Published on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 by Central Jersey.com
Obama: 'Tilting at Windmills' or Selling Out the Left?
This paragraph from this morning's New York Times story on proposed financial-sector regulations is becoming all too common in the early days of the Obama administration:
Although it would strikingly reorganize the regulatory architecture, the president’s plan results from many compromises with industry executives and lawmakers, and is not as bold as some had hoped.It is as if the folks surrounding the president -- and the president himself -- forgot Rahm Emanuel's pre-inauguration comment, essentially the raison d'etre for the Obama administration:
“Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” Mr. Emanuel said in an interview on Sunday. “They are opportunities to do big things.”I said early on -- more than a year ago, back in the early days of the primary campaign -- that Barack Obama was a politician at war with himself: It was obvious that his instincts were liberal/progressive, coming from his background as a community organizer; that he was cautious to a fault and too wed to the notion of bipartisanship (the basic thesis of his book, The Audacity of Hope).
For voters, however, he represented their hopes and aspirations -- often competing hopes -- his persona being a political Rohrschach test. Many on the left viewed him as a potential progressive ally, someone likely to revive the tradition of an aggressively activist government in the mode of FDR and LBJ (on domestic issues), ignoring his ties to the coal and financial industries, his vote on bankruptcy reform and forgiving his backpedaling during the campaign on telecom immunity and other progressive issues.
The reality is that Obama is, in many ways, a better version of Bill Clinton, less divisive and nominally more progressive, but just as pragmatic and just as committed to that vague third way that too often seeks to split the difference to keep dissent at a minimum. So far, the president has spent far more time trying to appease the more conservative elements of his own party and attract the few remaining moderates left in the GOP than using his strength among his party's progressive base to push his agenda through.
The stimulus, Guantanamo, gay rights, climate change, health care, financial regulation -- on nearly every policy goal -- he has been willing to jettisone the more progressive elements of his policies to keep moderates on the reservation.
Obama doesn't deny this kind of calculus. A quotation of his from the Times story:
“Did, you know, any considerations of sort of politics play into it? We want to get this thing passed, and, you know, we think that speed is important. We want to do it right. We want to do it carefully. But we don’t want to tilt at windmills.”Progressives are not asking him to "tilt at windmills"; they're asking him to craft tough policy. If they -- we -- want him to be more aggressive, then progressives need to become more aggressive and make sure that the president knows that he can't keep selling the left out.
© 2009 Central Jersey
Posted in beyond obama, progressive moment
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
46 Comments so far
Show AllIsn't it wonderful to have a forum where so many pseudo-intellectuals can practice their make believe wisdom? I'm not speaking to everyone here, but it's easy enough to separate the wheat from the chaff for those I'm not speaking to.
Of course Obama lied - he's a politician. Of course he's splitting the difference, because no matter which way he turns he has significant opposition. He has Republicans on the right just waiting to pounce on any issue they can, and Democrats in the center invested with their constituency in maintaining the status quo, and daydreamy progressives on the left childishly wanting right this minute what can only be realistically achieved over a period of time. There has always been (or should have been) the understanding that even a single 4-year term might not be enough. There has always been (or should have been) the awareness for the old cliche of how Rome wasn't built in a day. Get real people!!
I am not an Obama apologist but, for crying out loud, the whining and complaining on this forum is pathetic. THERE'S NOT ONE AMONGST YOU FOLK HERE THAT CAN EVEN BEGIN TO RIVAL THE MAN in terms of understanding the realities of Washington politics and organizing a platform that extends to more than a handful of malcontents and ideologues. Of course he spoke to the finer ideals we wanted to hear, while knowing within he would face insurmountable difficulties and challenges in actually accomplishing those hopes. Only a fool could believe he would be able to step into the office and make radical changes all at once. Even if they actually believed he could go against the powers and influence embedded in every level of Washington.
Once again it is necessary for me to say how politics is not about pushing an agenda, politics is about the art of the doable.
Having said that, I understand the concerns, and agree that Washington, the international corporatacracy and the MIC, etc, no longer represents or perhaps even cares about the common American. In fact, I've understood for almost 4 decades now how the intent to bankrupt America was being played out, in order to move us toward that new world order being planned FOR US.
