As Chris Bowers and many others have argued, bringing real change to the lives of millions of Americans means that people on the left need to challenge incumbent Democrats in primary elections. Given that Barack Obama either fails or refuses to understand important changes in the preferences of American voters, people on the left should think about potential challengers for the 2012 Democratic nomination.
The last time an incumbent president faced a serious challenge was in 1980, when Ted Kennedy came quite close to defeating Jimmy Carter. Of course, victory is not the only goal in such campaigns; a major argument in favor of challenging Obama is forcing him to fight for a progressive agenda. Nevertheless, despite what people like Chris Matthews and Marc Ambinder say, disaffection among liberals represents the major reason for Obama's slide in the polls, and it's far from inconceivable that a credible candidate could defeat him and, by extension, someone from the far less popular field of potential Republican challengers.
No doubt, intelligent and informed observers of American presidential politics will point out that Kennedy contributed mightily to Carter's defeat in 1980. Certainly, any candidate would face massive and powerful backlash from the corporate wing of the Democratic Party and potentially rip the party as a whole apart, thereby delivering victory to what will surely be a weak Republican candidate.
Nevertheless, I tend to think of "Kennedy '80: Another Carter Layoff" as an idea that was ahead of its time. In many respects, Kennedy's campaign in 1980, like Jesse Jackson's far less successful efforts in 1984 and 1988, represented the New Deal wing of the Democratic Party reasserting itself in the wake of the party's lamentable decision to move to the right.
But unlike 1980, we are no longer waging a rearguard battle to defend a quickly disappearing status quo - we are fighting for the overwhelming majority of American people who say believe that government should play a big role in improving people's lives. The terrain upon which American elections are contested has shifted by every measurable standard. Parts of the south are no longer a lock for the GOP, and the Republican base in general is steadily diminishing and should continue to shrink for the foreseeable future. If Barack Obama is unwilling to take advantage of these structural changes, we must do it ourselves.
While the netroots is relatively small, it has helped to redefine the health care debate by forcing the president and the Democrats to argue far more vigorously on behalf a government-run plan than they would otherwise be inclined. Activists on the left can make their presence felt in ways that were unimaginable in 1980, and if Obama continues to sell out a real progressive agenda despite tremendous popular support, it will be our duty as citizens to find him a viable challenger who won't.
I would like for this to be a serious discussion (assuming this is a serious topic in 2009) and will conclude in an open-ended way by nominating Howard Dean as the most logical person for the job. I tend to think he was forced out of party leadership by the Obama-Clinton corporate neoliberal cabal, and has shown an increasing willingness to take on the administration in the health care debate.
Moreover, Dean does not have a conspicuous stake in wooing the corporate base of the party to guarantee his viability in future elections. In any event, Obama's administration has proven a major disappointment, from his team of economic advisors, his unwillingness to deliver on promises to the LGBT community, and now health care. We owe it to ourselves to fight for what we believe in using every tool available to us.
STATE BLOGS
