Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama: Beyond Savior or Trickster
Among the tendencies, the first is more widespread and more dangerous. All kinds of atrocious policies -- from Lyndon Johnson's war on Vietnam to Jimmy Carter's midterm swerve rightward to Bill Clinton's neoliberal measures such as NAFTA, "welfare reform" and Wall Street deregulation -- were calamities facilitated by acquiescence or mild dissent from many left-leaning Democrats.
Some historical analogies are acutely relevant, and the LBJ/Vietnam Obama/Afghanistan comparison is one of them. During the first couple of years after Johnson's inauguration in January 1965, with few exceptions, liberal members of Congress and leaders of liberal-oriented groups routinely voiced support for the war escalation; others mumbled their misgivings as the president ordered more troops and firepower to Vietnam. Today, similar mumbling about Afghanistan attests to the repetition compulsion disorder of the U.S. warfare state.
Whatever can be said for avoidance of ruffling feathers in the new administration is greatly outweighed by the dire long-term effects. We can't build a vibrant progressive movement -- or strengthen a base capable of moving the country in progressive directions for the long haul -- by winking and nodding at Democratic policies that would have drawn our sharp criticism if they were being implemented by a Republican administration.
Another destructive dynamic: A corporatized Democratic administration helps Republicans put on populist costumes and pose as opponents of corporate elites. For instance, when Democratic officials and progressive allies act as though the massive federal giveaways to banks are no cause for outrage, demobilization of the party's progressive base is predictable.
With the November midterm elections now 18 months away, the specter of the post-NAFTA 1994 election that gave control of Congress to Republicans is an ominous poltergeist that's already haunting Capitol Hill. Rather than serving, yet again, as enablers for a Democratic administration to pursue a corporate-friendly course, progressives should be pushing hard in the opposite direction.
Among the Democratic base, the widespread eagerness to put Obama on a very high pedestal is emblematic of a depoliticized culture. Fixating on his impressive personal qualities is a way of turning the overall political picture into a fuzzy background.
Oft-cited, yet still worth recalling, is the spot in his book "The Audacity of Hope" where Obama wrote: "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." At least as importantly, Obama is a master of speaking and acting in ways that gravitate to the center of political gravity.
We should be hard at work at the grassroots to move that center of political gravity in progressive directions, which requires speaking truth about power -- a far different endeavor than reflexively defending or vilifying Obama.
It should be axiomatic -- for commentators who refuse to be partisan hacks, for activists with progressive commitments, for anyone determined to elude Orwellian doublethink -- that presidential actions and policies should be assessed and supported or opposed on their merits.
Rejecting Obama iconography and demonology is necessary for a healthy progressive movement. We won't get far by trying to leapfrog the actual political conditions of the country. Our task is to change them.
Obama's corporate and military policies are reflections of anti-democratic imbalances of power that are part of the political economy. We shouldn't let him off the hook any more than we should refuse to acknowledge his positive actions, such as progressive aspects of his proposed budget.
The possibilities for progressive solutions will be bound up in propelling change from the grassroots -- the methodical, often-tedious and essential tasks of talking and listening and organizing in communities across the country. When President Obama takes a progressive step, it has been made possible by progressive activism. When President Obama takes an anti-progressive step, it has been facilitated by progressives muting their criticism. The antidote to political poisons is to intelligently raise our voices.
79 Comments so far
Show AllWhile I am one of those who generally thinks that Obama can do no wrong, your comparison with LBJ is very apt. My fear is that Obama's commitment to the Afghanistan War will take on a life of its own, beyond anything he anticipates. this certainly happened in Southeast Asia with Johnson.
Clearly, our military involvement in the region has already destabilized Pakistan. Before Dec 2001 the Taliban were contained within Afghanistan and were controlled to some extent by Pakistani intelligence. Deplorable though Taliban governance may be, they did not threaten US security. But now that the Taliban have been driven across the border into Pakistan, they present a real threat we cannot ignore. They are already nearing Islamabad and if the government falls apart and they appear likely to get control of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, the US will have no choice but to take out that arsenal through massive bombing. And it won't end there.
The smart move would have been for Obama to reduce US troops in Afghanistan and to try to strike a deal with the Taliban. It is certainly too late for that now.
Nice work Norman!
I liked this quote especially:
"We should be hard at work at the grassroots to move that center of political gravity in progressive directions, which requires speaking truth about power -- a far different endeavor than reflexively defending or vilifying Obama."
With one small twist that makes a big difference imo. If we center our thoughts and actions on the progressive and speak and act from there those behind us will follow.
We've seen no evidence that Obama has yielded to popular pressures thus far.
The most obvious examples where Obama voted against the wishes of his constituents include his vote for the FISA bill and support for bailing out crooked Wall Street banksters with taxpayer dollars - both actions vigorously opposed by probably the majority of the country.
Norman Solomon writes that Obama has done progressive things in the budget. All that I recall is that Obama restored funding for abortions as part of family planning for international aid groups. I don't know what else Obama has done that might be considered progressive, so I wish Norman had been more specific about that point.
I think Norman wants me to write a letter to Obama. Should I write multiple letters, one for each policy of his that I oppose? I'm not trying to be flippant. I just don't see a possibility that Obama will respond to progressives when he's not philosophically inclined in that way. It's like writing to Bush and asking him to end the torture policy. By the way, Obama just excused that behavior, which is fairly discouraging to progressives, I think.
