Get Ready for the Obama/GOP Alliance
With Obama pushing a huge troop escalation in
Afghanistan,
history may well repeat itself with a vengeance. And it's not just the apt
comparison to LBJ, who destroyed his presidency on the battlefields of
Vietnam with an
escalation that delivered power to Nixon and the GOP.
There's another frightening parallel: Obama seems to be
following in the footsteps of Bill Clinton, who accomplished perhaps his single
biggest legislative "triumph" - NAFTA - thanks to an alliance with Republicans
that overcame strong Democratic and grassroots opposition.
It was 16 years ago this month when
Clinton assembled his coalition with
the GOP to bulldoze public skepticism about the trade treaty and overpower a
stop-NAFTA movement led by unions, environmentalists and consumer rights groups.
How did Clinton win his majority in
Congress? With the votes of almost 80 percent of GOP senators and nearly 70
percent of House Republicans. Democrats in the House voted against NAFTA by more
than 3 to 2, with fierce opponents including the Democratic majority leader and
majority whip.
To get a majority today in Congress on
Afghanistan, the
Obama White House is apparently bent on a strategy replicating the tragic farce
that Clinton pulled off: Ignore the
informed doubts of your own party while making common cause with extremist
Republicans who never accepted your presidency in the first place.
"Deather" conspiracists are not new to the Grand Old
Party. Clinton engendered a similar
loathing on the right despite his centrist, corporate-friendly policies. When
conservative Republican leaders like Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey delivered to
Clinton (and corporate elites) the NAFTA victory, it didn't slow down rightwing
operatives who circulated wacky videos accusing
Clinton death squads of murdering
reporters and others.
For those who elected Obama, it's important to remember
the downward spiral that was accelerated by
Clinton's GOP alliance to pass
NAFTA. It should set off alarm bells for us today on
Afghanistan.
NAFTA was quickly followed by the debacle of
Clinton healthcare "reform" largely
drafted by giant insurance companies, which was followed by a stunning election
defeat for Congressional Democrats in November 1994, as progressive and labor
activists were lethargic while rightwing activists in overdrive put Gingrich
into the Speaker's chair.
A year later, advised by his chief political strategist
Dick Morris (yes, the Obama-basher now at Fox),
Clinton declared: "The era of big
government is over." In the coming years, Clinton proved that the era of big
business was far from over - working with Republican leaders to grant corporate
welfare to media conglomerates (1996 Telecom Act) and investment banks (1999
abolition of the Glass-Steagall Act).
Today, it's crucial to ask where Obama is heading. From
the stimulus to healthcare, he's shown a Clinton-like willingness to roll over
progressives in Congress on his way to corrupt legislation and frantic efforts
to compromise for the votes of corporate Democrats or "moderate" Republicans.
Meanwhile, the incredible shrinking "public option" has become a sick joke.
As he glides from retreats on civil liberties to health
reform that appeases corporate interests to his Bush-like pledge this week to
"finish the job" in Afghanistan, an Obama reliance on Congressional Republicans
to fund his troop escalation could be the final straw in disorienting and
demobilizing the progressive activists who elected him a year ago.
Throughout the centuries, no foreign power has been able
to "finish the job" in
Afghanistan, but
President Obama thinks he's a tough enough Commander-in-Chief to do it. Too bad
he hasn't demonstrated such toughness in the face of obstructionist Republicans
and corporate lobbyists. For them, it's been more like
"compromiser-in-chief."
When you start in the center (on, say, healthcare or
Afghanistan) and
readily move rightward several steps to appease rightwing politicians or
lobbyists or Generals, by definition you are governing as a conservative.
It's been a gradual descent from the elation and hope for
real change many Americans felt on election night, November 2008. For some of us
who'd scrutinized the Clinton White House in the early 1990s, the buzz was
killed days after Obama's election when he chose his chief of staff, Rahm
Emanuel, a top Clinton strategist
and architect of the alliance that pushed NAFTA through Congress.
If Obama stands tough on more troops to Afghanistan (as
Clinton fought ferociously for NAFTA), only an unprecedented mobilization of
progressives - including many who worked tirelessly to elect Obama - will be
able to stop him. Trust me: The Republicans who yell and scream about Obama
budget deficits when they're obstructing public healthcare will become deficit
doves in spending the estimated $1 million per year per new soldier (not to
mention private contractors) headed off to Asia.
The only good news I can see: Maybe it will take a White
House/GOP alliance over
Afghanistan to
wake up the base of liberal groups (like MoveOn) to take a closer and more
critical look at President Obama's policies.
