One Year Ago, One Year From Now

by: Mike Lux

Tue Nov 03, 2009 at 12:30


This is the one year anniversary of Barack Obama's historic and incredibly exciting election as President of the United States. I was proud of our country that day, that after slavery, Jim Crow, the terrible treatment of Native Americans, and the nasty anti-immigrant laws and rhetoric of our history, that we could elect an African-American son of an immigrant, a man with an African Muslim name, to be President of these United States. The fact that he was the first Democratic Presidential candidate elected with a clear majority of the vote since 1964 made it especially sweet.

I had been a financial contributor, an occasional advice giver, an endorser in the primary fight, a steady blogger about the race, and a frequent doorknocker for the campaign, so I felt like I had contributed in a variety of ways. And when I was asked to lend a hand helping out the transition team, I was honored to do so, and happily volunteered a great many hours to the effort. This combination of things made me feel fully excited and invested in the Obama Presidency, and greatly looking forward to his first term.

As fate would have it, I also had a book that came out in January (The Progressive Revolution: How The Best In America Came To Be)) that told the story of what I called "Big Change Moments" in American history, and the progressive political and movement leaders who had brought them about. I went around the country on my book tour spreading the message that if progressives helped President Obama with the big change on his political agenda, that this would be another era of major, history making progressive change in this country.

A year after that incredible moment when people in America were literally dancing in the streets in elation, and one year from the crucial 2010 elections when the American people will register their first big judgment on what Obama has delivered them, I find myself genuinely torn about how this Presidency is going, conflicted in a number of ways. While I am more optimistic than pessimistic, I also find myself troubled about some important things a year after that momentous Election Day.

More in the extended entry.

Mike Lux :: One Year Ago, One Year From Now
On the one hand, there are so many things I am happy about. It is such a wonderful thing to once again feel pride and confidence when the President leading the country that I love is representing us abroad. The values that the President brings to world affairs, the honest and respectful engagement with other leaders in the world, and the intelligence he brings to the discussions are such a relief in contrast to our last President. Even when I disagree with him on major international issues such as what to do about Afghanistan, I deeply respect the thoughtfulness and thoroughness with which he approaches the incredibly complex decision-making he has to engage in. And on his overall legislative agenda, I am deeply impressed that he is taking on the big important complicated fights like health care, climate change, immigration reform, and banking legislation, even while all the while paying constant attention to our incredibly damaged economy. He has kept us from sliding further into the economic abyss, and both his stimulus package and first year budget proposal make big and transformative long term investments in things that will build our economy for decades to come, including energy efficiency, universal broadband and other technology, infrastructure, and education.

He has also begun to change the terms of the debate in American politics, bringing a sense of community values and thoughtful intelligence to our national debate that we haven't seen for quite a while. It is wonderful to have a President with his kind of values be able to inspire and move so many of us to action.

Here's where I find myself deeply troubled and conflicted, though. When I look back on the towering Presidents of American history, the ones who faced and conquered the massive challenges of their eras that at least equal the big challenges of our time, I read about them taking on the entrenched powers that be, and forcing them to bend so that America could make a much needed course correction. I find myself wondering: did progressives in those eras feel the sense of frustration and slowness about the prospects of fundamental change that many of us feel today? They may well have, which makes me aware I should be patient. My problem is that change doesn't feel like its coming fast enough, that the President has not been bold enough in taking on the powers that be. When I see Tim Geithner seeming perfectly comfortable with the size, power, and risky behavior of the big banks, it makes my blood boil. When I see all those appointees to the administration who used to work at Goldman Sachs, it makes me really nervous. When I see a White House that seems too comfortable with cutting deals with big business lobbyists, and unwilling to challenge the pro-big business members of their own party, it bothers me.

I am looking for big, deep, transformative, history making change, and am looking for an administration eager to work with the progressive movement to help make that happen. My optimistic side sees the good things that have happened, and appreciates them. I remind myself that it took Lincoln almost two years to free the slaves, and it took FDR more than two years to pass Social Security- even in big change eras, it doesn't always happen immediately. But it's only a year until the next election, and if we don't start delivering real change and real results- tangible results- for the American people soon on jobs and health care and other big issues, we won't have a chance for bigger changes in 2011.

Barack Obama raised our expectations through the roof with his stirring campaign. He needs to deliver change we can believe in. He needs to convince us that "yes, we can" is more than a political slogan. He needs to take seriously the history of struggle he is always talking about, and create the same kind of big transformative change that Lincoln and TR and FDR and LBJ did.


Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Stop it, Mr. Lux (4.00 / 1)
You are being far too reasonable.

I'm sure progressives felt impatient before too (4.00 / 2)
I would bet that a search through the history books would reveal similar impatience and mixed feelings whenever we had a progressive president after in the middle of his first year in office.

One big difference, though, may be the 24-hour news cycle and constant stream of information.  

Still, Obama has always seemed to me to be more of an "incrementalist," than the type who will accomplish "big transformative change."  I don't know if that's his policy preference, or merely a strategic decision based on what he perceives to be the strength of the entrenched interests.  Either way, I think we're in for an era of steady movement that may inch us towards transformative change, rather than any huge steps to that end.


Huey Long (4.00 / 1)
nuff said.  

