General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama Is The MOST PROGRESSIVE President That We Can Get In Our Current Political System
The message body of this post was accidentally deleted due to an unexpected bug in our new software. The bug has been fixed, and most of the data was recovered. But unfortunately we were unable to recover the full text of this post. An older version of this post may be available in its edit history. Also, the author of the post may edit the post to replace the missing text, if they wish. The DU Administrators apologize for the inconvenience. Thank you for your understanding.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
dawg
(10,777 posts)Candidate Obama won the election with rhetoric far to the left of how he has actually governed. If he could win, so could another liberal.
I do agree that President Obama is the most progressive President we have a chance to elect in 2012, but the 2008 election proved that someone perceived as a liberal can win.
gateley
(62,683 posts)
unblock
(56,198 posts)by and large, the winning rhetoric is the rhetoric with the most money behind it and therefore the rhetoric that gets repeated most often.
all big donors understand that the rhetoric is the crap you sell to the masses, but campaign donations, gained by promises and kept by executive, regulatory, and legislative (mis)deeds, are what win elections.
poppy bush's big backers didn't expect him to do anything about flag-burning or massachusetts recidivism.
shrub's big backers didn't expect him to do anything about gay marriage.
rhetoric is the dream, the fantasy that gets people to vote one way or the other, but governance is reality and that depends on compromise with other politicians with conflicting goals.
the fact of the matter is that, if you look at the flow of money, the republican party was DOOMED as far as presidential aspirations go in 2008 and obama (within reason) could have said just about anything and won. neither big money nor the little guy was going to stand for four more years of republicans in the white house. period.
but could he continue with that rhetoric while actually governing? that's a very different question. like most here, i'm annoyed that we didn't get to see if it would have worked or not. i suspect, though, that it would not have worked and that obama was pretty wise not to try.
that said, i pine for the days when the media and the politics and the power structure are such that a strongly liberal president can succeed in actual governance. it took decades to get into this mess, it will take decades to break out.
dawg
(10,777 posts)True, the more money you have the more advertising you can buy to get out your message. But that message was a liberal one in 2008, and it prevailed.
You might could make an argument that Obama will be the most progressive two-term president the current system could produce, but there was nothing keeping him from attempting to follow through on the somewhat more leftward agenda he campaigned on.
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)Hillary supported the Iraq war which was an abysmal failure, and it took her too long to renounce her decision.
And John McCain was terrible.
dawg
(10,777 posts)Even though he was perceived, rightly or not, as being rather liberal. A significant portion of the population considered him a socialist. (and probably still does)
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)You seem to be missing the distinction between rhetoric and what someone can actually accomplish from a position of limited power.
dawg
(10,777 posts)It isn't something we can measure, like height, and say, "Well he campaigned as 4.3" to the left of center but governed at 1.2" to the right.
It's subjective, and people are apt to view things differently.
But, I would never have thought he would have extended the Bush cuts so easliy. He specifically campaigned on letting those only helping the rich expire.
I would never have expected him to say the govenment needed to tighten it's belt (Hooverism) or to have him lend credibility to abominations like Simpson-Bowles or the Gang of Six.
I was surprised at all these things, even though I was paying attention during the campaign.
But I don't mean to open a can of worms about what he could and could not have done once elected. My point is simply that it is possible, under the current system, to *elect* a presidential candidate who is perceived to be significantly to the left of how President Obama has actually governed.
karynnj
(60,968 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 22, 2011, 03:55 PM - Edit history (1)
His rhetoric was not far to the left of where he has governed. What was far to the left was the way that you interpreted many idealistic, inspirational messages. He rarely gave detailed proposals of what he was going to do. He spoke of expanding health care - and he has - and the structure he was able to sign into law has the possibility of evolving into something much better. (Consider the impact of a state (VT) having a cost effective (single payer) alternative.)
On the wars, people were not listening. Obama voted against Kerry/Feingold, but ended up with a similar plan with a longer time line - when he took office, he extended that time line to match the SOFA that Iraq and Bush agreed to - after Bush was pushed to commit to a timeline. I was not happy the timeline was extended, but see the huge political benefit of having done that - now that he has ended that war. In 2008, he said he would commit more resources to Afghanistan - and he did. Although I hope now that he will listen to voices calling for a more definitive exit strategy there, I can't say that he did not do what he said.
