Dana Milbank writes in the Washington Post that President Obama is "killing the progressive movement."
He comes to this conclusion after observing lower turnout for this year’s America’s Future Now conference. But anyone who lived through the Clinton years should have been able to predict that if a Democrat won the White House most rank-and-file Democrats would feel their job was done. There is just never going to be the kind of energy surrounding sausage-making that you get around election year politics.
Hardly Barack Obama’s fault.
More telling, however, are the voices of progressive dissent Milbank hears at the conference:
Speakers at the closing session exhorted the liberals to take back America — from Obama. "The president of the most powerful country in the world is doing all right, but there are a lot of people in this country who are not doing all right," writer Naomi Klein told the crowd. "Obama is making us stupid," she added. "Love can make you stupid."
And Leo Gerard, head of the United Steelworkers, warned that if his fellow activists don’t "seize the opportunity to lead with our progressive ideas," then "Rahm Emanuel will lead." And while "Rahm has the president’s back," the union leader said of Obama’s chief of staff, "I don’t think he has our back."
But many in the audience had warmer feelings toward the Obama administration. A straw poll taken by pollster Stan Greenberg found that 90 percent of those in attendance approve of the job the president is doing, and that they have no consensus about whether to help Obama or fight him.
[]
Ellison demanded investigations of Bush administration wrongdoings — "and anybody who doesn’t want to do it in the administration needs to be pushed to do it."
But Ellison didn’t sound terribly optimistic. "Our movement lacks muscle and bone density," he diagnosed.
The Bush administration and their wars gave fuel to the progressive movement in this country, no doubt. I was personally at a loss during the primary battles — from a movement perspective, I understood our job to be to hold fast to our principles and reward candidates for hewing to them and make them compete for our support.
What happened instead was that progressives divided into camps and started projecting progressive opinions onto candidates who had never expressed them, and fought relentlessly to establish a huge gulf between two candidates whose political records were largely indistinguishable. The progressive movement became subverted into a cult of personality on both sides from which it has yet to emerge, sucked in by a media complex that really doesn’t know how to cover an election or interpret politics in any other way.
But that’s only part of the story of why the progressive movement languishes, and I agree with Milbank that it does. I love the sausage-making process much more than the bomb-throwing, and I find taking part in incremental victories on issues like social security, cramdown or oversight of the Fed more satisfying than thundering defeats. But I have come to understand that the institutional forces that prevent real change from happening are more formidable and more structural than I anticipated.
That isn’t Obama’s fault, either.
More problematic is the way that progressive leadership is sitting things out, which is what Naomi Klein is addressing. Some may feel they have to — if the membership of their organizations are not interested in challenging the administration, many feel they can’t move without splitting them. But it’s a self-reinforcing problem. If the usual progressive validators aren’t saying anything, people don’t perceive that anything is wrong. And it becomes extremely difficult to generate enthusiasm for activism.
But Obama does bear some responsibility for the current state of affairs. The administration has consistently moved to distance itself from progressive leadership, refusing to even meet with the Progressive Caucus until recently. They have also consciously corralled progressive organizations and sought to strictly control their messaging. Media Matters and the Center for American Progress may have been important voices in the progressive movement at one time, but they’re little more than arms of the White House now, playing a zero sum game with Republicans who really don’t matter. When Democrats control both Congress and the White House, nobody needs the GOP’s help to pass legislation.
I understand that nobody wants to be on the outside like they were during the Bush years, but the price of a few cocktail parties at the White House — and the threat of lost donors — is buying a lot more than it should. There is some weakening around the edges, particularly among intellectuals concerned with finance issues (like Klein) and unions staring down a series of broken promises (like Gerard). Some predicted that Afghanistan would cause a split, but I never bought it. It’s probably going to take a big, stinging Congressional defeat — like Employee Free Choice — before any of the progressive institutions feel they must declare themselves independent of the White House and focus their energies on movement values once again.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Thanks Jane! When unemployment and the financial crisis meet at the juncture of facts, instead of spin, the progressives may pull their heads out of the sand and start demanding real “Change We Can Believe”. I worry, I really do. Where are we heading?
Hard to say. I understand people on both sides of the dilemma, but I think we have to start talking about it. I don’t think we can stop at “better than Bush,” which is all that some are asking.
Great post, Jane. You have an uncanny ability to cut through the bullshit and provide a clear, rational analysis of any given issue. Are you sure you’re one of those “Hamshers of the left?”
Great post, Jane! I totally agree.
Unfortunately, it looks like we’re all but there already. Even those that promised to back EFCA have pulled out!
It is perfectly obvious to those who are willing to look at the facts, objectively, that Obama is simply a tool for the corporate interests and always was, despite what everyone ‘hoped’ he was or what he tried to porray himself as. The man has no convictions at all. Until the people of this country try to see the facts clearly, instead of swallowing what the corporate media spoonfeeds us, and works to make sure that our interests, and not corporate interests, are being met by our government, there will be no improvement. I don’t think there’s any hope until there is real reform in campaign finance, so that the monied ineterests are not overwhleminingly represented. And we all know how Obama acted on public campaign finance.
As I see it, there is a huge gap between the behavior of conservatives and progressives when their party is in power. Conservatives continue to keep up the pressure from the most extreme factions of their group. Progressives are willing, as you point out, to take incremental change.
I don’t pretend to have the answers. By all rights, the conservatives should have been thoroughly ostracized by the results of the last two elections and the dismal state of affairs Obama inherited, and yet they still have a seat at the table and are able to control the framing far more than they should.
