstand both the man and the nature of U.S. politics.
Roosevelt the Pragmatist
My grandmother loved Franklin Delano Roosevelt and seemed to own books about every key member of his Administration. So I grew up a Roosevelt fan, and believe he not only was our nation's last progressive president, but that he created a model for using a progressive grassroots base to move willing presidents to the left.
Roosevelt is an icon on the U.S. left, as again became clear as the 75th anniversary of the New Deal was celebrated this year. And while Republicans have successfully rolled back many of the gains of the 1960's and 1970's, they have consistently failed to reverse the key building blocks of Roosevelt's New Deal.
But some facts about Roosevelt rarely discussed in history classes include his alliance with the racist Southern Democratic Senators and Congressmembers who often controlled key committees. Many of these politicians backed FDR's economic populism, but would have vetoed such an agenda had Roosevelt demanded that the Constitution be enforced to protect the civil rights of African-Americans.
So while African-Americans in the South were denied voting rights, and subjected to overt discrimination and even lynchings, the Roosevelt Administration largely looked the other way. And while some on the black left publicly criticized Roosevelt's perceived hypocrisy--such as enacting a federal minimum wage law that exempted domestic workers and other heavily African-American jobs--the black community in the North overwhelming voted for FDR in every election.
Nor did Roosevelt's alliance with racist Democrats cause the largely white American Communist Party to attack the President. These activists understood the political realities, and, rather than shun Roosevelt for not aggressively promoting racial justice, worked hard to enact his progressive social and economic agenda. The left even stayed loyal to Roosevelt through his Executive Order sending Japanese-American citizens to internment camps, and his sending troops to overthrow a democratic government in Nicaragua.
Today's Congressional Reality
Obama's FISA stance appears designed to both avoid giving McCain a campaign issue and to reassure moderate Democrats that he understands their concerns and seeks to be their ally. It is the type of political calculation that he believes will facilitate passage of Obama's more progressive agenda next year.
With tens of millions of voters in tough economic times, Obama likely did not see a fight against FISA as a priority. While many see the FISA bill as a complete capitulation to an unpopular President, opinions differ on the actual impact of granting telecom immunity.
But some progressives concern over both FISA and other Obama reflects the more pragmatic nature of the Democratic nominee.
Many activists believe that if progressives simply "stand firm," that they can enact a left legislative agenda without making "deals" with more moderate politicians.
I recall hearing an interview in the late 1990's where Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn was criticizing environmental groups for making deals. Asked what they should do instead, Cockburn bellowed, "stand firm"! How "standing firm" would get key legislation passed when the votes were lacking was never made clear, and Cockburn was not asked to expand upon his analysis.
This notion of avoid political compromise, so prevalent around comprehensive immigration reform legislation, proposed universal health care measures, and Congressional efforts to limit the Iraq War, is alien to the mindset that brought the still revered New Deal.
Just imagine what some of today's activists would say about a minimum wage bill that excluded several categories of workers, typically in jobs held by racial minorities. They would insist that nobody should back such a bill, and that it was better to fail so we could try to pass a stronger bill in the future.
That's what happened to some health care reform efforts, some of which progressives have opposed due to their not implementing "single payer." Although there is no prospect of Congress voting to go directly from our current system to single-payer, and enacting any meaningful universal health care reform will involve "deals" with insurance companies and political moderates, many activists oppose anything short of an ideal yet politically impossible, single payer plan.
That's why one can almost guarantee some left anger with President Obama next year over his health care plan. Obama, like Roosevelt, is a pragmatist, and does not believe the perfect should be the enemy of the good.
Clinton vs. Roosevelt
Some have interpreted Obama's election campaign move to the center as creeping "Clintonism." But there is an important difference between Clinton, who was never a progressive and built his career attacking the left via the DLC, and Roosevelt, who consistently sought to achieve the most progressive legislation possible.
Barack Obama is in the Roosevelt camp. He is more of an incrementalist than FDR because the political space for more radical change has narrowed, but, unlike Clinton, he wants to build, not undermine, the progressive base.