On issues like DADT and DOMA, he has done at least as much as he promised - against a lot of opposition.
There have been times where I wished that he had fought harder for the environment, but, unlike Gore and Kerry, it was not a major issue he ran on. He has done some good things though the excellent people he appointed to the EPA.
On the economy, no one knew through most of 2008 how bad the economy would fall - even in the last few months before the election. I think that when the dust settles, he will be given credit for things like saving the auto companies - and the state of Michigan. What is clear is that _ RW meme to the contrary - there has not been a time where he was not focused on the economy.
On things like torture, detention, privacy etc, he said very little. His surrogates, especially Senator Kerry did speak strongly on these things - and I realize that I obviously conflated Obama's position with theirs. Still, the Obama administration has ended some Bush practices - including torture. Ironically, we hear more about that from the right - the right that claimed that it was those practices (years after the fact) that let us get OBL and that the US was in danger due to Obama's decisions.
2008 was a rejection of the Bush years. Obama was an incredible candidate, but he needed that to beat HRC more than he needed that to win the general election. What it did in the general election though, was to help elect big majorities in both Houses. I think a better indication that we could elect someone more liberal is that the more liberal Senator Kerry came very very close (and would have won with more Ohio voting machines) in a year that was far less favorable to the Democrats - against a President who was at 60% approval in December 2003.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)reality. Your recollection of the 2008 campaign is spot on.
karynnj
(60,968 posts)dawg
(10,777 posts)Right or wrong, the perception of candidate Obama was to the left of reality. Perhaps people weren't always paying close enough attention, but folks like me were paying a helluva lot more attention than the swing voters who pushed him over the top.
Perception is reality in a campaign. He was perceived as being a transformative figure.
*CHANGE*
And he got elected based on that perception.
I believe that proves that another progressive candidate could win as well. Perhaps one who was actually as progressive as they were *perceived* to be during the election.
None of this should be taken to mean that I think the President was dishonest or has been a bad President. On the contrary, it is crucial that we re-elect him.
But I think it is defeatist and wrong to say that he is the most progressive we could ever hope to get. His very election in 2008 proves that wrong.
karynnj
(60,968 posts)In addition, it is perception of people who are to the left of him - and I include myself there. I would suspect that the perception of other groups - like those who had voted for Bush in 2004 and 2000, did not read the same things into his speeches.
In addition, he is a change from where we were - even if you want him to be more of a change.
My point is that I really do not see anything where he took a position in 2008 - and has since worked against it. (If you want examples of that - look at Romney - on everything.)
You might note that I did not say he was the most liberal we could get. As I said, Kerry nearly won in a far tougher year. Had the country moved faster in recovering from 911 or if the media were fairer, he would have won. (I intentionally use liberal because I think its meaning is clearer - though different. I have seen many different definitions of "progressive" - including one that had Byrd as the most progressive Senator one year (!) that I have backed away from the label as ill defined.)
dawg
(10,777 posts)I agree with you that there were lots of indications during the campaign that candidate Obama was more of a centrist than he was perceived to be.
I'm mainly disagreeing with the OP's premise that he is the most progressive President possible under the current system. Because I feel pretty strongly that the country thought it was electing someone more progressive in 2008.
"Yes We Can", "Hope", and "Change" all implied a pretty dramatic break from Bush policies. I think what we actually got was careful, cautious, incremental reforms. And maybe that isn't all bad.
But I do think it's possible for someone more liberal to win.
karynnj
(60,968 posts)I also think that even if the most progressive, liberal person on earth were elected only careful, cautious, incremental changes could have made it through Congress.
unblock
(56,198 posts)
PurityOfEssence
(13,150 posts)For all his mealy-mouthed evasions of specifics and being on both sides of all issues he couldn't avoid altogether, he STILL ran on a somewhat progressive platform in '08. That pretty much PROVES that someone--at least back in ott-eight--could do so, and if he had just lived up to the slippery claims then, he would have been a MUCH more liberal President.
