 |
|
Add to My Group
|
November 7, 2008 at 08:06:22
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 11/7/08: by Doug Rogers Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
|
As the incredible rush of the historic dimensions of the 2008 election starts to sink in and recede, we should begin to take stock of the implications of this event. There can be no question about the significance of the racial barriers that were breached by the majority of Americans who just elected a man of color as President of the United States. There can also be no quibbling about the consummate skill and exemplary conduct of Obama as a politician. What we need to acknowledge at this point however, are the two groups who are the unequivocal losers in the new equation of power. The first, not surprisingly, are the social conservatives. The second, somewhat counter-intuitively, are progressives. The mainstream media is already making this abundantly clear, though they never mention the word progressive. You can hear it on every network- what just won out is "centrism". Nancy Pelosi is proclaiming with the same bravado with which she declared "impeachment is off the table" that the Democrats will now "govern from the center". Even conservatives are promised a place in the new middle of the road consensus. An analyst on NPR this morning pointed out that Obama's biggest fights are not going to be with Republicans but rather with the left wing of his own party who will be expecting to move the country in a new direction. The irony is that progressives continue to do the heavy lifting for the Democrats. The ideology of "centrism" has been in full control for the last eight years, but it never won many elections until the progressive, principled left injected some stamina into the party. In 2006 we had finally moved the playing field far enough to the left for the Democrats to win. But then, as today, the party elites, such as Rahm Emanuel, touted their ability to cleave to the center as the main ingredient in their victory. There was no acknowledgement or note of gratitude to those who, against tremendous derision and disparagement, had opposed the Iraq invasion from the beginning.
Thus, we are seeing a repeat of this pattern. The activist left has spearheaded the critique of the Bush administration for eight long, bitter years which sowed the seeds for Obama's victory. The political landscape is utterly transformed since Al Gore ran, not just from Bush's disastrous policies but because there has been a consistent voice of conscience beating a steady tattoo for fundamental change. The centrist Democratic establishment who appeased Bush on every issue was certainly not the source of that drumbeat but they will surely be the main beneficiaries of its ascendancy.
Just as the Democrats used the anger of the Iraq War to win in 2006 but then made no serious moves to end it, we should expect today that the hunger for dramatic policy change will also go unsated. An unreformed congressional leadership combined with Obama's stated policy agenda of assuaging the status quo will surely lead to a landscape that will bear little resemblance to the hopes of progressives.
This isn't to suggest that there is something wrong with Obama's goal of achieving broad consensus or that progressives need to get everything they want. Rather, it is a recognition that in the process of getting to this point through our electoral process, progressives got almost nothing of what they wanted. If we are going to join into a broad coalition that might include conservatives and large corporations the idea that we should demand something in return for our support should have been understood from the beginning.
I apologize but I am going to have to run down this list again. There is no commitment to withdraw from Iraq or Afghanistan until it suits the masters of empire. There is no commitment to reign in the power of Wall Street or seriously re-regulate it. We will understand this fully when Obama chooses a Wall Street insider as Secretary of Treasury. There is a clear understanding at this point that the private health insurance industry will remain in control of our healthcare system. No matter what tinkering is done, any actual confrontation with this industry is off the table. Across the board, from the credit card industry to the nuclear and coal industries, corporate power, which is the root of all progressive discontent, is going to be well represented in the new government while progressives will have the consolation of their hopes.
The progressive position will be even weaker because they will feel compelled to go along with all of these reactionary, compromised policies. After all we voted for them. This must be what we wanted.
There is still every reason to expect that a smart man like Barack Obama can engineer a successful administration. Maybe it will be the best we've ever seen. But it will be done at the discretion of the establishment powerful. Progressives as a movement of like-minded people have almost no leverage to exert influence. We will grow even weaker as the impulse of self-censorship takes hold.
There are two things that I think can be done to try to salvage the movement from oblivion. The first, as people are no doubt already contemplating whether inside or outside the Democratic Party, is to become issue oriented. Advocate for specific results that you would like to see. This is of course is what we should have been doing throughout the electoral process to avoid our current predicament. If everyone who is in favor of single-payer healthcare had pledged to only vote for candidates who advocate single-payer healthcare then we undoubtedly would be looking at that outcome today.
Secondly, we need to borrow a strategy from the Republicans. Ever since Newt Gingrich got the cadres to bone up on The Art of War they have utilized a strategy of hitting Democrats whenever they raise their heads on a liberal issue. This is why Democrats inside the beltway lack the fortitude of the rank and file across the country. They are like experimental rats that get an electric shock every time they go down the wrong path in the maze.
Whether we have realized it or not, this is also what progressives have been doing to the Democrats for the last eight years. When they have headed down corridors of wishy-washy pseudo-conservatism, we have hit them hard and made them feel it. This is what has brought the Democratic Party back on course. These efforts to keep them in line are the reason they won by a solid majority yesterday. Keeping that kind of pressure up is our only hope of getting good results tomorrow.
Therefore it is imperative that we not change this strategy now. We have to keep being mean to the Democrats whenever they head down the wrong path in the maze. Its not that we are mean, it's just that we care passioniately about progressive principles.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 9 comments |
|
Progressives have given away the store!