Obama seeks to build a "working political majority" because he knows, unlike far too many activists, that creating change involves more than "standing firm" on principles. Rather, it means building the political base to support real change, and getting legislation through a Congress that progressives do not control.
The netroots outrage against Obama's FISA stance sends an important message to the candidate that progressives will not be taken for granted. But let's keep the Roosevelt model in mind before linking Obama's pragmatism to a lack of commitment to progressive change.
Randy Shaw is the editor and publisher of Beyond Chron, an alternative online daily newspaper, with whose permission this article is republished.
© 2008 California Progress Report
101 Comments so far
Show AllFor years now the radical right has had it's way. Their agenda has been pressed forward largely without compromise. Look at this FISA bill. Kit Bond goes so far as to claim it is better than the administration would have wanted. If compromise means giving the minority ideology even more than what they want, leave me out. I don't feel the need to press our agenda without compromise out of vengeance. The reality is that the right pushed their agenda without compromise for years and we could learn from them how to do it. That would be political pragmatism. We progressives need to start doing a better job of framing the debate in therms that are favorable to us so we are better able to press our agenda.
Methinks Mr. Shaw has been 'smoking funny substances' to produce this 'black is white', 1984 like argument.
So now Barack is being pragmatic? Why am I not surprised to see Democrats presenting apologies for lacking a spine? Oh wait..we've come to see this behavior for about 2 years now and I don't think it is going to CHANGE once Obama gets into office. Obama is promoting this false idea of change on which he wants to win the Presidency.
Lets face facts here: Anybody who gets into office after a dumbass president will be a positive change. The question is how much is the new president going to pull this country towards positive change? Even McCain might do slightly better than Bush but is Barack using such low benchmarks to get by? On one hand he talks about how the Supreme courts decision against DC ban on guns is a good compromise between safety of Americans and the constitution then he votes to defile the same fukcing constitution?
This is a great article about this lack of spine AKA move to the center:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/30/9990/
I'm hearing BO supporters everywhere offering the same apologies. In fact a friend of mine said, "3 strikes in 2 days" but then he "hoped" that BO is doing this to defeat McCain and will do the "Right" thing once he's in office. Really? Is that how desperate progressives have become to support a leader who displays cowardice and shuns his own ideals when it comes to political progress? Shame on BO! I always knew he was going to be disappointing and he is showing his true colors now!
Throwing around the word "progressive" does not make one a progressive. Paying lip service to a 'brand' does not make one a progressive either. What makes someone a progerssive is walking the talk, not paying lip service to one's ideology. Saying one thing and 'doing' another thing, is more in keeping with Obama's brand of political realism, and the rest of the Democratic Party. Incrementalism is not about change of an order of magnitude necessary. My suggestion to this Cat is take his tripe to the main line corporate press where it can be welcomed with open and uncritical arms.
great posts all.
"let's dump ALL our principles so we can elect the candidate with the D label" is not a prescription for change of any kind.
the calculus of "incrementalism" leads to changes approaching zero.
I guess the point is that there has never been a great president of the USA and there never will be, so just forget about it, shut up, and vote for the crap anyway. No thanks!
OBAMA IS NO FDR! (of course, FDR was no FDR either - he did some really good things & some really awful things, too. Of our imperialist Presidents, he was one of the best - but we need an era of anti-imperialism now)
As much as I see the value of FDR's incremental approach, I feel there is far too much at stake to apply such a concept universally now. FDR wasn't in the middle of an unholy (in every sense of the term) war. He wasn't faced with an energy crisis. He didn't have a rapidly expanding wealth gap (I realize it was the Depression, yes, but we're only in half a Depression - A Depression for the common person). His style was superb for slowly nudging the status quo against still viable political opponents. Now, the GOP is badly wounded; its brand value is lower than Enron stock. The opponents are not visible candidates with concise, logical messages. The Democrats (really, the Progressive subset) face opposition from unseen hands, media spin and shadowy figures with deep pockets. Now is not the time to haggle details. You bargain with a partner or opponent who is willing to bargain. At no point have we seen any inkling that the Right has any interest or principle in meeting people halfway.
