Liberals Voice Concerns About Obama

Published on
by
Politico.com

Liberals Voice Concerns About Obama

by
Carol E. Lee and Nia-Malika Henderson

US President-elect Barack Obama is seen during a press conference in Chicago, Illinios. (AFP/Jim Watson)

WASHINGTON - Liberals are
growing increasingly nervous - and some just flat-out angry - that
President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs
and policy choices.

Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the
wealthy and take on Big Oil. He's hedged his call for a quick drawdown
in Iraq. And he's stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts
of the left.

Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at
being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new
boss looks like the old boss.

"He has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with
a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it's all over
we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment," said Tim
Carpenter, national director of the Progressive Democrats of America.

OpenLeft blogger Chris Bowers went so far as to issue this plaintive
plea: "Isn't there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic
administration?"

Even supporters make clear they're on the lookout for backsliding.
"There's a concern that he keep his basic promises and people are going
to watch him," said Roger Hickey, a co-founder of Campaign for
America's Future.

Obama insists he hasn't abandoned the goals that made him feel to some
like a liberal savior. But the left's bill of particulars against Obama
is long, and growing.

Obama drew rousing applause at campaign events when he vowed to tax the
windfall profits of oil companies. As president-elect, Obama says he
won't enact the tax.

Obama's pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts and redistribute that money
to the middle class made him a hero among Democrats who said the cuts
favored the wealthy. But now he's struck a more cautious stance on
rolling back tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year, signaling
he'll merely let them expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.

Obama's post-election rhetoric on Iraq and choices for national
security team have some liberal Democrats even more perplexed. As a
candidate, Obama defined and separated himself from his challengers by
highlighting his opposition to the war in Iraq from the start. He
promised to begin to end the war on his first day in office.

Now Obama's says that on his first day in office he will begin to
"design a plan for a responsible drawdown," as he told NBC's "Meet the
Press" Sunday. Obama has also filled his national security positions
with supporters of the Iraq war: Sen. Hillary Clinton, who voted to
authorize force in Iraq, as his secretary of state; and President
George W. Bush's defense secretary, Robert Gates, continuing in the
same role.

The central premise of the left's criticism is direct - don't bite the
hand that feeds, Mr. President-elect. The Internet that helped him so
much during the election is lighting up with irritation and critiques.

"There don't seem to be any liberals in Obama's cabinet," writes John
Aravosis, the editor of Americablog.com. "What does all of this mean
for Obama's policies, and just as important, Obama Supreme Court
announcements?"

"Actually, it reminds me a bit of the campaign, at least the beginning
and the middle, when the Obama campaign didn't seem particularly
interested in reaching out to progressives," Aravosis continues. "Once
they realized that in order to win they needed to marshal everyone on
their side, the reaching out began. I hope we're not seeing a similar
‘we can do it alone' approach in the transition team."

This isn't the first liberal letdown over Obama, who promptly angered
the left after winning the Democratic primary by announcing he backed a
compromise that would allow warrantless wiretapping on U.S. soil to
continue.

 

Now it's Obama's Cabinet moves that are
drawing the most fire. It's not just that he's picked Clinton and
Gates. It's that liberal Democrats say they're hard-pressed to find one
of their own on Obama's team so far - particularly on the economic
side, where people like Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers are hardly
viewed as pro-labor.

"At his announcement of an economic team there was no secretary of
labor. If you don't think the labor secretary is on the same level as
treasury secretary, that gives me pause," said Jonathan Tasini, who
runs the website workinglife.org. "The president-elect wouldn't be
president-elect without labor."

During the campaign Obama gained labor support by saying he favored
legislation that would make it easier for unions to form inside
companies. The "card check" bill would get rid of a secret-ballot
method of voting to form a union and replace it with a system that
would require companies to recognize unions simply if a majority of
workers signed cards saying they want one. Obama still supports that
legislation, aides say - but union leaders are worried that he no
longer talks it up much as president-elect.

"It's complicated," said Tasini, who challenged Clinton for Senate
in 2006. "On the one hand, the guy hasn't even taken office yet so it's
a little hasty to be criticizing him. On the other hand, there is
legitimate cause for concern. I think people are still waiting but
there is some edginess about this."

That's a view that seems to have kept some progressive leaders
holding their fire. There are signs of a struggle within the left wing
of the Democratic Party about whether it's just too soon to criticize
Obama -- and if there's really anything to complain about just yet.

Case in point: One of the Campaign for America's Future blogs commented
on Obama's decision not to tax oil companies' windfall profits saying,
"Between this move and the move to wait to repeal the Bush tax cuts for
the wealthy, it seems like the Obama team is buying into the right-wing
frame that raising any taxes - even those on the richest citizens and
wealthiest corporations - is bad for the economy."

Yet Campaign for America's Future will be join about 150 progressive
organizations, economists and labor groups to release a statement
Tuesday in support of a large economic stimulus package like the one
Obama has proposed, said Hickey, a co-founder of the group.

"I've heard the most grousing about the windfall profits tax, but on
the other hand, Obama has committed himself to a stimulus package that
makes a down payment on energy efficiency and green jobs," Hickey said.
"The old argument was, here's how we afford to make these investments -
we tax the oil companies' windfall profits. ... The new argument is, in a
bad economy that could get worse, we don't."

Obama is asking for patience - saying he's only shifting his stance on some issues because circumstances are shifting.

Aides say he backed off the windfall profits tax because oil prices have
dropped below $80 a barrel. Obama also defended hedging on the Bush tax cuts.

"My economic team right now is examining, do we repeal that through
legislation? Do we let it lapse so that, when the Bush tax cuts expire,
they're not renewed when it comes to wealthiest Americans?" Obama said
on "Meet the Press." "We don't yet know what the best approach is going
to be."

On Iraq, he says he's just trying to make sure any U.S. pullout doesn't
ignite "any resurgence of terrorism in Iraq that could threaten our
interests."

Obama has told his supporters to look beyond his appointments, that the
change he promised will come from him and that when his administration
comes together they will be happy.

"I think that when you ultimately look at what this advisory board
looks like, you'll say this is a cross-section of opinion that in some
ways reinforces conventional wisdom, in some ways breaks with orthodoxy
in all sorts of way," Obama recently said in response to questions
about his appointments during a news conference on the economy.

The leaders of some liberal groups are willing to wait and see.

"He hasn't had a first day in office," said John Isaacs, the executive
director for Council for Livable World. "To me it's not as important as
who's there, than what kind of policies they carry out."

"These aren't out-and-out liberals on the national security team, but
they may be successful implementers of what the Obama national security
policy is," Isaacs added. "We want to see what policies are carried
forward, as opposed to appointments."

Juan Cole, who runs a prominent anti-war blog called Informed Comment,
said he worries Obama will get bad advice from Clinton on the Middle
East, calling her too pro-Israel and "belligerent" toward Iran. "But
overall, my estimation is that he has chosen competence over ideology,
and I'm willing to cut him some slack," Cole said.

Other voices of the left don't like what they're seeing so far and aren't waiting for more before they speak up.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich warned that Obama's economic team
of Summers and Geithner reminded him of John F. Kennedy's "best and the
brightest" team, who blundered in Vietnam despite their blue-chip
pedigrees.

David Corn, Washington bureau chief of the liberal magazine Mother
Jones, wrote in Sunday's Washington Post that he is "not yet reaching
for a pitchfork."

But the headline of his op-ed sums up his point about Obama's Cabinet
appointments so far: "This Wasn't Quite the Change We Envisioned."

Share This Article

More in: