Progressives Need to Issue an Ultimatium to Obama

Post Reply New Topic

Agreed. I learned a lot in the 2000 election when I voted (regretably) for Nader. It's nice to hold progressive ideals - which I pretty much do - but it's important to recognize what's actually realistic. When Bush won I cried, but I reassured myself by saying that there's no way this clown will be re-elected. Needless to say, I cried again in '04. If you believe Palin or Kucinich have a chance, then you haven't been paying attention. A common ground is needed to maintain strength and unity. Obama is trying to reach accross the isle as he said he would, but he is in no way right of center.

1) I don't believe any of my proposed candidates could win. They don't have the Corporate-Lobbyist funds available and if they did then it would change/corrupt them into run of the mill corporate errand boys. My proposal is simply to threaten Obama enough so that when he or Emanuel make their political calculations they don't just take into account (and appease) the Right but also account for Leftward pressure.
2) A large majority of Americans are already disenfrancised. American "democracy" is absurdly schewed to incumbents keeping their seat - there is little competition in most districts. The electoral system is designed so that winners-take-all and many disparate voices are neglected in overly large geographical districts. Furthermore, the fact that those with money really making the decisions. America is not so much a Democratic Republic as it is a plutocratic polyarchy*.
3) The public overwhelmingly (and has for some time) supported Single Payer Healthcare. Most objections to Obama's Plan are not due to sincere objections to state involvment in medicine - most people just have false notions of the plan (like it'll fund abortions or has a euthenasia component). When read the actual plan most Americans support it.
4) Not criticizing Obama from the Left means the Right has a monopoly on any pressure comming Obama's way. So he just has to include Rightwingers in his political calculations and appeasements and can neglect the Left totally. This shifts the political centre right (I assure you that if their was large scale/reported leftwing critiques of Obama he would never be regarded as a Marxist or "as left as it gets".
5) I never had hope for Obama - I knew he was a centrist before his election. Initally I supported Gravel, then (after realizing I couldn't support "FairTax") Kucinich, and finally Edwards (but by then his candidacy had died). While not a US citizen, I would've voted for Obama in swing states and Nader in solid states in the 2008 election.
6) When you say a "majority of America" you really mean a "majority of plutocrats".

ENDNOTE
---------------
* A polyarchy is a state with formal democratic structures and elections, but the spirit of democracy - people's control - is abscent.

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 08 Sep 2009, 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If given the same choices... I would vote for Obama again. We had a snake and a snake-oil salesman. If anyone is expecting this salesman to make any major changes, he will do what he can to calm the population down enough to keep from having a revolt. It is all smoke and mirrors. The banks that were too big to fail are bigger. While AIG is doing the shell game, the insurance industry has not changed much. The little investors lost their shirts, the big ones showed a modest increase in wealth the past few years. The big 3s troubles just ended more organized labor; soon the only unions will be Government workers.
At least this President has a nice smile as he hands out the KY jelly to the American people while they bend over to take some more.

To touch on the Nader issue - it's been known for some time that the claim Gore would've won if Nader hadn't ran was always a weak argument.

Second, reaching across the isle is pointless if the otherside is a minority rump filled with fanatics who'll just spit at you. Obama's reached across the isle multiple times and received only spit, paperballs, paper airplanes, and a whole host of other childish antics (I hope everyone knowns I'm being metaphorical here). If they other side doesn't vote for anything no matter how much you give and appease them then reaching across the isle is pointless. It's not an ends in itself - its a means to some concession. The 50s was a time of great bipartisanship yet there were few big changes (civil rights activists and segregationists inhabited both parties back then). Bipartisanship for its own shake leads to stasis.

Thirdly, if you don't criticize Obama from the Left then only the Right will attack him. This means that in his political calculations - or Emanuel's - only the Right needs to be appeased. The centre will continually migrate rightward, plus the public will never hear actual progressive ideas - only rightwing caricatures. It's been known for some time that most American's support Single-Payer Healthcare - yet they oppose Obama's modest (non-single payer) plan because they hear everything from the Right. The Right has distorted and grossly misrepresented Obama's plan - spreading myths of "death panels", abortion funding, and coverage to illegal immigrants.

I never said Kucinich could realistically win, hence the " ". It was an exaggeration - yet if the US populace ever made the mistake of electing Palin I assure you they'd be willing for a much starker leftwing change than Obama. Maybe a maritally faithful version of John Edwards.

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 08 Sep 2009, 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

To -before further comments- share one other qualm with Obama: how could he not appoint Howard Dean to Secretary of Health and Human Services? Seriously, that would've been the perfect place for the former DNC Chairman.

During his campaign, Barack Obama hit all the right notes to charge the Democrats' progressive base: a repudiation of Bush-era war-on-terror assumptions and tactics, a call for healthcare reform, a concern for the wealthiest enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else, and a fundamental reprioritization of this country's aspirations. They were pretty words, "change we can believe in." With his charisma, a person could be forgiven for thinking he just might have what it takes to actually get this agenda through Congress and onto our law books.