What is so damned annoying and depressing about so much of the rhetoric here is the virtually complete inability to see beyond the politician. I mean gee whiz, that's like asking a CEO to take a pay cut so he can keep an extra hundred or so employees on the job. You don't realistically expect that to happen, do you? So why do you expect a !@#$% politician to do it? In a day when our nation's politics are completely controlled by big money and power it is stupid to expect the "man" in Washington to sell out his own interests for yours. Until perhaps we can restrict the influence in Washington and can begin to "believe" again.
It's time to get real and figure out what you can learn and do, instead of bellyaching and carrying on blaming others for your own delusion and demise.
You are quite mistaken. Obama is not doing "the possible." He's pushing the agenda of right-wing corporate rule.
Your views only make sense if fascism is the immutable natural order. Fortunately, for all of us, history shows otherwise. We don't give up as easily as you do.
-TIA
LOL - You're well rehearsed in deconstructive analyses then, aren't you?
You want that I should accept your supposition for how I'm mistaken and then you draw a completely erroneous conclusion about me giving up. And that perfectly illustrates the virtually complete inability for most folks on this forum to a) logically assemble thoughts, and b) actually relate those thoughts with real world actions, as you would have us believe you can do by your handle.
My point went to the same simple principle taught over and over again to those whom would be wiser and more productive - anybody can complain and whine and bicker, but if you don't have a solution or aren't part of the solution that shut the !@@#$ up! Opinions are like a__holes, everybody has one. That has nothing to with giving up. To the contrary, that's plainly saying grow up.
If you had half the wit you think you do, you would realize that corporate rule is a capitalistic phenomena, not a political one. Just as Rothchild stated centuries ago, "give me a centralized banking system and I care not who makes your laws." Same is true of corporate rule - they buy and trade and peddle their influence with both political parties, which goes to my central point about learning to look past the politician and the politics to the actual issues at hand.
And you'll have to really stretch to make logical sense out of your statement about fascism. You remind me of the students I use to blow out of the water when it comes to convoluting simple logic into the most absurd conclusions.
And just what is it that history shows, aside from the rise and fall of civilizations, the tendency of power to corrupt, and the inevitable demise that follows from the vanity of man-kings?
So just what is it you're doing anyway, aside from totally misreading me, and what I've written?
What is your point? You seem only capable of hurling insults.
You've blown no one out of the water with any arguments at all. You've just shown a propensity for bullying.
I've done what I can in terms of being politically active, but it's all about what people think, not what I've done, that leads to enduring positive change. You, however, argue about following the status quo. Good luck there, and count me out.
And hey genius. Look up the definition of fascism. I mean Mussolini's. It's all about corporatism, nationalism and militarism. You don't have to see arm salutes in the square to have it.
-TIA
Oh hurl hurl hurl, makes me want to hurl.
My point is you thought you were making a cogent point - you didn't. You misread me and what I said.
The sadness is that we are on the same side of the larger issue, but you can't see, just as many here cannot, how to look past the trees and see the forest.
I am not in the least supporting the status quo, or defending fascism.
Fascism is just another label, as all words are just tools to express ideas, and they never go to the idea itself. Just as a road map is not the territory. You can use a road map to help you navigate but it doesn't tell you the true nature of the road or the terrain or the people and things along the road or virtually anything of the experience of the territory itself.
You would liken all fascists and views of fascism as being one in the same. They are not. Just as folks here endlessly use normative terms without understanding the greater context and relationships that distinguishes one person's use of the terms from another. That's the point of deconstructive analysis, to get beyond the surface and to dig deeper into the context, underlying assumptions, objectives and conclusions of the author and audience.
Since you're such a genius yourself, why don't you look up the difference between normative and positive statements. If you do that, and actually learn it, you will realize the flaw in both your comments to me. But of course, deconstructive analysis is a tough discipline that few are taught and even fewer master.
My original point stands, and you have helped make it. Folks here would rather bicker and get lost in political chatter and the expression of unsupportable personal opinions rather than actually seek to learn to understand the greater issues, let alone do what it takes to actually make a difference or otherwise bring about their ideals. Folks love to clamor on as to what Obama should or shouldn't be doing and not one of the folks here to whom I directed my comments can even come close to organizing an effort resembling what he has accomplished.
