 |
Add to My Group
1
View Ratings |
Rate It
There's Something Happening Here
By David Sirota (about the author) Page 1 of 1 page(s)
For OpEdNews: David Sirota - Writer
Published on OurFuture.org (http://www.ourfuture.org)
Created 01/28/2009 - 11:11pm
There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Almost exactly a year ago, I wrote an article for In These Times [1] predicting that congressional progressives would be emboldened to assert themselves in an unprecedented way under an Obama administration - and that the broader progressive movement would help itself immensely by focusing on working with and strengthening those lawmakers. Now, after eight years of a rubber-stamp Congress, that prediction seems to be coming true.
In the last few weeks, we've seen:
- Senate Democrats publicly press [2] Obama to make the economic recovery package far more robust.
- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi publicly challenge Obama [3] to be bolder on taxes.
- Congressional progressives challenge the Obama administration - against its wishes [4] - to include bankruptcy reforms in the economic stimulus package.
- House Appropriations Chairman Dave Obey (D-WI) [5] tell the administration it's stimulus package is too small.
- Transportation Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) [6] expose how Obama's push for tax cuts is crowding out transportation infrastructure funding
- A bipartisan House coalition make one of the new Congress's first votes a statement of opposition [7] to the Bush-Obama bailout for Wall Street, and for much stronger bailout oversight [8].
- Progressive Democrats, joining with the blogosphere [9] and outside progressive movement, push a House amendment to boost infrastructure spending in Obama's stimulus proposal.
This week, this nascent progressive pressure system emanating from Capitol Hill and the outside progressive media/movement intensified.
Rep. Peter DeFazio took to MSNBC to hammer - in very specific terms - the free market fundamentalists in the Obama administration he says are harming the new president. Discussing the economic recovery package, DeFazio told Rachel Maddow [10]:
There's a pretty good consensus among members of the House that it should be more. But the dictate from on high in the negotiations with Obama's advisers--I don't think the President is there--I think he's ill-advised by Larry Summers. Larry Summers hates infrastructure, and some of these other economists--who were very much part of creating the problem. Now they're gonna solve the problem. And they don't like infrastructure
DeFazio's call to action was followed up by an outside-inside campaign to add more transportation funding to the stimulus bill - outside pressure is coming from blogospheric drumbeating [9], inside pressure is coming from lawmakers sponsoring the amendment. And we have the facts with us: As ThinkProgress [10] notes, while 33 percent of Obama's stimulus proposal is devoted to tax cuts, just 7.5 percent is devoted to transportation infrastructure.
What's important here, though, is not just the data, but also the dynamic.
Suddenly, we have a Congress pushing the executive branch to be more progressive - and that's a big deal.
Clearly, this is the product of many different factors. In my In These Times piece, I predicted it would have something to do with the fact that the most senior Democrats in Congress tend to be some of the most progressive. Undoubtedly, the crisis circumstances our country faces plays a role. But let's not underestimate our own impact.
During the Clinton Era, Republicans and the corporatist wing of the Democratic Party routinely marginalized progressives, and progressives' response was that of a WATB: We deferred to a triangulating president, while whimpering to ourselves about the horrors of getting routinely trampled. But in the last decade, the progressive movement has changed. We've been aggressively working to construct the infrastructure and political support system that could move Congress to exert progressive pressure on the government. And now it looks like that's happening, to the point where a senior House Democrat like DeFazio is willing to go on television and name names (in this case, Larry Summers), and other Democrats are willing to effectively challenge a new Democratic president with amendments on the floor of the U.S. House.
Yes, as Buffalo Springfield would say, there's something happening here. And sure, what it is ain't exactly clear - but it is progressive in nature. And it has the potential to be really transformative.
If, as I said in my last newspaper column [11], we're going to close the gulf between the rhetoric of hope and the real action of change, it will be through our work continuing to create the conditions for this new dynamic to thrive. The bolder the Democratic Congress, the more it can reject czarism and reassert its constitutional role, the more likely the White House will be to embrace more progressive policies, and thus the more likely those policies will be legislated into law. That, IMHO, should be one of the basic formulas we are all working off of, as it is one of the most simple paths to concrete results.
* The Big Con
* An Economy for All
Campaign For America's Future
1825 K Street, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20006
202-955-5665 (tel) | 202-955-5606 (fax) | www.ourfuture.org
Links:
[1] click here
[2] click here
[3] http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11075
[4] http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11087
[5] click here
[6] click here
[7] http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11060
[8] click here
[9] http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11181
[10] http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/23/defazio-on-summers/
[11] click here
David Sirota is a full-time political journalist, (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 |
by Barry Ritholtz
$24.95
Lowest New Price $14.18
Number of pages: 332
Publisher: Wiley
by Bill Bartmann
$24.95
Lowest New Price $8.25
Number of pages: 240
Publisher: Wiley
by John Waggoner
$24.95
Lowest New Price $6.74
Number of pages: 196
Publisher: Wiley
by Nomi Prins
$25.95
Lowest New Price $15.06
Number of pages: 304
Publisher: Wiley
| 8 comments |
|
What progressive?
