 |
The Obama Problem |
 |
In the last week, Barack Obama has handed progressives a string of stinging rebukes. First, he all but capitulated on the issue of retroactive immunity for lawbreaking telecom companies by endorsing the FISA “compromise.” Next came his disagreement with the Supreme Court ruling that the death penalty shouldn’t be imposed for rape. And then his flip on the heels of the Supreme Court ruling allowing the sale of handguns in DC.
It’s been a hell of a week.
So, what are progressives to do? As has been evident for some time now, Obama is only loosely affected by progressive pressure. While he has moved left on some important issues, overall he has bigger constituencies to please, and he will do what he wants.
In the short term, there’s probably not much we can do, as Mike Lux explains:
For me, being able to hold a politician accountable is having the real power to actually have a negative impact on something they really care about, namely getting elected and passing legislation they want to pass (although there might be a few other smaller things some politicians might care about). Unless you have the ability and willingness to mess with a politician in a serious way on either of those things, I don’t think you can hold them accountable. I don’t think saying bad things about them holds them accountable, I don’t think holding a protest holds them accountable, I don’t think starting a petition holds them accountable- unless it is affecting their ability to win an election or pass legislation.
…
But the only way to hold a Presidential candidate in the general election accountable once the general election season comes around is to work for their defeat or otherwise endanger their victory. For most of us, given the alternative of four more years of deadlocked government and a stubborn, hyper-aggressive President McCain, that is not an acceptable option. I see occasional commenters writing about not lifting a finger to help Obama now that he’s screwed us on FISA or other issues, but I don’t think very many of us in the progressive movement are there. Am I bummed, am I pissed that Obama and most of our Democratic leaders caved in on FISA? Absolutely, and there’s nothing wrong with saying so. But am I going to “hold Obama accountable” for this action? Well, no, frankly. I don’t think there’s a way to do that without doing something far worse. It’s the nature of the American political system: winner take all, no instant runoffs, no fusion voting (except in a few states). In the months before a Presidential general election, I can’t think of another alternative re the Presidential race other than doing everything I can do to help Obama win.
The harsh reality is, Barack Obama can and will tack towards the center on issues that are important to progressives during the general election. We can argue until we’re blue in the face that this is not a smart thing to do, and by extension, that the country is ready for real progressive leadership, but Obama will do what he wants to do. Unless we are willing to actively work against him, we have no leverage.
I am not willing to actively work against him. I’m not willing to call on people to pull their money and their volunteer hours either. But two can play at Obama’s game.
To me, Obama’s methods are obvious. He is selling out a constituency without leverage (progressives) to burnish his centrist image, which he believes will bring him more votes in November. Obama is practicing, as BooMan puts it, “raw political calculation.” Well, guess what; I can do that, too!
I will work to elect Obama because, a la “Crashing The Gate,” he is the candidate who will most likely bring about the change I want. But I realize that this raw political calculation is only a marriage of convenience. As soon as Obama is elected, I become his critic, looking to move him left.
I will use Mike Lux’s second option for true accountability, and my opposition to centrist statements or legislation coming from an Obama administration will be very real. Progressives have shown they can work together to help pass or scuttle a bill. That power will be used against any and all Obama legislation that charts a triangulated path for this country as opposed to the right one.
And in the meantime, I will also work to rid Congress of conservative, Blue and Bush Dog Democrats, and build up long-term progressive infrastructure, building a progressive Congress to pressure President Obama.
I do not believe for one second that Obama or the Democratic party will necessarily bring all the change we need. No party stands for my bedrock principles all the time, principles like the rule of law, the balance of powers, the Constitution, civil liberties, opportunity for all, security through freedom, reduced corporate power, and responsible governance. Politicians will sell me out to get elected when they can get away with it, and I will sell them out to uphold these principles when I can get away with it.
As long as we don’t stoop so low as to rationalize a candidate’s political calculations, progressives can retain their authority while still supporting a center/center-left candidate.
