If you believe Cenk Uygur, the reason that the Republicans are showing more enthusiasm about voting has nothing to do with them being shut out of power in Washington and displeased with the resulting ‘change’ from the Bush years. No. The problem has nothing to do with Republicans being riled up into a mob-like froth by the Koch brothers and Dick Armey and Fox News and Sarah Palin’s tweets and the faux-outrage of the week. This differential in base-support isn’t a totally predictable outcome we see nearly everytime a new president faces his first midterm election. The problem, says Cenk, is that Rahm Emanuel called us ‘effing retarded’ for running ads against incumbent Democrats. Well, that and the fact that Obama deliberately chose to go for tiny change, in total disregard for the overwhelming support he had in the Senate to double the size of the stimulus, pass a public option, and break up the banks into a billion local S&L’s.
So, as a result, progressives aren’t going to turn out to vote.
That’s the story he wants you to believe, but the truth is that the activist left is going to vote. They always do. Every once in a while they’ll split their vote between a Democrat and an independent candidate, but they never stay home and they never vote for a Republican. But let’s say that some progressive activists were to stay home, or just that they aren’t motivated to donate their time and money. Is that because Rahm Emanuel called them retarded or because Cenk and his friends repeated that quote fifty millions times to their readers and listeners? Who has been providing their audiences with an unrelenting stream of criticism? Do they not see that their message has a depressing effect on the base? Does an offhand remark by a foul-mouthed chief of staff trump a progressive media that finds every fault and ignores or poo-poos every accomplishment?
Cenk’s whole world-view is just flat-out wrong. The progressive base is centered among people of color who are less engaged than they were in 2008, in large part, because the president is not on the ballot. The smaller, academically-centered part of the progressive coalition may be frustrated and less active than usual, but they’ll vote. Unfortunately, despite being opinion leaders who write newspaper columns, magazine articles, and high-traffic blogs, they have generally not given their audiences any reason to vote for the Democrats and plenty of reason to be apathetic.
Rather than explaining the difficulty of passing health care reform through the U.S. Congress, they focus on the sausage-making and call it “no-change.” Rather than realistically assessing what kind of stimulus package could pass through Congress, they point to academic studies to call it inadequate. It’s all very interesting and, in most respects, it’s even true, but it ignores both reality and the elephant (GOP) in the room.
The most offensive part of it is the criticism Cenk makes here:
We all know that Obama struck the same exact deals with the big drug companies that Bush did. Obama had campaigned against those specific agreements, but once he got into office he was convinced that we couldn’t upset those deals and that we just had to shoot for a tiny bit of change. That we couldn’t change the way Washington ran, we could just play the old Washington game a little better. That is the essence of Rahm Emanuel.
The health care bill that passed, passed by the skin of its teeth. It would not have passed without the support of important stake-holders like the AARP, PhRMA, and the AMA. After a half-century of trying and failing to provide access to health care for all American citizens, the president succeeded and is greeted with the charges that this is ‘tiny change’ and that he’s just like Bush. Who’s depressing turnout? Rahm Emanuel, who helped usher the bill through Congress giving subsidies to millions of progressives living in poverty or near-poverty? Or Cenk and his friends who refuse to give the president any credit and take every opportunity to remind progressives that Emanuel called them retarded?
I share all the frustrations about what’s going on in Washington that I read about in the progressive blogosphere, but I have some perspective. I’ll be glad to see Rahm Emanuel go. If he had his way, we wouldn’t have provided subsidies for millions of progressives (and non-progressives) to buy health care. But he got it done when the president gave him marching orders, and that’s what matters in the end.
I’d like to see Cenk deal with two wars, an economy losing over a half a million jobs a month, a bunch of conservadems in crucial committee chairs, and a totally united Party-of-No opposition. He’d fail in epic proportions. He’d deliver nothing but righteous indignation. Thinking about it, that’s all he’s delivering now.
Bet he votes for the Democrats though.
Cenk’s analysis is always the most simplistic of anyone on the left. It’s so childish and doesn’t take any thought.
One could argue Occam’s Razor in his favor, I guess, but I think the opposite holds true.
“Obama sold out on the PO which shows he never wanted it in the first place!”
Or…”Obama sold out on the PO because the deal available to him at the time gave him far better odds than “fighting” for it.”
The path of least resistance, or the path to get something done when the alternative has a 5% chance of passing? I go with the latter.
His political sense was wrong on the stimulus, though. He felt around for what was possible with Obey, yes, but presenting them with a lower ball figure he had bet that they’d increase the size of it as the debate went on, as is likely with bills like that (everyone wants a slice for their district/state, right?). He bet wrong. Can’t blame him, Silver made a comparison to The Price is Right and it convinced me, too:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/obamas-price-is-right-negotiating.html
Not to veer to OT Booman, but this kinda reflects how the Obama admin like you understand which part of their base the need to get out and vote this November.
Talking about firing up his base!
This morning, President Obama had an interview with Tom Joyner on the The Tom Joyner Morning Show. I may have mentioned the TJMS before, but it not, google for info on Tom Joyner and the TJMS.
The TJMS is a nationally synthicated morning radio show targetted to African Americans and urban viewer. If there is a city or state where African Americans live in significant or insignificant numbers, then the TJMS is available. So by being on the TJMS the President got his message across to the his most loyal base.
He discussed some policy and how it was geared toward African Americans but you can tell, that his main focus was to make African Americans aware of the real stakes this election season, and why even though he’s not on the ballot, he stressed why it was important for African Americans to get out and vote.
The TJMS show is usually re-broadcast on BlackAmericaWeb.com
The Cenk Fallacy:
Believing that the lefty blogosphere is the base.
My reading of the situation is that there are a lot of “independent”, as in Green, Socialist, etc. progressives who are jonesing for a third party and see the failure of Democrats as a means to get it. Sadly because they have not done the hard grassroots work, they are mistaken. If they had, the Democratic party would be moving to co-opt them instead of moderate Republicans and centrist independents.
The so-called “enthusiasm gap” is beginning to close as Democrats wake up from the idea that electing a president solves all problems. And there is a lot of interest building in getting rid of some of the more crazy Republicans, beginning with John Boehner.
Polls are not showing yet what seems to be going on because their screen of likely voters excludes the very groups that you say need to start getting active. And because there are still a lot of folks who haven’t seen the necessity to get out for a midterm. Hopefully canvassing and GOTV efforts will begin to deal with these. And Obama starting to “politick” doesn’t hurt at all.
But if Democrats want continued progressive support, they are going to have to stop distancing themselves from “liberals”, the “professional left”, and oh yes Barack Obama. The Blue Dog and New Democrat distancing from traditional Democratic positions has the effect of delegitimizing those traditional Democratic positions in the eyes of the public. “Well if Democrats don’t want Social Security, it must be radical leftwing stuff.” to use a little hyperbole.
And Gibbs must stop playing the advocate of his own philosophy in communicating with the media. I don’t know where his vendetta for Howard Dean comes from, but apparently it’s the Deaniacs that he is targeting with the slur “professional left”. If he lasts after this election, he will have to stop that.
Even a lot of Democrats are getting tired of being ignored because “they have nowhere to go.” But most folks I know in that category are willing to pull the mule out of the ditch one more time in hopes that Democrats will at last start acting like winners of a public mandate.
Yup.
Let me bold the white members of the Progressive Caucus. You tell me who holds the center of gravity of the Progressive Movement. Is it white progressives from Madison and Boulder and Berkeley and the Upper West Side, or is it blacks and Latinos representing Detroit and Philly and Atlanta and Harlem? Let’s get real.
Can we have a BT commenter pageant, and if so can I nominate TarheelDem as “most consistently interesting?” I think I might want to throw Errol in the mix too.
On the upside of the upcoming November losses (however large or small they be), as others including Henry Waxman have noted we’ll inevitably have less Blue Dogs and New Dems to kick around anymore. And that won’t necessarily be a bad thing.
Which is why we need to take a bunch of currently Republican seats to offset those losses.
That demonstrably shifts Congress to the left, moreso if some of those Republicans are the current crazies.
I find this intriguing:
‘The so-called “enthusiasm gap” is beginning to close as Democrats wake up from the idea that electing a president solves all problems.’
I’ve been trying to discern which Dems forgot about the other 2 branches of government. As someone at The Nation recently wrote (paraphrasing), “there is something anti-democratic about the overemphasis on the office of the President combined with the lack of understanding about Congress.”
And whoever thought Obama thought he was going to deliver all by himself must have turned a deaf ear when he repeatedly said, “I can’t do it alone.”