Here's a passage of Solomon's essay that seems kind of telling: "Obama's corporate and military policies are reflections of anti-democratic imbalances of power that are part of the political economy." Yes, of course there are antidemocratic U.S. institutions with their own agendas, like the Pentagon. But it's Obama who is supporting those institutions, and he doesn't have to do it.
Norman Solomon is acting as if a plebiscite doesn't already exist on these progressive issues. Apparently, Obama just doesn't hear support among the people for progressive actions. Clearly, Obama himself understood that he was elected to end the wars and the crimes of the Bush administration. It's why he gave that light-hearted antiwar speech way back when he was a senator. If we are ignored by Obama, we should not pretend that it's because he can't hear us.
Norman's appeal might be more effective if it could be quantified in some way. For instance, Obama agrees to act progressively if he gets one million letters on an issue. That's hypothetical, but what is the threshold? Why ask people to waste their time writing when we're just ignored? That was the principal reason why people should have abandoned the Democratic Party for a third party. The party only responds to a potential loss of power. There is no reason for Obama to respond to progressives, even if 30 million write him a letter on a single day. He's in power for another three or so years, so people can protest all they want.
Had Obama shown himself at all to be responsive to the public will, I might have argued along Solomon's lines, but I just haven't seen it. Obama seems like a carbon copy of Bush, but more eloquent.
-TIA
Thoughts Into Action: "That was the principal reason why people should have abandoned the Democratic Party for a third party. The party only responds to a potential loss of power."
You are absolutely right and this is absolutely the greatest value of third parties in a two-party system: to break up the tweedle dum and dee duopoly by requiring the two "main" parties to appeal (in action, not just in words) to their respective ideological "bases."
There are things about Obama that I'm begining to dislike. I don't like the his stance on the War in Afganistan, increasing the number of troops there is not what I hoped by his Call for Change. I did not agree with his stance while he was in the Senate on the Fisa Bill, Obama seems to be talking at both sides of his mouth, calling for change and "see through" government, while at the same side protector or ignoring the criminal deeds of the the past administration,specially in light of the Memo's he released last week on Torture during the Bush years.
Obama talks a good game about the virtues of main street but his economic team are all Wall Street trained and educated, The man seems to be caught in two worlds, one the Status Quo of every day Washington politics, and the other world what I think the man really wants..to reform the Party Politic and the way business should be accomplished. I hope the man makes up his mind and soon before the Republicans wake up and get their ideological talking points in a cohesive fashion.
Obama is largely a supporter of the status quo, and he has a taste for the architects of failed policies who continue to advocate them; he seems to think that by doing more of the same, we'll get different results. Gates, Summers, Geithner, Blair and Jones come readily to mind. He dislikes controversy, which is why he voted "present" so often in the Illinois Senate, and why he supported much of Bush's disastrous agenda while expressing reservations. Now he wants to throw the war crimes questions to a bipartisan panel instead of a competent special prosecutor, knowing that there will be enough Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats to ensure that nothing substantial is done.
Obama falls into the old trap of trying to please everyone and ending up pleasing no one.
http://www.theyorkshirelad.ca/12loweringtheante/loweringtheante.html
i didn't read this article w/a fine tooth comb b/c i knew what to expect from this type of piece w/norm s's name attached, but did he mention *one* "progressive" piece of legislation the obama admin has enacted?
(run frozen embryos! your days are numbered!)
enough w/the "obama's stirring rhetoric" crap. so overrated.
Well, Mr. Solomon's analysis of the political situation and his prognostication are "right on the mark", as usual! Also, as usual, it is disturbing food for thought. And as Martha Stewart might say, "It's a good thing!"
Jude Montarsi
I wanted to like Obama, but he always struck me as nothing but an empty suit, deliriously ambitious to be President. When Kucinich dropped out before the NY primary, I went ahead & voted for him anyway as the only fair expression of my political leaning. Then, with only Obama left in November, I voted for McKinney, a truly passionate and effective candidate we'd do well to pay more attention to.
Can't say I'm disappointed in Obama, since I didn't expect anything better. I do think unrelenting pressure from a well-informed left is our one hope of improvement.
Barack Obama: The Audacity of Protecting US War Criminals
That's CHANGE you can jingle in your pocket!!!
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
The Pied Piper of Washington!
Savior or Trickster
I think both are killed by an irate public.
Democrat or Republican - no mater what hand it's on; it's still an AIPAC sock puppet.
"...policies that would have drawn our sharp criticism if they were being implemented by a Republican administration."
Yea, man, watch out for the "sharp criticism!" Better give back the bribes and stop lying and stealing before they start with the "sharp criticism!"
"We won't get far by trying to leapfrog the actual political conditions of the country. Our task is to change them...The possibilities for progressive solutions will be bound up in propelling change from the grassroots -- the methodical, often-tedious and essential tasks of talking and listening and organizing in communities across the country."
