Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Published on Thursday, January 8, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
Centrist Cabinet, Progressive President?
Who found it more difficult to get excited about an Obama presidency,
the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) or the progressive wing of the
Democratic party? The DLC folks are riding high, calling themselves
"The New Team". The progressives came away empty handed.
Progressives assumed change would extend to Obama's Cabinet, but we
never expected the change to be a reflection of the Clinton
administration or worse yet the Bush administration. We thought change
would mean, well, something different. New people, new ideas, economic
reforms, leaving Iraq, new energy policies and a kinder face to the
world.
The experts, the political junkies say Obama has loaded his cabinet
with centrists. Progressives can only wonder why the world suddenly
turned upside down. OK, it's his cabinet he can pick whom he wishes but
his picks seem a bit out of place. Like Michael Pollen eating a Luther
Burger.
History tells us unlikely people have sometimes done great things.
Lincoln put his major rivals in his cabinet, that worked out well.
Still, if Obama wants "a vigorous debate inside the White House" a few
progressive voices would help mellow out the DLC chorus.
Then there was Obama's nomination of former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture. With a world food crisis, food safety problems and a growing demand for local and organic food, the time was right for a real change in national food policy on so many levels. Obama could have picked someone who was knowledgeable about organic farming, local and regional food systems, someone who felt more at ease mending fence or thinning carrots than sitting in a corporate board room. Someone who knew the difference between growing food and growing commodity crops.
I don't doubt Tom Vilsack is a nice guy who did a lot for Iowa agriculture. I know he did a lot for agribusiness, the chemical companies, biotechnology and large scale farming. Apparently his vision of better agriculture is bigger more intensive agriculture.
Is that Obama's vision of agriculture as well? Could be, it seems he's been pal'n around with big agriculture biotech zealots. Sharon Long (former Monsanto board member) and Michael Taylor (former Monsanto vice-president), are both on his advisory team . Obama did endorse genetically modified crops (GM) stating they were safe and had "provided enormous benefits to farmers", so, choosing the Biotechnology Industry Organization's "Governor of the Year" to head USDA shouldn't have been surprising, but come on!
Obama once said "The Good Food movement, the organic food movement is a wonderful opportunity for farmers to diversify. When they can diversify and get other crops going, we can in fact produce a healthier food. And more profits can go into the hands of family farmers as opposed to the big food processors and mega businesses. Then I think we are doing well for everybody". Michelle was quoted in the New Yorker as saying "in my household, over the last year we have just shifted to organic---".
GM farming and organic farming are not compatible, GM pollen drifts for miles and contaminates both organic and non-GM conventional crops. As GM proponents spread their technologies worldwide they push out small organic farmers and local food production. President-elect Obama isn't a farmer, in practical experience he has no way of knowing, so we need to tell him; there is a lot we need to tell him.
For one, it is difficult to have it both ways, disingenuous to want organic for your family while supporting the "mega businesses" that push GM on the world. If Obama's heart is really with small farms, local production and organic food, why a Secretary of Agriculture so closely allied with agribusiness?
The progressive community feels like we have been left "sucking hind teat" again. But progressives have always kept the vision alive, in spite of efforts to kill or cripple every progressive initiative. From single payer health care, to fair trade, to local food, our issues still resonate. We held against Ann Veneman, Dennis Avery and ketchup as a vegetable. We can't let up, even a timidly progressive agenda would be a step forward.
Obama is certainly no fool, could his cabinet picks unify Congress and actually effect progressive change by stealth? I hope so,--- I certainly hope so. As Obama so eloquently phrased, it "hope in the face of uncertainty, the audacity of hope". Paul Wellstone once told me, in Washington, ya gotta play the game. Well, the Games have begun. I'm waiting to see which side Obama plays for.
Then there was Obama's nomination of former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture. With a world food crisis, food safety problems and a growing demand for local and organic food, the time was right for a real change in national food policy on so many levels. Obama could have picked someone who was knowledgeable about organic farming, local and regional food systems, someone who felt more at ease mending fence or thinning carrots than sitting in a corporate board room. Someone who knew the difference between growing food and growing commodity crops.