The Democrats on blogs who complain about the 60-vote supermajority to pass a bill through the Senate and call it an “excuse”. And there are among the chatter those who are actually Democrats and not “independent progressives”.
The Nation quote is on target, especially if you call yourself a democrat (small-d). The lack of understanding of our political system goes back to the fact that there are a hell of a lot of civics classes in high school being taught by coaches. And the civics textbooks suck. And there is a conspiracy to make actual engagement in politics seem either boring as hell or morally tainted. And folks don’t turn out as much when only Congress is on the ballot. And even less when local offices, such as school boards, are on the ballot and nothing else is.
Democracy is not a spectator sport in which only the candidates and pundits get to have fun.
But that’s so typically Obama: ‘I can’t do it alone.’ A pretty turn of phrase. Did he then say he means that he needs Congress? If not he lacks basic communication skills.
You know, Booman, I’m getting really tired of you constantly berating and demonizing those of us who are truly disappointed by Obama’s lack of leadership and broken promises. And telling us just to shut up about it doesn’t help.
Do you expect us to be quiet from now until 2012, so as not to ruin his re-election chances?
It’s like you don’t understand his point at all; maybe that’s why the circular firing squad will continue.
It’s not ‘like,’ it ‘is.’
But now you’re firing shots at Cenk Uygur and expanding the circular firing squad, aren’t you?
I don’t care if progressives disagree with me and take shots at me. That doesn’t help the Republicans. That doesn’t depress turnout. That doesn’t create an opportunity cost. That doesn’t let the Republicans off the hook. A circular firing squad isn’t when progressives criticize each other, it’s when they spend the lion’s share of their time criticizing the left instead of the media or the right. And, hey, criticism is important. I engage in plenty of it. But I try to be fair and to be constructive. Nothing about that Cenk post can be construed as fair or constructive.
i disagree that you do plenty of criticism. In fact, i find that many actions that merit a high degree of criticism are either ignored or downplayed here. for example, i haven’t seen one word on the 9th Circuit court’s ruling yesterday, outside of an email exchange between us. i also remember you writing, months ago, that while you didn’t like a particular Obama Admin policy, you felt it was your job to defend it as much as you could (i forget the policy, and I’m too busy at work to search through months of front page posts).
Now, i understand your point of view: the republicans are so utterly awful, insane and dangerous that you’re willing to overlook or downplay some of the worst abuses of Democrats just to keep the GOP from taking over again, and there is certainly some merit to that position. but i wonder where the line is, because in certain areas, the difference is as thin and transparent as a coffee filter.
I mean, yeah, the democrats talk a lot about ending DADT and DOMA (to point out one example), but when you see the Obama DOJ defending both cases, the happy talk is undercut by the actions, and a reasonable person can say “there’s no difference between either party on this issue, other than one party is straightforward that repeal’s never coming while the other strings the gays along.”
you do this a lot. You accuse me of something citing nothing but your memory and tell me you can’t give me a link. It’s kind of annoying and you’ve been flat-out wrong in your memory in the past.
What am I supposed to do? Try to figure out what you might be referring to and respond? Off the top of my head, I have no idea what you’re referring to and it doesn’t sound right. I have zero recollection of saying I considered it my job to defend policies I disagree with. If you take an issue like health care, I may not like the bill but I will defend it for both what it does and for getting passed at all considering the constraints.
There are certain things that the Obama administration has done that I won’t defend at all. I won’t defend their position of detainees, for example. I won’t defend their decision to escalate in Afghanistan. There are other areas where I am deeply disappointed but I can understand that the administration has no support or political cover, like closing Guantanamo and having civilian trials for the 9/11 plotters.
Just last week I told the administration that their economic proposals and messaging weren’t getting it done on any level.
You know one thing I am aware of is the Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome. The White House reads this blog. Maybe by choosing my spots to be critical and by endeavoring to be fair, they might just listen when I say they’re fucking up a little more than when someone who never gives them a break and never lets up has a suggestion.
well, I’ll take some time to find that link this weekend.
but hey, as for this always-critical-never-uncritical-nonsense, who said “We must form grass-root structures that would hold me and other elected officials more accountable for their actions.”
i give credit where credit’s due. ledbetter was a good move. No problem and probably praise for Sotomayor at my place (i’d have to doublecheck). I don’t think I complained about kagan. And although i haven’t linked yet, susie gives props on recent actions on fracking, and so will i when i have a chance.
i criticize the right wing plenty, but they’re not the ones calling the shots, they’re not the ones with the power.
