I am asking you to speak up loudly and strongly against the recent actions of Republican governors and legislatures in Wisconsin and other states. The working people of the United States, the very people who comprised the army of grassroots volunteers that propelled you to the Presidency, are under attack by the corporate interests in this country. They had your back in 2008. It is time for you to do the same for them.
Mr. President, you may think that by attempting to appease Corporate America, by appearing as a compromiser, and by appealing to the “independent” voters, you will be elected to a second presidential term, maybe even with a Democratic majority in the House again. If that is what you believe, then I have two reactions: First, all that rhetoric about the power of grassroots campaigning was a lie. Second, I think you will lose and the country will be much worse off for it. Do you think those independent voters will go canvassing in bad weather and make all those phone calls for you? If you still truly believe in the grassroots process, you need to give us a reason to work hard again like we did in 2008. If you’ve lost your confidence in the power of the grassroots, just look at what we achieved in Massachusetts last year.
Mr. President, this is your moment in history. The right is feeling their oats and apparently think that they can execute their end-game to finally reverse the gains the working class made over the first half of the 20th century. You can be remembered as the one-term president that let that happen. Or you can be on the other side of history. I’ve been told that one characteristic of a good political leader is the ability to recognize a forming parade and to get in front of it. That parade is forming with or without you, Mr. President. We’d prefer that you help.
about (not) fighting for labor. See this indirect reference to a recent NY Times article which describes how Obama’s staff reined in DNC plans to mobilize a nationwide network for protests. Apparently the new WH staff is strong on “no drama”.
<
p>
<
p>Contrast this hands-off approach with a statement made by Obama on Feb 12, 2008: “A president who will stand with workers not just when it’s easy, but when it’s hard”
<
p>A kind interpretation is that Obama doesn’t think he can win this state-level battle, so why try. My cynical side guesses that he just doesn’t want to get his hands dirty or displease his corporate masters.
I know this is a reach, but I’ll offer it anyway.
<
p>President Obama appears to be taking my support for granted in a way that is strikingly reminiscent of Martha Coakley’s ill-fated Senate campaign.
<
p>I am being radicalized. I want to see my president leading the fights for issues I hold dear, even if it means we lose an election or two.
<
p>I have no doubt that President Obama’s staff has access to far more detailed political data and insight than me. It appears that they conclude that this sell-out cop-out strategy will gain more votes from some unspecified “middle” than they lose from people like me.
<
p>So what.
<
p>I was disgusted with the GITMO sell-out. I was disgusted with the war-crimes sell-out. I was disgusted with the wall-street sell-out. I was able to persuade myself that all these were needed because of some unspecified greater harm.
<
p>Selling out working-class folks in Wisconsin is too much.
<
p>The GOP declared war on Barack Obama and the Democrats. They are winning. It appears to me that President Obama and the Democrats aren’t even bothering to fight.
<
p>Martha Coakley assumed too much and brought us Senator Brown. I shudder to think who is going to be inaugurated as President in January of 2013.
Obama is treating us the same way the Republicans are treating him. He counts on us giving him what he wants so that something worse – in this case, a Republican victory – doesn’t happen.
<
p>Obama was never a liberal/progressive. He drags out pretty phrases when necessary to distinguish himself from Republicans, while at the same time he actively continues or acquiesces to much of their agenda. I do concede that there were instances in which he was to the left of Republicans (health care, financial stimulus, DADT), but in two of those cases what he reached for was much less than what the public broadly supported. He let Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson drive the debates. We’re still waiting for change in the practice of DADT.
<
p>He is using the threat of a Republican victory in the same way that Republicans used the threat of a government shutdown. “Work with me or look what will happen.” He compromises with progressives about as much as Republicans do.
<
p>I can only conclude that he would rather concede on issues that have wide popular support, and thereby see his base stay home in 2012, than fight for them and bring out the base. The money and good will from his corporate masters apparently matter more to him. If he does lose in 2012, he can look forward to lucrative speaking engagements, the perks of an ex-president, and probably a few corporate board positions. He won’t get the latter if he fights for the general public.
