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.
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.
Jason Rosenbaum is a writer and musician currently residing in Washington D.C. He is interested in the intersection of politics and culture, media consolidation issues, and making sense out of our foreign policy disasters. He is also the webmaster for The Seminal.
conservative movement and their Failed Conservative Values. I don't put my trust in the candidate so much as in the progressive values.
Progressives need to do more to articulate and promote their values of; caring, empathy, community, equality, justice,, etc. in the same way as they need to confront the failed conservative values of authoritarianism, fear, secrecy, self-rightousness, indifference, greed, corruption, etc. It means getting clear yourself on, what your values are,, and learning to clearly articulate them,
by
Edwin Rutsch (57 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 140 comments)
on Friday, June 27, 2008 at 4:17:21 PM
and it's part of the problem we're having with mccain, in that mccain uses the best of progressive rhetoric, without actually being very progressive at all. our language is miserable. we need to act as the translators, and speak to all voters, not above them, and not give them lectures--it's what snl kept making fun of gore for. and for pete's sake, not call people bitter or clinging.
obama's camp should realize that more voters identify with the label and ideals of progressives than even people who identify as moderates, and certainly more than people who identify as either liberal or conservative.
and this fisa bill was simply a trap given to the gop, who love to label democrats as flip-floppers--it's kerry and 2004 all over again. we need to stand stronger against immunity, or else it looks like we're giving into corporate interests.
remember, we're not weak on terror, the republicans have been incompetent on terror!
i'll borrow an adjusted line from iron man (sorry, marvel fan). some say you can either have privacy rights, or security from terror. i say--is it too much to ask for both?
lets get some backbone, defend the constitution (you know, the thing you swear to defend when you become president), and stopdefending the mistakes of this administration, and stopdefending the corporate interests who have bankrolled them.
obama's campaign has been disapointing, in that he's only seemed to pander to progressives, use us for the grassroots support and fund-raising...now he's done with us it seems (kinda knew that would happen--i voted for edwards). people say, yeah i'll vote for obama, but doesn't he know that we will go to bat for him, defend him, if he'd just stay on our issues?
by
kenshin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments)
on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 9:43:39 PM
I'm afraid you're really just kidding yourself. What you lay
out there is nothing but the standard old theory of lesser-evilism.
You write, "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....(etc etc)"
The truth is, Obama & the Dems will bring NONE of the change we need. And the Dem Party doesn't stand for your very nice bedrock principles AT ALL. It's not a matter of them not doing it "all of the time"; it's a matter of them NEVER doing it.
Just in the last few days, they sold out the Constitution. They sold out the idea of government accountability. They funded the war for the next 12 months with no strings whatsoever attached. They're on the verge of passing a bill to impose a naval blockade on Iran -- an act of war.
The fact that you try to cast this euphemistically as "not standing for your bedrock principles all the time" demonstrates that you're just not facing the reality of it. You're also surrendering to the idea that it's so terribly important to defeat McCain, that you'll support someone like Obama, who has already betrayed you several times on points that should be non-negotiable. This is classic lesser-evilist thinking.
This is exactly how the 2-party system marches on. When election time comes, all liberals start screeching hysterically about the new Republican bogeyman, & thus see no choice but to cave in to the Democrats, no matter how many times the Dem betrays them.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1120 comments)
on Friday, June 27, 2008 at 11:06:04 PM
Progressives are to the Democratic Party what the Christian Right is to the Republicans--essential to an election victory, easily rallied and always dependable, but not seriously considered in any policy decisions. Progressives are mocked as a fringe element by the likes of Pelosi and Reid, just as the Faux Christians are mocked by the Republican elite. We progressives are the one group the Democrats think they'll never have to pander to, as we'll always be first to fall in line while asking for nothing in return. As we lose issue after issue such as FISA, war funding, single-payer health care and dozens of others, we'll be the first to tell each other, "Forget FISA, think of the Supreme Court. Forget single payer health care, think of the Supreme Court." And then, when another corporate shill is appointed to the Court by a Democratic president, we'll look ahead to the next election with our silly vows of Never Again.
Just like the Christian Right, we vote against our own best interests year after pathetic year, never quite able to understand why the issues we care so much about never quite make it out of committee, never quite make it into law. We can't face up to the fact that the Democrats are in thrall to corporate interests every bit as much as the Republicans. Obama will sell us out just like Hillary would have, only with more charm. He has already started.
To hell with the DNC and the DLC and the DCCC. I'm going to write in my vote for Kucinich and let the chips fall where they will. I hope hundreds of thousands of other Progressives will follow suit. I'm ashamed that I voted for Kerry, and I'll be ashamed if I vote for Obama. If McCain wins and America takes to the streets, that will be what we really needed in the first place. Enough is enough.