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When that Solomon comes back from vacation he should reread that commentary without the influence of the mojitos. The characters that run the U.S. are like actors in a movie who can play any part and changing from good guy to bad guy is as normal to them as ordering an action that is going to cause the destruction of a country and the deaths of millions of people. What the U.S. needs is a new party because the system they have now is uniparty and it has been since almost the beginning. But the new party must be of GOOD people and none of that kind which are in the system now, because the only kind of people that the current government allows to be elected are people like themselves. You could talk to those kind until you are blue in the face and for that they might give you a few tidbits but they would never relinquish their hold on power or deviate from their true agenda.
This past weekend, at the summit of the americas, Obama told the other leaders of nations that Latin America should just forget about the past actions of the U.S. that destroyed many of their countries and they should look to the future because the U.S. has changed. This while they are still increasing action in Afghanistan and are starting incursions into Pakistan, which is how they got started in Laos and Cambodia. That line and attitude told all of the Latin American leaders what they need to know about Obama and it is all over Latin American publications that they will never forget.
Obama also told the assembled conference that Latin America should quit blaming the U.S. for it's problems, this when there are half a billion Latin Americans who have all grown up knowing intimately that the U.S. is directly responsible. The rest of the world already knows that Obama is a fraud.
The shepple here continue to bleat and bleat: "Obaaaahhma, Obaaaahhma, Obaaaaahma" as he supervises the sheering and slaughter of the flock.
Arguing to this group of sycophants, like Solomon, is useless and a waste of time. Many here pointed out the discrepancy between his rhetoric and facts before the election, with no result.
And what is really heard here still? Obaaaahhma, Obaaaahma.
I am not arguing with your statement.
People have unrealistic expectations of our electoral system. Basically we get a choice between bad and horrible. Obama may be an eloquent and charismatic spaeker, but his policy proposals during the campaign were mild in compariso to his stirring rhetoric.
I had low expectations of Obama and never thought that he was the exception to the "lesser of two evils" choice that the two parties have given us every four years during my lifetime.
The only way to effect change is to organize and paticipate in group action. It takes dedicated groups of people who are willing to fight and take personal risks.
No matter who's the leader, our system's elites won't give up power and privelege without a fight. A lot of folks hide behind the consensus and conflict resolution theory of the left and are convinced that it's in bad taste to be forceful in the pursuit of peace and justice. They feel required to be mellow and nice.
Many refer to Ghandi when they criticize or reject militancy. But Ghandi said that the non-violent struggle was the most difficult personally. The non-violent activist had to throw his entire life into the struggle. Also Ghandi said that violent action was preferable to apathy and no action at all. Contemplate that all you lame liberals.
Conservatives love violence.
What are you tring to say ezeflyer?
I'm not conservative and I'm not advoacting - shudder - violence.
But violent struggle is still better than no struggle at all. I make this point not to advocate violence but to point out that the failure to struggle for paece and justice is even worse than violent struggle. This is beacuse a failure to confront the war mongers and greed heads allows a very violent system to continue unopposed.
The Battle for Seattle is a good example of militant action that worked. We cannot shrink from conflict and expect that the militarists and capitalists will make a better world for us.
The Battle for Seattle was a peaceful liberal demonstration attacked by violent conservative reactionaries. Liberals won by bravely putting their bodies in the way of truncheons and tear gas. But I know what you mean.
A lot of union men and women there too. I guess they're "liberal."
The Seattle WTO protesters intended to block access to WTO delegates and thereby shutdown the convention. The Northwest cops were not prepared with a sufficient massively brutal response, and we won one.
But now the same NWO free tradin conservatives and liberal Masters of The Universe are draining the US Treasury directly into Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. See that's called efficient government. They've elimninated the middle-men. You know all those pesky factories and workers and clerks. And you and me...
What a nauseatingly immoral essay.
Here we are, a few days after Obama promised to protect torturers, with Solomon writing: "We shouldn't let him off the hook any more than we should refuse to acknowledge his positive actions, such as progressive aspects of his proposed budget."
According to that logic, if you see a known child rapist help a little old lady cross the street, you should praise him for his kindness.
Torture is not just one issue among many, morally on par with "progressive aspects of [Obama's] proposed budget." In any civilized society, torture should be so far beyond the pale that anyone who supports or justifies it would be immediately condemned. If Obama comes around on the torture issue, then we can start praising him when he deserves it; until then, he deserves nothing but contempt.
John Mitchell
Very well said.
Stormin Norman doesn't want to admit to us that he wasted his vote! He spent all that time needlin us to vote for Obama that somehow he thinks that if we spend all that time needlin Obama that he'll somehow do the 'right thing'! But why, Norman? Why would he?
You answer that one and I'll answer why he won't. MONEY counts more than your and our stupid 'votes' do, and that's why he'll do all the wrong things.
He's MONEY's candidate and not the candidate that got 'votes'. When people like Mike the Microphone and Storming Norman finally develop some understanding of how capitalist 'democracy' actually works, won't that be a Grand Day!
YES NORMAN. YES YES YES.
It is time for the people to RISE up. Why are you all quiet? Now more than ever we need street demonstrations.
It seems to me that Pres. Obama would like to be more liberal, but he needs help. Contribute all the political capital you can (as he has explicitly
requested), though not without conditions of progressive reform.
Persephone returns.
Have a beautiful EARTH DAY!
Yeah, he really demonstrated that with his chosen appointees.
That is what is, not what some hoped it otherwise would be.
