The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Presidential Politics in the Wake of the Debt Ceiling Fiasco

    By AmericanDreamer on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 10:32am |
    The most reasonable conclusion I and many others can reach in the wake of the debt ceiling fiasco, and more generally the events since last November, is that our President wants and means to pursue an austerity economic policy at this time.
     
    He obtained Speaker Boehner's support for a grand bargain that would have been more contractionary, very possibly leading to more job loss and weaker economic growth, than the agreement that Congress passed.  As we know Boehner could not get his caucus to agree to the grand bargain outline because it contained new revenues.
     
    Paul Krugman, among many other progressive-minded economists, maintains that austerity is exactly the wrong direction for our country on economic policy at this time.  Yet we face the distinct prospect of a presidential election next year in which there literally is no candidate advocating anything other than austerity economic policy. 
     
    (Actually, the Republican nominee might campaign on a platform of stimulus via further tax cuts, and talk little, vaguely or not at all about specific further spending cuts.  In other words, cut taxes and if spending is cut--let others propose the unpopular cuts--cut it less than the amount of the tax cuts, to get a net stimulus effect.  But I digress.).
     
    I'd written awhile back that if Sanders registered as a Democrat and ran in the Virginia primary I would vote for him. Sanders a few days later ruled out a run for the presidency.
     
    A lot can happen in a few months in politics, though.  The way the debt ceiling matter played out provides a pretty strong case for the view that Obama wants austerity economic policy.  There is no indication that he intends to campaign on a Keynesian/more stimulus economic platform and try to get a pro-Keynesian Congress by seeking to nationalize the election largely around that issue. 
     
    I'm wondering if Sanders might be persuaded to change his mind, register as a Democrat and challenge Obama, with a commitment to at least test the waters in New Hampshire to see if there is substantial sentiment among the citizens there for a different course on economic policy in particular.
     
    As New Hampshirite Dan knows, in New Hampshire ordinary citizens, not just the media, get to ask candidates questions and even speak to them directly sometimes.  A New Hampshire Sanders test case might be the closest thing we can get to the hypothetical test case I proposed in my March 15 "On a Potential Sanders Primary Challenge" blog here, of having 20-something students listen to Obama and Sanders and then vote on which candidate's ideas make the most sense and offer the most promise for getting our country turned around. 
     
    If Sanders were to enter New Hampshire and bomb, at least we would have had a debate and a choice offered to voters there.  A Sanders primary challenge might--at least for a time--interject ideas and perspectives into the debate about national economic policy that are definitely out there and are at least as credible on intellectual and policy grounds as are arguments for austerity now, but have almost no presence and voice in public discussions at the moment. 

    Comments

    (Really ok with me if no one wants to comment on this.  I realize it's on peoples' minds, that it gets low points for creativity, and that much has been said on this already.  I'm trying as well to highlight other pieces and ideas potentially appealing to folks at different stages of the grieving process, such as:

    *this, for folks struggling, or not inclined to struggle so much yet, to get out of the venting stage:

    http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=08&year=2011&base_name=choosing_the_appropriate_infla

    *this, as a promising idea from fellow dagblogger erica20 (I'm highlighting it on my FB page and already have a friend who says he's writing a letter to the editor to plug it):

    http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/stimulate-rich-sign-job-creator-tax-pledge-now-11212

    *this, as a potentially promising progressive grassroots initiative I mentioned the other day: 

    http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/american-dream-movement-11232

    *this, as perhaps the most positive take on the debt deal I have seen:

    http://www.editedforclarity.com/2011/08/01/debt-ceiling-deal-the-devil-is-in-the-details/


    by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 12:38pm

    The last blog you link to should be read by everyone.  While not the whole story on the matter it does bring up some interesting points that makes the deal not the end of world.  One particular comment made that I found interesting:

    An interesting battle will start next year. It will begin to pit the military industrial complex against the bankers and million/billionaires. If the rich guys want to keep their tax cuts, 50% of it will come from military spending – contractors. That’s a big lobby to fight against. It will be fascinating to see how the spin starts to work there, as Republicans find their corporate benefactors are suddenly pitted against each other, and the American people get to see where the loyalties really lie.

     


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 12:57pm

    *IF* the Democrats appointed to the Committee hold the line and decline to give a 7th, majority-making vote in favor of what will undoubtedly be the Republican all-cuts recommendation for the up-or-down vote.  That's the key, it seems to me, for that scenario to play out. 

    It still amounts to playing the wrong game (austerity) in a better, fairer way.  But we have to be able to fight that battle while also working to try to change the discussion to bring further job-creating stimulus back into play.  Both the WH and Pelosi and Reid are saying the focus going forward will be on jobs.  I'm not sure what they can, and will do, on job creation.  But we'll see.

    Maybe hire Erica20 in the White House's communications shop?    


    by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 1:08pm

    At the moment, we have to play game we are given, not the game we want to play.  If we want to play a different game, then we have to get to work now on changing the discussion.  I think there is movement on this when you have the likes of Joe Scarborough talking about the possibility of having a contemporary WPA as solution to the hardship faced by today's unemployed.


    by Elusive Trope on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 1:56pm

    At the moment, we have to play game we are given, not the game we want to play.  If we want to play a different game, then we have to get to work now on changing the discussion. 

    I think we need to do both and I certainly hope we can.  That means not forgetting about pressing Pelosi and Reid to put Dems on the supercommittee who will insist on substantial revenue increases, while also working to change the discussion with a goal of more comments of the sort Scarborough made coming from other than the usual places.   I believe a Sanders primary challenge in New Hampshire is one among many ways to try to change the discussion.


    by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 2:05pm

    Framing the discussion IS part of the game, Trope. As what just happened should show us, it's the key to the game. Fight on terrain that the enemy chooses, you lose.

    I simply don't buy the Democrats saying, "Hey those are the cards we were dealt." No, you played badly. In fact, you dealt that hand.

