I’d understand better the general peevishness of a certain segment of the ‘progressive movement’ if they ever defined what it is that distinguishes them from non-progressive Democrats and what policies they want to see enacted that they feel are endangered by Barack Obama’s cabinet picks.
Thankfully, Atrios, who is not peevish, laid out some progressive markers today:
I don’t especially like his people punching the dirty fucking hippies under the bed, but on the other hand if they manage to convince people that Obama is a sensible centrist who wants to do sensible centrist things like build SUPERTRAINS, get out of Iraq, not torture people or invade random countries, strengthen labor protections, reduce income inequality, improve education, provide health care for people, and reduce poverty, while those DAMNED DIRTY HIPPIES just won’t shut up about their magic ponies, it’s fine by me.
If you look at the list of issues that Atrios provided and you keep in mind the types of Democrats that were on the wrong side of those issues over the last twenty years, you can develop a mental picture of the non-progressive Democrat. Very few Democrats fail every test, but almost all of them fail at least one. Real progressive politicians are actually quite rare. The Senate has a half-dozen, at best. Even Russ Feingold voted for the Defense of Marriage Act.
I think the main concern progressives have is that people who opposed Rubinomics have been vindicated (at least on the deregulatory front) and the people who opposed the invasion of Iraq have been vindicated, and yet people who were wrong about those issues are getting plum positions in the Obama administration. And that isn’t so much of a problem if Obama keeps his campaign promises as it is an injustice for the people getting passed over.
Obama’s legislative priorities are not little poll-tested mini-initiatives like school uniforms and tax rebates. He’s calling for the biggest investment in infrastructure since the 1950’s, the biggest health-care reform since the 1960’s, the biggest energy-policy change since the car replaced the horse and buggy. He’s on record supporting the most pro-union legislation in generations and the most pro-choice legislation ever, period. He promises to remove all combat forces from Iraq on an aggressive schedule, and he promises to end torture, restore habeas corpus, and dismantle Guantanamo.
I don’t know what planet you have to live on to see these policies as anti-progressive, or disrespectful to progressives. I think he is going to be the best president in memory on urban issues, and I like what he has to say about education policy. As soon as he is sworn in, he’ll be able to pass virtually every Democratic bill that was filibustered or vetoed in the last Congress. I have no concerns about the kinds of judicial appointments he will make. So, what could be the problem?
I think we can all come up a few people we’d rather see as Secretary of Defense or State, and a few of us have good suggestions for Treasury, as well. But, despite all the rhetoric about Obama being all celebrity and no substance, he ran on a clear set of campaign promises, and they haven’t changed much at all. The prospect that Obama will postpone the rescinding of Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy by two years is hardly a betrayal given current economic conditions. You have anything else substantive to complain about?
Obama is going to start rolling out his domestic cabinet. We’ll soon find out who will be running Education and Interior and Agriculture and the EPA. I’m sure that we’ll see several progressives and a Blue Dog or two. We might even see another Republican, although I doubt it. In the meantime, I am more concerned about Obama being able to deliver on his promises than the prospect that he will break them.
Obama wouldn’t be president if the Washington Establishment (both parties and the Media) had not failed so utterly. He rules their world now. Let him let them think otherwise, but Obama is the most powerful president since LBJ, and he hasn’t even been sworn in yet. I guess I think that that’s progress(ive).
Booman…RIGHT ON! Excellent post. I would add one additional observation. The universal trait most Americans share and do not hesitate at every opportunity to demonstrate it, and that childish characteristic is INSTANT gratification. Barack cannot be president before January 20, 2009 but it runs counter to our modern news driven instant resolution society to have to wait for the normal progress of chronological time until we reach the blessed day of Barack’s swearing in. These complaining “progressives” are like the little kids in the back of the family vehicle on the road on a vacation trip, who are constantly asking, “are we there yet?” The adult version of the kid’s question simply to loudly grouse about Obama’s cabinet choices.
Politics is the art of compromise. However, the unfortunate thing is that most “progressives” have no concept of what politics is all about. Their mindset is fixed on the idea that “we won so we get to pick up all the marbles”. However, winning is only the first step. The next and most important task in governing is to get a winning consensus on board with those issues you personally want to champion in the name of the American people.
There’s a lot of opportunity with this administration (as you point out) to hope that policies we want will be enacted. And the blogosphere could really help its readers understand the nuanced differences in the various policy proposals that will be floating around. I do hope that the progressive bloggers begin in January to dig into the bills that are being proposed so we can understand their strengths and weaknesses.
Of course some won’t. But hopefully many will.
I haven’t paid much attention to the transition blogging – I’m beyond being interested in the politics of personality – 2 years of it was enough. But what I find the most interesting about the Obama transition is that he seems to be GAINING power in the transition. Not just consolidating it, but gaining it. I don’t remember that happening in my adult life. Not even with Ronald Reagan (although maybe I’ve just blocked that out of my memory).
The release of the hostages on inauguration day provided such a turbocharge to Reagan’s power that it’s hard to remember any nuances of the transition.
Surviving an assassination attempt wiped away what was left of meaningful opposition to St. Ronnie. It took a bad economy to slow him at all, and then Iran-Contra (and the loss of the Senate) to provide a real threat to his power.