Two cases in point.
First, the overwhelming victories by the Democrats and the known preference of the public for single payer health care should say that getting single payer should be the number one priority of progressives right now. Yet, there is only a peep from us about it not even being on the table.
Second, does anyone think an episode like the Harriet Myers fiasco could occur in the Democratic party? Is it possible that Obama could come up with a Supreme Court nominee who is subsequently withdrawn because they are not seen as being “reliable” on progressive issues?
As I said, I don’t have the answers. It can be argued that the Republicans lost primarily because they let their extremists control the debate. It can be countered that these same extremists, even after having taken their party in the sewer, still control debate far more than they should, probably because of undue influence they have over a compliant press.
In the end, we must choose how to balance our ideals with the need to win elections. In the current environment, we are told over and over that we can’t have both. I’m greedy; I still want both.
Progressives would be best gathering understanding from their families, neighbors, friends, and co-workers. There is too much turtle conduct as a result of the ideological tirade of right-wing media; it has split families or forced progressives to shut up. It causes uncorrected right-wing talking points in a work environment. It has divided neighbors who used to socialize with one another.
Until we can freely talk again about politics, the popular pressure that expresses itself in the polls won’t express itself in Congress. This is not Obama’s fault and it is not progressives’ fault–until now. Fixation on what Obama says or does distracts us from the task at hand – make him do it. And that starts happening when Congress starts being more progressive than Obama.
It’s not going to happen at elite central, even progressive elite central. Or at even well-attended conferences. It is going to happen at the grassroots or not at all. And that means Utah and Oklahoma and Alabama and Tennessee and Kentucky as well as New York and Massachusetts and Michigan and Ohio and Illinois.
And if it does not happen, we will have the same old Rostenkowski Democrats whose corruption brings a populist reaction that conservatives can ride to power on again.
It is up to us to break the power of lobbies over Congress; Montanans have made a first start at that. So much so that Max didn’t show his face.
And the two major issues before us are first healthcare reform, which if we don’t build our clout we lose. And the Employee Free Choice Act; we win this one and we can start putting some real progressive items on the agenda.
It’s politics. It’s persuasion. It’s about getting people to look wisely at the decisions they are making. And it’s tough.
I feel that BO’s inability to close Guantanamo, his seeming unwillingness to reveal the illegal wire tap information, his dubious pro choice mutterings, his insistence about not going after the evil doers from the bush years, his waltz around DADT, his deferring to Bauchus thereby killing single payer, his embrace of the blackmail payments to Godlman Sachs and others along with the extraordinary delay in meeting with the Progressive Caucus has left many of us realizing what we hoped was not true in that BO is in the clutches of the powerful and meaningful change in anything will not be forthcoming.
I think the issue is to keep the Progressive Movement dynamic — which means that it is dissatisfied with its present reach, and it grows. Part of that is to move through the process of putting paid to all the rot of the Bush years, and looking out in a way that compels growth. Perhaps a discussion of how this could be accomplished is in order.
AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Hamsher:
Very good analysis but I have a question: since when has Dana Milbank become a credible reporter on ANYthing but particularly on the progressive movement??!! Gimmee a break!
KEEP THE FAITH AND REMEMBER WE HAVE TWO WARS TO END!!
Permit to address the Progressive Cause, from this Chicano’s perspective.
America’s Latino “influence” will increase, not to the availability of monies for political campaigns, but to the sheer number of votes. Now, if my understanding is factually correct, President Obama has an affection and affectation for the Spanish-speaking communities, and it is from this platform that these votes become increasingly ‘invaluable’. Thus, I would encourage progressives of issue-views to ‘reachout’ and speak truthfully and forcefully to Latinos.
And for me personally, I find the Organized Labor position on EFCA somewhat shortsighted. Take, for example, EFCA put into NAFTA would generate far greater support from Latinos given that we understand and appreciate that Corporate America’s oligarchy in the Latin America Region will be lessened when these governments must hand over their control of labor organizations and their formal recognition to the rank and file. To date, these governments own and control labor movements and crafting an intelligent opposition in the form of EFCA into NAFTA, permits their respective citizens to “shape” their future and thereby lessening the broad swath that encompasses the immigration issue.
Of course, no one has yet to address our littlest citizens born here in the USA and repatriated with their parents’ and to their nation of origin. Perhaps, Organized Labor can tell me how many of our littlest citizens are residing outside of our geographical boundaries, since Elected and Appointed Officials are incapable of doing so, the the cost that being visited on these Nation of Origin’s taxpayers relative their living situation to include medical care, qualitative educational experiences, and assorted financial, economic and social costs, due to our national neglect?
Fortunately, I won’t hold my breath.
Jaango
Outstanding analysis Jane.
If he has no convictions, then he can be pushed… …I hope.
The question is, how do we push effectively? The online petitions feel like a hollow contribution. The corporate interests do indeed seem to run much of the show… …in many ways it is “new boss, same as the old boss”.
Good one.
Yeah. The primaries were weird. And my state didn’t have one. And my guy turned out to be a scumbag.
If you don’t already, believe in Magic, huh?
Thanks Jane for putting words to the thought!
A thought that I believe is widely shared, but yet to be really voiced, and certainly not yet acted upon.
Resting on one’s laurels, taking a breather, heck even running out for more popcorn during the intermission, all of these things are happening, are even reasonable to understand, but are certainly not the end of the story.