    "But the Tea Party controls the House!" The 2010 loss of majority was a self-inflicted wound. Re-upping all the Bush tax cuts because of electoral cowardice is not the way to show leadership. Delivering the squib of half-hearted health reform is not the way to show strength. Voters sense fear, and they react more negatively to it than they do to bad policy.

    Stop playing the percentages, splitting the differences. When push comes to shove, kick the other guy in the nuts. Like I said elsewhere, Obama should have gone all 14th amendment on the TPers. Lay down some markers, folks. Win some street cred, since you can't win anything else.


    by acanuck on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 4:44pm

    No the voters dealt the hand in 2010.  Stop trying to give the American people a pass on their responsibility for this current mess.  What you are saying is that people were upset that the Bush tax cuts were extended so they ensured control in Congress would make that more likely to happen? 

    In the end you want the Dems to behave the way the Tea Party caucus behaved.  That doesn't sound like a recipe for sustainable long-term success for the country, just one for maybe one or two small short-term victories that lets one do some kind of pathetic victory lap.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 10:27am

    We can agree, Trope, that the American electorate is among the most uninformed, short-sighted and narrow-minded on Earth. Which is why the country so desperately needs intelligent, thoughtful, articulate leaders who don't simply pander to what the latest polls suggest the voters want.

    Democracy is all about shaping public opinion, not just sticking a finger into the wind. In 2010, the Democrats had a winning case to make about taxing the richest just a little more -- and they never even tried to make it. They punted. Stupid as people are, they do want their leaders to lead. They'll vote for bad policy over a total lack of policy, which the Dems consistently offer up.


    by acanuck on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 2:08pm

    In trying to make sense of that last article, it seems that in terms of the deal itself, we may have done ok, but in terms of people understanding and being able to act on what happened, not so much. It's like the perfect souffle that we destroyed the kitchen to make. As long as there's a big reward for that souffle, we'll be all right, but if we have to cook in that kitchen again...well....

    As for a part-time job in the WH communications shop, I'm all for that--and blushing.


    by erica20 on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 1:39am

    Happpy birhtday to obama . This may be your last Birthday in white house. biomedical engineering


    by sikander on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 12:57pm

    I'd just like to make it really clear that I do not hate Obama.  I think too many of his policy decisions and orientations are very bad and wrong for the country and that he has been ineffective in dealing with this Congress.  But it's not personal for me.  He is trying the best he knows how with a brutal situation.  Right now the approaches he's taking aren't good enough and are even in some cases moving us in unhelpful directions in my view.  Whether or not, or how much, one assigns blame to him for those policy decisions, it seems to me those bad policy decisions or outcomes are a problem for all of us who want, who need, to see this country start to turn around.   

    By no means is he solely to blame for the problems.  There's plenty to go around.  And there are serious systemic issues such as how we finance campaigns, and the apparent conversion of the Senate to a body in which 60 votes are required in order for anything one of our major parties does not like to pass.  By no means do I think it would be a healthy thing for there to be a sole focus on whether or not it would be a good idea for Obama to have a primary opponent.  It was the thought that I might be contributing to just such an excessive focus on one question that led me to post the first comment in the thread, to pull together and try to highlight other matters and advocacy options that it seems to me are also most deserving of consideration and attention.  


    by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 1:38pm

    I'd just like to make it really clear that you're responding to spam for biomedical devices. wink


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 2:12pm

    Well either way, spam or no spam, just wanted to work that in. wink


    by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 2:18pm

    I completely understand and if Senator Sanders were an option to vote for, I would certainly vote for him.  And I love president Obama.  My desire to see him withdraw from the race is based on he fact that I don't think we can afford more of the same today.

    In fact I think there is a very good chance that if he stays in this race, he will lose.  I also believe that a new candidate would help energize and so that we are inspired to get out there and fight hard and win the next election.

    I just saw a clip of the president on his 'listening' tour and he was saying 'I didn't promise change tomorrow, or next week'.  Are you kidding me?  Now that is just plain stupid.

    Bob Schrum was then asked if you would recommend that strategy to the president and he said 'no'. 

    We need someone with a different personality, energy, and style that will be better able to represent us in the face of this ugly, highly orgnanized republican assault we are enduring. 

    I think Bernie Sanders could do it.  I think Howard Dean could do it.  If the president would just withdraw from the race, they would run. 


    by synchronicity on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 4:00pm

    As much as I love my fellow Americans, I think you greatly overestimate them if you think a significant number of them would vote for someone who has ever explicitly associated with the Socialist party. I would vote for him, of course, I just don't think that most Americans would.


    by Verified Atheist on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 4:20pm

    A couple of years back, I'd have said the same thing about them ever electing a black candidate for president. And it was true, then.

    As for Sanders, they would tune in, maybe out of curiosity, to his first debate against Bachmann or Perry -- and he'd have them hooked.


    by acanuck on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 4:53pm

    You make a good point, as does AmericanDreamer below. Still…


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 6:46am

    Today's collapse on Wall Street has drawn a big black "X" through the entire imbecilic farce that has occupied Washington for the past several months, and is a real-world verdict on the inane backwardness of DC thinking.

    While everyone in Washington and the media was obsessed with the topsy-turvy debate over how best to stage a mad austerity carnival of recession, Europe continued to unravel and economic indicators continued to go south.  GDP numbers were revised downward.  Yesterday, it was announced the planned business layoffs were surging again.

    Today, the country is being subjected to a preposterous discussion over how to implement the contraction of the economy, even as the economy totters and falls around us.  Meanwhile the markets have already registered their vote that the laws of reality haven't been overturned: government austerity in a recession is a growth-killer.

    Has any group of politicians ever looked more ridiculous and wrong-headed than the current befuddled crop of pea-brains in Washington?

    Responsible people in both parties in Congress need to organize an effort to introduce legislation delaying the deficit-cutting work of the "super-congressional" commission until 2013.  This is simply no time to be cutting the deficit.

