EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- 'We Are Movement, Not a Moment': North Carolina Peaceful Uprising Continues
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- Is Enbridge Building a Secret Keystone Pipeline?
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
- Victory: Connecticut Becomes First State to Require GMO Labeling
Popular content
Today's Top News
Kagan in Context: Shafting Progressive Values
The White House is in the grip of conventional centrist wisdom. Grim results stretch from Afghanistan to the Gulf of Mexico to communities across the USA.
"It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don't cause spills," President Obama said in support of offshore oil drilling, less than three weeks before the April 20 blowout in the Gulf. "They are technologically very advanced."
On numerous policy fronts, such conformity to a centrist baseline has smothered hopes for moving this country in a progressive direction. Now, the president has taken a step that jeopardizes civil liberties and other basic constitutional principles.
"During the course of her Senate confirmation hearings as Solicitor General, Kagan explicitly endorsed the Bush administration's bogus category of ‘enemy combatant,' whose implementation has been a war crime in its own right," University of Illinois law professor Francis Boyle noted last month. "Now, in her current job as U.S. Solicitor General, Kagan is quarterbacking the continuation of the Bush administration's illegal and unconstitutional positions in U.S. federal court litigation around the country, including in the U.S. Supreme Court."
Boyle added: "Kagan has said ‘I love the Federalist Society.' This is a right-wing group; almost all of the Bush administration lawyers responsible for its war and torture memos are members of the Federalist Society."
The departing Justice Stevens was a defender of civil liberties. Unless the Senate refuses to approve Kagan for the Supreme Court, the nation's top court is very likely to become more hostile to civil liberties and less inclined to put limits on presidential power.
Here is yet another clear indication that progressives must mobilize to challenge the White House on matters of principle. Otherwise, history will judge us harshly -- and it should.
For more than 15 months, evidence has mounted that President Obama routinely combines progressive rhetoric with contrary actions. As one bad decision after another has emanated from the Oval Office, some progressives have favored denial -- even though, if the name "Bush" or "McCain" had been attached to the same presidential policies, the same progressives would have been screaming bloody murder.
But enabling bad policies, with silent acquiescence or anemic dissent, encourages more of them. At this point, progressive groups and individuals who pretend that Obama's policies merely need a few tweaks, or just suffer from a few anomalous deficiencies, are whistling past a political graveyard.
At the same time, with less than six months to go before Election Day, there are very real prospects of a big Republican victory that could shift majority control of Congress. Progressives have a huge stake in averting a GOP takeover on Capitol Hill.
The corporate-military centrism of the Obama administration has demoralized and demobilized the Democratic Party's largely progressive base -- the same base that swept Nancy Pelosi into the House Speaker's office and then Barack Obama into the White House. National polls now show Democrats to be much less enthusiastic about voting in November than their Republican counterparts.
The conventional political wisdom (about as accurate as the claim that "oil rigs today generally don't cause spills") is that when a Democratic president moves rightward, his party gains strength against Republicans. But Democrats reaped the whirlwind of that pseudo-logic in 1994 -- after President Clinton shafted much of the Democratic base by pushing through the corporate NAFTA trade pact against the wishes of labor, environmental and human-rights constituencies. That's how Newt Gingrich and other right-wing zealots got to run Congress starting in January 1995.
For progressives, giving the Obama administration one benefit of the doubt after another has not prevented matters from getting worse.
At the moment, U.S. troop levels are nearing 100,000 in Afghanistan.
Massive quantities of oil are belching into the Gulf of Mexico.
The White House has signaled de facto acceptance of a high unemployment rate for several more years, while offering weak GOP-lite countermeasures like tax breaks for businesses.
Nuclear power subsidies are getting powerful support from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, while meaningful action against global warming is nowhere in sight.
The Justice Department continues to backtrack on civil liberties.
And now, if the president's nomination of Elena Kagan is successful, the result will move the Supreme Court to the right.
Progressives should fight the Kagan nomination.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
195 Comments so far
Show AllThis nomination is a slap in the face to all progressives in this country. Rahm Emmanuel blew us off with the statement that "They have nowhere else to go". Not true, Rahm. I'm going Green or Socialist. If this results in Republicans getting elected, so be it. What the fuck's the difference anyway? I'm sick of being taken for granted.
