10 Truths Every “Progressive” Had Better Learn for 2012 and Beyond
This is a special repost of Milt Shook’s post 10 Truths Every “Progressive” Had Better Learn for 2012 and Beyond from the most excellent blog, Please Cut the Crap! Think of this post as an addition to Pandora’s post from earlier this week, Tone Deaf. Special thanks to Milt for letting Delaware Liberal reprint his original post in its entirety. And thanks to cassandra_m, Pandora and Unstable Isotope for bringing this post to my attention. And now, without further interruption, Milt Shook’s fantastic takedown of “progressives”.
Albert Einstein once defined “insanity” as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
He also said, “Man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.”
I think everyone will agree that Einstein was a smart guy about most things, not just relativity. It is in that vein that I pose some simple questions for left wingers.
When did the political junkies on the left – unfortunately, the loudest of our ideology – become so goddamned stupid, politically speaking?
Why are so many people with little or no expertise – just a goddamn blog or a radio show – looked upon as icons by so many of these idiots?
Given that the left has been on the outside looking in, politically speaking, for forty goddamned years, at what point do we reassess our “strategy,” (and yes, I use the term loosely), because it’s obviously not working?
Lastly, when in God’s name will this loud and very stupid segment of the far left EVER figure out that we live in a democracy, that we are not the majority, and that the reason why we almost never win elections is because no one likes the far left very much?
In the last 40 years, we have watched as the Democratic Party was taken farther to the right than at any time since before the Great Depression, yet many on the far left can’t seem to figure out why that’s the case. Here’s a clue ., even as they look at their voter registration card that proudly proclaims their affiliation with an obscure “third parties” or worse, “independent.”
This blog is about cutting the crap, and while right wingers are full of it, there is a large contingent of liberals out there, most of whom tend to be white, tend to be, um, let’s just say, not poor, who have college educations and opinions about everything, but don’t seem to have any real world political experience; just a head full of theories and ideals. Seriously, they are just incredibly ignorant when it comes to how politics actually works. Oh, sure, they can quote John Locke and Thomas Jefferson by rote, and their high ideals seem admirable, but how admirable are their “ideals,” really, when they do absolutely nothing to make sure those ideals become policy and/or law. The sad fact is, they have no idea how to get things done, politically speaking. They are admitted “news junkies,” and they claim to follow government closely, yet they make some of the dumbest goddamn assertions I have ever heard in my life.
These are the people who think Barack Obama was elected as our wizard, not our president. I used to laugh at the wingnuts who laughed at libs because they thought President Obama was a savior of sorts, but I stopped laughing during the health care debate. Apparently, there are a bunch of loudmouthed libs out there who truly think the president can just wave his hand, and all of the problems caused by the Bushies just vanishes.
The sad thing is, they dominate the political discourse on the left, and they make it seem as if all of us are stupid idealists, and I’m getting sick of it.
I am 52 years old. When I was 14, I was already into politics and process, and my mentor at the time was a liberal Republican. Yes, there were such things in 1972. MOST Democrats were pretty liberal, but we also had a large contingent of Democrats who were legacy Dixiecrats, although they had been defecting to the GOP for a few years by then. It was a perfect opportunity to grow a politically progressive coalition in Congress, and liberals just plain blew it. For whatever reason, the progressive movement that spawned the civil rights, women’s rights and gay rights movements and ended the Vietnam war seemed to just vanish. Part of the problem was that a large number of (mostly white) liberals abandoned the Democratic Party and started entertaining delusions of grandeur, imagining a “revolution” in which a “third party” would rise up and take down the two behemoth parties. Between the early 1970s and now, affiliation with a major party has been cut nearly in half. Only the dumbest among us would think this is a good thing.
Here are ten truths we need to consider if we’re to move forward as progressives. In fact, if we don’t understand and acknowledge these truths, the neocons will continue to dominate the debate, and we will keep moving backward as a nation. I will elaborate more on these in future columns, but here’s an overview.
Truth #1 – In a winner-take-all electoral system, having two major political parties is rare and should be treasured. Three major political parties is a fantasy.
If you doubt this, name one other non-parliamentary democracy that has two strong major political parties. And in nearly 250 years of history, when have we ever had three major political parties?
Nearly a third of the American electorate is registered with a “third party” affiliation or as “independent.” The last number I saw was about 31%, and that sounds about right. Start with the basic reality that 31% of the vote will never win an election., even in a three-way race. But compounding that problem is the fact that the 31% is so splintered as to be completely useless as a voting bloc, in any case. That number includes such disparate groups as Libertarians, Socialist Workers, the Modern Whigs, the Communist Party, the Boston Tea Party and at least 30-40 other parties, as well as those noncommittal souls who simply call themselves “independent.”
