What Digby said. (4.00 / 3)

---

by: Skinny McThin @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 02:39:44 AM UTC

Will progressives drive the new memes? (4.00 / 1)

If progressives are in fact the salesmen for the new Obama administration. . . . perhaps that's a better case scenario.

Worse case scenario - perhaps it'll be DLC types in progressive clothing, which enables the opposition to brand DLC policies as "ultra-left wing".

---

by: tietack @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 03:22:58 AM UTC

Wherein I agree with Digby (4.00 / 2)

In the post Digby also said this and I agree with her.

As for the policies, we'll have to wait and see. I suspect that on the economy, it's going to have to be a hell of a lot more progressive than anybody dreamed it would be even three months ago. There are no conservative solutions to economic meltdown except just letting it happen --- and I don't think anyone expects Obama to do that.

In 2 earlier posts I wrote

At this point I actually prefer to think about what positive signs there are.  The most positive I think is that the difficulties of the times DEMAND big solutions.  I think circumstances and yes his political sensibilities are pushing him to do big things....and on the principles I think are more progressive than less because pragmatically they are the only things that will work.

As I said I am hopeful he will do things much more progressively than many think.  I think what some people underestimate, at least that's my hope, is that lots of the old Clintonites he's appointing; they were once more progressive in their hearts and their core values.  The 90's was the height of right wing reaction and it was felt by many that the only way to get elected and to govern was to give in to the conservative zeitgeist.  The times are different and the zeitgeist is changing...so I am willing to be patient. Because I have faith both in Barack Obama and that these folks he's appointing are Democrats for a good reason.  And while pragmatism in 90's meant to many a rightward tilt....the pragmatic policy choices now are on the left.  And Barack Obama is a pragmatist.

There are things to watch....his approach and language on tax policy is one.  His actual approach to the rescues and restructuring of the auto industry and those dependent on them and the controls he and his team place on the financial industry as well.  Details do matter very much.  

But as someone who was sceptical of his progressivism, I am reassured that he's someone who turns to what works...and this time, it's time for Keynsian solutions not the Laffer Curve.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 04:18:34 AM UTC

Laffer curve (4.00 / 1)

The Laffer Curve is an ideologically approved version of Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, a nice fairy tale that simply doesn't work in the real world.  At this point, Obama and anyone else is constrained to real world economics.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 10:39:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why not try to get Rubin fired? (4.00 / 8)

I respect the enormous complaint about the disproportionate lack of progressives among Obama's appointments so far. But I tend to think that the complaints have gotten too shrill and unfocussed - things are happening so fast that the emotional reactions are really prominent. Ideally, Obama should see through the emotional outbursts that have at times shown a disconcerting lack of self-awareness, but I would bet that hardly anyone on the Obama team will try.

Why not try to become focussed on something that Obama is clearly and I would hope inarguably doing wrong? With Citibank imploding, getting $25 billion from the bailout package, and probably getting more from the government in the near future, the continued presence of Rubin among Obama's advisors is a blatant conflict of interest. Obama should fire him, and if Obama doesn't fire him there should be a concerted effort to embarrass Obama about keeping him around.

I suspect that the appointment process for all the major appointees is too far along and under too short a timeline for outside complaints to make a difference. But making sure Obama gets rid of the worst of the people he's surrounded himself with is possible. The recent NY Times article on Citibank made a few not-so-subtly disparaging references to Rubin's role in the Obama team. It might not take much to get reporters to start making more blatantly disparaging references.

---

by: Cramer @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 05:40:53 AM UTC

I think this is a very realistic and helpful idea. Rubin definitely has a conflict of interest. (4.00 / 3)

And is also generally unhelpful on reforming our trade agreements.

---

by: danthrax @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 06:25:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Death of Rubin economic policies (4.00 / 2)

Here's a link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11...

---

by: bruhrabbit2 @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 06:34:14 AM UTC

I think we might be seeing intent (4.00 / 4)

where there isn't. If its the case that centrists are taking cabinet positions while progressives are taking the political positions it still does not follow that Obama is intentionally making policy from the right while playing politics from the left. At least to me, Obama has never seemed like a very ideological guy. Thats something thats bothered me about him. But since all of us here are awfully ideological its worth considering the idea that Obama might not be thinking like this.

And here's the thing, if Obama is picking people with an eye toward experience and competence then it isn't to surprising its working out like this. If you want the most qualified Democrats for cabinet posts then you'll probably end up with people who served under Clinton since there's been no other administration to get experience in.

On the other hand, the progressive movement, for the last eight years or so, has put almost all of its effort into the political side of things. And if Obama wants, as he should, the sort of people who are responsible for the successes of the past two elections, then he'll pick progressives.

