| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Your Internet Brain's On Coleridge | Main | Immersion in propaganda, race-based nationalism and the un-figure-outable vortex of Juche Thought: Colin Marshall talks to B.R. Myers, author of The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why it Matters »

April 12, 2010

People Thought Obama Would Be Progressive Because He's Black. Big Mistake. But He Could Still Be The Most Transformative President Since FDR

Obamaprog By Evert Cilliers (aka Adam Ash)

Just because Martin Luther King and Jesse Jackson were trail-blazing agents of progressive passion who could stir red blood with a goodly speech, people took one look at Barack Obama and thought: here comes another one.

Turns out he's a non-ideological pragmatist, and now progressives are disappointed. Madly, mightily, miserably: right down to their sternums at the innermost center where herpes viruses go to hibernate -- like a Sartrean disillusioned with Heidegger because he was a Nazi, or a Catholic stricken that the Pope -- God's Embodiment on Earth -- could ever have enabled the hallowed priestly tradition of mass child rape.

If you're progressive, you shouldn't be disappointed in Obama. You should be disappointed in yourself.

Because you've been blinder than Oedipus. Your high hopes were built on cocoa puffs. Not ONCE in his entire political life has Obama taken any position that wasn't totally and triangulatingly Clintonesque. In fact, he's such a triangulator, he likes giving the impression he's almost sorry to be doing something his enemies don't want him to do. Look at him still coddling the Republicans, like some Big Mama nursing a bawling infant. If he were Hillary, he'd call them a bunch of lying loudmouth braindead rightwing conspirators on their way to oblivion, and be done with them.

Sure, Obama seemed to sport progressive cred because he was against the Iraq War. But remember, this is what he said: "I'm not against all wars. I'm just against dumb wars." You didn't have to be a genius progressive to be against the Iraq war; it was a plain-to-see dumb Vietnam War Two. As the burliest bully among nations, we're dumb enough to think our patriotism is best expressed in killing foreigners. We are a naturally war-like people, like the Mongols or the Zulus. Being anti-war in America doesn't make you progressive. It just means you're not a total oaf. It means you're slightly out-of-tune with most Americans, who think our troops are heroes, when all they are is misguided, poor youngsters trained to be serial killers.

1. TOADY OBAMA

Obama is not a total oaf, but he does believe our troops are heroes, and he's put 30,000 more of them at risk in Afghanistan to prop up the world's biggest and most corrupt narco-state. Which does make him a 90% oaf and a 100% toady to our military-industrial-congressional complex.

It also makes him a president who has shrewdly silenced those who like to call the Dems soft on national security. Barack Machiavelli Obama put another 30,000 of our youngsters at risk out of pure political calculus, methinks. No other reason makes much sense. Let 'em die, as long as nobody thinks I'm a regular Dem softie. It was the minimum Obama could get away with to be considered a standup Commander-In-Chief. It has nothing to do with changing anything in the criminal enterprise called Afghanistan, which won't change even if we put a soldier there for every citizen, admonishing every single Afghan man-to-man, hey, dude, stop being a corrupt warlord, stop being a Pashtun who likes the Taliban, and stop growing opium -- how about trying soya beans, pardner?

To see Obama clear, and to recognize that BECAUSE of his non-progressiveness, he has the potential to be our greatest president since FDR, try this simple thought experiment. Take off your "hopey-changy" goggles and expect nothing from him. Nada. Zip. Observe Obama in the harsh glitter of an LA noonday, like you would look at any other politician who isn't handsome or charismatic -- say someone like Nixon or LBJ.

2. MUTHA OBAMA

First thing to know about Nixon and LBJ is that they were motherfuckers, and that's what Obama is: a motherfucker. An iron-nosed, super-slick, deal-cutting, low-down Machiavellian politician. The first thing he did when he wanted health insurance for 30 million uninsured Americans (leaving 17 million still uninsured) was to duck behind-closed-doors to make nicey-nicey with the insurance industry, reassuring them he wouldn't push for a robust public option. He cut a deal with the guys who could derail reform (like they did in 1994) before he did anything else. That's the mark of a realpolitik manipulator. Then he went out in public and talked his pretty talk about how much he likes a public option and how he would've gone for single payer if we were starting from scratch. All Machiavellian smoke and mirrors. From the very beginning, he gave a real problem a tough look, took the measure of his would-be enemies, and found a way to placate them so he could seal the deal before letting Congress carry his water -- and any “progressive” agenda be damned.