[ Parent ]
I don't know if "patience" is the issue (0.00 / 0)
Most liberals aren't complaining that he's not doing a lot, so much as they're complaining that what he has done is not right.

Believe me, I'd be much happier if the President passed a single payer, Medicare for All bill and then spent the rest of the year playing golf and going to the beach, then taking on all these issues in the half-assed, corporate-friendly way that he's doing.


[ Parent ]
Freedom from the news may be what we need (4.00 / 1)
I agree that the horrific 24hr news cycle is a pernicious thing. Step back and really think about what life was like even under a waning Bush presidency.

I am not entirely certain what all the disappointments with Obama are, exactly--that he didn't come out swinging and knock Cheney & Co.'s block off?  Aside from the fact that a lot of the country is suffering from "Obama trauma" (how could a black man really be better at this job than any white one?) read Russ Baker's article on what Obama was up against in DC (http://www.truthout.org/11020910). Attack the CIA frontally--the fiefdom in government skilled in assassination? Attack the military frontally--the military deeply embroiled in evangelical, right wing Christian proselytizing?

He's been slow but steady, and that's the way I like it. Especially now that an Alan Grayson or two can stand up to the Mau Mauing by the right wing teapartiers whose only goal is to frighten congress.


Please spare us the conspiracy theories (0.00 / 0)
You (and the linked article) are correct that a President doesn't have complete control over the military and intelligence apparatus (or the civilian bureaucracy for that matter), and particularly with the military side needs to play carefully to be politically effective.  I don't believe that Obama faces a serious threat of either CIA assassination or military coup, and if he does, getting rid of such threats better be at the top of his agenda.

[ Parent ]
Not a conspiracy theory (4.00 / 1)
But if he cannot get these two major players to support whatever agenda he has, he would be in major, major trouble. (Of course there are many, many more threats against Obama than any previous president, according to the Secret Service.)

The point I was trying to make, and Baker makes it as well, is that Washington powers-that-be don't change overnight because a new president comes in. Bush/Cheney seeded their moles throughout the bureaucracy in positions from which they cannot be fired, for one thing. And there is just a huge ballast in the way things are done there.

Overnight miracles are not in the cards, necessarily, for anyone coming in to the Oval office. Even Bush had to wait a bit and hold off the Cheney/Rumsfeld antsiness to go after Hussein.

I am just surprised at how much the left has swallowed of the news media's antipathy to him, and not only from the obvious sources. It's hard for him to catch a break: when he has good news, only the Republicans' 'response' gets the headlines.  

I'm not young, and I have to say I've never seen any president treated with so much hostility and disrespect from day one... and I'm afraid it affects even leftists' opinions of him as 'indecisive' {Huff Post] -- which differs from Cheney's "dithering" comment how?



[ Parent ]
It's all about GOTV (4.00 / 1)
Midterms could be very ugly without it.

You don't have to remember back to LBJ... (4.00 / 3)
There are countries all over the world who have great progressive leadership. President Lee Teng-hui in Taiwan created a single payer health care system in a couple of months because he felt it was the right thing to do.

Big Moments In History (4.00 / 1)
Some of the problem is Obama.  But some of this is where we are in history.  Slavery had been boiling over for a very long time by the time Lincoln became president.  The Great Depression was in its third year by the time FDR became president.  The civil rights movement was well underway by the time LBJ became president, with "I Have A Dream" spoken just the month before.

As much as problems have been building over the past few decades, I can't think of anything going on today that has the same impact as those crucial moments in U.S. history.


Obama is an accomodationist (4.00 / 3)
Not an innovator.

He sees it as his task to adapt to the Orwellian reality that Bush/Cheney instituted--to run it a bit more tidily and more systematically than the haphazard way in which his predecessors did, and to put a veneer of legalism on what they did illegally.

Reform, for him, means making a few technical changes to make things run a bit smoother. That goes for torture, climate change, the bank bailouts--whatever.

He sees nothing fundamentally wrong with the system. And like Hoover, I suspect he will continue to adhere to that position no matter how bad things get.  


Bush Done Right (4.00 / 3)
This is the extremist view, which I suspect has more than a kernel of truth. My big disappointment with Obama is that, when the moment requires it, he refuses to stand up for anything. Take the current debate about abortion funding in the House health care bill. Instead of earlier saying emphatically that a woman has a right to choose, that this is a political debate, instead he said no federal funding for abortions is the political norm. Shame on him.

For me, Obama will rise or fall on the financial issues. While we have not had slavery or a Depression building over many years, we have had at least three decades of severe income inequality caused by immoral taxation rates for the wealthiest combined with federally backed union busting (either not enforcing the rules against union busting or outright hostility to the role of unions in a healthy economy) and financial deregulation. Honestly, based on Obama so far, I do not see him doing anything to meet this challenge. We need someone to stand up for the 99% of Americans who are not wealthy and never will be. No one should have to be wealthy to live a decent life with a living wage.

In the short term, I'd also say the White House failure to push for more stimulus money to create jobs, either expanding the first stimulus or creating a second one, also is a critical failure of leadership. They're AWOL on this critical issue, as far as I can tell. There are so many ways the government can create jobs over the next 3-5 years but nothing is happening. There is no leadership from the White House.

Me, I'd give an Obama a C minus so far.


[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search