No matter what the facts are, some liberal activists and leaders persist in seeing President Obama as a principled progressive reformer who lives and breathes the campaign rhetoric about "change you can believe in."
He's been in the White House eight months. It's time for activists take a harder look at Obama. And a more assertive posture toward him.
Because if Obama believes it's okay to pass healthcare "reform" that subsidizes insurance firms without a robust public option and he dispatches still more troops to Afghanistan, it could demobilize progressive activists while emboldening the Teabag & Beck crowd to bring the GOP back from the dead in low-turnout congressional elections next year. That would be a rerun of the 1994 rightwing triumph brought on by President Clinton's weakness (e.g. healthcare reform) and corporatism (e.g. the business-friendly NAFTA).
Some activists still see Obama as a brilliant political superhero who -- although maddeningly slow to fight back against his opponents -- always manages to win in the end . . . like Muhammad Ali defeating George Foreman.
Last weekend, when he was repeatedly asked to comment on Jimmy Carter's view about anti-Obama animosity being racially motivated, Obama kept wielding the rightwing frame about big "intrusive" government. On ABC, Obama talked about people being "more passionate about the idea of whether government can do anything right. I think that that's probably the biggest driver of some of the vitriol."
On NBC, Obama said: "This debate that's taking place is not about race, it's about people being worried about how our government should operate." He asked: "What's the right role of government? How do we balance freedom with our need to look out for one another?"
The president has a huge bully pulpit, which he's largely squandered. I've heard him discuss healthcare close to ten times in recent weeks without once hearing him rally the public against the corporate greed that leaves our country No. 1 in healthcare spending and 37th in health outcomes, on par with Serbia. Without a populist challenge to corporate profiteering, what's left is either a bloodless debate about "cost containment" or a rightwing debate about "big government." Neither mobilizes the public toward progressive change.
Recent U.S. history shows that you can't serve corporate interests at the same time you're seeking reform -- of healthcare or Wall Street or any other sector. Not when big corporations are the problem . . . and the major obstacles to change.
Placating big business en route to social reform is like downing a flask of whiskey en route to kicking alcoholism.
Yet there was the Obama White House this summer entering into [secret deals http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html] with the pharmaceutical lobby protecting that industry's outsized profits.
That's why he received more Wall Street funding than any candidate in history and why -- before he was a front-runner in early 2007 -- he was raising [more money http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aLeZ7ht_LtZg&refer=home] from the biggest Wall Street banks than even Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, presidential candidates from New York.
That's why -- as soon as Hillary left the race -- he went on CNBC and [assured http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/klein] big business: "Look: I am a pro-growth, free-market guy. I love the market."