Wolraich: Obama at the Gates of... Gates
Dr. C: In Praise of Writing Binges
Maiello: Gatsby Doesn't Grate
Book of the Month
From the Readers
- Wattree 3 hours ago
- Flavius 14 hours ago
- Another Trope 1 day ago
- erica20 2 days ago
- Another Trope 3 days ago
- Flavius 3 days ago
- jollyroger 6 days ago
- Richard Day 6 days ago
- Wattree 1 week ago
- trkingmomoe 1 week ago
Creative corner
- Richard Day 2 days ago
- trkingmomoe 5 days ago
- MrSmith1 1 week ago
- MrSmith1 2 weeks ago
- trkingmomoe 2 weeks ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 3 days 14 hours ago
- Michael Maiello 4 days 13 hours ago
- Doctor Cleveland 1 week 1 hour ago
- Michael Maiello 1 week 1 day ago
- Ramona 1 week 2 days ago
- Michael Maiello 1 week 3 days ago
- Michael Maiello 1 week 4 days ago
- Doctor Cleveland 1 week 6 days ago
- William K. Wolfrum 1 week 6 days ago
- Michael Maiello 2 weeks 5 days ago
Too Progressive for Obama? Vote Obama
by Doctor Cleveland 6/3/2012 - 9:19 am
|
Last week Articleman made his case, and it's a strong one, for re-electing Barack Obama. Let me add my own case, for those who feel (like many of our Dagblog readers and commenters) that Obama is not progressive enough.
If you would like to have a president more progressive than Barack Obama, the only way to make that happen in the next twenty years (or more) is to re-elect Barack Obama first.
If Obama is defeated, the lesson that our political establishment will take away from that is that he lost because he was too far to the left. Saying that you didn't vote for him because he was too moderate won't matter. Saying that Obama would have won if he were more liberal will be pointless, even if it's true, because most people will draw the opposite lesson and they will act on that lesson. Even if that lesson is based on misunderstanding, it will change what it is politically possible for future candidates.
On the other hand, if Obama wins after having been called a socialist and a secret foreigner and what not, the lesson that people will draw is that calling someone a socialist doesn't work any more. The lesson will be that a liberal can still beat a conservative. (I know, I know, you don't think of Obama as a real liberal, but that's what he gets called, and the media won't distinguish real liberals from him.) The lesson will be that you can run to the left and win two terms as president. And that lesson will also change the political playing field.
I'm not talking now about how bad things will be if Obama is not re-elected, although it will in fact be very bad, and will be worst of all for the people that progressives care about most: the poor, the weak, the vulnerable. I'm talking about just avoiding evils. I'm talking about moving closer to actual goods.
We cannot have a more progressive president than Barack Obama next year. It is Obama or someone worse. On the other hand, after two terms of an Obama presidency we can campaign successfully for someone to Obama's left: not just as a protest candidate or as someone to pull the front-runners to the left during the primary season, but as a legitimate front-runner with a chance to win. We won't have to be on the defensive. We won't have to persuade people that a liberal could hypothetically win, because everyone will have seen that a liberal (or a "liberal") can. If we have two terms of Obama, we can talk about moving forward with more progressive policies (much as Reagan's two terms allowed conservatives to back candidates whose policies were well to the right of Reagan's). That doesn't guarantee that we'll get the progressive we want. But it guarantees us a real fighting chance for someone significantly more progressive.
Re-electing Obama doesn't mean that we'll get a more liberal president after him. But every road to a more liberal president over the next few decades starts with Obama getting re-elected first.
If you're sick of timid moderates who are afraid of being called too liberal, we need to re-elect Obama. If you're sick of Blue Dogs who shiv their party leadership because they're convinced that the voters are really conservative, we need to re-elect Barack Obama. If half a loaf leaves you hungry for more, re-elect Barack Obama and stay hungry.
I know some people think that if the conservatives and their terrible policies do enough damage, there will eventually be a backlash and the country will take a hard swing to the left. But we already had the backlash: Obama is what we got. And by the time the backlash came, our politics were already so far to the right that Obama looked like a massive swing. If Romney runs this country back into Bush II's ditch and buries our wheels in the mud, the swing back to the left will likely be to someone even more centrist than Obama.
Don't believe me? That's what happened in our presidential politics for the last forty-four years. Hoping for the backlash has only gotten us further and further away from what we'd like. Every Democratic president since LBJ has been a disappointment to the left, and their defeats have only led to more moderate, more disappointing Democrats. LBJ's refusal to run again not only made Richard Nixon president, but set the table for the next Democrat in the White House to be Jimmy Carter, a centrist with no real interest in extending the Great Society programs. Carter's defeat by Reagan meant that the next Democratic president would be Triangulating Bill Clinton, who not only "reformed" welfare but actually bought and repeated the right's No-Big-Government mantra. It's only because Clinton managed a second term that we have a President who's not much further to his right, although the defeat of Clinton's half-a-loaf healthcare plan ensured that Obama couldn't get more than the quarter-loaf he actually passed. And if Obama's stingy stimulus package isn't enough to get him re-elected, future Democrats will be afraid of any stimulus at all, no matter how inadequate and stingy.
Defeat moves us backward. Victory moves us forward. Talk about the Overton window and changing the terms of debate, but the way you move the Overton window for real is at the ballot box.
If Barack Obama frustrates you, vote for him. If you want more than what's on the table, you have to start by winning what's on the table now. Our best hope is for Obama's successor, and that starts with Obama's success.
-
- Doctor Cleveland's blog
- Add new comment
- 2478 reads
In the News
-
The real Ziggy Stardust brings it!
This has to be David Bowie's proudest moment, pending the manned Mars expedition.
-
Obama: There's no longer time for excuses for black men
By Aamer Madhani, USA Today, May 19, 2013
President Obama on Sunday told the graduating class at Morehouse College, the country's pre-eminent historically black college, there is "no time for excuses" for this generation of African-American men and that it was time for their generation to step up professionally and in their personal lives.
[....] The president connected his own path to the White House to the work of King and other African-American leaders of that generation. But Obama also conceded that at times as a young man he wrongly blamed his own failings "as just another example of the world trying to keep a black man down."
"We've got no time for excuses — not because the bitter legacies...
-
The Biggest Obama Scandals Are Proven and Ignored
Prompted by Peggy Noonan's claim in The Wall Street Journal that "we are in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate," Andrew Sullivan steps forward to defend Pres. Obama's honor. "Can she actually believe this?," he asks incredulously.
-
Congress defies White House with new round of Iran sanctions
By Julian Pecquet, The Hill, May 18, 2013
Congress is ramping up a new round of sanctions against Iran, ignoring the Obama administration's request to let diplomacy run its course.
In back-to-back hearings this week, lawmakers on key House and Senate panels put the State and Treasury departments on notice that their patience is wearing thin after the latest round of talks last month failed to produce a deal. Both chambers have legislative efforts in the works – the House foreign affairs panel will vote next week – but the administration is warning against any moves that could undermine international support for the existing sanctions against Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program [....]
-
From Fearsome Predator to Man’s Best Friend (dogs may have...
By Carl Zimmer, New York Times/Science, May 16/17, 2013
An article that summarizes the recent work of Ya-Ping Zhang, a geneticist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, who has led an international network of scientists who have compared pieces of DNA from different canines which is pointing to the theory that dogs domesticated themselves.
But the article's message is not just what it first appears to be. When you get to the concluding paragraphs there are some real though provokers:
[....] SLC6A4 may have played a crucial part in this change, because serotonin influences aggression.
To test these ideas,...
Latest Comments
-
in Dean Baker's right...trkingmomoe
-
in TIDES; TIGER & THE...trkingmomoe
-
in Let’s Get Real - What We...Wattree
-
in Let’s Get Real - What We...Richard Day
-
in Obama Scandals: The Quest...Resistance
-
in Obama: There's no...Resistance
-
in Obama: There's no...Resistance
-
in Obama Scandals: The Quest...stillidealistic
-
in Obama: There's no...moat
-
in Baz Luhrman’s The Great...AmericanDreamer
-
in Obama Scandals: The Quest...Resistance
-
in Obama: There's no...Resistance
-
in Obama Scandals: The Quest...stillidealistic
-
in Paging Dr. Maslow......moat
-
in Obama: There's no...artappraiser
As the only progressive at Dag that I know of who will be actively voting for Romney, let me explain why I think you are wrong:
1. When Obama doesn't get reflected, it will be because his presidency has been an abject failure. Will people blame his "liberal" policies? Only the stupid ones since Barack Obama was never a liberal. Though he did manage to upfuck health care reform by passing an unconstitutional Republican/PhRMA/AHIP plan mandating citizens to purchase health insurance from private insurers with no cost controls or face tax penalties. And when that mandate goes down in flames, people will think it was a liberal policy that failed which is the furthest thing from the truth.
2. Please explain further how the progressive uprising will occur in a DNC controlled by Obama, where the party wastes money defending Almost Republican incumbents in primaries, actively recruiting Republican turncoats to run for election as Democrats, and interfering directly interfering in local campaign PRIMARIES. Barack Obama is making it less likely we will have progressive democratic politicians, not more likely.
At least be honest in that you don't care for progressive policies /principles. You just care that a democrat gets elected. And you want progressives to continue to vote for a party that uses their votes, and then disregards them as soon as the election is over.
3. Plus if Obama wins, it is yet another sign that the only path to winning as Democrats is by becoming moderate republicans. I would rather vote for an actual moderate Republican like Mitt who will learn the lesson of his election that people want a rational Republican, not the loony tea partiers.And this will make him move the Republican party to the left. Yes, this is already happening. http://politi.co/LXI0M5
4. Hmmm is it better to have a Moderate Republican with a (D) after his name pressuring his party to support moderate Republican policies, or a Moderate Republican (R) who will at least face opposition from Democrats.For me, it is not a question.
5. And Bill Clinton, the great triangulator, actually allowed progressives a seat at the table. He vetoed welfare reform twice until it was a plan that met his goal of lifting people out of poverty, not myths of Cadillac welfare moms. He got a budget passed pressuring the moderate democrats to vote for tax increases on the rich. How unliberal of him. Bill Clinton had liberal values and principles that he didn't feel the need to apologize for. He didn't spend his presidency telling the progressive left to shut up -they had a seat at the table. Barack Obama has no liberal principles or convictions. He's a moderate Republican running as a democrat. Obama's victory pushes progressives backward and further cements the control of the Democratic party in the hands of centrists,conciliatory and might as well be Republicans.
Hey Dij,
On your first point in paragraph 5, don't you think that there is a fair comparison between what Clinton did on welfare reform, which certainly pissed me and many others off back then, and what Obama did with healthcare reform? How do you distinguish the quality of the results on both issues in a progressive political sense?
I don't see it as a fair comparison in the least. In 1992, Clinton campaigned as part of his platform on ending welfare as we knew it, not as a punishment for the mythical Cadillac welfare moms, but as a pathway out of poverty and breaking the cycle for future generations. and so he vetoed the bill until there were adequate protections for job training, for day care, for head start, etc. He did not buy into the GOP propaganda that these people were leeching off the federal government, it was about improving the chances people. Oils move out of poverty. he took on heavy duty criticism from democrats in the primaries and answered them. I know this may comes a shock since Obama doesn't talk about the poor at all, but Clinton was different. His increasing the number of police was a response to very real problems in the inner city with high crime and unsafe neighborhoods. I grew up I those neighborhoods. I directly saw the impact of Clinton's policies and it was not an attack on the poor by any means. Not to mention he presided over a significant drop in people at the poverty levels. http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/new/html/Tue_Oct_3_114000_2000.html
And As PP has noted, GWB took action to erase many of the protections Clinton put inplace. http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2003/01/20metropolitanpolicy-waller . yes, it's easier to move people from welfare to work in an expanding economy rather than a recession. Doesn't that mean welfare reform can't be improved (or to extend welfare benefits like we extend unemployment in recessions.). the argument that Clinton passed welfare reform as an Obamalike moderate Republican is false.
Let's compare this to Candiate Obama who assailed Hillary's individual mandate (combined with cost controls and a government option). he said if you make insurance affordable people will buy it. And then President Obamaturned over the healthcare bill to PhRMA and AHIP and the gang of six. Affordability/cost controls were thrown under the bus, and suddenly it was all about the individual mandate without cost controls. His healthcare reform was bait and swtch BS and now we have a crappy republican mandate that ont benefits the insurance companies as some great "liberal" Chievement. The difference is Bill Clinton was honest about his policies, his principles, and accepted progressive input to make his policies better. he bargained with both right and the left. Obama starts out in the middle and only bargains with the right, so obviously his policies are more republican than a triangulator who pulls for both extremes.
I appreciate the response, and I certainly remember Obama's criticisms of HRC's health care plans very well--and if you get me started you're going to get me some mean-ass flashbacks from '08! But I just see Bill Clinton as a better president than Obama, hands down, which is not the same as saying that the welfare plan that we got from him was connected to anything that he promised us. Yes he said that the era of big government is over and he even said that he would effect a new kind of welfare scheme, but that didn't reflect as I recall when I was voting for the guy that he would do what he did to the social safety net. And that isn't going to be fixed for a long time. So I guess I don't really see the difference you do--except that maybe Clinton may have been more politically astute in being more general in 1992 than Obama was in 2008. And I think "progressives" from back in the 90s would take issue with the notion that they were consulted as you seem to suggest they were in connection with changes in welfare.
I could be wrong about all of this, but why were so many left-of-center folks voting for Nader in 2000, or at least not going out whole hog for Gore? Gore was joined at the hip to Clinton's record, no? It is not as if progressives were rejecting Gore because he was more conservative than Clinton.
Until "today," Bill Clinton was denigrated by progressives as the guy who took the party rightward. This was evident in 2008, when you couldn't mention the "third way" and its associates without get a sour response about it being Republican Lite.
Bill Clinton was better politician, hands-down, and I say that without putting him down. But I remember clearly how dysfunctional his WH was in the beginning when it was peopled by all those bright young things, like Stephanopoulos.
Anyway, if we say, just for grins, that Clinton's two big achievements were NAFTA and Welfare Reform and maybe Family Leave...and you compare them to Obama's two signature achievements--moving us toward universal health coverage and FinReg and then throwing DADT and not defending DOMA...then I'd have to say that they are at least on par.
And even with the Republican take-over in 1994--didn't Resistance tell us that any president who loses the Congress in a mid-term should automatically be primaried?-- I don't think you can REALLY say that the Republicans were as obstructionist then as they are now. Maybe vote tallies will show me wrong, and certainly the Clintons got beaten up pretty bad--but they also brought some of the bad stuff on themselves--but maybe he got them to agree by going right.
Even when Obama adopts Republican ideas he can't get them to agree. Mitch would never have gone for Welfare Reform had it been Obama's idea.
Well the one thing I will say Peter is that I do think that the House was at least as obstructionist back then as it is now, particularly after '94. On welfare reform, Clinton vetoed two bills passed by the Republican congress before he agreed to the third bill he negotiated with Gingrich. And I agree with you that Clinton was a better politician than Obama and that's why I think he was a better president.
Here's what I think is a fairly interesting rundown of the welfare fight from back then.
Thanks for the link.
But today, if Obama said he wanted to work on welfare reform, the Republicans would demand that he abolish it altogether.
Clinton and Gingrich went back and forth. I can't imagine that today.
I find it interesting that no one ever mentions Clinton's most progressive and greatest accomplishment - balancing the budget with tax cuts for the poor, taxes on the wealthy in 1993 while expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit - a truly progressive achievement. Not a single GOP vote, and he had to twist the arms of centrists moderates who were scared of losing their seats if they voted for it (which yes, some of them did). Quick, name an example of when Obama sided with progressives and twisted the arms of moderates. Ever. Bill Clinton was way more liberal than Obama.
Nice summation. No mention of the "we have to share the pain" while passing government-subsidized banks money to pay out million dollar bonuses.
But we'll go to our graves listening to how Clinton was just another conservative who sold the party down the river with triangulation.
Dij,
I am not as quick as I used to be, but I was writing about welfare reform. I absolutely agree that the expansion of the EITC was a really good progressive thing. And you could be right that Clinton was "way more liberal than Obama" and if that's one of the reasons you are voting for Romney, I personally respect you for that because I know and respect you--and I never forget someone who was in the trenches with me once upon a 2008. But I'm not going to lie about my disagreement with you on that score. Hopefully you will come to respect the fact that some of us are making a different calculation.
I think it's a fair bet that Hillary would have been more prone to fight than Obama. It's more in her make-up, I think. She would have been more ready for the insane attacks than Obama was.
But remember how everyone "knew" what a hated figure she was back in 2008, how polarizing she'd be with all that baggage from the Clinton years, not to mention the prospect of First Bubba roaming the halls with not much to do?
Those considerations and others, though forgotten now, loomed large back then and had a certain amount of merit to them--to the degree that anyone can read the future.
Charges of "more polarizing" had no merit then as could be seen by Hillary's non-polarizing Senate career plus her performance the last 4 years, while lots of people served up FUD about her at the convention or at State. What baggage? You mean killing Vince Foster or hanging candy cane dildos on the White House Christmas tree?
Obviously the Republicans didn't require truth or track record to make Obama into a socialist Kenyan non-citizen, so it also plain didn't matter.
Except that having someone to fight Republicans, rather than give them what they want is kinda what we expect from the opposite party. Bi-partisanship sucks - we want our victory in-your-face mandate back.
And the moronic comment about Bubba really should be embarrassing for you - "Bubba"'s in Wisconsin trying to recall Scott Walker and pushing other progressive causes, while Obama's in Washington trying hard not to offend anyone. He actually has quite a lot to do, if you haven't noticed his foundation for Africa, et al.
Plus don't you think it makes sense to fight back when they're trying to destroy unions and social security? Can't we get over a little White House nookie some 17 years later?
I should just stop following politics - everyone's annoying.
PP, I'm reporting on what I remember to be reasonably widespread views back then.
She also had her AUMF vote on Iraq that hurt her.
You can belittle those views now because you come from the future, and maybe you felt the same way back then.
So what?
"Obviously the Republicans didn't require truth..." but did anyone really anticipate and plan for what the Republicans did do?
If you want to get into counter-factuals, who is to say that Hillary wouldn't have been stymied by the same Republican intransigence Obama faces?
Sure, you can make an argument for why and how things would've turned out differently. And I can even say, "You have a point." But maybe the Republicans would've proffered a whole different set of untruths about her.
Did Bubba do all those "progressive" street-fightin' things when he was president?
There is most certainly a narrative in which Hillary and Bill make a very potent presidential couple. Then again, there's a narrative in which Bill's second term was simply chewed up by scandals, lies, and impeachment.
I grant your point about the Clintons' fighting spirit. But I distinguish between fighting and winning and the woulda, coulda, shouldas.
They weren't "reasonable" then - they were Obama or DC-insider spin, just like Broder telling Obama he has to hold everyone's hands or "the people" will be angry about Washington fighting.
Hillary would have fought the same Republican intransigence - maybe she would have lost some, but she would have been fighting. Of course the GOP would have lied about her or anyone else - that's what she said on the campaign trail, that's what her contemptuous "the skies are going to rain mannah if Obama's elected" speech about, that suddenly bipartisanship will go away for boy wonder?
Nonetheless, Hillary didn't just fight people in the Senate.
And there's a narrative about Bill Clinton's 2nd term, and it's not true, even though Clinton did hobble himself quite a bit - he still won quite a bit. And you can compare the government of June 2000 with June 2001 to see how different. Whereas I have trouble seeig much difference between June 2008 and June 2009 or June 2012.
All you have to do is look at the jump in filibusters during Obama's time.
Most of your second paragraph I can't understand. But I agree, Hillary strikes me as more of a fighter than Obama, at least overtly. And her time in the Senate would have helped her whereas his was too slight to matter much, I think.
I guess there's some point in your supporters seeing you fight losing battles. But most of these arguments end with their advocates having to admit that, well, she might not have won any more than Obama. Who knows, really?
After all, she did fail at health care where Obama has succeeded. You can denigrate the result, but he put points on the board.
I have no idea what your last paragraph is saying.
As I recall, Clinton presided during a surge of prosperity. If he was President now, I wonder if he would have much more traction than Obama.
Clinton liked fighting back as the underdog - he'd be better under duress than easy times.
But he also got himself into trouble.
Really?
Yeah, hard to be effective when you're getting damn near impeached.
No one mentions it because the issue--as I see it--is NOT whether Clinton was a good president, a good progressive, etc., though these issues get brought in.
The question is...achieving a balanced view of Obama...faults and good points. So naturally, once Clinton is held up as an example of a truly progressive president, a few of the major ways he was not get mentioned.
In fact...
Balancing the budget is NOT a progressive act, certainly not in today's terms. And Obama's desire to cut the debt is one of the many ways progressives say he is NOT progressive. Just ask Dan.
I guess it's open question whether Clinton or Gingrich balanced the budget and created a surplus, but the fact is, it's not that hard when the economy is skyrocketing. Clinton, as I recall, tried to take credit for the boom by talking about reducing the debt and instituting pay-go. But it's more likely the economy did it on its own and much of the boom turned out to be illusory anyway.
In line with this, as I recall, Clinton was a big fan of Alan Greenspan and brought Rubin and Summers into the administration. But when Obama brought Geithner and Summers in, it was, by then, considered a great sin against progressivism.
(And note Clinton's recent defense of Bain. The boy likes money and likes people who have money.)
In terms of all the good things Clinton spent money on, I don't gainsay them, but will say that it's a lot easier to do these things when you have a booming economy, a relatively modest debt, and no wars. When the economy is a disaster zone, you have two wars, a massive debt that people have been propagandized into thinking is a real problem, it's a wee bit harder to do all that.
It should also be pointed that Obamacare is pretty much the plan Hillary argued for during the primaries, including and especially the dreaded and "unconstitutional" mandate.
Why was she arguing for this?
I can't say for sure right at this moment, but I suspect that her FAILED attempt to get universal health care passed during her husband's time in office--a time that was thought to be ripe for this legislation--prompted her to reflect on what the next step should be. I'm sure she remembered how her plan was dismembered by the industry and was keen not to repeat that mistake.
Could you imagine? Getting chewed up by the industry TWICE? Not good.
So if you liked Hillary, it's a little hard to see how you can dislike ObamaCare. ObamaCare IS HillaryCare 2.0. It's also RomneyCare, except now your man wants to repeal it all. And if he has any coattails, he just might.
Of course, it appears that the GOP is panicking a bit about what to do if they do ascend to power. Some think they should keep the most popular bits of ObamaCare and throw out the dreaded mandate. That should go over big with the industry. Might just have to jettison the pre-existing condition rider and keep things the way they were.
We'll then have to hope that we're taking three steps back in order to take at least two steps forward. Then we'll only be one step back. But hey, it's a start!
Good Lord, that is dishonest.
* Hillary's plan had three options if you like your plan keep it, or buy into private plan available to federal employees, or buy into public Medicare like plan.
* Hillary's plan capped the amount of premiums as a percent of a family's income
* Hillary's plan allowed negotiating of prescription drug costs (which Obama nixed with his PhRMA closed room deal)
* Hillary's plan offered refundable tax credits to offset teh cost of healthcare for people below a certain income level
* People were truly mandated to buy insurance and those who didn't were not slapped with a tax; they were auto-enrolled in the Medicare like plan and would have to pay for it. (Unlike Obama who has no assurances of affordability of healthcare, but financially punished you if you can't afford it).
I know, I know no Obama supporters actually paid attention to the significant policy differences between him and Hillary. Her policy positions were the reason why I supported her, particularly on healthcare and foreclosure prevention. So please at least have the decency not to equate Obama's giveaway to PhRMA and the health insurance companies with no cost controls with Hillary's plan. It is grossly dishonest and you know it.
Not to mention., Hillary wouldn't have turned negotiations over to the Gang of Six and allow them to drive corrupt bargains with PhRMA AHIP et al. She would have used reconciliation without hesitation. She would have put the screws to the Blue Dogs to go along with the legislation and would have had a great chance of being successful since the Democrats had huge majorities in the House and the Senate which Obama wasted singing kumbayah and passing bipartisan (republican) bills with no progressive input whatsoever. And she would have done these things because she has a history of actually caring about REAL healthcare reform, unlike Obama who doesn't care about policy whatsoever. Obama just wants whatever he can get passed using the path of least resistance which in this case meant sacrificing affordability and giving the insurance companies the drivers seat in writing a bill that benefited them far far far more than the American people.
I think she would have been a better fighter than Obama.
As for whether she "really cares" and Obama "doesn't really care," well...does your man Romney "really care"?
Dijamo, you fall back on counter-factuals, and it's a false step. You can argue all you want about what Hillary would've done and could've done, but it's pointless.
And if you're going to list all that you might as well list that Hillary in fact FAILED at getting health care passed when she took her swing. With a very popular president who, we're told, could negotiate the birds out of the trees, and at a time of economic strength and low debt and no Tea Party.
It's possible (you could argue) that she learned from her mistake and would have done things differently. You can even argue, I suppose, that all those things you like about her plan would have survived a withering attack and a divided Congress.
Would it have survived a Republican minority determined to make her a one-term president? I dunno, but it's worth thinking about. Not too much, of course, because we'll never really know, will we?
And now you're putting your faith in a Democratic Congress that didn't do what you claim it will do, and might not even exist to stop your man Romney from doing what he says he's going to do with a Republican Congress (also possible) that you say you don't like.
Too many bank shots in the fog for me.
I "fell back" on counterfactuals because you made some bizarre statement equating Hillary's proposal with Obama's give away to the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies. You get to make counterfactuals based on thin air and I'm not allowed to challenge them based on facts and reality? Nice. If you don't want counterfactuals, don't ask for them.
Obama succeeded in passing something worse than Romneycare. So much easier to pass "reform" when you give the insurance companies everything they want. At least Hillary fought a principled battle and didn't turn the US treasury over to the insurance cos. with very little to show for it.
Obamacare = A boom in Over-The-Counterfactuals.
Dijamo, you've been using counter-factuals all week long. Also fantasy futures. Convoluted "bank shots" through the fog. Bets on the Democrats acting in ways that they have NOT acted in the recent past, like when they had a Republican president.
As far as correcting my incorrect statements, I THANKED you for that, 'member?
Why is it worse?
Hillary FAILED. Remember? A failure that lasted 12 more years. But again, my point here is not to trash Hillary, but to keep a somewhat balanced view. You seem to want to demonize Obama as you beatify Hillary.
Definition of insanity: doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Everything is a "counterfactual" if you never try anything new and just accept that you must support the Democrat no matter what and no matter how far they stray from your belief system. If you're so paralyzed out of fear that you simply can't contemplate doing anything other than what you are doing. You keep running on the same treadmill and getting nowhere. Sure, the Democratic party moving ever further to the right and the GOP also moving further to the right will eventually end up with progressive legislation. Good luck with that.
Okay, thanks for the correction on that.
It seemed to me from the debates that they really only differed on a mandate.
I think many of them voted for Nader because he was on the ballot and they liked what Nader had to say.
Personally, I am starting to find this whole notion of voting for/against somebody as a strategic matter to be pretty nauseating.
It's not only seedy, it (ironically) bids fair to be a bad strategy for Democrats. Leave shitty to the Republicans; we should be winning on FAIR.
You make some very intriguing arguments, Dij, that ultimately cause me to arrive at one conclusion: It increasingly matters not, really, how we choose to vote.
The system is broken and democracy is the furthest thing on the minds of those charged with promoting/overseeing/managing our politics. It is also wholly corrupt. (See Citizens United; Black Box Voting; ALEC; Voter Suppression efforts; Supreme Court appointments and dynamics; etc.)
Your "Vote Romney" remedy is quite curious (as you are aware) and even manages to arouse some logic in its defense as stated here.
But where you really jump the tracks is in your assertion that Clinton was somehow an aberration to what has become the Dem norm. He was no Progressive, but was bought and paid for by Wall Street and Big pHarma and the corporate execs as surely as Obama and the Bushes and Reagan. He was the King of NAFTA and Free-(For-All!) Trade and "Welfare Reform," after all. He was also the darling of Defense contractors and of the whole military industrial complex. Finally, his promotion of the DLC laid the groundwork for a corporately owned Dem Party for generations to come, one that became more concerned about strategically winning elections rather than staking any kind of principles upon which to stand and lead.
I cannot say what the answer to "fixing" this broken system might be. But I am very wary of anyone who argues that it is indeed broken - as you do - who then tells me that it will be different if we simply make another move or selection within the rules of the system as established. Bill Clinton was not and is not the answer. Voting Dem is not the answer. Voting Repub is not the answer. Voting Libertarian or Third Party is not the answer.
What is the answer? I'm not sure. But it begins by getting used to the fact that the present system offers no chance at self-reform. The powers that corrupt it are too powerfully entrenched. Whatever reforms are made will have to be forced from outside. And how that happens and what that looks like is THE topic for discussion we need to be having.
Clinton ran on accepting NAFTA. If you didn't like that position, you had a chance to vote against him. That's democracy. Nonetheless, NAFTA hasn't
In the 90's, exported jobs produced more in-country jobs - it really was a tradeoff in what we could do more efficiently.
Putting scare quotes around "Welfare Reform" is unjustified - he again said what he was going to do, and unluck Republican attempts at things like "Social Security Reform", there was no hidden agenda to gut it. Had welfare rules stayed the way he changed them, it was nice pressure on those long-term to get back in the workforce, and for states to assist.
Re: NAFTA, we export 3 times as much to Mexico as we export to China, and our exports & imports have mostly tracked each other (better through the Clinton years, unsurprisingly, as Bush did his best to piss off all our trading partners, plus he pursued a cheap $ policy that made it harder for Mexico to compete with us). Had we not done NAFTA, much of that production would have just gone to China or elsewhere.
But some people will continue to make Clinton a boogie-man.
Democracy? Not hardly. What was the choice? NAFTA Dem or Laissez Faire Repub? 'nuff said.
I can actually give Clinton some credit for his "Welfare Reform" program. It was not anywhere near as draconian as it might have been under a Repub Admin and Congress. But why Welfare and not "Pentagon Reform?" Or "Labor Reform?" Or "Health Care Reform?" (As opposed to "Health Insurance Industry Profit Enhancement and Protection," which is the same game also played by Obama under the guise of actually doing something on behalf of the consumer.) It kinda' sounds like the same kind of initiative that drove Obama's Bowles-Simpson Catfood Commission. Why let the Repubs have all the fun? Steal their issues away from them and make them your own. It's brilliant, I'm telling you, except that it legitimizes the message that deficit reduction and welfare reform and "competitiveness in a global economy" are exceptionally pressing problems without any argument entertained to the contrary.
It must work, it would seem, as witnessed by the fact that the remainder of your NAFTA argument accepts as gospel the premise of the global economy as a free market and (by inference) labor as just another commodity to be traded globally at its cheapest market valuation.
I, for one, am not a "human resource."
Yes, it was a what-you-see-what-you-get democracy.
It's always a grab bag of issues.
"might have been"? all you have to do is look at Bush's draconian changes to Clinton's welfare reform to see how badly it can suck. but I keep mentioning this, and only Dijamo seems to notice.
Re: "pentagon reform", I believe he cut DoD by about 400,000 jobs and shrunk by about 10%. Health Care Reform he tried - Robert Byrd et al helped blow it up in his face, but he still passed SCHIP. He increased mortgages & home ownership for the poor.
Re: human resources, Clinton didn't fight against the unions. I don't see labor as "just another commodity", but certainly bodies to plug in transistors or disk brakes are fairly interchangeable. In an information age, there has to be more value-add to compete with commodity or low-subsistence sources.
Seems to me Dijamo is arguing that it couldn't suck any more than it does now. And he's putting his faith in a Democratic Congress--is that anywhere near to a sure thing, BTW?--to stop it from getting worse. Don't winning presidents have cottails?
The whole thing is a fellatious argument.
I hope you mean "fallacious" - but given that Bill Clinton and "Presidential coattails" are the topic...
(Sorry, but I couldn't resist!) ;O)
I say what I mean...and I mean what I say.
I put it in there just for you Sleepin'-:) or someone else of equal merit-:)
Are you saying that sometimes a cigar isn't just a cigar?
Yeah, I went there. And I'm not proud of it, but by golly somebody had to make that joke.
Clinton was not perfect, but he never tried to shut down progressive dissent. And that is what I respected about him, even where I disagreed (as with NAFTA).
I too am at a loss about how to solve the sorry state of affairs we are in. What I know is not a solution is the reelection of Barack Obama whose expansion on GWBs moronic and self-defeating war on terror tactics, attacks on civil liberties, and expansion of government secrecy faces no opposition for either party. At least if Romney is elected, I can hope the democrats turn into the party of NO and in the wake of Obama's loss, the Democratic party will be ripe for a takeover.
Here the real US government "kill list". Suicide and unemployment in the Obama-Boehner economy.
And if Romney is elected, if as you hope the Democrats turn into the party of NO - during this time, won't the losses be immediate and more long lasting than any hoped for future, not assured, gain?
SCOTUS tea party/rabid conservative appointees will most likely yield decades of losses to any progressive actions; equality for the majority of our populace will not be secured by legislation or the high court, including women's reproductive and medical needs; separation of church and state will become even less of a reality; the chasm between the 99% and the 1% will widen, i.e. as the 99% pay more taxes and the 1% less; defense/military operations/budgets given greater due than any other; social security and medicare/medicaid programs will be ravaged and multitudes of senior citizens and the poorest will suffer endlessly; healthcare reform of any substance will be non-existent and the list goes on.
If, in the future the Democrats retake the WH, and both houses, it will take decades to even achieve where we are today, and the loss in human lives and wellbeing can never be repaired, much less overcome.
Yeah, let's elect Romney and while at it, don't vote for any Democrat, give 'em majority in both houses too. That will really show President Obama and perhaps even accelerate the process you assert is what is needed to ensure a better future for all.
dijamo, imo, much of your angst and vitriol aimed at all things Obama is mired in your ongoing negative issues stemming from your perception of how HRC was 'treated' in the 2008 election. I'm pretty sure that neither HRC, or her husband, would support your current stances. But, that's just my opinion.
Ya got me. Sure my vitriol for Obama is based on Hillary which is why I canvassed for him, gave money and voted for him in 2008 when the primary issues were still fresh. It has nothing to do with his moderate GOP policies, extremist continuation of GWB policies on civil liberties and terrorism, and his failures way too numerous to name. The difference is I always said I gave my vote away the first time to an untested candidate who did not face serious questioning of his policy platform during the 2008 campaign and in 2012 he would have to earn my vote. he failed miserably. But on the positive side, his moderate GOP policies have won him soooooo much independent and GOP support, you don't need the few progressives like me that cannot fathom the idea of voting for him again.
And as for those dire predictions, hey we survived GWB. Surviving Romney should be much easier. And the responsibility for causing a Mitt Romney presidency lies with President Obama and his failures and those people who support Obama unquestioningly no matter what he does.
I, too, am feeling the urge to rally to the President's flag.
Make haste, Dij! All of us, together, shall make a differrrrrrrrr............
Hey Quinn, Dij, I'm feeling a little weird about this, do you think we should try a different--oh shit.
When Bush took office, he came into a strong economy and a much different world climate. As to the statement, we survived Bush - the reality is many didn't.
I know we are both entrenched in our beliefs and positions in this arena and while I can't understand your logic as to choosing to cast your vote for Romney, I do know we all want the outcome that provides the best future for all.
Yeah, Dijamo, why can't you get over your identity politics to engage your other identity politics?
You know it's not indefinite detention, mortgage theft, timid jobs actions, defending eavesdropping, continuation of war, propping up Wall Street, watering down/corporatizing health care, putting social security on the table, targeted assassination or leaving abortion & contraception unprotected that's bothering you - it's how Hillary was treated on The View. If Mika apologizes, can we all get kissy kissy?
Don't forget the role too, of the Democratic Party elders in creating this popular movement.
Join us, PP!
4 legs good, 2 legs better; all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Baaaah. Baaaaaahhhhhhh...
Please advise what you believe Romney, as POTUS, will do for each of the issues you listed that will be 'better'.
Who said Romney would do anything bettter? Even if he does exactly what Obama would, the Democrats will oppose him where they don't criticize Obama at all.
You mean the way they opposed Bush on two wars...two tax cuts...torture...indefinite detention...rendition?
This is a fantasy, I'm afraid.
They are more likely to oppose Obama when their seats are up and his is not.
This is the core of your argument, and it's weak. Having voted for hope and change, I'm surprised you're still betting on hope.
Without Democratic opposition, Bush would have gone into Iraq without UN new resolution & inspections.
Democrats supported extending tax cut under a D-President & having both houses, so obviously Grover Norquist got to them.
Nevertheless, Democrats opposed privatizing social security in 2005.
And presuming the Democrats figure out that 60-vote veto thing, the Republicans will have to sugar up legislation to attract those 59th & 60th votes from the other side.
It's certainly not perfect - Democrats rubber-stamped continuance of the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, and 23 D-Senators signed onto a weird condemnation of MoveOn for expressing its 1st Amendment rights re: Petraeus (with Obama & Biden weakly abstaining from voting).
Isn't the UN resolution weak tea? So Bush et al fed 'em a bunch of lies and they agreed to say it was okay for him to go on his lie-fueled expedition into Iraq?
And actually, the rest of what you say supports my doubts about fielding a fighting Democratic field to hold back Romney.
Yes, they did stand firm on SS--credit is due.
But the public perception of that issue has moved on. Now, more people believe that SS and all the other "entitlements" are good, but unaffordable.
Ever notice how when a person doesn't want to do something, he'll rather say he can't afford to something? It's a much stronger argument.
"Hey, I'd LOVE to do go with you guys, but I just don't have the money."
This the argument the enemies of SS and Medicare and Medicaid are using now. And here and there, they like to throw in the idea that the recipients of these benefits just don't want to work, are lazy, and are just looking for a hand-out. "Whatever happened to American can-do spirit? You know, the one that built the railroads and bridges and highways?"
This is not a military junta - it's a democracy. If the opposition fights for something and the populace doesn't support them, it fails. If the public wants to support a lying entry into Iraq by 85%-15%, there's not much the back benchers can do.
However the education quality on SS has been horrible - Social Security will not disappear anytime. The Department of Defense doesn't have any revenues, but we don't worry about it running out of money in 2042. In terms of "fixing it", we could do that for much less than the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.
But seeing as Democrats spend much of their time trashing their one presidential success since the half-full/half-empty time of LBJ, it's not surprising the GOP feels it's good strategy to just keep lying. We can't even get anyone to defend SS well on Sunday TV - all the Democrats are buying into the "it's bankrupt" phrasing & mythology. Shameful.
Point made and wowsa, good one!
I don't see how this is responsive to what I'm saying. It seems to be the kind of excuse-giving you deride when Obama and his supporters engage in it.
Yes, SS education is bad...but what is your point? My point is, things have moved on and gotten worse now.
And progressives spend much of their time trashing their sitting president. And indeed that does embolden the Republicans. Right now. Do you think they really care about a discussion about Clinton, for or against? Bill or Hillary?
Overall, it seems to me you're making MY argument that we can't count on a Democratic Congress, that may or may not appear, doing the educatin' and fightin' because, as you say, they've bought into the conservative view.
I care about progressive values, not Democrats. If they happen to be Democrats, fine.
I care about politicians fighting for my values. Yes, they'll sometimes lose, but I'd rather see them fight to kill bad legislation or even just lose, than sign on to some piece of crap I despise in the name of passing something-anything or "breaking gridlock".
I appreciate Occupy Wall Street's effort even though they were ultimately unsuccessful. They did cause a blip of change, coulda done better, probably more effective, but I wasn't out their freezing with them so don't want to criticize them too much.
But how many politicians actively got out & supported OWS? How many have gone to the mat for tough legislation, rather than riding along shuffling papers and taking whatever they give us? I'm glad people are trying to throw out Scott Walker, whether they succeed or not. And I care about electing a progressive Congress, which means we should be visiting downwithtyranny.blogspot.com more and discussing boy wonder for re-election less. Howie's trying to get progressives elected, and it's tough work, especially since they kick progressives off TV, or anyone who doesn't follow the special media rules of how to offer bland pronouncements.
PS - more on Howie & progressives here: http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2012/06/tomorrow-our-future.html
Okay, but counting on Democrats was and is the theory behind why electing Romney would be a good idea. If you can find even a moderate Republican, please let me know. As far as fighting and losing, I prefer to get even a little I can then improve.
As far as the rest goes, I agree. Thanks for the link.
I'm for Progressives therefore I'll vote for a Conservative over a Centrist since a Conservative is no different than a Centrist even though the Conservatives is wooing the wingnuts and not tacking to the Center.
I also know that Ron Paul would stop the wars. I know he would not focus on abolishing woman's reproductive rights and shut down education grants from the government just like Romney.
I know this because I am from the future.
In the past I would have been OK with FDR leaving the majority of women and minorities off the Social Security rolls because I knew that things would be better in the future because I am from the future.
We can't improve on the current health care bill because improvement can't happen. I know this because I am from the future.
Oh, and I hate Obama
.......This is a message from the future
(please note that this is just one of several possible futures......I could be wrong)
If you're from the future, why are you telling us all this now?
You still have time.
I just caught the news update. Things are better. Wow, we would have really been screwed if Romney got elected.
Heres a future scenario to consider
Eventually the citizens will turn violent; having heard and seen enough; that those in power are Self -serving jerks.
Greece falls as does Spain and it sends the world financial system into collapse.
The poor finding that the government has no plan to rescue the peasant class. All the money went to the bankers and the corporations.
Anger and chaos will be uncontrollable, as the plutocracy hides behind its walled fortresses and military rule will be imposed to protect them.
Imagine if the peasants were to discover, America has less than a 90 day supply of food. The Russians and the Chinese already have a contract and have bought the grain.
Gold for a can of corn?
Rebooting
Here's a question: suppose we had a choice between a veto-proof Democratic majority in the House and Senate with Romney as President, or a Republican Congress with Obama as President. Which would you pick?
Good question and hard choice.
Depends on what that Democrat majority looks like.
If the liberals have a firm grip, I might go for it.
But a good chunk of Democrats are always willing to be peeled off because they're always trying to be "reasonable."
So Romney et al would probably stake out a position way to the right and then ask the Democrats to meet them half way.
You weren't askin' me but I'd like to answer. In that scenario, over my adult lifetime, I've learned it's wisest to pick a more liberal Supreme Court every time. For purely self-interest reasons: their interpretations of whatever crazy laws get enacted are what really ends up affecting a lot of us as individuals. The Dem for president is always the way you want it to go. Especially for the young people, who gets on the Supreme Court (and the Federal courts) isn't a joke, no minor thing.
Yes, a shame Obama won't nominate enough people to fill the courts.
And as the article noted, even a recess nomination only lasts 1 year, not a lifetime.
We're screwed. Unless we re-elect Obama!!!! I'll do better next time, honest!!!
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/06/05/report-more-judicial-vacancies-no...
hamstring ...liberal governance for generations?"
Thanks for the link PeraclesP
Excerpt
"Otherwise, we get into a situation where conservatives can bias the law, shut the courthouse door to those who disagree with them politically, and hamstring any hopes of liberal governance for generations."
Obama the Democratic President allowed this? With friends like him who needs Republicans.
Veto proof Demo majority with Romney as President for sure. Romney governs as a moderate Republican and is basically the Republican Obama. He'll want to compromise to get his stuff passed and the compromises would move legislation to the left... as opposed to Obama and a Republican Congress where he would start out with a centrist proposal, allow no progressive input on legislation, give in to the GOPs every whim and declare whatever easly crumbs he got as a victory.
1. In the case of the Supreme Court, Progressives criticized Obama for not putting forth nominees who were Liberal enough. We were told that there would be dire consequences. Thus far Obama's Justices have been fighting the good fight on critical 5-4 decisions. If Romney gets a chance at a Supreme Court nominee, you will not be pleased with the result. Regarding the Supreme Court, I have to vote for Obama and against Romney.
2. Romney is fully behind the Ryan budget. You will not like the results of the budget on the poor and the middle class.
3. Obama is said to be the "puppet of the oligarchs". If Obama is such a willing and pliant stooge Wall street, why are the Kochs, Karl Rove and others poised to spend over $1 billion to replace Obama?
4. Would Romney have passed the Ledbetter Act? No. Would Romney have settled the case involving money owed to black farmers who were discriminated against by the Department of Agriculture? no.Would a Romney AG being looking into voter fraud in Florida? No.
5. The GOP is involved in a nationwide effort to suppress the votes of African-Americans, Hispanics and college students. Would Romney be doing anything to halt this assault? No.
6. The Obama administration fought to decrease to disparity between powder and crack cocaine. They had to fight the GOP to gain any decrease in the penalty. Would Romney have taken a stand against this? No.
