Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Bipartisanship=Shifting Right?
Media mull White House failures over stimulus partisanship
Many journalists and pundits have reached one very early verdict about the Obama White House: The new president has not lived up to his campaign rhetoric when it comes to reaching out to Republican lawmakers. The evidence? Not a single Republican voted in favor of the White House-backed economic stimulus bill.
Given the concessions made to Republican critics, as well as the high-profile meetings Obama conducted with top Republicans, it's curious that the failure would be portrayed as Obama's. As Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne put it (2/2/09), "What should have been hailed as an administration victory was cast in large parts of the media as a kind of defeat: Obama had placed a heavy emphasis on bipartisanship, and he failed to achieve it."
This media line Dionne was describing seemed particularly popular among CNN reporters:
Ed Henry (1/28/09): "The bottom line is that, eventually, he's going to have to start moving towards the middle, giving Republicans some concessions on spending and tax measures, give them something they can go back to their voters, their party, and say, look, we got something out of this, before they're ready to jump on board."
Dana Bash (1/28/09): "As much as he said during the campaign he wants to change Washington, he's got to deal not just with Republicans who voted no, but with his Democratic leaders right here in the Congress, who basically didn't necessarily change enough in terms of how they approached this kind of big spending bill in order to get those Republicans and make Obama have that bipartisan vote."
John King (1/28/09): "If you are President Obama, you would look at the numbers and you are a little bit troubled, in the sense that you have promised to govern from the center. You have promised to reach out to the other party. You have promised to end the divide that existed not only through the eight years of George W. Bush, but also through the eight years, largely, of Bill Clinton...if you are trying to build a foundation for bipartisanship, you don't want to get off on such a wildly partisan beginning."
But such warnings were certainly not limited to CNN. Time's Mark Halperin explained on MSNBC (1/29/09):
This is a really bad sign for Barack Obama.... He needs bipartisan solutions. They went for it and they came up with zero.... [This] does not bode well for the future of an enterprise which is supposed to be post-partisan.
Halperin added that Obama had other options:
You can go for centrist compromises. You can say to your own party, "Sorry, some of you liberals aren't going to like it, but I am going to change this legislation radically to get a big centrist majority rather than an all-Democratic vote." He chose not to do that; that's the exact path that George Bush took for most of his presidency, with disastrous consequences for bipartisanship and solving big problems.
The Washington Post editorial page strove to be somewhat even-handed (2/1/09), but ended up making a confusing argument:
Mr. Obama has sought bipartisan support for the bill. This is to his credit, but by simultaneously courting Republicans and assigning the actual drafting of the bill to Democratic congressional leaders, he has wound up zigzagging between the two parties rather than herding them together. When he seemed to lean toward more tax cuts to win over Republicans, Democrats rebelled and opted for more spending. When they proposed hundreds of millions of dollars for contraceptives and the Mall, Mr. Obama had the controversial provisions removed, but too late to win over Republicans.
Note that when Obama changes the bill to respond to Republican complaints and Republicans still refuse to vote for it, it's an example of Obama not being "bipartisan," because he was "too late."
The Post's David Broder, long a champion of centrism and bipartisanship (Extra!, 11-12/94), contrasted Obama's approach with Reagan's (2/1/09):
Nothing was more central to his victory last fall than his claim that he could break the partisan gridlock in Washington. He wants to be like Ronald Reagan, steering his first economic measures through a Democratic House in 1981, not Bill Clinton, passing his first budget in 1993 without a single Republican vote.
The first way leads to long-term success; the second foretells the early loss of control.
This vote will set a pattern for Obama, one way or the other. He needs a bipartisan majority because, tough as this issue is, harder ones await when he turns to energy, healthcare and entitlement reform.
Broder seems uninterested in what kind of policy is enacted, so long as it's "bipartisan." But there is no reason to believe bipartisanship in itself produces better legislation--though it remains an article of faith in the corporate media. Conservatives like Fox News Channel's Fred Barnes put it bluntly (1/28/09): "There are many tax cut ideas. Democrats need to adopt some of them. President Obama needs to adopt them, particularly for this reason: If he's going to be the transformative, bipartisan president that he has said he would be, he has to do that. Just the old party line votes is the old politics."