Democrats, Progressives, Liberals, whatever one want to call one’s self, have never been folks to march in lockstep at the drop of the hat like our Republican counterparts.
Issues do matter, but unless one’s particular ox is being gored, we do tend to stand-down from the ramparts.
Another important component of course, is the lack of real leaders. Any who might come forward today seem to stand in the shadows of a truly gifted orator in President Obama who currently commands the stage.
I guess I don’t myself have the solution (I think), but I surely can see the problem!
We need to recognize that there is no Progressive counterpart to the heavily corporatist (and hence conservative) mainstream media. Yes, the blogs are important and popular, but they cannot even approach the propaganda power of Fox News and CNN blaring from every airport purgatory television, every sports bar screen, and Disney and GE owning every broadcast television in American homes.
No opposition to those powers can succeed. It is too easy for the Right to re-frame the discussion into something distracting, such as the way accusations of Sotomayor racism distract from observing that she may bring little progressive support to the Supreme Court.
If we want to galvanize the progressive movement, one way to do so might be to point out that NO progressive policies will be passed by Congress until we pass campaign finance reform. As long as the health care companies can simply
bribelobby Congress with millions of dollars, little will change in our health care system.Every single progressive interest group, from unions to health care to reproductive choice to social justice to race has an interest in removing corporate control of Congress. And frankly I think a lot of the best legislators would be increasingly supportive of a growing movement to do so – while some representatives are cynical power brokers, others are idealistic and progressive public servants frustrated by the need to kowtow to corporate interests or risk seeing a primary opponent funded by corporate cash.
We seem to want to look to a Magic President, who waves his hands and institutes progressive polices. That’s not how it works. Progressive momentum must start from the ground up, and the best way to do that is to find a common enemy to unite our diverse groups. And that enemy is the corporate control of our political system that has turned our democracy into a very expensive joke.
Until we pass campaign finance reform Obama, and every other policymaker in the Beltway, will continue to be held hostage by corporate interests.
Word, brother!
R.I.P. David Carradine… :(
CNN) — American actor David Carradine has been found dead in a Bangkok, Thailand, hotel, according to his personal manager, Chuck Binder.
David Carradine became famous in the 1970s after starring in the television series “Kung Fu.”
Binder said Thursday that the death is being investigated but could provide no other details.
Carradine’s death was “shocking and sad. He was full of life, always wanting to work … a great person,” Binder said, according to People magazine.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBI…..cnn_latest
Why can’t we do both?
Leave the black and white crap to the conservatives. We liberals are supposed to be able to discern all the shades of gray. I think we need to be willing to defend Obama from ridiculous attacks from the right, while at the same time be quick to criticize him for the many legitimate beefs we have with him.
I for one, was a big Obama supporter in the campaign, not because I projected all my liberal values onto him, but despite realizing he was a horrible centrist with too much affinity for the big money players. At the same time he was clearly the lesser evil.
Our job now is to not go into hibernation like we did in the Clinton years doing arguably more long-term damage to the cause than if a Republican had been in office.
We need to remember we have not been cured of Republicanism, they may be in remission, but it’s entirely likely they will come back more virulent than ever much sooner than we think.
We all needed a bit of a break after the election to feel good about our victory, but it was only a minor victory in a very lengthy campaign and we need to get back to the fight.
But how do we energize people? That’s a good question. I’m working at the local level to try to increase the activity level of people who weren’t previously involved in politics around some key issues. I’m sure other people have other ideas. It would probably be helpful if we could share our ideas and try to find ways to keep enough energy up to apply the pressure needed to push Obama to do what needs to be done.
“progressives divided into camps and started projecting progressive opinions onto candidates who had never expressed them, and fought relentlessly to establish a huge gulf between two candidates whose political records were largely indistinguishable. The progressive movement became subverted into a cult of personality on both sides.”
I have to disagree to some extent.
In my case, it all came down to the fact that Ms. Clinton was more of a known entity than Mr. Obama. She was more publicly aligned with the Washington establishment than her younger and less well-known opponent. We were given the choice between the possibility of change and the impossibility of change. I went with possibility.
While the Clinton years looked pretty good compared to what followed, I couldn’t ignore the fact that what followed was in large measure a consequence of the corporate-friendly, go-along-to-get-along, “New Democrat” politics that the Clinton organization exemplified. Ms. Clinton’s main asset was her supposed “electability,” which, in practice, meant her supposed lock on the movers and shakers and the big money.
I was never starry-eyed about Mr. Obama. But he was young and thus relatively new to the job. He was an orator rather a pander, which to me indicates intelligence. And he was just different enough from run-of-the-mill politicos to offer some hope that he would see this moment in history for the crisis it is and rise to the occasion as he grew into his presidency.
Thus far, Mr. Obama has been a grave disappointment. But I still have some hope that the scales will fall from his eyes when the advice of the party hacks and croney capitalists lets us all down worse than it already has. I can hope that his deafness and blindness to the party base and, increasingly, to the bulk of the electorate as a whole, is tempoorary.
I can’t have similar hopes for Ms. Clinton. Conventional “electability” is still all that she has to offer, and, contrary to the collective wisdom of the party leadership, getting elected is just not enough on its own anymore.
Amazing how much more you can say with an additional 77 words.
Thanks Jane.
Draft Dennis Kucinich if Barak Obama doesn’t keep his eye on the ball. We voted him in, we can vote him out!
Outstanding post, Jane.