Sure, Obama was a community organizer in his salad days, but not because he was a starry-eyed bleeding-heart liberal progressive, but because he wanted to learn Saul Alinsky's Machiavellian playbook -- which is to rile the poor into becoming such nasty mothers who give their oppressors such a nasty time, the oppressors finally give in just so the unruly bastards will shut the heck up and leave them in peace to go find other more passive victims to oppress.

Look at whom Obama has surrounded himself with. There are no earnest young progressive puppies hopishly yipping away in the corridors of the White House. Not at all. Only Chicago hardasses and ex-Clinton hacks are on deck. Obama's Chief of Staff is not some progressive poobah, but an investment-banker-Chicago-pol-and-Clinton-hack combo, Rahm Emanuel. Rahm is the guy who went trolling for conservative rightwing Democrats -- military vets and anti-abortion folks that Republicans might vote for -- and conscripted them to run in swing districts, which is one reason why there are big Democratic majorities in Congress, but also why there are the Blue Dogs -- the Republican wing of the Democratic Party and a millstone around Nancy Pelosi's neck. There is not a single progressive of any note in Obama's cabinet. Did he bring back Robert Reich? No, he brought back Larry Summers, one of the chief architects of the financial meltdown -- which is like picking John Torture-Memo Yoo as your Attorney-General. Where is Joseph Stiglitz? No, Obama's economic team are all in the pocket of Wall Street, and if one of them isn't, like Paul Volcker, Obama ignores him until he needs to put on an anti-Wall Street show like he did when he got scared by Scott Brown taking Ted Kennedy's safe Massachusetts seat.

And most notable of all, where is Howard Dean, the architect of the 50-state Democratic comeback? The man to whom Obama and the Democratic Party should be most grateful? The man whose internet campaign strategy Obama copied to win the Presidency? The one Democrat who most deserves to be some kind of top dog? Nowhere. Howard Dean is not DRC chairman anymore, and he has no job whatsoever in the Obama administration. Why? He's a progressive, that's why. Obama doesn't want ANY progressives near him, having ANY say in ANYTHING. Why not? Because Obama himself is NO progressive. Snoop Dogg and Willie Nelson will both stop toking herb before Obama becomes a progressive. There was much talk of Obama appointing a “team of rivals” a la his hero Lincoln. Bullshit. He did no such thing: he appointed a team of center-to-right yes-men and women.

3. MACHIAVELLI OBAMA

But hey, didn't Obama just pull off one of the most historically progressive reforms in the history of historical America's history? Oh, yeah, right, for sure: Barack Machiavelli Obama and Nancy Steel Balls Pelosi and Harry Hangdog Reid have finally pushed healthcare reform over the finish line, like a dung beetle pushing its ball of crap home. Now they're the biggest historical heroes of Congressional history since the dawn of democracy. OK, let's muster half a faint cheer for Nancy anyway: she's the iron lady who stiffened the Democratic spine when the men all diarrheed themselves after Scott Brown took Ted Kennedy's safe Massachusetts seat. From Obama and Rahm Emanuel on down to Barney Frank, the panicked hacks were all going wobbly, and needed a woman to wipe their pee-stained underwear for them.

If it weren't for Nancy's balls, healthcare reform would've withered like an earthworm on concrete. Nancy Pelosi is that rare Democratic phenomenon: a politician with actual beliefs who is actually prepared to fight for those beliefs. A step up from Obama. She laid it out in real no-backing-down-now damn-the-torpedos fighting talk:

"We'll go through the gate. If the gate's closed, we'll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we'll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we'll parachute in. But we're going to get health-care reform passed for the American people."

You go, girl!