Sorry, i have to agree with the author. I am a very leftist liberal, but I understand exactly what Obama is doing and why. The candidate I would choose for President is Dennis Kucinich, but, as we've seen time and time again, Kucinich can't possibly get elected because he is too "radical" for today's political reality. Chalk it up to thinking he'll do anything to get elected, but I'd rather see him do what needs to be done to get himself in office that to see four more years of Republicans. Realist pragmatism is sometimes necessary to get what you really want.
I hope Mr. Shaw is right. I sincerely hope that Mr. Obama is a lot like FDR.
I also agree with the idea that progressives need to let go of the the idea of 'standing firm'. Political change seems to be inescapably incremental. I think that conservatives have been able to undermine many of the progressive changes from the sixties and seventies through countless incremental victories. I think the conservative movement has a deep, clear understanding about incremental change, something the progressive community needs to grasp.
Thanks, Mr. Shaw. I love BeyondChron, btw.
Commondreams has become, sadly, a haven for "purity troll" commenters. Please don't let it go that way in its articles. This one above was a refreshing change from the "do it exactly my way or die" version of progressivism that's become so prevalent these days.
"Commondreams has become, sadly, a haven for "purity troll" commenters. Please don't let it go that way in its articles. This one above was a refreshing change from the "do it exactly my way or die" version of progressivism that's become so prevalent these days."
Interesting how an action provokes an equal and opposite reaction - even in politics, eh? Whether that reaction is good or not is another matter, but it is provoked.
Commondreams has become, sadly, a haven for "lesser-evil troll" commenters. Please don't let it go that way in its articles. This one above was a depressing change from the "principles matter" version of progressivism that's become so unpopular these days.
LOL shall I say it again?
Progressives, liberals, left of center--whatever the label; they have never been, nor will they ever be a majority. Their inability tolerate compromise; is totalitarian in nature. Is it any wonder that once upon a time-progressives supported Stalin (till they wised up).
I am opposed and remain opposed to the FISA legislation that passed. Trading away civil liberty for a sense of security leaves us neither more secure nor safe.
But I do not fault Sen. Obama for supporting the legislation. As a politician, seeking the highest elected office, sometimes you have to make compromises to get ahead. If it were otherwise, and everyone insisted on my way of the highway, nothing would get done.
Frig Clinton, and even frig FDR.
We need a government of the people which will take-on, and excise, this friggn 'corporatist Empire' tumor hiding behind their two-party 'Vichy' phony government and stealing our democracy.
The problem in the US today is worse than the 1930's.
We don't need a president who will "save capitalism from itself",
We need a revolution that will drive a stake through the heartless chest of this friggin 'corporatist Empire' that has stolen our democracy!!!
hazmat, you said, "the calculus of "incrementalism" leads to changes approaching zero."
Now where the **ck did I hear that since 2000??
Stop voting for the lesser of two evil front-men for the same 'corporatist Empire'.
FDR? The closet anti-Semite? You must be kidding.
this piece comes out of the same sewer as pelosi and her lackies.
Too bad many CD readers of this wise article refuse to recognize the political realities. The GOP is very effective and powerful when it's in the minority -- talk about standing firm! They're also masters at propaganda, from Willie Horton to Harry & Louise to "Swift Boat Veterans for ..." But Dems in the minority don't know WHAT to do other than whine and back down! And note how the Repubs have been using the filibuster --without actually filibustering-- in the Senate this year: yes, they're shameless, making 60 votes necessary to pass ANY bill. But they're our opponents, and we must be realistic as to how they operate. (I sometimes wonder if the problem is that Democrats want people to like them, and Republicans don't give a damn. Their view of people in society is hierarchical, and they're so sure they're right about everything that they don't NEED to be liked.)