Thought provoking, as well. Gonna have to sit back and think this over.
Jane, you are a very smart lady.
You run a good show here and I know it must a difficult balancing act for you to keep some of the contributors coming back.
Take me. I am steadfast on the side of a Single Payer system for health care. I had it in active service and I essentially have it now as a retiree and I agree with the guy who said ”let everyone have the health benefits Congress has”, but I have some real problems with some of the extreme versions of the labor movement.
I watched Charlie Rose, the other night and there were some telling blows against labor there talking about the newest (now) UAW contract.
And here I paraphrase?
”now labor has to work 40 hours before they get overtime”
”now labor has to have 6 unexcused absenses before they get fired”
All I could say was ”What?!”
The majority of Americans can’t comprehend the kind of excesses the UAW AND (please note I said ”AND”) the GM management allowed.
And I think that is why the labor movement will see its fondest desires die in Congress this year and probably the next.
All the other side has to do is bring up the fact that the strongest Union in the country, the UAW, has ”participated” in the near destruction of the American Auto industry. Similar to the Airlines, and similar to Steel.
I also like EJ Dionne’s(?) comments the last two days that the progressives make fun of Rush and Newt as they do many conservatives but those conservatives are doing their job well and are shaping the National Discussion.
It is time to take all sides seriously and calmly!
You have your hands full.
Word from the Bangkok police is that he hanged himself. That’s really sad.
I agree with the “muscle and bone density” comment, but it’s a lot to conclude from a single conference (I was there) that progressives are languishing. I think that’s too easy a judgment to make from inside the Beltway.
In my district (Rep. Heath Shuler’s – I had fun explaining that at AFN), progressives have been objects of distrust among clubbish old hands, and seen as lacking staying power. Democratic “old boys” have tended to ignore progressives, figuring they’ll just go home when their pet issues are settled or if they don’t have an Obama-like figure to rally around. Then the “old boys” get their club back. But stick around and work, and eventually they have to work with you and eventually you’re in charge. I suspect that’s not just a southern thang.
We took 36 of 36 local races in November. Gordon Smith (gordonforasheville.com) is running for city council along with other progressive candidates headed in time for bigger things. We held a county executive committee meeting a week ago in which 75 of 77 precincts showed up – probably a record. A lot of that is driven by new blood. Patience is a virtue progressives need to cultivate if we expect to succeed long-term. All-or-nothing thinking leads to too much nothing.
Sorry for this unispiring image, but remember that scene in “Titanic” where they swung the wheel hard over and the ship took agonizing seconds to begin turning? America’s a pretty big ship. It’s about the vision, not about one man.
Obama’s rhetorical skill is probably the most potent political weapon we’ve seen in a generation or more.
I think (hope) most of us realized he wasn’t fully committed to our team, but rather a bit of a mercenary, but we have hope that we can get him to grudgingly use his talent on our behalf.
We’re kind of like the poor villagers in the Magnificent Seven.
“But how do we energize people? “
I fear that we can’t and that we won’t have to. The economic, environmental, and geopolitical crises facing us are going to get dramaticly worse as a result of the stalling, the bandaid fixes, and the politically “safe” pseudo-solutions that our party has now made its hallmark.
Events are going to energize people for us. Whether that will be good or bad is the real question.
People now discount the possibility of a revolution–or a coup–in contemporary America. But people always discount such possibilities in the hours and minutes before they occur. We now know that, in the ‘Thirties, the USA came perilously close to both a Fascist coup d’etat organized by the Shrub’s granddaddies with German help and to a Bolshevik revolution. Roosevelt’s inherent qualities, the pressure of events, the inertia of social institions, and sheer blind luck were all that kept the Republic alive–that and World War. We may be closer to the same combination of circumstances now. History is funny that way.
Well said. This instant gratification nonsense has got to end.
When it comes to universal health care, many Chicanos are advocating the expansion of the VA medical and hospital systemic and done so on the basis of “egalitarianism”.
For in doing so, a ‘compromise’ can be achieved on Single Payer, at a minimum. Thus, the Kennedy and Baucus “public option” is at best a joke among the Spanish-speaking.
To wit, we in the Spanish-speaking community, have long recognized that the line in the sand for the Right has been “centrism” and thusly, our approach challenges their mindset. And for the less discerning poliltically, Latinos, or the 5% or so, who affiliate with the GOP are in it for the “line being shorter” when it comes to accessing taxpayer dollars. And in these recent public squabbles these Latino-affiliated Republicans are not speaking out ala Gingrich, Limbaugh and Tancredo. As such they know better and will get vehemently trashed and done vociferously.
And as members of a political coalition, criticizing our fellow members of this coalition of Democrats, needs to be done intelligently and with intelligent ideas. And I have a few more of these “ideas”. :-)
Jaango
You bring up a very prescient point. The rise of fascism in Europe came from very similar circumstances to what we’re experiencing now. And so did the rise of violent leftist-movements.
We are in a time that is very conducive to extremist movements, so it’s more important than ever to stay active and strong to prevent something disastrous.
We could get more change than we bargained for.
great analysis and spot on.
that said, as an outspoken progressive, I learned a few years ago that neither democrats nor republicans are our friends. I am not any less of a pain in the neck now than i was during the bush years. if anything, i’m worse because while the GOP never promised me anything, the democrats DID.
They are breaking their promises, and there is nothing i hate so much as a liar. and so the fight goes on, for me at least: no quarter.
IMHO, what’s most desperately needed is a STRATEGIC sense of the liberal progressive agenda.
IMHO, the timing of Dick Cheney’s reversal on gay marriage was no accident. Mary Matlin told
Dead EyeDarth Vader that he had to break out of the extremist box in order to rescue his legacy. GLBT rights suddenly became the easiest, most convenient issue for Dick to rehabilitate his pro-torture positions. It allowed Dick to hold firm on his more core beliefs, anti-choice, Wall Street, corporately funded elections, state sponsored terrorism, more carbon, ….A victory, or a successful defense, in one state, on one issue, strengthens the entire liberal/progressive agenda.
Great post, as always, Jane. And interesting comments as well. While I feel a lot of the same frustrations expressed in other comments, I also acknowledge that we are literally in Chapter 1 or 2 of a long story. And we are also trying to judge things on what we see in front of us without knowing what other factors are in play. Bush forced a hard right turn on the country and it has clearly moved the country to the left. Maybe Obama wants to prevent the reverse, and is willing to proceed more slowly in order to let events propel us towards more liberal, and popular areas. As an example, I’m hoping that he put Geithner and Summers in so that once the Wall Street crowd has had their go and failed, he can make substantive changes.
What exactly is the progressive movement? How many people accept its values? What did the last election mean anyhow? Representative democracy doesn’t work. Elections mean little in terms of revealing constituent desire. How, for example, might we organize a nationwide demonstration with millions of participants, not stuff you bus people to, but demonstrations on every town green. No one was interested in trying to organize against going to the movies to support the writers. OK everyone doesn’t feel strongly about writers. Would employee free choice do it? How about getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq immediately? Blogs give us the opportunity to vent. That, perhaps, diminishes our energy for doing anything.
Great Post Jane!
Looks like the progressives will have to get a real kick in the face to wake up and see that we have a effectively a centrists at the con.
It will be when the unions get it in the face that progressives will see that the gov sucks up to capital not labor every single time.
Well crafted, Jane.
I do believe our problem is compounded because there is not one lynch pin that unifies us – except at a fairly abstract level that is difficult to articulate, never mind craft a (unified) policy around. Eighteen months ago, I’d have though that single payer health care might be such a policy. And, the auto industries might have been a corporate corner to help drive it, helping to alleviate the push back from the insurance industry. But, we see how that’s worked out.
I guess Eric Boehlert’s book (Bloggers on the Bus), which I’ve not yet read, speaks to some of the fracturing of the netroots during the campaign, and the disparate loyalties of campaign supporters. And, that’s a critical obstacle because it persists even now. Mounting push-back efforts against Obama’s campaign capitulations has typically invited a firestorm of protest – although, if Glenn’s threads are any indication, it seems to be lessening somewhat. This, also,
is a significant problem.
Like Jim White and Mad Dog, I don’t have any answers either. I think the ideas of what could constitute a holistic progressive agenda were outlined by a long-ago (in cyber terms), former commenter of Glenn’s here. But, as this individual points out, what we’re repeatedly told is we can’t do these things. We can’t put wrongs to right, and we can’t move forward, either. It makes Yes, we can ring very hollow indeed.
I think that the traditional media are lost to us. Their own corporatism weighs too heavily against. I suspect the “healing” of the netroots has to precede, or at least run concurrent with, efforts to push forward in any unified way. The campaign camps have to let go. Obama is who we have, and he is what he is. We have to get okay with it, and the various factions need to push in the same direction. Some will push harder, some with less energy depending on their affection for him. But, push we must. We are all we have.
My suspicion is that Obama put in Geithner and Summers with the same reasoning FDR put Joe Kennedy in as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Unfortunately I don’t think it’s going to work out the way Obama (IMHO) had hoped.
At least that’s my take on it.
Here here!
Well put.
May I suggest doing more homework on the UAW contract? Some of what people are hearing is anti-union spin, some of it quite old.
What does the CURRENT contract say, for example, about a week in which there’s a paid holiday (like Memorial Day)? Should a blue collar worker still have to put in 40 hours of work during that week, although his white collar hourly counterpart may not have to in order to draw overtime at 1.5 times pay, or 2-3 times pay for holiday work with shift premium? And would you want to given the conditions in some plants, like those with furnaces and no air conditioning?
And would you want to put in 40-plus hours on a holiday week at entry wages, some of which are well below that of fast food workers?
Seriously, check the CURRENT contract.
From Dana Milbank and the WaPoo, why does that sound like a dream come true rather than a disaster for American society and representative government?
Spot on. But as a fourth-generation, born-in-the-USA, Danish/German/Scottish American, I’d broaden the point to cover more than Spanish speakers and Latin nations.
I am at heart a globalist. I like “foreign” food and languages and products and I know that “foreigners” like my food and language and products. Free exchange is a good thing.
As a descendent of immigrants, I fiercely dislike immigration controls of all kinds.
As a working person, I intensely despise those that exploit workers by misusing government power, as US employers do with “illegal” immigrant labor and as US corporations do in overseas markets where governments restrict unions.
But I am also disgusted by the me-first attitude adopted by American labor, an attitude that has done much to weaken the movement. Unions should not be pressing for protectionist tariffs, “buy American” programs, and auto-industry bailouts. Why should I feel more for $15/hr American workers than I do for $.10/day Bangladeshis? Why should I buy another crummy Chevy when I can get a really nice Toyota hybrid made by reasonably well-paid workers for less of my money? Because I love “Americans” more? Please. Many of the “illegal” Latin Americans that make the long trek to work here seem more American to me than than the native-born.
I have to conclude that the only problem with global free trade is also the problem with the domestic labor movement: nobody wants to really eliminate barriers–they just want the barriers to favor them.
The only thing global free trade needs is global free labor. Treaties like NAFTA have to be renegotiated to make relaxation of trade barriers dependent on elimination of barriers to organized labor unions. Labor–world labor, not just American labor–needs multinational unions to offset the giant corporations. If the Chinese want to export Buicks to the US, let them. But make sure that the Chinese that build them can join the UAW. Then we will have a real level playing field, where everyone can get honest pay for honest work, people can live where they choose, and consumers can buy what they want at a fair price.
We also need to remember that history never repeats itself. This crisis is bigger than what the ‘Thirties faced, if only because more people, more power, and more of the globe are involved. If we let things “just happen”, what happens will surely be unexpected, and I, for one, am not ready to bet that novel is the same as good.
I’ve gotta say, Montana, I’m REALLY proud of you!!!
Last night I read, via the Tubes, Matt Bai’s long article in Sunday’s NYT mag on Obama’s “strategy.” It’s all “politics:” wait & see how the wind’s blowing; force Congress to do the “law-making,” thus preserving one’s cover; schmooze with various Congress-o-crats.
Nowhere, NOWHERE, is there one word about leadership: acting as Kennedy [JFK] did and providing an inspirational vision to Americans; enunciating what “American values” are and how we’ll hold fast to them, even in tough times; urging Americans to think of the “greater good” and become involved — whether through action or sacrifice — in bringing it about.
This, to me, is Obama’s fatal flaw: he has incredible oratorical talents, but he won’t use them for these purposes. Instead, he seems to be calculating every floor vote and op ed.
Patriotism — in the good sense — is something that can’t be “polled,” but once harnessed could do a great deal in healing this country and setting it on the path to recovery.
As the old saying goes, “Lead, follow, or get out of the way.” The latter seems the best we can hope for with Obama on the key issues [health care, Iraq/Afghanistan, civil liberties, economic recovery].
It’s beyond sad.
I don’t think a real peace / anti war / anti militarist / anti corporatist can occupy the white house.
And so it makes it hard for the occupant to “be” a progressive or enact progressive programs.
Look, Milbank is talking out of his butt.
We had a progressive summit in my state this past month; attendance was down, energy was down, presentations were not as meaty.
But as most activists at state and local level know, this year is the lull in the 4-year cycle. Each year energy and participation ramps up to the presidential race, with highest levels of energy in the mid-term/gubernatorial race and presidential election race years.
For those of us who are activists, this is when we do postmortems on the last campaigns, reevaluate data from districts and precincts, sort through the social media and mailing lists, fundraise, recruit and groom candidates, train activists. It’s a sleeper year on the surface if you are media and not welcome at these highly partisan, “proprietary” and very unexciting but essential events.
The economic conditions also require more careful assessment about where activists spend their money and resources. Why go to a far-flung event when there are so many important things to do in one’s own backyard? (I’ve had two events to attend this week here in town as one example, and I have to pass on two more — I can’t see going to an out-of-state event when I can make a difference here and now.)
Milbank KNOWS this, unless he’s been hiding under a rock when it’s not an election year. Using AFN as proof that progressives are toast is either an outright deception or utter stupidity. You be the judge, take your pick.
IMO, Milbank is akin to Munson. As in, “I think he’s trying to Milbank us.”
You are most correct.
I think Obama is right where FDR was when he said (paraphrasing) “I agree, now make me do it.”
“The progressive movement became subverted into a cult of personality on both sides from which it has yet to emerge, sucked in by a media complex that really doesn’t know how to cover an election or interpret politics in any other way.”—-absolutely ‘on point’ analysis and EXTREMELY well written Jane.
“But I have come to understand that the institutional forces that prevent real change from happening are more formidable and more structural than I anticipated.”——it surprises me that you ‘have come to’ given that such has been apparent for years; were you caught up in ‘wishin and hopin’?
“The administration has consistently moved to distance itself from progressive leadership, refusing to even meet with the Progressive Caucus until recently. They have also consciously corralled progressive organizations and sought to strictly controlled their messaging.” —–and doesn’t that tell you that the Obama Admin is ‘in bed’ with the same ‘institutional forces’ you previously mentioned?
Unfortunately, you are probably correct about “It’s probably going to take a big, stinging Congressional defeat — like Employee Free Choice — before any of the progressive institutions feel they must declare themselves independent of the White House and focus their energies on movement values once again.”
And ,once again, the two party system will have snatched defeat from the opportunity for victory by the people.
“We also need to remember that history never repeats itself.”—huh? Say what? The whole of human civilization is nothing but a recurrent recycling of memes.
I finally finished reading the 75th (or was it 100th I can’t remember) anniversary edition of “The Progressive” and it was disheartening to say the least to read how much nothing has changed in the last 100 years. Then I thought about it some more and I realized there will always be plenty of mean and selfish people in the world, and sometimes they will be in charge, and sometimes they won’t. The important thing is to always stay hopeful no matter how bleak things seem, and to never give up the fight.
I’ve had no holler for Milbank ever since he mocked Democrats for trying to hold a press conference on the Downing Street Memos in a “broom closet” (as I believe he put it) given to them by a GOP controlled congress.
Now, I believe the story that day was the freaking DSM, not the lack of creature comforts where the press conference was held.
