Trust But Organize

by: Mike Lux

Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 19:00


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

Chris Bowers' interesting post on trusting the Obama administration issue ("Do you trust the administration or not? For progressives in many ways this is the fundamental economic and political question of our times") raises some questions for me:

1. How much does it actually matter whether any of us trust him?
2. How do you define people like me who actually trust him and his team quite a bit but still strongly disagree on some important issues?
3. Isn't there another category on the trust/no trust thing, especially given a highly diverse administration?

Here's what I mean: I don't think our behavior change depending on that whole ephemeral "trust" question. Whether or not I trust the Obama administration makes no difference in how I should act, in my judgment.

More in the extended entry.

Mike Lux :: Trust But Organize
In my case, I rate pretty high on the how much I trust the Obama administration. I have known Barack Obama personally for quite a few years now, not well but enough that I have a great deal of confidence in his intelligence, leadership skills, motivations, and generally progressive nature. I am friends with many others who also know him well, including some who are very close to him, and have a lot of faith in them. I am friends with quite of a few of the senior officials in his administration. I served in his transition proudly and loyally. I like what I see in terms of the boldness and progressivism of many of his early policies. I have no doubt whatsoever that Obama wants to do right by the American people, and that he wants to lead us in a generally progressive direction.

If you rated me on a scale of 1-10 about how much I trust Obama, 1 being lowest and 10 being highest, I'd probably rate at close to a 10. I will give him the benefit of the doubt just about every time. And if you asked my number one political goal over the next year, or four, it would be simple: help Barack Obama be a successful President.

Then why, you may ask, have I been so tough on the administration on the banking issue? Because my trust in his overall goodness and progressivity, and being willing to give him and his team the benefit of the doubt, does not mean that I shouldn't speak out clearly when I disagree, or hold him accountable as he repeatedly asked us to do throughout his campaign and transition.

To Obama's great credit, he has never been a leader who has demanded blind and absolute loyalty. Instead, like the old community organizer that he is, he has actively encouraged people to hold him accountable, to disagree with him, to "make him do it" (the famous FDR quote to labor leaders Chris referenced in his post).

Ronald Reagan used to say "trust, but verify." With me, I guess the operative phrase is "trust, but organize." I am proud of this President, proud that I supported him in the primary, proud that I raised money and knocked on doors for him, proud that I had the honor of working for him in the transition, proud to support all the great things he has already done and proposed. But if progressives believe he is wrong on something important, we should still speak out and still organize.

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Trust But Organize | 23 comments
Great Post (4.00 / 5)
I'm not near the 10 side for trust, but I agree with your take here.  I'd also add that where any one of us fall on the trust scale doesn't matter.  That is, it is important that I respond to the arguments you make, not to your level of trust.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.
I trust him to do exactly what he has been doing (4.00 / 1)

Harharhar! (0.00 / 0)
Sometimes Paul Goodman produces a jewel of equivocation worthy of Mark Twain!

And progressives have been winning ever so many battles since Obama was inaugurated, just like Mark Twain "won" a fight once upon a time in Hannibal, Missouri.

"Thrusting my nose firmly between his teeth, I threw him heavily to the ground on top of me."

[ Parent ]
Yet another way progressives can "Win with Obama!" (0.00 / 0)
When the German Army retreated during WWII, the dispatches would say...

"In spite of heavy resistance, we have disengaged from the enemy."

So far, Obama has "disengaged" from the Republicans by producing the largest tax-cut in the history of the United States, preparing to send 30,000 more US soldiers into a senseless war in Afghanistan, and re-inventing the legal doctrine of "sovereign immunity" to elevate Barack Obama above the rule of law.

Sovereign immunity!

Did progressives elect a honking king, or what?

[ Parent ]
He's also closing gitmo... (4.00 / 1)
Funding stem cell research... supporting family planning counseling overseas... and pushed through a Keynseian economic stimulus package...

Funny how you neglect those in your assessment that Obama is some sort of right wing demagogue...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
There are some good points there you make (4.00 / 1)
Funding stem cell research - check

Closing Gitmo - but keeping open Bagram and maybe expanding it --- no check in my mind

Supporting family planning counseling overseas --- I didn't even know about that, but I'll take your word for it.  But I'd have to say that that is not very high on many progessive's checklist

Pushing through Keynesian economic policy package - check, though there really wasn't much choice in this matter and I would have liked to have seen much more public spending than there was and much less tax cuts.

Let's look at some of the bigger progressive issues:

Getting us out of Iraq ---- still to be determined and I also do not care for his definition of leaving which includes LEAVING 35 to 50 thousand troops there

efca --- still to be determined but word behind the scenes is that he is glad to NOT see this bill get to his desk due to the economy when that is all the more reason TO pass efca.

Reign in wall street --- as you have noted, he has thus far failed badly at this

Reign in executive power --- see above

Universal health care --- to be determined although his stance against a single payer system is not promising

So, I don't know dude, you point to funding stem cell research, which is again true.  The Gitmo issue is misleading if he just ships these same people to Bagram and has the same shit done to them.  Supporting family counseling OVERSEAS is a reaching pretty deep for progressive strong points becoz hardly anyone in this country is really all that concerned about that.  And then the Keynesian policies --- by themselves I don't really consider that to be progressive, it's what is part of the spending that IMO is determinative of whether or not it is progressive.  And giving out business tax cuts is decidedly not IMO while some of the public spending on improving roads and whatnot is.  

Basically I think you are reaching pretty deep for progressive wins while IMO there has been either failure ... thus far ... or no progress done on the most important progressive issues.

But, no offense, you are probably a great guy with a good heart, but anyone that can twist their logic into a knot and tell themselves that clinton meant to do so much good for the American people and somehow was forced to fail becoz the republicans made him do it ... all the while setting the table for his future riches ... can pretty much justify backing anyone they personally like.  clinton never fought that hard for his health plan, not nearly as hard as he fought for nafta and other pro-business pro-wall street issues.  

Z

 

[ Parent ]
bush essentially did Keynesian spending with his tax cuts and war spending (4.00 / 1)
and he gave a lot of funding to Africa for AIDS, and actually did some environmental protection on a large area of ocean and.or reefs in the Pacific Ocean ... if we want to cherry pick ... but no one in their right mind would call him a progressive.

Mind you, not to compare obama to probably the worst president in our nation's history, but if you dig deep enough and cherry pick you can even find progressive wins from him.

But that is admittedly comparing someone's progressive actions over a 8 year period to one that only has been in office for 3 months.

Z  

[ Parent ]
But it is relevant when someone goes popping off earlier in the day ... (4.00 / 1)
... that "Obama has accomplished more progressive goals in 3 months than anyone else has in 30 years" and that's all the shit he can come up with when even george bush can point to some similar accomplishments.

Z  

[ Parent ]
Nah. Legal, accessible contraception and abortion services aren't at all important (0.00 / 0)
internationally. And definitely not a progressive priority.

Sorry, but sheesh. Such an uninformed, staunch position on something that's so easily checkable taints the rest of your post. If it's not your priority, fine. But women's rights and healthcare activists in the U.S. have advocated for, and supported, access to family planning services around the world for, like, ever.

Given Obama's conservadem proclivities, I was a little surprised that he restored the funding to this political-football program so quickly after taking office. Maybe he actually believes in the program, or maybe he just wanted some quick cred right out of the gate. Or both. That's the thing about Obama - he doesn't take action unless there's a political payoff. And it's always surprising when it appears that the payoff he's interested in is a progressive one.  

[ Parent ]
I seriously doubt that most progressives would rate that in their top ten (0.00 / 0)
... of biggest progressive issues.  I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

I never said that that issue is not important so you are creating a straw man to argue against on that.  I happen to think it is very important ... to fight poverty, disease and to protect the environment.  I just don't think that most progressives list that as a high priority item primarily because it is funding for something outside of this country.  I did not hear much about it, but maybe I was busy that day.  I also don't think many people voted for obama based upon that issue.  

Z

[ Parent ]
By the way, I am talking about progressives in this country, not internationally (0.00 / 0)
Z
[ Parent ]
low hanging fruit.... (4.00 / 2)
Clapping for Obama on such "pragmatic" and common sense issues as those is like clapping for the toddler who finally pees in the big boy pot.  