You don’t get to say “hold me accountable” and then get all pissy when people like me, who are sick to death after the last 16 fucking years and openly fearing for how my old age will look (you wanna know how much I have in my 401K? not even enough to buy a year’s worth of canned friskies), start pointing out where the rhetoric and reality part ways.
you continue to frame this argument wrongly.
This isn’t criticism vs. non-criticism. It’s constructive and fair criticism vs. Rahm Emanuel hurt my feelings and is the devil.
My problem with Rahm is that he’s belligerent without being especially effective at accomplishing what the President says are his goals. F*@k the hurt feelings. This is politics, boys and girls. It’s for keeps.
I have some sympathy for the place that Ivor finds himself/herself. It is a place many of us have been and many still find themselves there even today. I have found that, for me, it takes tremendous effort and mental energy, not to mention quite a bit of time, to digest and fully understand the political landscape from an entirely different perspective than that which I was accustomed for so many years. I have gained increasing respect for the points made here on this blog, because they take into account the true political realities that we are facing in what are really uncharted waters. In almost every way, this political landscape is virgin territory in the political lifetime of almost everyone here. And you need the perspective of people who have fought in the trenches of the political grassroots to really grasp what has been achieved and how best to continue to achieve what some see as disappointingly incremental progress, but in reality is likely to be a subtle sea-change that will have a long term positive impact on our political landscape. I think that is why the insanity and outrage is in full tilt boogie right now. It threatens to make the other side irrelevant for a long, long time.
Hey, I’m frustrated too. But if Democrats are prepared, this early in the fight, to chuck it all into the crapper and curl up into a ball because we feel like we haven’t gotten the pony we deserve, then those people who feel that way had better be prepared to walk a very long and lonely journey. Because if one thinks there is even the remotest possibility that the Republicans and their crazy base will consider giving you even a hair from that longed-for pony, then I can only say that we will get what we deserve.
Did I tell Cenk to shut up? Or did I say that his analysis is based in a flat-out wrong worldview?
Did I say criticism is unwarranted, or did I say that the progressive media tends to focus too much on the negative and to ignore or poo-poo the positive?
The progressive media is the only shot we have in this country to counter the right-wing wurlitzer and we’re amplifying their wurlitzer instead. And, too often, we’re doing it with lazy and bad analysis and with mantras of wounded feelings. It’s pathetic and self-defeating.
Thank you BooMan. I’m done with the folks (supposedly progressives) that claim they are told to shut up and not criticize when all they have is whine.
Criticism, especially criticism of a Dem president who HAS delivered on some worthwhile goals (of course not all) should be CONSTRUCTIVE and FAIR. I’ve seen so called criticism from progressives based on Obama speeches in which they don’t bother to listen to what he says. They pick some superficial argument with something he didn’t say. Or some leave out the context and find a way to smear an action of the President.
Obama has asked to be criticized but by that he means he needs a discussion of ideas from, not childish petulance.
Outside of the primary-general election season, everything is fair game. After the primary, support the Dem.
The primary-general time frame is more important than ever due to increase polarization of Congress and a Repub party that has sunk to new extremes of destructive batshit craziness.
People who say “never criticize!” are obviously idiots. But they are not the only “progressives” who need to get a grip. People who use “criticism” to include venting without critically listening to the Dems they are criticizing are just self-indulgent, sophomoric noisemakers. And in a world of tough choices, critics who dismiss options chosen by leaders without discussing alternatives are lazy.
I think the problem is the fact that the progressive blogosphere wears two hats: that of political activist and policy “think-tank” analyst. I think there’s valid critiques made by progressives that the Obama administration has made mistakes on the political as well as policy side. And Booman, I disagree that we needed to cut the deal with big Pharma and the Insurance companies to get health care reform done- I defer to the president’s political advisors on that one, but at the same time, its tough to know what the politics would have been on a reform bill that went full steam against the middle men and price gougers. I think reasonable minds can differ on that and its not completely out of left field to believe that the public would have rallied behind a bill that drastically cut costs and expanded coverage, instead of just doing the latter.
In the “real world” of DC, people rarely wear those two hats at the same time- you have policy staff and political staff and each does their job best they can. We don’t have such a clean division in the blogosphere, but guys like you and Al Giordano are much smarter about the politics than almost any other bloggers. That being said, a lot of the Cenks and firedoglakes of the world do a great job with the policy stuff. Maybe one day people’s proper roles will get sorted out (the far-right is extremely well organized in this respect, with designated funders, think-tanks, activists, rabble rousers, etc), but for such a young movement, I don’t think we’re doing horribly.
