Dear Democratic Leaders: I Propose a Cease-Fire

[tblue37]

150. I am a Democrat--and I also call myself a progressive and a "far-left" liberal.

I don't think that change is useful, 1StrongBlackMan.

I too get pretty darned tired of the constant attacks on Obama that seem so much more vicious and relentless than any attacks leveled at the Republicans who are making it so difficult for him to do his job, and I usually agree with your posts. But "progressive" is not a bad thing. In fact, I am at heart a Bernie Sanders socialist--though I do realize that our benighted country is not going to establish a European socialist state, no matter how much I wish we would.

I think Obama tries to push us in the right direction, but as Jimmy Carter once said when asked what surprised him most about being president, the president's power is more limited than most people realize (unless, of course, like W he is willing to do exactly what the amassed power of the deep state, the sociopathic hyper-rich, and the corporations want).

Nevertheless, I do think that Obama took a while to figure out how to most effectively use the power he does have, and while he was learning he probably gave up rather more than he had to. And I also am often disappointed when he appoints a fox to guard the henhouse or when something like this executive order comes down the pike--though I certainly understand how such things happen in politics.

Many years ago Alan Alda starred in an excellent movie called The Seduction of Joe Tynan. In it, Alda played a progressive politician who worked very hard to get into a position to do something good for the country and its people. But by the time he got to that position of "power," he was hemmed in on all sides by the compromises and trade-offs that he had to make to get there at all.

My guess is that there is some policy or issue that Obama considers to be essential (maybe more than one), but the only way to get any movement on it is to go along with this particular crap sandwich.

I have been amazed at how much he has accomplished under the radar by way of incremental movement, but of course incremental movement under the radar is by its very nature not splashy or attention-getting. Consequently, his progressive accomplishments get completely overlooked or, even if they are noticed, they are discounted as being less significant than they really are.

What happens to politicians who stand on principle more forcefully is that they get marginalized--like Kucinich or Sanders. I like that Sanders is making noise about running for president, butI am sure he doesn't expect to win the nomination. He is running to force the Democratic primary debate more to the left, so that no matter who is the ultimate nominee, she or he will have to accede to at least some of our demands. Obama got himself into a position where he could do some things by realizing that he couldn't do everything--nor could he be seen as too obviously attempting to do all that much. That is why so many of his successes have been under the radar and incremental, though they are likely to have real impact in the long term.

So anyway, although I usually do agree with your posts, I hate to see you use "progressive" as if being a progressive is somehow different from and antithetical to being a Democrat, and as if it is something one should perhaps not want to be.