So we’ve heard a variety of complaints about the leadership of President Obama along the lines of this: He’s not a “real” progressive. “He’s just not that into you.”
I absolutely refuse to indulge this self-destructive, defeatist sentimentality, both in myself and others. We have to not be emotionally attached to this wonderful icon, to whom we burned candles and incense in his honor! “He’s not that into you.” What rot. Who cares about what he “cares” about? This is bathos and solipsism.
Criticisms of his character and strategy are perfectly fair and apt. I have long thought, since the primary, that he was too conciliatory, that he didn’t understand oppositional politics, that he believed his own hype about being a unifying figure. Yup. All true. And we have endured great disappointments because of it.
We can get some things done with this guy in power. And we have, at great length. With a Republican in power, we can get nothing done, and in fact will see progressive achievements of the last 100+ years undone. It’s just that damn simple.
We need to stop this sentimental crap. He’s not a boyfriend. He’s a politician. He will do what he thinks he can get away with.
And I will call each and every one of you to vote for him, and work for him, in 2012, if I have to. And if you don’t do it, the country slips further into disgrace.
Get over him, and work for it.
Update: OK, if working/donating to Obama really is too much to stomach, do this instead. Probably a better and more effective way to get what we want.
Here’s the bottom line… : your donation, or your volunteer time, or whatever your commitment may be, goes a lot further in a House race than the Presidency. And don’t wait until November 2012 to commit, because if you don’t want to be stuck with a conservative Democrat running against a Republican, you have to be involved and invested before the primary stage. If after the primary you’re stuck with a conservative Democrat, hold your nose and think “This is for Speaker Pelosi. This is for Speaker Pelosi.”
If you’re in a very safe D district, find one that isn’t. This should be out top priority going into the next election.
We’ve got a Senate race right here, and two GOP-held House districts within easy driving distance.
Look forward.
You’re right, there has been a lot of idolizing of Barack Obama but that shouldn’t be surprising, he encouraged it after all. People should not have built him up to be this god-like figure but I don’t see how you can argue that we are getting what we voted for. Guantanamo bay remains open with absolutely no hope of it ever being closed. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are still raging on with no end in sight. Obama will go into the end of his first term with DOUBLE the number of troops in Afghanistan than when he took office. We’re militarily involved in yet another Middle Eastern country and he’s expanded a drone strike program which has killed more civilians than alleged terrorists. On foreign policy and terrorism policy there is no discernible difference between Obama and the previous administration. I don’t know about you but that is not what I voted for.
On domestic policy it has been this President who has time and time again been the one out front proposing cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid beyond even the wildest dreams of what Republicans could hope for. It is this President who never advocated for a clean debt ceiling increase, instead putting cuts on the table from the beginning. It was this administration that successfully watered down some of the toughest measures in the Financial Reform bill and who took the public option off the table at the beginning of negotiations in the health care bill.
I don’t think Obama is weak, or a bad negotiator. I think that these are his values, which is fine and I can respect that. But I am not going to work to reelect someone who has those values. I don’t blame Obama, the problem with our country is that the whole system is rotten to the core and I refuse to contribute to that rot any longer.
If you’re not working to re-elect Obama, you are helping to elect someone much, much worse.
There is no way around that.
I have to agree. Let’s not have people going all Ralph Nader on us – we remember how that worked out, don’t we? As disappointed as you may be with Obama – and I’m disappointed too, for a variety of reasons – it’s simply incorrect (and is therefore dangerous) to pretend that there’s no difference between Obama and whoever would replace him from the GOP.
Progressives like you, Charley, and Bob worked their asses off to elect Obama, and thus far during his administration he’s taken every opportunity to kick liberals/progressives in the teeth. How can liberals hold Obama accountable if they take their greatest piece of leverage (their vote) off the table?
This do you think we’d be better off with as President is the same thing as pro-war people saying “So you think Iraq would be better off with Saddam in power?” Of course it wouldn’t but that didn’t mean we should have invaded Iraq. Likewise yes it would not be a good thing if any of the Republican candidates won the White House, but that doesn’t mean somebody should vote for Obama just because.
For reasons outlined above.
All done here.
then liberal/progressive impotence and irrelevance will go on with no end in sight.