7. Would Romney have altered "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?" No.
There is a clear choice between Obama and Romney.
The unprecedented use of the filibuster by the GOP limited much of what could be accomplished.
When you fellow citizens have had things like Gay marriage placed on the ballot, they voted against "other" people having equal rights. The public is fickle. Fights for justice are long draw out affairs.
If nothing else, I don't want Romney to have a shot at choosing the next Supreme.
Hey Doc,
Nice blog. I agree with it 100%.
"Victory moves us forward"
Yes it does. Well done.
The lesson that our political establishment will take away from an Obama loss is that moving to the Left is a losing strategy.
The lesson our political establishment will take away from an Obama victory is that moving to the Right is a winning strategy.
Discuss, but without mentioning either the make-up of the political establishment, or the need to establish a new one.
You have 45 minutes.
See my comment above, Quinn. It is indeed a problem when strategy overtakes principles, especially when there is a reliance upon huge sums of campaign cash involved.
And yes, this comment violates the terms laid out in your third paragraph. After all, what is the "political establishment" if not hundred dollar bills by the pound and pallet.
Time's up.
Close but not quite.
The lesson our political establishment will take away from an Obama victory is that the independent voter is king--which is the same lesson the political establishment takes away from every presidential election with the possible exception of 2004. The pundits will praise Obama for his shrewd appeal to moderates and condemn the GOP for indulging right wing ideologues.
But if the trend of the last three decades continues, the ultimate effect will still align with your prediction. The Democrats will adhere slavishly to swing-voter theory and move right. The GOP will ignore the pundits and continue to cannibalize its own moderates. And the nation will continue its slow scrabbling slide down the right side of the ravine.
Yes. And we will continue to vote Democratic.
However - like making pies - it can be a more or less joyful and fulfilling experience.
Also, fuck cake. I think I said that already.
Do you think it's JUST theory, or is there some foundation for the theory in fact?
Is there good reason to think the theory is not true--say, moving further left would be more successful?
OK, I'll have to remember all this when I vote next week.
Who is the "political establishment"? David Brooks? Clarence Page? The WSJ editorial page? Who cares what narratives or lessons they take away?
I completely concur.
Moreover, seeing how progressives so thoroughly screwed up in Wisconsin, the notion that they can put together a winning ticket on a national stage in 2016 (with regions and media more thoroughly hostile to their agenda) seems pretty far fetched. Maybe if the progressives had some significant leadership in the DNC or something along those lines.
The reality is that liberal/moderate centrists and the conservatives are the dominant packs on the national political stage. The progressives can only stand and sidelines and hope to get a word in now and then.
A person is a fool if they think having Romney in bully pulpit (for what it's worth) is going to further the cause of moving the country's political discourse in the correct direction.
Truly remarkable analysis. Especially when followed with
You can have it one way, Trope. Or you can have it the other. But to claim the failures of the Dems are the fault of the Progressives and then criticize the Progressives for not having any positions in control of the Dems is not even logical, let alone apt.
Truly remarkable.
Mind you when Scott Walker falls and progressives land a major blow in Wisconsin, cowardly lead from behind Obama will be crawling over people to take credit for it even though he sat on his hands this whole time (and Trope will be right behind him, as usual).
The Guardian's view.
If you weren't so blinded by your desire to prove me wrong - you might see that this is in part exactly what I am point out.
First off - you have this reality:
And he is winning in the polls. If progressives can't leverage this situation in Wisconsin to get some kind of progressive movement going, do they stand a chance in places like Indiana, Ohio, Florida and North Carolina?
The progressives don't have any significant leverage on a national scale, and therefore the Party as a whole has backed away from this fight. Exactly. And yet there is some kind of dream of taking the Party back from the moderates, centerists, and conservatives in the Party in time to achieve victory in 2016? Please.
And here is another little bit of reality for the short term - the other side is going to outspend the progressives, just like in Wisconsin. That is the current playing field. One can say that this reality doomed the efforts of the progressive in Wisconsin, that they didn't screw up an good opportunity. Or one, such as myself, can say that if there was an opportunity for the progressive citizens of Wisconsin (members of the D party or not, inside or outside the party structure) to come together and do something for their state it was now - and if they had been effectively focused I believe they could have been victorious. That is my opinion as someone not in Wisconsin.
Was I offering some deep analysis? No. You don't like the conclusion I have drawn so you make some quip about it being some attempt at deep analysis. It is one sentence. Just as I intended it to be.
And here is something to consider - when I refer to progressives in the first part, I am including those who operate within the party system and those operate outside it. There are progressives within the both the Wisconsin Democratic Party and the national Democratic Party. Some are elected politicians, some not.
Obviously when you are talking about Progressives, they are different beasts than those of the Democrats. I am talking about those who are working for a progressive agenda. Some don't affiliate themselves as a member of Democratic Party, others do.
So...progressives in Wisconsin, working from within and from without the Democratic Party could not get focused enough to leverage the recall into a victory (if all the current polls indicate the outcome). This same kind of alliance would need to occur, but only on a national scale, if progressive-minded individuals would be able to achieve victory in the primary season (not to mention general election) if progressives have a hope of getting their candidate on the ticket in 2016.
Progressives would need, in part, assistance, rather than resistance, from the party structure, like the DNC. Yet it doesn't look like there are many progressive-minded individuals within the power structure at the current moment. I am sorry this kind of reality makes you upset. But rather than trying to find some way to twist what I write so you don't have to face this reality, you should be focusing on viable paths to improving things.
Yo Trope! I'm really happy for you that the progressives in Wisconsin are gunna lose, and Imma let you finish, but here's a thing you're too dull to get, but mebbe this time, so I'll say it again - things change.
Yeah.
In politics, things change.
Teams that lose, can win.
Yeah.
So.... you just ROCK ON in Indiana. Yeah. Hell man, you must be like David Essex to those people.
David Fuckin' Essex.
okay just lost everything i wrote so condensed version
1. seriously, f you
2. your criticism of me is just like Rush and the others who criticized the Left for taking glee in the predicted implosion of violence and death of Iraq
3. I do what I can on a grassroots level to help those in poverty and change the political scene that will most likely vote f'ing Pence in as f'ing governor.
4. I take no glee in Walker victory. But one could see this coming - even though i never made a prediction to that end. The movement, in places like Wisconsin and even more so in places like Indiana are shaky. PR is everything. This is a freaking disaster and didn't have to be. If the progressives had the obvious candidate in the wings maybe. But they couldn't even get around a single candidate in the beginning. And one just had to know the 1% wasn't going to sit idly by.
5. You my friend are Chris Gaines. Yes, indeed.
No, the 1% didn't sit idly by - they pumped over $10 million into the effort from out-of-state.
And the recall effort only lost by <7% (i.e. a shift of 3.5% would have won), and they got record turnout to a June election.
Did progressives make mistakes? Quite possibly. Would Obama's presence have helped? Quite possibly. But not every movement has an obvious leader -( Occupy Wall Street never rounded that bend, and our current class of Democratic leaders with serious values + charisma + a future is quite limited)
But they fought. They at least forced the right to pull out its checkbook and defend an incumbent for overreach - next time the effort will be more organized, next time an incumbent will think harder about anti-union efforts & power grabs.
Are there silver linings to be found. Of course.
But the reaction is - we fought, therefore no critiques or criticisms are allowed. To do so is Slander!
And there is no guarantee the effort will be more organized the next time. It might be, but it is just as likely that there will be finger pointing etc in the aftermath that will leave the progressives as a group more fragmented than when they started. Losing tends to do that to liberals and conservatives alike - one reason why one tries to pick ones battles wisely.
And the other side will definitely think harder about their anti-union efforts and power grabs, and try to be more slick about it. But chances are the outcome just proves to them that if Wisconsin is like this in 2012, the unions' power is on the wane nationally.
See my comment elsewhere. Really disappointed in your doom and gloom response to this AT. You think it's so profound for you to rest on the fact that "unions are on the wane nationally", or that the right-wing of this country will be energized by that that given. Please. And therefore what? You fight when you have to, and you're right AT, sometimes, nay often, we friggin' lose. But we live to fight another day. And this was a good fight, and our brothers and sisters out there in the Wisconsin that I love so much will be stronger because of this. I for one, who lives in the labor movement, am so gosh darn proud of the folks for the fight they waged. And guess what, they weren't fighting on a level-playing field--try it some time; it's the story of my life and, more importantly, it is the story of the folks I am so fortunate to work for every day.
I guess this helps me understand why some folks have such an aversion to pulling the lever for Obama, because people like you and me are too often so incapable of offering anything resembling hope or solidarity or anyhing for that matter, except for flowery and mind-numbing prose.
If the President showed some support for the unions, perhaps it could shift votes 3.5% like his limited statement on gay marriage.
Instead, all I remember was Rahm saying about Arkansas "you flushed your money down the toilet". So much for embracing primary democracy.
And presumably re-calling a politician in an off election is more difficult than defeating him in November.
Maybe you just need to come to terms with the idea that there are a number of otherwise liberal people who just feel that the unions of today have become more of a barrier to fixing things than part of the solution. Note: I am not one of them. Instead of blaming Obama, maybe the attention should be how to reach these potential allies.
I thought these folks supported Obama bigtime - no love back?
If the exit poll is to be believed: 60% of the Wisconsin voters believe recall elections are only appropriate for official misconduct and 9% think they are never appropriate. Would seem that it wouldn't sit right with the People of Wisconsin, generally speaking, for the President of the United States of America to come and spend time involving himself with Wisconsin politics. Sometimes PP politicians play and strategize like politicians.
Obama always strategizes like a politician. Even Nov 2008 he wouldn't help campaign in a runoff against Saxby-Chambliss - too partisan for a Democrat to act like a Democrat.
PP,
Here's where I confront the problem with using my real name at times. But let me try to be general. I think about every major labor union and probably 2/3 of the union families in this country (who will vote) will support Obama. Turnout is definIitely an issue. I was at the annual conference of union lawyers two weeks ago and Obama had his team there to show the colors big time. Believe me, Obama's folks understand labor's disappointment in the president on many fronts. He didn't push EFCA (despite the success and fairness of a similar system by our brothers and sisters up in Canada), and he's not doing a great job appointing judges below the Supreme Court level. And the economy sucks. But he's appointed one helluva NLRB, his DOL appointees rock, and in the daily reality of that mind-numbing bureaucratic mishigash in DC, he's the guy for the labor movement. We'll see.
Alright, thanks for assessment.
Obama throws us a bone?
“Board Members are appointed by the President to 5-year terms, with Senate consent, the term of one Member expiring each year.”
http://local1433.tripod.com/id14.html
At the end of 5 years, the conservatives will again have the upper hand?
Couple that with Obamas lackluster appointments, of Federal Judges, it's clear in the long run, when looking at the big picture; Obama serves the conservative agenda.
He gives us bones in the short term, in order to get reelected?
Maybe you are right that this is one of the good fights within the larger war that needed to be fought, regardless of the outcome. I might come to see that down the road. But not all good fights have to be fought, especially when we are not playing on a level playing field. And it seems from my perspective at this moment this was one specific strategy that should have been put on the shelf.
I would say that my work has me dealing with those living below the poverty line (many of them former union workers whose factories shut down)- talk about not having a level playing field.
And I would say that real solidarity allows for bickering debates and criticisms. We should be able to hear - "oh, you screwed up there" - and then move on to the next fight. We shouldn't have to feel the compulsion to always present some image of a group hug 24/7.
Agreed on just about everything you write here AT. . .I think. And just because you raised my BP it doesn't mean I don't luvs ya!
luv ya too, dude.
I think this is a false move, AT.
You suggest that this fight shouldn't have been fought, but I don't see why not.
What did we lose--how did the cause get set back--by fighting?
Perhaps mistakes were made that can be corrected in the future. But to suggest that the fight shouldn't have been joined...you have to show me why. I don't see it.
Given Walker's egregious sins...given his corruption...given what we had him on tape saying to a billionaire supporter...given all the grassroots energy...given Wisconsin's historic role in the rise of unions...not fighting would have been perverse. Bystanders would have said, "Well, if even they aren't going to fight for themselves, something must really have been wrong with them."
You know the Talmudic saying: "If you're not for yourself, who will be? And if not now, when?" This really applies here.
Stepping back, I agree that the role of unions and their reputations need repair. Lots of average people, most of whom have never been represented by a union and have no understanding of unions, have accepted the "common wisdom" about unions as corrupt, anti-democratic destroyers of otherwise viable companies.
They think that unions protect bad, lazy teachers who are destroying their kids' futures by their incompetence.
So...THAT does need to be addressed. I agree.
But Americans also love underdogs who fight back. And given the amount of money that poured in to quash the recall, I think we did pretty well. Especially given that a lot of people just don't like the idea of recalling people who've been elected, even if they wouldn't vote for the person the first or second time.
The anti-union forces will be emboldened by this. So the pro-union forces need to be emboldened by this. This is key.
One reason indicated by the exit polls linked to by Flavius, and maybe hiring some pollsters beforehand would have shown this clearly: most of those voting don't believe this was an appropriate use of the recall vote. Given the high turnout - this is probably a good indicator of how people in Wisconsin feel in general about it.
The question is what are one's objectives. The first of course was recall Walker. That wasn't successfully achieved of course. But there are other objectives. One is to give voice to one's discontent and anger. Another is to rally the people on your side of the issue, get them passionate and pumped, so to say. This would lead to another question: are those objectives possible to achieve using some other strategy besides the recall.
From what I have read, the recall has also energized the conservative anti-union forces in Wisconsin, got them to get themselves more organized, just in time for the election in the fall.
Moreover, it provides the opportunity for Walker and his forces to stand in the media limelight and take a victory lap, to spew all their spin about unions and government and the economy.
It is receiving national attention - so this victory lap and all this spin is going nationwide. One of the image problems unions have is about their effectiveness. Losing to Walker doesn't help this image. Many of those who in the middle about unions (neither passionately for or against) are not going to get the nuance about how much Walker's side spent compared to the Democratic side.
So the question is whether to fight Walker - but whether the recall itself should have been the focus of the fight. Like I said maybe it was a battle worth fighting even given a loss. But the PR ripples from this seem to outweigh whatever benefits that came from fighting the fight - a perspective from someone who is not in Wisconsin.
[One little exit poll number from Flavius' link - 31% of those from union households do not have a favorable view of unions. So it isn't just those who have no exposure to unions.]
Good points and things to think about.
Maybe better to unseat Walker in the next election and work to give him a Democratic state legislature.
The "union thing" is a big topic, but they have suffered a lot, both in dwindling numbers and in their "image" among a wide range of voters. It's really a shame.
"Ten thousand times has the labor movement stumbled and fallen and bruised itself, and risen again; been seized by the throat and choked and clubbed into insensibility; enjoined by courts, assaulted by thugs, charged by the militia, shot down by regulars, traduced by the press, frowned upon by public opinion, deceived by politicians, threatened by priests, repudiated by renegades, preyed upon by grafters, infested by spies, deserted by cowards, betrayed by traitors, bled by leeches, and sold out by leaders, but notwithstanding all this, and all these, it is today the most vital and potential power this planet has ever known, and its historic mission of emancipating the workers of the world from the thraldom of the ages is as certain of ultimate realization as is the setting of the sun."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
Sold out by leaders, who only want labors votes, at election time
To bad they only let leaders vote in Wisconsin. They should change that let everyone vote.
I suspect there might be a legitimate case made that in Wisconsin, as elsewhere, it's in fact too bad that they let the leaders COUNT the vote. But that is a whole different issue which would make all your prattle about strategery and tactics a mere child's game intended to keep you occupied, so to speak.
Thanks, Bruce. I guess the real question is: "Where would we be if we always waited to defend ourselves until the outcome was first assured in our favor?"
I awoke today thinking of Eugene Debs:
Amen Sleepin'. Amen.
Your pompous playing with the English language to avoid responsibility for a slander is duly noted. But when you are all done, can you please explain the difference within this context between "conclusion" and "analysis?"
Yeah, I thought so.
And before you go making any more
analysisconclusions about Wisconsin's fight, would you care to perhaps consider how a $25/$1 spending disadvantage might influence any campaign, regardless of whether or not the DNC, DLC, KKK, or even the fucking Knights of Columbus are involved?No? I thought so. Sit up a little straighter, Trope. That armchair is about to swallow you whole.
The spending disadvantage is a real disadvantage.
How to address it?
The thing about money is you can send it off to war while you stay home and keep earning more.
If all you have is bodies to throw into the fight, your side gets chewed up pretty badly sooner or later.
One piece of the puzzle is to assemble a cadre of Progressive Fat Cats like that billionaire software guy whose name escapes me.
To be matched by specific small donor goals: 1 million people giving $5 each, etc., toward a war chest.
One other issue may also be working against us: Liberals have a million causes. I'm not sure that's true of conservatives whose one main cause is "stop this shit."
So people's capital gets diluted and diffused.
You made this comment - "truly remarkable analysis" after just quoting one part of one sentence I wrote.
In other words, all those parts and interrelationships that occurred over time in Wisconsin was reduced to this sentence fragment you quoted. In the comments I have made since, I had added some of the my analysis which would lead me to the conclusion that the progressives screwed up in Wisconsin, which adds to the other conclusion - progressives aren't going to achieve much by 2016.
Of course, the amount of money being spent is a factor. It proves my point! (and by this I mean, the progressives should have assumed this was going to be the case when they chose to take the extra step of going for the recall, especially since the national party had not shown any real inclination of joining the fight in any significant way) For progressives, they are always going to be on the losing end of that battle in the near future. That is as I have said the playing field. Do you think it will be any different in the next couple of years as the progressive try to take on President Romney? But I'm just some big a-hole for pointing out the hopes of winning in 2016 with a progressive candidate is pie in the sky when we all know should one make it to the ticket, there is going to be something worse than $25/$1.
Or maybe you think the 1% are just going to sit back and watch a real progressive take charge of the White House?
"Conclusion" versus "analysis" Trope. Go ahead. It's your turn. Actually, "analysis that would lead to the conclusion" comes pretty close. And again, your slander is duly noted and had nothing to do with "I'm just some big a-hole for pointing out the hopes of winning in 2016 with a progressive candidate is pie in the sky when we all know should one make it to the ticket, there is going to be something worse than $25/$1. "
You owe an apology to one hell of a lot of truly hard-working progressives in Wisconsin. But don't bother. You and your armchair pundits are of no real consequence anyway.
I owe no one an apology - i can commend the progressives for working hard, but they took an opportunity with one of the worst GOP governors in a state like Wisconsin and turned it into a boondoggle: that is screwing things up in my opinion. how much energy went into this that could be directed toward something that didn't provide the Right with a victory lap on a national scale and mobilized the ground forces in Wisconsin, making this state all the more difficult in 2012. It is your state, you can do what you want - but don't expect everyone to just see what is happening there and just say "thanks for working so hard." This has consequences on a national scale.
It is astounding that you calculate what will be your response to injustice and an attack on rights and liberties by how easilt or difficult it will be to prevail. Says a lot about your degree of courage and moral iny=tegrity Trope. More than you can understand, I'm sure.
And yet, again, Sam Adams
I'm done here. I got work to do.
if that make you feel better and righteous - all the more power to you. maybe you should put those in some motivational posters and put them on your wall. that will do a lot toward helping feed the poor.
AT,
I don't have much time, because the unions I am so friggin' proud of and truly and repeatedly humbled to represent and speak for every day of my professional life don't lick their wounds for very long. The fight in Wisconsin is over but it goes on. Somewhere in one of your comments you called the Wisconsin battle a "public relations" fight involving unions. Respectfully, and I do respect you greatly and generally agree with you, but you are so off base this time that you raised my blood pleasure, and you are wrong.
The unions led this fight because they had to. We lose lots of fights and it always hurts, but sometimes the fight is necessary and not sufficient. Do you have any idea of what Governor Walker has done for the cause of collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin, and by extension the country?
You lick your wounds, you fight the good fight, and you live to fight another day. I think your response to Wisconsin is sort of one size fits all and I don't buy it. And I bet you the folks out there--after the shock and disappointment--will be pumped and ready more than ever.
Remember, when you're tilting back one or two this Saturday, thank the labor movement--we're the folks who brought you that weekend, and it didn't happen overnight.
I appreciate the work that you do and I do appreciate what the unions have achieved for workers.
When I talk about it being a PR battle, in part what is in my head are the times I hear the otherwise bleeding heart liberals around me bad mouth the unions, or more specifically the union workers. I would posit that most of these people will agree whole heartedly that in the past the unions were able to achieve great things.
Many of these people are like those in Wisconsin who voted for Walker and will vote for Obama come November. They see the unions as a barrier to compromise and getting a broken system fixed because they are unwilling to negotiate, etc etc. That doesn't make it true, but getting through to these people is a huge key if organized labor is going to start winning significantly in the coming years.
In other words, the battle the pro-union forces are fighting is just with the conservatives, it is also with a segment of the liberal constituency. Until these liberals are won over, there is little hope of gaining ground against the conservatives in the public discourse arena.
Well, the polling in Wisconsin seems to be VERY pro-Obama. So if your worry is about 2012, I don't see it.
Beyond that, maybe you can show us a fight that should have joined instead of this one. IOW, put some specifics to:
Problem is, I think ALL of these fights are going to have national implications if only because that is what the right is going for. They aren't going for obscure victories that no one knows about. They want a very public rout of progressives, liberals, Democrats.
So, by looking for fights that don't provide the Right with the opportunity for a national victory lap, you are depriving the left of the same opportunity and you may end up fighting fights that aren't all that important.
and sometimes it is about organizing and not getting into a open air fight with the other side. energy and money spent on the recall could have been spent recruiting and developing networks. less glamorous, but critical. boxers spend most of their time training for a fight, rather than fighting a fight.
I totally agree that all of these fights have national implications (even global). I totally agree that the other side wants, craves, a very public rout of progressives, liberals and Democrats. And they have more resources at the ready then the progressives, liberals and Democrats as the Walker recall clearly shows.
Sometimes the correct thing to do is fight the fight even one is going to get routed over and over again. Sometimes the correct thing to do is back off, get organized and prepare to fight another day. Like say in the fall of 2012 when Wisconsin progressives and liberals could hand to Walker a state Congress dominated by those who opposed him.
Maybe fighting this fight will strengthen the liberals and progressives hand for the upcoming election. I happen to be of the opinion this is not the case when all the dust settles.
From a national scale: Even if Obama wins Wisconsin, I just don't see how this would have any significant impact of (1) getting someone who would otherwise vote for Romney to vote for Obama or (2) getting more liberals to the voting booth than conservatives. As I pointed out, it is has fired up the conservative base as much as it has fired the liberal base. And now there is less likelihood politicians nationally, esp in the swing states and districts, are going to be volunteering to push the union issue.
But isn't it more than possible that this fight created a vibrant network that could easily turn its attention to what you say here?
I, too, found your case persuasive.
Well, there you are. The data doesn't lie.
Nice to see you take some of your mental resources and apply them to me. See my response to Sleepin above. I realize it is difficult to face the reality of power structures within political systems, or when those aligned with one's paradigm fail to act effectively, but you've got to try.
Of course you must hope that progressives fail in Wisconsin for your truths to be progressives are powerless to be correct. And, as always, you do. You root for violence from OWS to get them off the streets. You complain about progressives not taking direct action within local government until people take direction and then you mock them.
FYI - Despite Obama's DNC being less than supportive (only helping with the ground game and logistics so he can have a "test run" for November - selfish as always), progressives are thisclose to pulling it out. Win or lose, they've shown their power and dedication to the cause. I think they'll win. And tonight after we win (fingers crossed), your analysis will change to how this was such brilliant action by progressives led by the wonderful Barack Obama.
And of course the lesson to that there are not progressives int he leadership of the DNC is to put progressives in leadership at teh DNC. Hard to do with Barack Obama in power. Thanks for validating my strategery :)
Yeah, look how the progressives took over during the Bush years. What was stopping them during the days when Bush had 35% approval ratings? Where were the great progressive politicians stepping up and taking the national spotlight?
Do you think if Obama loses, the people at the DNC now are just going to walk away?
The reality is that it will take years and years for progressives to have a significant power. Just like it took the forces of the far Right to seize control of the Republican Party.
You can do it with Obama in power and you can do it without him in power. The notion that somehow his loss in 2012 will magically open the doors to the progressives is, well, naive.
And Rush and others on the Right said the Left hoped in Iraq that soldiers would be killed and chaos fill the streets, that they took glee as the violence increased over there because it served their political agenda back home.
You don't want to look at what I have to say so you make up this stuff about me rooting for violence with OWS. Make the bringer of the message a bad, bad person and you don't have to look at the message.
I don't mock someone just because I don't agree with their politics - something you seem to be doing. I criticized certain facets of the OWS movement - but maybe you think OWS shouldn't look at the mirror.
When OWS has achieved success, I acknowledge that. But where is it now? Pretty much where I said it would be, and in my opinion, for the reasons I gave.
I have in no way attempted to say that the progressives weren't dedicated to their cause. This isn't about dedication. Or passion or vision.
It is about effectively achieving one's objectives in the short-term, so as to be able to achieve one's objectives in the long-term.
It doesn't matter how close one comes to defeating Walker - a victory for him will be spun as a victory for his agenda. A major, major step back in the struggle within the political discourse of this country. High fiving over the how committed everyone is as some kind of moral victory, while Walker goes on the television and gives his victory speech is exactly the thing this blog is warning against.
And nice way to finish this off by telling me how I would analyze a victory should it come despite what the polls are saying. (is it possible -sure, but if the polls were reversed and someone was saying Walker was going to be victorious, I am sure you would have some choice words for them).
I have stated the national leadership, including Obama, have stayed away from this fight. In fact, I have argued that Obama should keep a distance from it - it was a Wisconsin political fight. So I would not come back and say that it was a victory for Obama should it happen.
Victories are ALWAYS spun by the winners. This is natural. On both sides.
Even a narrow Walker win can be spun as, "Look at how much out of state blah, blah, blah was spent to defeat me. Look at all those folks who were bussed in. Look at Bubba working the crowds. Even Bubba couldn't defeat the people of Wisconsin when they spoke out against the oppressive influence of unions."
The power of prescience.
Nice of you to point this out. You might also notice I used the words: "I think." "(Fingers crossed.)" Acknowledging the very very tough fight ahead, andhoping against hope that the moderate / centrists who demand progressives fall in line for their priorities (President Obama) would return the favor. As usual they (just like their leader) didn't show up to fight. It's so understandable these moderate/centrist democrats found recall elections so boorish and impolite and it offended their sensibilities.
Well you know what offends my fucking sensibilities? Drone attacks, presidentially ordered assassinations (not only, but particularly for American citizens, and particularly for American citizens that are 16 years old), shitty healthcare reform, lavish bank bailouts with minimal aid to homeowners, really I could go on... and in fact just did to the unfortuate OFA caller who called me for must be 15th time in a month even though I've asked, begged, demanded to be removed from the list. So centrists /moderates that can never be counted on to back the progressive wing of the party shouldn't expect my support in return in November.
Well, if you want to a-parsing...
"I think they will win" is a lot stronger than "I hope they will win." But honestly, I don't care. Point is, thinking and hoping something will happen isn't the same as knowing it will or would have.
You seem to think "moderates" and "progressives" are groups that somehow make decisions like individuals and decide together to screw or support each other.
I don't. Morever, even there were a "moderate group" that could "demand" things, they have no power to make progressives do anything.
I've heard various people making the case for voting for Obama. Then others, who style themselves progressives, saying things like, "Don't count on us to save your ass come November."
Well, okay, "you" didn't save "our" ass in 2010, so I hardly think "you're" capable of saving it in 2012, even if you wanted to.
In fact, progressive presidential candidates, like Nader or Kucinich or Jill Stein, get so few votes in the scheme of things, all I can assume is, either 1) there aren't many progressives, or 2) they don't know, or care, much about getting progressives elected. IOW, progressives can't count on progressives.
So, if it's a fact that "moderates" decided to stay home or vote for Walker, maybe they were "saying": Don't expect us to save your ass when you choose a dumbshit strategy that depletes resources, emboldens conservatives, gives Walker a platform, and is likely to fail, when there is a far more effective way to get rid of Walker and protect unions.
But I actually don't know what "moderates" were saying and neither do you, even though you assume you do.
(And just so we don't fly off the rails, this was NOT my position. I supported the recall and gave them a lot of money.)
Bill Clinton, who is the epitome of "moderate Democrat," Third Way DLCer, was up there "fighting." But according to a Guardian article posted by Qbert, two progressive mouthpieces, his big message was commity between business and unions--hardly the Ohio State fight song or anything similar. More like Kumbaya, which actually was originally a pretty strong protest song.
Anyway, Dijamo, go ahead and put your plan into action. Recruit others to your cause. I've told you why I think it's a bad idea. And I've wished you good luck. But please don't misrepresent our exchange as my "forcing" or "demanding" you do anything. I've given you what I think are strong arguments against it. You've come back with what you think are strong arguments for it. So, zei gezunt.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 79, Antonin Scalia is 76, Anthony Kennedy will be 76 in July, Stephen Breyer will be 74 in August.
Do you trust Romney to choose the next Supreme Court Justice?
Also, for some historical perspective, FDR authorized the internment of the Japanese and the initial Social Security Act did not include most women and minorities.
For fuck's sake, the initial Social Security Act didn't exclude women & minorities - it specified particular job sets that would participate in the program, typically industrial work. As most of the nation was self-employed small farming, asking broke farmers to pay more for later retirement was a non-starter.
Any minorities on the payroll in steel mills got Social Security. Women who were married to steel workers got covered by Social Security, including at some point life insurance for themselves & their kids.
FDR's initial plan did not provide the extent of coverage we have today . Using the criteria you use now for Obamacare, you would have labeled Social Security a failure. So we can either use the initial baby steps found in legislation like Social Security as a nidus for further, or we can just complain about the weakness of a bill.
In order to get the votes of Southern Democrats, FDR bowed to pressure and specifically excluded jobs where many blacks were employed. The New Deal created the Agricultural Adjustment Agency which allowed white landowners to get paid more for leaving land untilled. 100K black sharecroppers were forced off the land as a result.
Blacks who were trying to buy houses in white areas could not get government backed mortgages.
obama is not the great ogre being depicted if we use FDR as a barometer.
We already had baby steps - Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP I & II, plus the Schedule D prescription drug benefit (Bush's unpaid add-on). And we had attempt #1 at full health care behind us for learning experience.
As for sharecropping & the rest, I'll leave that to you.
You said that FDR did not specifically exclude blacks in the Social Security Act. You were wrong.
FDR made a compromise deal with racist Southern Democrats. Obama has to compromise with his wingnut laden GOP.
Show me where it says "blacks are ineligible for Social Security"
The current "Progressive" argument about Obamacare is that it is not universal. The initial Social Security Act was constructed so that the agricultural jobs that employed most blacks (about 75% of black workers) were excluded.
There was an argument at the time that the bill did not go far enough.It seems that you are suggesting that the compromise bill was just fine. Clinton failed to get a health care bill passed and you are upset that Obama could not get Universal Health Care passed.
Are you hopeful that the Supremes overturn the health care bill, pull people who are being covered off so that we can start from scratch to get your "fantasized" Universal Health Care bill in short order.
Did FDR fall short? Did Bill Clinton fall short? Or did only Obama fall short?
Show me where it says "blacks are ineligible for Social Security"
Gee, I guess de facto discrimination never happened.
If you're going to slime FDR for leaving blacks out of Social Security, you should hint at the mechanisms & reasons.
If it's that the most obvious place to start Social Security was for industrial professions that didn't have as many blacks....
Vs. a specific deal that pinpointed black professions and cut them out of the legislation...
Which was it?
LBJ discriminated against women. He wrote a piece of legislation abut the military, which didn't have women at the time. See how easy that sloppy logic is?
Nowadays, they're call pathetic excuses, PP.
The point is, an incomplete, insufficient, inadequate, but worthwhile bill was passed and later improved. That's the core argument.
But in general, FDR did compromise with the southern Democrats to get his agenda passed. That doesn't make him a racist, but it does make him a pragmatist.
Sure, it had nothing to do with the viability of collecting taxes from people that were basically self employed. http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n4/v70n4p49.html. the exclusion was racially motivated because RMRD says so despite providing no factual basis for his claim.
http://en.wikivisual.com/index.php/Social_Security_%28United_States%29
Yeah. That Obama's a regular FDR. Yessirree.
Dude's punching holes in Social Security and doesn't seem able to figure out Keynesian economics. Same as FDR.
Only difference is.... Obama's had 80 years to study the lessons of what FDR had to figure out on the fly.
Except that the stimulus, the first thing he did, was Keynesian.
He was advised on the size by Mr. Clinton's former advisor, Larry Summers, who now says we need more (which we do).
Turns out, he should have listened to Christine Romer and Goolsbee.
Right, Larry Summers told him $800 billion was the max, and to make it 1/3 tax cuts? And to make half of it kick in the following year?
You're playing games with our heads. He could have listened to Paul Krugman, only cost $2 a day, better than all that fancy pants Harvard advice.
I'm not playing any games at all.
The fact is, it was a Keynesian response. The label doesn't imply any particular amount of stimulus, and clearly folks disagreed.
He could have listened to Krugman or any number of people--so what? He could have hired Krugman, but he didn't. Coulda, woulda, shoulda is your entire critique.
Normally, you love all things Clinton, and Summers is a thing Clinton. Perhaps he should've hired Rubin, too. But it's true, he coulda not hired summers and hired Krugman. Or Stiglitz. Or...whatever.
I especially love how your quote says some have suggested the agricultural and domestic workers were excluded because of southern pact(citation needed) because there's no contemporaneous source documents to support that allegation. as opposed the very clear record that a New Yorker Sec of treasury morgenthau proposed the exclusion because it was unmanageable to administer. 74% of the excluded population was white. Whole lot of white folk impacted just to racistly discriminate against the 23% black population excluded. just because there is a disparate impact does not mean it was intent ends to discriminate by race.
1) Women benefited the most from social security because most weren't employed in those days, yet they received retirement benefits for their husbands - with longer expected lifetime - plus life insurance to help them & their kids if something happened to him.
2) As DJ says, most of this didn't cover self-employed - "I'm taxing myself twice so I will have something for retirement in 30 years, except I'm going out of business now as it's the depression" - that would make sense. Nor were part-time workers included, which has often been the case with pension programs.
3) State government workers were not included because of constitutional questions about taxing the state.
4) Non-profits were not included, so I imagine many of the exemptions were based on assumptions about the organizations' ability to pay.
5) Domestic workers were poorly paid to begin with, and much of this was under the table. If they had formalized the pay system with SS, the result would have been more unemployment, not contributions, as the pay was from individual home owners at height of the depression, not companies (even now, wealthy people skip SS payments on domestic workers). Putting SS on domestic workers such as maids would have had more negative impact on women and minorities, as these were often jobs taken for home spending money, while the male worked the more traditional jobs in factories, et al.
While assumptions of non-working women are de facto sexist, it was the norm for the time as well. Unemployment was also 25% when passed at the heart of the depression, with 44% rural population in 1930. First payments didn't come out until 1940. Corrections were made to the system in 1950, which would include observations from the post-war economy, changes in gender & racial situations, increased urbanization (64%), etc.
You are working overtime to make excuses that you wouldn't be making for Obama.
A vote for either candidate is the worst thing we can do; were trapped.
“What neo-liberal policies have achieved is to reduce wages for working Americans, reduce the proportion of Americans working, and shift the balance of corporate revenue away from workers and into corporate profits. ..........Large corporations have been able to repay their debts because they are keeping an increasing proportion of corporate revenues that had previously been paid to labor in wages. The banks survived because they received several trillion dollars in free money in the bailouts. They continue to survive on government guarantees and economic predation. .......Third, the anti-democratic nature of these reforms .......Not only did economic reformers put policies into place designed to drive wages and employment security down, they did so on a global scale and through mechanisms specifically designed to undermine existing democratic institutions. Many of the trade agreements passed by un-elected officials behind closed doors supercede national policies and once passed are very difficult to reverse
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/06/01/getting-dazed-and-confused-with-paul-krugman/
Corporatism, snuck right in
"Not to much longer and democracy will be extinct too"
So we should all give up?
What is your solution?
ALL?
The people are like crabs, in a boiling pot of water, being prepared to be devoured, and you think I got a plan to get you all out.
Should I scream "Hey you. inside the pot; get out while you can, before it's too late?"
"If you're not in the pot ......RUN"
"Look out for the traps"
Short of reboot, I don't know what else we can do.
If you want to survive longer, don't get into the container?
Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty?
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry
Given that the voting public is divide about 45-45% with about 10% undecided (so-called independents) who will be in charge after a reboot?
WE THE PEOPLE and not corporations.
Did you read the link I provided, about agreements made in private, in order to corrupt the democratic process?
Sigh,
Given a political split down the middle, who will cast the deciding vote?
Which groups wishes get overridden?
We do not all agree.
comment deleted.
Resistance,
I'm curious - specifically what is your plan? What are your thoughts on what we should be doing? I get the sense you aren't supportive of either candidate for POTUS, so do you believe we shouldn't expend our time and energy by campaigning for and/or voting for either/any in the upcoming elections?
If so, what do you believe we should be doing that would yield better/more productive results?
Thanks.
Win or lose; the tea party is gearing up for war.
How many extremists have been busted in the last few years by our diligent government looking for homegrown terrorists?
For starters, You might consider buying a hand gun for personal protection and get proficient at using it.
Assad of Syria has proven, the one with the most and the biggest guns, prevails.
The tea baggers are way ahead of the sheeple in this respect.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way of judging of the future but by the past........It is vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, peace! But there is no peace. The war is actually begun!
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry
PRAYER AND MORE PRAYER
Ouch, pretty biting retort; amazing how much that quote fits Mr Resistance's favorite themes....including the bitter.
Yes, better just to go through the motions of attending a church with a bitter pastor you don't care about to polish your "religious" cred.
And everyone knows that bitter feelings about free trade & unemployment are markers for anti-social behavior - fortunately with an 8.2% unemployment rate (11% for Hispanics, 13.6% for blacks) we can show we're above the bitter fray.
What. Me. Worry.
IMO, if you're too progressive to vote Obama, you should be out marching in the street, or something, to reboot the government.
Amazing exchange.
Apparently any post on any subject will produce the usual series of indictments of Obama. Undercut in this occasion by the claim that Bill or Hillary or FDR or Grover Cleveland would have been better.
Even if they would have been the issue is purely whether Romney would be better.
Let me be plain. If you vote for Romney you're either not a progressive or you're a dumb one
Since 1956 I've been consistently disappointed that the Democrats didn't choose a more liberal candidate but I've then voted-and worked- for the one they did. On the occasions when they've won they've often done terrible things -like Vietnam,or NAFTA(according to me) but I've at least had the consolation of knowing that their opponent would have done worse.
And that I personally hadn't been a self indulgent poor loser.
Some of the impassioned attacks on Obama here are from those who worked for him in 2008. Question: do you now think we'd have been better off if the McCain/Palin ticket had prevailed.
It is an amazing exchange. It's lame too though Flav, cause it is the same argument, between the same people, over and over again.
But I agree with your comment of course, it's a good one.
tmac,
Round and round we go.........it only makes one dizzy and frustrated.
And wouldn't it be better, if all the time and energy was used to actually do something else that would better yield more productive and helpful results?!?
FDR dealt with the situation and Congress he had and Obama is dealing with the situation and Congress he has. All that has happened is that "Obamabots" have taken the time to examine the historical record, and no longer can be made to feel "immoral" because we support Obama over Mitt Romney, Ron Paul or any other supposedly superior candidate.
Clinton did not get health care reform passed. Clinton ushered in NAFTA. Once they get over their transparent Bill Clinton swoon (only being used to attack Obama), they'll go back to attacking Clinton and Democratic Leadership Council.
I do have to thank them for confirming further why Obama is the best current option.
If you're a progressive who continues to vote for a president and a party that merely use you for your votes on election years and then actively fight against your interests, do not allow you a seat at the table, disregard, marginalize and sideline your views while moving the Democratic party to become evermore Republican, I guess that makes you a genius right?. If you only care about your team winning and pyrrhic victories, vote for Obama. If you want to save the Democratic party from the people leading us down the path to destruction, voting for Obama hinders that cause in my view.
The thing about you people that is so frustrating you think you are ENTITLED to all progressive votes even if you actively fight against their interests by being marginally better than the GOP. You'll get most of them that are motivated enough to vote at all. I don't purport to think there are a lot of progressives for Romney out there. Marginal in my case is not good enough. Obama is changing the trajectory of the country and the democratic party for the worst.
Do I respect people who accept the democratic party no longer supports progressive causes, but vote for them as a lesser of two evils? Sure, as long as they don't have the gall to demand my vote for their shitty party or call me dumb because I don't share their path to a more progressive future. But the people who demand progressive votes in the election time, then once a democrat is elected allow no criticism of the president and tell critics shutupshutupshutup, then in the next election season blame those same progressives saying it's their fault for not demanding change more vocally and declare it's their duty as democrats to vote for the president. Those people are worse than dumb. They are unprincipled, entitled immoral asshats who don't understand that respect is required to maintain a coalition. Don't expect me to vote for your view of what is good enough.
What do you think about Romney's Supreme Court nominations and how a Romney DOJ will respond to voter purges?
1. I am voting for the president not the Supreme Court. If that's the only standard you vote on that's pretty pathetic. Nevertheless, I am confident Romney will be the moderate non-offending moderate he is at his core and not nominate another Scalia. What do I base that prediction on? His record in MA:
So do I fear the world will end because Romney gets to appount a Supreme or two, nope. Sorry. The fearmongering would be easier if it was Palin or Bachman or Santorum, but you've got boring old make no waves Mitt - the GOP equivalent of Obama.
As for voter purges DOJ, I don't know. Obama didn't care when the whole state of Florida was disenfranchised in the democratic primary so his dedication now to every vote must count is a wee bit laughable. :) That said do I think moderate Mitt Romney is going to turn in to Rove, Bush and Hans von Spakovsky? No. I don't.
"Progressives for Romney". Has a certain ring to it, doesn't it? The Republicans will go nuts over it and welcome you to their side. And there you'll be. Not with Obama. Oh, happy day.
Moderate Romney will do whatever the bosses tell him to do. There is nothing in his character that indicates otherwise. Everything we've worked for will be lost when Romney gives in to the dark side just waiting for the moment. If you don't believe anything has been accomplished under Obama, it's fair to say you see nothing to lose.
I see plenty.
Moderate Mitt has a CEO working style, not an Obama how much can I compromise orientation. He'll put someone conservatives hate like Leavitt in charge of his transition regardless of the conservative backlash. He'll no more turn over his government to Paul Ryan than Obama turned it over to Pelosi ( the least powerful person in Washington under Pres Obama). I don't fear Romney will be much worse than Obama. The world will not end when he loses.
But first term Mitt will see the need to dance with the girl what brung him. If he don't throw them some red meat, he'll see the true reds abandon him the way some true blues are abandoning Obama.
(I know, I know, he abandoned you...)
Moderate RomneyObama will do whatever the bosses tell him to do.How do you do it?
Since everyone is trying to put blinders on me
The blood rushes to my head, when I try to look back to see whose coming up behind me. Et tu Brute.
Notice how Dijamo jumps back to Romney's days as governor of the most liberal state in the union when he also supported a woman's right to choose and gay rights and raised taxes ...and ignores all the promises he's made since then to all the Republicans who have voted for him and given him money.
Dijamo is counting on the Fighting Dems to have Romney's moderate back and assuming Romney has no coattails.
Those coattails will have to be as long as the train on Princess Diana's wedding dress to accommodate the clutches of the Koch brothers, Trump, Rove, Cheney, and all their cohorts. Of course, there is always the chance that none of them will expect any recompense for their $$$$. (Difficult to imagine a group that could be greater warmongers, less able to identify with issues of the 1%, more fervent embracers of conservative legislation, et al.)
I can just see Romney's DOJ stepping in to halt voter purges. Little "no different than Obama" Romney has no problem siding with Paul Ryan.
Then there was the time Romney stood up to the radio host who challenged Romney's hiring of an openly Gay advisor. And tthere was the time Mitt stood up to Donald Trump for insane birther rants
.....What? Romney said nothing? Hmmm.
Romney's Supreme Court Justices and DOJ do scare me.
Why did Obama bargain with Paul Ryan and make things worse?
He could have called Ryan's proposals what they were, ridiculous, but instead Obama went out and treated Ryan seriously, giving him credentials. When the guy accross the aisle says "hey, let's slash Medicare and Social Security", you label him a loony and let him flap in the wind - you don't cry out, "hey, that's a good idea, but a little bit less".
And then he went out to meet the GOP's $4 trillion spending cut demand.
So tell me again why Romney will be so much worse?
Oh yeah, "DOJ DOJ DOJ DOJ DOJ DOJ DOJ DOJ DOJ Supreme Court Supreme Court Supreme Court Supreme Court"
I'd laugh less if the DOJ had prosecuted 1 Wall Street criminal that stole billions, or if it hadn't wasted a ton of time going after medical marijuana instead of real priorities. Instead, they're just after journalists who leak secrets when they're not leaking secrets to get free promotion on TV.
We live in weird times.
PS - I remain unimpressed with Kagan.
Yup
DOJ DOJ DOJ ad infinitude
Voter suppression ad infinitum
FL voter suppression ad infinitum
Kagan has been on the right side of enough 5-4 decisions for me
You are arguing for someone to her Right to be the next Justice
I'm not impressed with your future choice
Well, because he won't be "negotiating" with Ryan, he will be Ryan's ally who, presumably, will swallow the Ryan budget almost whole. As he has said.
It's hard to understand, just at a factual level, why you're incensed with what Obama did and are blasé about what Romney promises to do.
Whatever. I'm out.
It's hard to understand why you're fine with what your candidate did - propose trillions in Republican-sponsored cuts to Democratic programs during a recession - yet are fearful that the other guy might come in and do the same.
Because the ideology of his party will push him to actually do it, whereas the ideology of Obama's party pushes him not to do it.
If Romney has coattails and wins both chambers, then the coast will be clear through filibuster-proof reconciliation.
There are three levers of power. It's better to have your hand on one...or two...than none.
Now it's your turn to answer the (original) question.
Lessons learned from Cnadidate Obama: Promises don't mean diddly. Judge a candidate based on their record, not claims of what they will do.
Actually, if you looked at what he promised he'd do, he has come surprisingly close in some ways:
• He promised to try to work with Republicans and he did.
• He promised to pass a stimulus and he did.
• He promised to pass health care reform and he did.
• He promised to pass FinReg and he did.
• He promised to try with cap 'n trade and he did.
• He promised to draw down Iraq and he did.
• He promised to focus on Afghanistan and he did.
• He promised to focus on gay rights and he did.
• He promised to kill OBL if he had a clean shot and he did.
• He promised to focus on the debt and he has.
You may not like these things or the way he did them. And you may decide to say that Obama's health reform isn't really reform.
But I think you'd be hard pressed to make a good case that he hasn't moved in the directions he said he'd move in. In other cases, he most certainly has not.
This is not my point.
My point is that it's silly to ignore candidates' promises, especially if they've been hammered home many times and they're meant to appeal to a vital voting block.
Naturally, in the course of things, they will depart from what they promised, sometimes by a lot. But the broad outlines are there.
Anyway, we may get to see...
In any event, you've got to hope Democrats hold onto a lot of the House and Senate. Otherwise, who will be there to resist?
I think I've talked this out. Best of luck to you. Enjoyed the chat.
He followed the Bush timeline in Iraq, but tried to extend it - the Iraqis wouldn't give us immunity.
He passed a watered-down stimulus based 1/3 on tax cuts, with unemployment still over 8% years later.
He didn't "focus on gay rights" - he told Congress to send him a bill on DADT, and he gave a lukewarm statement about being fine with gay marriage based on states rights 3 1/2 years into his term.
Re: focusing on the debt, mad in the middle of a recession.
Re: Osama bin Laden, fine. Now can we pull the troops out & stop with the drone flights?
It took Nixon 3 years to pull a half million troops out of Vietnam and another year to end the war.
We currently have 87,000 troops in Afghanistan - about 50,000 more than when Obama entered. We'll have 68,000 in September. The Chicago summit was how to end the war by end of 2014, but no promises (except that we'll surely have thousands of special ops troops there no matter what)- wow, the speed, the audacity. Look below to see what Obama's exit looks like.
PP, you make some good and valid points.
But your post is unresponsive to what I said and what I was responding to.
And even if I accept all your points as is, the fact remains he said he'd do X and he has made serious progress in those directions.
So if you (or we) don't think it's enough, you (or we) push for more. How hard is that concept? The GOP knows how to pocket gains, however small, and keep moving.
BTW, I read in the Quardian link Qbert posted that Bubba is in Wisconsin singing Qumbaya and asking business and unions to sit down and reason together.
Can't we all just get along?
As one of the progressives who has made 'impassioned attacks on Obama' here after supporting him with a few bucks early on and as one who tries not to be dumb, I want to offer another way for you to view my vote. A distinction which will make no difference.
I cannot vote for Obama. I now have a very different opinion of him. I will always vote against the Republican candidate for the Presidency. My vote for either is absolutely of no consequence. The final outcome will not be based on Obama winning Utah by a one vote margin.
The best outcome I can imagine is for Obama to win by the narrowest provably correct margin possible and for every analysis to show that the votes he lost from the previous election are either a protest against his criminal foreign policies, bla bla bla, or because he was not enough of a progressive himself.
I will cast a vote for the third party candidate who most clearly reflects my views, if one is on the ticket. I wish every Democrat in every obviously red state would do the same.
I can also fantasize that if my view of how a progressive should vote, depending on the state he votes in, were to get a prominent push nationally, pissed off progressives who are completely off Obama's wagon might see a legitimate reason to get to the polls and vote for him. They might see that as the damage to our country progresses a bit slower under Obama than under Romney, a message has been sent to every politician in the country about the direction that Democrats want to support.
It's dumb to do what's been done before and didn't work. Eugene McCarthy wanted to punish Humphrey and withheld his endorsement until it was too late; Ted Kennedy didn't think Carter was good enough; and any number of my friends felt obliged to vote for Nader. None of them were dumb people.
But it was dumb.
"But Bobbie woulda won if he hadn't been shot."
Yes, let's pin our hopes on a dead, coulda-been.
The problem is the line for progressives is they are inevitably trashing what is and swooning over what isn't.
No, it's simply dumb to ignore the circumstances in 1968 to draw your weird conclusions.
The Democrats had a very strong horse to ride on 3 June 1968, but a few days later they didn't. It's hard to plan for an earthquake, tsunami or assassination.
Humphrey was tainted goods, as was LBJ - had the Vietnam War all over them. How do you expect the anti-war candidate to easily flip and support that? Yet RFK was an acceptable choice - no swooning required.
McCarthy did get screwed by RFK coming in the race late to take the anti-war plank, and then he got screwed by the Humphrey anointment. Not surprising he would have been slow endorsing the war VP. But we can blame it all on McCarthy, not on Humphrey, not on an assassin's bullet, right?
The answer, of course, is we should have supported LBJ no matter how unpopular the war, because a Republican would have been worse. (even though the Republican did end the war and opened talks with China and enacted pro-environmental legislation)
And ran a criminal operation from the oval office.
Nixon was a bad man and Humphrey wasn't. McCarthy should have declared his support for the obviously better human being. No later accomplishments or policies justified doing anything to help Nixon secure that office which he predictably dishonored
If you sup with the devil you need a long spoon.
Josephus, I presume?
This is the sort of time-shifting you find appealing.
If you want, let's go back to the daisy ad. Is there any REAL reason to think that Goldwater woulda dropped the bomb on Vietnam?
Did LBJ turn out to be the war candidate or the Great Society candidate? Could one have known at the time? Maybe Goldwater would have nipped the war in the bud. Who knows?
And the same thing with Nixon and ALL candidates. But you have this penchant for going back in time and Rube Goldberging events so they come out the way you want them to and saying it was very predictable.
Who knows? You say HHH was tainted so "of course" he was rejected. Well, having watched LBJ up close and personal being taken down by the war, it's entirely possible he would have ended it even sooner than Nixon who got to reboot the thing on his own terms.
HHH didn't preach well against the war - he was timid to stand up to LBJ, and he was part of the war government.
Nixon ran as a peace candidate.
But you would have said "Democrats good, Republicans bad, just pull the lever".
Yes, it's possible HHH would have gotten pigs to fly. We'll never know because we didn't give the liberal the chance. But Nixon did stop the war, for all his other faults.
So who's Rube Goldberg now? I told you what happened, you come up with speculation.
And no idea what you want me to say about Goldwater & the Daisy ad. Do *YOU* think Goldwater would have dropped the bomb on Vietnam?
Nixon promised to end the war--but he wasn't the "peace candidate." If he'd been the peace candidate, there would have been no reason for Kennedy or McCarthy to run.
We'd have to go back and see--would be very interesting--but doubt that a single person in the "peace camp" voted for Nixon. 'Member the southern strategy? I suspect, though don't know, that that had a lot more to do with his victory.
And he didn't end the war until he was into his SECOND term. If we apply Obama metrics to Nixon, he was an utter failure.
I agree with what you say about HHH, though I'd have to consult the record. So yes, I can see why it played out as it did.
But voting for Romney would be a bit like voting for Nixon.
I agree. I did RG it a bit with HH. At the time, I supported McCarthy, but would not have voted for Nixon. But looking back and trying to learn from failure, I think it would have been smarter to stay with the Democratic standard-bearer because he would have had a better chance of beating Nixon.
And as I recall, perhaps wrongly, he was noticeably more dovish than LBJ.
And I don't think I would've trashed the Democratic convention. The prime offender, LBJ, had taken himself out of the race. Trashing only gave fuel to the Nixonites. It didn't help our party and it didn't help progressive causes. And it certainly didn't help the country.
The lesson learned by the two capitalist parties.
Promise change; and the suckers will vote for you; because one of the two; will be viewed as the lesser of the two evils.
Besides; the candidate did promise.
Seems to me he was also bombing Cambodia.
"Peace with honor" was a laughing stock.
There really is no way you can sufficiently rewrite history to say that Nixon was the "peace candidate" -- certainly not from a progressive point of view.
The folks in Chicago weren't trashing the convention in order to get Nixon elected, though I think they helped him win.
But who knows? Maybe he woulda won anyway.
Seems to me you could Google some facts here and there.
He mainly bombed Cambodia in 1970. How that detracts from ending the war in 4 years, I don't know.
Of course "Peace with honor" or "honorable peace" was tongue in cheek, a useful sleight of hand. So what? He got us out. Do you expect him to say "let's bugger out, and admit we got our asses kicked"?
I said Nixon ran on peace, getting us out of the war. You're hung up on whether he was "the peace candidate", which seems to mean that only if anointed by the left or Democrats or whatever could he have been for peace.... Whether the left didn't believe Nixon, or mistrusted his anti-democratic tendencies or whatever, that doesn't change his platform or success. You're the one who keeps rewriting history. Yes he bombed Cambodia and Laos, mined Haiphong, bombed Hanoi, tapped his enemies - and he drew down 500,000 troops in 4 years.
Obama was the "peace candidate" in the 2008 campaign - tell me what a joke that was.
Sorry, but at this point, it's impossible for me to tell what your point is or was.
You insulted progressives for supporting Bobbie Kennedy, the dead guy - should have backed LBJ or Humphrey.
How they blew the election (McCarthy, then hippies in Chicago- who protested Nixon but should have supported Humphrey).
How Nixon wasn't the "peace candidate" even though he ran on a peace platform and ended the war in 4 years.
And how it didn't matter that he ended the war because he also bombed Cambodia.
Whatever happens, you can't be pinned down by facts, and are always able to kick a hippie.
By the way, LBJ started Cambodian bombing in 1965, presumably with Humphrey's knowledge, even though Nixon later perfected the carpet bombing. Should that have discredited Humphrey? Was it good of Nixon to try to bomb Pol Pot & the Khmer Rouge in 1973 as they were advancing on Phnom Penh, or was that bad? And please list the many ways the hippies were responsible.
PP: You insulted progressives for supporting Bobbie Kennedy, the dead guy - should have backed LBJ or Humphrey.
PS: No. First of all, no one could back LBJ because he had pulled out. The convention occurred AFTER RFK was shot. EYE was backing McCarthy. But once HHH had won, they should've backed HHH, unless their goal was to have RMN win, which it was not.
PP: How they blew the election (McCarthy, then hippies in Chicago- who protested Nixon but should have supported Humphrey).
PS: The hippies were not protesting Nixon. They were protesting the Democratic administration. They hurt the election by not supporting HHH after he'd won. The violence at the convention (not the hippies fault, though they didn't all help) hurt the chances of whomever the Democratic was going to be: McCarthy or HHH.
PP: How Nixon wasn't the "peace candidate" even though he ran on a peace platform and ended the war in 4 years.
PS: He wasn't. And NO ONE who was interested in peace--a pull out--thought he was.
PP: And how it didn't matter that he ended the war because he also bombed Cambodia.
PS: It was good that he finally ended the war, but Cambodia suggests strongly that, when he came into office, he still believed he could win militarily or "end it with honor," which was a bit the same.
PP: Whatever happens, you can't be pinned down by facts, and are always able to kick a hippie.
PS: Fuck off.
PP: By the way, LBJ started Cambodian bombing in 1965, presumably with Humphrey's knowledge, even though Nixon later perfected the carpet bombing. Should that have discredited Humphrey? Was it good of Nixon to try to bomb Pol Pot & the Khmer Rouge in 1973 as they were advancing on Phnom Penh, or was that bad? And please list the many ways the hippies were responsible.
PS: It should have discredited HHH with respect to McCarthy. But it should not have discredited HHH with respect to Nixon. Plus, Nixon had enough else in his background that should have been enough to convince anyone to keep him out of office.
Just googling around...
Alright, let's try this. The first sentence, I guess, means to say that folks on the left rejected HHH because he wasn't sufficiently anti-war.
But why switch to Nixon? No one on the left thought HE was going to bring peace. They didn't trash Chicago because they WANTED Nixon to win. And they thought so even less when he got into office.
Then you attempt to show that he WAS the peace candidate because, after four years and a bit, he got us out. After he figured out what LBJ had already proved: That there was no military victory to be had. In fact, LBJ had already admitted that the war was lost and his presidency was lost. But Nixon had to find out for himself, I guess.
What does this excursion even mean? That sometimes a Republican brings peace and sometimes a Democrat doesn't?
My point is, you make the best choice you can given what you have in front of you and given what you think you've learned from the past. In 1964, it was LBJ. Turned out badly. In 1968, it was not Nixon, IMO, and no one interested in peace (pulling out) thought it was that I can recall, though maybe some voices raised this possibility. In 2000, many progressives said there was no difference between the two parties. I thought they were wrong then and still do.
At this point, warts and all, I think Obama is a better bet than Romney.
Whether "No one on the left thought HE was going to bring peace", Nixon brought peace. An ugly peace, but he got out as fast as any American politician could have. The bombing of Cambodia in 1970 stopped North Vietnam's supply lines through Cambodia, so it arguably made North Vietnam more willing to negotiate.
But 4 decades later, you're unable to acknowledge reality, that Nixon ended the war in 1 term, despite all his faults. That he ran on peace and achieved peace, but in your eyes he can't be the peace candidate because that had to have been a Democrat and no one on the left saw him like that.
And it's this kind of visual impairment that makes it hard for people to see past "have to support our guy because the other guy is Dracula/Hitler/Ming the Merciless"
Obama has 50,000 more troops in Afghanistan than the 30,000 he started with. And he needs at least 2 1/2 years more - total 6 years to get 30,000 troops out of Afghanistan, when Nixon took 4 to bring down 500,000 troops in a much more engaged war. Our combat operations in WWII only lasted 3 1/2 years. Where's our urgency? What the hell are we doing? Are we going to have "peace with honor" or "won hearts and minds"? Hell no, we'll leave through the back door or middle of the night like all these conflicts, a bit of flag waving at the airport and pats on the back and the hollow feeling of what-was-all-that-about.
In all of the rant - the most perceptive comment:
now if this is as subjective assessment as they come that I know of. The main point here is that, a president just doesn't get out, but gets out while avoiding pitfalls, etc. Obama is no different. One can debate whether it would be better if he had done it one or two years earlier or later, but as your statement indicates, an American politician has numerous considerations when drawing down any war.
You're not debating - you're just presuming with no details or analysis. Whatever pace or excuse Obama gives is just fine with you. An escalation from 30,000 to 100,000 is "getting out", and falling from 100,000 to 87,000 is getting out as fast as we can - don't bother the dude, he's got major troubles to think about. I bet he needs 2 hours to evacuate in the morning.
PP, all you're doing is making the excuses for Nixon in hindsight you accuse me of making for Obama. What's the point of this?
The war didn't end until his second term.
Nixon ran on a law and order platform.
Here's a timeline picked up at random. It would appear he drew down his 70,000 under pressure from Democrats, which perhaps supports Dijamo strategy, though isn't an HHH disqualifier, IMO--though, who knows?
ichard Nixon Elected President: Running on a platform of "law and order," Richard Nixon barely beats out Hubert Humphrey for the presidency. Nixon takes just 43.4 percent of the popular vote, compared to 42.7 percent for Humphrey. Third-party candidate George Wallace takes the remaining percentage of votes.
1969
Nixon Begins Secret Bombing of Cambodia: In an effort to destroy Communist supply routes and base camps in Cambodia, President Nixon gives the go-ahead to "Operation Breakfast." The covert bombing of Cambodia, conducted without the knowledge of Congress or the American public, will continue for fourteen months.
Policy of "Vietnamization" Announced: Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird describes a policy of "Vietnamization" when discussing a diminishing role for the US military in Vietnam. The objective of the policy is to shift the burden of defeating the Communists onto the South Vietnamese Army and away from the United States.
Ho Chi Minh Dies at Age 79
News of My Lai Massacre Reaches US: Through the reporting of journalist Seymour Hersh, Americans read for the first time of the atrocities committed by Lt. William Calley and his troops in the village of My Lai. At the time the reports were made public, the Army had already charged Calley with the crime of murder.
Massive Antiwar Demonstration in DC
1970
Sihanouk Ousted in Cambodia: Prince Sihanouk's attempt to maintain Cambodia's neutrality while war waged in neighboring Vietnam forced him to strike opportunistic alliances with China, and then the United States. Such vacillating weakened his government, leading to a coup orchestrated by his defense minister, Lon Nol.
Kent State Incident: National Guardsmen open fire on a crowd of student antiwar protesters at Ohio's Kent State University, resulting in the death of four students and the wounding of eight others. President Nixon publicly deplores the actions of the Guardsmen, but cautions: "...when dissent turns to violence it invites tragedy." Several of the protesters had been hurling rocks and empty tear gas canisters at the Guardsmen.
Kissinger and Le Duc Begin Secret Talks
Number of US Troops Falls to 280K
1971
Lt. Calley Convicted of Murder
Pentagon Papers Published: A legacy of deception, concerning US policy in Vietnam, on the part of the military and the executive branch is revealed as the New York Times publishes the Pentagon Papers. The Nixon administration, eager to stop leaks of what they consider sensitive information, appeals to the Supreme Court to halt the publication. The Court decides in favor the Times and allows continued publication.
Nixon Announces Plans to Visit China: In a move that troubles the North Vietnamese, President Nixon announces his intention to visit The People's Republic of China. Nixon's gesture toward China is seen by the North Vietnamese as an effort to create discord between themselves and their Chinese allies.
Thieu Re-elected in South Vietnam
1972
Nixon Cuts Troop Levels by 70K: Responding to charges by Democratic presidential candidates that he is not moving fast enough to end US involvement in Vietnam, President Nixon orders troop strength reduced by seventy thousand.
Secret Peace Talks Revealed
B-52s Bomb Hanoi and Haiphong: In an attempt to force North Vietnam to make concessions in the ongoing peace talks, the Nixon administration orders heavy bombing of supply dumps and petroleum storage sites in and around Hanoi and Haiphong. The administration makes it clear to the North Vietnamese that no section of Vietnam is off-limits to bombing raids.
Break-In at Watergate Hotel
Kissinger Says "Peace Is At Hand": Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho reach agreement in principle on several key measures leading to a cease-fire in Vietnam. Kissinger's view that "peace is at hand," is dimmed somewhat by South Vietnamese President Thieu's opposition to the agreement.
Nixon Wins Reelection
1973
Cease-fire Signed in Paris: A cease-fire agreement that, in the words of Richard Nixon, "brings peace with honor in Vietnam and Southeast Asia," is signed in Paris by Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho. The agreement is to go into effect on January 28.
End of Draft Announced
Last American Troops Leave Vietnam
Hearings on Secret Bombings Begin: The Senate Armed Services Committee opens hearing on the US bombing of Cambodia. Allegations are made that the Nixon administration allowed bombing raids to be carried out during what was supposed to be a time when Cambodia's neutrality was officially recognized. As a result of the hearings, Congress orders that all bombing in Cambodia cease effective at midnight, August 14.
Kissinger and Le Duc Tho Win Peace Prize: The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to Henry Kissinger of the United States and Le Duc Tho of North Vietnam. Kissinger accepts the award, while Tho declines, saying that a true peace does not yet exist in Vietnam.
1974
Thieu Announces Renewal of War
Report Cites Damage to Vietnam Ecology: According to a report issued by The National Academy of Science, use of chemical herbicides during the war caused long-term damage to the ecology of Vietnam. Subsequent inquiries will focus on the connection between certain herbicides, particularly Agent Orange, and widespread reports of cancer, skin disease, and other disorders on the part of individuals exposed to them.
Communists Take Mekong Delta Territory
Nixon Resigns
Communists Plan Major Offensive: With North Vietnamese forces in the South believed to be at their highest levels ever, South Vietnamese leaders gird themselves for an expected Communist offensive of significant proportions.
You're too funny. Nixon's *FOREIGN POLICY* platform that he ran on was honorable peace.
I said he got a peace agreement *3 days after his 2nd inauguration*, signed *7 days after his 2nd inauguration* (when the last US soldier died), in effect 28 Jan 1973. Yes, he barely missed 1st term, unlike Obama at *2 years 11 months* into his 2nd term.
Your stupid little datum is after he drew down 400,000 he drew another 70,000 to end 1972 at 24,000. Wow, you managed to find a pony in all that shit to wave for the Democrats - ain't you grand. You qualify as overtly and obsessively partisan - badges given at the exit doors.
(what you might have noted was that often in presidential election years, candidates respond to pressure. *IF THEY'RE PRESSURED*. But you guys just want to support the president and the war and his cesspool of renditions/detainments/drones/and whatever just because Romney might oh might use them worse.
If we backed the Constitution instead of the President, no one would be able to use illegal means - how about that as a more elegant solution?
This is what you said, PP.
Yes, by reasonable metrics he ended the the war in 1 term. If it's "getting the term paper in by 5pm", he didn't quite. What is your point?
So what exactly is your point in all this PP?
That Nixon got out quicker than Obama has?
Even Nixon got out quicker?
That it was cool for Nixon to bomb Cambodia because maybe it brought the NV to the table more quickly? That's an excuse that you would otherwise decry.
I mean, if Nixon wanted "peace," why didn't he just pull out starting day one? "Peace with honor" wasn't tongue in cheek, nor was it a sleight of hand.
It was, "I don't want to preside over America losing its first war."
By progressive standards, all those extra years were a sin. The fact that Obama has more years in is meaningless. Maybe he has more years, but fewer deaths.
What's the big deal here for you?
The reason I brought up "law and order" was that that was Nixon's MAIN appeal, likely the one that got him elected, and a better definition of his presidency overall.
Regardless of intentions, demonstrating in Chicago really only served to help Nixon get elected--it certainly didn't help McCarthy--and give us four more years of war. It certainly didn't lead to a progressive result. In foreign policy.
If you're a big fan of Nixon, fine. I think he did some good things, too. I would have preferred HHH at the time. We'll never know what he would have done, but that's where I would have put my money.
Would you have voted for Nixon...based on all the good things you didn't know he was going to do?
I'm not sure why you think I support the war or the cesspool for, etc., etc. I participate in all the anti-war marches that I can and give to a whole variety of progressive causes.
What I don't support is supporting the "Nixon" we have before us (either directly, indirectly, or by damaging my candidate) because once upon a time the original Nixon ended a war in four years and my guy hasn't.
I do back the Constitution and that's why I back the guy who comes the closest to that goal, IMO, and otherwise has the best policies that will do the most good for the most people. In Romney's case, we have to guess a little bit what he would do, and we also have to guess a bit what Obama will do in a second term.
If the Constitution were running for president, I would vote for it. Unfortunately, we have two people running for office.
I make a relative judgment and weigh a lot of issues (not just one) because there are two people and one of them will end up in the office and neither of them is anywhere close to perfect. Nonetheless, I want the better person in there.
In any event, it's strange for you to be arguing for abiding by the Constitution AND for Nixon as a man of peace--or whatever your point is.
Just to put a button this for me at least...
If you think Nixon was a better president, a more peace-loving guy, more in tune with the Constitution, than Obama, I'm fine with your thinking that.
I don't have any more to say on this.
I think Nixon was an asshole.
But he said he'd get the US out of Vietnam, and he did, in roughly 1 term. 500,000 troops.
(I assume "honorable peace" meant trying to not let South Vietnam be overrun, which it was anyway. While our bombing of Cambodia was horrific, North Vietnam's use of Cambodia as a supply and attack route was criminal)
I can only surmise whether Hubert Humphrey, the war VP, would have been as fast.
I can better guess that RFK would have been faster, as would have McCarthy.
I know Obama would have been slower. Much slower.
Yes, and I supported McCarthy with my body, though I was too young to vote. I would have supported RFK the same way. And I supported HHH when he won.
It is true, Nixon promised to get us out and he did.
The comparison between him and Obama is a little dicier, but I'm not sure it matters much. Consider this:
• Nixon had already seen the unpopularity of the war and how a president, who had won in a landslide and done much, had been ousted by the war.
• He probably (though I don't know) saw that VN wasn't worth fighting over and may even have had inklings of opening talks with China. Remember, the big fear around VN was that it would fall under China's control.
• Arguably, much more is at stake in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan than was at stake in VN. VN fell and what happened? So "just pulling out" is probably a trickier option.
• AQ is an enemy with whom it will probably be impossible to "sign a peace treaty" as we did with the VNese. It was much more of a conventional war than this conflict, which can't really be called a war at all.
Anyway, I don't say all this to justify what Obama has done, but just to point out some differences that might be important.
Anyway, good chatting with you, as always.
Reply at bottom of page.
Thanks for the response. I do not see any risk free way to hope that Obama wins over Romney but at the same time attempt to push Obama in a direction that I believe to be vital. I make that statement out of the belief that it is extremely important to change some of Obama's policies. I think we must risk saying out loud what our disagreements are when we have them. Even if we are talking about a Democrat.
So, taking the chance that I will be responsible for Obama losing if I don't fall totally in line with those who worry that any lack of total unequivocal support for him will boost Romney's chances, I will say again: I want Obama to win but I am willing, and I believe also correct, to criticize his bad policies.
I hope Obama wins every "blue state. I hope he wins every 'swing state' and I hope every single thinking Democrat/liberal/ progressive/ whatever, voting in a solid 'red state chooses to make a meaningful vote by casting it in favor of a candidate other than Obama who might really believe in a host of issues such as protection of civil liberties, recognizing the right of other nations to exist as sovereign states, no avoidable wars, etc, etc. I would like to one day get a President who showed by his actions that he believed that the rights and protections written into the Constitution are important to uphold for U.S. citizens but were put there with the recognition that all humans everywhere deserve those same rights and protections. They may not be able to get them from their own government but we certainly have no right to ignore them and infringe upon them from thousands of comfortable miles away.
I think many of Obama's most grievously mistaken policies are not just mistakes, I believe they are also wrong in a philosophical sense and I also believe they will be shown, ultimately, to be stupid.
Fair enough.
I can agree with this.
It's the final stages of "Obama sickness."
First, the right-wing hated him and tried to eat him.
Now, the left-wing hates him and is trying to eat him.
In both cases, the parties fly off into non-existent counter-factuals or imaginary futures, both of which are unreal. *
For dessert, they ignore the choices that are really before them.
* The igniting event seems to be Obama's use of drones and other Bush-era tactics. But the irony is, of course, that this is the one area where Hillary would have probably done the same thing as Obama.
That's what you get when you try to serve two masters. Both sides hate you.
Give me a drink of something, either hot or cold; if its luke warm/cold it'll never satisfy and you'll spit it out.
One usually finds, that if someone can fence straddle; it's because they have no balls.
In Obamas case, he does serve only one master ....Corporatism
and it wants to destroy the democratic process.
I don't like shite sandwiches with either a choice of catsup or mustard, and I sure as heck don't like the desert either.
Maybe you like a turd with powdered sugar, it doesn't appeal to me.
We get it, you're waiting for the reboot.
Not a reboot; only to boot both parties to the curb, they've both done America, a great harm.
Beginning with Joseph "Joe" McCarthy and his allies, they changed the course and direction of the country.
Forget about expanding the New Deal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy
Joe's attacks weren't only directed at Communists; he went after those looking for Social reform.
As a worker; the battle we face is between Socialism or Capitalism.
LBJ tried to deliver "The Great Society" but it was killed on the battlefields of Vietnam.
Capitalism doesn't want to give social reformers an opportunity to redirect the course set by McCarthy.
Who really wanted the War? The war profiteers (the capitalists)?
Capitalism brought us this Worldwide financial crisis and it wouldn't surprise me to learn; it hoped to kill off Nations with socialized programs. Telling those Nations; how are you going to pay for your social programs, you have no money.
The bankers got the bailout; not the people.
Folks, please refrain from using images and videos to taunt people. It's gotten out of hand. We will moderate these going forward.
Nixon wasn't called "Tricky Dick" for no reason
Our generation was sick of the War .
We would have elected the devil, to end the needless sacrifice.
The thing is, the economy was good under Nixon (and Reagan).
Towards the end of the VN war, when pressure was mounting; the thought or "vibes" was, Nixon and the war supporters, would get even with the generation, that forced an end.
As evident today, it's the baby boomers (the draft aged kids of the 60's) who have been and are continually being screwed big time.
The war profiteers, the monied interests, have consistently tried to stick the peace movement, for interfering in their plans of enriching themselves.
"We'll teach you hippies with your socialist ideas; to interfere in our capitalist endeavors"
"You'll be sorry you ended the War that made us money"