A Short Note On The Democratic Party And The Progressive Left....

[JDPriestly]

299. People who write abstract posts with no concrete examples, no discussion of specific issues,

are likely to get lots of recommendations, but say utterly nothing.

This is a not so short response.

Magistrate, please explain. What in the world are you talking about?

What do you consider to be hyperbole?

OK. Let's start with this:

"First, it has to be acknowledged that left and progressive people really do not have solid ground to proclaim they and only they are true Democrats, or are the real base of the Democratic Party, and that people who are left of center or center-left or even centerists are not really Democrats."

Here is a list of Democratic presidents in the 20th century. (Of course, Obama is the first one in the 21st century.)

Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton

In my view, Woodrow Wilson and Bill Clinton were the most right-wing of those presidents. Obama talks to the left of Wilson and Clinton, but he has performed to the right of them in my opinion.

FDR -- I don't need to explain. Some point to his business background and the fact that he grew up in wealth. But FDR became president at a decisive point in history and carried the day with programs that were far more liberal than anything people are thinking about today -- the WPA for example. FDR faced down a recalcitrant Supreme Court -- warning them that he would simply fill the Court with liberal Democrats if they didn't discard precedents that prevented his greatly needed social welfare programs from going through.

I remember Harry S. Truman. He was, in my opinion, not as far to the left as the sitting president, FDR, was but still he would be horrified at the so-called Democratic administrations of our time -- Clinton and Obama. Here is the kind of Democrat Truman was, strong on maintaining high taxes, vetoing the Taft-Hartley anti-labor bill (although tough on labor when he believed it necessar), initiating the Marshall Plan, supporting the United Nations and proposing the "fair deal" which would have brought us national health insurance and a huge housing program. Truman was faced with a very aggressive Communist movement overseas and responded to it awkwardly but with a sure focus on combating the cruelty and extremism of it. Truman defined the difference between a realistic, feet-on-the-ground Democrat and an extreme leftist. Most of those of us who are considered to be too far to the left on DU are about as far left as Truman and FDR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman

Then there was Kennedy. Need I say more. Relatively liberal. Relatively left. Floundering somewhat on foreign policy from the viewpoint of hindsight. He faced very great threats from Communist dictators. Mao was way over the top in China at the time so Kennedy's fears about Viet Nam were probably justified. Problem is, Kennedy did not know how to respond. (Neither did anyone else.) I met North Vietnamese supporters among students overseas. They were real fanatics. When I think about the war in Viet Nam, I am less critical of the reaction of Kennedy and Johnson than were many of my generation because I had been exposed to the truly extremist theories of those students. Whether in spite of themselves or out of idealism, the Kennedys moved the nation toward more racial tolerance under the pressure of Martin Luther King's movement.

Then Johnson. For all his faults, for all his outrages in conducting the war en Viet Nam, Johnson was a staunch Democrat. Medicare, the war on poverty, further steps to ease the way to integration and other programs continued the very liberal spirit of the New Deal.

Carter made the mistake of falling for the idea of deregulation. But other than that, he was liberal in his social and economic views. For his time, he was conscious of environmental issues although somewhat inept at taking the right action to set us on a good course of action to protect our environment. Carter fell to the unscrupulous Reagan crowd. A bunch of cheats if there ever was one in the White House. Carter's exit from the White House marked a low point. And no Democrat after him has stayed true to Democratic ideals. Obama's performance in foreign affairs may exceed any president before him, but Obama's performance with regard to economic and social issues is uninspired in my view.

And that, I think is the word that best expresses what we who are considered by some on DU to be pants on fire liberals, arguing by hyperbole, I think was the expression, feel to be the case with both Clinton and Obama. Clinton less so. Uninspired when it comes to expressing and fulfilling the Democratic ideals that were brought to some fruition under FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and to a lesser extent, Carter.

Obama has improved the country with his health care proposal. But it has been implemented so slowly that most Americans haven't experienced its benefits and don't fully grasp what it is though it was passed around 5 years ago. That's what you call "uninspired." A little too patient to be effective. (And I am a big proponent of patience, but Obama's implementation of the ACA is tedious, not patient.)

Beyond that, Obama's economic policies have not furthered economic justice -- not at all, not in any way. Privatization has reached an inexcusable extreme. Criminals, torturers, people who really did not respect American values at all in their conduct overseas, have gone unpunished, as have those in the financial sector whose fraud brought nations to their knees.

So, call me hair on fire, call me extreme, call me arguing by hyperbole, but I remember what the Democratic Party once was. It was labor union activists and supporters. It was civil rights heroes, it was pro-public-education, it was pro workers' rights, pro-economic and social justice. And we are not seeing the enthusiasm and commitment on those and other issues like the environment that we need to see. Monsanto on the cabinet? Please.

And, yes, I do consider myself a strong Obama supporter. I think he probably agrees with me in his heart. But he has allowed himself to be mired down in the Clinton barely a Democrat syndrome. It's very sad. The Obama/Kerry team is promising. But beyond that, I can't see any Democratic president prior to Clinton who would consider Obama's track record to be much to brag about.

I fully understand that Obama has had an impossible Congress to deal with. But then, maybe if Obama presented ideas that were more inspiring if perhaps unattainable and presented them with zeal, people would be excited about electing Democrats to Congress. I'd like to see him try that for 2014.

Rahm Emmanuel's exit from the staff was probably the best change in the White House during Obama's terms. Who he appoints as Fed chair just may determine how he is remembered in history. I hope he will appoint someone who inspires the country to do more to end the income disparity that he has acknowledged as the problem it is. That would be inspiring.