Obama and the Progressive Movement

by: Mike Lux

Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 12:01


Get your copy of my new book, The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be

One day during the Presidential transition, when I had been named the liaison to the progressive community, someone observed to me that "my people" didn't seem to be very happy.  I responded that it was not the job of the progressive movement to be happy.

I wasn't intending to be snarky.  My point was that progressives' job is to keep pushing, keep organizing, keep agitating, keep demanding better things.  Martin Luther King said that people kept asking him when he would be satisfied, and he answered, we will never be satisfied "until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream."

It's the nature of our movement to never stop fighting for things to get better, there are of course substantive issues where at least some progressives are going to part ways with Obama.  On foreign policy, the most important areas of concern so far are leaving so many residual forces in Iraq and expanding forces in Afghanistan without a clear understanding of the overall strategy (including an exit plan).  On the economy, some of us remain extremely concerned about the Geithner/Summers bank bailout strategy, which appears to be too much of a continuation of the Paulson bailout strategy while giving banking executives far too much leeway and far too little accountability.  These are not small issues.

Having said all that, though, I find myself walking around in a little bit of shock that a President, at least on the central strategic approach to the big policy issues, seems to be following the path I would advocate.

More in the extended entry.

Mike Lux :: Obama and the Progressive Movement
In traveling all over the country promoting my new book, The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be, I have been saying that the lesson of history is that Obama should seize this opportunity to think very big and bold, to be transformative in pushing to fundamentally re-structure our economy, our energy system, our health system, and our very politics.  And that is exactly what President Obama is doing - no credit due to me or any other advice given.  He is just listening to his own remarkable political instincts.

Though the recent economic recovery bill was too small and had its flaws, it was literally the biggest single investment in progressive social capital - health care, public education, green jobs, infrastructure, universal broadband - in history.  His budget might well be the most audacious and sweeping in progressive history as well - certainly one that competes with LBJ's 1965 budget and FDR's 1935 budget.  Obama is fulfilling his promise to the America people in the 2008 campaign: big, bold, truly transformative change.

Frankly, I didn't expect this would happen, at least not right away.  Watching him pick mostly centrists for cabinet positions, and knowing how the DC establishment can use a thousand big and small reasons to argue against transformative change, I feared that Obama would be convinced to scale back his ambitions for what I call in The Progressive Revolution a Big Change Moment, similar to ones we had in the 1860s, early 1900s, 1930s, and the 1960s.  Over the last few decades, Democrats have adopted a culture of caution - they have tended to think small and go slow. I feared that Obama would succumb to that culture.

But he is rising to the challenge.  And it is imperative that those of us in the progressive movement rise with him.  We shouldn't hesitate to say where we disagree, especially on the big things like Iraq, Afghanistan and the banking crisis.  And we shouldn't hesitate to push for the best possible policy details - to make sure that health care reform really is universal and has a public plan option for people being screwed by insurance companies, that the climate change policy really is effective and tough in reducing carbon emissions ASAP, and that the budget maximizes investment in the things that matter.  

But we should be very clear: Obama has decided to cast his lot with those of us who have been fighting for big, transformative change.  If he succeeds, we succeed, and if he fails, we fail - and we fail for at least another generation, because no Democrat will take big risks again for a very long time if Obama loses this gamble.  

2009 is the year.  This is the moment when progressives, and America, show whether we can live up to the heroes of our history.  Progressives in the past have ended slavery and Jim Crow, given women and minorities and the poor the right to vote, created the National Parks System, made dramatic improvements in cleaning up our air and water, and launched transformational programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Head Start.  Barack Obama has boldly announced his ambition to join those historic heroes and create another Big Change Moment.  This year will decide whether Democrats in Congress and the progressive movement can help him deliver on that noble ambition.  Seize the day.


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Thank you, Mike! (4.00 / 3)
You said it so well.

Martin Luther King said that people kept asking him when he would be satisfied, and he answered, we will never be satisfied "until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream."

It's the nature of our movement to never stop fighting for things to get better, there are of course substantive issues where at least some progressives are going to part ways with Obama.