<
p>Progressives should take a serious look at this lopsided relationship and ask ourselves how we can get a better deal. The deal we have now is not good. Time after time, our guy makes a point of “fighting” with a hand behind his back, even when our side has broad public support.
He is, himself, the technical head of a group of government union employees who already do not have the subjects for collective bargaining that state level unions do. The proposed legislations actually look to rein in the states to the subjects that the Federal unions now enjoy.
<
p>How can he lead your parade? He isn’t even advocating to return to Federal employees under his own purview the various subjects for collective bargaining that the controversy concerns.
Is the economy thriving?
Is the middle class vibrant?
Are we at peace?
<
p>Triangulation and trickle down don’t seem to work, can we finally all agree with that? Methinks its time to try plan B.
<
p>(Of course I’d suggest something time-tested, like Liberalism, but I guess that’s a bad word.)
Triangulater Bill Clinton brought us the longest sustained growth in our history, with both inflation and unemployment staying low. We were even more or less at peace during those eight years.
Clinton also gave us some serious time bombs:
<
p>- NAFTA and the hollowing out of our manufacturing base
<
p>- Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act; this repeal allowed banks to get into all kinds of trouble within 10 years
<
p>- Weak action to address greenhouse gases and dependence on foreign oil (Can you think of anything major that got done? I can’t)
<
p>What do you consider “the middle”? The policies that existed under Clinton or the policies we have now?
<
p>How extreme must the Republicans get before you will acknowledge that even half of what they are trying to do is devastating and ridiculous? How extreme must they get before you realize that once you give them “the middle”, they move the goalposts and try again? How complicit must the Democratic leadership get before you decide they are not fighting for the average citizen either?
<
p>If they want to completely abolish Medicare, are you willing to arbitrarily cut Medicare benefits in half? (That will destroy the program.)
<
p>If they want to abolish child labor laws, are you willing to lower the legal working age to 10? (They’ll later ask for age 6 in order to get “a middle ground” of age 8.)
<
p>If they want to sell off public utilities to their buddies, who will subsequently lease their services back to us at higher prices, are you willing to have them sell only half the utilities? For now? (Knowing that they’ll try later to grab the other half)
The rhetorical questions you ask toward the end are rather silly and almost offensive. Of course there are values that should not be compromised. Clinton shut down the government rather than let the GOP get its way and I applaud him for that. Notice I didn’t mention the stock market, though that did well too. I mentioned unemployment and inflation, factors that affect regular people. It was once assumed that if unemployment were down inflation would rise and if inflation were down unemployment would rise. Clinton kept both low. He also submitted the first balanced budget in a generation, which despite my New Deal sympathies in current times, is a laudable goal in better times. With regard to NAFTA I have to say I’m basically a free trader if there are some safeguards. I look at results. Clinton also pushed through an increased minimum wage. Liberals said free trade would cost jobs; conservatives said minimum wage increases would cost jobs. We did both in the 1990s and what did we have to show for it? 22 million new jobs! So I’ll ask you the question I wish Al Gore had asked George W. Bush in the 2000 debates – What part of 8 years of peace and prosperity did you not like?
<
p>And again your accusation I criticize both sides equally still stins, there are areas where they are not equivalent. To me the Tea Party is not results oriented, its a largely racist and homophobic organization driven by a reactionary current to what they perceive to be a ‘lost’ country. They are against the greater diversity and urbanization of America, as most conservatives have been for two centuries now, and that’s not an ideology that will ever produce good results. Now similarly the progressive revolt or reaction to Obama is also ideologically and emotionally fueled and is not results oriented and is in fact blind to results. The key difference, is this reaction is coming from good principles and five years ago (I think you could even dig up some old blog posts of mine) I was much farther to the left and was against Clintonian centrism, free trade, and any national security policy that did not meet Howard Zinn’s standards. But since then I’ve left the bubble of Cambridge, MA, moved out into the heartland, learned how economics and foreign policy actually work, worked for fairly progressive but politicians that can also be fairly cozy with business, and have seen the world a little bit more. And knowing what I now know I find it hard pressed to see how Obama could have done any better than he has, certainly on specific issues and on the margins he could’ve been a lot more vigorous. The President has a lot of power over national security and he could’ve closed GITMO, ended DADT, and ended the wars by using the powers of the executive branch and not needing to worry about Congress. But big things like banking reform, healthcare reform, etc. were bungled by our impotent Congressional leadership as much as by the Obama administration. And lots of areas where we have made progress have gone unnoticed by the left, and would certainly be backtracked if we abandoned the Democrats and the President and let the tea party take power. I am a realist first and foremost and thats what influences my beliefs. Its all about the art of the possible and being happy with the 70% you get.
