the fault lies not in our stars but in ourselves
Posted by rflacks on:
Liberals and progressives are in a fury because of Obama's ‘deal' with the GOP. The fury is justified by the fact that the extension of the tax cuts for the rich intensifies the ongoing robbery of the people by the moneyed elite. But the rage at Obama is entirely off base and reveals a lot about the weakness, not of the president, but of the liberal left.
The president said today that is job was to defend the livelihoods and welfare of American families. He said that their fate was being held hostage by the Republican intransigence on taxing the rich. He gave in on that by agreeing to a two year extension of current tax rates. In return he got agreement to extend unemployment compensation for 13 months, a substantial cut in payroll taxes for the middleclass (cuts that will put hundreds of dollars into the pockets of average households next year), extension of the substantial but little known earned income tax credits that help support millions of low wage workers. These are ‘stimulus' measures (that will increase the deficit despite all the yelling about deficit spending), and are coupled with a number of job oriented tax benefits for small business. There is one other really horrible feature of the deal-an estate tax cut that benefits less than 40,000 rich families that adds billions to the deficit without any economic value to the society.
Liberals are furious because they wanted Obama to put up a fight about the tax goodies for the rich. Some wanted this fight even if it meant an eventual tax increase for working families, and even if it meant that long term unemployment benefits would be lost. That he would not go in that direction is said to be a sign either of cowardice, incompetence or his subservience to Wall Street.
What Obama is saying includes the following points that we all are duty bound to consider:
- 1. As president, he must do what he can to protect ordinary people:
"My job is to do whatever I can to get this economy moving. My job is to do whatever I can to spur job creation. My job is to look out for middle-class families who are struggling right now to get by, and Americans who are out of work through no fault of their own"
- 2. That job takes precedence over attempting to defeat the GOP in a game of chicken. Some are making the point, however, that ‘caving' at this point will only embolden the opposition in battles to come. Obama seems well aware of this and is betting instead that these moves now will rally support of ‘middle class Americans' including many independents who voted for Republicans in the fall.
- 3. Finally, Obama is quite clearly telling us to look at the power relations that are determining the political process. He used the word ‘hostage' in his press conference-not only to refer to himself but to the people as a whole. The power of the moneyed elite is magnified by the organized irresponsibility of the Republican Party and by the rules of the Senate which systematically protect minority rule. In that context, the bargain he has crafted may well be the best that could be achieved.
The growing liberal drumbeat about Obama's failed presidency, coupled now with fantasies about opposing his renomination, or with anguished hand-wringing about his failure to communicate, to lead, etc. etc. dismays me. I keep saying here that the answer to the corporate dictatorship and the kleptocracy has to come from social movements not from the White House. Yet all these voices keep wishing that Obama would lead such a movement. It's a natural wish-since the work of movement is hard, risky and costly for those who take it on. But to wish for the Leader and to cry when he seems to abandon us is childish, it bespeaks impotence...
Let's start by giving up a lot of BS about ‘principle'. There is NO history of Democratic Party or liberal principle that Obama is betraying. FDR's compromises to achieve social security and labor legislation abandoned African Americans with effects still strongly felt in our social order. No Democratic president was able to achieve universal healthcare and bargained it away for decades. It was FDR who gave J Edgar Hoover the authority to spy on the Left, and JFK gave him the same to spy on Martin Luther King. Bill Clinton's abandonment of welfare and his other ‘triangulations' were larger and more cynical betrayals than Obama's (so far). Obama's record of accomplishment, leadership and betrayal stacks up well against all his predecessors.
And let's stop using ideological yardsticks to judge politicians. Is Obama ‘really' a progressive? Whatever he is, he tells us, he must be a pragmatist in the real world he works in. And we should appreciate and even welcome that!
Ideology is a very poor predictor of integrity or action. Ideology is not what determines the political assessments that most Americans make. This is a big topic, but one advantage the ‘left' has over the ‘right' these days is that the latter is in fact over determined by narrow ideologically driven thinking and therefore inevitably going to fail to connect with the American majority.