You’re right with regard to NAFTA and a need for an even playing field.
But [edited by lurking mod for insulting tone of comment. Please try to be more sensitive to other commenters]
Can you tell me how much automotive content is used in vehicles sold and operated in the American market which comes from Bangladesh?
There’s a reason why countries like China are catching up to American automakers. They have a fairly large well-educated population (although the education level is not uniform across the country) with a demand level to match. They also have considerable investment in American manufacturing technology and know-how, transferred there by Americans. The Chinese also have considerable pricing advantage by not having legacy health care burdens or environmental considerations (and yeah, take a good look at the burdens our consumption here is placing on Chinese for your cheap autos built with cheaper labor).
Your use of Bangladeshi labor in comparison to U.S. labor is far from rational when you don’t take into consideration rather important factors.
And now to address Jane’s points about the progressives and Obama: I think he’s choosing to appear to be distant from us for political reasons, while Team Obama tries to figure out how to re-engage the grassroots.
They are attempting what’s never been done before, continue a movement after the movement reached the pinnacle of political office. Sure, Dean’s DFA is an example of a sustained movement, but Dean didn’t get elected and had four years as an opposition effort under his belt. How does a movement whose figurehead got elected sustain their energy, while not alienating the marginal and still-skittery center they need to assure their agenda?
I’ve been approached by organizers who are mobilizing around a particular effort, by way of the same machinery they used during the campaign. It’s trying to find its way now that the power within the highly local grassroots has shifted from the four-year boom to the bottom of the cycle. All those newbies or “seasonal” folks masked the core leaders to these still fairly new organizers (I say this because older organizations know us and know who to contact and the new effort doesn’t).
Shorter: we’re in the steep leading edge of a learning curve, and it’s a curve they don’t want seen. At least just yet.
Whoever thinks his or her job is done, is not a progressive.
First of all, Obama seems to reading Congress not polls. And right now Congress, not Obama, defines concretely what is possible.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by Obama is not exerting leadership. He is doing exactly what JFK did; nostalgia is nice, but JFK was sorely criticized for lack of leadership on civil rights and on national security and on…by more progressive voices.
As for those impressive oratorical talents, your perspective is very curious on this of all days.
It just seems to me that progressives are expecting Barack Obama to do all the heavy lifting and create the local environments in which they can once again talk about politics with family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers. It didn’t happen with Kennedy; it won’t happen with Obama. Deomocracy works from the bottom up, not from the top down. You want single-payer healthcare; convince your neighbors to put the pressure on Congress; you want a better Afghanistan policy; convince your family to put the pressure on Congress. And that means Republicans as well as Democrats. You want lobbyists out of the Senate; you get your co-workers to put pressure on Republican and Democratic Senators alike, with exactly which lobbyists they are kow-towing to.
Naomi Klein and Jane Hamsher can’t transform this country by themselves (although they can get us started).
Oh, how I hope you’re right!
The tragic fact is that it is probably already too late for the progressive movement to change much the trajectory of this Presidency.
The first 100 days have already established Obama’s positions on due process, on state secrets, on civil liberties more generally, on war in Afghanistan, on the economic bailout of Wall Street banks. I don’t see how those fundamental positions get materially altered going forth, no matter what kind of pressure the progressive movement might choose to apply at some future date — if, indeed, it ever attempts to do so.
In the not terribly likely event that the progressive movement ever develops something resembling a spine, it will be only to do far too little far too late.
Barry’s killing the progressive movement BECAUSE HE’S NOT A PROGRESSIVE!!!!!
Not to get all cynical or anything, because I am really trying to keep the faith and to keep HOPE alive, and allow myself to believe in many other cliches, but maybe the problem is in belief itself rather than faith…
In any event, progressives have made real the notions that the American policy of war can be effected by the American people (rather than just the corporations or the generals), and that the political establishment is intelligent enough to begin to deal with cataclysmic climate change. But somewhere, somehow, our eyes dropped from watching the ball, and so nothing has been down about these two crucial issues, in fact the notions themselves have been submerged by cults of personality, as you noted.
It’s too bad. I think most of us felt that we had a chance. But you are right Jane, we need to realize that party machines are not us, and we need to organize, organize, organize. Here in California, if we ever do have a Constitutional Convention what are we going to do when they do not let us in? What are we going to do when they challenge our very right to be part of the plan because we are not part of the party machine?
Well said!! Especially this part.
It is really really hard to push back on the corporate money and power.
And please note that Olbermann kicked him off his show because he was such a putz.
I was around and a voter when JFK was prez, so I do remember him.
Granted, Obama’s speech today was great. But that’s ONE non-domestic area. On the rest, [civil liberties, the economy, health care], he’s hanging in the weeds.
Granted too that he may be “reading Congress and not the polls.” But what a leader does is speak over the heads of the Congress and the polls to the people — that’s how you get the pressure, from constituents, on Congress. You’re not going to change Congress or the voters by hiding out and testing the temperature.
And I have to add, as someone who donated the maximum $$$ to Obama, worked for over a year for his election and has worked since 1962 for the election of Dems, bugged every friend, relative & victim whose e-mail was in my address book [and who continues to bug them on issues], your saying “I” should “talk to my neighbors” really pisses me off.
[I even traveled from DC to go door-to-door in NC.]
Dear Jane,
Thank you so so much for the analysis of the personality cults of the “left” during last year’s primary season !!
Afternoon work shift is looming, I haven’t read any the dear reader’s comments, yet we needed so much to hear Jane’s message on “projecting progressive ideals on candidates who never held them” and “forming antagonistic personality cults over candidates with practically indistinguishable messages & records” (I’m paraphrasing away) — it will great sign of hopefullness when the readers of the most articulate political blog take these analyses to heart, get over the jokes, the nitpicking, and the unrealistic idealism of ‘I wish I had the ideal progressive pony,’ and start the hard work of CREATING AMONG OURSELVES A MORE ARTICULATE, MORE NUANCED, MORE RESPECTFUL AND MORE EFFECTIVE political culture.
Sorry for the all caps, I feel so strongly, my big article will be coming, I promise.
is it finally time to reassess “Progressives’ perennial fealty to the Democratic Party???
the unbecoming co-dependence is obviously dysfunctional, when one party is as faithful as puppy-dogs, and the other drops trillions of dollars on Wall Street billionaires, and continues to fund costly missionless, failed wars, and allows blatantly criminal conduct to go un-investigated, and consolidates Bush/Cheney police state conduct into bipartisan consensus and keeps single payer off the table, etc, etc, etc.
this recklessness in DC might crash the dollar, sooner rather than later, and then there will be some serious hardships as the cost of everything imported skyrockets. Candidate Obama backed the Wall Street bailouts, and then proceeded to hand over financial policy to Goldman Sachs.
There was a historic chance to change course with the new administration – by failing to do so, the Democratic Party will fully own the dire consequences of their corruption and stupidity, even though Bushco laid most of the groundwork.
Strategize that – many people who are paying attention to what is really being done are never coming back into the (D) corral.
Milbank has a remarkably open and nasty contemptuous streak toward anyone who is genuinely liberal or progressive. I urge anyone who thinks he is a decent reporter to read his account of John Conyers’ 2005 unofficial hearing investigating whether Bush and Cheney lied their way into the Iraq war. The GOP majority forced Conyers to hold this hearing in a basement of a House office building in order to humiliate him and ridicule his cause. Milbank fell for it hook, line, and sinker, gratuitously throwing out a series of completely cosmetic insults at the people who were, well, beginning the process of establishing what is now accepted fact: Bush and Cheney lied us into the Iraq war.
“many people who are paying attention to what is really being done are never coming back into the (D) corral.”
But what corral are they herding INTO? Cuz if there IS another corral, I sure wanna know about it.
I’m in agreement with most of your thoughts . . . I’m NOT sure how many are defecting the D Corral, nor do I know where they might be bedding down at night if not in the Dem Corral.
Terrific comment, thanks.
STTPinOhio pointed out the same thing I did, but earlier. Again, folks, here is Milbank’s true attitude toward progressives. And this was in 2005, not “just after the world changed” in 2002, which seems to make a difference to some people (idiots).
x3
no other corral, yet. out in the open, getting rained on.
Financial industry reform, health care reform, a Greener world, education reform, ending the Iraq occupation, ending Gitmo, hopefully catching al-Zawahiri and bin Laden, a better economy, more marriage equality, better individual & family financial security
You know, all the usual stuff you *don’t* get from Repubs.
It’s not so much that it’s ‘instant gratification’ as that some crazy people will destroy so much to increase their own gratification. A system which allows that is truly bizarre.
Who is ‘just letting things happen’?
Howard Dean’s leadership at the DNC was evidence of progressives’ effort to hollow out the Dem Party and take it back to its progressive roots.
We haven’t given up on that, but like every movement — and you can even point to the Movement Conservatives as examples — has its ups and downs.
We’re not done taking back the party, as the same reasons exist now that existed four to five years ago. Dean asked his supporters in late November 2004: do we start a third party, do we take back the party, or should he simply run again?
The numbers are still not there for a successful third party.
Dean or a true progressive like him will not win without a sizable, solid progressive organization fully behind him and prepared to win.
By the numbers this means we still have to consider taking back the party in order to win.
This will only happen if we continue our efforts to weed out the corporatist interests within the Dem Party, primary their incumbents and support our own candidates. This is not a job which can happen in two or four years, as we’ve just proven to ourselves; it’s a lifetime commitment.
I’ll point to the Movement Conservatives again as an example: it took the corporatists and the Bible-thumpers 30-plus years to get to the eight years they had with George W. Bush. It took them that long to move their party far enough to the right that Republicans like William Milliken (Michigan’s former governor) looks like a centrist Dem, and forced moderate Repubs like Mitt Romney to backpedal on everything they’ve ever believed. In doing so, the right-wing encouraged the development of radical far right groups to widen the Overton Window, making their new center look appealing in comparison (Dubya looked sane compared to Buchanan or Pat Robertson in 2000, yes?)
This should tell us that we not only need to continue to hammer away on centrists; we also need to encourage those farther to the left than we are. This is our role, this is our groove for the next two presidential elections at a minimum. We take every opportunity like the backdoor organizing going on at the moment (see my comment at 53) and then we run further and farther to the left with it on their dime.
And it should also tell us after shifting the conversation and taking possession of it, that we shouldn’t f*ck up and get greedy-stupid like the right did during Dubya’s eight years.
I swear no fealty to the Dem Party; to paraphrase what Eli Pariser said in 2004, I bought it, it’s mine, and I’m taking it back. The old schoolers aren’t giving up without a fight, but they are eventually going to lose this war for the soul of the Dem Party.
After John Kerry, I gave the dems to election cycles to turn themselves around. They haven’t I’m through!