But worse, that’s 31% of the electorate that has ZERO influence over the major party processes. Oh, sure; politicians play to them a little, but only in a really close election.
Political parties are the ultimate democratic institutions, folks. They are organic; they represent the politics and the views of the people who populate them. If they are not doing something you want them to do, it’s either because you’re not there, or you’ve been outnumbered. The only qualification for membership is that you be registered to vote and you need to write your affiliation when you register. That’s it. If you’re a rebellious teenager or a college student, and you join the Socialist Workers Party to piss off your mom and dad and a few professors, that’s cute. But if you’re in your 30s or older, and you’re registered “independent” or to a third party, you’re actually a major reason why our system is broken. You’re pathetic, and you don’t understand how our system works. Basically, if you want the Democratic Party to move left, then you need to move it left. You need to register as a Democrat, attend every meeting , and vote for everything you could possibly want. You may not get it, but that’s democracy.
If you’re wondering why the Democratic Party moved to the right, it’s because liberals have largely abandoned party politics, and a large number of them continue to stand on the sidelines and watch as right wingers – the dumbest people in the world, – run rings around us politically.
And that brings us to Truth #2.
Truth #2 – Political parties do not and will never try to attract your vote by appealing to you.
This has to be the dumbest thing I hear this group of progressives say,; my jaw drops every time I hear it. I know you’ve heard it. “Well, if ‘the Democrats’ want my vote, they’re going to have to (insert desired action here). If they don’t (insert desired action here), then I won’t vote, or I’ll vote for (insert the name of some obscure candidate who can say anything he wants because he knows he won’t win here).”
That’s not a threat, folks, especially from these liberals. See, in order for that to be a threat, politicians have to normally be able to count on your vote in the first place. The far right will vote for anyone with an “R” in front of their name in every election. When they’re pissed off and don’t vote, then Republicans are in trouble. That’s how it works. You vote for Democrats in every election, and you withhold your vote, then they know something is wrong and they appeal to you to get you back.
Such liberals rarely vote in the first place, and often, when they do vote, they vote “their conscience” (I’ll get to this line of bullshit later), which means voting for someone like Ralph Nader, who has less than a snowball’s chance in hell of winning any national election, or Dennis Kucinich, who runs in every presidential election and may be the one person who has less chance of winning than Nader.
Here’s the deal, folks. Threatening to withhold your vote from someone can only matter to someone if they have come to count on your vote in the first place. That’s why Democrats work hard for black and Hispanic votes, but they don’t alter their message to appeal to whiny white liberals.
Which brings up another truth:
Truth #3 – If you’re a white liberal blogger or other far left pundit, you are probably NOT “the Democratic base.”
A lot of people make up the democratic “base,” but if your voter card doesn’t say “Democratic Party” without any adjectives, or worse, you’re not even registered to vote (yes, that happens more than you’ll ever know), then you are, by definition, NOT part of the Democratic Party’s “base.” If you have ever voted for Nader or Kucinich, you are also not part of the “base.”
The Democratic base consists of people who can be counted upon to consistently vote for Democrats, even if they have to occasionally hold their nose to do so. It is a diverse group, and includes a large number of moderates. In fact, I would say the Democratic base consists of mostly moderates who are middle-of-the-road, politically speaking. See, the “base” of a political party is, by definition, the voters it can count on to vote for them in pretty much every election. That’s where the term “base” comes from. Most of the loudest lefties in the country can’t be counted upon to vote for anyone consistently; to rely upon them as a “base” would be politically stupid.
Truth #4 – Not all progressives think the way you do, and your ideas are not the only ones that work.
One of the great things about being a progressive used to be the diversity of opinion on our side. All right wingers like to think in lockstep, they can’t tolerate diversity of opinion, and they need validation. On the other hand, progressives used to be able disagree without the disagreement itself becoming a major issue.
Unfortunately, when I read the liberal blogosphere and listen to a growing number of (again, mostly white) progressives discuss issues, they are far too quick to label those who disagree; they don’t listen well to differing viewpoints,;and they are increasingly dismissive of anyone whose opinion doesn’t conform exactly with theirs.
In other words, an increasing number of left wingers sound an awful lot like right wingers.