But once Obama is elected, it’s war. As I’ve said before, November is just the beginning.
Does Obama’s move to the center really come as surprise to anybody? Isn’t that what happens everytime the primary season moves into the general election? Aren’t the conservatives upset about the same thing with McCain?
No, no surprise, at least to most. But consider: This is the first time progressive really have a presidential candidate they can get behind in the general. This is the first time a “friendly” has made it this far. So the movement is dealing with this kind of betrayal as a movement for the first time. Makes for some interesting wrangling.
Jay,
The Dems need to have a little James Carville in them. Progessive purity will lose this election. We can’t affect much of the change we want if McCain is elected president. Yes, an Obama presidency will not be very progressive in policy, although the movement beneath him is. But as the Nader purists showed us in 2000, a little bit of Machiavelli woundn’t hurt the direction towards progessive ideals that we all wish to achieve.
Hey, I’m with you. There is no purity here, at least strategy-wise. I know what I believe in, and I’ll do whatever is necessary to make that happen. And that does mean supporting politicians who aren’t 100% “on my side.”
But once Obama is elected, it’s war.
It is war now, on hypocrisy, double dealing, lies and compromises when with his army and declared intentions he doesn’t need to compromise.
Finally, I read an analysis of the situation with which I can concur completely. This article was featured on Huffington Daily brief, and I have commented there. I have bookmarked this website and will be interested in further postings.
While I am greatly discouraged by Obama’s move to the center, I likewise am not surprised. But there is a missing element in this discussion, something that I think you brushed on Jason, and that is that there is No party that represents you all the time. I think that the argument can be made that we are all independent voters while we are alone in the voting booths. But that is just the surface. What also is missing here is accountability, no not accountability for the candidates, future office holders, but accountability of the people. Why are we not holding the American people accountable for what is taking place in this country? No, none of us wants another four years of “deadlocked government”, but why are we so convinced that the person who gets elected president is the only person who can control that? Anyone who thinks that One Man, One Party, One Law, or One Type Of Change, will turn this mess around needs to think again. Just voting used to be the standard for what is expected of Americans politically, and look at where that has gotten us. It is time to not only hold elected officials accountable but ourselves and our neighbors as well, that is the real solution for change!
Great point, and a reason why I like Obama a lot. He has gotten a lot of people involved. If he pulls a JFK and asks us to serve our country, it might be an amazing turn of events.
The ideal candidate used to be that heroic figure like Ike who was adored by the public for some achievement that had nothing to do with the political realm, and who the press treated with reverence while ignoring his inanity. I do not long for the past. I do want a president who does his job, which is carrying out laws enacted by congress. It would be nice to have a heroic figure who rescued cities while wearing a cape, but what we need is something quite different. I don’t want the laws being bent in any direction, not left, not right, I want them to be enacted by Congress, not a crooked resident of the WH. I want appointments to high office of public officials who carry out those laws, not some deviant version of it from the inside web of WH chicanery. I want a representative of the U.S., not the international business community.
Obama suits quite well. I am sorry he doesn’t agree with all of my views, which also include growing hemp for biofuel, and ending capital punishment. Maybe later, with rational beings in office, we can work on those.
Jason, the problem is, however, that Obama has painted HIMSELF as a “different” kind of leader. One who doesn’t play the “politics of old”.
How the hell can anyone trust this man? He says he’s about “change” but then he plays the part of a pragmatist if it’ll help him get elected.
This is the man who has shown poor judgment for this whole campaign season. First he gets the “ex-gay” minister, Donnie McClurkin, on a tour to build up Obama’s support among Black Evangelicals and then is “surprised” when he “discovers” McClurkin’s anti-gay ministry. Then, there’s Rev Wright (first, Obama didn’t know the kind of speeches Wright was giving and then, incredibly, he DEFENDS the speeches as having been taken “out of context”–I thought to know the proper context, you had to have heard or read the original material). Then, there’s the association with Rezko. Then, Obama resigns from Trinity (but only after Pfleger’s anti-Hillary rant becomes public knowledge). And, of course, there’s the Ayers connection. And on and on. And yet, no one (who’s white, at least) wants to call Obama on any of his shortcomings for fear of being called a racist. (Hell, Gerry Ferraro used one of Obama’s OWN QUOTES about his being lucky to be where he is, and got branded as a racist.)
If Obama expects MY vote (and I’m leaning towards the Green Party this year), the man needs to show ME that he deserves my vote. I’m white, but I live in Alabama. I’ve voted for any number of African-American candidates over the years–hell, I voted for Vivian Figures in the Democratic primary for the US Senate seat currently occupied by Jeff Sessions. The thing is, I KNOW Vivian Figures’ record in this state (I also know she didn’t happen to vote “present” or “accidentally” vote the wrong way in the AL Legislature) but I still don’t see how Obama is any better than Hillary Clinton. And as much as I supported Hillary, I cannot, in good conscience, follow her request that I support Obama. I KNOW Hillary’s record (and her vote on the war authorization matter was no different from John Kerry’s but I haven’t heard any criticism of Kerry from Obama). Obama has lied on any number of topics and has gotten a free pass from the media EVERY SINGLE TIME. Hillary makes a misstatement or misremembers something and it becomes fodder for late-night talk show hosts for weeks (even if someone should come out and back up Hillary’s version).
I refuse to be bullied by anyone. My vote is NOT readily transferrable from one candidate to another. Kucinich (the REAL progressive) was my first choice, unfortunately, he wasn’t on the Alabama primary ballot. (Is it too late to request that Kucinich get some of the State’s delegates since some people *might* have voted for him if his name had been on the ballot? After all, that argument worked for Obama with regards to Michigan.) And Hillary was my back-up candidate with Edwards as my third choice. I honestly wouldn’t have a problem with Obama in 2012 or 2016, when he’s had more time in the Senate to really show what he can do, but he’s been in the US Senate for less than 3 1/2 years, and he really hasn’t done anything. (Hell, Hillary has been the far right’s biggest boogeyman since even BEFORE she set foot in the Senate. Her face is still plastered on any number of far-right mailings as an epitome of “evil liberal”, right there with Ted Kennedy. Barack Obama? Despite allegedly being the “most liberal Senator”, he hasn’t managed to make the “evil liberal” Top 10. Shoot, Pelosi and Murtha have been elevated above Obama. And we’re supposed to think that Obama is really liberal or progressive? This is the same man who actually praised Ronald Reagan! What kind of PROGRESSIVE praises Reagan?
Well said, Jason!
Cornel West wrote something similar in Rolling Stone, about how the day after the inauguration, he will become Obama’s biggest critic, because Obama’s calling is progressive governance, while his (West’s) is a Socratic, prophetic calling (I’m paraphrasing the quotes).
I think it’s a good attitude for any and all progressives–to acts as voices crying in the wilderness to ensure that what needs to get done GETS DONE.
Obama can’t dismantle the military-prison-industrial complex on his own, and he can’t dismantle the Religious Right’s political machine on his own, and he can’t wave a magic wand and end the poisonous atmosphere of a house divided in this country on his own.
It’s down to us, people that care about the orphan and the stranger to clean out the behemoth, run by power-mad bandits, that trundles to war for profit.
It’s down to us, who appreciate the role of reason in government and who pray to a God that loves everyone and damns poverty more than homosexuality and abortion combined in any Scripture, to break the Religious Right’s hold on public life and protect the rule of law and the rights of the individual.
It’s down to us, as patriots before progressives, as Americans who respect their country so much that we expect it to DO BETTER (as Senator Fulbright wrote), ensure the rights of conservatives and libertarians in civil discourse and build a “kinder, gentler America”.
Jason,
I agree with your assessment of this “problem”. And I concur with your perscription for this “problem”.