<
p>Obama failed to twist arms in Congress when he had broad public support. He hurt the chances for future progress by acting as if what he got was all that was necessary. He gave away the public option at the behest of big pharma and the hospital lobby behind closed doors. In other words, he played a big part in this bungling.
<
p>
<
p>If I had seen Obama and the Democratic leadership trying to get 100% and coming back with 70%, I would have been quite happy. The travesty is that they have acted as if 50%, or in many cases, nothing, was just fine.
<
p>Obama’s Deficit Control Commission was stacked with members who want to abolish Social Security. The commission’s report placed a very low priority on reducing the cost of health care, which many economists consider to be the major long-term budget buster.
<
p>
<
p>By the way (this in answer to Christopher), if we had gone back to the Clinton “middle”, we would have allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire instead of extending them for 2 years. Does anyone think that it will be easier to let them expire two years from now?
<
p>The seeds for the banking collapse were sown during the Clinton years. We are now living with the results.
I’ve heard this before –
<
p>
<
p>Let’s set aside duelling polls, how broad the public support really was, etc. Let’s say you’re right, and the public DID support the health care legislation.
<
p>So what?
<
p>Was the public going to vote on the legislation? Amend it? Do anything other than call, write, email, etc.? They could express all the support in the world, but they weren’t casting any votes.
<
p>Since we do NOT live in a democracy – exactly what was Obama supposed to do? Enjoy his phyrric victory by refusing to compromise?
to get members of his own party to fall in line. He didn’t have a filibuster-proof majority, but he did have a majority for passage via reconciliation, which is what happened anyway. He never did get any Republican votes.
<
p>What does every president do to get members of Congress in line? Come on, you can’t be that naive. He can offer or withhold rewards that affect the member’s state, and thereby affect the member’s chances for re-election. He can pressure members of Congress to add or remove specific language from a bill.
<
p>Please refer to the following article which quotes members of Congress and the executive branch who attest to Obama’s influence over legislation, including health care and financial overhaul.
<
p>http://www.salon.com/news/opin…
Go over the Congress’ collective head and appeal directly to the people. Point out which districts he did better than the Member. Yes, those things you dismiss ARE important, in some ways more than polls because they take more effort than responding to a survey. Members do pay attention to the ratio of correspondence from constituents.
…I absolutely agree with the paragraph addressed to me toward the end of your comment.
The extreme positions I mentioned are actually being pushed by some Republicans and their funders:
<
p>The Koch brothers would like to see Medicare abolished: http://blog.reidreport.com/201…
<
p>Missouri Republicans want to roll back child labor laws, including the provision against employment of children under age 14: http://www.politicalrumination…
<
p>The much-publicized budget bill in the Wisconsin legislature includes provisions that permit the state executive to unilaterally sell state-owned public utilities to private corporations without the requirement of competitive bidding: http://blogs.forbes.com/rickun…
The fortunes of the top 2% exploded under Clinton, while working Americans treaded water other than the housing and tech bubbles.
<
p>Now that the bill has come due for repealing Glass-Steagal, for “free” trade with microwage nations, and for the rest of the Clinton/Rubin/Summers innovations, it’s being handed to working America, not to the wealthiest.