I am a liberal. I am a progressive. I believe in progressive principles, period. Yet, much of the these (mostly white) self-described progressives refer to me often as a moderate, because I believe in a quiet revolution of ideas, and I don’t engage as much in personality politics. If I were king of the world, everyone would make a living wage, tax rates would be reasonable for everyone with everyone paying according to what they actually produce for society, and not just how much cash they generate. We would all be free to get the education we need to follow our dreams, without going heavily into debt to do it. Everyone, including the poorest among us would be able to count on food in their bellies, a roof over their head, and access to medical care, period. There would be a huge, comprehensive energy grid, with a mix of energy production sources, based on what is practical where you live, and the internal combustion engine would be on its way to the scrap heap of history. The death penalty would be history, and the mission of prisons would be rehabilitation once again. While I love eating meat, we should be eating a lot less of it, and we should endeavor to produce it in as humane a manner as possible. And the environment has to be the number one concern when we do anything; we owe it to future generations to preserve this place for them.
See what I mean? I’m very liberal, and proud of it. But I am constantly attacked by these ridiculous self-described “progressives” because I don’t give a flying fuck how we get where we need to be, as long as we get there. But I’m frustrated, because quite honestly, those loudmouth liberals with the strongest opinions have become one of the greatest obstacles to progress in this country, and it’s killing us slowly. I know, there’s a tendency to blame the right for everything, but they can’t effect their policies unless they win elections.
Of course, neither can we.
Truth #5 – Fighting is overrated. Most voters want discussion and action.
“Why doesn’t Obama fight?”
“Why don’t ‘the Democrats’ have a spine?”
Let me disabuse you people of something. RIGHT wingers love a fight. Right wingers need red meat thrown at them on a regular basis just to feel alive. The vast majority of the populace of this country doesn’t want to see a fight. They hire politicians to get things done, not to have temper tantrums and call each other names.
As I have pointed out on this blog many times, a major part of the Republican strategy is to piss people off enough to make them stay away from the polls. They say the stupid shit they say because they are HOPING to stir some trouble. They don’t call Obama a Kenyan socialist because they actually believe he’s either Kenyan or a socialist. They call him that because it fires up their idiotic base, and because they KNOW that we’ll react to it, and in the process blow another non-issue up all out of proportion, and take the debate away from the issues that truly matter.
When lefties talk about getting down and dirty and being just like the right, it’s because they believe that being negative is what wins Republicans elections, and they’re right. Unfortunately, that’s not how to win elections for Democrats and progressives. Republicans are a minority in this country; there are more Democrats than Republicans registered to vote, and there always have been. the only way Republicans can win election is by making sure their base – which is made up of a lot of truly ignorant and hateful people – turns out, and to depress turnout among everyone else.
President Obama won by a large margin, despite his race, because he REFUSED to go negative. Get it?
Truth #6 – We can’t get progressive policies in place without winning elections. and Truth #7 – We can’t have a progressive country until we create a progressive mindset.
These two go together.
I know I keep mentioning it, but again, we live in a democracy. I will continue to say this a lot, until liberals actually seem to get it.
Yes, I know; you have come to believe that being popular is roughly equivalent to having “sold out.” Unfortunately, if you want to get something done, you have to hold office. And in order to hold office, you have little choice but to appeal to as many people as you can, and to get as many votes as possible. This doesn’t mean “selling out” or “caving” (which is another one of those words the left tends to overuse and over-value); but it does mean that you have to get the majority on your side. And that means adjusting your message to appeal to a majority of voters. That means tailoring our message for a broad audience. That means speaking to people in a language that they understand. And that means communicating to everyone in terms that appeal to as many of them as possible.
In order to win elections, we have to speak to people, and teach them why what we believe is actually best. It’s not enough to point out that right wingers are full of shit. Most political moderates know that right wingers are full of shit. The reason we keep losing elections is because we don’t fill the knowledge vacuum with anything. When right wingers say, “global warming” is a myth, “no it isn’t” is not enough of an argument to get people to ditch their cars and put solar panels on their roof. When right wingers say “illegal aliens are taking our jobs,” it’s not enough to simply claim that they don’t.
Seriously, folks; we have GOT to stop talking to the right wing and start talking to the American people. And we certainly have to stop calling people stupid when they don’t do what we think they should do.
And this leads directly to…
Truth #8 – If we want to get elected and have influence over policy, people have to like us.
It’s a sad fact that a large number of people – probably a majority, but I don’t want to go that far without hard numbers – think liberals are assholes.
And why wouldn’t they?
We are always on about how horrible things are. The right sucks. Fox News sucks. The environment sucks. The rich suck. “The Democrats” suck. Cars suck. Anyone who doesn’t think exactly as we do sucks.
Now, we all have at least one relative or person we have to deal with on a regular basis who’s like this. No matter what happens, they are always negative. Here’s the question; do you tend to avoid them, or do you invite them to dinner as often as possible?