JP
by
JonmarkP (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 64 comments)
on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 3:53:11 AM
Obama is not tacking toward "the center." 73% of the people oppose the Bush administration. It's a deep and solid opposition built up over time without the help of the MSM. The people are behaving very intelligently, contrary to some opinions. They've done their homework.
They don't want to give immunity to the telecoms or Bush.
They don't want to be in Iraq a six months from now, let alone 16 months.
They don't want the Wall Street crooks to get a pass.
And they're sick and tired of the political liars who promise one thing and deliver nothing, as we've experienced over the last 8 years.
They're ready to rock. They'll hammer Obama from about mid summer through the election if he doesn't wise up.
He's moving toward his corpratist, war party home base. Look at his advisers - Brzezinski and Goolsbee - a warrior and a Chicago School free marketer who supports NAFTA. You think the people won't pick up on this very soon. Guess again. They're already getting the point on telecom immunity.
Obama will start 2009 under the cloud of public outrage if he doesn't get it together. No more b.s. from these folks.
Just remember two words NED LAMONT!
by
Michael Collins (89 articles, 13 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 329 comments)
on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 4:08:40 AM
Sorry to disappoint, Michael, but the truth is a slim minority of constituents even know who Obama chose as advisors. Most know nothing of Chicago School economics, and they're still enamored with the guy's rhetoric.
Don't hold your breath for that mid-summer hammering. Obama bailed on FISA and NAFTA. He's bailed on public campaign financing, and he's cuddling up with the same corporate sponsors that finance McCain and Dubya.
If McCain loses this election, I'll be stunned!
by
Angelo (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 161 comments)
on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 10:28:54 AM
liberal votes alone won't win this election; Obama's strategy makes sense, and I am glad he can be both pragmatic and able to fight the Republican smear machine, two qualities that the Dems seem to lack lately.
And I take lesserevilism any time against 4 more years of Bush's neofascist regime and hellish descent into economic and military disaster. I don't like the Clintons, but the Clinton years look like heaven compared to now. You are never going to get a perfect liberal in the White House, anybody who is reality based knows for a fact that somebody like Kuchinich will never be elected President.
Like the author of this article, I will support Obama for now, and stay alert if he is elected, on the basis of this simple notion: I prefer Blair, or even Churchill, to Hitler; you people who fuss about Obama not being a true blue liberal don't seem to realize the extreme urgency of our situation: we are now pretty far down on the path to an extreme right/corporate dictatorship and closer to losing our democracy we have ever been in 200+ years.
by
francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 299 comments)
on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 6:52:19 AM
Obama has switched from the Change candidate to the "I-might-not-be -what-you-want-but-I'm-better-than-McCain" candidate. This might be satisfactory to you but on behalf of "you people who fuss about Obama" it is not for us. As Michael Collins pointed out, Obama has moved the political center way to the right of the majority of the voters. Are you happy about this? To a lot of "us people" this might be yet another good year to vote third party. As Bush and the Obamaites say "Either you're for us or you're against us". Obama can do like another politician of a similar mindset and "go it alone".
by
vidiot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 171 comments)
on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 8:11:46 AM
Re: "the extreme urgency of our situation..." -- You don't
seem to realize where this urgency is really coming from. You'd like to blame it all on the Republicans. But the truth is that it comes from having only 2 parties, one of which is overtly & aggressively fascistic, while the other collaborates reliably on every single fascistic initiative.
You try to make yourself feel better by saying that you will "stay alert" if Obama is elected. This is a silly fantasy. The Democrats don't care what their voters want, & don't respond to it. You have no mechanism of making them pay for it, if they start betraying you. In fact, they've already started betraying you, with Obama's FISA stance, his groveling before AIPAC, his saber-rattling towards Iran, etc. And there's nothing you can do about it.
You write that "the Clinton years look like heaven compared to now." This is a bogus comparison, because the global position of the US & American capitalism are very different now than they were then. In fact, the Reagan and Bush I years also "look like heaven compared to now" (though certainly not because of anything those guys did). That's because in those days, the US was still economically strong. All 3 of those presidents massively over-spent on the military, & allowed the rich to loot the rest of the country. The Bush Jr administration is simply the time when the bill for all this earlier looting has started to come due.
And, as I said, there isn't a single thing Bush Jr did, that the Democrats didn't help him do. They never fought him seriously on a single issue, & never exposed the criminality of his administration. They did the opposite -- they gave him political cover, provided him with critical votes, and protected him from impeachment & exposure.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1120 comments)
on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 11:47:34 AM
Don't know just what the author wants, but it is clear Obama won't bring about the change I want. At best, he might move marginally forward on some issues, while moving backward on others.