Instead he's given ground, again and again. Bipartisanship is a valor, but he's almost fetishized it: being duped by Republican legislators negotiating in bad faith. Republicans seem intent on blocking anything the Democrats propose and will only give their stamp to a bill that they could have written themselves. Throw 'em to the wolves! The Democrats need to stop looking anxiously at 2010 and 2012 and demonstrate what real change is about. Real healthcare reform will look better come election time than a watered-down bill that only serves up a new batch of poor consumers to the health-insurance industry's trough.

President Obama is set to address a joint session of Congress tomorrow night. I'd say let's see what he can do. If Obama and the Democrats cannot deliver this with a majority in both houses, there's no hope in progressive reform coming from them, and Senator Grassley will be right that it will be Obama's Waterloo.

Deleted - Multiple entry's

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 08 Sep 2009, 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Deleted - Multiple entry

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 08 Sep 2009, 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I used to think that capitalism could be reformed, and held much the same view as the OP. After thirty or so years of political awareness (yes I was politically motivated at an early age) I have seen the relentless destruction of working conditions, health care systems, the environment, the continuation of global conflicts, famines etc etc. I have come to the conclusion that social democratic pressure groups rather than help the poor and oppressed have instead made matters worse. By inadvertently acting as a pressure valve they have continued the domination of capitalism well past its use by date. Capitalism by its very nature can never have the interests of the majority at heart, to believe otherwise plays into the hands of the ruling classes and perpetuates this regime. The only time we see any major reform is during times of great prosperity, once this prosperity dwindles the reforms are scaled back.

Obama is not a socialist, he is not the saviour of the working class, he will not do anything of any worth to fix climate change, will not find a non military solution to Afganistan, Iraq or Islamist hatred of the west. Why? because he is a Capitalist and his loyalty as he has shown again and again lies with the financial elite.

Bipartisanship was also a fetish of the 1950s. The funny thing about that period was the UTTER LACK OF PROGRESS ON CIVIL RIGHTS. Segregationists and civil rights activists inhibated both parties, nobody wanted to upset the status quo. In many respects bipartisanship leads to conservatism (in the sense of no change).

I was pretty lucky never to be dupped, like many of my fellow Canucks (as well as many US Progressives), into seeing Obama as a progressive reformist. Perhaps it was because I had the fortune to read a lot from one blogger particularly cynical about Obama.

If Obama ditches the Public Option I think it's pretty much essential that all progressives stop donating to Obama and start giving money to Progressive Democrats of America/phoning their congressmen and congresswomen demanding they support H.R. 676.

Obama's probably going to spit right in every progressives face tommorrow and abandon the public option. Can you just imagine him laughing with Emanuel about all those supporters/donors he's thrown under the bus?

In the post-war period capitalism was given a human face. A European Social Democratic consenus was established (even when offical Social Democratic Parties were out of office) and, in the US, a much more moderate liberalism became dominant. All the institutional dynamics were set so a more humane politic could survive.

It took the replacement of the Brenton Woods System to "de-humanize" capitalism and allow for companies to initiate a "race to the bottom". If international trade had been structured only ever so differently the fundamental institutional factors could be different - and politics could be much more progressive.

The problem in the US comes from both the demise of BWS in favour of a more corporate-friendly form of trade and due to a few dysfunctions inherent in its political system. These could be fixed likewise:

- Radical Campaign Finance Reform to limit all donations. Only individuals can donate and only $300 in a given year.
- Instant Runoff Voting both Presidentially and Congressionally.

For the general problems of 21st century capitalism...

-Strengthening the International Labour Organization's ability to regulate trade.
-Globalizing Unions

Of course all these provisons are rather transitional. The ultimate way I think society can be made fairer is if more people know of the option of a worker buyout and these are encouraged much more/legally easier. Once a few major companies that go bankrupt are bought out otheres will follow and more companies will be constructed as workers coops to start with. After a bit of positive feedback for a few decades most organizations which could, realistically, be worker owned would be.

I'm fully aware that Nader didn't necessarily lose it for Gore, but there were lessons to be learned about voting with your heart vs. voting with your head. The further out to either side you go, the more likely it is that people will dismiss you for a nut. The present day republicans are a perfect example. There are still some intelligent republicans out there, but you'd never know it turning on Fox.

I don't know that anyone could have predicted that the right would sink to such lows in trying to block healthcare reform. We knew it would be a hell of a fight, but who really saw Hitler comparisons and assault rifles coming? Obama gave bipartisanism a fair shot, as he promised he would, and now it's time to say f*ck 'em. I think he's basically going to do just that. I do not believe that he will drop the public option. Like I said earlier, it's way to soon to start judging him, especially on pure speculations. Let's see what happens first. If he really ends up caving, then I might agree with you. I also don't believe that most Americans are on board with the single payer idea. Check out the previous thread on US Healthcare reform. The thought of government-run anything scares the dickens out of a lot of people.

An unrepresentative forum verses countless scientific polls. I side with the scientific polls.

If I knew you personally I'd wager money that he drops the Public Option.

Well that's kinda what his job is.....to simply back down from proposed ideas after allowing the public to be frightened into enough of an uproar.


I guess it doesn't help that the morons he's fighting against call him a communist nazi but what do you expect from people who've never been taught history?