A big reason we aren't yet in the midst of a movement on the left has to do with the defaults of the leadership in the national progressive organizational world. At the same time, even with a will to mobilize, strategies for effective action have to be grasped-and defining these is not an easy matter. And finally, there is a loss of ‘vision'-an absence of articulate expression of how a better world might look.
I want to talk about these things some more in future posts...
Meantime, of course, the floor is open for your reflections. Sign in below and remember that State St. is the great street in Santa Barbara.
18 Comments
Comment by Paul Lachelier on
Dear Richard, I agree with you on much of what you say here and applaud your post. But one point of disagreement worth raising: You argue that Republicans are "inevitably going to fail to connect with the American majority" because of their "narrow ideologically driven thinking." My hunch, on the contrary, is that Republicans' narrow ideology (in essence, individual freedom and competition for success, and against Big Government 'hand-outs'), repeated over and over, explains part of Republicans' success. Repetition of simple points that connect with widespread cultural beliefs tends to work. The left doesn't have/do this, and may never have/do it since leftists are culturally disinclined to party discipline, not the mention the political compromise Obama and any politician in a pluralist democracy generally engages in.
Comment by joe bader on
Dick.. Bravo! This is exactly what i have been saying and thinking the past few days. Should Obama have played a game of "chicken" with the UI benefits of 4 million people plus their families? Now, it is true as Paul Krugman says, that these mild stimulus tax programs are not going to solve our problems, or even come close. We all know what it will take but that presumes that we build a massive social movement that can force the President and the entire political system to respond appropriately. And there is NO chance of that happening, in large part because of the ever weakening position of organized labor.. More on that later..But great post!! Joe
Comment by Bob Blaylock on
«The fury is justified by the fact that the extension of the tax cuts for the rich intensifies the ongoing robbery of the people by the moneyed elite.»  Only to those very mindlessly far on the left does allowing anyone to keep what is rightfully his constitute “robberyâ€. I always find it ironic when those on the left—promoting a philosophy that is almost entirely based on theft, greed, and robbery—use these or related terms to describe their opposition, who are in favor of allowing people to keep more of what is rightfully their own.
Comment by Montino Bourbon on
what we are really lacking is the peace movement. The Vietnam war was shut down by the peace movement in the 60s. If you look up the case church amendment you will see that it was fueled by a popular uprising that could not be stopped by politicians, and was the result of a very strong peace movement. The wars that we are in right now eat up 1 trillion a year; the nation is all working to support a bloated military-industrial complex. Until that is understood and a true strong peace movement is in place, there will be no progress. None. Zero. Zip. Got it, America?
Comment by Edward Bear on
Hi Dick, I concur with your thought that "the rage at Obama is entirely off base and reveals a lot about the weakness, not of the president, but of the liberal left." Exactly. Maybe the 'instant gratification expectation' is just too ingrained in the U.S. culture, including the so-called liberal left. But wailing at President Obama instead of directing that energy at the members of Congress who are intentionally dragging everything down for everyone but their corporate and Wall Street paymasters is wasted effort. Certainly, the president exercised some poor judgment in appointing Summers and Geithner and retaining Bernanke (read Sen. Sanders on the Fed: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=f75fee31-aeba-4a13-b6a7-05adf56ccfe8), but Mr. Obama is still a remarkable man doing what he can in a collapsing circumstance with a very large and well-organized part of the Congress doing all it can to destroy him and sabotage his initiatives. It's up to us to save our democracy, not anyone else. Could we have had more forceful leadership? Yes. But that's not Mr. Obama's approach. By giving up on the president, as so many on the left have done, we, supposedly the smarter crowd, have conceded defeat without much of a fight. E.B.