Whether or not I trust the Obama administration makes no difference in how I should act, in my judgment
 This is a lollapalooza.  If one doesn't differentiate between people they trust and those they don't and change their behavior accordingly, they had better stay off the streets of any major city at night. Not to modify ones behavior based on trust is foolish. and I don't trust Obama as far as I can throw him.  He lied to MI and OH.  He promised to renegotiate NAFTA, tax jobs that offshore, and to support the auto industry.  Instead, he is throwing the UAW and their retirees under the bus, pushing GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy, and letting EFCA die on the vine.  These were not his only lies, either.

Well this resident of the donor state of MI is fed up with him and all the rest of the Democrats.  Obama and their car czar can take their FEMA trailers and welfare checks and give them to their bankers, too.   There is little doubt in my mind that MI will turn bright red after Granholm and Obama.

[ Parent ]
Excellent comment! (4.00 / 1)
And thanks for including Dennis Kucinich in your signature line.

It's one of the few times his name will ever appear on Open Left.

Why?

[ Parent ]
He's gone against against his word and campaign promises so many times .... (4.00 / 1)
... it's hard to remember then all.  And it's only been three months.  But it started even b4 he got into office with the sell-out on NAFTA ... that's what revealed his true nature.  Good God if he sells out on the concept of retroactive immunity ... and he's a goddman law professor ... then what the hell would he not be "pragmatic" about?  And if he won't go after the bush administration on all the illegal shit that they've done:  the hundreds of thousands of innocent dead people due to their war of choice that they chose to lie about to justify, the torture, the suspension of habeus corpus, facilitating of the looting of the economy, etc., etc., etc., ... and not only passively refuse to lift his finger to stand against these atrocities, but actively covers it up and sometimes even further those abominable policies, then what the hell DOES he stand for?  Anything of any meaning besides his own power?  Then of course all the wall street sellouts he's employed on his cabinet like his deceitful chief of staff and almost his entire economic team ...

He showed how much he cared about the progressive movement when he back john darrow of georgia, a blue dog, over a progressive black candidate in a primary where 65% or so of the voters in that primary were black.  He could have helped that woman against her white opponent not for racial reasons but for ideological reasons if he truly vvalued progressive ideas, but he endorsed darrow instead becoz darrow is his type of politician ... and he backed liebermann over lamont as well.

You have to dig pretty deep into the bullshit to comne up with the nonsense that obama is a champion of progressive causes and that "Obama has accomplished more progressive goals in 3 months than anyone else has in 30 years", but that comes from people that IMO serve more as cheerleaders of the democratic party and their leader than truly stand up for progressives causes ... despite their credentials.  Perhaps they get near a politician and get all wobbly kneed or something and develop a loyalty more to their leader than to their cause.  Perhaps they've spent too much time in Washington ... who knows ... but it's really hard to take them seriously when they contort their logic so much to justify their loyalty to a person over a cause.

Z

[ Parent ]
Correction to above (0.00 / 0)
He's gone against against his word and campaign promises so many times it's hard to remember them all.  And it's only been three months.  But it started even b4 he got into office with the sell-out on FISA ...
[ Parent ]
We have every reason to trust him (4.00 / 3)
as much as almost every other president. In terms of background and record I'm not sure I can think of anyone much better. Lincoln had a very mixed record. Teddy's record was as a warmonger, FDR was a rich guy with a mostly middle of the road record as governor who was nominated by a party with a platform of drastic cuts to government in order to balance the budget during the depression. Obama has some stuff in his background not to trust (FISA, Lieberman endorsement, only slightly to the left of the party record in the Senate) but it's a lot less then any other president that I can think of at least.

But of course those presidents turned out to be bold progressive leaders. Starting out we have good reason to trust that he holds a progressive worldview in general and that's why it's so important to organize for our priorities.

We've had 5 progressive era's in our history (Revolution and early years, civil war/abolition, Populist/Progressive era, New Deal and social movements era). We have a huge opportunity to see a new progressive era that transforms our economy grey to green, moves us at long last towards universal healthcare and makes the critical changes needed to bring back the American dream.

So I'm pretty confident we've got a good person in the White House but that's more reason to organize for what we believe in no matter if we agree with what he's doing or not.

Obama listens, he may not have changed every time we've created an uproar but he's listened and responded on FISA and on banks. He's said he wants to be held accountable and he's said that we need to help him change the country. So let's do both of those things.

