Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
'Obama' for Lefties
When I was a boy I traveled to the Deep South. On my very first day there I saw two water fountains side by side, one labeled "Colored" and the other "Whites Only." Now, less than half a century later, a black family is on its way to the White House.
No doubt the myth of white superiority is still alive and well in many places. But today that myth, the historical foundation of American society, has a crack as big as the crack in the Liberty Bell. The only word to express the magnitude of the change we lived through last week is "revolution."
Let's be honest, though. For those of us who still use that word "revolution" to describe the economic and political as well as social changes we'd like to see in the world, and the changes in domestic and foreign policy we'd like to see in our government, Barack Obama seems to be far from the president we want. He appears to be a pragmatist. He will probably govern from slightly left of center, much like Bill Clinton and John Kennedy. That's certainly the impression he is giving in his first days as president-elect.
"Appears" and "probably" are the key words here. No one knows for sure what Obama has in mind for this nation. "We will get there," he promised in his victory speech. But, in his typically soaring yet vague rhetoric, he never told us exactly where he intends to steer us. That's understandable. He doesn't want to be tied to any policy agenda before he even takes office, especially with the economy on such an unpredictable rollercoaster. Very possibly, he does not know yet himself where he is headed.
It's not like the good old days of Bush and Cheney, when we knew pretty much exactly what we were up against. Now we are all sailing on uncharted political seas.
All this uncertainty should make progressives feel optimistic. What can give us hope is not the new president as a policymaker, but the new president as a symbol of possibility. Barack Obama is the name of a person. "Obama" is also the name of a new mood -- a new tone and sensibility -- that has somehow risen up in every section of this country. It's a sense of open-ended possibility that hasn't been felt since the time of JFK, when those two water fountains I saw in the south were already doomed to become dusty relics of the past. Now, as then, the new mood is most evident among young people, who are energized as they haven't been since the '60s to enter the political scene and work for change.
"Obama" as a symbol is the name for a wind of change that could be powerful enough to sweep the ship of state great distances in a relatively short time -- though in what direction, no one can yet say.
Where we end up depends on which political forces mobilize and organize most quickly and most effectively. We could end up almost anywhere -- even right back where we started, if we are not careful. But if we on the left are careful, if we think strategically, we can catch the new wind and steer the nation a bit to the left.
While resisting Obama's unacceptable compromises, we should accept the wisdom of his strategic pragmatism. He himself can teach us the best way to oppose his policies.
As a community organizer, he learned that politics means making coalitions. Lefties who opposed Obama have to work together with lefties who supported him. And all of us have to work where we can with liberals and even centrists. How can we hope to push them leftward if we refuse to deal with them?
That means we can no longer just yell "no, no, no" at the government and expect anyone but ourselves to listen. It worked for the last few years because George W. Bush was so unpopular. But now we are dealing with a president who is as widely admired as Bush was despised. Whether we like it or not, that's a fact a smart political movement can't afford to ignore. So we have to appear -- and really be -- cooperative and constructive, not obstructive.
We also have to appear unthreatening. That's why Obama is so widely admired. He won, not by offering specific new policy ideas, but by uniting in himself the seemingly opposite images of change and steady predictability. He presented himself as the dynamic leader who could "change the world" while remaining always safe and solid, poised and unflappable, never likely to do anything rash or impulsive. The defining moment of the contest was the second debate, when the "maverick" McCain wandered erratically around the stage while Obama sat or stood, serenely centered, even as the economy of the nation (and perhaps the whole world) was collapsing around us.
It's understandable that images of steadiness now dominate. Obama knows that you can't use the winds of change to move people who are frightened or insecure. Whatever he may hope to accomplish, he has to keep on reassuring the general public and the power elite that he really is the temperate, self-controlled man they saw throughout the campaign. That's the only way he can be free to put across any policy agenda he comes up with.
He won't succeed if he says or does anything that might look unexpected, impulsive, or the least bit radical.
In a recent interview, the president-elect showed that he understands this truth. He complained that his infamous remark about "bitter" people who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them" was totally misinterpreted. He was trying to say how important it is to accept people as they are, with all their fears, and recognize their longing for "a sense of continuity and stability that is unavailable in [their] economic life. . Because Democrats haven't met them halfway on cultural issues, we've not been able to communicate to them effectively an economic agenda that would help broaden our coalition."
That's even more true for progressives both within and to the left of the Democratic party. We know that most people in this country will never be economically secure unless there is radical change in the economic system. But if we set out to defeat, or even ignore, the people made insecure and bitter by the current system, we'll never get them to accept the need for radical change. We'll only create more fear, bitterness, and resentment. Rather than nudging the center toward the left we'll help to drive it toward the right.
We don't have to appear as cautious and timid as Obama. We couldn't, even if we wanted to. But we can learn how to talk to people who don't share our values, how to take their needs and concerns into account, even how to work together with them, without sacrificing our principles. If we do that, we can use the new mood of change as a window of opportunity to persuade the whole nation to continue moving leftward.
That possibility is what the name "Obama" symbolizes. But the new president certainly won't do it for us. We have to do it ourselves.
- Posted in
158 Comments so far
Show AllI disagree. I think he is saying; instead of getting into shouting matches, try to appeal to their needs and fears. They are hurting, too. Show them how progressive solutions will help them. Its not going to work with all of them. Maybe not even with most of them. But just maybe enough of them ...
I'm still not getting where all of you folks are reading this as a paean to Obama. Chernus is pointing out that Obama has intentionally escaped definition. As such, he has not committed to being liberal, center or, for that matter, somewhat conservative. We need to push him to institute progressive policies.
insipidity,
Although I am one who has been harping on the fact that Obama is essentially a corporatist, and has shown us his willingness time and time again to advance the corporate agenda, I agree that since he is now president we need to "push him to institute progressive policies" as you say.
How are WE to do this, pray tell?
Millions of Americans voiced their opposition to the bailout, at a ratio of 100-1 against, and Obama still actively helped to push it through. Is he listening? He has already shown us that he will ignore us when we tell him, emphatically, what we want.
In what way do we as citizens force an administration to fight for us?
Good point about the bailout.
Barbara Lee sent me a long winded email response to my complaint. It kind of makes you exhale about a quarter of the way through, as your eyes slowly glaze over...
In regard to your last question, see what you think about http://november5.org
The tagline: The election is over and we must begin turning our country around now, or the opportunity may not come again. By quickly organizing ourselves in each of the 435 congressional districts, over the next 100 days, we can make single-payer healthcare, a living wage, and a less militaristic society our long-term reality. We must do this because the founders of these United States gave us the power to do it. Please watch the video and sign up today.
So if you do not want to try to form compromises with the "reactionaries and racists," then what do you have in mind? Do you believe in democracy? If not, then how do you implement the changes you wish? I would think that as a progressive, you would be against armed conflict, as a matter of principle if not practicality (the reactionaries are the ones with the guns and the will to use them).
Obama is an improvement over the alternatives not because he is necessarily committed to any progressive ideals or policies, but because he is open to progressive choices while the others one might compare him to were not. Bush and Cheney are class warriors for the upper class, Hillary is a corporatist who seems to think the only problem is that there are not enough elite female corporatists, and McCain is an unstable war hawk who would risk nuclear war to prove his manhood. Nader is of course infinitely preferable but is far away from achieving majority support. Obama appears to be mostly a typical politician who is open to going in any direction, including left, where he perceives his self-interest to lie. That is about the best we are going to get in this day and age in the USA.
yohocoma November 11th, 2008 1:25 pm, I hope you get that big progressive pony for your next birthday but, if not, you might have to settle for a center-left kitten.
Not everything you want, but more than you have now.
Then again, you can just cry and eat your heart out for the next year and hope you get the pony then. It's your choice.
"It doesn’t matter that he sides with destruction of the Palestinians, and sides with the embargo. It doesn’t matter that he turns his back on 100 million people and won’t even campaign in minority areas. It doesn’t matter than he wants a bigger military budget, and an imperial foreign policy supporting various adventures of the Bush administration. It doesn’t matter that he’s for the death penalty ,which is targeted at minorities. But if you say one thing that isn’t PC, you get their attention. I tell college audiences, a gender, racial or ethnic slur gets you upset, but reality doesn’t get you upset."
Ralph Nader
auspiciousbunny November 11th, 2008 1:32 pm, I challenge you to produce any reputable independent source for Nader's contention that Obama wants the destruction of the Palestinian people.
I challenge you to produce any reputable independent source for Nader's contention that he has turned his back on 100 million people or that he has not campaigned in minority areas.
I challenge you to produce any reputable independent source for Nader's contention that by asking for more money for the military, he is doing anything beyond underwriting our commitment to treat veterans and their families properly and rebuilding the force that Bush has nearly broken by overdeployment and poor equipment.
I challenge you to produce any reputable independent source for Nader's contention that Obama intends to pursue an imperialist foreign policy and supports Bush's foreign adventures; he has stated repeatedly his goal in Afghanistan is to get rid of Al-Qaeda terrorists and unite that nation without the murderous Taliban in charge. Does Nader think the tens of thousands who would be killed if the Taliban took over in that country again would not constitute a genocide caused by our withdrawal?
Finally, those who know Obama say he is personally against the death penalty and when a State Senator in Illinois he sponsored legislation to videotape suspects in capital cases to lessen its use. It's true that for political reasons he did not want the death penalty to be an issue in his campaign, but he will certainly employ it more sparingly than have the Republicans in federal cases, and appoint judges that will not support its flagrant use to fight crime.
I say this as someone who supported Nader in 2000 and admire him for his legal work in the area of public safety and protection from corporate excess: Tell Ralph Nader that if he wants a true dose of reality, run for a lesser office than president for a change, one he has a chance of winning -- governor, senator, congressman -- and get his hands dirty in the political process before criticizing others as he 'campaigns' to nab publicity to sell his books.
Let's see what kind of voting record Mr. Nader has after a term in Congress, and what kind of excuses he makes for falling short of perfect.
Excellent.
Nader did not contend that Obama WANTS the destruction of the Palestinian people, he merely pointed out that Obama sides completely with the Israeli gov't - which is, and has been for some time, engaged in the steady destruction of the Palestinians. I don't think that either part of this statement can be seriously questioned.
Turning his back on 100 million people refers to the fact that he never once mentioned "the poor" in his campaign. His sympathies were always with the "middle class". Can you recite his appearances in minority areas? I don't remember seeing reports of same.
Where ever did you get the idea that more money for the military is only for veterans? That's a new one on me. He has stated that he wants to increase the size of the military, a bigger Army and more Marines. And he has stated that he wants to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, or did you miss that, even though it's pretty widely considered that bin Laden is in Pakistan. We've been trying to "get rid of Al-Qaeda terrorists" for over 7 years now and all we have managed to do is blow up a lot of weddings. As far as uniting the country without the Taliban, we "blew" that one, if there ever was a chance, some time ago. Haven't you heard, we are now going to talk to them. We've done such a good job of "uniting" Iraq (except for their unity in wanting us out), I'm sure we'll do even better in Afghanistan. As for the "genocide", so we should kill them instead? The Afghanis are getting pretty mad at us over there, or hadn't you heard?
As for being against the death penalty, why did he criticize the SC ruling that outlawed it for crimes that did not result in death? As for "employing it more sparingly", he can't employ it at all - he's not a judge, and I don't think he is likely to serve on a jury. Videotaping a suspect's testimony may help keep a defendant from being convicted of a crime unfairly, but it has no bearing on whether he gets the death penalty if convicted. And he did not discuss it for POLITICAL reasons? I'm sure those on death row will give him a buy for that. "Those who know Obama" say he doesn't support it, but what does Obama say?
Look, you may like Obama for whatever reason, but please don't put words in his mouth or ideas in his head that aren't there.
As for telling Nader what office to run for, how "Democratic" of you. Personally, I think Obama should have stayed in the Senate.
.Excellent.
Anyone intersted in Nader's real positions on these issues can readily find them at votenader.org. Or use a search engine.
In fact, those who support the current policies and actions of the Israeli govt are, ipso facto, supporting the destruction of the Palestinian people.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Aquifer November 12th, 2008: "Nader did not contend that Obama WANTS the destruction of the Palestinian people, he merely pointed out that Obama sides completely with the Israeli gov't - which is, and has been for some time, engaged in the steady destruction of the Palestinians. ...."
It's absurd to think that a President Obama, who wants to negotiate for peace there, would sit by if Israel tried to massacre Palestinians wholesale.
"Turning his back on 100 million people refers to the fact that he never once mentioned "the poor" in his campaign. … Can you recite his appearances in minority areas? …"
You're wrong -- he mentioned both the middle-class and working poor on several occasions. As far as appearing in 'minority areas,' that's also ludicrous -- the man was attracting tens of thousands to his speeches – which urban area should he have snarled up traffic to campaign in? -- and minorities were in abundance at his rallies. BTW, perhaps you can tell me why Ralph Nader called Obama an 'Uncle Tom'? When did honky Ralph transmute into H. Rap Brown and arrogate to himself the position of determining what candidates are acceptable to blacks? A majority of black people liked Obama -- who is Massah Nader to say they're wrong? That's insulting and demeaning and Ralph should be ashamed of himself.