Doug, you are right on. The anti-war, peace, impeachment and progressive communities jumped onto the Obama bandwagon early and drank heartily of the "koolaid" not realizing the lack of nourishment as they imbibed. As a consequence of directing a huge amount of energy into the Obama campaign, progressive candidates around the country suffered for lack of support. In many ways the "progressive community" has been fractured and lacks direction. Issues, as you point out, were not pursued, leverage prior to commitment was not exercised. Obama signaled his direction commencing with his visit to AIPAC and his pledge of obeisance -- since then the platform he espouses has not been one shared by the vast majority of the progressive community. His appointment of R. Emmanuel as Chief of Staff underscores this point. Yes, Obama/Biden are a much better choice than McCain/Palin. However, we must not blind ourselves and allow a "honeymoon" period. It is essential that we continue to press our issues -- peace not militarism, single payer not more insurance, diplomacy not military empire, conversion not manufacturing WMDs. Having given away the store, restocking the inventory is going to be exceedingly difficult. PEACE, Herb Hoffman by Herbert Hoffman (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 11:14:46 AM  (0+)
|
|
Herb
I dig your metaphors man. by Doug Rogers (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 152 comments) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 11:26:14 AM (0+)
|
|
Back on course?
I don't understand why you say we got the Democrats back on course after the rest of the article demonstrated that this had not happened. Please note that this election was bought. Obama repudiated his commitment to public campaign financing and raised more than $600 million to ensure he won this election. Less than 20% of this came from contributions of $200 or less. He was financed by the wealthy. The wealthy understood what he was doing. The normally Republican demographic of those who earn over $200,000 a year voted for Obama this year. There is a long record of politicians siding with those who give campaign contributions rather than the voters. Obama probably did not need to go the private financing route to win the election, but by doing so he has made himself the servant of the wealthy Americans who financed his campaign. He will be the honest politician who stays bought. The wealthy interests that funded Obama also funded a large share of the Democrats in Congress. The government is owned, lock, stock and barrel, by big corporate interests. It isn't about to heed the people. by Bill Samuel (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 445 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:40:41 PM (0+)
|
|
What's the Matter in Madison?
Much has been made, justifiably, of Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter With Kansas?" Why do social conservatives vote against their own best interests year after year? But progressives are in the same boat. Like the so-called Christian Right, Progressives are considred the party's base. We're a dependable source of money, voices and votes. And like the Christian Right, none of our positions are seriously considered in Democratic Party policy decisions. I'm not very interested in what motivates social conservatives, but I'm very interested in what motivates Progressives to vote against our own best interests. In addition, we need serious discussions on what to do about it. Mr. Frank, are you in the dugout? You're on deck. JP by JonmarkP (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 111 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:55:58 PM (0+)
|
|
sold out
progressives bought the old Dem strategy of vote for us cuz we're the lesser of two evils... and in doing so, sold out to the duopoly. One European paper noted, rightly, that anyone except the Devil would have been better than another Repub. As the election euphoria wanes, perhaps reason will return, and progressives will take a sober look at who they elected. by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:56:40 PM (0+)
|
|
Bill
I am referring to the disconnect between the activist base who push the debate to a place where Democrats can win and the Democrat establishment who take advantage of those efforts to get power and then do whatever they want anyway. In this case that would be serving their corporate paymasters. So yes, we got the party back on track so they could win and the leadership betrays those efforts by being pro-corporate and not pro-people. by Doug Rogers (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 152 comments) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:32:33 PM (0+)
|
|
Mr. Rogers is right!
The defining actions, or lack thereof, will be such things as: restoring habeas corpus, repealing the (un)Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, fixing the vote fraud (yes its alive and well), reining in environmental destruction, creating a viable health care system (not one based on limiting losses to private insurance companies), ending imperialism overseas, restoring education, regulating the oligoplies, and other similar urgent tasks. No I am not holding my breath. However, if the Dems keep pandering to the oligarchs, allowing them to gain yet more strength, then 2012 will hold serious surprises for them as we all migrate to other progressive alternatives. We must become unified on core issues. One high on the list is going after the Blue Dogs. In my state that means going after Feinstein, who fakes an interest in gun control and women's issues, but only for the sake of votes. God forbid she should be successful, then she won't have hot button issues on which to gain a foothold. Its up to us to keep the pressure on. And yes, anyone is better than Bush, even a brain dead chimp....wait... Bush IS a brain dead chimp! by jeff rock (10 articles, 1 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 187 comments [68 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 7, 2008 at 9:33:18 PM (0+)
|
|
Of course you got a centrist president.
The proof of that assertion is that he won. This was a general election, and generally, the American electorate is centrist. That's where the votes are. There is no way that a political group that is not in the center can win such a general election without massive election fraud and a low voter turn out. That is why the right tries so hard to paint all of their opposition as liberal. That being said, now you may begin to organize and have an effect beyond your numbers. The general election is over, the war of perceptions has begun. The right understands this. That is why you cannot encounter one of their number who isn't parroting the "This country is center right," talking point. Of course, it isn't true. It never has been true. But if it is the only thing that anyone hears, it will be believed. Now is the time for progressives to counter that noise and lead the Congress and the White House to the perception that this great land is possessed of attitudes that are left of center. They come to that perception by seeing most of the communication from their constituents as being left of center. It is also important to counter the myth of the liberal news media, and working to change that perception from myth to reality. At the very least, a neutral media is essential, and the Fairness Doctrine might help there. The Fairness Doctrine would be worth having if it served no purpose other than to piss off Rush Limbaugh to the point where he choked on his microphone. The great center will not take issue with your claim. They are back to their day-to-day routine and haven't the time or the inclination to argue the point. You know that if they sat still for getting raked over the coals in the past eight years, they are not going to kick when somebody makes their government care for them. It starts with you. It demands organization. The Congress and the White House will not move to the left. They will only move to maintain balance. That means that they have to believe that what is under them is moving to the left. Shake their floor. by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 6:53:17 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Oh, by the way,...
when you are communicating your concerns to the government on behalf of an organization, be sure to prominently mention the number of people in your organization. The official you are talking to will accept that number as voters, even if they are not all voters, and it is a way to lead them to believe in the popularity of your cause. If several members of your organization communicate the same concerns over time, it will likely have a multiplier effect. by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 8, 2008 at 7:06:45 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