Nothing in this article is progressive that I can see. It's trimming the leaves on a dead tree. You want progressive? Get rid of the FED. Hold criminals accountable. Investigate 9/11. Smash Monsanto and outlaw GMO. Get rid of the CIA and all the other so-called "intelligence" agencies and investigate their roll in drug industry, sex-slavery, child prostitution, war proliferation. End all wars and bring our troops home from around the world. End the legislation to build FEMA camps. End the proposed gun confiscation laws. Give us Universal Health Care. Standardized election reform. End gerrymandering. Restore posse comitatus. Resend Military Commission Act and Patriot Act. Replace citizens ability to call a Grand Jury without going through State AG. And this is for starters. Now go back and write another article that has something to say. by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [662 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:06:56 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: AMEN!!!!!
The question is, did voters vote for Obama because they LIKED him, or because he was less terrifying than McPalin? If, as I believe, the answer is the latter, then someone has to hold this president's feet to the fire to get him to acquiesce to what needs to be done. (Good luck!) It's hard for ANYONE not to look more progressive than McPalin. by Jill Herendeen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 263 comments [21 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:35:31 AM (0+)
|
|
Mr. M
Wow, I would just be happy to see Bush prosecuted, thinking that some of what you listed would just automatically follow. by Steven G. Erickson (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 94 diaries, 409 comments [113 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:28:52 PM (0+)
|
|
You don't get the song, David
What the song is actually about is much different than a bunch of lame half assed "tries" by the now all powerful Dems at restoring America to its people. Pussyfooting around while the world burns and the Afghans get mowed down by these psychopaths is not gonna be much of a happening. Mr. M rocks the house! Love it.... by mary sunshine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 167 comments [89 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:05:03 AM (0+)
|
|
Cha...
..cha cha cha! by William Whitten (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4880 comments [1711 recommended, 28 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:36:13 AM (0+)
|
|
It's about POWER!
First, lets call a spade a spade. "Progressive" is just a another word for Socialism. Why are "Progressives" so afraid of that word? Second, Socialism (or "Progressive" if you prefer) is just a tool for politicians to gain power. Socialism cannot work without the use of governmental force and the curtailment of personal freedoms. The more socialism, the more governmental force that must be used, in the name of "the good of society" of course. It's a tried and true formula for growing POWER.... if you're a member of the power elite. The "Something" that's "Happening Here" is a simply a political power grab. But Obama is smart man. I believe he understands that the time for flowery rhetoric is over. Now, he will be judged on his action, and on the consequenses of his actions. He would have to be a political idiot to let congress force feed Socialist (oops) Progressive programs down his throat, that he will later be held responsible for. Socialism has historically always been a disaster for ecconomics and for personal liberties. Obama's challenge is to manage the growth in governmental power by limiting and disguising the predictable side effects. After all, Obama knows it's going to get harder and harder to blame everything on Bush. by roy lutz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 30, 2009 at 6:02:05 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: It's all about power
I agree with the sentiments you express here in general; but, I believe you misrepresent what progressivism entails. It is not, as you say, socialism by a different name whatsoever. Being a progressive means you govern pragmatically, seeing what does and does not work or comparing what has and has not worked, and reforming or improving government function according to these observable principles and precepts. It is evident today that free market capitalist corporate hegemony is every bit as restrictive, oppressive and abusive as either communism or socialism. All three represent ideological paradigms of powers corrupting influence, allowing an elite few to gain entrenched control over all aspects of a society, and perhaps even the world. All three also thrive on the economic stimulus of perpetual armed conflict. by cosmic J. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 69 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 1, 2009 at 11:19:28 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Pragmatic? Okay.
Yes, I think I agree with your assessment of the predominant "Progressive" attitude that I too have observed. Pragmatism, or in other words, "The ends justify the means." If socialism sounds good, why not try it? If fascism is the most expedient solution, go for it. I guess, if a communist dictator makes the right promises, hail to the chief. We'll just call it "progressive." By the way, the free market capitalist corporate hegemony that I think you are referring to is not free and it's not capitalism, its fascism. Unfortunately, true free market, ala liaise-fare, capitalism is rare in America today. Government control of business has grown exponentially in the past 20 years. And the bigger the business, the less free of government control it is. The biggest ones are so in bed with government, that it's sometimes hard to tell exactly who's toes are sticking out from under the blankets. Government has become the sometimes ally, sometimes the managing partner, and often the competitor of private business. I wouldn't call what has been going on lately in the banking and automotive business sectors examples of free market capitalism, but instead, they're great examples of fascism. And why is it pragmatic to look toward collectivist solutions (of whatever flavor) when they have never worked. To the extent that socialism has been tried, it has always failed. On the other hand, to the extent that liase-fare capitalism has been tried, it has succeeded in providing more personal freedom and a higher standard of living for everyone. The USA is arguably still the most free capitalistic society in the world today and also has the highest standard of living. It's no coincidence that what we call "poor" the rest of the world calls "middle class," or even "rich." Why then are progressive pragmatist politicians not suggesting we try a little more truely free market capitalism? Because what's pragmatic for individual freedom and ecconomic prosperity, is not pragmatic for politicians. It's not about pragmatism. It's about power. by roy lutz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 2, 2009 at 4:48:56 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