    Obama has to find one or two responsible, high-profile Republicans, stand with them on the White House lawn, and find the gumption to say, "We just spent the last several months driving the country in exactly the wrong direction.  We fucked up.  But now we're going to fix it."

    Elections?   We can't until an election in the the Fall of 2012 to head off another Great Recession.

    Idiots.


    by Dan Kervick on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 6:16pm

    You're not wrong, but common-sense Keynesian principles are basically persona non grata in Washington (as much as an economic theory is persona anything).  There's a massive national, and global, demand crisis here.  It's not as if the solution is a mystery.  But Washington is treating it that way.

    Sometimes, it seems like the Republicans can't possibly think their theories and policy positions work...they just want to remake the world in a way that matches their vision for how it should work.  I don't think that the President shares that view, but he feels hamstrung by his current political position and as such seems to have no real problems helping the Republicans pursue wrong-headed ideas on economics.

    Hopefully we'll find a way to inject a little economic sanity there before too long.


    by The Liberal Mob on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 9:26pm

    No, I think Obama does share their position.  He's the one who claimed that Social Security was in "crisis" during the 2008 campaign.  He's the one who agreed to a big deficit-cutting plan back in early 2009 during the discussions on the stimulus.  He's the one who appointed the conservative-headed Bowles-Simpson Deficit Reduction Commission, even though he clearly had other options.    He's the one who has been telling everyone the recession is over and .  He's the one whose big Health Care reform deal eschewed a public option, and became a warmed-over version of a former Republic plan; he's the one  whose approach to the economy seems almost indiscernible from the approach of the Tories in the UK.  He's had a plan to ram through a reduction in government from the beginning.  Economically, he just seems like a conservative guy.


    by Dan Kervick on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 6:34am

    I'm glad you know exactly what Obama thinks on all issues.  Others might argue that the bulks of his "conservatism" comes from fighting for policies that advance his priorities and that can still get passed in the Congress, and not fighting for anything beyond that line.  As I get tired of reminding people, Presidents don't actually pass legislation, and I don't think you can point to very much legislation that has passed in the last fifty years that would not have passed but for a President "fighting" for it.

    Which brings us to the point of the original post, and it's a good one.  If you want progressive legislation passed, you have to elect progressive legislators.  20% of the House and less than a handful of senators isn't going to get'er done. Focus your energy on that goal, instead of this constant whining about how Obama secretly prefers a balanced budget to 9-10% unemployment, how a Sanders primary challenge will "change the conversation," and other irrelevant nonsense.


    by brewmn on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 9:25am

    Oops.  This was meant to go under the "Where do we Go From Here?" post by the Liberal Mob. 


    by brewmn on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 10:20am

    If you want progressive legislation passed, you have to elect progressive legislators.  20% of the House and less than a handful of senators isn't going to get'er done. Focus your energy on that goal, instead of this constant whining about how Obama secretly prefers a balanced budget to 9-10% unemployment...

    That sums it up.  It is the one thing people tend to avoid because it puts the responsibility back on the People.  Cantor et al. is there in DC because people put them there.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 10:21am

    constant whining about how ...a Sanders primary challenge will "change the conversation," and other irrelevant nonsense.

    "Irrelevant nonsense."

    I don't know what conclusions you draw from your observations over the years about successful vs. unsuccessful campaigns, and what factors tend to distinguish between the two.  It seems to me that in political campaigns, if the conversation takes place on your terms, you stand a much better chance of winning.  If  it takes place on your opponent's terms, you stand a much better chance of losing.  What do you think the conversation will be dominated by next year, current trajectory continuing?

    Just a wild guess, but I'm thinking it might possibly be Obama's bad economy, the high unemployment rate?  Something like that?  Just maybe?  And the President's response to that is likely to be...what, do you think?  What do you think is his winning message, as matters stand?  Don't vote for the other guys--they'll make things worse?  Wasn't that the message last fall?  We got creamed on that message. 

    And what chance do you think progressive primary challengers will have if there is no one nationally offering, and getting any coverage for, a progressive economic message, for a different economic course other than austerity?  If they asked you for ideas on how they might get some media coverage for their message locally that could stimulate interest in their campaigns, what would be your suggestion on that?   

     


    by AmericanDreamer on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 3:16pm

    You seem to be confusing how to get support for good policy while governing with how to frame an election campaign.  While issue framing is important in the latter context, it's largely irrelevant to, and has very little influence on, the former.


    by brewmn on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 1:12am

     how to get support for good policy 

    One way not to get support is to dissolve the organization that was built to support good policy...

    Thanks, Rahm--your work here in Washington is done...

    by jollyroger on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:26am

    Well Dan, yeah, they look muddle-headed and pea-brained, and everybody knows it. But you are one of like twelve people on the planet who understand why.

    And that is the problem.

    (Not your problem, but the Democrats' problem, and by extension, America's problem.)

    *****

    Bill Clinton was an ass, but at least he could frame complicated sh*t in ways that ordinary people could understand, and make a clear case that his methods made more sense than what others were doing. I can't believe I miss that guy.


    by erica20 on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 2:18am

    You're right in terms of what the President's policy objectives are, I think.  I'm not sure if it's what he truly believes, or if it's because of how he sees his role as President.  Either way, he seems to see austerity as a good thing, when the evidence points to the opposite. 

    I'm not sure I agree that a primary challenge is the right remedy though.  Primaries can be brutal and split the party for a Presidential campaign.  If primaries happen in 2012, they should target members of Congress that are already sort of weak, and in easily winnable areas.  Moving the rest of the party left will move the President in ways I think a primary challenge to him directly would not.

    He's a consensus builder, and he works off of what he thinks is the Washington consensus.  It just so happens that the consensus was some level of austerity and deficit hawkishness.  So the answer is to move the consensus, I think.