Source: "Ralph Nader calls Obama 'Uncle Tom'…" San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 5, 2008.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=24&entry_id=32372
"Where ever did you get the idea that more money for the military is only for veterans? … He has stated that he wants to increase the size of the military … And he has stated that he wants to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, or did you miss that, even though it's pretty widely considered that bin Laden is in Pakistan."
I got the idea because Obama has stated many times that we need more money for veterans and their families, and he's sponsored legislation in the US Senate to provide expanded assistance. He wants to add troops to replenish the military to former readiness levels and so that we have an updated military force should we ever need one. Yes, he wants to increase troops in Afghanistan for the reasons stated in my previous post, and Afghanistan would be the jumping off point to capture Al-Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan, should the Pakistani government refuse to act.
"We've been trying to "get rid of Al-Qaeda terrorists" for over 7 years now and all we have managed to do is blow up a lot of weddings. As far as uniting the country without the Taliban, we "blew" that one … some time ago. Haven't you heard, we are now going to talk to them. We've done such a good job of "uniting" Iraq (except for their unity in wanting us out), I'm sure we'll do even better in Afghanistan. As for the "genocide", so we should kill them instead? The Afghanis are getting pretty mad at us over there, or hadn't you heard?"
I have heard all of that, but apparently you haven't heard that Obama is an entirely different person than Bush, and will take an entirely different approach.
"As for being against the death penalty, why did he criticize the SC ruling that outlawed it for crimes that did not result in death?"
Why not give a reliable independent source for this claim or at least some quotes from Obama? I certainly didn't hear him criticize the Supreme Court in this matter.
"As for "employing it more sparingly", he can't employ it at all - he's not a judge, and I don't think he is likely to serve on a jury".
You should educate yourself on how our federal government works. The president can pardon or commute sentences of federal prisoners.
"Videotaping a suspect's testimony may help keep a defendant from being convicted of a crime unfairly, but it has no bearing on whether he gets the death penalty if convicted. And he did not discuss it for POLITICAL reasons? … "Those who know Obama" say he doesn't support it, but what does Obama say?"
That's right -- incredibly enough, politicians do things for political reasons -- that's why Obama got elected and has the power to change things and Nader does not. Nader's 'glorious loser-for-the-truth' act is getting annoying. FDR was a politician, too, and none of the liberal social programs he passed that originated with Eugene Debs and others could have become law unless FDR were first elected. The same holds true with LBJ -- he was a politician and a bastard but, without him, the civil rights acts, not to mention Medicare and other progressive legislation, would never have gotten through Congress. Obama is a political pragmatist who believes you first have to get elected to get things done. If Nader were more of a pragmatic politician, he might be president now. As it is, he didn't even attract enough votes in 2008 to qualify for federal matching funds.
"As for telling Nader what office to run for, how "Democratic" of you. Personally, I think Obama should have stayed in the Senate."
That's a dodge: Why doesn't Nader run for Congress? In 2012 he'd have some political experience, a record to run on, and media connections to help a presidential bid. What is he afraid of -- that Washington will taint him? If so, why is he participating in grubby politics by running for president?
For months I've read posts in various CD threads demeaning the supposedly starry-eyed, naive Obamabots (a creature I have yet to personally encounter), often posted by Naderites. You guys should really look in a mirror; Nader has done some good things, but he is not above reproach. If you want me to back that up, just ask. Or are you afraid of what you'll discover about your tin demigod?
1) Well he's "sat by", i.e. hasn't objected, to anything Israel has done so far. So it has to be "wholesale massacre" before he should at least object? How many must die and by what means before it qualifies as a "wholesale massacre" in your book? (and which book is that, by the way?)
2)Watch the FOX video again, and again if you have to, to see what Nader really said, it's even in print on the screen. He said Obama had a CHOICE about what kind of uncle he wanted to be, Uncle Sam or Uncle Tom (leave it to FOX!)
3)so, even though, he, Obama, has NOT publicly opposed the death penalty, for "political" reasons, we know he opposes it because somebody said that those who know, whoever they are, said he does (are you one of them?), and he is going to prove it by pardoning or commuting the sentences of all those who have received, or will receive, it - is that correct? Wow!
4)let me get this straight - in your view, it's OK for a politician to say (how about DO, why draw the line at speech?) anything in order to get elected because, through some magical quality, we know that he will be wonderful when he gets there? Then why bother with campaigns? Let the candidates just stand up there and we can decide who is more radiant, around whose head the halo appears, because apparently it doesn't matter a fig what (s)he says or how (s)he has voted. You, apparently, are gifted with "the sight". I, alas, have to pay attention.
5)If you want to know why Nader doesn't run for the Senate, why don't you ask him? I'm not his mother, for Pete's sake. I'm very glad he ran for Pres.
6)look, I am not the one who is claiming that the candidate I chose is above reproach, I have my differences with him. But one thing I think I can be pretty sure of is that he says what he means and he means what he says, his positions are clear, principled, don't ebb and flow with the tide of political punditry and don't have to be interpreted or spun. I know what his positions are on the things that are important to me, and I would argue, to the majority of us, and I agree with them to a much greater degree than with those of Obama, as far as I can tell what those ARE, or were, or will be - Perhaps you can tell me what "pragmatism" will tell him to do tomorrow. It would be useful to know what I have to brace myself for.
You speak as if you "know" a great deal about the "real" Obama - how did you come by this "knowledge"?
Aquifer November 13th, 2008 3:47 pm:
1) Well he's "sat by", i.e. hasn't objected, to anything Israel has done so far. So it has to be "wholesale massacre" before he should at least object? How many must die and by what means before it qualifies as a "wholesale massacre" in your book? …
Obama has objected in the past but, in the presidential campaign, he refrained. Look, Olmert is finished and there will soon be a new, and likely more liberal, government in Israel, anxious for peace with the Palestinians, so this is a moot issue.
2)Watch the FOX video again, and again if you have to, to see what Nader really said, it's even in print on the screen. He said Obama had a CHOICE about what kind of uncle he wanted to be, Uncle Sam or Uncle Tom …
Yes, that's what Nader said, but who is whitey Ralph to make that judgment, and how does he think that sounds to an African-American? To many black people, it's like saying 'who is Obama going to be – True Patriot or House N****r?' It's racially insensitive, to say the least. Incidentally, what is Ralph doing on Fox News anyway?
3)so, even though, he, Obama, has NOT publicly opposed the death penalty, for "political" reasons, we know he opposes it because somebody said that those who know, whoever they are, said he does (are you one of them?), and he is going to prove it by pardoning or commuting the sentences of all those who have received, or will receive, it - …?
No, I never said that he will pardon everyone on death row; just that, compared to Bush, he will be much more careful and thoughtful in its use, and appoint judges less likely to favor the death penalty.
4)let me get this straight - in your view, it's OK for a politician to say (how about DO, why draw the line at speech?) anything in order to get elected because, through some magical quality, we know that he will be wonderful when he gets there? Then why bother with campaigns? Let the candidates just stand up there and we can decide who is more radiant, around whose head the halo appears, because apparently it doesn't matter a fig what (s)he says or how (s)he has voted. You, apparently, are gifted with "the sight". I, alas, have to pay attention.
Nope, I also never said it's okay for a politician to 'say anything' to get elected, but name me one politician in our history who hasn't lied for political reasons? Even Ralph lied when he sent me those emails in 2000 promising to build the Greens into a viable alternative to the two major parties. Sadly, lying to get elected is a part of our politics; as long as it's limited, I'm not concerned, although I wish it were otherwise. As a self-described cynic, I'm surprised that flusters you. BTW, it does matter how a politician votes; I'll bet you never checked Obama's website to see what bills he's proposed and what votes he's cast.
5)If you want to know why Nader doesn't run for the Senate, why don't you ask him? I'm not his mother, for Pete's sake. I'm very glad he ran for Pres.
As a supporter of Nader, perhaps YOU should ask him. It's easy for Ralph to stand on the sidelines and throw spitballs at Obama, but what would he do if confronted by complexities such as the 2005 Energy Bill that gave tax breaks to Big Oil but also included funding for green energy? What would Ralph do if he had to vote on an Iraq funding bill that wouldn't end the war since Bush had promised, should the bill fail, that he would hold the troops hostage there and not properly supply them? How would Ralph have voted in these cases? Congress is presented with dilemmas like this every session and sometimes you have to make the best of a bad bargain. It's easy, and gutless, for Ralph to remain 'ideologically pure' since his words are worthless and he's powerless to effect change. I'd like to see what he'd do if he had to vote on a bill without a simple solution.
6)look, I am not the one who is claiming that the candidate I chose is above reproach, I have my differences with him. But one thing I think I can be pretty sure of is that he says what he means and he means what he says, his positions are clear, principled, don't ebb and flow with the tide of political punditry and don't have to be interpreted or spun. I know what his positions are on the things that are important to me, and I would argue, to the majority of us, and I agree with them to a much greater degree than with those of Obama, as far as I can tell what those ARE, or were, or will be - Perhaps you can tell me what "pragmatism" will tell him to do tomorrow. It would be useful to know what I have to brace myself for.
See above. It's easy for Ralph to say whatever he wants, since he has no power; a Rep. Nader would have to 'walk the walk' and take the consequences. Actions speak louder than words; what actions has Ralph taken in the 12 years he's been running for president, except run for president?
You speak as if you "know" a great deal about the "real" Obama - how did you come by this "knowledge"?
As a matter of fact, I've known one of his close relatives for nearly 20 years, and I've talked to Obama on two occasions, once before he entered politics. Perhaps that's why I'm convinced he'll do a much better, and more progressive, job than some here think.
.We , all of us, think our opinions writ large. We use opinion to create a reality and, when nuances are pointed out we simply ignore those that do not dovetail into our already firmly fixed concepts of how things are. Not to say that you are alone in this, it is a pretty darn common phenomenon.
The perfect illustration is the way you distorted, or were led to distort by inaccurate Fox reporting,, the "Uncle Tom" reference. When the real statement of Ralph Nader was shown to you you ran off on a tangent that reminded me of a chicken's final actions with its head chopped off. Thanks for the laugh. Nader's comment was certainly glib, but in no way deserved your following comments.
As to the comments regarding the plight of the Palestinian people, this travesty has been going on since 1948, when three quarters of a million people were summarily ejected from their homes and farms. Not speaking to one of the gravest injustices existent in the world today is not political expedience it is simply heartless. It also hints at how many other important issue will be treated as unmentionable by the incoming administration.
Why you insist that Nader do what you think will make him credible is covered in my first sentence. I do not speak for him, only support what he says ( and means despite your inferences to the contrary) and believe he thinks that remaining outside a system desperately in need of repair is the most effective way to keep his message out there.
This post is not meant to defame or diminish your words or your beliefs, but only to clarify the difference in positions and the need to give more credence to those with whom you disagree. I try to do this despite my rather New Yorkish penchant for harshness ( unintentional I assure you). Thus the implication in my tag line
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee November 14th, 2008 7:52 am:
.We , all of us, think our opinions writ large. We use opinion to create a reality and, when nuances are pointed out we simply ignore those that do not dovetail into our already firmly fixed concepts of how things are. Not to say that you are alone in this, it is a pretty darn common phenomenon.
Are you exempt from this, Ardee, or a prime example of it?
The perfect illustration is the way you distorted, or were led to distort by inaccurate Fox reporting,, the "Uncle Tom" reference. When the real statement of Ralph Nader was shown to you you ran off on a tangent that reminded me of a chicken's final actions with its head chopped off. Thanks for the laugh. Nader's comment was certainly glib, but in no way deserved your following comments.
I didn't distort anything. I provided a source and gave my reaction to Nader's 'glib' comment and, trust me, if you were black you wouldn't be laughing. The distortion is on your side as you try to find some way to excuse Nader's egregious behavior.
As to the comments regarding the plight of the Palestinian people, this travesty has been going on since 1948, when three quarters of a million people were summarily ejected from their homes and farms. Not speaking to one of the gravest injustices existent in the world today is not political expedience it is simply heartless. It also hints at how many other important issue will be treated as unmentionable by the incoming administration.
Thanks for the history lesson, but this situation is certainly not Obama's fault and it is a complex issue that really needs to be settled by the two antagonists, namely Israel and Palestine. You do realize that Saudi Arabia and other nations exploit the misery of the Palestinians to distract their populations from the miseries at home? In other words, they don't want a solution to the problem, just as the religious right actually wants to keep abortion legal -- it's a great fundraising and GOTV tool for them.
Why you insist that Nader do what you think will make him credible is covered in my first sentence. I do not speak for him, only support what he says ( and means despite your inferences to the contrary) and believe he thinks that remaining outside a system desperately in need of repair is the most effective way to keep his message out there.