While it's true that Obama promised an era of bipartisanship (which is, of course, not exactly a novel idea), it did not mean that Republican politicians would stop being Republican politicians who disagree with the opposing party. What the media are essentially arguing is that Obama move to the right--a consistent refrain of the corporate media (Extra!, 7-8/06).
- Posted in
47 Comments so far
Show Allodoco
To hell with bipartisanship! Do you think the Repugs would have extended as much if they would have won? McConnell and Boehner are cut-throat politicians who will use any and all available political tactics to stay in office - has nothing to do with the common good of the populace. Now they are playing triangulation, claiming they're friends with the Prez, but they just don't like all the "pork" put into the stimulus by old-line Dems - and all the while they smile as Obama's popularity rating begins to tank. They can look like the good guys - standing up for "real stimulus," as compared to more big government and welfare programs - and people actually buy it. They have no conscience, they lie like pigs - and they should be totally, legislatively marginalized. We know what we got with their programs and leadership - DON'T YOU THINK IT MIGHT BE ABOUT TIME FOR REAL CHANGE???????
In order to shore up his bona fides with Republicans, conservatives (paleo- and neo-), and the ubiquitous Silent Majority of simple-minded reactionaries, Obama has pointedly shunned, dissed, and rejected anyone who's the slightest bit authentically progressive and "leftish" ever since he locked up the nomination.
Although it must be noted that, despite fooling so many with his faux-populist, bottom-up campaign organization, Obama is truly at home on the right side of the political axis.
Having cheerfully turned his back on progressives, and dousing bridges leading to the "left" with gasoline, Obama still remains at the mercy of old-school Republican tactics and the bonehead corporate media infotainwhore commentariat.
The latter's proclivity for judging the success of "bipartisanship" by OUTCOME means that no matter how busily Obama runs around being Inclusive and Flexible to make the Republican Prodigal Children feel valued and comfortable (to the exclusion of progressives), all the Republicans have to do is sit still, refuse to budge, and watch Obama make a fool of himself in the cynical, amoral national media as he runs further and further to the right in hopes of catching and taming that wild goose.
Perhaps those progressives who strive to find silver linings in moderate Democratic clouds will predict that this strategy will ultimately backfire on the GOP, e.g. that the Republicans are biting off their collective nose to spite their collective faces, or that somehow this deliberate obstructionism will create blowback as We the People come to see that it's the Republicans who are heinously promoting gridlock.
One would hope so, but in our perverse and prolapsed political culture, it's Obama who will become the scapegoat. Even Houdini couldn't escape from the political straitjacket Obama's being tied into.
As a dissed and disgusted progressive, I can only say "boo-freaking-hoo".
· Yr Obd't Servant
Harsh truths, and quite on target. The real pity is that Obama has just not enough experience to hold this job, one incomplete term in the Senate cannot make up for all the eloquence in the world. I guess he failed to notice how the GOP, when in charge of both Houses and the White House also, shut democrats out of the process completely.
One ray of hope remains, I think, his intellect may just push him to reestablish links to the left and his bipartisan efforts may alter to reaching out to certain republicans and his glorious talent for speeches may cause him to inform the public of the truth of Washington politics....Slim hopes but there you have it...
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
Yeah, he reached out to the Repub's and got snookered. He appointed the NH Republican senator to the Department of Commerce and got a Republican appointed to the Senate by a Democratic Governor. If he got a Democratic governor to appoint a Democrat to the Senate, Mr. Obama would have had a good shot at having a veto proof congress.
This situation is looking very suspicious. In what universe, would someone take a deal which would weaken ones position politically? I am thinking that Mr. Obama is a Republican plant into the Democratic party to crush any progressive agenda from the inside out.
What other explanation is there? Except Mr. Obama is a fool and an idiot.
I would not go so far as to demean our new President in such personal fashion. Rather than think him witless, or some sort of spy, I would conjecture that he is , like many such politicos, mired in a system that he truly believes still works. Many of our fellow citizens believe this to be true as well, so he is far from alone in his error.
Our governance really has depended upon cooperation and bipartisanship for its entire existence. Only since the right wing revolution beginning with the Reagan administration, when the deregulation of our capitalist structures enabled them to take greater control of the legislative process than ever before, showed much success did we see an end to reaching across the aisle.
The need for third party membership in the Legislature is greater than ever before, in my opinion, as the progressive agenda is simply doomed to being ignored in the gang fight of self interest and the seeking of profit for those who run this nation. I would submit that the amount of money Daschle has made in his short stint as a lobbyist since leaving office is a key ingredient behind the thinking of most of our legislators. Reliance on six figure earnings after leaving office is a strong motivator in voting for legislation that would ensure that future income.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
odoco____ I agree with you completely. It is impossible to deal in a sensible way with the Rethugs as they are now. Their only purpose is to destroy any program Obama comes up with any way they can. Obama needs to do exactly what the Rethugs did when they got control-- get out of our way, we are taking over!!
Obama means well, but his method is like a deer trying to deal with a lion--the deer gets destroyed. As every Rethug acts like a mindless robot, the rotten leaders in their party will get what they are after, more ruination.
If this keeps up, the Democrats can kiss their control of Congress GOOD-BYE in 2010 followed by the White House in 2012. So far, no plans to improve public transportation, very weak plans on the war fronts with the possibility of dragging into Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran, no discussions on single payer, zig-zag on women's rights and equalities, no plans to pay down the debt, no plans to rescind tax breaks and loopholes for big corporations and those making 200k and above, and limited plans on dealing with the financial mess on Wall $treet and none on Main Street.
Sioux Rose
JWVEREZ: Well-said; makes one wonder what they HAVE to fight about, other than keeping an illusion alive that there IS a difference between what these 2 sides of the same coin serve, in terms of their TRUE interests (and constituents).
Hi Sioux,
I talked to one of my coworkers (she's a die-hard Obama supporter and she voted for Bush twice before) on the issue of paying down the debt and redirecting spending from war to domestic. She always brags about Obama being a beacan of hope but when I tried to explain to her the flaws of this stimulus bill being not much different from Raygun's or Dubya's, she freaks out and calls me a "stupid tax hiker wannabe" for not taking the "stimulus package" seriously. I tried to explain to her that at a time when there's a $10 trillion debt and a flailing infrastructure, now is not the time to be doing more tax cuts but instead to cut down conservative spending on the war and redirect those tax breaks of the upper class and corporations to the lower and middle class. She then yelled and laughed so loud at me ranting
"That's too liberal sir and that's the reason Walter Mondale lost! Besides, you should be cheering for more tax cuts so you can get to spend on what you want mister. I'll decide which people to redirect my tax dollars to, not the government. And shut up about war spending. We're winning the war on terror and Obama's trying to finish it well so shut up !"
To make matters worse, she misuses religion to justify giving those top greedy people more tax breaks and misquotes and misinterprets quotes from the bible. She blames her previous layoffs for CEOs not getting enough cash but when I checked on those companies she worked for, the CEOs were still getting paid more even during the layoffs in 2005 and 2006 where she got laid off thrice.
I can usually reason with most of these folks but sometimes the staunchies never try to learn.
Sioux Rose
JWVEREZ: Although I don't agree with the theory, I can understand why a few researchers pursued the concept of a SELFISH GENE. It's been said as a cliche that there are givers and takers in life; or, persons who ONLY see through the narrow lens of their own self-interest, and others who recognize the benefits of a society that spreads privileges around.
We could continue on the track we're on, where privileges accrue to so few that a police state is needed to keep the starving multitudes behind the barracks. Or we can dispense with the need for so much policing by orchestrating the mechanisms for a more just and humane society where NO ONE starves, and NO ONE goes homeless, especially in a land with as much assets as this one.
I know it seems like scant consolation to suggest that karma eventually catches up when here and now (for instance it will be 18 degrees where I live tonight, and that's Florida, folks, and some homeless people probably will freeze to death not far from here in Gainesville) things are too rotten in "Denmark."
When persons with microphones start telling citizens to remain as squatters in what had been their homes, that could set into motion quite a wave of citizen action. It's one thing to look away when it's the unfortunate Iraqi made homeless, and quite another thing when the bulldozer or sheriff is parked outside your own door. Often it takes personal suffering to learn compassion, and I suspect that is the prescription which the cosmic doctor has ordered. Your co-worker has quite a dose headed her way.