Now Obama's got his healthcare victory, but how progressive is it? It's basically what the Republicans wanted in 1994, and what Massachusetts already has, signed into existence by Republican Governor Mitt Romney. It's socialism all right, but not for us, only for the healthcare industry, who've now got 30 million extra premium payers, many of them subsidized with our tax dollars. For this bonanza they're paying the small price of not keeping folks off their rolls because of a "pre-existing condition," and not knocking them off their rolls for getting sick (the reason why people buy insurance in the first place), and not capping what they pay out for people's medical expenses. In other words, for promising not to openly cheat their customers anymore, the insurance industry gets to continue running their 20% to 30% overheads scam when Medicare can deliver healthcare at 4% overhead (proving once again that government is more efficient at helping folks out than our magnificently efficient private enterprise plutocrats).

Some reform. But it's a start. When the insurance companies begin to jack up their premiums again, or pull some other scam, there may still be enough residual public anger simmering around to put a robust public option on the table at last, and soon we'll be on our way to Medicare for all. Be still, my progressive heart. Who knows, this delicious scenario may even be a second-term adventure in the back of Obama's Machiavellian mind at this very moment. Or not. Dream on.

Whatever. Now the health insurance industry will be sucking on the big government gazoomba, subsidized by our tax dollars, along with the banking industry, the arms industry, the oil industry, Detroit and our farmers -- all the capitalists who are against socialism for everyone but themselves.

It's amazing how dependent our magnificently efficient free-market private enterprise is on our so-called inefficient government. They just can't seem to get along on their own. The world of capitalism is just too tough for our great Captains of Industry and our brilliant Masters of the Universe. Wall Street, Detroit, health insurance, arms manufacturers, Big Oil, agribusiness: all born welfare queens. Big businesses are basically the big sissies of capitalism -- too cowardly to suffer the consequences of their own craven mishaps. It's the engine of small businesses that keeps capitalism going. Big business is socialist and monopolist by nature. Please, big government, be our nanny state, give us your milk: we are the rich executives of important corporations, so much more deserving than the people we screw over.

4. POLITICAL OBAMA

Meanwhile, on to the next thing. Financial reform. A sterling opportunity for Obama to demonize the banks and maybe unearth a few tea-party votes in November. After all, many tea-party insurgents voted for Obama in 2008.

Let's face it, Barack Machiavelli Obama is stacking up his political cards carefully to keep his majorities in Congress come the November mid-term elections. By then he will have positioned himself and his party as noble fighters for regular folks against the bad bonus-happy bailed-out Wall Street gangsta banksters (who, having knocked off Greece, are probably undermining the Prince of Monaco and the Queen of England at this very moment) -- while letting the banksters know behind-closed-doors that they're free to gut any reforms hiccuped by retiring Senator Christopher “I'm Angling For A Financial Lobby Gig” Dodd. Also, by then our troops will have come home from Iraq and gotten the progressive Dem base all gratefully stirred up. And by then the stench would've gone out of GOP lies about healthcare reform: old folks would've received their $250 donut hole checks, and young folks up to 26 will be happy they're covered by their parents' healthcare plans. Two excellent voting demographics. With any luck, Obama may even get a couple of months of back-to-back job growth to crow about, and the GOP will collar maybe 20 Blue Dog seats in the House (good riddance) and two in the Senate -- and have only their refusal to help govern and their latest joke, Michael Steele, to blame for their continuing misfortune. (When your only stars are two hot babes, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, with the collective judgment of a hominid fossil between them, you know you're going nowhere fast. The Party of No: No Ideas, No I.Q, No Future.)

5. OBAMA THE GREATEST

OK, so why do I say Obama has the potential to be our greatest president since FDR?

Number one, it's not as if he has much competition. Most presidents are either a disaster or useless. I'd say at least thirty of our presidents have been useless, with nobody noticing the difference if they'd been replaced by Japanese house-cleaning robots.

In my lifetime, they've all been pretty much one disaster after another. Eisenhower was OK: he built our highways and ended the war in Korea. But JFK was a useless disaster. He stopped Khrushchev from loading Cuba up with missiles, but any president would've done that. He piled military advisors into Vietnam, and that turned out to be our single biggest foreign policy disaster. Nixon was disastrous but not entirely useless: he made a rapprochement with China but bombed Cambodia; he established the EPA but screwed up with Watergate.