I want you to go to your beloved liberal blogs and I want you to count the number of “doom and gloom” articles and compare them to the positive, hopeful articles. If you listen to the loudest, most obnoxious liberals out there, you would swear that the government was being overrun by fascists and “corporatists,” that the climate is going to cause the destruction of the earth, and other shit like that.
Of course, there’s something missing, as well.
Solutions . Wait; let me rephrase that;
Solutions that don’t require everyone to change everything about their life.
We do have to fix what we’re doing to the environment. But the solution is not to junk every internal combustion engine and replace it with an electric motor immediately.
Yes, it would be nice to watch Bush and Cheney be frog marched and put on trial, but the 20 million people who are currently unemployed would rather see us do something to fix the economy they broke.
And gosh, I would like to see the big banks pay for the stupidity that led to the economic meltdown, but you know what? That’s MY money in those banks, so whatever you do has to not effect my deposits. And what if our big banks became too small to compete in the global marketplace; how might that effect the economy?
Liberals have a reputation as being anti-everything, and the vast majority of voters want to vote FOR something. Voters in 2008 didn’t vote against McCain. They voted for the hope that Obama represented, and frankly, still represents. They voted for competence and vision; they didn’t vote to break up the big banks, so that you would feel satisfied. We are all in this together, and any solution to any problem must balance all relevant realities, not just the ones you think are important.
Which leads us to the next truth…
Truth #9 – Your proclamations of “voting your conscience” are simultaneously meaningless and insulting.
Voting for a third party, or voting for someone who has no chance of winning election and therefore can say any goddamn thing he or she wants is actually stupid enough. But when you proclaim that you voted that way because you “voted your conscience” makes you doubly so.
First of all, MOST people vote their conscience, based on the meaning you give to it. Most people vote in favor of the candidates and causes they think will most benefit the country. To those who voted against gay marriage in California in 2008, that meant voting against “immorality.”
But let’s get real here.
If you, as a progressive, want to see the country move forward, and you vote for someone who has no ability to make that happen, then you’re lying when you say you’re “voting your conscience.” My conscience could never allow me to vote for someone who was incapable of making this country better, and that’s what you’re doing when you vote for, or even promote, a candidate who has no chance of winning.
You are also demonstrating a galling level of gullibility. Think about it; if someone knows he or she isn’t going to win, he or she can say anything they want; they’ll never take office, so they’ll never have to deliver on it. I can cruise the liberal blogs and cull ideas guaranteed to get me tons of liberal votes (and liberal money), and none of it matters, because I’ll never have to act on any of it.
On the other hand, I, as a liberal, have a conscience. I want to move this country in a progressive direction. There are two (sometimes three) candidates who have a shot at winning in any election, and my conscience tells me I have to vote for the one of those candidates who is most likely to move us in a progressive direction. Sometimes, that means voting for someone whom I don’t like; no one said democracy was easy. But if you’re voting for someone who has zero chance of winning, you’re not voting your conscience; you’re voting your arrogance.
Which brings us to our last truth for this session…
Truth #10 – There is no such thing as “the Democrats;” at least as many on the left see it.
We will never progress politically if we are so arrogant as to think that our ideas are impermeable, and that anyone who disagrees with us is “stupid.”
We didn’t lose out in the 2010 election because the electorate is “stupid.” We lost out because we spent all of our time pissing and moaning and bitching because Barack Obama wasn’t the Messiah some had hoped for. We spent the entire time bitching about the fact that the health reform package that was passed didn’t contain a “public option.” We spent the entire time whining about “the Democrats” being spineless and not doing everything that we expected of them when we deigned to vote for them in 2008. Apparently, they should have been so grateful that “we lefties” gave them our votes that they should have kissed our asses and proposed nothing but “progressive” rules and “progressive” legislation.
I’ll get more into this in other columns, but just what the hell did you expect? In reality, 375 bills were passed by “the Democrats” in the House, and kept from being held up for a vote by 40-41 Republicans in the Senate. As I pointed out on this blog, that included quite a bit of relatively progressive legislation. Rational human beings would have blamed “the Republicans” for that and solved the problem by making sure there were fewer Republicans in the Senate. Instead, we spent two years denigrating “the Democrats.”
There is no such thing as “the Democrats.” Democrats represent all sorts of districts throughout this country, and “the Democrats” in rural Kentucky have different priorities than “the Democrats” in Boston or New York. I already got into this in an earlier post, but those of you who are “happy” because “Blue Dogs” lost are complete and utter idiots, because it’s going to be difficult to win a majority in Congress and the state houses without a large number of conservative Democrats filling out the ranks. At some point way in the future we may end up with a progressive majority, but not until we change the mindset of the country, so that progressive politics feels natural.