Since it is so hard to discern for some, you and others here need to know I am not supporting Obama in saying that. What I am speaking against is the delusion of folks whom falsely think they are being intelligent and insightful without having the least ability to actually deconstruct the core issues or effect a solution others can actually rally around.
Good luck to you TIA!
The idea that only Progressives care about this is silly. Most of the people in this country care about this. Most people, while perhaps not articulate, thoughtful, or vocal, understand we've been had, that the banks should be broken up and too big to fail should go away.
People are also starting to understand that the Fed is not our friend. The R's understand this. Get ready of the return of the Republicans, meaner and nastier than ever. They will ultimately eat Obama and the Dems for lunch. Then Rahm, who told Daley to save his seat in Congress, will just start sucking at a different section of the public trough.
If the opposition does not come together and bridge differences, we're toast.
"Progressives are not asking him to "tilt at windmills"; they're asking him to craft tough policy. If they -- we -- want him to be more aggressive, then progressives need to become more aggressive and make sure that the president knows that he can't keep selling the left out."
I don't deny that Obama is not the progressive many hope for, or that he campaigned as. I have to wonder, though, just what he could possibly accomplish without Congress. The Republicans, we know about - stuck in a perpetual miasma of assholism. Thing is, there are conservative Democrats that require a move to the center/right too. Just what can a progressive president do under these circumstances, given the political system we have?
So, the question I asked myself before voting for Obama was whether I was willing to vote for half a cake, or none. I voted for half.
Obama is not a progressive saint, but he is more progressive than Clinton, IMO. I believe he wants to do far more than he will be able to, again, given the political constraints he is under. He could choose to hew the progressive line all the way, but he would be a lame duck by now, and that would serve us even less.
Progressives absolutely need to be much more vocal and adamant about our needs. The right is able to mobilize their base, and it works. The left needs to get over its sense of moral purity and push back - hard! There is no other way. We can't wait for the next election because it will be the same shit - always has been. WE need to do the work. In the streets, in emails, in letters to the editor, by phone, however - WE must push back hard or we are screwed, and we will have helped with the screwing.
Ted, I hope you are feeling some anger about now. You think (or thought?) that Obama is a progressive. However, let's admit it. Obama's actions have been rather right wing.
I'd like to hear a little more fire in the belly from you. You seem to think Obama just hasn't heard what the people want, even though he got elected campaigning on a pseudo-anti-war platform. He even promised to punish the telcos for violating the Fourth Amendment, but did the opposite. He says "America doesn't torture" while maintaining the Clinton/Bush extraordinary rendition policy. He continued Bush's wars on three fronts and just got tens of billions to do more of that. None of that was inevitable.
Congress seems to be going along with Obama's policies. I think you've got it backwards there.
I don't mean to pick on you. Progressive votes for the Green Party or Nader in the last election were about two percent of the total. Probably lots of people had the same rationale as you did and cast their votes for Obama.
Progressives dream of a day when loyal Dem voters will stop voting for the Democratic wing of the Business Party. The Dem Party likely does not support your interests, so why elect them? Fear of Republicans (the other side of the Business Party) just gets the country nowhere. Dems and Repugs are just two sides of the same coin.
You have to be clear about what you want and vote accordingly. If you were genuinely deceived, well then I apologize for my long reply. Part of the problem is that the Business Party duopoly has clamped down on democratic alternatives, and the system is winner take all. I think progressives have been clear and vocal, but it doesn't matter when you're ignored. The vast majority of loyal Dem voters make it possible for progressives to be ignored.
-TIA
Ted, I'm sure your aware that most of us in the Progressive Community HAVE been vocal and adamant to our needs and OUR agenda's as progressive liberals. The left needs to recognize that we are indeed leftist's and push our wants away from the Democratic Party which has given us the same song and dance over and over again. You are correct its time to push back and hard and its time to move towards a 3rd Party of Progressive liberals....together and say good-bye to the Democratic dances and tunes for change and hope which are really nothing more than window-dressing to keep the elite in power and have the Corporations run the show. Revolt, serious revolt needs to be made to make Washington D.C. Beltway aware that we will no longer "buy" their bull.
The Democratic Party has I'm afraid been infiltrated by the same issues within the Republican Party, greed, money, corruption and continuance of the Power structure for the Rich. Until a revolt is visable the windmills won't move and they won't even tilt!
I'm going to assume everything you've written is satirical. Because otherwise... Well, I don't want to get too insulting.
This author has "battered-progressive syndrome".
In lay terms, this is a reference to any person who, because they refuse to abandon the Democrats, becomes depressed and unable to take any independent action that would allow him or her to escape the abuse. The condition explains why abused people often do not seek assistance from others, fight their abuser, or leave the abusive situation.
Sufferers have low self-esteem, and often believe that the abuse is their fault. For example:
"If they -- we -- want him to be more aggressive, then progressives need to become more aggressive and make sure that the president knows that he can't keep selling the left out. "
Such persons usually refuse to press criminal charges against their abuser, and refuse all offers of help, often becoming aggressive or abusive to others who attempt to offer assistance (Nader). Often sufferers will even seek out their very abuser for comfort shortly after an incident of abuse.
I'm afraid once again the Progressives have been sold "a pig in a poke", we bought the Candidate Obama because of the past 8 years of living with the horror of the Republican Bush/Cheney years. We all hoped in his statements for Change and hope, we were waiting to see this Country shift, left politically. We wanted an accounting for the past 8 years under the Bush years, we waited with much anticipation for the coming of the Obama years.
Then as appointments like the Treasury Secetary, and Larry Summers rolled out, the sinking feeling in my stomach began. When I saw and heard that Obama really didn't want to hold anybody in the Bush Administration respondsible for the torture of our enemies, I realized we had elected just another Politican, better than the Republicans, but a man who's vision of this Country is colored towards continuing bipartisanship to accomplish his goals and the financial status Quo. His high sounding rheteric of the Campaign Trail, has crumbled into a series of fluff for mass consumption rather than principle.
His open denial to follow up on his promises to the GLBT community, womens issues, HealthCare for Americans, the ever expanding War in Afganistan and the swamp we call Iraq have left me feeling like once again I've been buggered by a Politican of the Democratic Party. Its really time for the Liberal Progressive members of this country to follow through with a threat we have made in the past. Stop sending the Democratic Party a Dime, drop out of their e-mail campaigns, refuse to volunteer to help them out. Change your Party Affliation from Democratic to either Independent or join a truly Progressive Party of vision, such as the Democratic Socialist Party of America.
Before all the words and pleas begin for the Mid-Term elections, lets send President Obama and his milk toast confederates in Congress a real message of hope and rebellion by OUR vision of change....drop out and back another horse that supports the Progressive views we so desperately need in this Country.
Blackbush conned the left. I think it is unfair to say he is selling out the left, he was never with the left. Buyer beware.
O'Bamba did his Lexus SUV-driving electorate a "royal favor" superficially relieving their class war guilt by associating the far-left with Quixote, which the Lexus-set views as fighting imaginary battles in pathetic futility. They still blame the 2000 oval orifice theft on the Quixotic Nader and his far-left base. With grotesque irony, the Lexus-set misunderstand in their worldly ignorance that the Quixote story's popularity arises from the connection many make with the practical successes of Quixotic idealism, particularly in South America and Europe where social equity is well established in the collective spirit. Latin Americans associate Don Quixote with Che Guevara, with Cuba's growing successes over the past forty years being seen as a growing vindication for Guevara and even Quixote, to the horror of the conflicted Demoks in the USA and their bed-mates and masters.
“They are opportunities to do big things.”
Bring on your big catastrophes, Rahm Emanuel. We need big heaps of Demok garbage for our garden composts. Don't forget who's responsible for one million Iraqi deaths, four million Iraqi refugees, and 25 million injured, traumatized, toxified Iraqis: The Demoks are responsible for all of it.
There were so many folks posting on this so well I can only say, thanks.
Obama has sold out if he ever was on the side of the peoiple. He is bought and paid for and his personal philosophy helps him sleep very well at night knowing he is a prostitute.
Obama may reject "tilting at windmills" when it comes to domestic policies that help the ordinary citizen instead of the banksters and political cronies.
But he's thrilled at every opportunity to go a-tilting at wedding parties and other innocents mistaken for The (Terrorist) Enemy.
Herein lies a contradiction.
· Yr Obd't Servant
The hypothesis that Obama"s heart Is in the South Chicago Projects while his political instincts are in bipartisan compromise is entirely plausible. He needs more audacity along with hope. Hope will be denied until Obama becomes more audacious.
I'd rather see you stoned on some dangerous narcotic drug than continue to hear that you buy that line. Whatever you think of Obama, consider the actions he's taken since being elected. Are those really the actions of a community organizer? It's time to get off the Obama hope drug, which is killing this country.
-TIA
I am SO soured on the word hope and its use by these corporate Democrats I want to throw up everytime I hear it. IMO, I will know CHANGE has come when the word hope is not heard.
"The man from Hope" brought US NAFTA and financial deregulation.
The "audacity of hope" seems to be bringing us......Disappointment.
I want action not hope.
He's already "audacious," just not in the manner you'd approve.
The hypothesis that Obama"s heart Is in the South Chicago Projects while his political instincts are in bipartisan compromise is entirely plausible. He needs more audacity along with hope. Hope will be denied until Obama becomes more audacious.
The only surprise left would be if Obama changes his party registration--he's broken practically every promise he ever made in the campaign. It's time to peel off.
"But we don’t want to tilt at windmills.”
Dear Borax Obysmal, formerly known as Barack Obama. People like me voted for you precisely because we expected you to tilt at windmills. Now you and your various Sancho Panzas, such as Top Ramen Emanuel and Veep Joe Bitters, can go tilt at the toilet. You'll need every last vote you can muster in 2012 because your cowardice is going to land you in the pig trough between now and then. When the Republicans run Glenn Beck and Tom Tancredo against you three and a half years from now and the polls are razor close, people like me will tell you to umph off. On the first Tuesday in November of 2012, you'll find me at home, sitting on my hands. Take your chickenshit some place else and play on it.
Sioux Rose
MORDECHAI: Since he's making so many of the wealthy elite proud what's to say they won't engineer the electronic voting machines to STILL suggest a win. If the public's mandate cannot be gotten through a colorful and elaborate show of smoke and mirrors, then when all else threatens to fail, there's always those touch screens or secret company computer codes ready to be utilized to create "the desired outcome." Public, be damned.
I wonder if the new campaign motto will go from "change" and "hope" to "change you can bank on... when your dollars run out."
Obama never promised anything concretely progressive. He did, I guess, want us to believe that he was "antiwar." It became obvious during the campaign that he wasn't.
This is all apparent for those who choose to see, but the issue is so many don't. They "trust" Obama and are willing to go along with whatever he does as Obama loots the treasury to give to the biggest banking and finance criminals, escalates the war in Afghanistan, continues torturing and secrecy and on and on. It seems to be enough for most folks that he can speak in complete sentences.
Will it take tens of millions of folks living in tents before we demand real changes?
obama is a nwo shill
nice smile - he would sell your momma down the river for a shekel
i'm tired of folks deparately seeking some of the candidate obama to rematerialize now that he is in office
we are like the folks who buy the hot tv off the back of the truck at the mall - we have gotten our tv home - we have opend the box to find - not a tv - damn - but a rock that is about the same weight as a tv
like the true assholes we are - we are now trying to pick up an hdtv signal on our rock
i think the nwo/cotrollers must find us endlessly amusing
The fact that this Cat has to ask the question suggests he is living in a vacuum.
From what I've seen so far from Mister Obama, while intelligent, highly-capable, articulate, smooth, and a maybe a truly decent human being, should not be president.
His skills are perfect for a legislator, not an executive except as a figurehead (like Mister Reagan). While Mister Obama may have a vision (or may not) he lacks the intestinal fortitude to step on any toes to acheive his vision. So then what good is he as president except as a symbol?