Then there's LBJ, the rarest of the rare, the lonely exception: a great president, maybe greater than FDR. He signed Civil Rights and Medicare into law along with a host of Great Society programs (but conned himself into the Vietnam escapade, which he at least had the intelligence to know was a mistake after year one, which is more than you can say for Obama and Afghanistan). As for Ford, he pardoned Nixon and handed out “Whip Inflation Now” buttons. Carter put human rights on our foreign policy agenda, which makes him a saint among presidents, but like some hapless Mugabe, he could do nothing about 20% plus inflation. Reagan was an unmitigated disaster, backing nun-killers in Nicaragua and bashing the unions and destroying our tax base by bringing the marginal tax rate of the rich down from 70% to under 30%, and giving the super-idealistic starry-eyed Chicago school of pie-in-the-sky efficient market utopians free rein with his "trickle-down" Reaganomics, to lay the foundation for making us the most unequal society on earth, a throwback to the era of the Sun King. Bush One was pretty useless, although he did kick Saddam out of Kuwait, but gave the neocons enough inspiration to come back under Bush Two to destroy us. I honestly don't know who was a bigger disaster -- Clinton or Bush Two. But coming back to back, they've certainly been the most dysfunctional regime since the reign of Roman Emperor Caligula, who made his horse a Senator. Clinton destroyed Mexican agriculture and helped the big corporations to export our good jobs with NAFTA, nixed the Glass-Steagall Act that kept us safe from Wall Street shenanigans for 60 years, and made sure that derivatives would be unregulated. Bush Two gave us two wars, a bitch of a deficit and a reputation as torturers, and also bailed out the Clinton-enabled Wall Street shysters. You tell me who was the bigger disaster. It's a little like deciding by what would you prefer to be struck down most -- a heart attack or a stroke.

Now along comes Obama and what is the difference between him and the others?

Number one, he's not a total born-privileged pink-Madras-panted Brahmin jackass like most of them, but a half-decent chap whose mom crammed some values down his throat.

Number two, he thinks with his brain not his gut (Bush Two) or his dick (Clinton).

Number three, and this is the big difference, he's ready and fired up and ambitious enough to:

a) actually name our biggest problems (healthcare, education, energy, infrastructure)

b) actually tackle them, i.e. do whatever deal-cutting and Machiavellian scheming he has to do to get some kind of a job done.

6. AMBITIOUS OBAMA

No other president in the history of our nation has ever done that. Most of them didn't even know what our biggest problems were, and if they did, they were too cowardly to name them, lest they saddle themselves with the thankless task of having to solve them. The most ambitious ones try their hand at maybe one biggish problem, generally fail, and then leave well enough alone, only to wake up in their last year and suddenly think: yikes, what will be my legacy? and then dictate a memoir to make up for their lack of never having done anything. The reason why Presidents are generally useless is because, in Obama's words, they "kick the can down the road." Presidents display the greatest ambition to BECOME president, but the funny thing is, once they're at the top of the heap, they lose all ambition to BE president and habitually do sweet blow all.

Obama actually wants to solve our problems. None of this effort has ANYTHING to do with being left or right or Democratic or Republican or progressive or conservative, but EVERYTHING to do with plain common sense, not a quality exhibited by politicians after a lifetime of chasing voters and financial backers with lies and empty promises. Mind you, we should reserve some crocodile pathos for politicians: the poor bastards are like over-the-hill Casanovas in some fairy tale devoid-of-common-sense fantasy who can't get it up anymore but are still trying to get their maidenly voters to swoon with happy talk.

Not that Obama is short on the happy talk, but he doesn't quite need Viagra yet.

He's notched healthcare to his bedpost and is going after education (his race-to-the-top state competition a good start), infrastructure (there was some of that in his stimulus plan) and energy.

Energy reveals the typical Obama strategy. When he gets in the ring with opponents, Obama doesn't lead with his left: he leads with his other cheek. The Great Conciliator: he always throws out a pre-digested bone for the recalcitrants to chew on. It's what he did when he invited the Republicans to sit down with him and talk about healthcare reform. It's what he did when he said to progressives about healthcare, hey, here's a lame public option, folks, go play with that for a while. To the hawks: here are 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan, go amuse yourselves with that. To all of us who are outraged at the banksters: hey, here's a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, go talk among yourselves about that -- while I make sure it gets put under the aegis of the Fed, known for its sightless oversight.