“Everything is laid waste, even words have lost their luster”.
The fact that America elected a President espousing and running on a strong liberal platform disproves just about everything you just wrote. Too bad Obama was lying.
How is your campaign to revive the Delaware republican party going? Obama has done really really well at reviving it on a national level.
Thanks for the hippie-punching! It helps us stay focused and reminds us what we are really up against.
Just as in the 70s and 80s some blue collar Democrats peeled off and supported Reaganomics, now in 2010 we have some of the liberal bourgeoisie peeling off and supporting Bushonomics. Good riddance; these are people who will do fine no matter which party is in power; they have no skin in the game and aren’t reliable supporters anyway. I’m certainly not planning to spend the next two years appeasing them.
It’s of absolutely no surprise that A1 and anon would not get this article, however, I didn’t post this for the “progressives”, I posted this for those liberals tired of their shit.
Like I said earlier, it’s all about income security. If you have it, you can afford to let the party roll over, but it’s our liver that gets eaten.
But… what a lot of people who have no skin in the game were concerned about were Unemployment Benefits, Health Care availability to people who wanted it, but couldn’t afford it, etc.
And I admit I don’t have a lot skin in this game, but I am concerned for those that do. Basically, I’m not comfortable with hostage taking.
Actually, anon, the post states the opposite. And, I’ll quote.
Thanks for posting this. There are very good concepts here to consider and digest.
He did not run on a “strong liberal” platform. It had liberal elements, but not so many I’d call it strongly liberal. Ending Bush’s supra-constitutional powers wasn’t strictly speaking a “liberal” position — sticking to the Constitution is something the Tea Party pretends is important. He said he would prosecute the war in Afghanistan, and he has. Unlike Edwards, he did not run to the left of Hillary.
Liberals voted for Obama based on a set of assumptions. That doesn’t make him a liberal.
I think the problem is , the right is always able to advance their craziest extreme ideas. The GoPliban wins every time. The feeling is, “If the right wing can have loudmouth ass holes spewing hate and calls to arms for their cause, why cant we?”
It really isn’t fair and it makes me mad that i cant go “Alan Grayson” all the time on everyone.
The truth is, there is a double standard in this country skewed against progressives that will never go away. If we want to get things done, we have to learn to work within that double standard.
What makes it worse is all the good progressives have done for this country…. Independence from England, ending slavery, ending the robber barons (more slavery) protecting workers and children, ending segregation and de jure discrimination, expanding voting rights, working for equality among every human…..
versus all the bad things Conservatives have done…. opposing everything i just mentioned and more.
You’d think America would be more grateful to progressives from dragging it kicking and screaming every single fucking time to better days and brighter futures.
Understand this… it will never happen. America as a whole will never appreciate the progressive movement or liberalism. No matter how much better we make the world. No matter how many evil conservative causes we beat…. we will always be the gay tree hugging communists. The biggest conflict is…
do we want to get things done, or get credit for getting things done? If you want the credit then please keep calling for fire and brimstones and Obama primary challenges. IF you want results, suck it up make your criticisms, then shut up and figure out what to do.
He did not run on a “strong liberal” platform. It had liberal elements, but not so many I’d call it strongly liberal.
Exactly. It is not liberal; it is plain old Democrat. And anyone to the right of it has one foot in the GOP.
That is why it is so dishonest to try to marginalize people who support the Obama 2008 platform as whiny progressives.
I can’t think of any progressive in Congress who is asking for anything left of the Obama 2008 platform. Even Feingold cited Obama’s 2008 position as his reason for voting against The Deal.
ALL name calling aside, because BOTH sides do it, what bothers me the most is the absolute certainty displayed on blogs. I tend to waffle because I’m not 100% certain, so I guess that means I have one foot in the GOP. 😉
That said, I still believe our time can be better spent and our tone stinks. Most voters don’t realize that the unpopularity of HCR is made up of people who think it’s socialist and those who think it’s not progressive enough. All they hear is that a large group of people don’t like it. Whatever message we’re trying to send is getting lost in our tone. Of that… I am certain.
I am bothered by a passive tone. I can’t find the message in that either.
There are a lot of issues I am uncertain about, but tax cuts for the rich are not one of them. Ten years of results are in. We are living on the wrong side of the Laffer curve. If tax cuts for the rich were a clinical trial we would have to stop it on ethical grounds.