But, you’re right that Obama is gaining power. He now controls almost all the political breathing space…especially on foreign policy.
Good point about the hostages. One supercharged gain on inauguration day. Different than what is happening now.
Its all about power and influence. I think its important to push at Obama from the left but not to try to weaken him at all. Booman’s point that Obama could be the most powerful president since LBJ is important. If he’s able to sell his plans as centrist policies, I’m ok with a little pushback.
I don’t mind pushing him to the left (or from the left) but I’d like to see something more specific than bitching about the Treasury Secretary.
If was picking Cabinet members, I’d pick people that have been part of, or friendly to, the progressive movement. But I’d also have a cabinet of neophytes with no experience running giant bureaucracies.
But I’d also have a cabinet of neophytes with no experience running giant bureaucracies.
This point cannot be stressed enough. So many have forgotten it.
good post.
For me, concerning Obama’s lack of progressivism, and I am to the left of progressives, is his take on the economy.
The current global economic meltdown is a complete failure of neo-liberal capitalism. Corporate power has become too powerful. War is a racket because America’s intervention in foreign governments over the last many years have been at the behest of corporations for their self-interest, but the excuses used to con the American people to support these ‘adventures’ have been all about self-defense and spreading ‘freedom.’
Obama is a pro-war (in the sense that American supremacy is achieved, if necessary, through the barrel of a gun) globalist. Sorry, but it’s true. His “team” doesn’t lie. And yes, he’s the one who makes policy, but do you think his team would agree to be his team if they have to act against their own stated beliefs?
please.
The privatization of the world’s resources and the supremacy of profits is the root cause of the problem. If we actually believe in the common wealth then we can’t believe in private profit at the expense of common wealth.
Socialism is not about taking mansions away from millionaires but about people first, profit second.
Obama is a christian humanist (I hope. We’ll see how he handles the renegotiation of our trade treaties and how he makes sure there is plenty of room for workers rights etc.) But I do seriously question his ability/interest to tackle the systemic problems of corporate power over the common wealth.
g.
The bitching from the left reaches grotesque levels with some bloggers. We’ve all expressed disappointment with various appointments or pronouncements, but I don’t get the “betrayed us” stuff that keeps popping up before Obama’s even in office.
I think the problem is the the left has been so busy just impotently opposing the current plutocracy that we’ve forgotten how to talk about policy separate from party cheerleading. We won’t get Obama’s attention for our positions until we articulate them. It’s not enough to just complain about appointments and announcements. Maybe the so-called blogosphere is stuck in a no-growth rut. Our policy preferences will be better served if some part of it shifts to intense policy discussion and development, perhaps in a different format.
Obama has some jerky people in his circle who obviously see the left-center as a threat to their status and influence. Feelings get hurt when they dismiss the value of the left, but we shouldn’t confuse that with substantive reflections of Obama’s outlook. There will be plenty of those to mull over once he’s in the White House.
“Obama is a sensible centrist who wants to…get out of Iraq“
Obama’s plan, which he spelled out in considerable detail early in the primary campaign, and which some of his advisors elaborated on later, never was to get out of Iraq. Obama’s plan was to “withdraw combat troops within 16 months”, leaving a “residual force” to do x, y, z, a, b and c (some of which would inevitably include at least some combat). He never mentioned withdrawing beyond that. Based on his own description, his plan was not to get out of Iraq, but to reconfigure – downsize if you prefer – and rebrand the occupation.
So true.
How would we feel if Japan had put bases in Hawaii to “protect their national security” interests there after Pearl Harbor???
Exactly, Lisa.
And I am getting sick to death of hearing people who know better, or at least should, persisting in the fiction that Obama ever intended to get out of Iraq. During the campaign it really got on my nerves, but now it just plain pisses me off. If we can’t depend on so-called progressives to be honest and realistic, who CAN we depend on?
He never intended to get out of Iraq, he never said he intended to get out of Iraq, and it is looking more and more clear that he will not get out if he can find a way to stay there.
If Obama’s position on Iraq is somewhat confusing, his take on Afghanistan is clear and direct: more troops, bigger involvement, more money, escalation, as a matter of fact. What with his intelligence and vision, I can’t understand how he can do something so stupid and limiting. Like he is unaware of the difficulties the Russians had there twenty-five years ago and with 160,000 of their own troops plus 320,000 Afghan soldiers fighting with them. Course, our stinger missiles were very helpful to the mujahideen, which fact I am sure the Russians have not forgotten.
I’m also concerned about Obama’s position on the so-called toxic derivatives. Is he for transparency regarding these “financial weapons of mass destruction” or not? Without knowing how badly damaged our big banks are, how do we solve the current financial crisis?
Last, will there be any place in the new government for the likes of Howard Dean or Wesly Clark? Just curious.
Don, I do not find Obama’s position on Iraq the least bit confusing. What I find confusing is that so many people who claim to be progressives themselves can describe it as even remotely progressive. As for those “progressives” who keep insisting that getting out of Iraq means keeping tens of thousands of troops there to look after American interests plus an “embassy” (wink, wink) that is better described as an imperial citadel – well, they do not deserve the time of day.
As for his position on Afghanistan that is, of course spectacularly UNprogressive.