In short, this does not sanctify him as the most liberal we could possibly get, since the man elected was considerably more to the left than the one who's in there now.
As for the restrictions of the office, his Presidency should make crystal-clear to everyone that someone opening himself up to "compromise" from the Right will just be punked and dealt with as WEAK, which becomes a self-fulfilling pronouncement after hardly any time at all. He's painted himself into a corner where he can't stand tall and hold any particular line even if he wanted to.
I'm sick of the weak egos shrieking that he's much more perfect than any of us killjoy dolts can ever understand. The record is pathetic. There have been some things of note, like the credit card legislation, parts of the health care legislation and the repeal of DADT, but so much has been disastrous, and it was unnecessary if being done to curry favor. The Republicans want it all, and don't compromise.
Yes, unless there's a real challenger with a chance, we should keep this among ourselves, but being told we're in presence of genius and decency is a huge slap in the face for anyone with any faculties at all, and those who would quash our dreams so their childish hero-worship can go on unquestioned do us all a disservice.
zipplewrath
(16,698 posts)This is the best we can do.
izquierdista
(11,689 posts)zipplewrath
(16,698 posts)We need more
Enrique
(27,461 posts)we can elect someone running on that same agenda, except that really means it, and they would be more progressive than Obama.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)Kucinich is on his way out after his eventual seat is lost to Kaptur.
I can't remember the others bandied about all the time (Sanders is not a Democrat). Warren is a dedicated capitalist and in lockstep with Obama.
Pickings are slim in the TP category!
karynnj
(60,968 posts)true progressives. Tom Harken ran in 1992 and he would have been a more liberal, progressive President than Bill Clinton. He won Iowa - no surprise as it was his state - then failed to gain any momentum. He was endorsed by Wellstone. He ran as a populist with union support. Harkin is unlikely to run again. Brown is the younger Senator, who seems to have a similar profile on legislation.
Grayson and Kuchinich were best none for being outspoken, rather than doing the hard work in their House to write or push progressive legislation. Harken and Brown both have more stature than Grayson and Kuchinich do.
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)I have come to the conclusion that it makes no sense to fight so hard for Dems against Republicans when the results produce such meager returns. I believe that fighting big money in politics is the only thing that will change the history of this nation. I am currently seeking ways to implement this and wondering how we can get a mass movement focused on this critical objective. OWS is a starting point and part of creating consciousness among the electorate. Any suggestions?
savannah43
(575 posts)Suggestion: Get some 60's activists to tell you how they got traction back then, especially the SDS. They didn't particularly care what your political affiliation was as they were more concerned with your moral philosophy. As it should be.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)I think DU was named for the former, and I think the site's statement of purpose verifies that.
karynnj
(60,968 posts)In fact, I think that perception has been used to hurt the side that wants government to do positive things - rather than nothing. I am not naive and I am not saying that no politician has ever done something for the money he or his campaign can get, but, for the most part, that is not why people get into politics. Anyone with the skills needed to get elected to Congress - and even more so the Senate, could likely make more money in the private sector.
Recently, a major blast at the reputation of all legislators was the 60 Minutes Report that was based on Peter Schweitzer's book. From the excerpts I have seen it is the most puerile analysis I have ever seen. (ie Senators/legislators on any committee working on healthcare in 2003 or 2009, whose portofolio showed a stock purchase of any health care stock was called suspect - even the Democrats who fought the 2003 bill or the Republicans who fought the 2009 bill. The fact is it was not "secret" that these bills were being worked on - and in all of 2009, there was no certainty it would pass - especially when you consider that in January 2010, Rahm Emmanuel was speaking of abandoning the comprehensive bill to ensure they passed something. He ignored whether or not the transactions occurred in trusts which the legislators did not control. Also ignored is that most stocks bought in 2003 increased in value by the end of 2004 - the Dow Jones soared too - and from the market bottom in March 2009, the DJ went up 59% by April 2010 - and it wasn't because HCR secretly passed. For that matter, had they bought Tiffany in March, 2009 by April 2010, it would have been up 250%. )
There were hundreds (or maybe thousands) of stories on that - most quoting the book that legislators did significantly better than hedgefund managers. All based on just those cheery picked transactions. Yet recently, there was an analysis of ALL the listed transactions the legislators made - and - the result is that in total, they should have stayed with a passive index fund. http://articles.boston.com/2011-12-14/bostonglobe/30516909_1_insider-suspicious-trades-portfolio This analysis is far more dependable than the Schweitzer junk analysis, but the only place I saw this was the Boston Globe.