If the dems can put in a decent performance this November, Cenk will look like an idiot, just like that old dude at Mydd who was always trashing Obama during the primaries (don’t even remember his name he’s so irrelevant now).
Not to ignore the good substance of your post, but do you realize that your argument is basically that getting PhRMA on board wasn’t worth a single vote?
I know you want to spin an alternate reality where the president took out a pitchfork on health care, but the bottom line is that he passed health care with the bare minimum of votes.
Its the path not taken so I’m not going to base my argument on a hypothetical. But did he have to cut deals with the health insurance companies as well? They are a hated institution so politically picking a fight with them has its upside. And with Big Pharma, why couldn’t a deal be cut that said something like, for the working and middle classes, drug costs will need to stay in line with inflation? These are just questions I hope were poked and prodded amongst Obama’s political advisors- I’m not losing any sleep over it.
i’d lose sleep over it, when the law is titled “patient protection and affordability act” and the premiums are going to be rising for the next 4 years.
It ain’t over until it’s over, and it ain’t over yet.
There might have been a political as well as a practical reason for kicking the mandatory coverage football out to 2014.
The decision of voters this November will decide whether some more can be done about healthcare reform (fewer Blue Dogs and Republicans). Or whether major parts of the legislation get repealed (a Republican landslide).
The fact that premiums are going up right now because of inadequate regulations or other cost-control measures means that the issue is not dead. Now, will Democrats running for office step up and say “We’ve got to improve it not repeal it?” or will they duck and cover and try to distance themselves from the passage of the bill. So far the Blue Dogs (Herseth-Sandlin for example) are touting the fact that after gutting the bill they voted against it.
My memory was that Liberman screwed the Medicare buy in, Blue Dogs wouldnt pass a PO tied to Medicare rates and Senator conservadems prevented a PO.
How is that the fault of the President?
That is a fascinating parsing of what I said.
Both the Senate and the House bills started out with exchanges that did not begin coverage until 2014. I have no idea who thought up that language, whether it was in the Congressional committees of from the White House.
Medicare buy-in was later in the game after Lieberman, Lincoln, Nelson, Landrieu et al nixed the public option.
Nowhere in there did I say it was the fault of the President. I was merely remarking that the fact that it is open to change before 2014 is a good thing and something Democrats for Congress could campaign on if they would.
All one need do is compare how FDR used the bully pulpit and political leverage to accomplish change vs how Obama has started from positions of compromise prior to attempting change and you should be able to understand the basis of Cenk’s argument…
Since Obama defenders like to use HealthCare as an example of the political situation in D.C. and cite it as an example of “progress” lets take a little look at one seldom, or never, discussed aspect of it. How many times did the public option come to a vote -any vote- in the Senate? I believe the answer is 0, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. As I recall the reason it never came up for a vote is because “it didn’t have the votes to pass”. Herein lies the problem with supporting Democrats at this juncture.
If I’ve learned anything from Republicans and politics its that you make congressional office holders take a stand on issues by voting. What the Dems did is absolutely shameful; by allowing their fellow clubmembers to avoid taking a stand they provided them with political cover which is absolutely placing party before country. Rhetorically, how can you successfully mount progressive primary challenges against entrenched politicians when there is no voting record to attack?
And no, Obama doesn’t get a free pass on what happens on the Democratic side of the aisle in either house… He has shown he can assert pressure and change votes, just ask Kucinich.
The next time I vote, just like the last time, I’ll be voting for someone rather than compromising my values and voting for the lesser of 2 evils. Yep, I’ll likely be voting 3rd party. I look forward to hearing how I gave the election to the Republicans from people who were afraid to vote their conscience and voted for a party that continues to show it is only marginally different from Republicans (in the areas I care strongly about there is virtually no difference).
If Cenk wants to compare FDR and Obama then his argument is even stupider than it appears on its face. Obama isn’t FDR. Obama was never FDR. Obama cannot be FDR.
Did anyone even watch Obama during the Democratic primaries? During the general election? He told everyone exactly how he was going to govern – he was going to be a centrist. He was going to reach across the aisle and come up with bipartisan solutions. He is not a firebreather. He gives some good speeches, but he is emphatically NOT an FDR. And he never claimed to be, and he damn sure never presented himself as if he were at any point during the election.
He’s governed pretty much like I assumed he would – which was why I was not particularly smitten with him during the election season. Of course, all of the likely choices for the Democratic president were similar so whatever – Clinton wouldn’t have been much of a firebreather either. And Edwards – well, let’s just say that I’m glad in retrospect that THAT bit of idiocy was dodged.
But Obama is no FDR and, more importantly, the country Obama is governing is not the country that FDR governed. FDR stood between a Fascist uprising on the right and a Communist revolt from the left. Obama has right-wing extremists pushing him from the right and … nothing in particular exerting pressure from the left. A handful of people bitching about him and threatening not to vote for him in 2014 and that’s about it. And, frankly, if the economy hasn’t turned around by 2014 then those votes aren’t going to matter anyway because he’ll follow Jimmy Carter out of office. (And let’s not even get into the fact that FDR was able to pull off a lot of the stuff he managed precisely because he was a “class traitor” from a wealthy and well-connected family. A “class traitor” who was taking desperate actions to make sure that his friends weren’t going to end up with their heads on the end of pikes in a re-enactment of the French Revolution. Obama doesn’t have that background or that kind of cover for anything that’s going on right now.)
Who said Obama was FDR? The post you responded to was about the use of political power (or the refusal to use political power) and FDR was used as an example of effectively using political power to enable “change you can believe in”.
Nice feedback on the other 99% of the post too, btw…
Anyway, I don’t have time to argue about it… I sincerely hope you have a great day (like I’m going to).
Nothing on the latest extension of the pro-torture court rulings?
And I still maintain that a bigger stimulus damn well could have passed.
I posted a little blurb this morning about President Obama being on the Tom Joyner Morning Show, a nationally syndicated radio show targeted towards African Americans, and here is a little of what he had to say:
Obama wants blacks ‘fired up’
Cenk is an asshole. He and Rahm fucking deserve each other.
“I’d like to see Cenk deal with two wars, an economy losing over a half a million jobs a month, a bunch of conservadems in crucial committee chairs, and a totally united Party-of-No opposition. He’d fail in epic proportions. He’d deliver nothing but righteous indignation. Thinking about it, that’s all he’s delivering now.”
That’s what galls me about the Cenk, David Sirota, Kos, etc. They all speak as if they’re somehow smarter and more resilient than Obama. As if they really believe that THEY would’ve done a much better job. To have the audacity to speak down at President Obama.
They offer nothing but flat-out whining. They downplay any progressing and exaggerate any “failure”. I’m quite sick of them.
Dear Booman
I am going to print this on your site as well. Go fuck yourself w/ a stick. You are a racist. You are the kind of white racist who can’t tell the truth about African Americans but claims to love us(when in reality it is only for our votes). You conflate the mass of Progressives as African Americans. That is so far from the truth as to make your columns irrelevant and irresponsible.
It is not the truth because African Americans are the most dependable group of DEMOCRATIC VOTERS since the 60’s. Some of us are progressive but on many issues of the Progressive community we have no real interest. We are not on the whole pro homosexual rights, we are not pro abortion, we are not pro environment for the pure purpose of protecting it as much as not wanting to live or have dump sites put in our communities.
In the fall it will be us voting against Republicans wherever possible because we have suffered front he lash of people like them. If you think of the Republicans as pornography we know it when we see it while for white progressives it is a subject of discussions and derision. We are not a large enough part of Colorado’s population to reelect Bennet but the tree huggers can stay home at let the tea baggers win because the rest of the white Democrats are voting for the Republican. AfricanAmericans are going to vote for Sestak but too many white Democrats are going to vote for Toomey because they are angry. White democratic candidates don’t come to Philadelphia, Little Rock and elsewhere because they think being seen w/ African Americans means white Democrats want vote t secure their sinecure.
You want to end criticism of the President by Progressives by force of reason get your facts right and call out the Progressives because they live in places where they can go home and have their economic circumstances allow them to ignore the Republicans whom they think are simple Neanderthals as opposed to recognizing they are hard core racists and class conscious haters.
And yes I think without question 44 has done some things that damp down enthusiasm by Progressives for the party. But if you want to help tell the truth about the reality of the Party, join the damn Party and then you can really bitch.
You made a big mistake. You are an individual. You do not speak for any group of Americans in this country.