Comment by Leni Wildflower on
Dick, Isn't it possible in a democratic society to both support the President and at the same time be critical of some of the decisions he makes? I think the system is broken in Washington, and the inability to stand up to the Republicans (who have no agenda other than opposing any Democratic measure) appears to be a function both of the Democratic party and the President. Obama needs to be more transparent. Just telling us he is "hostage" without spelling out clearly (as you did) what he traded doesn't help the cause....especially for those of us who read American news lightly. While I appreciate your call for a progressive movement, Obama could certainly help this by direcly appealing (as he did during the campaign) to those of us who believe in his leadership. Leni
Comment by Ira Youdovin on
Good piece, Dick. To have Obama’s concessions sanctioned by an old fighter is a strong and significant endorsement of their wisdom…although, in fact, he really had no choice in the matter. The liberals and progressives calling opposing compromise are the left-wing analogue of the Tea Party. Just as Tea Party pressure might force the GOP to take positions (or nominate candidates) that could lead to its defeat in the 2012 elections, equal and opposite pressure from the left could do the same to the Democrats. Anybody up for hunks of Alaskan caribou in the White House freezer?! If history provides guidance for the present and future, Obama’s re-election depends on his moving toward the center. What are often labeled as Bill Clinton’s “betrayals†are what got him a second term, even in the midst of scandal. Obama’s victory in 2008 wasn’t an endorsement of liberal principles. It was an embrace of a new voice and persona that promised change without ideological tags. “Change†is 2012 entails more jobs, expendable income, etc. Attaining these will require more compromises. The big question in all of this is whether Obama can mine political capital from the Republicans’ politics? His repeated use of the image “held hostage†is a good start. It shouldn’t be all that hard to explain to the American people that the Republicans added significantly to the national deficit by demanding tax relief for their “clientsâ€, i.e. the super rich, as the price for helping the other 99% of the people, whose interests the president protected. He will be accused of waging class warfare. But that’s the hand the Republicans have dealt him.
Comment by Porter on
The big problem, Dick, is that the president has to look strong. One can muster all kinds of justification for his "caving," as he himself did in his precise way and as you do so well. But if he looks week, that hurts the leverage he can exercise, here and abroad. It also limits his ability to revive his base. A lot of the people who worked so hard for him need his stubbornness on this issue emotionally. This, I think, was the moment for it. So I don't blame people at all for yelling and screaming. You couldn't ask for a better issue to yell and scream about. We need that trillion bucks, and those that have profited so handsomely should be ashamed to begrudge it to the nation they were so lucky to be born in. Moreover, by yelling and screaming, it lets him know where our hearts are. That's an important thing to do, too. Remember back when he, against powerful advice, decided to stand firm on health care it gave that kind of a lift. I think a lot of people were thinking even then "at last, he's fighting."
Comment by rflacks on
Porter--If you saw the press conference you might have seen something other than weakness. He doesn;t need people screaming at him but screaming at the banks and explaining to the wider public how power and economy work. I do agree that he needs to feel the leftwing heat--but we need to understand what we can really get from his regime and under what conditions.
Comment by Rich Appelbaum on
A tactical move, perhaps - but I believe a strategic loss. The Republican Party walks lockstep with its most conservative elements; the Democratic Party moves to the right, and some (Ira, for shame!) equate its liberal wing with the Tea Party. I suppose half a loaf is better than none, and getting some advantages for working Americans is certainly an achievement. Meanwhile, Obama is perceived - and not just by his liberal base - not as a pragmatic realist, but as a weak President. Weakness is not going to win him re-election in two years. Nor will his compromise lead the Republican Party to suddenly re-think their position and have a bipartisan epiphany. This compromise mainly the agenda - the discourse - yet again to the right. So the tax cuts are extended for two more years - and then? Will there be a bipartisan agreement on ending the tax cuts for the wealthy at that time? No way. One can easily dismiss those who argue that Obama should have "played chicken," and blame the left for not adequately mobilizing. On the other hand, one could also argue that a progressive movement might be more effectively mobilized if Obama had fought publicly and until the end for what he presumably believed in: an extension of middle class tax cuts, perhaps even raising the definition of middle class to $1 million (Schumer's proposal); and the extension of unemployment benefits. If the Republicans didn't blink and voted these down, a President who was a fighter could surely use this effectively - both to pillory the Republicans and to mobilize his base. I can't let Obama off the hook as easily as you, Dick.