In 2009 we may have President Obama and firmer control of the Senate, but politics is STILL the art of the possible. For example, how do we get to Universal Single-Payer medical insurance? Medicare For All (an enhanced Medicare, of course) is my dream -- but there's no quicker way to DEFEAT it than by trying to pass it all at once (as Dennis proposed) while eliminating all private insurers. If I were strategizing, I'd start with an "open-choice" bill, allowing any citizen or legal resident over age 50 to join Medicare and pay the yearly premiums in monthly installments (withheld by their employer, or subsidized by the gov't if they're at or near poverty wages). Year by year, the age at which one can join would go down, until everyone who wanted that coverage has it. By making Medicare just ONE of many choices people have, we'd pull the rug out from under those very clever GOP propagandists.
compromises are admirable in many situations, but not all...some issues are beyond compromise...marital fidelity comes to mind, as does destroying the environment upon which we depend for survival...no business interest has the right to do that, not even in the name of compromise...you don't get to wreck, say, half the planet, then half of that again, then half of that...neither is a compromiser to be always admired...some should be hanged...many compromises have been made in the past that need to be unmade that we might move forward...ownership of property, corporate entity...
Main Entry: 1com·pro·mise
1 a: settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions b: something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things
2: a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial
Shaw says: "unlike Clinton, he wants to build, not undermine, the progressive base."
So that is his motive Mr. Shaw? Where is the evidence of such a motive?
A mere assertion absent analysis and absent evidence is not a weak argument. It nothing but a meaningless claim.
What Randy Shaw calls "progressive" is actually "centrist" to the poll participating portion of the American people.
69 percent of U.S. voters agree that "government should care for those who cannot care for themselves" (Pew 2007)
64 percent of Americans would pay higher taxes to guarantee health care for all U.S. citizens. (CNN Poll 2007)
69 percent of Americans think it is the responsibility of the federal government to provide health coverage to all U.S. citizens. (Gallup 2006)
Twice as many Americans back more government services and spending (even if this means a tax increase)as the number
who support fewer services and reduced spending. (National
Elections Survey 2004)
I have two dozen similar poll rsults but you get the point -
the electorate favors the ideas that Randy Shaw thinks are
radical - though by definition an diea favored by more than
half the population is really centrist.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, Randy!! You are so right. Those of us campaigning for and/or supporting Obama must not criticize each and every move he makes. If we trust him to be President, we have to trust his judgment on what to do RIGHT NOW - and I do. I can out-left any lefty, out civil-liberty and civil-libertarian - BUT I will not question my chosen candidate for the next 4 months. Let him GET ELECTED first, then criticize him. I am growing increasingly impatient with all the well-meaning folks out there ready to cannibalize the finest leader in our lifetimes. Stop it, folks - you're feeding the McCain campaign. They're lovin' it. Can't you STOP IT till Nov. 5??--Karen Porter, ccobama@aol.com
This article is bilgewater, as are the toxic ideas contained therein. I will not drink of it.
I think most everyone understands the difference between compromise and capitulation.
This assertion is a hoot: and provided the best belly laugh Ive had in a couple of months:
"do it exactly my way or die" version of progressivism that's become so prevalent these days."
This is precisely what the vote Dem or Obama legion asserts against those of us voting for Third Party candidates like Nader. If they don't get their way, they shout and stomp there feet, hurl insults, and when everything else fails to convince you otherwise, regress to childish name calling.
Well, guess what? My vote will still go to Nader or another Third Party candidate as a protest vote.
oh boy...the principled progressive rads agst the lesser evilists...it's gonna go on til november. i do believe there are distinctions to be made between obama and mcCain and the distinctions i've drawn have placed me short term(til nov) in the lesser evilists camp. after that it's up to us to turn things into an evolving, experimental democracy as opposed to the dem/repub duopilistic game we have now. simple basic stuff would help...proportional representation and IRV. working to lessen the power of the senate would help (why in the world should wyoming have the same amount of power as NY and CA!!) greater ballot access would help...400000 ex-felons in FLA in were not allowd to vote in 2000...many of these ex-felons were dis-enfranchised for partaking in our drug culture. lessening the power of the supreme court would help too...is law above us or something the citizenry should take part in forming?
there ARE a lotta seemingly pedestrian things that could be done to make our gov't more responsive to the will of the people. but i'm pretty sure a lotta people will be in front of their computers in 2012 flaming at each other for being lesser evilists or unpragmatic rads.
The FISA bill is an unambiguous assault on the constitution. Since when is this a "moderate" position? The bill sanctions lawbreaking by the powerful, and permits eavesdropping without a warrant. Since when are these "left-wing" concerns?
Forgive us for being a little touchy, Mr. Shaw. It's not as though the last eight years the democrats have been giving ground on some issues to accomplish goals elsewhere. They give up two steps so they only have to give up one somewhere else. What have we gained recently? Nothing. And if Obama proves himself equally weak, why let him get away with it?
You Obama apologists are just as misled as the dumb Americans who believed that the Bush Administration knew something we didn't about WMDs in Iraq. "Just you wait and see. We'll roll in there, and our march to war will be justified. We just need to have faith that our government knows something we don't. They can't tell us where the weapons are, because Saddam will move them before we get troops in."
For the all the Obama apologists who don't get it, here's why so many Democrats capable of critical thinking are angry. You people condemn Republicans for voting a certain way on legislation, and yet when Obama votes THE EXACT SAME WAY it is because he is "playing the game." Nobody else is "playing the game," just Obama. They all have evil intentions in their hearts, but Obama's identical vote means something good. In some circles we would call this HYPOCRISY. You people make fantastic excuses produced from your overactive imaginations about Obama's TRUE MOTIVES and his BIG STRATEGY. Have any of you personally spoken to Obama? Has he confided in you his "true game plan?" No.
Obama has suckered in tons of apologists who continue to delude themselves that Obama is more than what he says, and that he believes differently than he votes. His campaign has packaged Obama as the next FDR, and wishful thinkers like Randy Shaw get so caught up in constructing paralells they fail to realize that at the end of the day, they really have no clue about Obama's motives.
Speculation does not stand as fact.
You don't vote for what you wish people will be when they are elected. You vote for what they are now, and for what they say now. It really is that simple. We have rejected this notion over and over, which is why we continue to be apologists for two-faced liars, flip-floppers, and promise breakers. It is also why we accepted going to war on a "hunch" without a single shred of hard evidence. We are a nation that puts God-like faith in our government leaders, and BOTH parties are guilty of this.
Until we reject this notion, we will continue to be dissatisfied.
During the Clinton administration, I saw this same group of apologists make all the same excuses for his administration, for lying under oath, for the Kosovo debacle, for NAFTA, for everything. Clinton could do not wrong.
The real problem in this country is not that people don't have bullshit detectors. It's that their bullshit detectors are broken when it comes to anything that they are personally connected to.
Could Obama come out of his shell and "show his true colors" once elected? Could he have really hoodwinked all those brilliant Jews at AIPAC who have dominated our political scene for years, along with all the other people in the Democratic establishment and media who have so much to lose by a real agent of change? I believe it is very naive to think so. I think the more likely reality is that Obama is what he is. He's clinched the nomination, and now he's showing his true colors because he doesn't need support of progressive voters anymore.
All of you who are waiting for the "real" Barack Obama to please stand up...you'd better not hold your breath, because until he does, he's simply a construct of your wishful thinking.
Progressives sell their souls to the Democratic party. In return, the Democratic party promises not to be the Republican party. Generally this is enough to satisfy the Progressives and they make no more demands upon the Democrats. But there are sometimes a few angry Progressives that somewhere along the route stand up and say, "Wait, that's not enough!" No. You don't get it. It's all you're worth. Progressives DO NOT take the ideas they spout seriously. Ending the war on terror, restricting presidential powers, environmental protection, social justice, these are all just 'talking points' for you. You chat these things up to get the Democrats elected. That's the role you play; that's the role you've chosen. These all sound like great ideas, but, for some reason, you don't take them seriously, and till you do, they will not be acted upon by any federal party. All the Democrats have to do is not be Republicans, and you'll vote for them: simple as that. Which is why your souls are so so so so cheap on the open market; until you believe in your own soul, its really not worth anything.