Brilliant article Nemski. Thanks for sharing it with us.
Maybe the answer lies in balancing the tone? Maybe we could mix cheering and booing to obtain balance?
If you realized that the battle is not between the republicans and democrats as much as it is between the owners of multi-national corporations and citizens who are interested in saving their democracy and the environment, then you’d realize what basic nonsense this article is.
We dirty fucking hippies that Shook and you love to bash know how national politics works; we just follow the money. Corporate interests know exactly how to maintain majority control by bribes known as campaign contributions. The government now exists to enforce wealthy corporate owners’ interests; not citizens’ interests.
Why is Social Security now being defunded while “our” government borrows billions to give to the top 2% of property owners? Why do we not have a public option even though it has wide spread support? Why is it against the law for “our” government to negotiate prices with pharma? Why are wages shrinking, poverty growing, and we have the most people in prison per capita than any country in the world, but the rich keep getting richer and richer?
And guess what, nemski, et al? We dirty fucking hippies have solutions for all these issues. Every single one. But people like Shook and nemski, who publish dishonest, demeaning, and self-aggrandizing articles like this one, are exactly like the people who call anti-war protesters “anti-patriotic, ignorant, and treasonous.”
Progressives like me that you and the White House slam were the same ones who sent in millions of small donations to Obama and the DNC, who sat on the telephones for hours calling voters, and who walked the streets doing GOTV. And for what?
To be insulted and lied to, to watch our Social Security being destroyed, to watch health care costs continue to spiral upward, to see one standard of justice for the rich and powerful and a different one for everyone else, to watch our environment get worse as nothing is done about global warming, to see our GLBT brothers’ and sisters’ right to full citizenship fought against in court, to watch endless war without end for no reason, to have our bodies electrocuted and sexually assaulted by government agents, and to watch our democracy slip farther and farther into corporatism?
Is that we worked for and donated our treasure for?
And you expect us to, what, just shut up?
Maybe the answer lies in balancing the tone? Maybe we could mix cheering and booing to obtain balance?
Three cheers for the 148 Congressmen and the 19 Senators who voted against the tax cuts for the rich!
Boo to the 138 Dem Congressmen and 33 Dem Senators who voted for tax cuts for the rich, including our own Sens. Coons and Carper!
Boo to President Obama for fighting for tax cuts for the rich!
Okay, we are balanced. Now what?
I hope that tone makes you feel better, because, really, that’s all you’re accomplishing.
The problem is the feel-good happy tone produced the enthusiasm gap and lost the House.
a1 wrote
Bullshit, absolute bullshit. I for one was against the war in Iraq. You might have been as well. But the difference is that I want our country to take responsibility for the colossal fuckup that war turned out to be.
And anon, the tax cuts for the rich came with a bailout for the middle class and those out of work – the people the Democrats represent. But then again, elitist white liberals cannot see the forest for the trees.
the tax cuts for the rich came with a bailout for the middle class and those out of work
Treating the symptoms while withholding the cure, keeping the host alive a bit longer so the parasites grow stronger.
The upper income tax cuts assure the jobless recovery will continue.
“That is why it is so dishonest to try to marginalize people who support the Obama 2008 platform as whiny progressives. I can’t think of any progressive in Congress who is asking for anything left of the Obama 2008 platform.”
Bullshit. You want out of Afghanistan as much as I or anyone else here. That’s a popular position that neither party is pushing, and it’s against what he ran on.
Nobody’s trying to marginalize you. We’re trying to get you to stop attacking the people who still support Obama. All you’re interesting in doing is justifying your vitriol. Swell, it’s justified. Doesn’t mean I want to read it every day. All it does is make me dislike you. Hasn’t changed my mind about politics one iota.
“the tax cuts for the rich came with a bailout for the middle class and those out of work. … Treating the symptoms while withholding the cure, so the parasites grow stronger.”
So you would withhold any medicine at all rather than treat the symptoms. Got it. You and Stalin, bosom buddies.
“The fact that America elected a President espousing and running on a strong liberal platform disproves just about everything you just wrote. Too bad Obama was lying.”
I don’t see this and didn’t see it during the presidential campaign. Obama ran as a centrist and is governing as one. I am as just about as progressive as a person can get, but I do not get the continual claim by some progressives that Obama lied to us on many issues. I am disappointed that we don’t have a progressive president, but I am not disappointed that Obama hasn’t turned out to be one because he never really presented himself as essentially progressive.
I said “exactly like” not “exactly.”
they want to let the unemployed starve to death to show how much they think rich people suck.
news flash…. the GOP is more evil than you can imagine. they would let the unemployed starve for fun… you’d just be giving them a politicaly fault-free way of doing it.
they want to let the unemployed starve to death to show how much they think rich people suck.
