Progressives Need to Issue an Ultimatium to Obama
08 Sep 2009, 9:57 pm
Master_Pedant wrote:
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.
You're not even a U.S. citizen, but for a voter, they kind of have to make the best of the options available. The fact of democracy is that we have to compromise somewhat. You think your views are the best and right for the country, but there are plenty of people with the exact opposite views who think the same thing. Do you want to disenfranchise them? Politicians, unlike armchair philosophers, have to compromise to get things done; we don't elect dictators.
Still, I don't think Obama has been aggressive enough and so has ceded the public debate to conservatives, who have filled it with talk of death panels.
08 Sep 2009, 9:58 pm
skafather84 wrote:
[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.
My opinion is that he didn't do enough to manage public opinion proactively and in so doing ceded the debate to the conservatives and their allies.
08 Sep 2009, 10:08 pm
NeantHumain wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
[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.
My opinion is that he didn't do enough to manage public opinion proactively and in so doing ceded the debate to the conservatives and their allies.
He won't do enough.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
08 Sep 2009, 10:11 pm
NeantHumain wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
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.
You're not even a U.S. citizen, but for a voter, they kind of have to make the best of the options available. The fact of democracy is that we have to compromise somewhat. You think your views are the best and right for the country, but there are plenty of people with the exact opposite views who think the same thing. Do you want to disenfranchise them? Politicians, unlike armchair philosophers, have to compromise to get things done; we don't elect dictators.
Still, I don't think Obama has been aggressive enough and so has ceded the public debate to conservatives, who have filled it with talk of death panels.
1) I'm offering non-binding/powerless advice to a few Americans on an Internet forum. It comes nowhere near to forcing an entire nation to oust their Democratically Elected Government (i.e. forcing out Sandinistias in Nicarguara).
2) The US is not a democracy, it's a polyarchic plutocracy.
3) For decade a majority of Americans have supported universal healthcare. Medicare is one the most popular programs in the US.
4) Compromising with people who only chuck spitballs, paperballs, and paper airplanes at you in return makes no sense. Especially if they're a rump and never, ever vote for you.
Obama gave up before he started the fight. If Reagan could convince Americans that a tiny country threatened them through an Office of Public Diplomacy than surely Obama can sell Healthcare to a crowd who already agrees with him.
08 Sep 2009, 10:23 pm
Why do you think Americans have supported universal healthcare for a decade? I have, personally, but have always found myself in the minority, even within other democrats. The republicans definately don't want it. Most Americans, in case you haven't noticed, seem to have a FYIGM (f you, I got mine) attitude.
08 Sep 2009, 10:26 pm
Both of the main parties are corporate-controlled. Sadly, it's nothing new. Most Americans seem to fit Einstein's definition of insanity, which is doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results. People vote for the same 2 corporate parties expecting things to get better, but they never do.
09 Sep 2009, 1:00 am
Cyanide wrote:
Both of the main parties are corporate-controlled. Sadly, it's nothing new....
Of course they are corporate controlled ! !! !! the whole bloody world is corporate controlled its called CAPITALISM. Wake up people for crying out loud, you cannot reform capitalism, it is what it is.
_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams
"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx
09 Sep 2009, 10:03 am
Cyanide wrote:
Both of the main parties are corporate-controlled. Sadly, it's nothing new. Most Americans seem to fit Einstein's definition of insanity, which is doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results. People vote for the same 2 corporate parties expecting things to get better, but they never do.
Well look at our media and the insanity that goes on to undermine the democratic process. It's so ingrained into society that voting third party is a waste. Even if the two major party candidates aren't viable, people absolutely WON'T vote for a third party and their reasons are all the same...it's the myths propagated by the media: they're too extreme, you're wasting your vote, if you don't vote for this guy then the OTHER guy will win (sadly, I fell for that one in 2004 but I won't ever again).
The conformity experiments were amazingly effective in figuring out how to use the media like television to control the vast majority of the population.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
09 Sep 2009, 10:06 am
Cyanide wrote:
Both of the main parties are corporate-controlled. Sadly, it's nothing new. Most Americans seem to fit Einstein's definition of insanity, which is doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results. People vote for the same 2 corporate parties expecting things to get better, but they never do.
And since corporations in the U.S. are regulated, the corporations are party-controlled. There is a very cozy, a too cozy relationship between the major corporations and the government. In closed rooms, corporate big-wigs and government buro chiefs play Let's Make a Deal.
ruveyn
ruveyn
09 Sep 2009, 10:22 am
ruveyn wrote:
In closed rooms, corporate big-wigs and government buro chiefs play Let's Make a Deal.
It's called the Bilderberg group.
Only one I've ever heard of but I'd assume there's other such meetings.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
09 Sep 2009, 10:31 am
skafather84 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
In closed rooms, corporate big-wigs and government buro chiefs play Let's Make a Deal.
It's called the Bilderberg group.
Only one I've ever heard of but I'd assume there's other such meetings.
Do they have a fleet of Black Helicopters? Do they arrest people who buy copies of Catcher in the Rye?
ruveyn
30 Mar 2010, 11:08 pm
number5 wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
number5 wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Do you really think any of those guys could win though? Maybe that's not the most important aspect and that would be admirable. However, I think Obama is about as far to the left as we're going to get elected in this country but I understand your frustrations with Obama though. He's trying to be everything to everyone and pleasing no one. You can't nail down what he believes in on almost anything. Russ Feingold is one my senators actually and while I disagree with him on most things, I think he's a good guys and actually believes what he believes in not just what's politically trendy.
Where I differ from you though is that I believe you have to govern from the center or else you're disenfranchising a large(the largest portion actually) portion of America. This is a centrist country. I think if Obama faces a challenge from his own party in 2012, it'll be Hilary Clinton. I actually regret not supporting her over Obama last year because of my own personal bias. Not even my own really, my father hated Clinton and instilled that in me.(the scandals and lying more so than policies)
Where I differ from you though is that I believe you have to govern from the center or else you're disenfranchising a large(the largest portion actually) portion of America. This is a centrist country. I think if Obama faces a challenge from his own party in 2012, it'll be Hilary Clinton. I actually regret not supporting her over Obama last year because of my own personal bias. Not even my own really, my father hated Clinton and instilled that in me.(the scandals and lying more so than policies)
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.
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'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.
Well, Obama has ripped out the heart of real reform. If you still frequent these forums, please start donating to Progressive Democratic groups and congressional progressive primary challengers. Obama is no 3D Chestmaster, he's an appeasers to the chalkboard conspiracists of the Right. He's renounced the public option - the heart of real reform.
31 Mar 2010, 12:28 am
NeantHumain wrote:
You think your views are the best and right for the country, but there are plenty of people with the exact opposite views who think the same thing. Do you want to disenfranchise them?
Yes, I do. Any sensible person would want to disenfranchise views with horrible consequences.
Bipartisanship is only for when you are too weak to completely dictate the terms of policy. There is little compelling reason to compromise from a position of strength. If you have the power, then do what you think is right and screw the opposition. If you can't ram through your proposals over their objections, then and only then is it time to approach the bargaining table.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
31 Mar 2010, 1:00 am
Orwell wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
You think your views are the best and right for the country, but there are plenty of people with the exact opposite views who think the same thing. Do you want to disenfranchise them?
Yes, I do. Any sensible person would want to disenfranchise views with horrible consequences.
Bipartisanship is only for when you are too weak to completely dictate the terms of policy. There is little compelling reason to compromise from a position of strength. If you have the power, then do what you think is right and screw the opposition. If you can't ram through your proposals over their objections, then and only then is it time to approach the bargaining table.
Considering the people Obama appointed to comprise his staff and advisers it seems his whole pre-election program was a scam to get elected out of the total disgust of the country for G.W.Bush. Now in office Obama has merely continued Bush's policies and programs helplessly shrugging his shoulders over the momentums of the past. More or less Obama is a fake.
04 Apr 2010, 4:07 pm
Sand wrote:
Orwell wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
You think your views are the best and right for the country, but there are plenty of people with the exact opposite views who think the same thing. Do you want to disenfranchise them?
Yes, I do. Any sensible person would want to disenfranchise views with horrible consequences.
Bipartisanship is only for when you are too weak to completely dictate the terms of policy. There is little compelling reason to compromise from a position of strength. If you have the power, then do what you think is right and screw the opposition. If you can't ram through your proposals over their objections, then and only then is it time to approach the bargaining table.
Considering the people Obama appointed to comprise his staff and advisers it seems his whole pre-election program was a scam to get elected out of the total disgust of the country for G.W.Bush. Now in office Obama has merely continued Bush's policies and programs helplessly shrugging his shoulders over the momentums of the past. More or less Obama is a fake.
Obama is Bill Clinton II. His whole term is playing out like a repeat of Slick Willie's presidency - backing away from progressive proposals, letting the Right go wild, and gearing up to loose the Midterm elections. Not to mention Rahm Emanuel (who pretty much serves the role of Dick Morris, minus any talent).
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Had Obama chosen not to issue a bail out... |
29 Jan 2013, 7:26 am |
| What is it with Liberal Progressives Anyways |
07 Jan 2011, 11:35 am |
| Our Ultimatium to Society |
17 Dec 2008, 12:36 am |
| Reacting to an ultimatium |
13 May 2012, 10:19 am |