If you support everything Nader says, how are you any different than an automaton -- a 'Naderbot,' so to speak -- incapable of thinking for yourself? Nader's 'remaining outside the system' and 'keeping his message out there' has been a failure that saddled us with Bush for eight years. Excuse me, did those tactics make life better for anyone? Perhaps Ralph should try another approach. The fact is, Ralph doesn't have the spine to run for an office he might win, and then have to make decisions which could cause 'progressive purists' such as yourself to desert him. It's easy to be a saint when you never risk hanging on the cross yourself. He is a political dilettante who doesn't want to get his hands dirty -- just sell his books. Pathetic. But thanks for twisting yourself into a pretzel to excuse your 'perfect' candidate, as you endlessly and tiresomely accuse those who support Obama of doing.
This post is not meant to defame or diminish your words or your beliefs, but only to clarify the difference in positions and the need to give more credence to those with whom you disagree. I try to do this despite my rather New Yorkish penchant for harshness ( unintentional I assure you). Thus the implication in my tag line
Funny, I didn't take it that way. I don't know what your definition of 'defame' and 'diminish' are, but your second paragraph fits mine as you ridiculed any interpretation besides your own of Nader's Fox News comments as laughable. I agree, though, there is a difference in positions here -- the difference between recognizing and dealing with reality and living in a delusional cocoon where there are politicians who never lie, Ralph Nader is not a human being who might occasionally operate in his own self interest, and there's a Big Rock Candy Mountain just over yonder.
.I find it rather sad that your anger prevents your obviously superior intellect from coming to the fore. It is virtually impossible to debate with you as you seem to put your ego before your positions, and that ego makes your positions suspect as well. I am certain that you do not see this fact but it is blatantly obvious in your previous response to my carefully crafted post, in which you used pretzel logic and double jointed egoism to find insult where none was found.
I will try and avoid responding to you in the future, and I sincerely hope you find a maturity not yet evident.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I see, ardee November 15th, 2008 1:50 pm, the problem is my ego and anger and not the fact that you are incapable of responding to any of my points about Ralph Nader.
You accuse me of 'ego' apparently merely for expressing my opinion, just as you are doing.
You accuse me of anger without providing even one example.
You accuse me of using 'pretzel logic' without once citing what you're talking about.
(And, BTW, what is God's name is 'double jointed egoism'?)
This tactic is known as 'saving face by trying to concede from a position of superiority' wherein you condescendingly target illusory personal characteristics of your opponent, in this case of someone you've never met, rather than dispute with fact or reason their arguments. (Watch some of the smarter neocons; they do it all the time.) As an Addison Whithecomb quote goes:
"When you resort to attacking the messenger and not the message, you have lost the debate."
BTW, if you'd like a fuller explanation of my feelings regarding Ralph, scroll down to RSJ November 15th, 2008 6:57 am, later in this thread.
You need not pompously respond from your lofty altar of 'maturity' with one of your 'carefully crafted' posts -- it's embarrassing since they are so easily confused with a lack of knowledge of the subject.
.This is me avoiding you....Ive no time for your childish temper tantrums disguised as debating.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
This post, combined with one below explains a lot ....
It seems to me that your love of Obama and intense dislike of Nader are quite personal. This isn't really about policy and positions for you, is it? There is something so vehement and insistent about your posts - it's not enough to make a point, you seem to want to beat your opponent to death - this is more than political ....
Aquifer November 15th, 2008 10:23 pm, once again you've missed the bull's-eye, if not the dart board entirely. I neither love Obama nor hate Nader -- I take them for who they are -- human beings with flaws. I'll defend Obama when I think he's being unfairly attacked, just as you try to defend Nader. (If I think Nader is being unfarly attacked, for that matter -- as in 'he lost Florida for Al Gore' -- I'll defend him as well.)
If you think it's somehow unfair to point out Nader's flaws and failures, so be it.
Later in this thread, I summed up my opinion of Ralph Nader at RSJ November 15th, 2008 6:57 am, and it's not a hateful one -- rather, I'm sorry for what he's become.
Aquifer November 15th, 2008 10:23 pm: "This isn't really about policy and positions for you, is it?"
You and Ardee should start a club -- both of you have sought to move the debate beyond Ralph Nader to attacking me personally. This says you really don't have a rational case for supporting Nader except your impression that he's just a 'really good guy,' and apparently can't take the heat in return.
Aquifer November 15th, 2008 10:23 pm: "There is something so vehement and insistent about your posts - it's not enough to make a point, you seem to want to beat your opponent to death - this is more than political ...."
Since you like to dabble in amateur armchair psychoanalysis of people you've never met, you might enjoy reading this:
"Projection is a defense mechanism that involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people."
-- From "Projection and Intellectualization," About.com.
http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/ss/defensemech_5.htm
"In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others." [...]
"The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself."
-- From Wikipedia, "Psychological Projection."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
I suggest both you and Ardee do some research on the subject. And buy a mirror.
.You really need to buy some Prozac. You are diminishing this forum with your massive ego and tiny debating skills.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee November 16th, 2008 9:19 am, whew -- certainly seems as if I hit a raw nerve. Perhaps you're beginning to question your deification of Ralph Nader. Losing your faith can be an uncomfortable experience -- I know, I've 'been there' where Ralph is concerned. Maybe you're starting to see things 'as they are' rather than the way you think they should be.
BTW, thanks for avoiding me by posting comments informing me that you are avoiding me, followed by cheap insults. A definite sign of maturity, Ardee.
To be serious for a moment, I don't think either you or Aquifer are 'bad people' and you are obviously intelligent and articulate; unfortunately, even intelligent people sometimes have blind spots in their thinking or fall prey to unexamined beliefs. Don't take anything I've written as personally hateful of you or Aquifer, or even Ralph Nader -- it wasn't intended that way.
.Oh but it was indeed. Also meant to gratify a bloated ego instead of sharing a viewpoint.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Can we please stop saying "lefties"? It sounds like we're not serious. Do rightists call themselves "righties"? To conservatives call themselves "conservies"? Do nationalists call themselves "naties"? (I know: in 20th century Germany they called themselves "nazis". That kind of thing works in German. In English it just looks silly)
Our language has a perfectly good word to describe people who support left-wing policies, and that word is "leftist".
Mark Marshall
Toronto
To meet someone halfway, he has to be moving towards you.
To achieve balance when there's a lot of weight on one side, you need an equal weight on the other side.
The "center" can't be the gap between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. That "center" is always moving to the right.
PS It still seems odd to me to call Clinton center-left when his policies were to the right of Richard Nixon.
Ira Chernus wrote: "a black family is on its way to the White House".
That is an exaggeration. Actually, only one black person is going to the White House, and that is Michelle Obama. Her husband and children are all mixed-race.