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 |
With Obama pushing a huge troop escalation in
Afghanistan,
history may well repeat itself with a vengeance. And it's not just the apt
comparison to LBJ, who destroyed his presidency on the battlefields of
Vietnam with an
escalation that delivered power to Nixon and the GOP.
There's another frightening parallel: Obama seems to be
following in the footsteps of Bill Clinton, who accomplished perhaps his single
biggest legislative "triumph" - NAFTA - thanks to an alliance with Republicans
that overcame strong Democratic and grassroots opposition.
It was 16 years ago this month when
Clinton assembled his coalition with
the GOP to bulldoze public skepticism about the trade treaty and overpower a
stop-NAFTA movement led by unions, environmentalists and consumer rights groups.
How did Clinton win his majority in
Congress? With the votes of almost 80 percent of GOP senators and nearly 70
percent of House Republicans. Democrats in the House voted against NAFTA by more
than 3 to 2, with fierce opponents including the Democratic majority leader and
majority whip.
To get a majority today in Congress on
Afghanistan, the
Obama White House is apparently bent on a strategy replicating the tragic farce
that Clinton pulled off: Ignore the
informed doubts of your own party while making common cause with extremist
Republicans who never accepted your presidency in the first place.
"Deather" conspiracists are not new to the Grand Old
Party. Clinton engendered a similar
loathing on the right despite his centrist, corporate-friendly policies. When
conservative Republican leaders like Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey delivered to
Clinton (and corporate elites) the NAFTA victory, it didn't slow down rightwing
operatives who circulated wacky videos accusing
Clinton death squads of murdering
reporters and others.
For those who elected Obama, it's important to remember
the downward spiral that was accelerated by
Clinton's GOP alliance to pass
NAFTA. It should set off alarm bells for us today on
Afghanistan.
NAFTA was quickly followed by the debacle of
Clinton healthcare "reform" largely
drafted by giant insurance companies, which was followed by a stunning election
defeat for Congressional Democrats in November 1994, as progressive and labor
activists were lethargic while rightwing activists in overdrive put Gingrich
into the Speaker's chair.
A year later, advised by his chief political strategist
Dick Morris (yes, the Obama-basher now at Fox),
Clinton declared: "The era of big
government is over." In the coming years, Clinton proved that the era of big
business was far from over - working with Republican leaders to grant corporate
welfare to media conglomerates (1996 Telecom Act) and investment banks (1999
abolition of the Glass-Steagall Act).
Today, it's crucial to ask where Obama is heading. From
the stimulus to healthcare, he's shown a Clinton-like willingness to roll over
progressives in Congress on his way to corrupt legislation and frantic efforts
to compromise for the votes of corporate Democrats or "moderate" Republicans.
Meanwhile, the incredible shrinking "public option" has become a sick joke.
As he glides from retreats on civil liberties to health
reform that appeases corporate interests to his Bush-like pledge this week to
"finish the job" in Afghanistan, an Obama reliance on Congressional Republicans
to fund his troop escalation could be the final straw in disorienting and
demobilizing the progressive activists who elected him a year ago.
Throughout the centuries, no foreign power has been able
to "finish the job" in
Afghanistan, but
President Obama thinks he's a tough enough Commander-in-Chief to do it. Too bad
he hasn't demonstrated such toughness in the face of obstructionist Republicans
and corporate lobbyists. For them, it's been more like
"compromiser-in-chief."
When you start in the center (on, say, healthcare or
Afghanistan) and
readily move rightward several steps to appease rightwing politicians or
lobbyists or Generals, by definition you are governing as a conservative.
It's been a gradual descent from the elation and hope for
real change many Americans felt on election night, November 2008. For some of us
who'd scrutinized the Clinton White House in the early 1990s, the buzz was
killed days after Obama's election when he chose his chief of staff, Rahm
Emanuel, a top Clinton strategist
and architect of the alliance that pushed NAFTA through Congress.
If Obama stands tough on more troops to Afghanistan (as
Clinton fought ferociously for NAFTA), only an unprecedented mobilization of
progressives - including many who worked tirelessly to elect Obama - will be
able to stop him. Trust me: The Republicans who yell and scream about Obama
budget deficits when they're obstructing public healthcare will become deficit
doves in spending the estimated $1 million per year per new soldier (not to
mention private contractors) headed off to Asia.
The only good news I can see: Maybe it will take a White
House/GOP alliance over
Afghanistan to
wake up the base of liberal groups (like MoveOn) to take a closer and more
critical look at President Obama's policies.