The same strategy on energy: all of a sudden Obama is in full-on drill-baby-drill mode. Play with that one, you energy bunnies. Triangulation at its finest and bluntest and blatantest.

Machiavelli must be smiling from ear to ear. Whatever it takes, baby. Anything to get the job done. Throw out a bone for the dogs to chew on, then let Lieutenant Pelosi hack out the details with her unruly troops, and then let's all shove away at an array of pesky little mountains with some big juggernaut 2,000-page reform bill.

What we have here is the art of the possible -- because our screwed-up system of the best democracy that money can buy has made impossible the crafting of the demonstrably beneficial.

Translation: the art of the possible means half-assed is what you get, which is still better than nothing.

Already, with half-assed healthcare reform, Obama can claim to have achieved something no President has done since Teddy Roosevelt noticed the problem a hundred years ago.

Now imagine if Obama gets some half-assed education reform through, some half-assed infrastructure done (high-speed rail, anybody?) and some half-assed green energy initiatives up-and-running (solar and wind subsidies, anyone?).

Presto: one of our great presidents. That's how far half-assed can get you these days. Set us on a new trajectory. Transformative and all that.

And it's got nothing to do with being progressive or conservative or anything remotely ideological or party-political.

Just being practical.

Obama is well along his merry road already. Not even halfway through his first term and healthcare reform is signed, sealed and delivered. Three more big problems to knock off, and chances are Obama will get there, and thus become worthy of having his shnoz carved into Mount Rushmore.

Anyway, that's what I think. Nay: firmly predict. You see, once I stopped believing Obama was a progressive, I suddenly started realizing he could be great anyway. Simply because he wants to solve our biggest problems -- and could care less about ideology to the right or the left.

How about about you? Go ahead, try it. Stop thinking of Obama as progressive. Just hope he keeps on being a low-down practical SOB bastard of a scheming blackguard.

You'll find this can be quite a relief. Hey, it can almost restore your faith in some kind of American Dream.

American Dream Redux, to be sure, but a tad better than the nightmare we've been living in.

Posted by Evert Cilliers at 01:05 AM | Permalink

Comments

"To the hawks: here are 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan, go amuse yourselves with that.
Translation: the art of the possible means half-assed is what you get, which is still better than nothing."

I'm sure that the 10 children of that woman he killed in Afghanistan, 8 meters from where she'd been cooking dinner, doesn't think 'half-assed' is better than nothing.

Posted by: Alice de Tocqueville | Apr 12, 2010 2:55:15 AM

You right about that.
I live for the day when America's troops are all in the US, every single one of them, and our Army is reduced to at least a tenth of its size.

Obama's most disappointing decision was surging in Afghanistan, instead of getting our troops out (and pouring money in, instead, straight into establishing schools via NGOs, instead of into Karzai's corrupt hands).
Evert

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Apr 12, 2010 3:06:13 AM

Great piece!
This is an editorial roman candle, popping all the political zits that I've been squeezing for several months.
Thanks.
I feel all better now.

Posted by: John Ballard | Apr 12, 2010 6:01:08 AM

"I live for the day when America's troops are all in the US, every single one of them, and our Army is reduced to at least a tenth of its size."

How is that gonna happen, Evert? In a triumphalist empire that practices a very strong cult of the military, what are the chances of it succeeding? The only realistic way to achieve that result is by a sobering string of defeats. I ask you: how many Americans want their country to 'lose' their current wars? Not even the very leftist among you are willing to support that possibility. From my standpoint, U.S. defeat in their imperial wars is the only morally consistent position for anybody who abhors hegemonic displays of violence, regardless of your nationality. Anything else is just self-serving bullshit. That's the conundrum for Americans of a lefty bend. None of you want to look 'unpatriotic', because apparently patriotism is one of those extremely good positions not to be questioned, like, ever...

Posted by: Pepito | Apr 12, 2010 7:49:09 AM

Pepito:

You're right.