    That said...in an alternate universe, I'd love to see a President Sanders.


    by The Liberal Mob on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 9:32pm

    A Sanders challenge could provide, and serve as a springboard for furthering, a different discussion of the sort that many actual or potential progressive Congressional primary challengers may not be able to create absent such a challenge.    

    This is because of the free media and spinoff opportunities it should generate, at least for a time, for economically progressive Congressional primary challengers (likely in this context to be cash-strapped) to try to get traction.  

    There are other possibilities for how such primary challenges might be able to generate traction.  For example, if and where Van Jones' American Dream Movement is able to develop a local or regional presence capable of shaping a climate more promising for economically progressive primary and general election challengers, that will help.  

    I freely acknowledge risks with a Sanders challenge, but I believe there are also risks if it does not happen.  And I am wide open to other ideas and suggestions on this.  I totally agree that the Congressional races are crucial and have written that I intend to give no money to Obama but instead focus what I can give on credible progressive Congressional candidates, primary and general, and/or organizations recruiting and supporting them.  Even if Obama were to move on economic policy, a progressive agenda won't go anywhere unless we can keep and make more progressive the Senate, and take back the House with a progressive majority. We need Pelosi back as Speaker to make it work.  She'll deliver if we give her the chance.  

    The chances of a big progressive win are greater to the degree the election can be nationalized on the jobs/economic issue, I believe.  That should enable cash-poor progressives, whether primary challengers or winners, to have a better shot at getting through to the voters with a positive agenda, because their message can be hooked to a larger narrative that is developing nationally.  Preparations and activities for next year's progressive challenge campaigns should also help increase pressure on our currently serving elected officials well before the elections themselves, not least because those efforts will generate media attention that will not be lost on elected officials.        

    A progressive surge, on multiple levels, if you will.  Making it happen starts with imagining it.  Key word in all this, repeated umpteen times in this comment, is "progressive".  "Democrat" won't do it, not by itself.  We have to pay more attention to who ends up running as a Dem.  Electing Heath Shulers to Congress is better than electing Republicans but doesn't help get us an economically progressive majority.  If we haven't learned that by now we aren't paying attention. That's all I got for now.


    by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 11:12pm

    Hey, Dreamer; nice diary.  I've been spending some time at 'that other place' trying to find ways to widen the discussion, too, and even ideas for bringing fresh ideas to the populace at large, educating them to what's at stake, who really is controlling the money, controlling who pays (us) when systems that are 'too big to fail' will crash again soon...like BoA and others.

    I've even been in contact with some of the organizations organizing Wall Street protests and the Octover2012 events in DC, trying to get them to think more in terms of education and outreach to the pissed people whose anger is directed in the wrong direction, IMO, developing organizations on the ground, establishing trust, talking progressive taxation, for instance, not 'socialism', the purpose of good government for all, not 'socialism',  etc...

    One of the diaries was spinning off on a suggestion of Yves Smith the other day, a rather unlikely and Quixotic idea for a primary possibility exactly to widen the allowable public discourse, which is of course what is totally missing.  There IS no debate, WAS no debate, just blind accceptance, aided by our allegedly Democratic President, that austerity in any matter at this time was helpful.  You all know how he included SS in his false-framing, and yesterday's letter from him about 'future possible revenues' being possible are downright maddening.

    Anyhoo, thought I'd drop it by for you; the bulk of the commenters seem to have read the title of the diary, and unloaded their guns.  Having watched the same thing happen at NC, and Yves' continual frustration, it was no surprise, but I thought if I said twelve times what  the aim of the exercise might be, they might just cotton onto it.  Sadly no, LOL!

    For now electoral politics has taken such a hit, as has our Democracy, that those who believe we can affect the appointments to Catfood Commission II are...deluded, IMO.

    And just for Oxymora: We are sooooooo screwed.  Hope you enjoy it; the language gets a little raunchy, all my fault, to be sure.  I am soooooo pissed.

    Regards to you all, and stay strong; it's gonna get really ugly soon.

    Stardust

    http://my.firedoglake.com/wendydavis/2011/08/01/overton-window-crashing-...


    by Anonymous stardust (not verified) on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 6:47pm

    I forgot to say how pleasing it is to see you thinking and imagining past the next election cycle; that's excellent!


    by Anonymous stardust (not verified) on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 7:17pm

    I do think, and am thinking, past the next election cycle.  But I wrote this post with the next election cycle precisely in mind. 

    Lots of folks here, me included, are suggesting a focus on Congress.  I agree.  It's a no-brainer the Congressional races are extremely important and I don't know who here has suggested otherwise. 

    But in years with presidential elections, the outcomes of Congressional races can be heavily influenced, and even tipped, by what is happening at the top of the ticket.  If the message at the top of the ticket is "Vote for me.  The other side is worse."  I make two observations:

    1. That was basically the message in fall 2010 and we got creamed.

    2. If one believes, as I do, that Democrats need hope and not just fear votes to get elected, where is the hope part in that message?

    With Obama at the head of the ticket and pursuing the austerity direction he has set for himself (no mind reading here, brewman, quite the contrary--I think those of us who are concluding he wants austerity are basing that on the observable evidence), what is the hope part of the message next year? 

    Rather, isn't there a very real risk that many who voted for him in 2008 hoping for and expecting better than 9%+ unemployment and a bad economy will conclude he is not part of an answer to our predicament?  If they conclude that, might they not either sit it out or even consider voting for his opponent if they like what they are hearing better from that person?

    What is a scenario for next year whereby there is some degree of enthusiasm for voting for Obama--and for downticket Dems offering a positive message consistent with that offered at the top of the ticket?

    I'm not asking for the definitive answer to that question today.  But my confidence in this Administration is more shaken than it was as of last November's dismal fall Democratic midterm "campaign".  (Campaign?  Was there a Democratic campaign last fall?  Did I miss that?)