With Obama pushing a huge troop escalation in
Afghanistan,
history may well repeat itself with a vengeance. And it's not just the apt
comparison to LBJ, who destroyed his presidency on the battlefields of
Vietnam with an
escalation that delivered power to Nixon and the GOP.
There's another frightening parallel: Obama seems to be
following in the footsteps of Bill Clinton, who accomplished perhaps his single
biggest legislative "triumph" - NAFTA - thanks to an alliance with Republicans
that overcame strong Democratic and grassroots opposition.
It was 16 years ago this month when
Clinton assembled his coalition with
the GOP to bulldoze public skepticism about the trade treaty and overpower a
stop-NAFTA movement led by unions, environmentalists and consumer rights groups.
How did Clinton win his majority in
Congress? With the votes of almost 80 percent of GOP senators and nearly 70
percent of House Republicans. Democrats in the House voted against NAFTA by more
than 3 to 2, with fierce opponents including the Democratic majority leader and
majority whip.
To get a majority today in Congress on
Afghanistan, the
Obama White House is apparently bent on a strategy replicating the tragic farce
that Clinton pulled off: Ignore the
informed doubts of your own party while making common cause with extremist
Republicans who never accepted your presidency in the first place.
"Deather" conspiracists are not new to the Grand Old
Party. Clinton engendered a similar
loathing on the right despite his centrist, corporate-friendly policies. When
conservative Republican leaders like Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey delivered to
Clinton (and corporate elites) the NAFTA victory, it didn't slow down rightwing
operatives who circulated wacky videos accusing
Clinton death squads of murdering
reporters and others.
For those who elected Obama, it's important to remember
the downward spiral that was accelerated by
Clinton's GOP alliance to pass
NAFTA. It should set off alarm bells for us today on
Afghanistan.
NAFTA was quickly followed by the debacle of
Clinton healthcare "reform" largely
drafted by giant insurance companies, which was followed by a stunning election
defeat for Congressional Democrats in November 1994, as progressive and labor
activists were lethargic while rightwing activists in overdrive put Gingrich
into the Speaker's chair.
A year later, advised by his chief political strategist
Dick Morris (yes, the Obama-basher now at Fox),
Clinton declared: "The era of big
government is over." In the coming years, Clinton proved that the era of big
business was far from over - working with Republican leaders to grant corporate
welfare to media conglomerates (1996 Telecom Act) and investment banks (1999
abolition of the Glass-Steagall Act).
Today, it's crucial to ask where Obama is heading. From
the stimulus to healthcare, he's shown a Clinton-like willingness to roll over
progressives in Congress on his way to corrupt legislation and frantic efforts
to compromise for the votes of corporate Democrats or "moderate" Republicans.
Meanwhile, the incredible shrinking "public option" has become a sick joke.
As he glides from retreats on civil liberties to health
reform that appeases corporate interests to his Bush-like pledge this week to
"finish the job" in Afghanistan, an Obama reliance on Congressional Republicans
to fund his troop escalation could be the final straw in disorienting and
demobilizing the progressive activists who elected him a year ago.
Throughout the centuries, no foreign power has been able
to "finish the job" in
Afghanistan, but
President Obama thinks he's a tough enough Commander-in-Chief to do it. Too bad
he hasn't demonstrated such toughness in the face of obstructionist Republicans
and corporate lobbyists. For them, it's been more like
"compromiser-in-chief."
When you start in the center (on, say, healthcare or
Afghanistan) and
readily move rightward several steps to appease rightwing politicians or
lobbyists or Generals, by definition you are governing as a conservative.
It's been a gradual descent from the elation and hope for
real change many Americans felt on election night, November 2008. For some of us
who'd scrutinized the Clinton White House in the early 1990s, the buzz was
killed days after Obama's election when he chose his chief of staff, Rahm
Emanuel, a top Clinton strategist
and architect of the alliance that pushed NAFTA through Congress.
If Obama stands tough on more troops to Afghanistan (as
Clinton fought ferociously for NAFTA), only an unprecedented mobilization of
progressives - including many who worked tirelessly to elect Obama - will be
able to stop him. Trust me: The Republicans who yell and scream about Obama
budget deficits when they're obstructing public healthcare will become deficit
doves in spending the estimated $1 million per year per new soldier (not to
mention private contractors) headed off to Asia.
The only good news I can see: Maybe it will take a White
House/GOP alliance over
Afghanistan to
wake up the base of liberal groups (like MoveOn) to take a closer and more
critical look at President Obama's policies.