The Democratic Party apologists are at it again. Lesseroftwoevilism is getting old and stale. A new tactic: OBAMA = ROOSEVELT. Nice try Randy Shaw.
"...expecting Obama to follow a consistently left-wing agenda..."
-You mean a decent agenda that doesn't condone law breakers who wrap themselves up in the flag as their last refuge.
"...overt discrimination and even lynchings, the Roosevelt Administration largely looked the other way."
"Nor did Roosevelt's alliance with racist Democrats..."
"...perceived hypocrisy–such as enacting a federal minimum wage law that exempted domestic workers and other heavily African-American jobs–the black community..."
-Rather than convincing Obama's detractors, Randy Shaw, you are giving FDR a black eye.
"...to reassure moderate Democrats..."
Read: Republicans and Democratic-Republicans
"...facilitate passage of Obama's more progressive agenda next year."
-Just trust him on this one.
"...Obama likely did not see a fight against FISA as a priority."
-Your civil rights are not his priority, reassuring the establishment and getting elected is.
"...pragmatic nature of the Democratic nominee."
He's willing to do anything to get elected including selling out his friend and spiritual adviser of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.
"...would get key legislation passed when the votes were lacking..."
If Democratic votes are lacking in a Democrat-controlled Congress its time to find a new party not stick with traitors.
"..Obama, like Roosevelt.."
-Clever, Obama=Roosevelt
"...he wants to build, not undermine, the progressive base..."
-Ha! Laughable.
"...progressives will not be taken for granted."
-We have, we are, and we will continue to be until we rise up against the buggers, bloody their noses and flock to another party.
"If it were otherwise, and everyone insisted on my way of the highway, nothing would get done."
Seems to fit most discussions.
I keep seeing these calls for "revolution", it leads me to wonder what they are talking about? Sit ins, peaceful resitence, guns in the street?
Strictly a personal curiousity question.
I had a car that rarely worked properly for long. It was unreliable and broke down when you needed it most. I used to work on it all the time. It was a black hole for time and money. Finally I got fed up, went out and bought a new car and spent years happier than a pig in crap without a car problem.
The Democrats are the broken car. They are hopelessly sold out and embedded into the very corrupt fabric of D.C. The problem is that many progressives keep thinking they can repair and patch up the old junker and it'll run. It doesn't. Four years from now we will be in exactly the same dilemma. Trust me on that one. It's time for a new car.
There is no such thing as the Center.
I'm grateful to be among people who are not willing to do whatever the mainstream anything says. If you keeping doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always gotten. Yeah !!!
The argument being made by the Obama supporting Democrats is that he is a pragmatist and that "my way-high way" thinking is unthinkable, if not stupid and childish.
If this argument is to be bought than it does present a question: Is there anything that cannot be pragmatically negotiated? Is the Constitution, Bill of Rights and rule of law negotiable? Basically, that is what the Democrats have done, negotiated and sold them down the river.
What else is negotiable? How about people's lives? Is it okay to be pragmatic and negotiate away 1,000,000 lives in a war started on false pretenses? Should we be pragmatic and negotiate with people who start wars for profit? Should we pragmatically negotiate with war criminals when their crimes get exposed?
Would you pragmatically negotiate your ass for a good cause? How about your sister's ass. Is there anything that should be kept off the table when pragmatically negotiating?
thomas more asks about revolution...several days ago, frank asked 'what's our plan?'...good questions
we have two separate, yet intertwined, problems...the human\human problem, which involves industrialization, politics, religion, economy, war, etc., and the human\planet problem, which involves the continuing destruction of our natural environment...unfortunately, many of the aspects of the human\human problem are directly responsible for the human\planet problem...
revolution, the violent kind, if it has any role, would only apply to the human\human problem, of course, as the planet wouldn't really notice...if American fascism continues, and that looks likely, then revolution, meaning the violent kind, will probably be necessary, as force will probably be brought to bear upon the increasingly unhappy and agitated populace...