It's not like we don't like President Obama or we want to create problems for him. We just want what's best for our nation, and that's why we keep pushing our elected officials (including the President) to do better.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.


I'd like to see a global movement, but targetted at the US as necessary leader (0.00 / 0)
I'm just expressing some vague ideas of mine, so feel free to ignore.

Somehow, to have a movement equal to the task of, say, making the American economy green within 10 years, it seems that we need a less passive public. Why aren't there more marches in the street, demanding this? Can Obama defeat entrenched economic interests in the short time he has to prove himself, without very visible support from the public?

As Obama is both popular abroad, and has a sense of responsibility for the globe that seemed completely absent in frat boy prez, George Bush, I'd like to see peaceful but enthusiastic marches in the US attended by as many foreigners as Americans. I'd like to see them come here and march, and hopefully not leave until they set up some sort of open government liaison between the US and their home countries. I doubt that there are many problems that are purely domestic, in the sense that there aren't close analogs faced by other countries.

Setting up a liaison between the White House and citizen groups overseas would be a two way street. On the one hand, foreigners would have some voice in American politics, which ultimately affects them. On the other hand, if Obama is pressing for some win-win policy that calls for sacrifices on the part of foreign governments, he would have some sympathetic forces on the ground there. These foreign citizens could apply pressure on their own governments.

E.g., say that 50,000 Chinese citizens come to the US to march and help set up a liaison open government group between the US government and Chinese citizens that have a global perspective. When Obama wants to convince the Chinese government to commit to greenhouse gas limitations, he can ask the Chinese citizen liaison group to help. They can help remind Chinese politicians that rising sea levels will wreak havoc in China, also.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


2 way open communication between White House and foreign activists could also... (0.00 / 0)
2 way open communication between White House and foreign activists could also take this form:

There could be a sort of reverse town hall meeting every month. However, instead of Obama presenting, a foreign delegation of activist citizens could offer a presentation aimed at improving some aspect of American policy. Hopefully, such presentations would offer up possible solutions which leverage foreign solutions to the same type of problems that their presentation is addressing, although that's not strictly necessary.  

Obama's main job would be to listen (something he is talented at), and hopefully go beyond listening to utilizing some of the suggestions that he is offered.

It's certainly possible that many suggestions just won't fly in the US, for cultural or legal reasons. However, as any venture capitalist will tell you, the investment that pays off covers not only itself, but quite a few failures. Obama's job would be to separate the wheat from the chaff, but in so doing, both foreigners and Americans get an education about each other, as well as an increasing awareness that we share the same planet, and many of the same problems.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com


[ Parent ]
I'm not sure this follows: (4.00 / 1)
"But we should be very clear: Obama has decided to cast his lot with those of us who have been fighting for big, transformative change.  If he succeeds, we succeed, and if he fails, we fail - and we fail for at least another generation, because no Democrat will take big risks again for a very long time if Obama loses this gamble."

If that's the case, why shouldn't we (if 'we' were really a monolithic entity--I wish!) just constantly hammer Obama for being too far to the right? This would seem to serve two functions. One, encourage/allow Obama to move farther left,  and two, establish a narrative that says that if Obama fails, he failed because he wasn't sufficiently progressive?

I'm middling pleased with the Obama adminstration myself, right now, so this isn't about them specifically. I'm just not sure if your statement makes sense just taken as abstract strategy.


Carter (4.00 / 2)
Jimmy Carter was the most conservative Democratic President on economic issues since Grover Cleveland, but the Republicans campaigned against his failed "liberal" policies for decades after, and the media agreed. If Obama fails, no one except a few of us in the blogosphere will think it was because he was too conservative.  

[ Parent ]
The rightwingnuts know it (0.00 / 0)
Or at least pretend they know that President Obama may bring the biggest change to U.S. domestic policy since LBJ, but I'm not sure the left and the rest of the dems realize it yet.

I didn't until I watched the address to Congress and examined Obama's budget priorities last week.