Selfishness is largely cultural.
The kind of perspectives we see in the USA - like those of that woman JWVEREZ described, would be considered repugnant in many cultures - particularly in Arab and Asian cultures. There, hospitality is widespread and people are more likely to look for a compassion gene than a greed gene.
---USAn---
I would say it's more than just a greed gene. It's more like a self-righteous gene. The lady I described has a knack of bragging about being a "hero" in helping a few of her favorites when they're down. At one point, during a conversation with another one of her co-workers who watches Sean Hannity and Neil Boortz and is a big John Stossel fan, both of them were having a laughing conversation mocking government saving the people and even said "So I told this idiot in my previous job that I don't mind helping a few good trustworthy people or maybe even giving a few bucks to a poor kid but I just hate it when government takes my tax dollars and gives it to too many welfare queens !" She even bragged to him about how she loves to thrash her husband for being so nice and liberal but then wishes that he'd just shut up and be conservative and do all her dirty work faster and "neater". He's unemployed and more of a male housewife. They both live in a shoddy apartment to cut down some costs. I met the guy once and he's so emaciated that I swear that he almost looked like he was almost dying while his wife, the coworker of mine I described earlier, was so obese that she could easily endanger his life if he uttered one word of opposition to her. The lady's view on almost every issue always seems to be "Burn down the entire forest and then plant a phoney 'tree' to pretend that you're caring." She's no different on the issue of war and "free" trade. On war, she wishes the troops would just keep shooting at no end. On trade, she believes in more reduction in tariffs and more tax cuts ! She even thinks that she'll be rich as Donald Fucking Trump "if only the liberals would get out of the way and lower all those taxes" she always claims and keeps dreaming of owning a "small and tough" business with very "low" employee costs and top productivity. Despite her bulldozing attitudes, she's already getting into financial troubles with the law and has no chance of making even 100k let alone 250k she'd need to own a business. I live in El Paso so these bulldozers are not quite as frequent but travel just 40 miles east and you'll meet plenty of them especially some just like her. We've got a lot of mentality reform to do for this country or we'll never get any real representation. It's as if Main Street is fighting itself to let Wall Street crush Main Street.
I can be sure that there were a lot of otherwise rabid Republican voters who decided to pull the Obama lever but in no way means that Obama should be busy appeasing them for he did lose probably as many voters to Nader, Mckinney, etc ... or to not voting for his pandering to the right even when it was obvious that most people are sick and tired of rightwing politics.
It is spooky how ther are so so much support for Obama comes from conservatives like this. It is almost like all that changed was a new logo - that creepy disc-shaped Obama logo does resemble the new Pepsi logo.
---USAn---
These voters are generally mischievous rabid conservatives who probably thought Mccain wasn't "conservative" enough. It's hard to really tell what they really intended though. I'd warn though that Obama did lose a lot of his base voters to 3rd party or choosing to even vote although the election results makes it hard to detect all these factors.
The repugs have just one thing on their agenda, and that is to do everything they can to squash the dems - again. They're backed in a corner and they. Their big machine is very busy dredging through the past of every dem that hasn't been seriously dredged before, and these next two years are no doubt gonna be a repeat of the clinton years.
The only way they'll vote on the stimulus bill is if at least sixty percent of it is their "cut taxes" plan.
To hell with the republicans. If Obama and the democrats want to have a chance or retaining power, they will have to take just that attitude and do what the PEOPLE need and want for a change.
A veto proof majority is only necessary if you are going against the executive. If the dems put something up that makes sense for the PEOPLE, then I doubt that they would NEED a veto proof majority. It's ONLY important when you have an executive like W who doesn't give a damn about humans. When you have one that cares about the people, you don't need a veto block.
The republicans have proven that they aren't a human organization, they live for money and power alone. It's time to send them to the trash heap on irrelevance. We can't afford to give a damn about their tax cut priorities, and especially at a time when we need to rebuild from their policies of ignore and let crumble. Tax cuts don't feed poor children, they don't educate anyone, they don't provide a single job, especially when those cuts mean that more jobs leave the country, followed by the very factories that we USED to work in.
To hell with even MORE tax cuts, especially when 2/3 of large companies here don't pay so much as a single penny in taxes anyway. What taxes are we going to cut for business? And when the rich and ultra rich pay 17% while we pay 36%, it's time to undo the damage.
We can no longer give a damn about what the republicans want. THey haven't given a damn about our very survival for the last 28 years.
During the Bush years the rethugs not once showed even a smidgen of bipartisanship toward the minority, totally stifling any real discussion for 8 much too long years, and now the bastards suddenly rediscover the meaning of the word bipartisan! NO! NO !NO!, no bipartisanship, these bastards plundered and spent every last nickel they could get their hands on of taxpayer money on pork chops and war with nothing to show for it, they've deregulated and polluted the country into dire straits on their type of bipartisanship! It's time for these SOB's to shut up and listen for a change!
If Obama continues giving in to the neocons he is only lining himself up to get sucker punched. The GOP doesn't play nice and are only driven by greed and power!
"here today, here tomorrow"
Sioux Rose
NAGAMAKI: Right on! The Republicans held the nation hostage for 8 years making every unconscionable decision possible (and as many of us realize, too many democrats went along). And this nonsense of moving to the center, when the center, like some kind of train without brakes, continues to move to the right; what kind of crap is that about?
ANNEY made the astute observation recently that as a community organizer, Obama is used to forming consensus and building a team of players. While I abhor his chosen "team" thus far, she raised the point that actually BEING the leader is not yet within his psychological purview. Perhaps. Or, it's as many of us suspect, the Prez is just the CEO, while the covert board of directors acts as the real engine behind policy; and thus far the policies have been dangerous to the health of people, the economy, global ecosystems, and any remote concept of justice or peace.
after 8 yrs of bush getting everything he wanted w/overwhelming bipartisan consensus (war, taxes, nclb, fisa, mca, etc., etc., etc.) it amazes me that people are amazed at the democrats. all this hand-wringing and tut-tutting over what the dems have done for a long, long time.
nothing will change until people thoroughly and whole-heartedly reject the democratic party.
I don't question your statement - just the lack of specifics. Care to itemize what you consider "pork barrel." Don't know your politics - but that type of jargon - generalized, damning and inconclusive, is what I have heard from the Republicans for the last eight years. I am not saying there was not pork - but I am saying I would not condemn the entire package with a mere utterance that it is totally worthless. Don't wish to think like that anymore . . . . .
"Pork", although a derogatory term, is what are representitives are elected to pursue- To bring home the bacon for their district.
Barney Frank made an interesting comment about how the economy and spending had to always be viewed through a prism of select spending--one couldn't associate or draw lines between spending on the black hole of Iraq at the same time birth control was being condemned as wasteful.
The same goes for Government. For eample, the response to Katrina was widely disapproved but this is exactly what happens when government is starved--it ceases to function--but that line is never drawn--the failures of not spending for the common good.
When the Republicans constructively oppose the Democrats' bills, then the Democrats will have some room for compromise, but until then why be concerned about bi-partisanship? If the Democrats want bipartisanship then they should move to the left somewhat so that the Republicans need to move left also or loose what they have gained. Why not do this? Give the Republicans a reason to be bipartisan. Moving to the right worked well for the Republicans when they had the power.
What you said! Democrats seem to think that the way Republicans messed up was by being bullies and not compromising with them. They see the screw up in political terms and don't want to repeat that mistake. But in reality the politics is what the Rs did right. Stake a ground and fight for it and screw the opponents. Where the Rs screwed up big time is their ideas. Their whole philosophy has no basis in fact. So the Dems need to copy the R's strategy of standing against anyone who opposes their core philosophy: taking care of the working middle class just like the Rs take care of the rich. Take care of the working people and all else will right itself. Give tax breaks to the rich and they will give that money to Wall Street con men selling derivatives or what ever crap shoot they can cook up.
Still I must say that during the camaign I thought Obama was too soft and he sure proved me wrong. Maybe he's got cards he's not showing. It does seem to be his style. He is one smart dude. Maybe he's just giving them enough rope...
Bush didnt even win and he governed from the far right.
PS
Peter Hart's sarcastic comments on Counterspin are always amusing. Worth listening to.
"Bipartisanship," "centrism," "realism," "practicality," and a few others that I'm forgetting are all part of the language of the status quo and are lies. Obama of course, has used this kind of language repeatedly. We sometimes use a framework of right and wrong, which actually makes considerably more sense than another framework we use of two equal sides, where a compromise should consist of each side giving up half of what it wants.
This is not most of the story though, because the idea that the Democrats are giving in to Republicans is itself a lie. The Democrats want excuses for their own conservative policies, and would blame the Republicans for stopping more progressive policies if there wasn't a single Republican in government.
"Reform" was converted to a rathter nasty word too.
---USAn---
For Republican spokesmen, all government spending that is not defense or "security" is ipso facto "pork." Individually each may support some "pork" for their own district, but as a party they can grandstand to the faithful by complaining loudly. Tax cuts have been and remain a big part of the problem. The way to govern the economy is to keep taxes high on the investor class, but to offer deductions for investment in areas deemed of use to the economy. Low taxes on the investing class have historically created only speculative bubbles. There will never be a bipartisan consensus on raising taxes on the wealthy from today's GOP. It would be a waste of Obama's time to search for one.
Bipartisanship? It doesn't exist. What exists is bi-faceism. One Party with two faces. It amounts to bi-faceist fascism.
Hello!
The Republicans lost in a big way. The voters sought an alternative and the Democrats were viewed as the only option despite past betrayals and disappointments. The people did not install Obama so he could heed Republicn demands that bipartisanship is always defined as capitulation to the extremes of the Right. The Right has been totally discredited--their policies are bankrupt--they aren't legitimate on any issue-- but they are bullies and serve the corporate class uber alles.
If the illusions and projections of the right gain a renewed foothold, the bottom will drop out even faster. Someone needs to stand up to these thugs and bullies abut no one ever holds them accountable so they continue to get away with all their lies, deception and destruction.
Deja Vu all over again!
This "reaching across the aisle" is just what the oversexed scumbag Clinton did. Trouble is, the reaching ALWAYS, I repeat, ALWAYS only goes one way - to the big-business ass-kissing right! Do the big-business neo-feudal extremists ever reach to the left when they are in power?
The physical analogue to this kind of politics is a ratchet wrench. The backyard mechanic's mnemonic is: "righty-tighty, leftie loosey". And it is our nuts that are getting screwed!
And once again, the idea that the Democrats are unwittingly doing this is simply not credible. They know exactly what they are doing, and they will be the first to hang when the pepole get a notion and rise up.
---USAn---
I would feel more comfortable extending my hand into a piranha tank at feeding time than extending it across the aisle to this gang of pimps, highwaymen and hypocrites.
Obama, to my disappointment, already governs from the center. The Republicans represent the interests of the top 5% in income/wealth. CNN wants Obama to move toward the top 5%? Maybe that's because CNN is and represents this top5%.
The problem is that CNN has so much access to centrists/independents that they wield a sadly large influence over the development of public opinion. Just in the 4 minute CNN news segments which interrupt Air America every half hour, the selection of what is news and the emphases placed, and even the tones of voice tell USans what to think.
Because Fox is so bad CNN is viewed as the good thought cop (er, news network)
"Obama, to my disappointment, already governs from the center."
Does he? I think he's a right winger, a kinder gentler machine gun hand.
"Because Fox is so bad CNN is viewed as the good thought cop"
Never could tolerate Fox and gave up on CNN many many years ago after continually thinking CNN must stand for corporate nazi news.
The Republicans stole two successive Presidential elections. There can be no bispartisanism without ignoring this inconvenient fact. The right and left are basically at war.
Going Back in Time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naZdfGqZtJ0
I am so frustrated, I can't stand it.
Obama tries to be open and listen to republicans. republicans don't budge an inch. And it's somehow his fault!
It's one thing that the MSM stacks the deck with a 2:1 ratio favoring republican pundits and conservative apologists over democrats/progressives. But then the MSM press itself spouts the same ignorant talking points. Mark Halperin - what a joke.
Senate Dems don't cave as usual to produce a watered down bill that stimlulates nothing. I say let the republican filibuster. Put some heat onthe Repugs. Will see how they feel while the Rs fiddle as America burns. End of the republican party and good ridance.
Politicscorner
Obama has frozen out the left; ignored progressive appointments. His environmental proposals a joke (take note a few clicks down about his sustainable energy proposals) as a case in point. What parallel universe do people live? Obama is to the Right. Always has been.
c'mon. you guys can't be serious when you say, the GOP is the party of the rich? Check who financed Obama's run? Look into it. Obama won for one reason. BIG everything (esp business) got all they could out of the GOP. With Obama they can continue to get all they want and the MSM and left for the most part will be dead silent. Like you guys were on NAFTA and GATT back in the day. Not even the unions protested Bill Clinton.
It feels like it happened eons ago in a galaxy far, far away, but now that I think of it, as a kid growing up in a Philadelphia working/middle-class family, I do remember the old stereotype of the Democrats being the "working man's party".
We didn't talk about politics much, or maybe as a kid I just tuned it out. Still, just by osmosis-- watching teevee, reading the newspaper-- I picked up on the stereotype.
But somewhere during the Clinton Administration, I came to consider the GOP to be merely A party of the rich.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Stop asking both Republican and Democratic politicians what they want, put a survey together on the internet, and ask Americans.
Then use the results to do the work. It can be done.
Hell ask for a social security number , and charge a buck for every survey.
You can pay for the system and use it for every issue, who needs the elected officials, they only vote the way the lobyists pay then anyway.
BornFreeMen
American patriot, not a SPYmerican , Not a TORTUREmerican
Exactly. At least restart Change.gov. and listen to We the People.
I agree with Nagamaki and WJM and ldoco. What is Obama thinking? How long is it going to take before he gets the message? The Repugs don't want to play ball with him. They want to see him fail big time. I laugh when they say, we don't want to burden our children and grandchildren with this debt. Then they say we already have a ten trillion dollar debt.
I want to ask them who do we have to thank for that? What about all the billions of dollars we spend in Iraq building their country and fighting a war that we didn't need to be in. They told the Dems, we want an up or down vote. Your either with us or against us or your not patriotic. Why doesn't the Dems say that to them now. The stimulas or recovery bill is taking care of our country that has been neglected for the last eight years. Throw it back in their faces. People are losing jobs in the thousands and these buttholes are acting like they were elected. They know what to do, more tax cuts. And how did that work for you. Bush gave the biggest tax cuts and if they worked, we wouldn't be in this mess, but hey, tax cuts are the answer according to them.
If Obama wanted to put a Repug in for commerce secretary, why pick a right winger that once voted to close the commerce position down and is a very bad pick for that position from what I have read or heard of him.
I am getting very disappointed at this point. After the first couple of times he tried to get the Repugs on board and it didn't work, I'd say screw them.
President Obama stop trying to be Mr. Nice guy.
Who do we have to thank for massive military spending, you ask?
Go look at the votes for Iraq spending: what you will find is that both Democrats and Republicans kept throwing good money to bad as if they were joined at the hip. Go back and check who voted to invade Iraq: almost every Democrat went along with a few notable exceptions.
The duopoly is the blame. Obama its head.
"The Center" is not some philosophically "balanced," ideologically neutral spot on a two-dimensional political spectrum. It means aligning oneself with the "logic" and interests of the corporate class. The more a politician can do that, the less he/she will be opposed by Capital. Doors will open up to them, since they are "reasonable" in the eyes of the powerful.
The US political system maintains democratic elements within a corporate capitalist society. There is a strong tension between the democratic principle of "one person, one vote" and the logic of capitalism, "one dollar, one vote." The power of Capital is much stronger than the sway of democracy, but popular organization can restrain the prerogatives of Capital and mitigate the abuses capitalism imposes on people (and the environment).