unfortunately, even if such a revolution were successful, it will mean nothing unless accompanied by another revolution, the non-violent kind...a revolution within each of us regarding what it means to be a human living on this planet...only a personal revolution that rejects virtually every fundamental theory upon which our current way of life is predicated will allow us to preserve this, (cliche coming) the only planet we have available to us to inhabit...any solutions that portend to allow us to continue to own property and work at businesses and shop for products are lies, and swallowing them must be seen as intentional self-deception...this planet was not created as a stockpile of materials for human chemical alteration...obviously, it would be my suggestion to start with the personal, non-violent revolution, and hope it helps avoid the need for the violent one, but current societal pressures certainly make that extremely difficult to navigate...
so, what are the fundamental theories upon which our way of life are predicated? ownership of property looms very large, as does corporate entity...others?
Like many on this forum, in my heart of hearts I wish more than anything else that Dennis Kucinich would be the next President because he speaks to the issues that concern me, but we all know that is not going to happen.
So, okay, here is the problem: By the first week of November either McSame or Obama will be elected President. Which one are you hoping gets the job of appointing cabinet heads, Supreme Court Justices, Federal judges, US attornies, ambassadors, stc?
Who do you think will have more credibility dealing with the bulk of this world's people who are not Caucasian or be able to convincingly make a believable effort to bring together the deeply divided factions of this country?
Who do you want one heartbeat away from the presidency, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Charlie Crist--or would Bill Richardson, John Edwards, or Chris Dodd be better? (not perfect but better).
unless Barack does something really stupid like select Hillary as his running mate, there is no way that he would not be a better choice than McSame.
The Constitution was a pragmatic document and its purpose was to limit gov't power. Being pragmatic about the Constitution is unconstitutional.
There are/were 3 reasons to vote for Obama:
1. Civil Liberties (didn't he teach Constituional Law?)
2. The Supreme Court
3. Repudiate Bush and the neocons.
One down.
Nader is the only choice.
Nicely stated Meg. The choice is clear: continue feeding from the same polluted trough withthe rest of the herd or honor your own conscience. Jump through the same hoops the status quo serves up, or take a principled stand against the corruption. For those teethered to the 'system' the rationales will follow normative choices in an array of rationalizations on behalf of more of the same. For those free souls not inching along the freeways in their metal coffins, third party politics is the only true progressive option until a critical mass is reached when people stop accepting mediocre candidates teethered to the corporate teet.
"Progressive Obama critics should study FDR".
What a crock of shit this is. The Obama critics, progressive or not, don't need to study anything of the sort. They should only wonder in utter amazement, why anyone ever believed Obama in the first place.
FDR wouldn't have had Obama as a file clerk for Christ's sake. Neither would have Truman.
Now however our choices are limited, there are only two VIABLE candidates.
"A wise scepticism is the first attribute of good criticism" ____ ~Lowell~
Here is my question to the Obama supporters. Suppose Obama gets elected. People say "let's get him elected and when he is in the White House we will hold his feet to the fire." What if Obama turns out to be a major disappointment? What are you going to do? You can't touch George Bush, so what makes you think you can touch Obama?
Obama will win. That is practically certain. He talks too much about bipartisanship. We need to elect as many Democratic representatives and senators as possible. Then they can put the pressure on him to serve the people, not the special interests. I am giving NO MONEY TO OBAMA. I will support liberal Democratic candidatges as much as I am able.
http://www.feri.org/archives/speeches/jul0232.cfm
Follow that link to read FDR's speech to the Democratic Convention in 1932.
Then notice that it sounds nothing at all like an Obama speech. For instance, early on FDR promises to clearly set forth his policies. Then he does it in this speech. His convention speech in 1932 is famous for two reasons. One of those is that he announces the New Deal in this speech.
One trick the Obama campaign has used all along is to constantly have nonsense written that compares Obama favorably to Democratic leaders of the past that have high positives. They'd done it over and over again. And its all just as much bull as anything us coming out of Obama's mouth ... which is everything.