Comment by Marcelino on
When i get some time i will respond to your article until then this sums up my feelings: Sign the petition Dear MoveOn member, Last night, President Obama announced that he's giving in to the GOP and extending the Bush tax breaks for the rich.1 The "deal" he's proposing is an "absolute disaster," as Senator Bernie Sanders said.2 But it's not a done deal. Leading Democrat Chris Van Hollen said yesterday that "House Democrats have not signed off on any deal," and last night Senator Sanders vowed to "do whatever I can to see that 60 votes are not acquired to pass this piece of legislation."3 Senator Sanders and other progressives in the Senate are our best hope to stop this terrible deal. But Bernie can't do it alone. The clock's ticking. Can you sign a petition today to leading progressives in the Senate-Sens. Feingold, Franken, Brown (OH), Boxer, Merkley, Whitehouse, Durbin, Harkin, and Schumer-urging them to stand up and use the filibuster to block this awful "deal"? http://pol.moveon.org/no_bailout/?id=25405-7187494-WKniaxx&t=3 The petition says: "Sens. Feingold, Franken, Brown, Boxer, Merkley, Whitehouse, Durbin, Harkin, and Schumer: You are our progressive heroes and we need you now. Please join Sen. Bernie Sanders and do everything you can to block the 'deal' to extend the Bush tax bailout for millionaires." The deal President Obama agreed to with Republicans would extend the Bush tax breaks for the top 2% of earners for two years, extend unemployment insurance for 13 months, and cut the payroll tax for one year, among other things.4 Tomorrow, we'll deliver your petition signatures to the Senate along with a visual message the Senate and news media can't miss: a supply of cots and copies of the U.S. Constitution-the tried and true provisions of any good filibuster. Congress and the White House need to see the incredible lack of support for this deal. And that lack of support is very real: an overnight survey of a random sample of MoveOn members found 4:1 in opposition, while a poll of Obama campaign donors found that a whopping 74% are opposed to President Obama's deal.5 Strong opposition is no surprise, given what the deal really means: a tax break of an incredible $83,347 for the top 1% of earners in the U.S.-far more than most working Americans make in a year.6 And as Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman explains, a two-year millionaire bailout-the cornerstone of the deal-is just bad policy: "First, temporary tax breaks for the rich are stunningly bad economic policy...[and a two-year extension] would still be much more expensive than measures like aid to the unemployed and to small businesses that would do far more for the economy, yet spent months held up in Congress because of alleged concerns about the deficit."7 We can't capitulate to the GOP on this terrible deal, and it's up to progressive leaders in the Senate to stop it. Can you sign the petition right away? http://pol.moveon.org/no_bailout/?id=25405-7187494-WKniaxx&t=4 Thanks for all you do. -Nita, Amy, Wes, Kat, and the rest of the team
Comment by Howie Winant on
Dear Dick, Your post contains an obvious contradiction. On the one hand it is supportive of Obama's deal, perhaps not fullscale support but more than halfhearted. On the other hand you call for more mobilization against the racket-ridden state to which Obama is capitulating. It seems obvious that as long as he can make such deals and retain his own support (you say he is betting ... that these moves now will rally support of ‘middle class Americans' including many independents who voted for Republicans in the fall") there will be no movement. It is not a matter of wishing him to be the "Leader" (a problematic choice of case, by the way) of such a movement; it is a matter of not identifying with those who are holding you hostage, to use Obama's own terminology. Much as I adored (and still admire) Obama, if he does not shake his Stockholm syndrome and start being a progressive/populist leader, he may well be a one-term president, as his opponents seek to kill him with compromises.