I don't doubt Tom Vilsack is a nice guy who did a lot for Iowa agriculture. I know he did a lot for agribusiness, the chemical companies, biotechnology and large scale farming. Apparently his vision of better agriculture is bigger more intensive agriculture.
Is that Obama's vision of agriculture as well? Could be, it seems he's been pal'n around with big agriculture biotech zealots. Sharon Long (former Monsanto board member) and Michael Taylor (former Monsanto vice-president), are both on his advisory team . Obama did endorse genetically modified crops (GM) stating they were safe and had "provided enormous benefits to farmers", so, choosing the Biotechnology Industry Organization's "Governor of the Year" to head USDA shouldn't have been surprising, but come on!
Obama once said "The Good Food movement, the organic food movement is a wonderful opportunity for farmers to diversify. When they can diversify and get other crops going, we can in fact produce a healthier food. And more profits can go into the hands of family farmers as opposed to the big food processors and mega businesses. Then I think we are doing well for everybody". Michelle was quoted in the New Yorker as saying "in my household, over the last year we have just shifted to organic---".
GM farming and organic farming are not compatible, GM pollen drifts for miles and contaminates both organic and non-GM conventional crops. As GM proponents spread their technologies worldwide they push out small organic farmers and local food production. President-elect Obama isn't a farmer, in practical experience he has no way of knowing, so we need to tell him; there is a lot we need to tell him.
For one, it is difficult to have it both ways, disingenuous to want organic for your family while supporting the "mega businesses" that push GM on the world. If Obama's heart is really with small farms, local production and organic food, why a Secretary of Agriculture so closely allied with agribusiness?
The progressive community feels like we have been left "sucking hind teat" again. But progressives have always kept the vision alive, in spite of efforts to kill or cripple every progressive initiative. From single payer health care, to fair trade, to local food, our issues still resonate. We held against Ann Veneman, Dennis Avery and ketchup as a vegetable. We can't let up, even a timidly progressive agenda would be a step forward.
Obama is certainly no fool, could his cabinet picks unify Congress and actually effect progressive change by stealth? I hope so,--- I certainly hope so. As Obama so eloquently phrased, it "hope in the face of uncertainty, the audacity of hope". Paul Wellstone once told me, in Washington, ya gotta play the game. Well, the Games have begun. I'm waiting to see which side Obama plays for.
37 Comments so far
Show AllI'll be keeping my fingers crossed on Obama even though he hasn't been sworn in yet. When the French version of "justice" whereby you're guilty until proven innocent can be used against us, I see no reason to return it back to the political elite that shoved it against us in the first place !
Nanoo
It was Condi Rice's confirmation hearing when Obama caught my eye. A black man and what a speaker and all those questions and good reasons why he doubted her. But then comes the vote, and he votes for her acceptance. Complete turn around from what he had expressed. I call that being two faced.
So, Jim Goodman, Wellstone told you, that you had to play the game in Washington. I don't doubt that he said something like that. But what game do you think he was talking about? Perhaps it was along the lines of a little pork deal for you and a little pork deal for me. He played the rules game by filibuster, which sadly has seen more frequent use or threat by Republicans by which the Democrats willingly cave. Wellstone not only expressed his anti-war view of Iraq, but also voted against it. With Obama, we'll never really know how he would have voted.
"It was Condi Rice's confirmation hearing when Obama caught my eye. A black man and what a speaker and all those questions and good reasons why he doubted her. But then comes the vote, and he votes for her acceptance. Complete turn around from what he had expressed. I call that being two faced."
That was back in early 2005 itself. I remember that one too in addition to his support of trashing civil rights by allowing the corporate written bill which would shove all corporate wrongdoing cases to the corporate backed federal courts which rarely bother to hear those cases and even when they do they dismiss them 99+ % of the time. I saw this coming all along but it was in 2007 when Obama really went aggressive in pandering to the konservative wing.
What is with these Nader-types always claiming that Obama is further to the Left than he actually is? How many times does Obama have to spell it out? He stands for what he believes is right.