It may take years, but voting Third party now will send a loud message. No more republicrats!
For at least the past two decades my Demobot friends have told me to vote for the Dems because no matter how far right the Dems keep moving, at least they put progressive judges on the supreme court.
What reasons are left to continue to vote for Dems?
raydelcamino: There are NO reasons left to vote for Dems!
I have, for the most part, been voting 3rd party for a number of years. I never bought into Clinton, and I certainly did NOT buy into Obama. Like you, I have a lot of friends who can not let go of the Democratic Party. Some of them moan and complain about Obama, and then, as he lets go with something they want to hear, and more often than not, something they think he said, they are right back into their Obamabot mode. It's quite frustrating.
Like donna, I believe that our only choice is 3rd parties until we garner enough support to actually begin to sway the balance of power. At the same time, I have a very difficult time believing in our system -- government and corporate joining together to control us with any means possible.
I agree with you and Donna. I won't vote for any candidate who has an R or a D after his/her name. If no third party candidate is on the ballot, I'll write in name. It will take years to sway the balance of power, as you say, but I'm just going to take it one election cycle at a time.
There are a few - a very few - progressives running as Democrats for seats in the House. If you haven't a Green/ Independent/ Socialist you prefer, consider backing one of these.
You need to do whatever is possible to simultaneously try to budge the Dems leftward and to build up a single, viable third party. In case you missed the lesson from the UK, a third party will need to form a coalition. It won't be with the Republicans, and it can't be with today's Democrats. However, if you work, tomorrow's Dems could be different.
There's a whole new generation of new/ would-be pols who are as sick of this unabated rightward drift but who don't see their chances for election very good running as a third party candidate. Don't write 'em all off: you'll need them in the future.
Strange that so many who sing the third party song are still thinking in two-party terms.
DR strange love is schizophrenic especially at election time.
Ja, doch!
"There are a few - a very few - progressives running as Democrats for seats in the House. If you haven't a Green/ Independent/ Socialist you prefer, consider backing one of these."
Kucinich and Sanders--the "true Progressives" in Congress--have defected on HCR. I don't know. It seems to me that anyone who aligns him/herself with one of the two establishment parties eventually is usurped by that party, no matter how strongly they have advocated for positions in the past.
If there is a Green/Indpendent/Socialist running, I'm voting for that person. I live in a small state with limited choices, so I feel lucky if any Green/Independent/Socialist is on the ticket.
I never mentioned Kucinich or Sanders. Neither would qualify as part of a new generation - or didn't you read my entire statement?
I can only suppose you didn't and/or that you have no comprehension of how things work in multiple-party systems. Read up on the UK's recent contretemps - and then come back and repeat your argument.
By all means, vote for a third party candidate. Don't know why you apparently think stating that you will do so is some sort of response to my statement.
As I said, so many who sing the third-party song are still thinking in two-party terms.
I agree with you, Kay Johnson. I've had it to the teeth with the Democrats, and, like you, didn't buy into Obama, either. I'm really sick and tired of hearing friends and neighbors making all kinds of excuses for him, and for the fact that that disastrous "HCR" Bill was passed, instead of their having done away with it and constructing an entirely new healthcare reform bill entailing Single Payer with Universal health care.
With due respect, raydelcamino
Perhaps, one of the greatest harms bestowed by Obama is the coming destruction of the Democratic Party. Perhaps.
I've long called Obama a "Republican in Democrat's clothing," and "Stealth Bush." I've led the chorus against party loyalists who celebrate Obama's "wins" in implementing Republican policies. I've made the same points that Solomon makes. And, I was enormously disappointed in Kucinich when he signed on to the health care pseudo-reform bill.
But, I've tried to be careful to say "Obama-led Democrats" or "corporatist Democrats," rather than excoriating "Democrats" as a monolithic group.
Personally, I examine an individual's record before voting. I don't vote for (or against) candidates based on party affiliation. This is in accord with Nader's maxim: is there a dime's worth of difference?
In the past three presidential elections, I haven't found a dime's worth of difference and I've voted for Nader each time.
However, if a more progressive Democratic candidate should meet Nader's test, I would still consider voting for that candidate. The one silver lining in this whole dark cloud of Obama—if it can be considered such—is that party loyalists follow their president to the most extreme positions. I would expect that same dynamic to hold if a more progressive Democrat gained that office.