If you think liberal/progressive “impotence and irrelevance” (which, by the way, is not even true) will somehow be fixed with a Republican in the White House, then I’m not sure what to say.
moves in the direction of much worse unless he is threatened. I would sign up in a minute to support a primary challenger.
I don’t understand why Democratic activists are so timid about a primary. Primaries or the threat of primaries are being used by the Tea Party to influence Congress. Why can’t this approach be used by Democrats? We don’t have to be like the Tea Party, demanding 100% compliance on every point of every issue. On the other hand, we had better have some points that are non-negotiable. If Democrats are willing to negotiate anything away, then what do we stand for? For those who say this wouldn’t work, I ask when has it been tried?
I see Obama as vulnerable to defeat by a Republican for some of the same reasons that Martha Coakley was defeated. In spite of efforts by the party faithful, the Democratic brand was blamed for the lousy economy. No one explained loudly enough that the economy was lousy because the government had been too conservative. Since the responsibility was shared by some Democrats, it would have been an awkward sell. Voters were also scared by misleading Republican ads about a Democratic attack on Medicare. Now that Obama has made noises about cutting SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, future ads can be scare people by simply telling the truth.
It will be tough to defend the Democratic brand in Senate and Congressional races when the top of the ticket has said and done so much to undermine it. The horrible deficit “compromise” will ensure conditions that make working people feel squeezed and angry. Mr Compromise will get a lot of blame. It will be hard to make a case that he fought to help the average person, especially when he stood in the shadows during so many of the fights.
Here is Politifact’s breakdown of the President’s promises. One thing you note that I disagree with is you treat Iraq as if it is still going strong while we are clearly winding that down. Yes, we have a bigger presence in Afghanistan, but he DID say that was his plan to make up for the inattention given by the last administration. I personally support our action in Libya, but it’s not fair using that as a what-I-voted-for metric as it was not an issue in 2008.
People voted for Obama thinking he’d be less interventionist in foreign policy and he’s turned out to be no different than the previous administration. You say you support the Libya action, how about the drone strikes in Yemen and Somalia that kill scores of civilians? How about the continued use of rendition sites and secret CIA prisons?
…because for once we are taking the side of the people seeking to choose their own government rather than a tyrant for the sake of stability. We proclaimed in 1776 that ALL people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to establish a government on their own to achieve those ends. I don’t support CIA renditions and am not sure what we’re doing in Yemen or Somalia, but I assume our targets are terror related rather than civilians.
Obama the candidate made it abundantly clear that he would continue and even expand American interventionism around the world. Though he pledged to pull out of Iraq, his intentions to increase our presence in Afghanistan were stated again and again.
This op-ed from April *2007* (a full year and a half before the election) is instructive: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702027.html
As are, I hope, some of these quotes from the April 2007 Obama speech referenced in that article:
“So I reject the notion that the American moment has passed. I dismiss the cynics who say that this new century cannot be another when, in the words of President Franklin Roosevelt, we lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good. I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth. We just have to show the world why this is so.”
“Whether it’s global terrorism or pandemic disease, dramatic climate change or the proliferation of weapons of mass annihilation, the threats we face at the dawn of the 21st century can no longer be contained by borders and boundaries.”
” America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America. We must neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission – we must lead the world, by deed and example.”
Etc, etc, etc. Those who thought he would be less interventionist were fools blinded by Obama’s criticism of the Iraq invasion and Hope.
Instead of working for him in 2012 without question we should be making sure that when he is “doing what he can get away with,” we’re the ones who decide (at least to some extent) what he can get away with. We have not been thus far. If we pledge our allegiance to him now, he will never listen to us, and that’s not something I can get behind.
what are you doing to make sure your views are heard?
Here’s a great opportunity, from the BMG Events Calendar, and it’s happening this very evening. An Obama low-dollar fundraiser, with Robert Gibbs. Don’t like what you’ve been seeing and hearing? Show up – it won’t cost you that much – and make your voice heard. Join the conversation. Don’t just sulk on the sidelines.