This is it folks, the best chance to have drantic progressive change in America since the 1960s. Carter and Clinton's efforts never even got off the ground compared to what Obama has started. Carpe diem, y'all!


[ Parent ]
Hammer is probably the wrong word to use (4.00 / 1)
Rhetorically, I think the best strategy is to make the claim that you agree with Obama in the general thrust but disagree in terms of scope.  The lefty blogosphere laughs at Republicans who insist on running away from an incredibly popular Democratic president.  Shouldn't we also laugh at progressives who seem like they want to run away from Obama rather than trying to piggyback their agenda on his popularity?

Treating Obama as a traitor to progressivism when he is not sufficiently to the left for your tastes makes one look like the liberal version of CPAC nuttiness.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both


[ Parent ]
Good post, I agree (4.00 / 1)
overall with it.

I disagree with Obama on nationalizing Banks (he shoudl put BoA and Citi into a temporary recivership, I think, if they are insolvent) and on the 50,000 esidual troopps staying until December 2011.  But, overall, I think Obama has been very good, especially on the budget.


Obama: great start -- and flawed (4.00 / 1)
Obama shows signs of doing far better than I dared hope on economic recovery, health care, education and energy issues. He also seems too smart to be boxed in by the generals and the neo-cons on Iraq and Afghanistan (if he caved there, we could kiss progress goodbye and he knows it.)

But on civil liberties and constitutional government, he's off to a lousy start. His DOJ is arguing for monarchical powers for the executive -- and we know that leads to abuse. Feds defy judge's order in Islamic group case. This stuff means that our civil liberties end up existing at the whim of our rulers. How do we get some traction on these issues? If we don't, the rest is nice, but ultimately irrelevant.

Can it happen here?


Except for that little Unitary Executive thing (0.00 / 0)
> Having said all that, though, I find myself walking
> around in a little bit of shock that a President, at
> least on the central strategic approach to the big
> policy issues, seems to be following the path I would
> advocate.

Well, except for that little David Addington/Unitary Executive/illegal domestic spying thing...

sPh


"The Revolution will not be televised..." (0.00 / 0)
GIL SCOTT-HERON's words awaken strange feelings in the hearts and minds of visionaries...

Most of us revolutionaries can't deal with the slow pace of change forced upon us by the cautious. The 60's brought some light and hope to the process, but it wasn't too long after that when things began to turn back and away from the freedoms and right we had been able to recover. Today they're significantly reduced. Building a revolution a brick at a time maybe a plausible idea for the young who have time to think for years before they do much; but I've already waited, and the turn around should have been fully completed by the end of the 70's.

Granted Obama speeches are very progressive and encouraging, but his actions are still being reined in either by his own caution or by his adversaries. I like to give him the benefit of the doubt, because I don't know what barriers he's up against. On the other hand, he did not take advantage of his supporters by including and responding to them. So far, he has only preached the good gospel, and fueled the hope. Surely he has made unprecedented strides, but at the same time, he has in fact scaled back from the bold declaration, when you consider the words as they translate in legislation and their application.  

I'm personally convinced that there's not a moment to lose in advancing the change at lightening speed, as that's what history suggest is the only way to accomplish the necessary overturn of the powers that shackle us. I to think Obama gave us a signal when he said, "...build government from the bottom up," and we take the opportunity of his tacit support, in accomplishing things he can't accomplish as President, so long as he's sequestered by the powerful who will not allow him to deviate too far from the intended path. So his works are only a beginning of what you call a Big Change Moment and perhaps the catalyst that will make it possible; but the real change will have to come from the bottom up. I will not resign to the notion that if he succeeds we succeed, and if he fails, we will fail. I rather say, he's succeeded in great measure thus far giving us a lead to move on further; let it be us who succeed now, so he succeeds as well.

Happiness is dependent on a clear path towards a recognized future, and an accumulation of successful actions, proving to us that we are getting there. At present we don't have either; we have only hope, and sputterings of possibilities that often ebb and flow with the events of daily life, and it feels that for every step forward we make, we're pushed back two.

Let the roots begin to move.

A National Progressive Alliance, is the only viable solution.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/...


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox