SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Obama's Democrat Problem
Apr 01, 2009
The must-read in this week's news magazines is Jonathan Chait's lacerating piece on Congressional Democrats in The New Republic,
in particular the centrists and moderates who are doing their best to
distance themselves from Barack Obama because he is too progressive. If
you've watched any political talk shows lately, you've probably seen a
pundit or two fawn over these moderates, who invariably present
themselves as "pragmatists, not ideologues," as Evan Bayh of Indiana
put it when announcing his new working group of centrist Democrats a
few weeks ago.
Chait takes a close look at what this actually means, quoting Kent
Conrad, who appeared on CNBC to complain that Obama's budget would (1)
not reduce the budget deficit enough, (2) limit tax deductions on
high-income earners, and (3) cap subsidies for farmers who make more
than $500,000 a year. Did everyone get the pragmatism in that? A
'deficit hawk' who just happens to be from a farm state opposes two
sensible deficit-reducing measures that just happen to displease two of
his deep-pocketed donors (wealthy farmers and high-income earners). As
Chait notes, the performance should have turned Conrad into the punch
line of a joke, but instead "launched him as a symbol of fiscal
rectitude and encouraged fellow Democrats to follow in his hypocritical
wake."
The centrists who practice this hypocrisy do not lack an ideology,
which most dictionaries define as a doctrine that guides the beliefs of
a group or individual. Their ideology is simply "we're between the
parties" - regardless of what's good for the country, regardless of
whether it will help solve the problems we face. The one extremely
useful purpose this ideology serves is to protect them from future
attacks for being too liberal.
Thanks to the centrists and moderates, an array of progressive measures
in Obama's budget, from international priorities like combating hunger
and disease to domestic ones like college financial assistance, will
likely be watered down or scrapped (conference negotiations in the
weeks to come will determine much of this). Also at stake, potentially,
is healthcare reform, which will almost surely not garner the 60-vote
supermajority required to overcome a Senate filibuster. There is a
solution to this problem, a procedure called "reconciliation" that
enables passage with just 51 votes. Republicans insist such a move
would be outrageous - the same Republicans who used the procedure to
pass some of Bush's tax cuts for the rich in 2003, in a 51-50 vote
tipped in their balance by Dick Cheney. But they're not alone. The
"pragmatic" centrists also have qualms about reconciliation. With
friends like these, Obama must surely be thinking, who needs
Republicans?
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 The Nation
Eyal Press
Eyal Press is a Nation contributing writer and the author of "Beautiful Souls: The Courage and Conscience of Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times" and "Dirty Work: Essential Jobs and the Hidden Toll of Inequality in America" (2021).
The must-read in this week's news magazines is Jonathan Chait's lacerating piece on Congressional Democrats in The New Republic,
in particular the centrists and moderates who are doing their best to
distance themselves from Barack Obama because he is too progressive. If
you've watched any political talk shows lately, you've probably seen a
pundit or two fawn over these moderates, who invariably present
themselves as "pragmatists, not ideologues," as Evan Bayh of Indiana
put it when announcing his new working group of centrist Democrats a
few weeks ago.
Chait takes a close look at what this actually means, quoting Kent
Conrad, who appeared on CNBC to complain that Obama's budget would (1)
not reduce the budget deficit enough, (2) limit tax deductions on
high-income earners, and (3) cap subsidies for farmers who make more
than $500,000 a year. Did everyone get the pragmatism in that? A
'deficit hawk' who just happens to be from a farm state opposes two
sensible deficit-reducing measures that just happen to displease two of
his deep-pocketed donors (wealthy farmers and high-income earners). As
Chait notes, the performance should have turned Conrad into the punch
line of a joke, but instead "launched him as a symbol of fiscal
rectitude and encouraged fellow Democrats to follow in his hypocritical
wake."
The centrists who practice this hypocrisy do not lack an ideology,
which most dictionaries define as a doctrine that guides the beliefs of
a group or individual. Their ideology is simply "we're between the
parties" - regardless of what's good for the country, regardless of
whether it will help solve the problems we face. The one extremely
useful purpose this ideology serves is to protect them from future
attacks for being too liberal.
Thanks to the centrists and moderates, an array of progressive measures
in Obama's budget, from international priorities like combating hunger
and disease to domestic ones like college financial assistance, will
likely be watered down or scrapped (conference negotiations in the
weeks to come will determine much of this). Also at stake, potentially,
is healthcare reform, which will almost surely not garner the 60-vote
supermajority required to overcome a Senate filibuster. There is a
solution to this problem, a procedure called "reconciliation" that
enables passage with just 51 votes. Republicans insist such a move
would be outrageous - the same Republicans who used the procedure to
pass some of Bush's tax cuts for the rich in 2003, in a 51-50 vote
tipped in their balance by Dick Cheney. But they're not alone. The
"pragmatic" centrists also have qualms about reconciliation. With
friends like these, Obama must surely be thinking, who needs
Republicans?
Eyal Press
Eyal Press is a Nation contributing writer and the author of "Beautiful Souls: The Courage and Conscience of Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times" and "Dirty Work: Essential Jobs and the Hidden Toll of Inequality in America" (2021).
The must-read in this week's news magazines is Jonathan Chait's lacerating piece on Congressional Democrats in The New Republic,
in particular the centrists and moderates who are doing their best to
distance themselves from Barack Obama because he is too progressive. If
you've watched any political talk shows lately, you've probably seen a
pundit or two fawn over these moderates, who invariably present
themselves as "pragmatists, not ideologues," as Evan Bayh of Indiana
put it when announcing his new working group of centrist Democrats a
few weeks ago.
Chait takes a close look at what this actually means, quoting Kent
Conrad, who appeared on CNBC to complain that Obama's budget would (1)
not reduce the budget deficit enough, (2) limit tax deductions on
high-income earners, and (3) cap subsidies for farmers who make more
than $500,000 a year. Did everyone get the pragmatism in that? A
'deficit hawk' who just happens to be from a farm state opposes two
sensible deficit-reducing measures that just happen to displease two of
his deep-pocketed donors (wealthy farmers and high-income earners). As
Chait notes, the performance should have turned Conrad into the punch
line of a joke, but instead "launched him as a symbol of fiscal
rectitude and encouraged fellow Democrats to follow in his hypocritical
wake."
The centrists who practice this hypocrisy do not lack an ideology,
which most dictionaries define as a doctrine that guides the beliefs of
a group or individual. Their ideology is simply "we're between the
parties" - regardless of what's good for the country, regardless of
whether it will help solve the problems we face. The one extremely
useful purpose this ideology serves is to protect them from future
attacks for being too liberal.
Thanks to the centrists and moderates, an array of progressive measures
in Obama's budget, from international priorities like combating hunger
and disease to domestic ones like college financial assistance, will
likely be watered down or scrapped (conference negotiations in the
weeks to come will determine much of this). Also at stake, potentially,
is healthcare reform, which will almost surely not garner the 60-vote
supermajority required to overcome a Senate filibuster. There is a
solution to this problem, a procedure called "reconciliation" that
enables passage with just 51 votes. Republicans insist such a move
would be outrageous - the same Republicans who used the procedure to
pass some of Bush's tax cuts for the rich in 2003, in a 51-50 vote
tipped in their balance by Dick Cheney. But they're not alone. The
"pragmatic" centrists also have qualms about reconciliation. With
friends like these, Obama must surely be thinking, who needs
Republicans?
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.