A yoga teacher doesn't expect an 80 year old beginning yoga student to compete with a 20 year old rubbery adept. I don't expect Bushie to compete politically with Obama. Obama is, for a politician at least, an A student. When President Obama doesn't live up to his own abilities, I am sorry. When he does, I'm happy.
Well, yes, he is a politician.
you have to be more than sorry because Norman correctly points out Obama is a master of speaking towards the center of political gravity. We MUST bring the center of poliotical gravity to the left. We MUST march on the streets and protest protest protest.
You see, this was the strategy: Elect the Democrat no matter what to make sure McCain doesn't win, then we can think about supporting a third party later...how much time do you think we have before the whole house of cards (credit cards included) crumbles?
Supporting a third party later?
How about a 3rd party that is a real contender now? What is a real contender? You need at least 50 million votes to have a chance before the whole house of cards crumbles... and when it does, the revolution takes off.
There are well more than 50 million greens, independents, socialists, communists, and "progressive" democrats that hold their nose and vote "lesser evil" or would rather be on the winning team than vote their concsience... Even their strategy fails election after election, these "idealists" can't face the reality that they were stealing a vote from Nader or McKinney with every vote wasted on a "blue dog" democrat...
It appeases their conscience enough after fulfilling their civic duty one day out of every four years, then the suburban soccer mom's and coffee shop liberals return to the golden slumber of willful ignorance of the millions of Americans who are working to build a healthier society and localized economies based on cooperation and respect... The least they could do is have the courage to support the "realists" running for office...
Though you are right on about the war, your support of Mr. Obama owes us an apology.
Just say it plainly: "I was wrong to support Mr. Obama for president."
Are you so full of yourself that you can't admit your malfeasance to the public?
I voted for Obama but I am not wrong.
I was worried about an extreme right wing takeover... That is not wrong.
But like Jerry says you can sleep easy because whoever you voted for didn't have a chance in the real world of Hard Ball politics.
Does that make you right? That is right for you and everyone has there own reasons for the vote they make.
Show me a presidential candidate who can unite the country for truth justice and peace and I will vote for the lesser of 3 evils.
Jim,
Your opinion counts on election day; OK.
But, Mr. Obama is a trickster. Example: The European Air Bus was just awarded a 40 billion dollar contract to build the new air refueling jet for the United States Air Force. In the context of all the economic dislocation in the auto industry, you have been tricked into voting for a shill of the financial industry, who doesn't give a damn about American jobs.
BTW, the contract to build is only 40 billion, but the continued support over the life of those aircraft will be worth another 80 billion.
If Mr. Obama cared about America he would have vetoed the Air Bus contract and given it to Boeing, to be built here in the US, not China.
You took Mr. Obama at face value. You believed Mr. McCain would have been worst, OK. But, it would be nice if you would now admit that you got snookered, cheated, and lied to; and that you acted in a foolish manner. (Yes, I believe too that Mr. McCain would have been "worse"), but it does not look that way now.
McKinney, or Nader, or Kucinich all would have been better Presidents. And you probably voted for the same old parties for Congress, too.
I cannot see how your arrogant, unrepentant attitude will help our nation have "change we can believe in?"
A little humility in the face of such abject failure would be appreciated by those of us who saw these shills for what they are.
"I voted for Obama but I am not wrong.
I was worried about an extreme right wing takeover..."
Lol!
Solomon: "When President Obama takes a progressive step, it has been made possible by progressive activism. When President Obama takes an anti-progressive step, it has been facilitated by progressives muting their criticism."
Simple as that is it, Mr. Solomon? Every "step" Obama takes, right or wrong, was "facilitated" or "made possible" by progressives, either because they criticized or they muted their criticism. Wow, what a generous definition of our power, seems we're the mouse that does or doesn't roar, and the world spins or stands still in response. I know you intended it as a motivator of progressive criticism of Obama, but doesn't the motivation need to be balanced by recognition that a great deal depends on other forces than our own actions or inactions? Otherwise, you get the "sick and tired" expressions of Obama critics (like that of Vern in a post above) that every thing "wrong" with his decisions (and by the way, you didn't mention a single specific thing that he had done "right") is our responsibility. That way lies a heavy burden of guilt that suggests the guilt-mongering of the stereotypical "Jewish mother," not really a recipe for the most healthy upbringing of self-reliant and self-confident children.
I would prefer to come at the "preaching" to progressives more in the mold of existentialist philosophy as exemplified in Camus' "Myth of Sisyphus." The stone which kept rolling down the mountain didn't roll because of Sisyphus' "muted criticism" of it, but because the gods had condemned him to keep rolling it up the mountain as a reflection of his human effort to pursue the "impossible dream," which is worthy of doing precisely because it IS impossible. No amount of progressive stone-rolling is going to produce your postulated results in "moving" Obama left-ward. But, in the existentialist view, we as humans are not allowed any excuse-making about not trying the impossible because we are "condemned to freedom"; and our "I can't do that" complaints are just instances of "bad faith" efforts to relief ourselves of the effort.