Your post is inaccurate about BooMan and it is nasty to call him racist. It is also hateful.
Stop being so arrogant. Being offensive is no way to put forth an argument.
To call Booman a racist is to ignore essentially everything he has ever written on this website.
Supporting 44 doesn’t make you not a racist. Knowing the facts and presenting them as something else in order to speak for someone else is. You need to seriously reread what Booman wrote about African Americans and their voting in this link.
I wrote that the progressive movement is centered by people of color and that people of color are less engaged in this election than they were in the last one, in part, because the president is not on the ballot. I responded to the first part already by explaining what I mean by the progressive movement and why.
As for the second part, do you dispute that people of color were highly engaged in the 2008 election because they were excited by the prospect of a black president and that without that once-in-a -lifetime motivation at stake this year, their engagement has dropped off?
If I offended you by speaking for black people, I apologize, but I don’t think I was saying anything controversial or even debatable.
I don’t think I need to defend myself from your charges, so I will just make sure you understand what I mean.
When I talk about progressives, I’m talking about primarily the people in Congress who call themselves progressives. The vast majority of them or black, Latino, or Asian-American. There are also some whites who happen to be gay like Jared Polis, Tammy Baldwin, and Barney Frank. The majority of the white progressives in Congress represent college towns/areas like Berkeley, Madison, Cambridge, the Upper West Side, or they represent cities with large populations of minorities like Memphis, Cleveland, or Los Angeles.
So, for me progressivism is first and foremost a minority orientated political philosophy that has a significant white academic component. I come from both backgrounds. I grew up in Princeton, New Jersey among the sons and daughters of professors, and Ivy League culture is second nature to me. But I also did work in the inner cities with ACORN and other organizations getting out the (mostly) black vote and working on issues of concern to their communities, like predatory lending, pay-day loans, rip-off tax preparation, check cashing usury, police presence and other issues.
I come at progressive politics knowing well the wish list of the academic wing of the movement, but primarily concerned with how policy affects the minority community and our inner cities.
The academic wing wants to do away with the private insurance industry because that’s a saner, fairer way of providing health care. Some of them are willing to chuck the whole reform if they don’t get what they want on insurance. That is not the calculation someone who works in the inner cities would make. Why give up subsidies that every single person in the inner city can take advantage of (if they are poor enough) to get health care for themselves, their kids, and their pregnancies?
It seems to me that you are giving ownership of the entire progressive movement to a bunch of white academics rather than claiming that mantle for yourself. I’m not willing to do that. It’s a partnership and both sides need each other. Progressives are weak in comparison to their numbers as it is. We cannot afford to be divided.
So, you may think that being for gay rights and reproductive choice and a clean environment are progressive values that many blacks don’t share. But the progressive movement is about more than any one single issue. For me, Obama’s most progressive achievements have been giving access to health care to all Americans (with huge subsidies for the urban poor) and the Credit Card act which protect consumers from usury and predatory loans. Of course, there was also plenty in the Recovery Act, such as, for one example:
In any case, I am a white progressive. But my main concern is that policies benefit the poorest among us, who, unfortunately, are often people of color. And I judge progressivism on that metric, not on whether it pleases people who live in Ivory Towers and take long sabbaticals.
We can debate until the cows come home whether the Obama Administration should have responded to historically unprecedented Republican obstructionism differently or should have pushed harder on a number of issues. But at this point, with the election less than two months away, that debate will get progressives and our country nowhere.
Instead, we should focus on three things:
1. President Obama made some real progress on a number of critical issues – a stimulus package that at least kept the Bush Recession from becoming a depression, health care reform that will end pre-existing condition denials and extend coverage to 32 million Americans, financial reform that creates a consumer protection bureau, regulates most derivatievs, and helps prevent future bailouts, credit card reform, student loan reform, and the ending of military operations in Iraq.
2. President Obama and the Democrats are promising further progressive reforms in the future, and will be able to achieve even more with larger majorities.
3. The Republicans are offering a truly dangerous agenda that amounts to a return to Bush Administration economic policy, attacks on Social Security and Medicare, and government doing the bidding of true know-nothings like Sarah Palin and flim-flam artists like Paul Ryan.
In order to make sure that we keep things moving forward, we must make sure that the Democrats keep and hopefully expand their majorities, rather than handing the car keys back to the Republicans who drove our economy into the ditch.