Schweitzer was the national security adviser to Sarah Palin, who referred to him as "one of her pack" in her fight against the corrupt culture of DC. That defines his agenda. Then there is 60 minutes. Here, they are handed an explosive story that also fits the profile of the powerful cheating. They really should have had someone spend time reading it and error checking. They would have found - that even though there COULD be a problem - this book is so poorly done that they should not give it any of their well earned credibility. (I mean when you attack Democrats on HELP and Finance for "writing the 2003 drug bill and referring to some as chairs of those committees - there is a problem. It was a Republican bill and Republicans controlled the Senate and the timing is close enough that it was a blatant error.)
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)Despite the founders’ intentions, however, Congress has evolved from a dependency “upon the people,” to an increasing dependency upon the funders. Members spend 30 percent to 70 percent of their time raising money to stay in Congress, or to get their party back in power. Less than 1 percent of Americans give more than $200 in a political campaign. No more than .05 percent give the maximum in any Congressional campaign. A career focused on the 1 percent — or, worse, the .05 percent — will never earn them the confidence of the 99 percent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/opinion/in-campaign-financing-more-money-can-beat-big-money.html
karynnj
(60,968 posts)Many of our better legislators said the same thing long before the NYT did. One that I saved a long time ago, was a passionate John Kerry speech given when he re-introduced the campaign finance bill he wrote with Senator Wellstone in I think 1997 - some details have changed and obviously any numbers or statistics are dated, but his comments are completely in sync with your link.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak before you today about a critical challenge before this Senate--the challenge of reforming the way in which elections are conducted in the United States; the challenge of ending the ``moneyocracy'' that has turned our elections into auctions where public office is sold to the highest bidder. I want to implore the Congress to take meaningful steps this year to ban soft money, strengthen the Federal Election Commission, provide candidates the opportunity to pay for their campaigns with clean money, end the growing trend of dangerous sham issue ads, and meet the ultimate goal of restoring the rights of average Americans to have a stake in their democracy. Today I am proud to join with my colleague from Minnesota, PAUL WELLSTONE, to introduce the ``Clean Money'' bill which I believe will help all of us entrusted to shape public policy to arrive at a point where we can truly say we are rebuilding Americans' faith in our democracy.
For the last 10 years, I have stood before you to push for comprehensive campaign reform. We have made nips and tucks at the edges of the system, but we have always found excuses to hold us back from making the system work. It's long past time that we act--in a comprehensive way--to curtail the way in which soft money and the big special interest dollars are crowding ordinary citizens out of this political system.
Today the political system is being corrupted because there is too much unregulated, misused money circulating in an environment where candidates will do anything to get elected and where, too often, the special interests set the tone of debate more than the political leaders or the American people. Just consider the facts for a moment. The rising cost of seeking political office is outrageous. In 1996, House and Senate candidates spent more than $765 million, a 76% increase since 1990 and a six fold increase since 1976. Since 1976, the average cost for a winning Senate race went from $600,000 to $3.3 million, and in the arms race for campaign dollars in 1996 many of us were forced to spend significantly more than that. In constant dollars, we have seen an increase of over 100 percent in the money spent for Senatorial races from 1980 to 1994. Today Senators often spend more time on the phone ``dialing for dollars'' than on the Senate floor. The average Senator must raise $12,000 a week for six years to pay for his or her re-election campaign.
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. The use of soft money has exploded. In 1988, Democrats and Republicans raised a combined $45 million in soft money. In 1992 that number doubled to reach $90 million and in 1995-96 that number tripled to $262 million. This trend continues in this cycle. What's the impact of all that soft money? It means that the special interests are being heard. They're the ones with the influence. But ordinary citizens can't compete. Fewer than one third of one percent of eligible voters donated more than $250 in the electoral cycle of 1996. They're on the sidelines in what is becoming a coin-operated political system.