Comment by Marian Shapiro on
I support what you said, Dick. The bottom line is WTF are the Democrats or the President supposed to do when the g d Republicans will hold out as long as it takes, when they have the power to filibuster and don't give a Sh*t if working people suffer or unemployed people don't have any safety net. Yes, of course I'm angry. But not at the most intelligent president we've had in a long time. To blame him is misplaced anger. And yes, it would be nice if Obama came across as stronger and angrier, but he has been successful with his own personality as a mediator, as someone who listens to all sides. It is not his temperament to scream and yell and bash heads. And that wouldn't have gotten McConnell and Boehner to budge an inch. They had the power to withhold any agreement, but Obama got several concessions. It kills me that the wealthiest 1% may get big tax breaks that we can't afford. But the Republicans are not rational about their goals to redistribute the wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest few and to corporations. That is the message that we progressives have to keep getting out there. The Republican goals hurt all of us in the middle class and we have to be a movement against that and against the wars which make us hated around the world.
Comment by Judith Rosenbaum on
I agree with several of the points your respondents make -- Paul Lachelier in particular, Leni wildflower, also. Furthermore, I never expected Obama to be a progressive, so I have never been disappointed by his failure to function as one. There was no indication, even when he was a senator, that he considered himself "progressive." I don't care whether or not he's a liberal -- whatever that means. All I care about is what he does and does not do. When, as a senator, he voted for cloture on the discussion of the motion re: communications companies wire-tapping, (something no voter was even paying attention to, so it was really "umzist" -- even more so than Clinton running down to ARkansas to be there for an execution) I knew everything I needed to know about him. I do not feel betrayed. Only people you trust can betray you. I absolutely agree that the left has dropped the ball -- we've taken to kvetching instead of organizing -- though there seem to be pockets of organizing going on all over this land, without a breath given in the popular media. I am, however, angry when Obama spends as much time as he does chasing (tailing???) Republicans, and angry, as I would be with any president, when he approves Drone attacks, assassinations, torture, and so on. And I'm not so sure Krugman was wrong -- though my heart is not with him.
Comment by WS on
Obama himself said that he couldn't make change without the support of motivated public. You guys shouldn't be blaming *him* IMHO. Maybe blame is a 'bad tool' for change.
Comment by Robert Cruickshank on
There are some serious problems with this analysis, especially the assumption that this was the only way - or the best way - to help the unemployed. Pelosi got a tax cut for just the middle class through the House. Obama rejected Schumer's efforts to do the same in the Senate. Similarly, every previous Republican effort to block extension of unemployment benefits had been defeated. The problem here is that Obama simply did not try to win this battle. And because he surrendered so easily, he has guaranteed the Republicans will do this again and again in 2011. What is to suggest things will turn out any differently? Additionally, there is nothing in this deal for the 99ers. The problem is that Obama is simply enabling further GOP extremism. That doesn't help anyone. Finally, this nonsense argument that we have to cave to the right in order to help people is something we heard frequently from Sacramento Democrats when they pushed their bad budget deals in 2009. Progressives rightly rejected that and demanded that we say no to right-wing hostage-taking. As a result we now have a Democratic governor and a majority vote budget. Appeasement never, ever works. It never helps anyone. It just makes matters worse because it guarantees future deals will be even more extremist in nature. And this act of appeasement is even more galling since Obama never once tried to actually fight the right on this - a fight he could win.
Comment by Dan Ancona on
Hi Dick - long time no talk and thanks for the piece. The problem is that Obama has done more this week to reinforce the Reagan worldview (government is the problem, tax cuts and more tax cuts are the solution) than anyone since Reagan himself, arguably including Bush. The line he crossed this week is that he's actively opposing the development of the progressive movement at this point. That's a serious problem that this analysis doesn't address.
Comment by StacyMonroe on
I think this is a fantastic piece, Dick. Obama has managed to get an impressive amount done. It's not perfect. But I am happy for some baby steps. Thanks for your usual thoughtful analysis.