Obama's Relationship to Progressives
By Susie Madrak Monday Dec 08, 2008 11:00amEditor's note: We're pleased and honored to welcome Susie Madrak to the C&L team today. Many of you no doubt are familiar with Susie's stellar work at Suburban Guerrilla. Now she'll be bringing her wit and wisdom to our pages as well.
Fascinating article in the Democratic Strategist by James Vega about what's really required to achieve progressive goals. None of that whiny "woe is me" stuff that's been pervading the blogosphere since the election:
The rapidly mushrooming debate about the relationship between the Obama administration and the progressive wing of the Democratic Party suffers from an unnecessary lack of clarity because many of the commentators do not make a clear distinction between two very distinct ways of visualizing the issue.
The first, which might be called "the battle for the President's soul" perspective, visualizes progressives and centrists or conservatives as engaged in a permanent tug of war to win the President's support for their agenda. In this perspective, each cabinet appointment and each policy decision the President makes represents one more episode in a perpetual struggle to pull, pressure or cajole the President toward progressive approaches and solutions
For progressive Democrats who entered politics during and after the Clinton administration, this way of thinking about a new administration seems entirely natural and indeed almost completely self-evident. By late 1980's most progressive movements had become increasingly Washington-focused and political campaign-oriented, in contrast to previous eras of independent progressive grass-roots organizing and mobilization. For many younger progressives, working for political candidates and campaigns was actually their sole form of progressive activity. As such, it made sense for them to feel that a victorious campaign naturally ought to deliver a very clear and explicit ideological "payoff" to progressives after the election, one properly proportionate to the effort they invested during the campaign and the degree of their success.
Yeah, this is what I call "the keys to the store" approach: "Great, we won, here's the keys to the store, the cash register and the checkbook, good luck, see you in four years!" In order to work, our system requires an informed, active electorate all the time, fighting on every progressive issue.
But during past eras of major progressive social movements – the trade union movement of the 1930's and the civil rights movement of the 1960's -- there was a very different perspective. It could be called a "natural division of labor" point of view. A Democratic President was basically assumed to be a ruthlessly pragmatic centrist who would make all his moves and choices based on a very cold political calculus of what was necessary for his own success and survival. He might have private sympathy for some progressive point of view but there was generally no expectation among social movement progressives that he would "go out on a limb" for progressives out of a personal moral commitment to some social ideal. As a result, the most fundamental assumption of progressive political strategy was always the need to build a completely independent grass roots social movement, one that was powerful enough to make it politically expedient or simply unavoidable for the political system to accede to the movement's demands.
Yes, in order to get progressive policies enacted, we have to create political power outside the party establishment. The Republicans get it - now it's time for progressives to get it, too.
As Vega points out, the "battle for the President's soul perspective has some serious negative consequences:
1. It inherently makes the President the chief protagonist of social change and reduces the progressive movement's role to that of a supplicant. It makes the progressive movement's success appear to be fundamentally dependent on what the President does or says rather than envisioning the movement as an active and independent force for change.
2. The "battle for the president's soul" perspective leads to a personalization of the disagreement between the President and progressives to an almost soap-opera level of melodrama and triviality. In this perspective, the President is described as "betraying" progressives, or "insulting" them, or "turning his back" on them – all of which are purely and entirely journalistic inventions and not accurate descriptions of the President's actual personal emotions. Conservatives gleefully leap in to this miasma of pseudo-journalistic literary fiction to exploit and hopefully exacerbate a split within the Democratic Party. At the same time, they also trumpet any decisions that displease progressives to their supporters as being "victories" won by conservatism when they are, in fact, actually nothing of the kind.
Login or Register to post comments.
.
Feet to the fire...
... F'k party loyalty!
.
A Dem or a Rep? Can one be a Rep and still be a Progressive? Why not? Are all Reps evile and Dems all the good guys?
Sure it's theoretically possible, just doubtful that someone would get elected as a Rep with a progressive platform, no matter how well obscured.
HOWEVER there are many Reps out there more progressive than Dems we have in office.
Many feet to the fire. Fuck this bi partisan talk of "turning the page, move on, nothing here, our nation needs to move forward" horsecrap. Our nation watched Republicans and some Democrats hold Clinton accountable for lying under oath about blow jobs. Yet we as a nation and the rest of the world have not witnessed our congress hold an administration accountable for an INTELLIGENCE SNOWJOB that has resulted in millions of deaths injuries and Iraq refugees. The least Obama and our Reps can do for those who have needlessly lost their live in a war based on a "pack of lies" is hold the liars from teh Office of Special Plans, Cheney and all who were involved with creating and dessiminating false WMD intelligence is hold them accountable.
Pr wo; tjeu [rpve that lies about blowjobs is what is more important to prosecute. Pathetic
"The first, which might be called "the battle for the President's soul" perspective, visualizes progressives and centrists or conservatives as engaged in a permanent tug of war to win the President's support for their agenda. In this perspective, each cabinet appointment and each policy decision the President makes represents one more episode in a perpetual struggle to pull, pressure or cajole the President toward progressive approaches and solutions."
A much simpler way of putting it would be to say that there's a wide-spread view among the Democratic party factions that each appointment and decision of President-Elect Obama is a part of a zero-sum game.
You mean Dennis Kucinich.
They didn't let him speak at the Convention.
I am not a Democrat, I am a Leftist.
Let's give the Capitalists haircuts at the knees and be done with it.
Then we can move on.
That was Kucinich's speech at the Dem convention.
at the larynx would be kinder and accomplish more.
I would have said 'haircuts just below the chin'.
But that is just me.
Is that the moral equivalent of "let's round up the leftists and put them up against a wall"?
after having my firefighter disability trashed by wealthy capitalists, I would be satisfied with beggaring the pricks and throwing the into prison.
I send some of what I have to a brother who is in worse shape than me.
I find myself less concerned with my morality these days, and am wondering if I can remain a pacifist for much longer.
You used the word 'decapitate', I used the word 'haircut'.
Your imagination is running away with you.
I have no doubt that a number of the Capitalists would be overjoyed at seeing throngs of leftists up against the wall.
But, reeducation would help the greedy bastards rejoin humanity.
It would also help the poor suffering fools who subscribe to their propaganda.
Whatever, I will call it a haircut, whatever gets them out of the control of our lives.
And out of our hair.
This site is driving me crazy. It has so many ads it makes my dial-up have spazz attacks.
I've probably already swore myself to at least a couple of additional years in purgatory.
http://firefox.com and adblocker & no script
What ads? I see almost no advertising here or anywhere else.
Use the current version of Firefox. Use the Firefox extension Adblock Plus. Subscribe to the following Adblock lists: EasyList, EasyElement, ABP Tracking Filter. For added protection use the Firefox extension NoScript. It's okay to allow scripts for crooksandliars.com, alternet.org, democracynow.org,... you know, the good guys who aren't part of big corporations.
the two 'views' are not necessarily mutually exclusive. i think presidential appointments are crucial. and, being an anti-partisan, i think non-partisan, grassroot efforts are crucial as well.
but, really, i am suspicious of anyone with the title 'democratic strategist'
That's like Homer's too drunk to drive and asks Barney to take over.
Accountability
http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/08/nsa-spying-...
Pre-emptive bitching "progressives" have no choice but to be patient with Obama...where the hell else will you people go?
Canada, Costa Rica, U.K., Sweden, to name a few places
To paraphrase a story:
When approached by a group advocating a certain position FDR loosely replied:
I have heard you, I agree with your concern/position, now MAKE ME DO IT.
As progressives we must create an enviornment and national dialogue that gives Obama(or any elected official) no other viable political option but to support or cause(s).
No one said changing the world was going to be easy.