Maybe it's just me, but I can get more mileage in my own motivation by a resigned recognition that I am not going to succeed in putting the progressive stone permanently on top of the mountain, than I can from your simplistic formula that tells me I am "responsible" when my efforts don't succeed. Manys the time I've had a student tell me that he/she can't complete this academic task (like writing a term paper) because "it's impossible" and I've told him/her: yeah it's impossible, now do it. And the result is usually an acceptable if not perfect result.
By the same token, I have not and will not, like "Obama delegate" Solomon and many other Progressives for Obama, say I won't support a third party candidate because he/she can't win. I supported McKinney in the last election and have no reason to criticize myself or her other supporters because she didn't win. I sleep really well of nights knowing I don't have to "apologize" for my candidate or say that she will only do the "right" thing if I don't mute my "criticism" of her. But I'll stop before I start reciting more lines from Man of La Mancha.
Sioux Rose
Jerry: Excellent post. I particularly resonate with the 3rd paragraph citing the reference to Sisyphus. I do believe nature is taking a hand in giving us progressives some assistance. Clearly the paradigm of global corporate capitalism without conscience is meeting its own antitheses, partially in the form of limited resources and climate change. And let us not forget how it's falsified its own tender by rendering the dollar a fake abstraction of wealth, one now quite clearly reflective of a now bygone era.
Right, Sioux, you can get downright Marxist here, capitalism sowing the seeds of its own destruction, etc. If "history" is on your side, you feel a bit less forlorn, do you not?
♪ And the world will be better for this:
Jerry Rose, scorned and covered with scars
Still strove with his last ounce of courage
To prove Solomon is subpar! ♪
______________________________________
Your eloquent and trenchant comment speaks for me-- except that I voted for Nader. McKinney didn't get on the ballot in PA.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Thanks, Obedient Servant, but Don Quixote I ain't and Rodgers and Hammerstein you ain't, and it will never hit broadway. But that's OK, I can take it!
GOOD POST JERRY,
I like what you told your student "Yeah its impossible so just do it!".
But don't blame yourself too hard for failure either because you can't expect to win them all.
Yes the best thing about voting for someone who you know can't win is you don't have to feel guilty when they screw up and you get lots of good sleep.
But maybe if the 3rd parties, Independents and sick and tired Dems and Repubs formed a new coalition for Truth Justice and Peace, we may have a chance even if it is impossible.
Thanks Jim, glad to meet you again if only for the moment in cyber-space.
On your second sentence, I think you kind of misread my post: I'm not blaming myself for any "failures," I'm blaming if anything the "fate" that dooms us more or less to failure, and I can live pretty comfortably in my "despair." That's what a healthy dose of existentialism can do for you!
On your last sentence I'd like to cross arms with you in pledging my life and sacred honor to promoting precisely the Alliance of the Pissed Off that you articulate there. I'm having a little luck rounding up for direct e-mail exchange a coterie of like-minded people in Florida (for maybe some direct get-togethers) and for people everywhere who'd like to communicate off the www and haved dropped my e-mail address on a couple of CD posting threads asking people to contact me as a "first move" toward getting such a direct exchange going. Feel free (and others feel free as well) to use it (though I think have your e-address already): jerrydrose11@yahoo.com. That 11 is an eleven and you have to type that address into the To: box on your mail compose. As Joan Rivers says, let's talk!
What I see happening sooner or later is the Republican Party moving toward far right and becoming a fringe party (it is happening right now), Democrats becoming a new Republican Party and fully and openly adopting their center-right ideology, and the emergence of the left with a third party.
If Obama's presidency turns out to be a failure - by which I mean more war, no real reforms (health-care, energy, environment, banking, etc.) - it will probably happen sooner rather than later. Availability of information on the internet and less and less reliance on mass media, especially by young people, combined with economic hardships, are bound to shake things up a bit.
Of course, it could be just wishful thinking on my part.
Bea, the scenario you describe may be "wishful thinking," but as I think you feel, it's not at all unlikely, given the direction that things are going with both our "major" parties. When that happens, and well before it happens, we progressives had best be ready to find or create a party that will channel into our support the legions of the disillusioned who will be looking for a way to have the view of the majority of Americans reflected in the behavior of their leaders. See my response elsewhere on this comment thread to the post by Jim Glover and please consider using the mechanism suggested there for people like you and me to
"get together" to make this preparation a reality. I'm not too worried about either "supporting" or "opposing" Obama, I think he's a lost cause to progressiveness of nearly all of the Democratic party, so we really have a choice of either "dropping out" of progressive activism or finding an alternative way of practicing it.
Bea April,
Something for you to consider ... in the United States, since the end of WWII, both dominant political parties simply represent variations of Liberalism. For the most part, old guard Liberal-socialists (Roosevelt / Truman Democrats) are now the Liberal-Progressives and the one-time Liberal-Conservatives are today's Liberal-Corporatists (the Fascist-lite Neo-cons). If you don't believe me, closely examine the policies-in-action of the two major political parties during the last 60 years. With a few exceptions, it's Liberalism!
At present, Ron Paul's Libertarians and the hangers-on at The John Birch Society come the closest to being a truly conservative political movement. Ironically, many of Ron Paul's ideas fall very near those of Liberal-Progressives. The real difference between Liberal-Progressives and Libertarians is Libertarians demand accountability and responsibility in fiscal taxing and spending, something anathema to Liberals of all stripes.
Have a great day!