How can he be beholden to his own choices?
No one controls him. He calls the shots.
Obama has a broad vision for the future. Call it "centrism" if you must. But it's more than that. It's an eclectic mix of ideas. It's what I call the "best of" approach.
Imagine if you took all the best ideas ever written about society and culture, every last idea, and then only applied the best parts of all those ideas. That is what Obama is doing. His political philosophy is like a Jefferson Bible.
He isn't partisan. He's just smart. He looks for the best ideas. To him there are no "republican ideas" or "democratic ideas". Just good ideas and bad ideas. He only wants what is best for the country.
ignore troll
If he stands for what he believes is right he should've run as a Republican.
The time has come for us not to pull punches. The Nazis truly believed they has to eradicate the Jews and defend their pure race. The "Good Germans" bought the evil, denied the camps existed and in the end, when confronted, claimed they didn't know.
The Israelis have waged aggressive attacks on their neighbors based on trumped up accusations and lies, bombing marked UN targets repeatedly and now have violated the UN security council mandate...and now they are bombing during the daily ceasefire. They are a rogue state like the Nazis were. It is fairly obvious that you don't put much stock on a Palestinian life, as the death totals push towards 1000, you deflect to the poor victimized Israel only trying to defend itself against the evil terrorist--a crowded captive target with no cover- and are seemingly unconcerned with human suffering that is not of the "chosen people". The tragedy is all sympathy for the Holocaust has been squandered when Israel became what it most despised and Jews who support Israel have become the Good Germans--and yet they still try to exploit the Holocaust and cry antisemitism to silence valid outrage. There will be blowback when the pressure mounts and after all the lies and brutality, the old stereotypes will arise anew.
And what of Obama and his silence now as the carnage continues despite the world's horror? He cowers behind political protocol. No one expects Bush to care--but Obama will never be able to redeem himself.
He might as well be Bush for all the difference it make to him as a human being. He silence speaks to what kind of human being he is not that politics restrain him.
The plain truth is "progressives" myself included were led to believe Obama was against the war which he threw in Hilary's face again and again and a "change you can believe in," and we were suckered hook line and sinker. And the sad fact is we should have known better, the cave on FISA was a big clue, as was the fact he took more money from Wall St. than even McCain.
Now we are stuck with a President that his filled his cabinet with neo-con war supporters, supporters of crony "disaster capitalism:"
"They have legitimate concerns that people like Geitner, Summers and other Rubin acolytes created this mess, and it's reasonable to ask why they're being appointed to get us out of it"
http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/07/obama-deputy-steve-hildebrand-liberals-need-to-stfu/
and environmentaly disastrous choices as well as documented in this article as well. Obama has not appointed even ONE cabinet member whose polices represent a break with Clinton/Bush polices of corporate globalization, environmental destruction, and endless war for oil and Israel. Not even ONE, think about that for a minute
And yes it could have been different if Obam wanted change with a "bipartisan" face he could have appointed Chuck Hagel a mainstream Republican who questioned the war early on, he could have appointed Scott RItter a Republican Marine, former U.N. weapons inspector who was right about the fact there were no WMDs in Iraq. Why wasn't Russ Feingold another very mainstream Democract with an honorable record fighting for our civl liberties given a spot on Obama's cabinet? Note NONE of these are wild eyed radical choices and many are people far right of my personal ideal of people like Amy Goodman or Noam Chomsky, and even these moderate mainstream people who at least would have been somewhat of a break with Bush were not given a chance.
And the reason why is obvious, we will see no substantive change with Obama we will will be given a 500 dollar tax break as opposed to Bush's 200, maybe closing Gitmo, and a "green" stimulus package that will include more roads for CO2 spewing cars. That isn't "change" it's window dressing.
I for one freely admit my reasoning skills were clouded by "hope" anyone else want to fess up? Sorry Cynthia!
.You must be speaking of the Obama who resides on your own home planet...This one here changed his stance at each level of the race for the Presidency. He speaks, not the truth that he believes, but the lies that bring his success.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Goodman sez: "We thought change would mean, well, something different."
***
Change ... it's the new Same!
When Rep Cummings was asking questions at the hearing about the bailout, he asked them if they knew what it meant to be a "chump"
He said that he had voted for it, only because Obama said that he would 'fix it" when he got in.
I can't believe some people still chasing that illusory 'progressive carrot'. Obama's long since stopped dangling it in front of anyone (he put the stick away right after the primaries). I guess if you believe in something hard enough you can make yourself hallucinate.
"Obama is certainly no fool..." but unfortunately those who voted for him are fools controlled by wishful thinking.
How does one change the world view of fools?
I don't give much weight to the popular and much-hyped parallel between Obama's cabinet and Lincoln's "Team of Rivals". It's superficially attractive. That Obama identifies strongly with Lincoln is no secret; in fact, I fear that such identification may well be a symptom of incipient megalomania or narcissism-- his campaign and zealous supporters have not been shy about promoting Obama as a unique Great Man poised to lead a long-overdue, bottom-up common effort to push Amerika out of the ditch of decadent and destructive politics, domestic and foreign. (And back to its rightful place at the head of the procession of nations, as Amerika's also-settled policy of exceptionalism mandates.)
So there are those who propose a "half-full" explanation for Obama's surrounding himself exclusively with socially conservative, neoliberal, exceptionalist, militaristic, Establishment reactionaries: Obama has brilliantly created a dialectic process whereby his reactionary cabinet will presumably serve as perpetual "devil's advocates", and a catalyst for novel policies and programs that will transcend and shatter the status quo of intractable partisan wrangling and make true enlightened, progressive reform possible. Mmmmm... I can't see it.
For one thing, Obama and his team are operating on a two-term strategy. And given his vaunted pragmatism and well-known caution, it seems much more logical to expect him to hug the ball of Political Capital and resist initiatives such as single-payer health care, or criminal investigations of the Bush Rogues' Gallery.
Obama didn't create the playing field, of course. It's one of the deleterious side-effects of operating in a corrupt and decadent political system poisoned by too many decades overdosing on the steroids of unchecked ambition, power and wealth.
This glass may be half-full, all right-- but of what? Whatever it is, the smell is making my eyes water.
· Yr Obd't Servant
I can tell you which side Obama is already playing for: the one that gave him the money to become president.
If that needs clarification, it's BG and BO (big Guns and Big Oil).
And his cabinet is right wing--just like he is.
There is no POLITICAL left in the US.
1. A. In the time of my youth, the people on the TV advertisements were all white.
B. The products were McDonalds, Ivory Soap, Budweiser.
C.That was not a good way to keep selling these products, in a land
of non-whites, slavery, and civil rights riots.
A1. Today, the advertisements often feature lighter-skinned African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and a few others.
B2.The products are McDonalds, Ivory Soap, Budweiser, and a few 1000 others.
C2. This is a much better way to sell incredible crap.
2. A. In the time of my youth, the presidents were all white males.
B.There was genocide in Asia, non-stop pollution, and terrible economic inequality.
C. That was not a good way to keep killing people and extracting resources and wealth.
A1.Today, the president is a lighter skinned African-American.
B1.There is genocide in Middle East, non-stop pollution, and worsening economic inequality.
C2. Conclusion: The Supersystem needed, and got from its adherents, a diversity figurehead. Just like those actors - con artists employed to make incredible crap seem worth buying. It's just a better and smarter way to sell the same old shit.
US Corporations and empire - now you've got the Billy Dee Williams you've needed.
Sioux Rose
NOTABILIA: Astute analogies. I still hope Obama, the man, will transcend himself as if carried by an inescapable wave of a destiny larger than his person (or acts based largely on self-preservation). This brings to mind wisdom related by the late great Rich M: that when the democrats manage to get into office, they do toss some crumbs to the working class. However, if we look at politics and the policies that have been implemented during the last 30 years, the entire spectrum has moved to the right so far that the crumbs we're likely to get are those already fought for decades ago. We falsely believed those battles (like for women's reproductive rights) were already won!
Ah, I had forgotten about Billy Dee! Is he still alive?
When Native Americans are running the show on Turtle Island, I will say that there has been a change for the better.
And I ain't holding my breath, folks.
When did anyone think Obama was progressive? I heard his speech at the Dem. National Convention in 2004 and said, "too centrist" to a pal from IL who was mad at me for saying it. But I didn't expect him to pick the same old folks for this cabinet,etc. I like the line about a few progressives would be good for some ....(whatever)....Yes, I voted for Obama. I liked the idea of the first man of color,as President. I did small civil rights work in the 1960s. I can't imagine voting for a McCain, a Bush.
One of the problems, is that so much of our view of pols is media made. I always go back to remembering when Bobby Kennedy was murdered, the press/media did a total switch in 24 hours:he went from "ruthless" Bobby, to that man "who was for the poor". Like Chomsky said, they sell candidates like toothpaste. I liked Kucinich as much as I liked anyone in recent decades and voted for him in the primary.
Name your dream candidate,or dream president or cabinet members. (With all the crap going on in the world, we could use a little fun.)
"Yes, I voted for Obama. I liked the idea of the first man of color,as President."
In other words, you are an admitted bigot. How nice.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot
.Unreasoned, deceptive, unecessary and silly.....hoyt, please try and see a larger protion of the picture.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee:Did you ever hear Steve Allen when he was doing radio in the early 1990s or so? He talked about the call of the schmuck bird on the air, then did it. He said he'd used it years ago, when on radio.
.I am old enough to admit to being a watcher of his TV show so very many years ago. He used the same phrase there as well...I can hear it now in fact. The man was a comedic genius and a real pioneer as well.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"Unreasoned, deceptive, unecessary and silly"
.Period ardee, are you describing yourself?
.Ahh my own personal stalker, I feel like a movie star...I only wish I'd gotten one with an actual brain!
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Obama's support of corn ethanol subsidies is all it took for him to lock up IA all along. Until the Peak Oil crisis hits hard, neither he nor the rest of the pols are gonna back off doing dirty business with King Corn and Big Agri.
Yes. Obama has left progressives in the dust. And picked up same ole' same ole for his cabinet. Between his foreign policy and his cabinet picks (not to mention his abject silence on the Israeli and Palestine abomination), it is business as usual with this presidency and any starry eyed Obama fans are delusional if they think there is a new day dawning.
We have critical problems in this country which need new ideas and new leadership. Progressives have been left out completely.
Very sad.
I milk 18 cows, they are my friends, I know each as an individual. I would rather talk to a cow than most people, there is a special language that one who is in harmony with the animals uses that most of you have no idea about, even if you have pets. Pets are okay, but it is not like sharing a life's work. I prefer farming with horses instead of tractors, but cannot make enough money either way. I use tractors because I am forced constantly to speed things up and still I try to use horses to stay alive and sane. Again, horses are my friends! Tractors are convenient and, all important: FASTER, but they are just things...
I've grown open-pollinated corn since 1988. I consider myself a lover of this earth and its creatures.
I am just about extinct.
Good bye soon, Amerika. I hate you.
Great post keep giving the bastards the finger by doing what you love in a loving way it's the best revenge against the petty cruelty of empire. Do you sell to local food co-ops or a CSA?
.The death of the family owned farm is both inevitable and tragic.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
How much money do we need to live a satisfying life?
In a sense, it is not money at all, it is the percentage of our life, that the corporatists steal from us to satisfy their greed, their lust for power and control. The percentage is very very high. We are dying. They are killing. And it is all soooo sanitary!
I don't think humans have much time left. Maybe the pseudo-humans (those that sanitize--the corporatists) will last a bit longer...but only on stored up life energy that they have stolen from we the meek.
This is NOT what the earth was meant for!!!
Why compare Obama to Lincoln?
By prevented the South from seceding from the US, Lincoln is responsibile for enabling an ever more right-leaning America.
While Lincoln was very astute in realizing that losing California to the South would be the biggest risk of letting the South secede, he should have put resources into convincing California to stay with the Union rather than wasting all that money and all those lives fighting the Civil War.
Lincoln put his major rivals in his cabinet, that worked out well.
Oh, dear, not so fast. We had a two-party system, remember? Lincoln's major political rivals were Democrats. Half of those rivals went with the Confederacy. Any rivalry in Lincoln's cabinet was based on personal, not political, antipathy.
Secondly, it didn't work out well at all. In the last year of the war the cabinet was essentially paralyzed by dissention and division; it was a very dangerous period and the situation only resolved by the collapse of the Confederacy and the spectacular victories of Sherman and Grant and the end of the war.
Rainborowe
"...it is difficult to have it both ways, disingenuous to want organic for your family while supporting the 'mega businesses' that push GM on the world."
Goodman hits the target here. This encapsulates the whole problem with Obama. On one hand he pretends to be progressive, and the way the extremely and insanely protracted campaign season was played out, any (vaguely) real progressives, like Kucinich, or even Edwards on occasion, were winnowed out quickly by the DLC and party centrists who wanted nothing to do with them.
So it was easy for Obama to put on progressive robes and win the hearts and minds of progressive voters, because they had nowhere else to turn. (I threw my vote away, happily, on McKinney, having done so twice before on Nader.) All along Obama has kept this charade up, keeping true progressives totally confused as to what he's Going To Do. On virtually every issue he speaks to, he wants to "have it both ways." That's embedded in the "bi-partisan" stance he takes on everything. He wants to be congenial to Republicans, appoint at least half of them to his staff, revive as much of the Clinton team as he can, and also talk about Change. Where this is coming from no one can guess.
So now his wife admits the family cupboard has gone organic, but there is no way he's going to alienate agribusiness, the whole GM food production chain, or any of the farming practices that have lain waste to most of our arable land. In the same way, he's not going to alienate Big Pharma or the big health insurers, so he can't possibly initiate meaningful healthcare reform. But there will be plenty of meaningless reform in healthcare and agriculture policy, just as there will be in energy policy. Rhetorically, he'll keeping trying to have it both ways, claiming change is imminent, a new day is dawning, the Age of Aquarius is here, while working only with agents of the status quo on everything from Iraq, the Middle East, to healthcare and food. He'll listen more carefully to Kissinger on what to do about Israel/Palestine than he will to any progressive groups. And it will be the same with agriculture. Sadly, too many "progressives" will keep being suckered by his slick rhetorical skills.
It was pathetic when challenged, Obama claimed it was, he and he alone who was the almighty vehicle of change seemingly vs a handpicked cabinent of Clintonista sell-outs and worse. And, it has been downhill from there.
He should watch it--no one ever expected Bush to be anymore than the jerk that he was--but should Obama continue to be a disappointing letdown, the resent will build and he may squander any opportunity he might have had and turn out to be little more than the Clinton's houseboy.
Obama has continued the Democratic tradition that started with Bill Clinton. He sold out to the corporations and punked the progressive base of his own party. Don't look to Obama as a panacea for change.
Until there are term limits and publicly financed elections the whores, who are supposed to represent the people, will be bought and paid for by the corporations.
Welcome to Amerika, land of opportunists.
Caved,
Public financing? Hear hear! but don't count on term limits to do anything except throw out one formerly nameless, faceless corporate shill for another. The Public doesn't pay enough attention to politics to know anybody beyond the movie-star politicians. Joe Bloviating Biden chaired some hearings and got to be a semi-familiar name so was a safe choice for VP and is likely to end up pres.; here in California we ended up with the only familiar one out of 7000 people running in a gubernatorial election so short his fault lines and ignorance didn't show... )With no one we know or trust each time to fill the many spots available we end up with the moral equivalent of 'reality' shows in every office. Someone of indeterminate beliefs who is ignorant of anything beyond the TV news and Letterman, faced with a ballot, will usually go with the name they recognize, no matter how or for what they know it. For an unknown to get name recognition takes money, and where is the money now if not in the corporations?
The last pres. we had without term limits was FDR. Since then--Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and a couple, three decent men before the concrete of TV and $ set. We have to push for public financing, free and equal TV time, and a return to non-profit truly non-partisan debates.