....because he clearly didn't have the personal courage to do the morally right thing and offend his Southern buddies. To assume before the fact that Obama would need to be forced to do the right thing is bullshit.
The point I was attempting to make (I guess not too effectively) was simply NOT that Obama does not have the moral courage to make the right decisions rather his political inclination leans more toward the center.
If progressives desire a more "left" leaning direction from Obama we may have to force the issues by making them more politically desirable and with the cover he will need.
Obama will not have to be forced to do the "right thing" but he may have to be forced to do the "progressive thing". And that's no bullshit.
those who elected him.
it was sorta painful voting for Gore, Kerry and Obama.
It was mainly to keep the Authoritarians out of office.
I don't expect much from Obama.
Maybe a safe place to arrange our emigration as opposed to being forced to flee.
The American Government is the same place where it has always been:
in the hands of wealthy corporations run by members of the
Lucky Sperm Club.
tenuous
Despite what Republicans tried to claim during the election, Obama has NEVER been lefty.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
It's always been this way:
#1) Get the "best" person in office, "best" meaning closest to your views.
#2) Pressure that person to do what you want.
Hope the "progressive whiners" take a hint, stop spinning their wheels & wasting their energy whining, and get to work with the real task.
"Democracy" is NOT about going to the polls once every four years and electing "your" candidate. Democracy requires daily engagement with the political process.
Ill. gov. jumps in to sit-in at shuttered plant
Illinois Governor Halts Business With Bank of America
"Bank of America" has always sounded like an empire-building neo-nazi front to me. Especially with that stupid eagle thing-y.
The so-called "Bank of America" was the Bank of Italy until 1906 when the San Francisco fire destroyed the entire city. Bank of Italy CEO loaded all the gold bullion on donkeys & moved it out of the city as the fire raged, then re-incorporated as "Bank of America" after the fire and made BIG BUCKS by rebuilding the devastated city.
Bank of Italy = Mafia money & Vatican money.
No friends of the US of A.
Hi Susie. Nice first post.
I'd like to see the USA fundamentally rethink what it's all about. What I see now is a plutocracy of corporations, where money is the only concern; first, last and always.
Yet life isn't all about money, and North Americans have far more than enough now. Americans and Canadians already live better than anyone, at any time, in human history. It's time to tackle the quality of life concerns. We've had too many decades of quantity only. More money isn't going to make people feel better, especially while they take away our liberties to get it.
It might sound kind of "Braveheart" but you can never take my freedom!! (Problem is, in 2008-09, they CAN!!)
I could not agree more.
Me too, yet the malls are always full and the libraries empty.
Funny how the outgoing booshco tried their damndest to destroy public education, and the news industry has become infotainment.
And the only way to be an active electorate is pretty much to be middle-classed, and not constantly fighting for survival, and their ranks have been decimated by booshco.
but isn't it one of the ways to fight on progressive issues by being vocal that we don't think Obama's cabinet has enough progressive voices? people keep saying we need to shut up until Obama's in office (and then after his first 100 days, and then maybe a Friedman unit. where does it stop?), but if there are no progressive voices in his brain trust then we're left out of the equation altogether and the ONLY way we will be able to push Obama is through grassroots organizing and pushing from below. we'll be doing this anyway, but it would go a long way to showing us that he supports us (and respects the work many of us did to get him elected) if he would actually get some progressive IN his administration.
Here on the westside of Chicago we have high crime, unemployment, teen drop out rate, horrific health care access, etc. I represent young juvenile non-felonous offenders and am affiliated with organizations to help them find educational and employment opportunities. We don't demand anything from Obama except to at least stop the funding cutting that's destroying the inner city. It will be impossible for Obama to make all you people happy.
Well, that's a damn narrow point of view if I ever heard one.
....pre-emptive, negative, doomsday, mystic, bitchers! YOU!
When he was first elected, Obama's hero Lincoln didn't make abolitionists William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass happy either. But they kept up the pressure. They refused to STFU. And what happened? Lincoln eventually did the right thing.
So, my Progressive Brethern, keep fighting the struggle. Bitch loud and bitch proud. Even if it seems Conservatives outnumber us, history is on our side. Just like past struggles, we'll drag them kicking and screaming into the modern world, more free and more just.
Obama promised change. Now we have to make him deliver.
He won over Progressives by giving certain messages. He is there because he convinced us of an end to war, closure of Gitmo, healthcare, fairer distribution of wealth, jobs etc. etc. etc..
But he's spending ALL of his time empowering HAWKS and neoliberal/conservatives (closure of Gitmo will be slow they now tell us).
Obama's cabinet STINKS to high heaven, and that rosey little sheep we voted for is showing lots of FANG.
Fuck Obama.
What a sucker you are! Vote for someone and then change your mind like a confused lovesick 7th grader before he's done any concrete thing to justify your bullshit wrath. Fuck you!
The moment of feeling like a lovesick 7th grader or remotely akin to the mass hypnosis pervading everywhere missed me entirely.
His caBinet choices are pretty damn concrete and Jeremy Scahill has points to make on this as well. Since when is questioning and paying attention before an Inauguration disallowed? You ARE saying we should ignore these choices like lovesick 7th graders and hypnotized idiots.
So now raising questions according to your unearned propriety you're telling me to not care about these disturbing appointments and slowing down closure of Gitmo and new rumblings of in Afghstn & Pkstn shouldn't bother us?
WHO THE HELL ARE YOU? Fuck you back, sweetheart.
The man has been saying since he came into prominence that he didn't recognize a "red" or "blue" America(and he if fact, campaigned that way) If he would then contradict his promises just to make you and a few renegade nut-jobs happy, all hell would break loose and his credibility would be shot with moderates.
It's time to get things done, not make you happy.
You sound as extreme as any neocon I've ever heard.
Extremes.
Lack of reason.
Big font.
Personal insults.
Learnt your manners from Limbaugh or Hannity.
Oh, and lots of hate. Congratulations.
Everyone who doesn't do things exactly like you is a neocon.
You're little more than a freeper on the other end of the political spectrum.
You should probably read the article linked to above, because it rather clearly explains why this feeling of 'betrayal' is a melodramatic, self-centred notion often propagated by both journalists as well as Republicans who look to sew the seeds of discontent within the Democratic ranks (which, as it turns out, is not all that hard to do).
Very thoughtful post here. I remain a bit nervous however. I want to believe that Obama is at least open to progressives and that real progressive policies and changes are coming.
I'm most optimistic about healthcare. The incoming administration seems to want to work with grassroots movements and the public at large, and seems very VERY serious about strong health care reform.
I'm least optimistic about foreign policy. Obama has surrounded himself with hawks and Conservative Centrist Democrats. And his foreign policy, though clearly better than Bush or Mccain, is pretty standard American policy, in other words not very desirable.
And I'm not at all sure what to make about the economy. Obama has issued some progressive sounding statements, and the pick of Melody Barnes is something I think is very positive. At the same time, Rubins' boys are leading his team, and vital posts like labor are not seeming to play a strong role in his cabinet picks.
Let us make no mistakes. Obama is a Centrist; not a progressive. He has some openness to some progressive ideas, or at least has had. Let us hope two things: 1) he remains open to these ideas, and 2) that the grass movements that rallied around Obama remain a progressive and independent voice - which idea was, I thought, the best in your post.
http://mattwion.blogspot.com/
...mutually exclusive.
Should we view Obama through a progressive lens, we'll undoubtedly be disappointed. Furthermore, we'll be silly for having done so as Barack Obama made it quite clear that he is a man who does not define himself through political labels. His stances on myriad issues have been published for some time now, so how can there be any excuse for acting disappointed?
Obama's viewpoints realistically make him very much a centrist, though I'd place him slightly left-of-centre myself. Still, this means that while he may have progressive views on healthcare, he'll also be somewhat conservative on, say, gay marriage. The more we attempt to pigeonhole him, the more discrepancies we'll find.
That being said, it's not wrong to hold Obama's feet to the proverbial fire; the trick is, however, in discovering an effective method of doing so. Blogging can generate enough noise for news organizations to take notice, but the American tradition remains protests and rallies that force the government's hand. (It's also possible that Obama has sympathies with many progressive viewpoints, but his hands are tied until enough Americans make it apparent that something needs to change. Otherwise, he'll seem like a partisan tyrant, wildly out of control and unable or unwilling to represent the will of the American people.)
of the sixties and am well acquainted with how the union movement worked, I definitely see the point of the article. What I don't think that most "progressives" quite get, though, is that the change Obama promised really is happening....not in the appointments that he is making, but in the unspoken covenant with the American people to run a more open and responsive executive branch of government.
This really is a centrist country....not a left or right leaning one. The president needed at this time, the one that will unite the majority of Americans to work to repair the country's serious problems, must work from the center out. I trust Obama to pull this off, with a lot of help from all of us. We need to regain the understanding that government isn't there to do things to us or for us. It's our government, and we need to take responsibility for the policies it forms and implements.
I'm amazed at how the perception of Obama's use of the word has been interpreted. From Obama's South Carolina primary victory speech:
But there are real differences between the candidates. We are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We're looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington.
It's a status quo that extends beyond any particular party and right now that status quo is fighting back with everything it's got, with the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are health care that folks can't afford or a mortgage they cannot pay.
[emphasis added]
*snip*
But let me say this, South Carolina. What we've seen in these last weeks is that we're also up against forces that are not the fault of any one campaign, but feed the habits that prevent us from being who we want to be as a nation.
It's the politics that uses religion as a wedge and patriotism as a bludgeon, a politics that tells us that we have to think, act and even vote within the confines of the categories that supposedly define us, the assumption that young people are apathetic, the assumption that Republicans won't cross over, the assumption that the wealthy care nothing for the poor and that the poor don't vote, the assumption that African-Americans can't support the white candidate, whites can't support the African-American candidate, blacks and Latinos cannot come together.
That there are those progressives who think that Obama's appointments of moderate Democrats or of any Republicans is a betrayal leads me to believe that there are progressives out there who hear only what they want to hear.
It is true of anyone who has an unquestioned faith in what they believe.
Hardcore dems hear what they want to hear.
Hardcore reps hear what they want to hear.
Hardcore religious nuts hear what they want to hear.
I think it is a variation on the confirmation bias, meaning they take what they've heard, mangle it up a bit to make it fit within their beliefs then accept it.
Besides confirmation bias there's also world-view. It's a window by which a perecepter winnows down perceps, because otherwise would result in confusion, sensory overload, and ultimately anomie.
what is 'centrist'? politically we have moved to the far right, and today's notion of "the center" is actually pretty right.
maybe for a lot of y'all governing from the right is acceptable, but not for this guy.
the 'change' you indicated ("open and responsive executive branch") is very important. but, for a lot of people 'change' constitutes a lot more than that. but, i for one, am not that surprised, i never believed the rightwing hype that obama was 'the most liberal senator'.
Is this whining rant in response to Obama not appointing a purely progressive cabinet? He is appointing a cabinet with republicans and democrats, just like he promised in the campaign. Weren't you paying attention?
I'm really happy with his cabinet, and I'm sorry if you're not. I really like the idea of having a cabinet filled with people who have different philosophies and ways of doing things... it opens the door to a much broader array of possibilities.
Is this whining rant in response to Obama not appointing a purely progressive cabinet?
No, this is a response to those progressives who are whining. It's also a cautionary note concerning the placement of all of one's eggs in a single basket.
I'm really happy with his cabinet, and I'm sorry if you're not.
I'm with you on this. The facts are that there are few progressive ideologues with the experience necessary to fulfill any of the duties of a cabinet level position in the administration.
Also, I don't think it's right to judge those who have been appointed for decisions that were, ultimately, not their own, but those of the Presidents under whom they formerly served.
If you're happy with his cabinet you must have voted for McCain.
There are NO progressives appointed to any position of import.
It smells like the same shit, and no doubt it is exactly that.
I hate this fraudulent punitive thieving murdering gov't. You can HAVE it.
I swear you sound just like Hannity.
Please elaborate, because your little ad hominem bitchfests are getting a tad tiresome.
Who has the Obama administration murdered? What have they stolen? Reread Angelfood at 13:21 and get back with me...and stop being pissed at me because Obama won and hasn't called you for advice. LOL.
Doesn't "bitchfests" qualify as an ad hominem?
Tyler Durden '12. I'm out. The local delinquents need my services.
Technically trading insults isn't ad hominems, because rhetoric doesn't recognize that as a part of debate. An ad hominem is more typically what is shown below in the thread about the auto bailouts. If you're for them it's only becuause you've been coopted by the most extreme capitalists, and if you're against them, that means you're anti-union.
In otherwords, an ad hominem sounds like a part of the debate, but impugns people's motives to hold such a view, and is presented as fact, but lacking in evidence. Opinions by their very nature aren't factual but visceral, and this site is for voicing opinions. And opinions are usually self-evident, whereas an ad-hominem tries to cloak itself.
Nice distinction. Remember that ad hominem is a phrase from logic, short for argumentum ad hominem, the name of a logical fallacy. It pretends to be a real argument, whereas an insult is just rhetoric.
I don't think I've done it here yet, but in principle, I believe in the stylish and judicious use of insults.
We may be arguing the same point, but under the over-arching term rhetoric is found the logical fallacy, and flawed warrants (premises), the logical fallacies you speak of. The insult is largely superflous. I doubt Lincoln ever accused Davis of being a moonshiner.
The only major systemised form to oppose Rhetoric was Didactism, which seemed to be favored by our Founding Fathers. The gentlemen of good intent could discover a Truth through discussion of contrary opinions. But then I like Protogoras of Abdera's opinion that truth is relative to each person, their history, background and perceptions.
I'm going to have to look up the term I'm looking for to make certain about Didactism. What I was describing was the Socratic way, as taught by Plato. It may've been the source of Max Hegel's construct thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis. Unfortunately, his student Karl Marx changed it to the more famous bourgeoisie/proletariat/communist structure.
That's why I'm not a rationalist. It's so rigid, like grooves carved in metal with acid. I prefer absurdities.
The term I was looking for was Dialectics.
What I said above had a few repititious phrases dulling what I was trying to say. But now that I've had several glasses of burgundy I can do better.
Rhetoric as it was explained to me in my reading IS the art of logic. Presenting a logical argument, with logical facts and a logical conclusion.
The problem is Rhetoric, like all Philosophies, is not a hard science, so terms may differ dependent on one's sources.
Oops. I may have attributed more clarity to your distinctions than you intended. Returning after some Chicago style pizza and a couple of glasses of merlot, let me have another go.
Logic as I understand it is the art of reasoning correctly. If your premises (data) are correct and your reasoning logical, your conclusions should also be correct. Its purpose is arriving at truth.
Rhetoric is the art of marshalling arguments in support of a position, regardless of its truth or desirability. (That's why Socrates and Plato didn't like it.) Its purpose is persuasion.
Protagoras seems disturbingly like the Karl Rove of the 5th century BCE. The success of his career depended on convincing people that his truth was "real".
I still think that's a question of various sources. Rhetoric as I learned it had lists of logical flaws. They never stated whether it was ever desirable to have logical flaws, but when discovered they could be devastating to an argument.
So whether the onus was on using the argument at all, or merely being discovered at it, I'm not sure.
But you're right about the persuasive part. But my understanding is that this was the view the truth was subjective, and even if you can't convince someone that yours is true, you can convice them that it comes closest. Dialectics had an Objective truth that was discoverable, a debatable point for non-eternal beings to be able to perceive an eternal principle.
Protagoras was a Sophist. A word of bad repute now. He seemed to like argument for argument sake. So one could make the argument that he was a moral relativist, which might support your Rovian description, but without the burden of the onus.
If you didn't see this coming then you weren't paying attention.
HA! I'm a yellow dog Democrat- I'm proud to say I voted for Mondale and Dukakis, Clinton(twice), Gore, Kerry and Obama in their general elections. Didn't necessarily vote for all of them in the primaries (only choices I remember were Jackson in '88, and if I'd had a choice this year-I'm in MI- Edwards), though.
I'll pass judgement on Obama in '12, after seeing how hawkish his decisions have been. Until then I'll do my damndest to persuade him to make progressive decisions- because, after all, he's the person who will make final decisions, not you nor I, and not his cabinet members.
Wow, I can't believe someone besides me voted for Mondale, even though I thought with his buggy eyes, that he had all the charm of a dead fish that just washed up onshore.
!11!1
Open Relationship? Like Bill and Hillary might have?
LMAO! We need a system for rating comments like YouTube or Alternet. Five stars for that one.
I love ysbaddaden, but he's much more "miss" than "hit"- MUCH.
Does that mean I have to start wearing panties and garters?
(You know I'm just looking for an excuse.)
:P
We need pragmatic, experienced, results-oriented people to get the USA out of the rocky shoals where Bushco wrecked us.
Pragmatism is neither left nor right. It just means getting the ship of state back upright again, and the propeller turning. That's what we need right now. Then Obama will be able to steer a little -- hopefully to the left.
So far, I'm 100% okay with what the man is doing for us. It is HIS philosophy that will guide the endeavor, and I'm okay with that too -- it ain't time to bitch yet, folks.
All you have to do is drive around your own town or city and talk with folks and find out that your thinking your view may not be the common denominator. Obama and all elected leaders have to deal with the facts they were not elected by people in the same category. While Obama owes a great deal to the "progressives" we are not going to get everything we want only closer. So keep pushing, contacting, lobbying, calling pressing for what you believe to be Just!
If we do not do our part the system will get used and abused by those who could care less about the rule of law or justice.
I am happy with Shenseki and Jones both were basically against the invasion of Iraq. Both support diplomacy with Iran.
Jones supports sending in Nato troops into the I/P conflict.
Palestinians have been asking for troops, observers or peace keepers for years. The U.S. has vetoed sending in UN observers five times (under pressure from Israel)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1039923.html
This is big change.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Naders take on the OBama appointments
RALPH NADER: Well, it’s symbolized in an article in the newspapers a day or two ago. The headline was “Obama Turns to Consider Liberals for Cabinet Positions.” I mean, you know, after appointing all the heavyweights, keeping Gates as Secretary of Defense, Hillary Clinton at State Department, and other positions—Treasury, for example, coming from Wall Street—the article said, well, it’s time now to consider some liberal appointees.
Well, what’s left? Department of Labor. Now, will David Bonior, who is a genuine progressive and spent many years in the House of Representatives from Michigan, get the job? That remains to be seen.
It’s really interesting. As long as liberals and progressives gave Obama a pass during the election and didn’t demand anything in return, he knew that he had their votes and he had their support regardless and moved right, moved to the corporate. And that’s reflected in the appointments that he has been putting in place.
Now we look forward to the second level. Who’s going to be Food and Drug Administration head? Who’s going to be the head of the Auto Safety Agency or EPA? Will so-called liberals and progressives get their share of the Obama administration at that second level? It remains to be seen. But the signs are not very auspicious.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/5/ralph_n...
As always, Ralph is spot on.
I sure hope that in some alternate universe he's America's president.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Medea, you’ve just returned—Medea Benjamin, you’ve just returned from Iran and with conversations with various people in the Iranian government and civil society. What’s your sense of how they’re viewing the Obama presidency and what it holds in store for them?
MEDEA BENJAMIN: They’re very cautious. The young people were excited about Barack Obama; the political leaders, not so. They say, “We’re not really interested in words and talk about hope and change. We want to see some real change in policy. We are concerned,” they tell us, “about the Secretary of State, about Hillary Clinton, about Rahm Emanuel, about several other of the people that are advising the President-elect.”
They look at people like Dennis Ross, who said recently in a Newsweek article that the Bush administration wasn’t doing enough to push Iran. There are a group of people that are surrounding Barack Obama that have said that sanctions should be tightened, are talking about a naval blockade that would stop oil exports from leaving Iran and would stop refined petroleum products from going into Iran. It would be absolutely disastrous for the Iranian people.
So they’re very concerned, and rightly so. And that’s why we in the progressive movement have to stake out our positions very clearly. We have to say that Barack Obama promised direct talks without preconditions. We want those talks to happen. And rather than a tightening of the sanction, we want a lifting of the sanctions.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/5/ralph_n...
Ralph Nader and Medea Benjaman on what Obama owes the Progressives. Many who worked their asses off for him
Ralph Nader and Medea Benjamin on Obama’s Cabinet and Grassroots Organizing Under the Next Administration
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/5/ralph_n...
Ralph "it's mobilization time"
RALPH NADER: Well, they do have to mobilize, as Medea said, I mean, mobilize in the streets and marches and pressure on members of Congress. The issue now moves to Congress. That’s where the action is going to be on healthcare, that’s going to be on issues of war and peace, constitutionalism, etc. So that definitely is the case.
But it certainly would have eased the mission of progressives all over the country had they conditioned their support of Obama in return for certain concessions and certain recognitions in policy before the election, rather than just wait until after the election, when he’s draped around himself corporate and other establishment figures from the national security apparatus and the Wall Street apparatus. So it’s an uphill fight, but there’s no alternative.
I mean, there’s got to now—basically say, OK, Barack, you gave us a lot of rhetoric, hope and change, change and hope, and it’s time to produce. And that’s what people have to do in every congressional district. We’re looking at november5.org, the website, to invite people to see whether they want to form Congress action groups in congressional districts to focus, for example, on single-payer healthcare, which has ninety-five members of the House already supporting the Conyers bill, HR 676.
So, it is mobilization time. And the hope, of course, is like Nixon opened up relations with China. The Democrats couldn’t do it, because they were concerned of being accused of being soft on communism. So maybe Barack Obama’s corporate establishment can be steered in that direction.
"It (the battle for the president's soul perspective) makes the progressive movement's success appear to be fundamentally dependent on what the President does or says rather than envisioning the movement as an active and independent force for change."
You can bet that Obama gets this, too. He's a community organizer--he knows what it means to be a part of the grass roots. That's why he keeps coming out in front of the press--but telling US what it's going to take to get a progressive agenda enacted. He can't do it alone--he might not be able to do it at all unless we work hard enough to make it happen ourselves.
That's how he got elected.
I disagree. We, the progressives, won and Obama should either follow or get out of the way. I do not believe in the Dear Leader philosophy and I really take issue with this statement:
"In order to work, our system requires an informed, active electorate all the time, fighting on every progressive issue."
With all due respect, you are incorrect. In the US, we live in a constitutional republic. A Republic where we elect representatives. The People literally have no role in actual governing. The system was meant for us to hire caretakers who were entrusted to act with the best interests of their constituency. In other words, we, the People, are not supposed to be engaged in every issue. That is why we have representatives. In other words, we, the People, have other jobs to do. If the Framers intended for the People to deliberate on every issue they would have formed a democracy, which they did not. I'm not saying that the electorate should not be informed. I am just taking issue with the notion that the People are required to do the job of the representatives. I know lots of people get this wrong all the time, but hopefully some will realize the error and not make it in the future.
I remember susie when she was "this" big...congrats
Login or Register to post comments.