The American people want us to act today to forge a better system. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 77% of the public believes that campaign finance reform is needed ``because there is too much money being spent on political campaigns, which leads to excessive influence by special interests and wealthy individuals at the expense of average people.'' Last spring a New York Times found that an astonishing 91% of the public favor a fundamental transformation of this system.
Cynics say that the American people don't care about campaign finance. It's not true. Citizens just don't believe we'll have the courage to act--they're fed up with our defense of the status quo. They're disturbed by our fear of moving away from this status quo which is destroying our democracy. Soft money, political experts tell us, is good for incumbents, good for those of us within the system already. Well, nothing can be good for any elected official that hurts our democracy, that drives citizens out of the process, and which keeps politicians glued to the phone raising money when they ought to be doing the people's business. Let's put aside the status quo, and let's act today to restore our democracy, to make it once more all that the founders promised it could be.
Let us pass the Clean Mo ney Bill to restore faith in our government in this age when it has been so badly eroded.
Let us recognize that the faith in government and in our political process which leads Americans to go to town hall meetings, or to attend local caucuses, or even to vote--that faith which makes political expression worthwhile for ordinary working Americans--is being threatened by a political system that appears to reward the special interests that can play the game and the politicians who can game the system.
Each time we have debated campaign finance reform in this Senate, too many of our colleagues have safeguarded the status quo under the guise of protecting the political speech of the Fortune 500. But today we must pass campaign finance reform to protect the political voice of the 250 million ordinary, working Americans without a fortune. It is their dwindling faith in our political system that must be restored.
Twenty five years ago, I sat before the Foreign Relations Committee, a young veteran having returned from Vietnam. Behind me sat hundreds of veterans committed to ending the war the Vietnam War. Even then we questioned whether ordinary Americans, battle scarred veterans, could have a voice in a political system where the costs of campaigns, the price of elected office seemed prohibitive. Young men who had put their life on the front lines for their country were worried that the wall of special interests between the people and their government might have been too thick even then for our voices to be heard in the corridors of power in Washington, D.C.
But we had a reserve of faith left, some belief in the promise and the influence of political expression for all Americans. That sliver of faith saved lives. Ordinary citizens stopped a war that had taken 59,000 American lives.
Every time in the history of this republic when we have faced a moral challenge, there has been enough faith in our democracy to stir the passions of ordinary Americans to act--to write to their Members of Congress; to come to Washington and speak with us one on one; to walk door to door on behalf of issues and candidates; and to vote on election day for people they believe will fight for them in Washington.
It's the activism of citizens in our democracy that has made the American experiment a success. Ordinary citizens--at the most critical moments in our history--were filled with a sense of efficacy. They believed they had influence in their government.
Today those same citizens are turning away from our political system. They believe the only kind of influence left in American politics is the kind you wield with a checkbook. The senior citizen living on a social security check knows her influence is inconsequential compared to the interest group that can saturate a media market with a million dollars in ads that play fast and loose with the facts. The mother struggling to find decent health care for her children knows her influence is trivial compared to the special interests on K Street that can deliver contributions to incumbent politicians struggling to stay in office.
But I would remind you that whenever our country faces a challenge, it is not the special interests, but rather the average citizen, who holds the responsibility to protect our nation. The next time our nation faces a crisis and the people's voice needs to be heard to turn the tide of history, will the average American believe enough in the process to give words to the feelings beyond the beltway, the currents of public opinion that run beneath the surface of our political dialogue?
In times of real challenge for our country in the years to come, will the young people speak up once again? Not if we continue to hand over control of our political system to the special interests who can infuse the system with soft money and with phony television ads that make a mockery of the issues.