It seems he'd rather go along to get along with those who make enough noise rather than what he may actually believe - and by campaigning on one thing - governing on another. Yes, they all do it and that puts Mister Obama in the same box with the rest of them and not on a pedestal where he has been placed. Am I disappointed, and/or disillusioned? No. I never expected him to change things. He would never have been selected to run if that was his intention. You can charge the late Bush administration with a lot of 'crimes' but at least they had the courage to act on what they believed. It's too bad that what they believed was just plain crazy and created all the problems they did.
The Obama presidency reminds me of the Carter presidency - a basically decent guy who makes terrible and gutless decisions to preserve the status quo. Carter is a far better ex-president than he was president. If it plays out like the Carter presidency did, Mister Obama will have only one term. If he doesn't stand up for what the majority of the country wants, and why they wanted to believe his oratory, then one term will be quite enough.
Tirebiter
What you said.
" .... maybe a truly decent human being."
He most certainly IS NOT. He is a killer, mass murdering war criminal, not much different from Bush/Cheney et al. In essence, he is Cheney in Black Face. Commonfolk only exist as props for his photo-ops and as cows to be milked of their assets and labor or to be trained as StormTroopers to further the Imperial Agenda of planetary domination. I've yet to arrive at the adjective that best describes Obama, but wicked is coming close.
If you say so.
Obama's tendency to "split the difference" seems analogous to the following scenario: You go to see your internist for a serious and potentially life-threatening illness. The only known effective treatment requires a ten-day course of a new, expensive antibiotic. You cannot afford the medications. Your insurance company agrees to "split the difference" and provide you with a five-day supply.
Such half-measures provide the appearance of doing something constructive, without actually working; not unlike building a bridge that stretches half-way across a deep chasm. Eventually, people will realize that Obama's compromises have only made matters worse, and will turn on him and the Democrats.
Despite their protestations, the Republicans and Big Business are no doubt ecstatic with Obama. Although he is making a few minor, cosmetic changes around the fringes, Obama has reliably obeyed the dictates of the multi-nationals and the wealthy. And, in the bonus, contrary to life under the Bush Administration, when most Dems would be shouting about this from the rooftops, those same people are choosing to remain silent, since Obama "is their guy."
Those Republicans able to assume a long-term perspective have to be salivating -- life couldn't be much better for them than it is at present. The crops are being sown and the soil watered and fertilized for the Republican bumper crop of the future.
Sioux Rose
CURMUDGEON: Well stated and unfortunately all too true.
Eventually, people will realize that Obama's compromises have only made matters worse, and will turn on him and the Democrats.
The truth and well put.
He is NOT "a better version of Bill Clinton".
Bill Clinton actually diffused the abortion issue the moment he got in office and even if his entire stay in the whitehouse amounted to only that--at least it is something more than Obama seems to be doing "pragmatically". And the rate he is going, I am not even sure he will prove to be a better version of Bush.
If Obama seems too disappointingly cautious and cowardly,disregarding the people and embracing the Right--calling it "unity" please do not temper the truth with all these qualifiers giving him a pass. As soon as we can say what is is, the sooner we can dispense with the illusion that he is doing us any favors--or that he is even willing to hear us.
Nicely put.
The problem with trying to "split the difference" is that either side can always adopt a more extreme position to drag the center their way.
q
he's not trying to split the difference
he's trying to give the opposition as little as possible,
to obama, the opposition is the people who elected him
This hits the nail on the head. The Democratic Party is supposed to sell out its base, that is its role as "history's second-most enthusiastic Capitalist Party."
Check out:
"The Democrats: A Critical History"(2008) by Lance Sulfa.
He looks the Dems' history all the way back 200+ years. The FDR years end up looking like an aberration rather than the character defining period we usually think of it for the party.
The FDR years were when the elites surrendered significant ground to the torch/pitchfork wielding rabble, to survive to fight another day. The elites will surrender again to fight another day so we can see two key elements in the people's long term strategy for emancipation: Achieve elite surrender, and keep them down for good.
What's PUMA for "I told you so"?
Rupert Murdoch in Pain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5L3XD8oKmY
The association with the loquacious Quixote is hilarious.
And all the Dem Party Apologists are the Sancho Panza's... Carrying his lances...
Let the senile old man ride off into the sunset... No need to carry his blackwater...