Mark Marshall
Toronto
In fact, Michelle Obama, like most African Americans, is probably also mixed race. It is common practice in the US to refer to someone as "black" who has at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry. When a person of mixed-race encounters a racist in, say, a job interview, they do not get partial credit for their white half: they are treated as "black". Hence the term is used to describe a historically oppressed minority, mixed-race or not.
You know...everybody's aware of that...you're not teaching anybody anything, and frankly, it just sounds picky and petty. We all know there's more to it than color of skin, but THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE SEE!!! People who discriminate don't ask for geneological info. to determine whether they should discriminate to a factor of 50%, or 25%... He's black because he looks black. Period. He's African-American, because he's African-American.
This is not a worthy windmill for you to go after.
Oh dear - I seem to have hit a nerve. Sorry.
Mark Marshall
Toronto
And then there is reality. He will have to nationalize at least one big bank, maybe more, for the financial system to start working. He will have to spend huge amounts of money on infrastructure, and that will put him on a collision course with the military-industrial-infotainment beast that is sucking the life out of this country. There is no way around it - guns or butter. He will, indeed, need a lot of help.
I certainly hope Chernus is not a typical Obama supporter. As I sat here reading this, my jaw dropped farther and farther - I might as well have been at a ceremony nominating him for sainthood, or even deification.
I am a real skeptic regarding our new Pres. (actually skeptic is putting it rather mildly) but reading this I felt downright frightened. If Obama has the ability to provoke such ecstatic encomiums and induce such slavelike obeisance, even before he ascends the bully pulpit, we are in deep do-do indeed. I think that as we try to navigate the coming seas in our little boat, we would do best to lash ourselves to the mast and put wax in our ears lest we all be driven to distraction as has this poor fellow.
Aquifer,
Reading your post, I'm left wondering if you actually read what Chernus wrote. His entire essay was based on skepticism about Obama. He made it pretty clear in his third paragraph:
"Let's be honest, though. For those of us who still use that word "revolution" to describe the economic and political as well as social changes we'd like to see in the world, and the changes in domestic and foreign policy we'd like to see in our government, Barack Obama seems to be far from the president we want. He appears to be a pragmatist. He will probably govern from slightly left of center, much like Bill Clinton and John Kennedy. That's certainly the impression he is giving in his first days as president-elect."
I don't know how he could have been any clearer.
Ah, yes, the 3rd, out of 18 paragraphs. As for the other 17, let's see -
"Barack Obama is the name of a person. 'Obama' is also the name of a new mood -- a new tone and sensibility -- that has somehow risen up in every section of this country." - Not only is he a person, he's a "mood", my, my.
" 'Obama' as a symbol is the name for a wind of change that could be powerful enough to sweep the ship of state great distances in a relatively short time -- though in what direction, no one can yet say." - now his is the name of a wind of change, that could blow us off the end of the earth for all we know.
"While resisting Obama's unacceptable compromises, we should accept the wisdom of his strategic pragmatism. He himself can teach us the best way to oppose his policies." - we should surrender to his wisdom, even as we "resist" his UNACCEPTABLE compromises. And of course, he will teach us how to oppose him!?
"That's why Obama is so widely admired. He won, not by offering specific new policy ideas, but by uniting in himself the seemingly opposite images of change and steady predictability. He presented himself as the dynamic leader who could "change the world" while remaining always safe and solid, poised and unflappable, never likely to do anything rash or impulsive." - now isn't it wonderful that we have a Pres who is all image and no substance and carries it off with SUCH poise!
"Whatever he may hope to accomplish, he has to keep on reassuring the general public and the power elite that he really is the temperate, self-controlled man they saw throughout the campaign. That's the only way he can be free to put across any policy agenda he comes up with." - is that what his followers want, someone who is free to put across any policy agenda he comes up with? Good Grief! Isn't that what we just had 8 years of?
"We don't have to appear as cautious and timid as Obama. We couldn't, even if we wanted to." - Thank heavens for that!
Chernus obviously worships the fellow and would follow him anywhere he cares to take him - the fact that "We could end up almost anywhere .." doesn't seem to phase him one bit.
As for his "3rd paragraph", I don't interpret it as skepticism of him as a leader, far from it, I read it as a rebuke to those of us who want something other than what the new and glorious leader deigns to give us, whatever that is.
I'm sorry but this piece sounds more like something a follower of Jim Jones would write - that's why, if his view is typical, my first impulse is to say "be afraid, be very afraid". Unless of course this is just a submission for a Jon Stewart or SNL script.
Yes, I hear the Sirens sing! How sweet it is. There is no hope for you Aquifer. You are doomed to live in fear or, egad, if the wax should loosen,... oh, but it's too horrible to contemplate!
Greg,
Do you remember what happened to those who heard the Sirens' song? Odysseus saved himself, his crew and his ship by lashing himself to the mast and having his crew put wax in their ears. He did it, not out of fear, but out of his desire to preserve his "hope" of survival. Sorry, but the tone of Chernus' piece sounds very much to me like someone caught in a Siren's song. My "fear" is that Obama adulation is so deep that too many will not even notice, let alone protest, if, under his influence, we go down for the 3rd time. Lord save us from "charismatic" leaders.
I may be doomed, but it won't be by gullibility .....
Aquifer November 12th, 2008: "I may be doomed, but it won't be by gullibility ....."
No, you'll be doomed by pure cynicism. Constant cynicism is as annoying and unrealistic as perpetual sunny optimism. Both are fated to be disappointed. Even one of America's great cynics, H.L. Mencken, wrote: "The cynics are right nine times out of ten."
Your problem, Aquifer, is that you've doomed yourself to miss that tenth time.
Well, let's just say that I am no more cynical about Obama than you are about Nader. I have seen your "reality" and I want something better.
Aquifer November 13th, 2008 3:54 pm: "Well, let's just say that I am no more cynical about Obama than you are about Nader. I have seen your "reality" and I want something better."
Aquifer, I'll answer your longer post tomorrow, but just a comment here: I am not, as you obviously think, in the tank for Obama. He'll be, at best, a center-left president and I don't agree with him about everything he's done, nor do I anticipate agreeing with him completely in the future. I supported Obama because he's intelligent, his election broke the barrier to minorities, he will be a improvement over Bush or McCain, and he had a chance of getting elected, which Ralph did not. You have hardly 'seen my reality,' as Obama has not even taken office yet.
As I've prevously posted at CD in various threads, I supported Nader enthusiastically in 2000 with my money and time. I had no illusions he'd win, but Nader promised he'd build the Greens into a viable progressive third party; a promise he reneged on by 2004 when he ran as an independent. Even this election, he couldn't get the support of the Green Party. This bespeaks a man who is rigidly inflexible and turns a deaf ear to others who even mildly disagree (ask some former Nader's Raiders), two qualities we have experienced in a president the past eight years. Ralph has become a fanatic who doesn't work well with others -- as president, he wouldn't be able to push any bills through Congress, so he couldn't possibly fulfill his promises of universal health care and full employment, etcetera. (But perhaps you'd prefer a King Ralph who rules by fiat?)
Ralph also no longer has the support of Michael Moore, Bill Murray, and many other avid backers he had in 2000. Even Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn grudingly supported Obama this election. None of these people are Corporatists nor Plutocrats, but they can't abide Nader any longer -- doesn't that make you think for a moment? As Chomsky wrote:
"Despite the limited differences [between Democrats and Republicans] both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."
Obama's election is a large difference that I think will have a larger outcome, if progressives keep pressure on him to keep his promises and adhere to the Constitution in the use of his power. But, even if he's a centrist, we'll be better off than under warmonger McCain. As Rebecca Solnit wrote:
"Obama does not cancel out or heal the legacies of racism, but in becoming the most powerful man in the world he signifies that the game has indeed changed, not just ground to a halt partway to justice and equality. The inner-city kids I see in my neighborhood and the murderous racists I've encountered recently in New Orleans are both going to think about their place in the world and their rights differently from this day forward. And that matters immensely, whatever the man being voted into power today does, or does not, achieve."
-- Rebecca Solnit, "A Great Day ..." Tom Dispatch, Nov. 7, 2008.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/11/07
As Solnit also wrote:
"A lot of activists expect that for every action there is an equal and opposite and punctual reaction, and regard the lack of one as failure... But history is shaped by the groundswells and common dreams that single acts and moments only represent. It's a landscape more complicated than commensurate cause and effect. Politics is a surface in which transformation comes about as much because of pervasive changes in the depths of the collective imagination as because of visible acts, though both are necessary. And though huge causes sometimes have little effect, tiny ones occasionally have huge consequences. History is like weather, not like checkers. A game of checkers ends. The weather never does."
-- Rebecca Solnit, "Acts of Hope," TomDispatch, May, 2003.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/677/rebecca_solnit_on_hope_in_dark_times
That's a fair summation of the way I feel about Obama's election.
Finally, two quotes from the past, the first from Walter Lippman in 1932:
"Franklin D. Roosevelt is no crusader. He is no tribune of the people. He is no enemy of entrenched privilege. He is a pleasant man who, without any important qualifications for the office, would very much like to be President."
-- Walter Lippmann, New York Herald Tribune, January 8, 1932.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE4D91639F932A05750C0A966958260
Sounds familiar, doesn't it? And this from FDR himself:
"I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made."
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt
Look at how the right-wing noise machine loathes Obama. That's a very good sign.
The fact that Nader no longer has the support of Michael Moore .... Well considering that he backed Wesley Clark in '04, I don't consider his judgment terribly impressive.
If one is to be judged by the enemies one has made - Nader's corporate enemies, including the DLC noise machine, continually being folded into the Obama admin, are an excellent advertisement for his worth.
Aquifer has netted a fine observation, and heaved it on the deck for all to behold. And it's an ugly spectacle. Chernus' essay is hopeful praise, untempered by informed opinion. It is something that's very unhelpful for the body politic, which very much needs to be on its guard.
A Democratic loyalist like Chernus is able to hold out hope while proferring contradictions. It's the many-tentacled octopus of the loyalist Dem voter.
Chernus' essay is a tangled mess. I think he kind of acknowledges some problems, but then he changes direction and then starts doing a praise-the-lord thing about Obama. So, the comment below that Chernus "couldn't be more clear" is just plain wrong.
Everyone should understand that as President, Obama is the people's servant. Anybody who thinks Obama should be Jesus or Caesar or both just doesn't get American history, the founding fathers' ideas about government and Civics 101. If Obama ups the bombings in Pakistan and Afghanistan, I sure hope loyalist Dems won't sit back and think there must be some deep wisdom in it all. I hope they will be clear on unjust, illegal and immoral wars, and then join the protests in the streets.
But first, Democrats need to see the contradictions: hopeful rhetoric and militarist policies - it's an unworkable combination. Leave that kind of stuff to Republicans, who just can't help themselves.
-TIA
With all due respect, yet another piece that implies it's all about Obama, as if he were a dictator who "could be powerful enough to sweep the ship of state great distances in a relatively short time -- though in what direction, no one can yet say."
Only if Congress lets him. Period. Remember - Bush illegally invaded Iraq because Congress let him. Patriot Act? Congress. Immunity for corporations guilty of aiding and abetting illegal spying? Congress. Bank Robber Bailout Act of 2008? Congress. Trillion-dollar Pentagon budget? Congress. And on and on...
We The People could be powerful enough to sweep the ship of state great distances in a relatively short time - if we force our representatives to do our bidding, which includes reminding them to read Article II of our Constitution...
I have to agree with Ira's critics who are pointing out the Pollyannish tenor of his op-ed. At the risk of repeating myself I feel the below thoughts originally entered for other articles, are very pertininent for this discussion. Mea Culpa & Istaughferallah.
I'm afraid that Obama's election will not lessen racism.
It has most definitely put an end to the 'powerlessness' of minorities. Did you see the looks on kid's faces as they watched videos of Obama's victory speech from Tues. night?
Their expressions of hope and 'YES, I CAN were priceless sights to behold.
Nothing can ever change those moments - the genie is out of the bottle for good!!!
Obama will most assuredly disappoint many of his supporters, but that will not change what has already taken place. His election alone has changed the landscape.
We can only hope he will make wise decisions and change the course of our policies as well. He did bring that element to the table - HOPE!
As long as the US arms industry continues to control our policies, NO CHANGE. We sometimes forget that the US is the largest arms supplier to countries around the world and it is our largest export trade.
The military-industrial corporate complex controls this country's policies. It has bought and paid for the government.
If there were not wars, there would be no demand. Some could actually say that waging peace IS un-American, because peace would actually have a negative impact on our balance of trade.
But I could be wrong!!!!!!
Best analysis so far i have read of where Obama and the future GOP are headed. I think we are bound to be quite disappointed.
http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2008/11/sarah-palin-is-the-future-of-conservatism.html
Read the above Joe, and couldn't disagree more.
By the time Sarah Palin is ready to come on the scene again, short of terrible disasters that wipe most of us out, I think we as a nation will have grown up some because of the qualities of Barack Obama and how he will govern and all the changes that must come in these next few years to create a sustainable future for the planet and the people of the world.