The children of the generation that fought to lower the voting age to 18 are abandoning the voting booth themselves. Polls reveal they believe it is more likely that they'll be abducted by aliens than it is that their vote will make a real difference. For America's young people the MTV Voter Participation Challenge ``Choose or Lose'' has become a cynical joke. In their minds, the choice has already been lost--lost to the special interests. That is a loss this Senate should take very seriously. That is tremendous damage done to our democracy, damage we have a responsibility in this Senate to repair. Mr. President, with this legislation we are introducing today, we can begin that effort--we can repair and revitalize our political process, and we can guarantee ``clean elections'' funded by ``clean money,'' elections where our citizens are the ones who make the difference
closeupready
(29,503 posts)nt
savannah43
(575 posts)anyone we like. Sanders, Nader, Chomsky, and so on. I don't know when Progressives will learn to fight fire with fire. Until OWS, the opposition counted on us being all talk and no action. We have to wrestle them to the ground and then step on their throats. Figuratively, I mean.
T S Justly
(884 posts)A Progressive would land in the White House with a solid mandate from the voters.
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)And those Blue Dog Dems would be backed by massive corporate money and get all the face time in the world on corporate media. Eventually, a Blue Dog Dem like Sen. Mark Warner, charismatic in his own right, would rise up and challenge the progressive president.
SixthSense
(829 posts)Then we seriously need to consider whether there is any benefit to participating in the political system at all - and whether, and how, this political system can be replaced with a just and representative one.
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)The smarter, wiser path would be to constantly raise the consciousness of the people. Get the entire public to understand what's really going on.
The recall votes in Wisconsin and Ohio are terrific examples of how to raise the awareness of the people, get them engaged in the system, and win political corrective actions
The path forward is to get more of these statewide initiatives on the ballots that challenge the current political system.
SixthSense
(829 posts)For the sake of argument, let's grant that the original supposition - that Obama is the most progressive possible President that the present political system can produce.
If that is true, then certain things can never happen, absent the collapse of the government - getting out of perpetual warmaking, ending the war on drugs, reining in Wall St., ending "free" trade, restoration of civil rights (esp. Habeus Corpus), etc. etc. etc.
If any of those are important to you, or any other issue where you find yourself opposed in deed by both parties, the only logical path to those just and valid ends is to destroy the system - for as long as it exists, your will will never be represented and you have been robbed entirely of your right to self-determination.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)No the op appears to think that a clever argument for supporting more of the same has been made.
RC
(25,592 posts)As mentioned Obama campaigned from the Left. He now governs from the Right. How is that Progressive?
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)Your definition of "governing from the right" would accuse FDR of being a conservative Republican.
RC
(25,592 posts)It is your perceptions that need tweaking.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)The actual truth is that the country has moved considerably leftwards since the 1930s, to a point where things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social programs are only "controversial" for the right-most ~30% of the population, if that. Not to mention labor laws, minimum wages, etcetera.
A liberal today is advocating positions far, far to the left of what a liberal would have been doing 80 years ago.
RC
(25,592 posts)We, as a country are in danger of falling off the cliff on the Right side. The political center is over the horizon to the Left.
You really need to get out more. Visit some exotic countries like Canada or something.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)The actual truth is that the country has moved considerably leftwards since the 1930s, to a point where things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social programs are only "controversial" for the right-most ~30% of the population, if that. Not to mention labor laws, minimum wages, etcetera.
A liberal today is advocating positions far, far to the left of what a liberal would have been doing 80 years ago.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 22, 2011, 03:59 PM - Edit history (1)
is the reason for many of his conservative minded cabinet choices. In 2008 he could have surrounded himself with more progressives.
I do think that Obama is more progressive than his picks and if he would have chosen more progressive individuals our current political system (at least the overall conversation) would be more to the left.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)and people can create change by advocating and working for change.
there's a difference between putting everything on Obama and criticizing the systemic failures that have plagued this nation since its beginning with the three-fifths compromise.
It seems those two worldviews have constantly made this nation less than it could be - what I don't understand is how persistent that backward view remains in American society - but it seems greed trumps humanity and religion provides justification for just about anything if someone wants it to.
Americans seem to be the most fearful people of any western democracy - fearful of their fellow citizens and the rest of the world. It's sort of like a form of craziness - empire fever.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)We can do better. We have to do better. We have no choice.