Frickin’ drama queens… pretending that UI would be withheld forever.
I guess when you want tax cuts for the rich, any excuse will do.
Dana: Some people are upset that he’s not even living up to some of his centrist promises. Other than that, bingo.
“Frickin’ drama queens… pretending that UI would be withheld forever.”
Ah, I see. We should just withhold it until it turns into a losing issue for Republicans. How long would that be, pray tell, and how would you put food on their tables in the meantime?
That said, I too am dispirited by Obama’s inability to find any issue on which he is willing to call the GOP’s bluff.
Here’s the way I see it…
As much as I agree with Progressive ideas, we are not the majority. In order to advance our ideas we need to convince others – and that will take time, and a lot of energy. My problem with the way this is heading is that we’re splitting ourselves. Hell, I have to keep reminding myself that we’re on the same side.
but I do not get the continual claim by some progressives that Obama lied to us on many issues.
Dana – I am not really hearing a lot of this, except among the usual unelected suspects who specialize in such things. I think this is a straw man.
The dissatisfaction with Obama among Democrats in Congress, however, is real, and is based on Obama’s passivity and retreat on his core promises, including expiration of upper income tax cuts and failure to fight for a public option.
This dissatisfaction is not based in personal peevishness but in real electoral concerns from Congressmen in districts that supported the Obama 2008 platform.
I suspect though that some members of Congress are now finally becoming peeved at Obama’s dealing behind their backs.
I am not sure that anything that smacks of suggesting that progressives should moderate their ideals is very helpful (unless the intention is to get people to give up on progressivism and become moderates). That would effectively remove the “progress” from “progressivism.” That would be deleterious to society, in my view. It’s in the very nature of progressivism to push the envelope, to not be completely content with the status quo until real justice is achieved.
The problem that some progressives have (and I have been there myself in spades) is a reluctance to play the long game, to (in some cases) accept in the meantime realizable approximations of the ideal. Consequently, they often end up burning their own bridges and sacrificing relationships that can be helpful to them and their ideals on the alter of being correct. That doesn’t mean that you never take a stand, that you never draw a line. It just means that on some issues you accept that you will have to draw many lines that are attainable over the long term.
I don’t think that there is much here that suggests that progressives should moderate their ideals. There is much here, though, that speaks to your second point — which is taking the long view, since having the right legislative and executive firepower to get your ideals done overnight isn’t on offer.
In regards to the relative merits of calling Obama’s platform in 2008 a “strong liberal platform,” I guess I need to invoke the theory of relativity. Whether it was strong or not, liberal or centrist, or slightly conservative depends on your perspective.
Geezer’s point is a good one: “Ending Bush’s supra-constitutional powers wasn’t strictly speaking a “liberal” position” – but the pendulum has swung so far towards an authoritarian state that even basic deference towards Civil Liberties and restoring a Constitutional government have almost become “liberal positions.”
However, that being said, many of his basic promises like real HCR with a public option, focusing on growing jobs on Main Street not Wall Street, ending the Bush tax cuts, closing GITMO, cleaning up the environment, etc., have not occurred. Instead, we have the same Bush tax cuts, high unemployment, wage freezes for Federal Workers, mismanagement and lying during the BP gusher, a defunding of Social Security, an escalating war in Afghanistan, and a resurgent right-wing political movement.
Where’s the change? Where’s the hope?
In regards to lying, Dana, it goes way back to the Senate when he lied about supporting a filibuster against Telcom immunity and then voted for it, numerous blatant lies about HCR and the BP gusher, and his most latest about the Bush tax cuts, to name a few. He has a long history of saying one thing and then doing the opposite.
A1… you have quite a laundry list. I agree it has a cumulative effect. But you can’t fight on every front at once. Progressives as well as Dems need to pick an issue to fight for. IMHO tax cuts for the rich should have been the one. You have to kill the snake from the head.
Raising taxes is hard. The expiration was a gift, and we have squandered a historic opportunity.
pandora, in regards to many progressive policy ideas we are in the majority! We just don’t have the money or the lobbyists to purchase the votes.
We have lost our democracy, and the chances of getting it back short of a miracle or revolution are pretty slim.
and somewhere, in his cave, Republican David is reading this and laughing his ass off.
If ALL of us were OK with tax cuts for the rich, he’d be laughing harder.
anon, When I supported and voted for Obama, I thought that “Main Street over Wall Street” economic justice was one of the things I was fighting for. In my wildest imagination, I did not think a Democratic President would be freezing workers’ wages and defunding Social Security while keeping Bush’s tax cuts and reducing the Estate tax even more.