Sarah Palin is very ignorant and shallow, and unless she goes through an enormous metamorphosis, I don't think she will get very far toward the presidency.
I did hear on NPR today that Newt Gingrinch is planning a comeback to get the in-splinters Republican party to become whole and on the same page, and he is also hinting that he is going to make a run for the presidency in 2012.
He was quite effective with "The Contract for America," even though it contributed to the mess we are in now.
However, the demographics have changed in this election. Four years from now the young college-age people who came alive for this election will either be disillusioned or more gung-ho, and even if disillusioned, I do not see them turning toward Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrinch because they are too broad-minded for the Sarah Palin nonsense and Newt is getting on in years and if he plays the same or similar tune, I don't think it will resonate with enough Republican voters to make it fly again.
Then there are the great increases in the Latino vote, the African-American votes, and I do not see them turning toward Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich.
And etcetera ...
Obama is a sea-change, and the Nation and the attitudes of the people of this Nation are going to change a lot just because he is who he is and how he conducts himself and how he speaks. Sarah Palin, given her rigid belief systems and lack of knowledge, and her pit-bull-with-lipstick mentality who attacks and hangs on to her attack mode will likely find less of an audience who will have become more sophisticated and more used to a civilized president. Palin will be 50, and even though she likely will still be a very good-looking woman, winkin' and blinkin' like a beauty-queen pageant contestant may seem absolutely ludicrous for people now used to a statesmanlike president who is very grown up.
I suspect a new face will appear for the Republicans. They will be looking for one among governors and within the Congress, but I don't think it will be Sarah Palin.
And certainly the mostly dreary group that were the Republican candidates for 2008, except perhaps for Mitt Romney, will not reappear, mainly because of age, and viscerally, even Republicans perceive Romney as an opportunistic, changeling used-car salesman.
At this moment, however, I ain't gonna' worry about four years from now. Just these couple of months until the inauguration of Obama is more than enough.
peace ...
Chernus is saying what most liberal and leftist commentators have been saying for several weeks, and in unison since the election. We don't really know what Obama will do, he's under no obligation to tell us, and we must simply hope he accedes to progressive wishes. Meanwhile, we have to admire his "pragmatism" as some stroke of political genius; he clearly knows better than any of us how to proceed. We must sit in awe of his towering superiority, learn to STFU and meet our adversaries half way, because even they know better than we do. We're the problem, not Obama and not the radical right. We have to fall in line behind incremental pragmatism because that's all we deserve and all we're going to get. And they all claim Obama is going to do what he himself said he wouldn't do--like provide universal health care, withdraw from Iraq, clean up Wall St. He made vague and easily betrayed promises in those general directions, and from there we must sing praises and hallelujas. Krugman is under the illusion Obama's going to deliver universal health care, for example, and that's that. No amount of telling him different matters. Illusion about Obama rules reality. I want to believe he'll get us out of Iraq, therefore he will. Quit carping and resume worshiping.
Depressing, ain't it?
You know, I try to be polite. I really do. You can't persuade people while you're insulting them. There's far too much of that if we're serious about making any progress at all. Having said that, this article is yet another grand pile-o-dung in a seemingly endless series.
First, we're offered: "For those of us who still use that word "revolution" to describe the economic and political as well as social changes we'd like to see in the world ..."
Is the author suggesting he's a revolutionary and that he advocates revolution? It sounds like he's trying to put on a disguise to fit in with many here. He couldn't sound more centrist if he tried. The whole article is totally phony.
What radical political or economic changes has this author called for? Answer: NONE.
The next garbage being sold is that Obama is a "pragmatist." One might reasonably define a pragmatist as a person who is not tied to any ideological agenda but just wants to get things done. Let's be clear on this: what Obama is doing is NOT going to solve the great problems confronting us. His bailouts and stimulus packages will, at best, restore the status quo. Treating the symptoms without even acknowledging the disease is NOT pragmatic.
The author droned on and on and on before the election about how we had to pitch in to elect Obama and then really fight for change after he got elected. Do you see the author proposing any specifics? I sure don't.
Our "revolutionary" author suggests "if we think strategically, we can catch the new wind and steer the nation a bit to the left." Does that sound radical or revolutionary to you?
The author is way too timid. He's a classic Democratic Party liberal. This business about "we won't get change if we scare people" is "status quo" talk. We have to have the courage to introduce radical new ideas into the national discourse. The author is ruled by fear. If Obama is as articulate and calming and rational as he's given credit for, he should be very effective in introducing radical change.
Would Americans be scared if he told them that the most effective way to get our national debt under control and start rebuilding the domestic economy is to stop all this global military adventurism? I think most Americans would rejoice at hearing that we're going to invest in America instead of policing the entire world.
I use the words "shutting down the corporate empire"; Obama wouldn't need to use the same words. Americans understand the staggering costs of two wars and the corruptions inherent in the military appropriations process. They may not know the details but they get the basic idea. Mr. Scared Author is worried Obama will lose his political capital and so he recommends against doing the right thing. He calls this "pragmatism."
What might indeed scare Americans is having Obama tell them the truth about global warming. The author apparently believes it's somehow pragmatic to continue the big lie and let Obama's politically palatable, moderate "solution", adding a little "nudge to the left" of course, be the policy we "lefties" should compromise on. You don't get to "compromise" with global warming. It seems unwilling to negotiate. Anything less than what the science demands is not "moderate"; it's not "building a progressive coalition based on political realities"; it's not maturity or pragmatism; it's dangerous and misguided. So, on this issue, yes, people might be terrified of the implications. Is it pragmatic to keep lying to them? I'd call it insane.
Last point - I do not agree with: "He won't succeed if he says or does anything that might look unexpected, impulsive, or the least bit radical."
Obama has to use the bully pulpit to lead the nation towards the radical changes we so urgently need. He does not need to be rash or rattled or seem emotional about it but he does have to start educating the public about the changes. The author conflates radical changes with a destabilizing, overly emotional presentation of them. The two are not the same. If Obama continues in "campaign mode" and plays it safe, he will be a status quo President when a revolutionary leader is what's really needed.
I'm sorry to say this, I really am, but the author is clueless. Change results from laying out a vision of change. Incrementalism, as in "nudging a bit to the left", in the face of crisis will only make things worse.
i see this comment has been flagged. could the person who has done so take responsibility and tell us why she or he has chosen to flag this comment?
I'd be happy to discuss my views with whoever flagged it.
Frankly, I think it's a bit cowardly to flag a comment without even making an argument.
How can you tell when a comment has been flagged?
Joe