    So, contrary to A-man's remarks suggesting those of re-raising the Sanders primary challenge question are romantics thinking very, very non-pragmatically, my immediate reason for doing so is quite the opposite of that.  I am asking the hardest of hard political questions: what is a scenario for a presidential, and Congressional, win next year, given the most likely state of affairs with the economy in particular? 

    Is it the case that we cannot, for next year, succeed both in preventing the worst scenario--a clean GOP sweep--and leave ourselves with a fighting chance as of January 2013 of making progress in dealing with our nation's problems?  Are we forever destined to play defense, and kick the can down the road at best?  It is looking to me as though actual progress on dealing with a wide range of pressing issues--jobs, carbon emissions, further financial reform as examples--requires a progressive, majority in the House, probably super-majority in the Senate Keynesian Congress which can and will lead a quite clearly reluctant, kicking and screaming, President willing to follow it. 

    But, again, what is the chance of that happening if Obama runs the kind of campaign he right now looks to be planning to run, wherein progressive proposals on any of these issues aren't even being advanced? 

    Democrats these days are regularly heard to say we have to build for a progressive future, we can't do it "all at once", we have to be patient.  Yet there is nothing looking to me like a willingness even to propose and advocate progressive approaches to our country's problems, as a political party. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:57am

    But, again, what is the chance of that happening if Obama runs the kind of campaign he right now looks to be planning to run, wherein progressive proposals on any of these issues aren't even being advanced?

    I would disagree with this.  The GOP/conservatives are pushing a cuts only approach, or the cut/cap/balance version of this.  Obama on the other hand is pushing a cut, tax and spend approach.  In a simplified version, the progressives are pushing for the last two of these three, and at a greater level than Obama would push for.  But the fundamentals of the progressive proposals - tax the rich and spend on jobs initiatives - is being thrown out there into discourse by Obama.  What the progressives are looking for is not someone who is advocating something Obama isn't, but someone who says we should tax more and spend more, along with no cuts (excepts to defense spending). 

    I don't think this is splitting hairs.  If for any reason, since Obama has put these notions out there, a defeat by him would strengthen the meme that the way the country wants to go is not to spend or tax (which polls seem to indicate isn't true).  

    I think rather than putting the hopes on a challenger - the people need to show up to his rallys and press events with the signs calling for more stimulus, more taxes on the rich.  We need to be the change we have been looking for.  If we the people who want this are really in numbers to big too ignore, we need to show that.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 2:11pm

    He didn't even ask Pelosi to show up to talks except for the final days.

    This shouldn't even be offered as a "progressive" program. Stimulus should be for people and business initiatives, not just giving out money to lend back at a higher rate.

    The economic principles for stimulating the economy are rather well understood, left and right. There is no college economics text book teaching "confidence brought about by pleasing bond holders" or however it's supposed to play.

    Where progressives are looking to cut is the wastefulness of running 6 military actions at one time, with no actual goals except playing Arabic needle-in-a-sandstack.

    And cuts on unneeded subsidies - welfare for the well-connected corporations. Continual propping up of Wall Street.

    And endless tax holidays for companies that barely pay taxes to begin with.

    But when there's been 11 years of tax cutting and not much tax raising, it's pretty hard to balance and be sane.

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 2:34pm

    What you or I think should or shouldn't be offered as a progressive program is basically irrelevant.  I don't about you, but the MSM hasn't called me lately to get my opinion on matters.  The point is Obama will be seeking additional funds (what little there are) for targeted jobs initiatives.  Although it will be far less in terms of dollars than progressive want, it is still a fundamentally progressive agenda: utilizing the government to generate jobs.  The Republicans will fight these efforts, using the talking points that the government needs to get out the way of the private sector and tighten its fiscal belt.  A more progressive challenger or candidate in another election can only say in regards to spending, Obama is not going far enough, not that he isn't desiring spending anything.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 2:45pm

    A challenger can say we gave up $2 trillion in cuts and are now going back on hands and knees to get a few peanuts, maybe what $40 billion?

    A challenger can actually talk about how much money is needed, placed where, to create how many jobs.

    A challenger can note that people out of work this year weren't really thrilled to wait till next year to do stimulus, or that we could have gotten a better deal last December when running Bush tax cuts out to 2013.

    A "progressive agenda" so small you can drown it in a bathtub is not a progressive agenda. It's just a straw man, a sop to pretend we're trying.

    From what I figure, Obama can get re-elected with the unemployment rate right where it is, so he doesn't need to improve the job situation - just move some papers around to look like we're making some effort. And chances are if you keep giving corporates tax cuts, that unemployment will drop to 8.6%, almost a revolution in today's terms.

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 3:08pm

    Yes, a challenger can say that.  And if you think that this challenger would give Obama a reasonable run for his money, then it might be worthwhile.  But if you believe that at best this challenger would get 30% of the primary vote, then the lasting legacy of this challenge will be that such ideas don't resonate with even a majority of the party that represents the liberal view.  It would reinforce (rightly or wrongly) the (in)famous gallup poll that show liberals only make up 20-some percent of the public.  That we are indeed a center-right country.  It would justify every politician's tack (if they wanted to justify it) to the center-right.

    The most recent poll out:

    A record 82 percent of Americans now disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job — the most since The Times first began asking the question in 1977, and even more than after another political stalemate led to a shutdown of the federal government in 1995.

    More than four out of five people surveyed said that the recent debt-ceiling debate was more about gaining political advantage than about doing what is best for the country. Nearly three-quarters said that the debate had harmed the image of the United States in the world....

    The Republicans compromised too little, a majority of those polled said. All told, 72 percent disapproved of the way Republicans in Congress handled the negotiations, while 66 percent disapproved of the way Democrats in Congress handled negotiations.

    The public was more evenly divided about how Mr. Obama handled the debt ceiling negotiations: 47 percent disapproved and 46 percent approved.

    When one considers that probably most Republicans and conservative Independents disapproved of Obama, it would show that Obama still has strong approval within the Democratic Party.   Even at this stage of the game and after the debt ceiling fiasco. 