Now that doesn't mean there aren't progressives qualified for the posts that are going to centrists but if the progressives weren't part of the Clinton administration (and like you said, I think we'll see progressives in certain departments) they're going to be on a second tier when it comes to experience.

Now, let me be clear. I don't think this is a good idea. I want a progressive SoD, SoS, etc. But I don't think this trend has anything to do with Obama secretly being a conservative and tricking all of us so much as it has to do with his annoying quirk of obsessing about bipartisanship (or bifactionalism, in this case) and consensus.

One other thing
I don't know enough about how the various executive bureaucracies work to really figure this out but the relationship between the opinions of a cabinet secretary and white house policy is far from one-to-one. This is especially confusing because sometimes being a cabinet secretary is just about running the bureaucracy but other times its about being a media spokesperson, other times its about lobbying congress. Sometimes its writing regulations, other times its letting the lower level 'crats write the regulations and going on vacation instead. Bill Richardson, for example, will be great and running the Dept. of Commerce. He knows how to run shit. But I don't, for a second, believe he has strong opinions on commerce policy (but then, not many do). Clinton is a troubling pick for SoS because I preferred Obama to her on just about all Foreign Affairs issues. But as evidenced by the first Bush term, Secretaries of State don't always set State Department policy...sometimes they just carry it out.

What's really crucial are not the cabinet secretaries but the various undersecretaries. They're the bread and butter of the executive and if we're not getting some progressives in those spots then we're in trouble.

---

by: Jack @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 07:46:41 AM UTC

agreed on all counts (4.00 / 1)

one of our goals going forward needs to be to get progressives in the administration so that they can build up some experience so that when the immediate crises pass & the first tier cabinet appointments get burned out, we have people ready & waiting to take over with a distinctively progressive world view.
s.

---

by: synth @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 07:53:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This isn't all about the political spectrum. (4.00 / 1)

I want a government that respects the rule of law. I am sick of a government full of crooks and sadists. Obama is giving us Lawrence Summers, who tried to bankrupt Mexico and give their financial industry to US corporations. He gives us Hillary Clinton, who threatened nuclear annihilation to a country in order to win a few points in the primary. Obama is giving us the same old crooks. He has promised to increase military spending, and has already threatened Iran for the sake of domestic politics. He isn't even President yet! I actually believe that there are voters on the right who would agree that govt has to be cleaned up, before the discussion of policy begins.  

---

by: jcr @ Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 10:18:20 AM UTC

Interesting theory you've got there. (0.00 / 0)

My first reaction was "Well, the language of Bush's Clean Skies Initiative didn't do anything to improve the crummy plans his administration has put into place," but then it occurred to me that the recent shift toward Democrats could in fair degree be related to the environmental movement being increasingly taken up by the center.

In fact, I think the increase in voter registration numbers this season demonstrates a move of the center toward the left, and a fair part of that move seems to lie with President Bush (whether due to his outright hypocrisy or his clear policy failures) as much as with President-elect Obama (hey Openleft - you might want to add that name to your spellchecker).

Certainly I would be excited to see a president that would root out the free-marketeers' slash-and-burn economics, and I'm disappointed Obama doesn't seem to be that president.  If, however, his guidance can continue to move the center toward progressivism (hmm... that should be in the spellcheck too) instead of creating a backlash, perhaps there will be a greater long-term benefit.

If new-deal style infrastructure investment and more progressive taxation (albeit only so progressive as that of the leading Republican icon) remain at the center of Obama's economic policy and the economy recovers and thrives as a result, it's possible that would set the stage for increasingly progressive policies going into 2016.

(Of course it's perhaps still more likely that once unemployment is down, the public will lose interest in politics again...)

All in all, this response lacks focus, and I would revise it did time permit.  Perhaps the greater throughline will emerge through continued discourse.    

---

by: John T. Hering @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 01:08:09 AM UTC

This sounds dangerous to me (0.00 / 0)

Although putting progressives in "sales" jobs pitching Obama's policies would seem to be an opportunity to introduce progressive language into mainstream political discussion, doesn't this pose an inherent danger of watering down our own policies?  For instance, if Obama's health care plan is enacted--and it would obviously be a huge improvement over the status quo--corporate media might portray it as a "huge victory for the progressive movement," and we'd gain a certain amount of mainstream media credibility.  The problem is that Obama's health care plan still falls well short of the actual progessive goal of socialized medicine.  To me, Obama's health care program looks a lot like what Nixon proposed in 1974; if I had to label it honestly, I'd call it centrist or center-right.

I have no problem with progressives gaining credibility in the mainstream press.  But it seems to me that we'd have more to gain if we called 'em like we see 'em: if Obama's thoroughly centrist policies are labeled as such, our ideas go from being ultra-liberal to acceptably progressive, and Republican policies will finally be exposed as far right.

---

by: Eurotrash @ Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 03:14:48 AM UTC