I think the conversations here, elsewhere on the web, among friends, and in community groups, telling the campaign why I’m not donating when they call asking for money, and supporting actual progressives (with time and money) is a lot more effective than hanging out with a bunch of fawning sycophants and the remarkably arrogant and douchey Robert Gibbs.
what an arrogant douche he is. Maybe he needs to hear it.
Wikipedia:
My interpretation of the metaphor is: He’s not that into the things that are important to you; He’s not into fighting for the things you elected him to fight for, especially if the economy is a hot-button issue for you.
I heard yet another metaphor to describe the liberal angst over Obama on the radio this morning. Not verbatim, it was “We took him to the dance, and every time we go looking for him, he’s dancing with that attractive, rich girl.” It’s not about a emotional attachment to the person but an emotional attachment to the issues.
I think this sentence displays your misunderstanding. It is all about it, not him.
Often, I read and hear that if we weren’t expecting this from Obama, we weren’t paying much attention during the primary and general election seasons. If that’s the case, what I’m hearing from people is along the lines of the saying famously bungled by Dubya: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
… keeps you out of political involvement for the next election cycle, *you’re* the one getting fooled. I remember 2000-2008.
… you aren’t going to convince them of anything.
That was the point of my comment.
The fact that people who are really plugged in (i.e., those who take the time to post here) are threatening not only to not work in the next election cycle, but possibly not vote for Obama, is very scary. I interpret that as meaning that the thousands of volunteers who showed up in 2008 who were never involved before (and who for the most part do not participate in forums like this) aren’t going to show up in 2012. You can point the finger at all of these folks and say “bad Democrats” if that happens, but the reality of the situation is that Obama himself has most of the power in determining if these people participate again. If we can’t openly criticize his actions in the order to hopefully be heard and change the course over the next year, what are the options?
Candidate Obama and his team focused on a message that would resonate with the most people most of the time. And it worked, drawing more people in each time they heard something they liked (Obama is for Change. Obama will end the War in Iraq. Obama is for Hope – not like that grumpy old man from Arizona. Obama will tax the rich.)
But, like with any product, Obama was marketed selectively.
You don’t hear much about how the I-Phone doesn’t actually work very well as, you know a phone. But nearly everyone knows you can play Angry Birds on it. “There’s an app for that” is pretty much saying the same thing as most campaigns do when they fill out Questionnaires, run campaign commercials and create reams of policy white papers.
Obama simply would never be President if he spent the campaign talking about how it’s pretty difficult for government to actually create jobs, how Afghanistan was likely to be out country’s longest ever War, or how “universal health care” is a pretty vague phrase when you really think about it. But these are the realities, kids. To have expected Obama the candidate to warn you of these things was simply unrealistic.
You pose the classic false dilemma with this sentence:
No, I’m sorry, but it is not “that damn simple”.
First, it is not that damn simple because we are watching the “progressive achievements of the last 100+ years undone” while this guy is in power. As Representative Conyers has observed, it is “this guy in power” who put unnecessary cuts to Social Security benefits on the table.
The two choices you present are between “bad” and “worse”. We must do better. As we have seen, electing “bad” is not stopping the attack on the “progressive achievements of the past 100+ years”.
You said, correctly, on another thread:
The first gusts of that “wind” must be to reject the kind of overly simplistic “analysis” you offer here. We need to hold the feet of all our elected representatives to the fire, whether or not they run as Democrats.
You apparently would have us continue to embrace the phony WWF-style charade that passes for politics today. I won’t.
In your second paragraph you criticize those who criticize the President, but in your third paragraph you acknowledge that such criticisms are valid. At least that’s how I’m interpreting what you wrote.
a.) The emotionalism. It’s so teenager-y, and counterproductive. Politics is power, not love. Wrong metaphors are deadly.
b.) The threat of withholding support. Obviously dumb. Obviously disastrous, actually. Support can come in a number of different ways, though, as I update above.
It just seems so stupid to blame Obama and assign to him the power to move mountains, when the problem is *the GD Republicans.* Obvs! Let’s fantasize and replace Obama with … Nancy Pelosi (my hero). You’ve still got the Repubs to contend with!
Hey, I supported John Edwards in the primary, because he was talking a tougher game and sounded like relished head-butting politics. Well, good thing he lost, huh?
There is a big difference between withholding support and threatening to withhold support, in the same way that there is a difference between using the 14th Amendment to handle the debt ceiling issue and at least leaving it on the table as an option. Politicians should be held to account for their actions, especially by their base. I think we can do that, if we try.
What you are asking all of us to do is make our voices powerless when it comes to this President.
It’s very possible to be very critical of politicians including the President, to have those voices being meaningful and powerful, and yet to *not* threaten to withhold support for their re-election.
You only very rarely see the professional politicians, organizations or advocates going around threatening the President even when they really disagree with his politics. And that’s because it is a silly and ineffective tactic, particularly in our two party system.
For example, look at what the SEIU has to say about the debt deal: http://www.seiu.org/2011/08/no-more-raw-deals-working-people-need-leaders-to-l.php
They talk about this being a “raw deal”, about having “lost faith” in elected leaders, and call out Obama for his failure to lead. Never once do they say “or I’ll take my ball and go home in 2012.”
Criticize away. But you don’t need to and shouldn’t threaten to withold support to have power.
Yes, I (and many others on this blog) are idiot children.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/20/richard-trumka-democrats_n_864518.html
is just quaking in his loafers because of that strongly worded letter from the SEIU. All the criticism in the world won’t make a lick of difference to Obama and his administration because in the end they know that for all the howling and complaining you’ll fall into line and dutifully cast your vote for them in November. Without the threat of some concrete action, those words are empty and meaningless.
If you and a whole lot of other disillusioned lefties withhold your vote from Obama, presumably casting it instead for one of the various Donald Duck-ish candidates who will no doubt appear on the ballot, eventually it will affect Obama’s margins in swing states, perhaps tossing a couple of them to (say) Mitt Romney. Maybe that means [insert GOP nominee here] wins.
What then? Are you happy? Even when (a) Justice Ginsburg retires and is replaced by a Robert Bork knock-off, creating a rock-solid conservative majority on the Supreme Court for decades; (b) whatever good was accomplished by the health care bill is repealed; (c) taxes are further and permanently lowered on the rich; (d) deep cuts in Medicare and Social Security – far worse than what’s on the table as of now – are put in place; and (e) the EPA, FDA, and other federal agencies are defunded and their enabling statutes gutted? Because that’s exactly what is going to happen if the GOP wins this election.
Would sending old Obama a message really feel that good?
I could see (c), (d), and (e) happening even if Obama is elected.
…but unfortunately not realistic. Plus whoever does primary Obama will also have to acknowledge to him- or herself from the first a willingness to campaign hard FOR Obama in the general once the President almost inevitably wins renomination. People who say we don’t want a Nader or simply staying home to throw the election to the GOP nominee are right, but there must be SOME way to hold him accountable as the right has figured out how to do with Republicans.
to apply pressure. But as you say, it’s extremely unlikely that a *credible* challenger will appear.
The Tea Party GOP won’t be happy until they’ve destroyed the country for the sake of its “principles.” The best Obama offers is slight resistance to the dismantling our social safety net.
At some point, something is going to have to burn (figuratively) I mean. I’ll probably vote for Obama, but
I’m starting to think it’s going to take some a sort of apocalypse before we get real change. I’m not a revolutionary in any violent sense, but I can’t see how we get out of this without some serious upheaval.
Bush was elected in 2000 while the Christian Right did nothing. Rove ordered him to embrace the Right on social issues, and Bush did what he was told to do (his best quality).
I imagine the Christian Right had Charleys on their own side who were proven incredibly wrong.
Look at the Supreme Court, sab. That’s the whole ball of wax for them. Stem cells, too. Bush did pretty well by them.
because I do think the number of donors is relevant, and because I’d like to see lots more “small money” in politics.
Then I’m going to send money to House and Senate candidates who (a) carry the flags I think are most important, and (b) are in reasonably competitive races. If a candidate isn’t willing to campaign on cutting carbon, he or she isn’t getting my money. It’s not sufficient, but it damned well is necessary.
So look, send Obama a Jackson, and then figure out which candidates carry your flags. Support those folks, and include a note with your check letting them know *why* you support them. They need that feedback too.
Ergo – my major effort is going into Bob Massie’s campaign for the 2012 slugfest.