The biggest issue in my mind, which governs many of the others, is the issue of national priorities, one that the candidates never even mention in those terms. But here Obama and McCain have virtually identical records and campaign positions. Both have consistently voted to spend over half of the discretionary budget on wars and preparations for wars. And both favor increasing the bloated military budget, so we go backwards no matter which Senator gets elected.
If we're devoting most of our resources to mass slaughter, and that is our first priority, clearly we aren't going to be doing much to meet human needs. So while the Democrats talk better on human needs, we can be certain that what they do will be very little as long as their priority is militarism and imperialism.
We have to stop holding our noses and voting for candidates who are far more wrong than they are right, even if they are marginally better than what the other half of the duopoly presents. The Democrats will keep on doing just what they've been doing as long as we vote for them. They don't care what our views are; they just want our votes. If they can get them without changing what they stand for, they will continue to do that.
It is imperative that everyone who believes in meaningful change not vote for McCain-Obama, but for a third party or independent candidate. If everyone who really wants change did that, the country would stand up and take notice when they saw the large vote for candidates the MSM doesn't view as serious.
by
Bill Samuel (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 228 comments)
on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 8:54:02 AM
...your choice but in absolute mathematical terms, it only helps Maccain, period. If the increasingly erratic Nader had not run in 2000, Gore's position would have been stronger against the Florida rip off.
The difference between the right and the left in this country is that the Democratic culture seems to be in love with failure and manages repeatedly to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, through the unrealistic maximalism and naiveté of its left wing, among other things. Without speaking of neocons enablers, like Pelosi of course.
For once, Obama might be someone who is neither a powerless choirboy, nor totally sold out. Again, I am not for a copycat return to the Clinton years, but if we could only get back there in terms of economic prosperity and peace, I would be deliriously happy.
by
francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 299 comments)
on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 9:09:50 AM
Please. As an Obama supporter you surely must have blushed when you wrote that! Nader's position has been the same since the 1960's. No one has ever seriously doubted where he stood on an issue, and if he took a position he always stuck to it. Obama's policies have been like a feather in the wind.
Obama has sent a very clear message that he has no use for Progressives since he won the primary. He doesn't need us or want us any more than he wants Muslin women in head dresses, or attending a church where the minister sounds too black. Obama is in no dire need of Progressive support. He thinks that we have no where else to go and we will vote for him regardless of what he does.
Years ago I probably would have agreed with you, but I have seen the Democrats take dives, cave in, and sell out so much that it is hard for me to expect anything different from them. Can you not see that they have already pulled back the football that you were about to kick?
by
vidiot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 171 comments)
on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 3:18:34 PM
Y'ALL KEEP EXPECTING 'PROGRESSIVES' TO HAVE ANSWERS
when in reality, there are only 'questions' on both conservative and progressive points of view. I would be satisfied to wring out the excessive dirty water from lobbyist-congressperson relationships. I would be intoxicated with hope to see the military industrial brought to its knees. I would be excited beyond belief to watch as America reclaimed its ethical principles.
None of that depends upon progressives. All of it depends upon the serious and hard work of attaching responsibility to representation and realizing that watching the other guy's ox being gored is not a solution.
by
Jim Freeman (108 articles, 42 quicklinks, 193 diaries, 364 comments)
on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 10:09:17 AM
my analysis is not that different from yours, it's only in terms of tactic-- what can and can't be done in the short time we have until the elections-- that I differ.
''seem to realize where this urgency is really coming from. You'd like to blame it all on the Republicans. But the truth is that it comes from having only 2 parties, one of which is overtly & aggressively fascistic, while the other collaborates reliably on every single fascistic initiative.''
No, I don't blame it all on the Republicans--the situation we have now is certainly the result of 25 years of Reaganism--continued to a large extent during the Clinton years. But I am also well aware of the organic link between neo-fascism and corporations and the fact that these corporations control US politics, national and international, to a degree unheard of since the 1920s. As a result, posing that the root of the problem is essentially political--the two party system-- is a superficial explanation; the rootcause of our situation is the almost unlimited power now held by these world companies, allowed to grow wildly thanks to tax reductions and deregulations during the last 25 years.
Based on this overwhelming corporate power, any party besides the ones existing already, can be intimidated and bought--at least its leaders--just like the Dems, and if not, it will never go anywhere anyhow without powerful financial backers and the support of the MSM. There was an overabundance of political parties in Germany in the 30s, you know, most of them corrupt, fighting between themselves and unable to unite against the extreme right...
So--and I am aware that I am not very optimistic now--this election is not about the change we want--it's about the change we can have--either a hard fascism, a system where all democratic freedoms are progressively eliminated, the same reaganomics continue to apply while the country is headed for bankruptcy, endless wars, and disaster in the end.