BTW, can anybody tell me what Obama’s plan to help reduce unemployment is? Was there a national commission report that I missed somewhere?
He’s right about the lying. The only question is how progressive some of those ideas really are. I would maintain that not all of them are even Democratic ideas. The crushing truth, the one that has so many of us dispirited, is that the centrists, most with ties to the DLC, have so thoroughly taken over the policy-making in the party.
V, I am a Democrat. I know all about caves.
In 2008 I knew some spending cuts would be coming; heck I would be disappointed if they didn’t, as long as they were the right ones. Freezing Federal wages for a while is not the worst thing that could happen.
I also knew civil liberties were conspicuously absent from Obama’s 2008 platform; I accepted that reluctantly.
But never in my wildest dreams did I imagine Obama would sign the Bush tax cuts for the rich. I always figured a Democratic president would be a backstop to prevent something like that from happening. Now all bets are off. Obama has overturned the chess board and is counting on winning the new game. I’m not so sure.
The catfood commission and the Social Security defunding are downright scary, as is Obama’s new talking point of “tax reform.”
the progressives were never in the majority.
the democratic party was in the majority because of all the conservatives we let call themselves democrats. If you really think you could count Sen Lincoln as a progressive, you have a deep misunderstanding of….
everything.
obama didnt “sign tax cuts for the rich”. Obama gave in to terrorist’s demands in order ot prevent americans from losing their income and being tossed out into the cold.
Why do you always let the GOP off the hook?
Nobody is in the majority. It’s all about which group you decide to join to form your coalition. For his governing coalition, Obama chose to ally with Republicans instead of progressives. Good luck getting your new friends to vote for you in 2012!
What it comes down to me is that governing is so much harder than criticizing. I keep hearing progressives say they want to fight. I am more interested in getting stuff accomplished than red meat speeches. You know that saying “you campaign in poetry and govern in prose.” Aint’t that the truth.
I just find it really depressing that Democrats finally had a good governing majority and it took only a couple of months to degrade into a circular firing squad. I am so tired of never being able to celebrate a victory. Even when we win something (like finally getting health care reform after 50 years of trying) we spend all this time talking it down. I blame progressives somewhat for people not knowing that Obama has actually accomplished a lot as president. But it’s never good enough.
One thing these last few months have taught me is that I understand Clinton so much better now. He felt abandoned by the left and was left hanging on his own to fight the Republicans. No wonder he signed some bad legislation. I don’t understand why we don’t try to work with the president as our 90% friend rather than our 10% enemy. Why do you think the president would listen to progressives if their just among the noise of people who hate him?
Another thing that bothers me is the magical thinking on the left. So many haven’t even bothered to learn about passing legislation, when is the best time to influence and the filibuster. It’s all about how Obama is president so he can magically get things accomplished all on his own. I thought we were supposed to be the reality-based community.
Agreed, UI. It’s not that they think Obama has magical powers, it’s that they think he’s not using his magical powers.
Enough with the comparison to Clinton. Clinton fought for his tax increase and passed it with Al Gore’s vote. And Clinton didn’t start triangulating until AFTER he lost, not before.
And even after Clinton lost Congress, he continued to fight like hell against tax cuts for the rich, forcefully using the veto pen as well as the veto threat. Nothing magical about that.
But Obama still hasn’t passed his economic plan, and now he isn’t going to. Or more precisely, he has passed a Republican economic plan. Sorry, I’m not buying that as “getting things done.” That is getting sacked behind the line of scrimmage.
The expiration of the tax cuts was a unique and historic opportunity. Obama split Democrats and summoned the circular firing squad by choosing to ally with Republicans instead of his own party.
Plus, the Obama apologists always ignore his dishonesty, incompetence, and the anti-progressive policies and deals that he does entirely on his own, independently of the House or Senate. It is as if they think the President has no powers at all except to sign or veto legislation.
“It is as if they think the President has no powers at all except to sign
or vetolegislation.”Fixed that for you.
Comment by Unstable Isotope at 6:24 pm:
” I don’t understand why we don’t try to work with the president as our 90% friend rather than our 10% enemy. “
You’ve got it backwards ma’am.
The president is 10% friend and 90% enemy. (And that 10% is being charitable)
You rule #8 is spot on. I can’t even stand talking to most liberals because they’re too damned depressing.
Think of Eyore from Whinnie the Pooh.
How about I think of Eeyore from Winnie the Pooh instead? Or is it elitist of me to spell them correctly?