But I think we'll give up war because the two we're in now weren't worth it.

As far as I'm concerned, we are losing both those wars, but it'll be spun as some kind of success.

It's not the lostness of our wars that'll stop our warmongering, but the cost. I think it's going to be really hard to convince the public that any other war is worth the cost.

Meanwhile, our army itself is just a massive public works program. When our troops come home, I think they should be put to work, fixing up our infrastructure, winterizing our homes, building a new electric grid, etc. Perhaps they can be hired out to the private sector, and then we can make money off them, by charging the private sector more for them than we pay for them. When they're at home, they've got nothing to do anyway.

Evert

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Apr 12, 2010 9:55:25 AM

Evert:
Wow! The army a public works program..building roads, waterworks, sewers, etc.??!! Wouldn't his be, like, what the Romans did 2000 years ago? Sounds good to me..... ;-)

Posted by: Bill | Apr 12, 2010 11:17:26 AM

hooray for realism

Posted by: eli | Apr 12, 2010 3:24:00 PM

Let me spell it out for you, moron. You DO NOT have health care reform. You DO NOT have half-assed health care reform. You DO NOT have jack/shit health care reform. You DO HAVE a slight adjustment in health insurance regulation that favors the health insurance industry. Understand yet? YOU'RE FUCKING SCREWED. AGAIN.

What a load of hopium you're trying to sell, Evert. Obama sells your ass to the health insurance industry and you pull out the pom poms and jump up and down shrieking "HOPE FOR CHANGE!" What a fucking sucker you are. What a hopeless fucking jackass countryfried one-born-a-minute All Day Sucker. What a gutless, spineless, jellyfish demotard hack-wannabe you are.

But there is something you can do, Evert. Even after the mindless cheerleading and sneering, crackpot-realist shit, there is a way you can help. And that is by STOP HELPING.

Posted by: AlanSmithee | Apr 12, 2010 3:30:58 PM

'It has nothing to do with changing anything in the criminal enterprise called Afghanistan, which won't change even if we put a soldier there for every citizen, admonishing every single Afghan man-to-man, hey, dude, stop being a corrupt warlord, stop being a Pashtun who likes the Taliban, and stop growing opium -- how about trying soya beans, pardner?'
No, you're right it doesn't. The only thing that will change the situation in Afghanistan is if Americans get rid of prohibition. It is your laws and your insistence that other countries sign up to them that creates narco-states both on your borders and across the world. Stop prohibition, stop the madness and it will all evaporate. But then that would mean changing the way you think about yourselves and it's easier to just shoot other people.

Posted by: Steven | Apr 12, 2010 6:38:27 PM

I don't think you really understand Obama. If you look at Obama in the light of Macchiavelli, and I don't mean the connotation of Macchiavelli's NAME, but the denotation of who macchiavelli truly WAS - that is, perhaps the most honest writer to have ever written, one who not only truly saw things clearly, but was able to put that into thought and express it to others, Obama is more Macchiavellian - he brilliantly allowed the irrational raging People spend their excess during the the August town hall meetings, just as macchiavelli advised, and we had a health care bill.

His progressive, liberal identity showed itself when he was at the bill signing ceremony, remarking that he had done this for his mother.

I think you need more perspective if you cannot see that now; maybe a cannon of accomplishments over an 8 year presidency plus 50 years of historical perspective.

110 years and 17 previous presidents lost the health care battle. obama won it. get over it, he's progressive!

Posted by: odysseus14 | Apr 12, 2010 6:38:46 PM

Odysseus14, if Obama's so progressive, why was Goldman Sachs his biggest backer from the very beginning? I think he says progressive things, but look at what he does. He seems to like rubbing salt in a wound, also. How else to explain, after sending more guns than any kind of aid to Haiti, putting the drooling jackals, Clinton and Bush, in charge of rebuilding?

That says to poor Haitians, don't even think about Aristide being allowed back in, just behave and you'll be allowed to work for even less in the sweatshops.

There are lots more examples why I'm afraid you'll be disillusioned, but I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. If it turns out I'm misjudging him, I'll be very happy.