It is, to put it mildly. quite puzzling why Norman Solomon and others somehow believe that Obama will listen to the plea of progressives. Obama did not listen to those Americans who told him during the presidential campaign that they wanted him to stop funding the illegal and immoral occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. He did not listen when progressives told him that they wanted a single payer health care system in this country. He did not listen when he was told that the Bush administration should be prosecuted for torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity that they have committed against the Iraqi and Afghan people. He did not listen when Kucinich and other progressives told him that Bush and Cheney should be impeached for what they have done against the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan.
It should never be forgotten that Obama told a CNN correspondent last summer that the United States has no need to apologize for what its foreign policy has wrought to the citizens of third world countries. By keeping troops in Iraq and sending even more troops into Afghanistan and by ordering drone missiles into Pakistan, people like Solomon should realize that Obama is just another warmongering president who believes that only he has the wisdom to know what is the correct path to follow. As Lance Selfa accurately points out in his most relevant book The Democrats: A Critical History, the Democrats are just as desirous to make war and to bow to the desires of corporate power at the expense of the working class and the poor as the Republicans, if not more so. This would certainly include the [alleged] agent of change, Barack Hussein Obama.
"It is, to put it mildly. quite puzzling why Norman Solomon and others somehow believe that Obama will listen to the plea of progressives. Obama did not listen to those Americans who told him during the presidential campaign that they wanted him to stop funding the illegal and immoral occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. He did not listen when progressives told him that they wanted a single payer health care system in this country. He did not listen when he was told that the Bush administration should be prosecuted for torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity that they have committed against the Iraqi and Afghan people. He did not listen when Kucinich and other progressives told him that Bush and Cheney should be impeached for what they have done against the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan."
Perhaps, serving as our tabla rasa, Barack Obama reasons that until more than a minority of us speak and act, he alone cannot change a thing. He has said that what happens is up to the American people.
We do need to start being able to TRUST our fellow Americans to see the light and join in a national demand for popular rights and policy investigations. We really don't have anything else, but we don't need anything else.
It is NOT up to the American people! The gulf between what the American people want and what the government does is wider than ever. The people want out of Iraq, the people want single payer, the people do NOT want all their wealth to benefit us all thrown at corrupt, greedy Wall st gamblers.
That consciousness is the beginning of putting the pressure on for anything, on anyone, anywhere.
Yes!! The people have spoken!!
We have to harness-- organize -- that desire for change.
Help more people get what they want.
Unless I'm mistaken, that's the job of progressives, isn't it?
We have the skills.
We need to organize people to get up and away from their keyboards.
To take action:
- letters and phone calls to Congressional reps & Senators
- letters to local officals (State gov't representatives, City, County)
- letters (OK, emails, too) to the editors of what remains of our daily papers
- seek meetings with these officials and City leaders (lobby them!)
- attend your local City Council meetings- usually they allow opportunities for people (citizens) to speak. So, SAY WHAT YOU THINK!!
- get others who agree with you to do these same things (write, lobby, call)
- take the officials, corporations & gov't to court if these actions don't work
- create your OWN legislation (laws)
It's called grassroots/community organizing. And guess what? It works.
Not 100%, but imagine if we NEVER did it?
YES, it takes time, but here we are taking so much time to write (and rant) on blogs like CD.
Maybe our time would be better spent doing more of the above things?
ACTION, not thumb-twiddling.
First, can we dispense with the constant badgering about online thumb-twiddling--it has proven itself to be a valuble organizing tool--and somewhat has filled the role of alternative press--at least the Right was patting itself on the back recently for its online tea party organizing. When big numbers were on the street at the unset of the Iraq invasion, many liberal publications, like the Nation, attacked ANSWER for anti-semitism (a campaign spearheaded by Michael Lerner) and engaged in red-baiting--which served to weaken organizational strenth. The suthor of this article writes, or at least used to write for the Nation. Don't you find a bit or irony in that?
"The people want out of Iraq, the people want single payer, the people do NOT want all their wealth to benefit us all thrown at corrupt, greedy Wall st gamblers."
The point I was making is it doesn't matter what the people want--so what good will pressure do? People out of work do not have the luxury of being a full time activist on every front just to have a crumb or two fall from the table.
Penelope:
Letters take a very long time to get to a member of Congress because of the safety procedures instituted after the anthrax attacks; in fact it's doubtful they ever get there. Emails are much better and faster. And for those who can't afford to call long distance, emails again are the best alternative.
Contrary to your assertion, one's keyboard is probably the best way to influence one's representative. That's also where one finds online petitions.
Rainborowe
It also should never be forgotten that, unlike something like 80% of the cowards throughout the USA, Obama was publically speaking out against the Iraq war in 2002.
I remember that year vividly. I lost friends because I had the gall to tell them the truth.
I think the lesson we learn here is that Obama is not a savior or a messiah or even that much different from you or I. He is a lawyer and a politician.
Physicscitizens
I do not believe that your are being completely honest about Obama. While he may have spoken out against the Iraq War he also continued to fund that misadventure as well as the occupation in Afghanistan, speaking of which, the [alleged] antiwar president still, like LBJ, escalates.
Hold on there physicscitizen ...
True, Obama spoke against the war in Iraq but then voted to fund it. For the most part, hypocrisy is the Obama way.
He may have spoke out some, a little, in 2002 but he never met a war bill he didn't vote in favor of. And in 2009, he's all for it.
"He is a lawyer and a politician" And how does one tell when a lawyer and a politician it lying? His mouth is moving.
'Don't get fooled again' - Pete Townsend
"Rather than serving, yet again, as enablers for a Democratic administration to pursue a corporate-friendly course, progressives should be pushing hard in the opposite direction."
Oh come on. I am so sick of these lectures of how we have to pressure Obama to do the obviously right thing on a score of issues. Who has the time and luxury to hound him on everything--how could it be that he doesn't know? Certainly, nearly all of appointees reflect a different agenda.
What do you suggest we do? Attend demonstrations that might as well never happen for all the coverage they get. And when they are successful, publications like, you know, The Nation, engage in red-baiting campaigns against the organizers--or corporate liberal Dparty partisans like Olbermann scoff at the G20 protestors. Then there are the Intellectuals who hold activists like Code Pink or the old Act-Up antics as silly and frivolous--though they are on the frontlines everyday. What should we do, write our congressman? Sign a petition? C'mon.
"I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views."
Castro is correct when he refers to Obama as "superficial".
"Sign a petition?"
Yes! And right after I signed a few online petitions Obama reversed himself on prosecuting those who ordered torture. I think he should prosecute those who did it, too, though.
There is also a petition (which I have also signed) to impeach Jay Bybee, a federal judge, who was one of the fabricators of the "legality" of torture.
It only takes a minute but we do have to hold his feet to the fire.
Rainborowe
yes...unlike George Bush or Sarah Palin....
Obama has pursued the agenda that he set out in detail on his campaign web site. did you bother to ever read it? Many people claiming he was 'superficial' and 'had no plan' obviously never did. He has deviated from it only under great pressure and only when unanticipated circumstances arose.
He is a politician. I would not expect him to behave otherwise. So far, as a politician he certainly is a cut above what we have been used to.
You can give up if you want. Indeed, if everyone does then we have certainly seen a taste of what government we will get....exactly the one we deserve.
Of course, but there has been some revisionist history going on.
There was the possibility (now pretence, I suppose) that there would actually be a modicum of change other than okaying a few more stem cell lines.
Who knew he would be a disaster?
But lets be real here--on the one hand any real criticism or attempts to hold Obama accountible are dismissed by either those who claim he isn't any different than he ever claimed (than what would be the point of expecting anything otherwise?) or by those wanting to defend Obama against legitimate criticism (in that case how is pressuring possible if he is given hold-out cover still hoping against hope?).
So don't give me your shit about giving up when you have already embraced a fatalist view.
"Rather than serving, yet again, as enablers for a Democratic administration to pursue a corporate-friendly course, progressives should be pushing hard in the opposite direction."
So, what does the term "progressive" mean? And, does this mean that progressives as a whole have swung rightward following Bill Clinton and others who did the same?
Frames. The word "Democrat" should no longer be equated with "progressive" (though, that term is very vague). Some Democrats may be progressive, but as a voting bloc, Democrats are NOT progressive - they are pro-corporate.
The other part of this article is that many see Obama as not doing anything right. As if they could do any better. This is a tough job in a tough world, and while pushing for our own agenda we should stop once in a while and acknowledge that Obama is doing good things too. As my father used to remind me: It could be worse.
Here here!
I like your post.
And to paraphrase your father...We all know that it WAS worse!
I see no reason to support Obama, or any politician, in a knee jerk fashion.
One of the greatest political coup's the repugs have pulled off though is to create a party that as a base which does exactly that. It has taken a very long time to even crack that foundation and it can re-form at any time.
"Today, similar mumbling about Afghanistan attests to the repetition compulsion disorder of the U.S. warfare state."
It's NOT a disorder as such. Quite simply, it's the Military Industrial Complex
whose motivation is greed.Maybe greed is a disease, but I see it more as a learned behavior....more....more....more.
MIC=greed
greed is not a victimless crime
Let me look back over the history of time as best I can & see if there are any politicians I trust? And so there I was walking onto a used car lot. The question became, let me see how much I trust these people?
Well, they're dressed nice, have a nice office, and a big friendly smile. They shook my hand firmly so these used car salespeople be nice people I can trust?
Nice people like those at Executives at Firestone who knowingly sold defective tires that killed & maimed people all over planet earth! You know those nice people with their nice clothes, & their nice offices, and big friendly smiles. Why people like that would never knowingly sell defective tires that would kill & main people?
Strange, but according to your Nation's laws that could be close to 1st degree murder?
But it isn't my job to judge your Nation or the human race.
Life is good. What an experience! It's always best to forgive
But I saw Bill Clinton on TV defending signing off on Glass-Stegall, about a month ago.
On Solomon's warnings, I'd like us to hold our fire until two major policy initiatives unfold. One is universal health insurance, the other is Mideast peace. A whole lot is riding on those fraught issues. If Obama comes through on them, he will need our unstinting support. Lets wait a little while longer. Today's economic context is almost entirely unprecedented.
I bet you that Israel will attack Iran before summer. Then it will be too fucking late to criticize Mr. Wonderful Obaaaaaahhma.