Is thats its essential to reinstate Glass-Steagall, but I would disagree about your criticisms of free trade and working Americans getting screwed under Clinton. Under Clinton we had successful welfare reform that was actual reform and not elimination masked as reform, which helped millions of Americans, including my sister, get off the doll and back on their feet. The Earned Income Tax Credit has been so successful at lifting people out of poverty even the radical right wants to take credit for it. And free trade has created far more jobs than it has lost, opening up so many markets to American goods. The decline of manufacturing was irreversible and due to efficiencies in industry and technology far more than it was due to free trade. But again a progressive Congressmen should just reintroduce Glass-Steagall with the original language, thats vital to ensuring another economic crisis like this doesn’t happen. And again puts me to the left of most progressives these days.
<
p>Is there anyone on the left who doesn’t think that resurrecting Glass-Steagall is a good idea?
I suspect that most elected Democrats are against Glass-Steagall – no?
at least, not the ones who sponsored this legislation (which includes two of our delegation). That was a 5-second Google search; I’m sure there’s a lot more out there.
Why?
And no votes?
First, thanks for being on the correct side of Glass-Steagall.
<
p>My concern is that its reinstatement will not by itself bring back full employment any time soon. See this Paul Krugman column which criticizes the recent budget deal cut by Obama with Republicans.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>This does not sound like the Clinton years.
And I say this as a persistent critic of Krugman, but I agree with him here. The Bush tax cuts are completely fiscally irresponsible, and the vast majority of Americans would gladly support rolling back the most expensive cuts for the wealthiest 5%. Most Americans make far under $250k a year and would not be effected, those that make more than that could obviously afford the return to previous rates (I hate it when the media calls such a return a tax increase when its obviously not). Bush’s father raised taxes during a recession to keep the ship of state afloat and paid for it dearly politically, Obama could have done the same thing and probably gained in the polls by being decisive. I can understand the deal he made in the lameduck, at that point he had already surrendered so much strategic ground that tactical decision was the best option he left himself with, but a true populist “soak the rich bail out the people-not the banks” kind of campaign could have resonated in 2010 and I suspect it can resonate in 2012 both in our local Senate race and at the presidential level. Again we are in agreement, this has to happen. Of course I guess to some that still makes me a Republican.
<
p>Also to David my point was not that there aren’t some liberals fighting for this, simply that you do not see a groundswell on the left for this legislation in the same manner you saw for say a public option, against GITMO, or against DADT. At least on the blogosphere. Also most liberal leaders in Congress have steered away from this. When Van Hollen, Clyburn, Hoyer, and Pelosi in the House and Reid, Durbin, and Schumer in the Senate agree to this then we can take it seriously. Until then its just the Pete Starks of the world and its sadly not going anywhere.
or Washington, D.C. & Obama vs. Walker?
<
p>I think Obama is right on the politics to stay in the background. The Republicans wanted to be perceived as the champions of small government standing up for the taxpayer against union bosses and big government. Republican commercials running in Wisconsin when I was there last week tried to paint Walker as a hero standing up to “Obama and his union bosses.”
<
p>I don’t think this attempt worked, though. Effective counter-commercials led with ordinary workers talking about financial loss they would bear from Walker’s bill. One identified herself as a secretary making a salary in the 40s who said she would lose $3K per year.
<
p>A colleague in Wisconsin recounted her shock at seeing protesters against the bill holding signs at an intersection in sleepy Grafton (not a hotbed of Democratic activism) last week.
<
p>Republicans jammed their bill through, but at the expense of removing financial elements, exposing for any who had missed it that it was a cynical attack on unions. Looking at Wisconsin newspaper headlines, it appears to me that workers won the message war.
<
p>Green Bay Press Gazette
<
p>Beloit Daily News
<
p>Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
<
p>I couldn’t find a headline that touted Walker’s fiscal responsibility or leadership in addressing the state’s fiscal problems.
<
p>I’m not so sure the message war would have so clearly been won by the workers if the headlines were about Obama vs. Walker.
<
p>Obama couldn’t change the outcome of this vote. But fired up workers full of buyer’s remorse can – by recalling Republicans and voting against them in 2012 and beyond.
<
p>Think Obama has played this exactly right so far, but he has to be careful not to seem so aloof that the new story becomes trouble with his liberal base.