Or a candidate who will reintroduce some regulation, maintain some semblance of democracy, and reinject a bit more of those corporate profits into the system. Obama is not going to go very far on this road, he is no revolutionnary, but only deluded idealists do not see the big difference between the two types of regimes.
Speaking about Germany in the 30s, this is pretty much the debate that took place in the German left before Hitler's rise to power; the left of the left's political analysis was that there was no difference between a nazi regime and the corrupt German socialists or other bourgeois democratic parties and that none of these parties should get their votes, because none was exactly what they wanted.
Well, not only these guys did not get exactly what they wanted but when they were sent to camps, they realized there was a difference after all.
We are not there yet, but I am not sure either something of the kind cannot happen in the US, based on all the democratic rights we have already lost in only 8 years. So wake up and smell the rat.
by
francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 299 comments)
on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 2:41:25 PM
OK, that's a lot better than what you wrote above. I agree
that our analyses are not that different, in important respects.
Two things, though. One is that I am not posing the "superficial explanation" that "... the root of the problem is essentially political--the two party system." Rather, I see the 2-party system as the instrument of corporate power. So I identify the exact same root problem that you do.
The other point is that you are still holding out the hope that Obama & the Dems will "reintroduce some regulation, maintain some semblance of democracy...," etc. My view is that the Dems specialize in putting a "kinder, gentler" face on what amounts to the same underlying corporatist/militarist policies of empire. Through skillful theatrics & sunnier rhetoric, they feed us the same poison while sugarcoating it so that most people will get the impression (at least for a while) that they're getting something "New and Improved."
That you referred to reintroducing a "semblance" of democracy is perhaps more accurate than you intended, because it points to the fact that the "democracy" will be largely illusory.
The essential characteristic of the 2-party system is that it never allows the public to escape from it. Both parties are controlled by corporations, as you rightly said. A set-up like this simply denies the public the right to vote in its own interests.
Even if one wanted to argue that we're in a crisis, & the 2008 election is only 4 months away, so there's no time to organize a broad movement to break the duopoly, the argument should still not be crafted in a way that nurtures illusions about the Democrats. At most, the argument should be, "I know Obama is a phony & that the Democrats are my enemies. I'll vote for them anyway, because I haven't yet found a thoroughly persuasive alternative. But I'll be looking eagerly to find such an alternative."
In other words, even if one is willing to vote for Democrats for purely tactical reasons (say, because one believes it gives us more time to organize an effective resistance or political alternative), one shouldn't try to put lipstick on the Democratic pig.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1120 comments)
on Saturday, June 28, 2008 at 3:58:36 PM
for your answer; our main difference probably comes from the fact that, having lived in Western Europe, some of my friends from Eastern Europe told me about their experience there during the Soviet years.
The lesson I drew from these experiences is that formal democracy is far more livable then open dictature. That pretty much sums up my point, plus the fact we don't have a lot of options right now.
by
francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 299 comments)
on Sunday, June 29, 2008 at 3:58:50 AM
The more things "change" the more things stay the same.
I was once ripped to shreds on KOS because I dared to question why Obama was throwing so much support toward blue dog Melissa Bean of Illinois.
It wasn't like I didn't know the answer, but I wanted to point out that Obama is just another politician, albeit with a great act.
I can testify that I have spoken with numerous people in Obama's Chicago and Washington DC Senate offices, including several of his key aides, and they expressed to me the same apathy, arrogance, and even ignorance, that I have come to expect from the employees of a politician.
I have to be honest though. I do not know how they react toward wealthy benefactors. I am merely a constituent.
by
John Olsen (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 36 comments)
on Monday, June 30, 2008 at 12:18:07 PM
If Barack Obama does move towards the moderate point of view we will all be better off for it. The biggest problems we have is when the extremes, whether right, conservative, left, or liberal, gain domination of our government. Extremes like these are very harmful to every living thing, and that includes our country and it's Constitution. This has been bourne out by history and Bush-Cheney, most recently. If we react by going to the other extreme it will only exacerbate our current problems and add many new ones. We need to reinstate our Constitution, gain a national health insurance(Not a health system), reinstate the balance of powers between the 3 branches of government, limit terms of all elected officials as well as those appointed, break the lobbiest control of Congress and others in the government, Stop the Iraq debacle, Return diplomacy to our primary method of dealing with all other governments, engage in massive trust busting to remove the immense corporate controls on our government, public investigations into all branches of government and corporate interferance of it, etc. We have an immense amount of work to be done to recover our country and this November will apparently have to be the start since Congress has almost completely forgotten it's responsibility to We, the People, and will not impeach the administrations traitors.
by
Hayesml47 (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 395 comments)
on Monday, June 30, 2008 at 5:29:17 PM