    It would indicate that Republicans are vulnerable.  So why should we spend our time beating up the Democratic president when we have a chance of taking back the House and even increasing our majority in the Senate?


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 3:33pm

    McCarthy knocked out LBJ, but he was knocked out by Kennedy and Humphrey. But still, he got the anti-war message on the platform.

    Wallace didn't beat Truman, and Humphrey's move was more show than binding, but they got Civil Rights front and center and changed the party.

    Tea Baggers probably have what 10-15% of the House, but they're defining the agenda. Why can't Democrats do that?

    I don't care about taking the House and the Senate - I care about enacting policy that I like. If like the Teabaggers I can do that with a handful of lunatics, that's okay by me.

    Look at Gordon Norquist - he takes a ridiculous, simple pledge and drives it to the bank. One guy. He doesn't care about Republicans, Democrats - he's a 1-trick pony, and that pony is all baubeled out at this point.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 5:14pm

    The comments seem to be turned off your diary there, so I will pose the question here: if the aim is impact the national discourse, why wouldn't a Warren run against Brown for the Mass. Senate seat work.  In fact, since she would actually have a chance of winning, the MSM would give her more airplay.  The main reason it would get attention is that this is the race for the seat held by Ted Kennedy, and the MSM loves them Kennedys.  The tag line writes itself: is Warren the true heir of Ted Kennedy?  It would bring up everything Ted fought for as a Senator and how Warren would be a similiar Senator.  The lion passing the torch to the lioness, and all that.

    And she would be going against a Republican - contrasting her approach to that of the other side of the aisle.  It would be a clear cut choice, as opposed to comparing her to Obama.  In the latter case, it is not a difference of opinion as much as a difference degree.  Both talk about increasing revenue, both talk about spending money on job initiatives.  (I haven't seen her stand on the need to makes cuts in some places or her views on the long term national debt issue). 

    As she has said at the time Obama announced Cordray:

    "Massachusetts does beckon in the sense that it's my home, and I need to go home. And when I go home, I'll do more thinking then. But I need to do that thinking--not from Washington--but I need to go home," she told MSNBC.

    "I think it's important to stay up with all the teams all the time," she added, playing off Coakley's memorable failure to cater to her home state's devotion to its baseball squad. "My husband makes sure -- he's the one who's 15 generations of Massachusetts, he keeps up with the Red Sox and every other team."

    And in a conference call later in the day, organized by the White House, Warren again hinted where her political future lies. "Let me put it this way," she said, "I'm saving all of the rocks in my pocket for the Republicans."

    And given it was the Senate that killed real Health Care reform, etc., having someone like Warren (teaming up with the likes of Sanders and Franken) might help change the discourse well after the elections are over.

    And moreover, a victory of a lefty over any republican even in a place like Mass. is going to help the MSM say that the lefty ideas has some public support behind it, whereas a defeat in the primaries against Obama will just help the MSM say that most people want the centerist approach and that the ideas of people like Warren are just too radical for them..


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:19am

    Real health care reform died by not pushing reconciliation from the beginning. As it should have been done in 1993, and it finally was done - after the savings-and-coverage horse had left the barn - in 2010.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 2:38pm

    One more thought, this on the Socialist question.  

    Of course it is an issue.  But it's also true the media loves novelty.  And I'm pretty sure a Sanders candidacy would qualify as novelty, yep.  For a campaign that would have to rely heavily on free media it sure helps...if you can get free media.


    by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 08/04/2011 - 11:31pm

    Another thought on this.  This is an intuitive read of the situation I am playing with these days.  

    Apart from those who vote D or R or neither purely out of habit and are more or less impervious to doing anything but...

    *let's posit that people in 2012 will be motivated to vote D on account of one of two basic factors:

    1. They are voting out of desperation or hope that things can get better through politics (insert snarky comment here ____________)

    2. They are more or less pure "rationalists", perhaps thinking of themselves as "pragmatists", who will support and vote for D's these days simply to avoid much worse stuff from today's Republicans.  

    *let's posit that people in 2012 will be motivated to vote R on account of one of two basic factors:

    3. They vote out of fear, scapegoating one or another or several out groups for all the country's problems

    4. They think government, when it does act, usually gets it wrong and makes things worse and they're managing fairly well at the moment.  They believe they can manage well pretty well as matters stand and don't want government throwing a monkey wrench into what they think they're able to do for themselves "on their own".

    What has happened since early 2009 is the gradual dissipation of factor #1, the "voting for hope" factor.  I don't say it's entirely gone.  But many who voted with high hopes and expectations for positive change are, shall we say, less likely to do so again in 2012.  They do not seem terribly likely to be motivated by the factors that motivate group #2, ably articulated by a number of folks here.  

    Yet factors 3 and 4 remain at least as potent now as in 2008, say.

    So posit a deficit of the hope factor, factor #1, motivating people to vote D in 2012, if you will.  If it's the folks motivated by factor 2, versus the folks motivated by factors 3 and 4, one could make the case that what we are looking at, very possibly, is a rerun of last fall's Democratic rout.  

    Trying to make the case to people motivated by factor 1 that they should be motivated by factor 2 does not strike me as likely to be terribly promising, or sufficient.  I think it falls short of grasping some basic points about what is colloquially (and incorrectly in my view) thought of as "human nature".  It reflects a typically Demcoratic party approach to national elections that is hyper-rationalistic, issue and wonk talk- rather than narrative- driven, and emotionally unperceptive.  

    The "enthusiasm gap" argument seems to me an even more over-simplified version of the above.

    Thus the need to change the conversation and the dynamics on the Democratic side.  

    That's an intuitive take I'm playing with these days that seems to me to point in the direction of taking the possible desirability of a Sanders primary challenge more seriously.


    by AmericanDreamer on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 8:04am

    In my Catholic boyhood we used to quote St. Augustine as saying "if Rape is inevitable , relax and enjoy it." .A simple minded version of his sensible statement that if a Catholic woman found herself  experiencing any involuntary  pleasure during forcible intercourse she  wasn't committing a sin.

    Obama must be the democratic candidate in 2012..... Relax and enjoy it

    .I'll avoid the word irrelevant And also avoid discussing issues.They don't count. All that counts is the black vote. And if Obama is not renominated  you can kiss that vote good bye. And the election.And the next one.And the one after that.

    Whatever Juan Williams or Cornell West might claim black voters are  thrilled to have a black president and will be furious if the white majority of the Democratic Party rejects him

    In college we once amused ourselves by publishing a take off of the school paper of our traditional rival.. The editorial extolled the virtues of the boulder which was considered an object of veneration  on their campus (Who knows?).It concluded  "And remember , it's our sacred trust.... and we're stuck with it.".

    Obama is our President  and ....we're stuck with it...... Relax and enjoy it.

     

     


    by Flavius on Fri, 08/05/2011 - 4:47pm

    Got Vaseline?


    by jollyroger on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:30am

    I am not going to apologize or be defensive about taking a concededly boring position that respectfully I believe from the bottom of my kishkas is the only responsible position to take.  That position is that if the Republicans retake the White House it will be worse for the country than if a bland and disappointing Obama gets a second term.  Anyone who wants to argue that it makes no difference can do so, but that's nonsense, again respectfully that is just absolute nonsense.  And it's irresponsible and again I assert this respectfully because I understand why folks are pissed, and deservedly so.

    I'm incredibly disappointed in the president and how he has failed to lead and failed to promote a more aggressive economic policy.  But I will be even more pissed if he is defeated by any Republican I can think of.  

    It is responsible to take on the president's policies, and aggressively so.  It is irresponsible to ignore the plain, boring reality that the election of a Republican president will be a disaster.  And I have absolutely no interest in telling anyone I told you so.  That's a poor substitute for a responsible electorate.

    As to Bernie, who has no interest in a primary challenge, or as to any other challenger, I don't like it because historical precedent suggests that an intra-party primary is bad for the incumbent.  So I think it's just something to chat about, and I understand the passion for it because I still remember how inspired I was about Teddy's decision to challenge the incumbent back in 1980.  Ronald Reagan and his supporters were even more inspired.

    I am boring hear me roar!

     

     

     


    by Bruce Levine on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 10:44am

    Embrace the boring, in numbers too large to ignore.

    As I posted above to Stardust's comment on the potential for Warren to run against Brown, there are other races in 2012 where the discourse about what direction the country can and should take that will be serve the cause.  The reason that the Tea Party had the degree of oomph in the media up to the ceiling debate wasn't because they challenged the establishment Republicans, but that they actually won some elections, both on the primary level and general election level.

    If a strong lefty challenges and loses, the MSM will just say - see, we're a center-right country.  The leftys' ideas are just too radical, the leftys are out of touch with mainstream America, the heartland of America, etc etc.  The more I think about it, the more I believe sending a strong lefty out to get defeated by Obama would severely set the progressive movement back in this country.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:26am

    A paid cadre of assholes showing up at the August 2010 town halls and misrepresenting the ACA didn't hurt their "earned media" either.


    by jollyroger on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 11:31am

    Yes, there was a element of astroturf to the movement, along with nasty tactics, but one thing that the left has to acknowledge is that the tea party "agenda" resonated with a number of Americans.  Not everyone who showed up to a town hall was a paid asshat.

    I would suggest listening to this segment of This American Life.  Here is a snipet from the transcript:

    Rich Carlson lives in Petoskey, Michigan. Which, if you imagine Michigan as the back of your left hand, Petoskey would be the tip of your ring finger. Rich is a tower of a human being. A bulky six foot four, though, because he's so good natured, he manages to be huge without ever seeming threatening. Rich, who's pushing 50, was born and raised in Petoskey and for years he made his living there selling construction supplies. Though, in 2009, with the recession, business had gotten really bad. It was around that time that Rich started talking to his friend, a guy named Tom, about starting a Tea Party.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:10pm

     element of astroturf

    I love the "Americans for Prosperity" meme-like, what, the rest of us are "Americans for Depression"?


    by jollyroger on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:36pm

    Well, actually both sides make the argument that the other guy's approach would led to a depression and the loss of the American dream and way of life. 


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:57pm

    Yeah, but only Americans for Prosperity have the Kochs opening up their spigot.  Of course, the intent is genuine, the Kochs seek to prosper, and they are, I suppose, Americans.  However, they number only two, and that's the total set of prosperers in contemplation.


    by jollyroger on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 5:28pm

    I was wondering how long it was going to before the Koch syndrome was brought up.  And Obama was only elected because of the liberal mainstream media.  Forgive them lord, for they know not what they do. 

    It just seems that you're trying to avoid acknowledging that there is some genuine (no matter how misguided) public sentiment behind the tea party movement. 


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 5:38pm

    Not at all--in fact, I believe you yourself reproached me when I referenced the "where's my bailout" plea as signalling nascent class consciousness in the tea party anger, albeit you pointed out the lack of the plural in the subject.  I would not have referenced it if I thought it merely the invention of Dick Armey,

    That said, there's nothing like a deep pocketed budget for paid staff to herd the volunteers around.


    by jollyroger on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 5:44pm

    It was your first words of "paid cadre of assholes showing up..." upon this branch of the thread (can a thread have branches?) upon which I am focused upon from the get go, as if all those who showed up at the town halls did so because they were paid to do so.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 5:52pm

    Sometimes the demands of style trump nuance...


    by jollyroger on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 6:07pm

    well, i guess if i'm anything, i'm the keeper of the nuance (at least in my mind's eye)


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 6:24pm

    I, on the other hand, if anything, am the sultan of style.


    by jollyroger on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 6:25pm

    At least we can all be sultans of swing


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 6:33pm

    Money for nothing & the chicks for free?  Sounds good to me...


    by jollyroger on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 7:13pm

    Eugene McCarthy primaried LBJ. The result would have likely been Robert Kennedy who'd  just finished off a victory in California when he was killed- more inspiring for many than Humphrey, LBJ, Nixon and Wallace. (It also turned the party from backroom deals to anoint candidates through connections to a more popular vote system). It's doubtful that Connolly would have done Democrats for Nixon with RFK running.

    Carter couldn't solve the Iran hostage crisis that created Nightline as a running joke, his "sweater" speech was a botched response to the energy crisis, boycotting the Olympics a few months before the election didn't work well, he invented "stagflation" as his most memorable accomplishment, and represented malaise and impotence. It's hard to claim that Carter would have been much more successful if Teddy hadn't primaried him.

    A free pass for incumbents does not reek of democracy. 

    Primarying LBJ put the Vietnam War on the ballot, and even hawk Nixon declared the need to end the war.

    Teddy Kennedy's problem wasn't that he primaried Carter - it's that he took a lost challenge to the convention in August, but even that's not a problem - politics is about winning. Carter was weak.

    Bill Bradley was the one that hurt the most - he got Gore to run against the successes of the Clinton presidency, and turn into an anti-Washington people populist, when he could have run on new economy success. This left Bush a number of openings, aside from the press hatred of Gore.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:27pm

    I understand that consistency is an imperfect predictor.  I also understand woulda coulda shoulda. :)  But assuming you can distinguish all of the prior electoral cycles, how on earth is the president going to be strengthened by a primary challenge from his left flank under the circumstances as we know them, when the real question now becomes, with historical precedent as a metric, how does Obama or any Democrat win with the economy such as it is?

     


    by Bruce Levine on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:54pm

    And, overnight, America in the aggregate IMO is not going to say let's elect someone to Obama's left.  It might be easy to posit that as possible or even likely, but I think it would be imprudent to take that chance.


    by Bruce Levine on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 12:56pm

    From a political strategy point of view, I think one can pretty safe in asserting that someone who was to the left of Obama would not win any of the states McCain won in 2008.  To the extent that the primary challenger pulled Obama to the left, he could be assured not to win any of those states in 2012.  So what one is left with (no pun intended), is the states Obama won in 2008.  Will a pull to the left help or hinder him in OH, PA, NM, NV, CO, IN, NC, VA, and FL? Maybe.  Maybe not.  It is actually The Question for the progressive movement in this country.  Just how much work is there really ahead.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 1:05pm

    Lots but it would be nice to agree on a roadmap first.


    by Bruce Levine on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 1:08pm

    For me it pretty simple on some level:  every minute and resource spent challenging Obama is a minute and resource not spent on the federal and state House and Senate races.  The goal should be: surround Obama with a House and Senate that either supports him or works to move him left in 2013, along with states whose capitols talk the talking points of more stimulus for the states from the federal government.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 1:21pm

    The goal should be to avenge the foreclosures of over 3 million homes, and a record year in corporate profits and low taxes, while unemployment stays at 9.1%.

    The goal should be to get us out of 6 wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya).

    The goal should be to formulate a Democratic platform that will attract people as something to build on, not be seen as a hollow sham.

    The goal should be to build success all the way to the roots, not just pin it to one person at the top.

    As soon as a candidate figures out how to tell the people that it's these wars that's eating up their savings, these thieves on Wall Street and in the cabinet that are stealing their future, that all these criminals are in cahoots - then we'll have bi-partisanship.

    A candidate needs to figure out how to tell business that they can make more money by having a good universal medical system because then they can get rid of bad workers and attract better ones and not be paying triple health costs that companies overseas pay.

    It is the responsibility of the candidate to convince enough rabid conservatives that government really is worth supporting more than we're supporting it now. To get around the demagoguery - to make it hit people in their pocket books and at the dinner table.

    When politicians stop telling people what they should do, and instead explain in simple, compelling terms what they can get out of the system, then they'll get support. 

    People care about money, being safe, their families. And 1 or 2 other things. If you're not tapping the basics, if you're not telling them and showing them how it's going to be better, you've lost them. Republicans won the debt ceiling debate because they convinced people they were protecting their money. The Democrats went along. So who's leading who?

    When you lie down with the pigs, you start smelling like the pigs. There's not an elephant or a donkey anymore, just a bunch of pigs.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 1:58pm

    Huey Long attacked FDR from the left and we got the New Deal.

    Progressives primaried Truman in 1948 even though Republicans won both houses in 1946, and at the Convention Humphrey pushed through a touch Civil Rights platform. The result was that Dixiecrats started leaving the party, urban bosses started joining, and the party shifted to strong Civil Rights stance. Truman's weakness made him come out firing in the fall and actually run a good campaign. Final tally? Democrats won back both houses and the Presidency.

    1968 might have been "coulda, shoulda, woulda", but Humphrey lost by 0.7% of the popular vote, and he was Vice President for an unpopular war who couldn't campaign against his own administration. Kinda a no-brainer. Would have helped Congress as well.

    Regarding electing someone to Obama's left, yes, to quote Bob Dylan, it can be easily done.

    Just in 2004 everyone was saying there was a huge red state/blue state divide when John Kerry ran a not very stunning campaign. 2 years later, Democrats won back both houses. Many people think Obama looked  more progressive than he is. The public didn't get more conservative during the financial crisis. They just lost any persuasive voice on the left.

    In 2004, someone suggested not running against the war. In general, Democrats who stood behind Iraq or held their mouths were defeated, those who took a hard stance won.  It's often not the exact stance you take, it's the way you present it.

    Someone comes along and finds the way to express the people's anger in a sensible way, has the chance to blow the whole thing open, Citizen's United or not.

    Good Tzipi Levin interview, by the way.

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Sat, 08/06/2011 - 1:37pm