I'm guessing youth turnout will be even more awful this time around. To the extent they show up, it should be interesting to see how much vote 3rd party.
Obamacare now assures that many more of us boomers will delay or cancel retirement from our family wage jobs, thereby eliminating tens of million of job opportunities for young Americans. High unemployment rates have historically not helped the party in power get re-elected.
Be careful, please, because you posit two faulty (IMO) ideas: 'Generation war' and finite jobs.
Neither the young nor the old should be marginalized; we are truly 'all in this together' and every arbitrary grouping, including age, has members with something very substantive to offer society.
There are already too few jobs, which has been the case for decades, and the answer is not to falsely accuse 'boomers', immigrants, etc. for taking jobs away from anyone; jobs can be created fairly easily if there is the will to do so.
No-one, regardless of age, national origin, sex, experience or you-name-it, should be denied work and the chance to contribute something if they want to.
Spot-on, both intellectually and morally. Thanks.
I agree and am simply expressing concerns for the consequences of Obamacare and other Obama actions.
Unfortunately, many aspects of Obamacare and other Obama actions past and pending are very divisive.
Ray, you couldn't be more right in your analysis of Obama, though I think you're being too kind calling O's actions 'divisive.' They're more like an outright, purposeful giveaway to the corporations at the expense of the working class. O agrees with the Masters of the Universe and intends to help them break the workforce until there are only the 2 Percenters and the rest of us serfs.
Welcome. Ive been voting third party for over 25 years. Nice to have you aboard.
BodhiHawk, what is the status of third parties in your state? Ohio has four parties that have gained Minor Party status, and I think that should help, especially in the organizational efforts, because now they have had a chance to elect central committee members and regional delegates.
you've come to this conclusion ONLY NOW?? You should've opened your eyes at least 10 years ago when liberals were chastising Ralph Nader for "spoiling" Gore chances. It's too late now.
When the "republicrats" win - because our candidate took votes from the Democrat - we will again get the blame for the ensuing horrors. We can expect a new republicrat administration to make an all out assault on the remaining vestiges of our democracy and the democrats will again act as enablers. This is all by design. The message is: The American people are our hostages. Don't even try to break away.
It's fully apparent that Obama wants a Republican majority in both houses, a Supreme Court heavily weighted on the far right, a thorough rejection of ALL "progressive values," and further consolidation of a corporatist/fascist state. This is his real agenda and has been all along. If Kagan is confirmed we can say farewell to any hint of liberalism on the Court. Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy will have a loyal ally in their efforts to destroy any remnant of civil liberties and democracy, as we surge ever forward into an Orwellian nightmare state. The Bush crime family must be cackling with glee.
Obama is hoping that he can pull a Clinton 1996 and is relying on the Tea Party to scare us all into the party's fold. I remember in 1994 when the Democrats suffered a huge defeat and it almost looked like Clinton would be a one termer. Gingrich of course went a little too far and Clinton was easily able to lay blame on the Republicans and along with the help of a weak GOP nominee win a second term despite the depressed turnout likely to due to Perot being forced off their air during the election. I think that there is enough evidence to prove that Obama is very hungry for a second term and he wants to set up Congress and SCOTUS exactly as you pointed out just so that he can easily pull a Clinton and Reagan on blaming the other side to win. It is ironic that Clinton is like another "son" to Bush the Elder but it will be very humiliating and worse to see Bush Jr and Obama going on TV as if they're "brothers" playing the "poor me" victim game. As to the remaining justices on the court, some have suggested that they too are already to the right when their ruling on past cases involving economic justice are examined.
One of the main arguments given by liberals for people to vote for a Democrat is that a Democrat presidency and/or a Democratic majority in Congress would not allow the Supreme Court to shift to the right. As this article demonstrates, a Democratic presidency has not exactly been a shining example of how Obama wishes to pack the Supreme Court with liberal judges. It remains to be seen if a Democratic Senate will discover any moral courage in turning away Obama's choice for a judge who seems to differ very little from Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas.
While Norman Solomon has certainly revealed Obama to be less than liberal, it should be pointed out, to use his words, that he and other liberals have reaped the whirlwind when they urged Americans to go to the polls in 2008 and vote for that [alleged] agent of hope and change named Barack Obama.
Erroll, even as Obama nominates a rightwinger, you should check out some of the responses the remaining party clingers still give. Some of them will compare Kagan to some of the justices who they claim took a long time to be liberal. In essence, their message is to just give Kagan a chance and in 10-20 years, she will slowly go liberal. Other kinds of responses will include race and gender. As for 2008, I can only hope that this same mistake is not repeated by 2012 or this year for that matter. Unfortunately, I am not seeing more progressive independents running for office this year and 2012 is unknown. I am ready to vote third party or at least I think I am. I fear that the way the Obama administration has hurt us a lot, there will be a depressed turnout on our side if there is no third party on the ballot. If the Republicans win both houses of Congress and if a third party progressive runs in 2012, we could see something like 1992 where both Republican and Democratic voters send both parties a powerful message. It will be interesting to see who Normon sides with by that year.
The reality is not that ANY judges have ever gone more liberal over 10, 20 or any number of years. The reality is that corporate control of government has pushed everything so far to the right that a judge who was relatively conservative in 1980 is now relatively liberal because the world around him or her has changed so much.
The same concept applies to electeds...that is why Obama is somewhere to the right of Richard Nixon. Nixon would be considered too far left to be nominated by the DEMS today.
Spot on. The issue goes WAY beyond some presumed character deficiencies of progressives' failing to go to the mat for their values, vs. conservatives who do just that. We're witnessing yet again the effects of the corporate control of every sector of society.
Thank you! That's been my favorite talking point.
By today's measures, Richard Nixon would be considered a "flaming liberal" and too great a liability. When I call my senator's office - which I do with greater regularity that the staff like, I'm certain - I always leave the reminder: Turn to the ideological left and run hard for a decade or so - or at least until you can see Richard Nixon's shadow ahead of you.
I think it is more accurate to say that Obama is further to the right than Ronald Reagan, though: Reagan had no problem whatever with breaking up the naughty S & Ls. Bail out the depositors, not the banks.
Norman, stop playing into the hands of the feudalists by misusing the word "centrist". Obama is not a "centrist", he's a rightwinger. Feudalist scum.
*WE* --the socialists-- are the centrists, the reason being because we want a good life for *everyone*. The rightwingers want a good life only for themselves.
'"All for ourselves and nothing for other people" seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind'. Smith, A. (1776) _The Wealth of Nations_
No court, no Congress, and no president "gives" me civil liberties. They are mine and god help anyone who tries to take them away.
Unfortunately, God seems to do just that: "help anyone who tries to take [our civil liberties] away." I haven't seen any hint of the Wrath of God descending upon Bush, Cheney, Obama or the right-wingers on the SCOTUS.
The Republicans have moved right due to credible primary challenges of the extreme right Tea party. In the 4th PA Congressional District Democrat Altmire who won with considerable help of labor and a promise to support health care reform (2006) runs unopposed in his primary after backing out of all his promises. I will not hold my nose and vote for his reelection even if it means that an obnoxious right winger like Mary Pat Buchanan wins. I want to punish turncoat pro war Democrats like Altmire even more than I dislike seeing extreme right wingers like Buchanan get elected. Things will have to get worse for this country before they get better. I realize that Democrats will learn the wrong lesson from defeat and that Obama will move even more rightward in 2010 but that should make him easier to defeat in 2012
In Pennsylvania, there is at least one candidate worth voting for in the primary - gubernatorial candidate Joe Hoeffel. He is a genuine progressive. If you are still registered a Democrat please vote for him.
My Republican congress-crook Tim Murphy is facing a tea party challenger. The Pennsylvania AFL-CIO supported him too.
And while at the polls, you might as well vote for that guy running against the party-flipping Specter too.
We should have learned our lesson from Clinton, but we didn't. The Democratic party is not a progressive party, and will never be a progressive party because it's too entrenched in corporate money. We need a Third party--even if we have to take a hit and lose elections for several years while building it. The alternative is decades of Obamas and Clintons.
donna: I agree with you!
Amen!
While generally not a big fan of conspiracy theories I think a good case could be made for an upcoming one and sooner rather than later. The rightward tilting of the legal system would be the third leg of the political stool. It would give street-level law enforcement and indefinite " holds " by the Homeland Security apparatus the cover of getting the trains to run on time, so to speak. All manor of civil unrest will be squelched in the name of getting and keeping the economy running. The cowardly Congress is already on board and so is Barack and Rahm. Kagan seems to be more than up to the task of rubberstamping and tailoring her words to please her keepers. When Draconian cuts to Social Security and middle-class programs are demanded by the wealthy owners of America, in lieu of tax increases and an end to defense build-ups, this Ivy League creation will skillfully defend exucutive power to accomplish this end. Our collapsing economy may be the kindling but it will be liberals who provide the fuel oil to burn down the walls separating a weak democracy from a neo-fascist police state. Kagan's nomination, to me, further strengthens the arguments for those who posit that under the " false flag " of an ungovernable nation we will see the end of any semblence of a true democracy. First, and foremost, the economic train must be allowed to run on time and be well-oiled by smart, sophicated and empty wordsmiths. Kagan's rise to power seems to fit the bill here to a tee.
While there are no conspiracy THEORIES, the world is awash with conspiracies.
RE: "The rightward tilting of the legal system would be the third leg of the political stool."
I believe that monolithic tripod was completed when corporate shills Roberts and Alito were installed to create a rigid 5-4 right-wing majority.
It takes a certain sense of humor to read their decision record thus far and appreciate that those two were approved by senate curs who barked loudly against "activist" judges.
Given the ease with which the majority of this nation was made to accept the Constitutional overrides in the Patriot Act, SCOTUS, along with the legislative and executive branches, may ejoy the benefits of public ignorance and apathy for a generation or more. Barring, as you suggest, collapse. Or conquest?
Sioux Rose
LINKWRAY: Very astute post. I wish you were wrong, but I doubt it.
Progressives have a huge stake in averting a GOP takeover on Capitol Hill.
------------------
Unfortunately it appears that the nation will not recover until we hit rock bottom.
It'll be a long and dangerous road back to democracy.
And it'll be an even longer road until we learn how to live in accordance with natural law.
But we must hit rock bottom first in order to shed this old diseased skin.
I totally agree. The superstructure needs to come crashing down before authentic political transformation will happen.
Does anyone really take Norman seriously?
Solomon advocated for the presidency of Barak Obama; us Third Party voters knew exactly what we were getting prior to the election of our current neo conservative president.
Soloman has absolutely no credibility now.
Well, a lot of people advocated for Obama. I wasn't one of them.
At least, Solomon has the intelligence and good sense to change his mind. Give him some credit. You can't dismiss everyone who advocated for Obama at one time.
As far as I am aware, Norm has not taken a stand one way or another on who he will publicly support in 2012. My guess is he will continue to play the lessor evil card when push comes to shove. See Old man river comment on same.
I have nothing to say about this yet-another-insult by Barry at this point. I suggest that we keep up our efforts to go local, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/10-6, and keep fighting back. I did not expect Obama to put in a non-corporate puppet on SCOTUS anyway. Besides, all Kagan has to do is say that she won't overturn Roe V Wade just like John Roberts did and presto, she's a "liberal".
Hello, Jennifer. Been a long time. I'm going over to Firedoglake, where, I'm told the story is of a link between Kagan and - well couldn't you guess: Goldman Sachs.
Hi Photon's Feather. I was out of the country for 3 months and then for a month looking for another company to work which I gave the details on in that article link I posted my comment under. I heard of Kagan's ties to Goldman Sachs in another article under Alternet. By the way, Alternet is so slow and my computer froze twice ! I tried to resist responding to this article but couldn't help but show my frustration on the way people in this country vote that gets us these "justices" so I thought I would respond a little differently by suggesting that we all focus on going small and local no matter how many corporate appointments Obama and Congress install. I heard about the story on Goldman Sachs and Greece as well and I cannot believe the Greek government doing this to their own people. Over the weekend, I posted details on what I observed about how people think and vote overseas. Europe needs to bring their ideas to US before she sinks to US levels on head towards disaster capitalism.
Saw your comment in the article linked to above - but over the weekend?
Oh, too many Americans are far too smart to listen to those ridiculous, god-hating, socialist Europeans. (Snark - in case others might miss it.)
Some day I'd like to hear all about your travels.