But democracy is a NON-PROFIT form of organization, relying largely upon volunteerism and the small resources available to the unions. Keeping focused the attention of large groups of people, keeping them "on message," working towards a common goal, sharing a common vision in conflict with the consumerist, individualist, demobilizing philosophy promoted by Capital, requires a sustained, disciplined effort. It is almost impossible! On rare occasions a crisis causes people to question the dominant ideology, but even then, movements from the Right rush in to fill the void, to answer the questions. Fundamentalist religion, racism, "patriotism," etc. Fascism is an extreme expression of such an ideology.
The commitment to democracy by the American people ebbs and flows. When it flares up, Capital tries to divert it into rightwing populism, expressing itself as nationalism, racism, anti-semite, anti-immigrant movements rather than a left form promoting equality, peace, economic and social justice. While the two political parties are aligned with sections of corporate capitalism, for the "democratic"support necessary to win elections, they are rooted in different social constituencies, with the Dems getting more support from the social groups whose demands are those of the left and the Republicans drawing their base of activists from the right. (If one adopts an ideological model of the "left" and "right," you may be tempted to sneer that these groups do not represent the True Left. But I suggest the sociological model (or "political economy" model) I am using helps see things the ideological model misses.)
The Bush-Cheney policies served the interests of a section of the corporate elite, who derived superprofits from policies of war, environmental degradation, increased monopolization, etc. The GOP was able to satisfy the ideological demands of its rightwing base with their ultra-nationalist, racist, sexist social policies. But they did not include a wide enough swath of the corporate elite and the rightwing social agenda lost popular support as the obvious costs of "war without end" made jingoism less thrilling. The GOP lost support from both the corporate elite and a large majority of the American people, who wanted "change they could believe in."
The corporate elite held closed-door meetings with Obama’s representatives on exactly what kind of change they would be getting in exchange for their lavish contributions. They likely got pretty explicit assurances on how an Obama administration would serve their interests. The unions were probably able to get some firm commitments as well, but only on a very limited list of requests. While "Labor" was valuable to Obama's election, especially during the primaries, for the General Election, the unions had no place to go. Still, their GOTV operations were important to a Democratic victory, not only in the presidential race, but in Senate and, especially, some congressional races. Meanwhile, the mass of voters, of citizens, of working and "middle class" people, got vague, unenforceable platitudes and semi-religious, semi-"Movement" feel-good, promises of a "New Dawn."
Frankly, given corporate political, economic and ideological dominance how could it be different?
Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader each told a version of the truth, with slight variations, and got nowhere fast.
"The People" or "the Working Class" will only win what we want through sustained mobilization and struggle. Being a political dilettante, even a hotheaded, impatient "revolutionary"-- won't work. Cafe politics, whether over coffee, beer or a keyboard, are not sufficient. We need to weave together a vast "united front" of constituencies who have grievances against the sins of rapacious corporate capitalism. This will require a helluva lot of hard, sustained work. Impatience is NOT a virtue. Condescending, anti-democratic views of the people as "sheeple" serve to de-mobilize and justify individualism, political isolation.
Some people, seeing the scale of the political/social task necessary to build such a coalition, express hope for a cataclysmic event, an environmental or economic collapse, as the vehicle for bringing down the structures, which support the current system. But if we don't build democratic organizations and values in the struggle for a just society, we will not have the means to build a just society after such a collapse. The collapse of corporate capitalism is more likely to lead to barbarism, feudalism or fascism than green or anarchist cooperative utopias.
So what to do with Obama?
We must demand things from him just as we would from a Bush or McCain administration. We must find vehicles for articulating these demands, for delivering these demands, for winning over popular support and for enforcing these demands. We cannot rely upon his "good intentions" or any notion of his “decency" or "intelligence" to deliver to us what we do not have the strength or means to demand for ourselves.
In some ways, the question of whether to "support” or "denounce Obama" is a distraction. We needed to find effective ways to develop and spread our message before--we needed to find ways of mobilizing anti-war sentiment before--we needed ways to demand a shift from destructive energy sources before. Will the struggle for justice be easier under Obama or more difficult? We won't know the answer until we engage in the effort. To build a people's movement for peace, social and economic justice, and a non-violent, sustainable mode of life.
Sioux Rose
SHILIAP: You're a profound and thorough thinker who mixes the pragmatic into a broad philosophical overview. Thank you for your excellent post. If you are new to this forum, welcome.