Read this and compare it to an Obama speech. FDR isn't up there trying to see how many times he can shove the words 'hope' and 'change' into a speech. Instead he's laying out a series of real policies, in detail, about exactly how he'll help Americans who were then struggling in what we'd call in today's Orwellian speech 'an economic downturn'.
FDR isn't giving platitudes to the crowds, then going off to collaborate with Wall Street and Walmart about how best to screw over Americans one more time. FDR is standing up and speaking honestly and clearly about how he's going to help Americans if he gets elected.
One thing for sure, Obama is no FDR.
Obama cops out on FISA. ... Obama unabashedly kisses AIPAC ass. ... Obama appoints a WalMart-lover as one of his chief economic advisers. ... ALL AFTER HE GETS THE NOMINATION.
This is classic move to the left to get the nomination, then move to the right.
Also, the author of the above article is living in La-La Land. The idea of "incremental changes" is both insulting and delusional. To quote that famous American philosopher, Willie Loman: "The woods are burning, boys!" Put another way: incremental changes are hardly gonna do the trick.
Finally, to compare 1933-45 FDR to modern-day America in a modern-day global economy is equally as insutling and delusional. But, as several previous posters have put it: this is typical of how desperate cruise missile liberals are to rationalize Corporate Citizen Obama into something he, clearly, isn't.
Incremental changes ... c'est horrifique!
To the 'hold his feet to the fire' nonsense, how's that been working with the Dem's congressional leadership? Gotten the war money stopped yet? Gotten impeachment?
You get one chance to hold a politicians feet to the fire. That's called an election. Use it or lose it. But once their in office they don't give a damn what you think until the next election roles around.
Prove me wrong by pressuring the Democrats in Congress to impeach Bush immediately. Go ahead, lets see you do it.
"This is classic move to the left to get the nomination, then move to the right."
Close, but I'd call it lying and deceiving the party to get the nomination, then revealing the true colors.
Thank you, Randy Shaw, for a much-needed dose of common sense.
I posted much of this last week in response to a Matthew Rothschild column but it seems that the ostriches out there enraged at Mr. Shaw's thesis need help pulling their heads out of the sand.
I admire Ralph Nader's lifetime of achievement and I voted for him in 2000 to send the Democrats a message. I afforded myself this luxury with the full awareness that if Al Gore lost my state, he would be buried in a landslide anyway. However, those knuckleheads who thought they were keeping their political virginity by voting for Nader in Florida enabled the Supreme Court to hand the election to Bush, and ended up being well and truly raped by two terms of Bush with a criminal war, torture, an even more skewed Supreme Court and the worst economy since the Great Depression. If you really believe there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, ask yourselves whether the disastrous course of our nation since 2001 would have been followed under President Gore.
Yes, Obama has his failings, being human like the rest of us. But learn your constitution: the President proposes but the Congress disposes. We should elect Obama so big that he pulls in huge Democratic majorities in both houses, just like FDR did. In fact, FDR was given courage, and kept in line, by having all those Democrats in congress at his back. What matters is how Congress modifies the President's proposals by the time he gets to sign them into law. Let's face it, in the real world the only realistic alternatives are Obama and McCain. Although there would obviously remain conservative Democrats in the Congress (just as in FDR's day), Obama as President and a substantial influx of new Democratic members would do far more to advance a progressive agenda than any number "principled" votes that Nader or someone like him could realistically expect.
How many more times do you want to get screwed by a Republican administration? That's exactly what you could risk by keeping yourselves pure by voting for Nader, or by staying home on principle.
They say you can only lose your virginity once but I guess some of you would blithely risk learning the hard way that, politically speaking, it can happen to you again, and again, and again. No amount of the wishful thinking, hissy fits, tantrums and downright rage that pervade many of the previous posts will help your cause one iota. Maybe you enjoy being in perpetual opposition, or perhaps you fear that if you actually exercised some influence you would also have to accept some responsibility.
Or maybe you are waiting for some progressive version of the Rapture.