Posted by: Alice de Tocqueville | Apr 13, 2010 11:28:18 AM

like I said, Alice, looks like an 8 year presidency and 50 years of historical perspective will be more revealing.

Let me put it another way: Obama is a progressive in sheep's clothing, and the sheep are the conservatives.

Let me put it another way - I was watching the Wanda Sykes show, and she has a segment where they set up a little bar, pour some drinks for invited celeb guests, and talk about current events and make jokes. One of the guest drinkers said that he was disappointed that Obama hasn't legalized pot yet.

Wanda laughed, saying something like "C'mon. Really? The first black person to be president and you think HE'D be the guy to legalize weed?"

Get the point? Look at the opposition Obama encountered working on passing health care. From pundits to tea baggers, from republicans to blue dogs...what do you think Obama would have faced if he "showed" extremely progressive signs?

The opposition is too strong to allow that. At least for now. Even with all of their insanity, fear-mongering, and mis-steps.

I think he is doing the best he can, as a progressive in an anti-progressive environment.

There is no doubt at all that he is a true progressive - someone that actually brings about progress, not someone who "looks and feels" like your image, or someone's image of what a progressive should look like.

Certainly some issues are huge mountains of trouble. Some issues are chaotic environments with no rhyme or reason. Some of those issues may not be successfully concluded during obama's period as president - but that is not necessarily his fault, or due to lack of progressive credentials. Problems that may continue to exist are the fault of the rest of us.

Posted by: odysseus14 | Apr 13, 2010 4:29:14 PM

AlanSmnithee:

It was a health reform bill, for the simple reason that 30 million more Americans now have insurance, whom didn't have before, and many of them are subsidized.

BTW, take your meds before you reply.

Odysseus14:
You cannot call a guy who ups the stakes in the stupid Afghan war a progressive, nor someone who keeps extraordinary rendition going, or a whole slew of Bush anti-human rights practices. If he was progressive, Guantanamo would be closed by now and the people we can't charge released.

If he were progressive, there would've been a public option on the health bill.

If Obama is a progressive, I'm the Queen of England.

Evert

Posted by: Evert Cilliers | Apr 13, 2010 7:41:51 PM

Can anyone else do a better job than Obama if he/she is the US President right now. Don't expect a miracle, but everything takes time - U simply cannot please everyone!

Posted by: Phoenix | Apr 13, 2010 8:45:50 PM

Obama can't get less than 0 Republican support. He's going to get their opposition no matter what he does, so why not use the power he does have, not to mention the 'bully pulpit,' to rally his supporters, rather than letting the rabid right wing set the agenda. Why pick the Cabinet he picked, instead of more 'progressive' individuals. Why tell big fat lies, like the ones he was caught in over Nafta, and the public option. Now he's lost alot of his base for the Dimocraps (as one person calls them).

Here's what I think. If he's really a progressive, he should BE a progressive, and fight like hell for what's right. That would advance the agenda, the dialogue, the game, whatever you want to call it. Obama was elected by the people for espousing certain things, and I believe if he really wanted to do those things he could have kept his base fired up, really fought hard and gotten a better bill passed.

Instead, Organizing For America was told by the White House to stand down. They were taken out of the fight from the get. Why? So the fix could be made to look inevitable. Meanwhile, Obama gave away the whole game before he started.

For me, it's not about keeping any one politician in office, especially if they aren't even fighting for a progressive platform. Dragging this country off the prairie and into the 21st century is a long term struggle, and that is not advanced by Washington games. In other words, I believe in bottom-up politics, not the other way around. But the 'leaders' should LEAD, not go on the take and fake circuit.

Believe me, Odyseuss14, I know no one can wave a magic wand and change everything. I know, for instance, that closing Guantanamo has big obstacles; I know health care was a fight, but if they don't talk to the people once they're elected, because they're too busy talking to the moneybags, covering their re-election from day one, then they're not political leaders. (Barbara Boxer, "my" Senator, "schedules all her face-to-face meetings with constituents in Washington" I was told by her aide.)

But I believe that if Obama had not escalated the war:

1. He would have saved lives. An end in itself. To put re-election ahead of that is not only not progressive, it's inhuman.
2. He would be re-elected. He ain't Jimmy Carter.
3. No more terrorist attacks would have happened. (My prediction)
4. He could have laid out the scandalous way the Pentagon spends our money, and insisted on accountability and a peace dividend. For instance, 53 cents on each dollar of our money goes to killing, except for a small part of that which goes to the VA. That's $1.6 trillion Just For This Year.
That would pay for 10 years of universal health care.
I could go on, but I'm supposed to make dinner tonite.
Odyseuss, you could check out Zmag.org and read Paul Street on Obama's community org past, and other stuff - Street was also a comm. org. in Chicago. See what you think.

Obama had a chance to be Roosevelt, but he's Hoover.

Posted by: Alice de Tocqueville | Apr 14, 2010 10:57:24 AM

This is a terrific post. Spot on substantively and a hoot of a read. Thanks.

Posted by: JJ | Apr 22, 2010 10:55:13 PM

This kind of cynicism is so tiring. It's unproductive and doesn't help build a movement.

Obama succeeded in passing health care reform where six previous Presidents failed, and he acknowledges that it needs to be improved. He already did more on energy than Clinton/Gore did in eight years. The only people who are disappointed are those who didn't listen during the campaign.

That's right, I suspect the author never believed Obama was progressive and never listened during the campaign. Because those of us who listened heard Obama say that he wasn't going to hand us change on a silver platter like big brother Stalin. He said change comes from the people. From people's movements.

You would think that the left would embrace that message and encourage the growth of people's movements to move the country left. If we can do that then we have an ally in the White House who will respond. But you know, it's much easier to piss and moan about the President not doing our organizing for us. Those of us on the anti-authoritarian left don't expect or want a President to accomplish all our goals for us without public support by simply passing a law that will be quickly reversed by the next President.

I guess everyone has to decide whether they want to look at this as an opportunity to organize or an opportunity to whine. If Obama isn't progressive enough for you then change the politics of Congress. What have you done to help unseat Blanche Lincoln in the primary? Aren't you embarrassed at being out-organized by a bunch of tea party freaks? It's so frustrating to see progressives promote this passive, complacent mindset that the way to make change is to whine to Daddy President to do more for us. Most of the people who passionately supported Obama realize how pathetic that attitude is.

Posted by: Will | Apr 24, 2010 5:47:35 PM

You write: "Not ONCE in his entire political life has Obama taken any position that wasn't totally and triangulatingly Clintonesque."

He did once take the position of favoring single-payer national health care.

Think before you write.

Posted by: Matthew James Goins | Apr 25, 2010 9:42:07 AM

Evert: as an observer of the US from the UK, I want to say thank you for turning an unflinching eye on the record of your presidents- who took on one of the toughest jobs on the planet. 3QD is indeed ‘the axe for the frozen sea inside us.'

Posted by: Colin Harrison | Jul 2, 2011 4:27:58 AM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Ross Williams on Getting Smarter

oroboe on Lennon's "Imagine" and McCartney/Wings' "Band on the Run" overlaid: One way of reuniting (some of) the Beatles

Richard H. Randall on Obama must Make Fighting Climate Change National Project, or Die the death of a thousand Scandals

seth edenbaum on The First New Atheist? Kierkegaard

waqnis on Mortify Our Wolves

nogodrod on KFC smugglers bring buckets of chicken through Gaza tunnels

waqnis on Here’s how to change the world

Fernando on Mortify Our Wolves

seth edenbaum on The case against empathy

Dredd on Mortify Our Wolves

Max on Here’s how to change the world

Rohana on Mortify Our Wolves

Raza Husain on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

mirel on If Only We Had A Leader Like Chavez, Who Solved Real Problems -- Instead Of Debating Fake Ones Like The Deficit

araldo on Here’s how to change the world

Elatia Harris on Here’s how to change the world

Sundar on Here’s how to change the world

araldo on Here’s how to change the world

prasad on Here’s how to change the world

araldo on Thursday Poem

Raza Husain on Here’s how to change the world

prasad on Here’s how to change the world

Raza Husain on Here’s how to change the world

prasad on Here’s how to change the world

Jim Sanders on the hudson review

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed