I think it's funny how much faith people invest in the Office of the Presidency

[YoungDemCA]

For example: claiming that "We need a new FDR!" or "If only we had a TRUE progressive Democrat!" It's also ironic that many of these same people will routinely cite people like Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky, et. al. None of these thinkers had (or in Chomsky's case, have) any illusions that the US Presidency was ever even close to being the primary vehicle for social change in the US. The President is far too aloof/removed/distant from the general population to do that. And he (or she) is constrained in a lot of ways by many laws and norms-formal and informal-which tend to lend into supporting the overall status quo in society.

If you think just changing the person in the Oval Office is going to fundamentally alter the system...well, a lot of us thought that with Obama, and look at all the disappointments and feelings of betrayal since then! The individual personality in the Oval Office really doesn't matter in terms of the overall, systemic issues with all of the major institutions in the US.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Well, we'll never know until we try.

Elect a real progressive President just once. Then you'll know for sure whether or not it will make a difference.

[YoungDemCA]

2. How do we define a real progressive President?

And how do we know he or she will be progressive-however defined-once in office?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

6. You shall know them by their actions.

You won't know they're a progressive til they're in office. Any lefty can use progressive rhetoric to get in office. They'll have to actually get in and make changes (within the scope of their Constitutional powers) to show they're progressive. And fight constantly to get the public to bombard Congress with calls for change to our unjust social institutions, to raise up ALL Americans out of poverty, and to make America a force for positive, nonviolent change in the world.

Progressives work against the status quo. If they get into office and merely pop a bunch of Goldman Sachs alum onto their economic team? They're not progressive. If they continue the MIC perpetual war engine? Not progressive. Don't work to get rid of 'prison for profit' and the use of mercenaries by the government? Not progressive.

Now I'm sure any number of other posters will be more than happy to pull out definitions of 'progressive' from history or text books that disagree with how I see 'progressivism'. More power to them. But it doesn't change what I want to see from my leaders. If they want to say I want something other than a 'progressive', again, that's fine. Call it a 'megalumpaloo' for all I care.

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. Electing a "real progressive" as president ...

will be pretty much fruitless, unless he/she has, at a minimum, a Democratic Congress.

[NYC_SKP]

3. FDR had a fantastic Congress in his corner.

So there's a shitload of things FDR was able to do that make us all proud, and a lot of us are sayin', WTF Obama???

But thinking back to basic civics (as it's hard to understand how sickeningly dirty and complex government works, or doesn't work), we have to remember that the president can't do much with a hostile congress. Somehow people still hold unrealistically high expectations, IMHO.

FDR's 1935 (74th) Congress:

Senate--

....Dems: 73

....Reps: 21

House--

....Dems: 322

....Reps: 103


----Why can't Obama be more awesome???


Obama's 2011 (112th) Congress:

Senate--

....Dems: 51

....Reps: 47

House--

....Dems: 193

....Reps: 243


______________________________________________________________

I think it's fine to ask more of Obama, but unless we work hard to get more of the congress on our side it won't matter who the fuck in in the Oval Office.

Actually, it's not that complicated.

Carry on.

[unblock]

7. under fdr, democrats actually had a veto-proof majority in congress

think about that. congress actually could have driven the legislative agenda and overruled fdr at every turn.

it's always debatable whether good "leaders" actually lead or are merely good at following the crowd, voicing what the crowd already wants, and taking credit for it. one could certainly argue that fdr actually had little choice but to be remarkably progressive; he certainly wouldn't have been very effective had he pursued a different agenda.


given the congress, media, and powers-behind-the-scene that obama has been facing, what he has achieved has been truly remarkable, and certainly a less able president would have fared far worse.

this distinction is why i have such a tough time ranking presidents. do i rank them on the basis of results, which may have largely fallen into their lap (good or bad), or do i rank them on the basis of which president accomplished the most given the cards he was dealt.

[Autumn]

4. Maybe if we elect a Democrat who appoints Democrats

and stands up for Democratic values, one that looks out for the people who elected him and one who respects them enough to listen then the office of the President might be a powerful force. It was for Bush and Cheney. Say what you want about those two fuckers they got what they wanted done.

[QC]

8. +1