I hope you are young and healthy enough to get drafted into the military. Then you can take a bullet defending the House Negro.
Did I dream this up or did Obama extort Hamas by saying he would not give Gaza the proposed 900 million in post holocaust aid unless Hamas agreed to recognize israel the country which refuses to declare it's bounderies?
If he did in fact attempt this extortion wipe the stardust out of your eyes and hammer Obama and his chief of staff Rahm Son of Irgun.
Health Care; there is no single payer on the table, why wait to hammer Obama on that also?
"universal health insurance"
I'm glad you used this term instead of universal health CARE. What we're going to get from O-blah-blah is the same thing we have in Massachusetts - Mandatory Health Insurance and disappearing actual health CARE. The only winners in the O-blah-blah plan will be the big insurance companies, just like in MA.
As to Mideast peace - forget about it. O-blah-blah will hold the line with Israel which means no peace ever.
'Don't get fooled again' - Pete Townsend
Agreed in most part. However, it is never good to wait too long before giving one's honest opinion. Silence is how people are enabled to keep doing what THEY think is right, only because they are not getting the feedback they really need.
I'm not one to jump on Obama for every perceived slight, but he needs our input and has said so.
Universal health insurance and Mideast peace are extremely important, but so are 23 other things. There is never a right time to give one's opinion other than now.
I think we can forget about Mid-East peace. Obama is completely in AIPAC's pocket, along with his chosen Chief of Staff. Any "peace" will be dictated by the execrable Netanyahu and the blatantly racist Lieberman (the Israeli one, that is).
I suspect we can also forget about healthcare unless it involves a huge giveaway to the insurance companies, which will itself price it out of the means of most people.
Rainborowe
Note: The Clinton administration did not support repeal of Glass-Stegall.
In fact, the Clinton White House fought Gramm's bill as hard as it could, but powerful Congressional Dems wanted to kill Glass-Steagall. The White House fought them as well as Gramm on this issue. Clinton signed the bill because it had a veto-proof majority. The battle was over.
As blogger Joe Cannon notes, "Clinton fought to get the best deal that he could, but gale-force political winds were against him."
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/09/hard-times-blame-clinton.html
This little-known fact confutes the common meme--implied in the OP--that there is no significant difference between the parties and that they both essentially work for the bankers. If this were true, Clinton would have supported Glass-Steagall.
As he did in the primary season, N. Soloman works as a loyal opposition mouthpiece. The man makes sense - if one resigns to live inside the box of the one party state, siding with the Dem wing. I suppose he's too old and/or too entrenched with his liberal career sum to imagine a collective conduct appropriate for the 21st century. Soloman would be amusing, his post 60's retro-think, were we not in the grips of this period's severe, savage national and global challenges to our survival, the survival of humanity, the planet. Mr. Soloman, your wing, the Dems, surrendered to the one party state corptocracy in the 50's, with Harry "the Bomb" Truman.Yours is no more than artificial life support for a dead man, the Democratic party.
The progressive response to the current period of betrayals and corruptions? Shut down the country. Pull the Plug. Workers,Students,all groups under various names can commit local, regional and general strikes, boycotts of the IRS, occupations of physical sites like closed factories, plants and schools. REVOLUTION! MILITANT NON VIOLENCE. We have the brain trust among us to formulate humain, sustainable policies. The one party state is suiciding the natrion.
Proof you are wrong: Rubin and Summers help write the legislation to repeal Glass-Steagall.
Look it up.
When CD readers see a post signed by 'Perry logan,' they should simply think "Dem Party apologist." What immediately follows is invariably some offensively ignorant hogwash defending the nonexistent "honor" of Bill Clinton.
Clinton was the sellout's sellout, a sleazy con artist who stood politically to the right of Richard Nixon (over whose grave he mawkishly blubbered, when the latter went to his just rewards in 1994, 15 years ago to this day). Clinton stood over Nixon's grave and said, on national TV, "We'll not see his like again." This was about Richard F*cking Nixon!
After betraying progressives left & right for 8 years in the White House, Clinton spent the next 8 years ostentaciously sucking up to the Bush family, desperately trying to be the family's 5th son. He never lifted a finger to oppose the stolen election of 2000, never took a stand against the Iraq war, & never found anything to criticize in George W Bush at all. Instead, he hung out with Daddy Bush on the golf course & at Kennebunkport, eating cheeseburgers like a pig. Once in August 2003 when Larry King was addressing some shocking revelation about Bush Jr's lies about "Saddam's WMD," Bill Clinton, shameless whore that he is, phoned into the program to defend George W.
Best post I've read in quite awhile, Mr. Dave. Wish I could match your eloquence. You got it right. And, Obama is shaping up to be Clinton II.
No excuse.
Clinton should have let them try to override his veto and his name could not ever have been put to the issue. In fact, he should have screamed much more loudly about it from the bully pulpit, juxtaposing the likely horrible consequences of a financial system without Glass-Steagall against the previous 66 years of a relatively sound one with it. The battle was over because Clinton triangulated and capitulated for political expediency, since the '00 elections were fast approaching.
I'm tired of the revisionists letting these self-absorbed thugs off the hook.
Agreed. This kind of error can be made for good motives when one's cutting deals. If that's what happened, this was bad judgment.
If not, worse.