Great post.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

Huh? (0.00 / 0)
"Obama listens, he may not have changed every time we've created an uproar but he's listened and responded on FISA and on banks. He's said he wants to be held accountable and he's said that we need to help him change the country. So let's do both of those things. "

You liked his "responses" on FISA and the banks?  What exactly about those responses did you like besides the eloquent oratoricals?

Z

[ Parent ]
I feel much the same way (4.00 / 2)
I trust in his character, but I also trust that he is just one human being.

I expect him to get some things wrong.  I expect him to fail on some things.  

What I like about Obama is that he doesn't try to heroically overwork himself and attempt the impossible.  He sets achievable goals and achieves them.  I want a president who knows how to relax.

For me I personally say that I like Obama, but I understand that he is just one person in a gigantic machine.  When I say I support him I mean I support manipulating that machine to make it easy for him to make the right decisions.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....

Trust is not the main issue (4.00 / 7)
and you hit the nail on the head by asserting so.  In reality, those always in a rush to assert that they don't trust Obama and can cite issue after issue to prove their, are the mirror image of the Obama bots who will hear no evil about their man.  They won't hear anything good.

Instead of complaining about him here, I'd like to hear more about organizing efforts aimed at pressuring him from the left with real people, not just more netroots chatter.  Short of that, my stance is usually to support criticisms of Obama from the left (on the financial bailouts, civil liberties, unions, universal health care, etc.) and most importantly, people's right to make these criticisms.  I have no patience for the "shut up" crowd.  But I try not to make noise myself about trusting him or not, because when you get right down to it, I don't fucking know what's in Barack Obama's heart of hearts. Every time I think I do, he does something to surprise me.

I've said this before and I'll say it again.  Taking the historical example, who was right?  Abraham Lincoln or his severest abolitionist critics?  I still don't know for sure where I come out on that and I've studied this question for years.  So how much energy is it worth coming up with a final assessment of Barack Hussein Obama at this point? What difference does that assessment make to anyone but me?

"Trust but organize" makes sense to me.  If you want to trust something trust your instincts that tell you that the progressive agenda is worth fighting for, and then push it regardless of whether you know or think that Obama is in your corner.  If he's not, you may force him to do something better than he wants to do.  If he is, he'll be glad for the help.  Mike Lux, you not only talk the talk, I believe you walk the walk.

Constantly snarking about Obama here isn't a hell of a lot of pressure.  And really, nobody cares about you and whether you're right or wrong.  "I told you so" is not much of a prize.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

Sorry (0.00 / 0)
But after comparing his campaign rhetoric to his actions since taking office. . .  I have absolutely no reason to trust him.
I don't trust him either (0.00 / 0)
I don't see any reason to trust him when he continually goes back on his word.  But I guess if I was so naive to trust bill clinton ... and that he was "forced" by the republicans to sell-out to big business and wall street interests while clinton "coincidentally" set the table to enrich himself in the future ... then I guess I'd trust obama too.  Why not?  ... he's a democrat too.

Maybe obama will change, I hope so, and reach down and find himself some fucking principles.  

And just becoz some people judge him objectively by his actions and point out that he has gone back on his word quite a bit on some VERY big issues does not mean that we are rooting against him like some either outright accuse us of or imply.

Z

[ Parent ]
Excellent post, Mike. (0.00 / 0)
You explain well the feelings of many progressives.  We want to support Obama, we want him to succeed, but on a few issues we disagree with the administration's policies.

Obama wants the approval of uberwealthy players, not us. (4.00 / 1)
And he does the situationally expedient thing, making only as many concessions to mainstream democrats as he can minimally get by with, while still furthering the agenda of the hedge-fund right.

During the campaign it was hard to tell if he had any core progressive principles, and since taking office it's clear that if he ever did he doesn't anymore. That doesn't make him evil but it sure doesn't make him special, either.

He's shown no reason to trust either his intentions or his ability to see and hear beyond his bubble of privilege. He must have selective hearing, though, because he knew what to say to get elected. He just didn't think it was important to follow through. And maybe it's not: he's doing fine, he's still got a job with a good salary. He's still got healthcare and retirement and a nice place to live and good food to eat. So what if the old people are eating cat food? It's not like he works with them, although he does work with the banksters every day.  

Trust But Organize | 23 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox