Nate Silver's Curious Categorization of Obama's Policy Agenda

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 11:10


( - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)

In my earlier diary, Digby, Hegemony and the Policy-Personnel Debate, I wrote that:

Wednesday, Nate Silver weighed in with what purports to be a fairly comprehensive sorting of Obama's policy initiatives into their ideological positions, showing a huge overall tilt in the progressive direction. I think Nate's categorization is somewhat questionable, but I do think that the impression he has is one that is widely shared: Obama appears quite progressive to many who have supported him, and that is a major reason why they have felt little or no need to pressure him. Digby is correct in saying that there's misperception involved, but it's just not as simple as she indicates.

First off, Nate's general point that Obama's agenda is more liberal than centrist is certainly true.  This is hardly surprising in light of Obama's record in the Senate, where he and Clinton had virtually identical records, both as moderate liberals.  Given that both are Democrats from solid blue states, there is nothing surprising about this at all.  But it's also true that America itself also tilts to the left-at least on the issues that Obama addresses.  While this diary is devoted primarily to looking more closely at Nate's analysis, the upshot is to try to push us in the direction of a more precise explanation of what netroots critics find troubling.  Nate seems to think that his analysis shows that progressive criticisms of Obama are misplaced.  I'd argue that they're not-rather, they're mis-articulated.
Paul Rosenberg :: Nate Silver's Curious Categorization of Obama's Policy Agenda
To begin with, as noted above, Nate's general point that Obama's agenda is more liberal than centrist is certainly true, and reflects a continuity with his Senate record, as can be seen in his DW-Nominate scores.  DW-Nominate is the roll-call-based scoring of where congressmembers rank.  It's the academic standard for political scientists.  It does tend to get a bit funny when folks run for President, and miss a lot of votes, and this happened this time as well, with both Clinton and Obama showing up much more to the left in 2007 (the first session of the 110th Congress) than in 2005-2006 (the 109th), the only other session in which both served together.  An analysis based on this record, "Who is More Liberal, Senator Obama or Senator Clinton?", found:

Senator Obama is at most marginally more liberal than Senator Clinton but the difference is negligible. The two are essentially identical ideologically based upon our DW-NOMINATE scores estimated from all roll call votes cast in Congresses 1 - 110 (through the 1st Session of the 110th, 2007)....

The two are by no means the most liberal Democrats in Congress. There are a total of 286 Democrats in the 110th House and Senate (counting replacements). There are 88 members to Obama's left -- 8 Senators and 80 Representatives. The 8 Senators are Feingold (D-WI), Whitehouse (D-RI), Sanders (I-VT), Boxer (D-CA), Kennedy (D-MA), Brown (D-OH), Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Levin (D-MI). Between Obama and Clinton are 8 members -- one Senator, Akaka (D-HI) -- and 7 Represenatives. To Clinton's right there are 188 Democrats -- 40 Senators and 148 Representatives. There is no overlap of the two political parties.

In the 109th Congress, both Senators were significantly closer to the center of the pack.  Clinton was 25, out of 46 Democrats, Obama was 21.  Between them were Mikulski, Feinstein, and Schumer. More liberal than both were Feingold, Harkin, Leahy, Boxer, Kennedy, Corzine, Lautenberg  Sarbanes Reed, Jeffords, Akaka, Inouye, Levin, Durbin, Dayton, Murray, Dodd, Cantwell, Wyden, and Menendez.

Obama's election to the Senate, as well as his path to the presidency, clearly hinged on his opposition to the Iraq War.  It is what set him apart in the Illinois Senate primary, drawing national support because of it, and it is what created space for him to run against Clinton, whose Senate record, as noted above, is very close to Obama's.  Yet, despite the centrality of his early opposition to his subsequent career, Obama played no significant leadership role in opposing the war in the Senate, nor was his position the most progressive among presidential candidates.  This notable distancing from the issue that made him as a national figure is the signature ambiguity that troubles progressive critics.  "No problem!" says Nate, in effect, "Look at all the progressive policies!"  Well, er, yes, let's look at them.  Turns out, progressives are fine with them, but so are a lot of other folks.  For the most part, there's nothing distinctively and exclusively progressive about them.  They are progressive in the sense that America as a whole is progressive.

Nate divides the policy space into four categories: "Progressive, Center-Left, Center and Center-right" He then assigns various policies to however many categories seem to apply, in his judgment. The problem, of course, lies both in how one defines those terms, and then how one assigns the various policies.  Curiously, for such a nerd, Nate said virtually nothing about these basic mechanics.  And, indeed, it's rather hard to see how many of his classification can be justified-particularly those assigned only to the "progressive" category. Here's the list:

  • Reverse Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
  • Close corporate tax loopholes.
  • Mandatate health insurance for kids.
  • $1B in anti-poverty jobs programs.
  • Raise minimum wage to $9.50/hour.
  • Exapnd AmeriCorps and Peace Corps
  • Employee Free-Choice Act
  • Double $ for basic science research.
  • Double $ for after-school programs
  • Double foreign aid.
  • Community development grants.
  • Create Office of Urban Policy.
  • Expand use of drug courts.
  • $ for low-income heating program.
  • Fund adult education.
  • Expand paid sick days.
  • Fund Urban Promise Neighborhoods.
  • $60B in transportaiton infrastructure
  • Federal ban on racial profiling.
  • Expanded Pre-K funding.
  • Re-engage UN on climate change.
  • Match savings for low-income families.

As noted above, Nate offers no specific rationale for his classification scheme.  But if these positions, collectively, are what defines the specifically progressive component of Obama's agenda, we can take them to define-at least implicitly-what he means by "progressive."  And if that is the case, then it seems that it means nothing that's particularly ideological in content that would mark these as "progressive" vs. "center-left."

It therefore seems fair enough to resort to a continuum approach-which is, of course, the way that virtually all social scientists view the vast majority of American political opinion.  In short, we can look at al the above in terms of degrees of support by people identifying themselves at different points along the political spectrum from left to right.  And we can start by examining these proposal in terms of broad spending categories that they represent, since there is relatively little poling data on particular proposals, especially so particular as the exact proposals on Obama's website.  

We can do this in a number of cases by relying on the General Social Survey (GSS) questions on national spending, as answered on its surveys this decade: 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006, and breaking those down as follows: from the seven-point scale we assign (1) extreme liberal and (2) liberal to "progressive", while assigning the mirror image categories of (7) extreme conservative and (6) conservative to "conservative."  We assign (3) slightly liberal and (4) moderate to "center left", while assigning the mirror image categories of (5) slightly conservative and (4) moderate to "center right" and assigning (4) moderate alone to "center".  This results in a triple counting of moderates, but this follows Nate's lead, and it certainly does reflect the over-infatuation with supposedly centrist positions.

The national spending questions all follow a standard template, with the specific phrasing that appears below for each question filling in for X in the following passage:

We are faced with many problems in this country, none of
which can be solved easily or inexpensively. I'm going to name
some of these problems, and for each one I'd like you to tell me
whether you think we're spending too much money on it, too
little money, or about the right amount. X.

When we take this approach, we find the following:

Spending On The Poor

  • $1B in anti-poverty jobs programs.
  • Match savings for low-income families.
  • $ for low-income heating program.

This compares to the GSS spending results:

Spending On: Assistance to the poor
Spending?ProgressivesCenter -LeftCenterCenter -RightConservative
1: "Too Little"78.570.769.767.552.5
2: "About Right"16.322.823.525.229.6
3: "Too Much"5.36.56.77.418.2
4: Lib Index93.791.691.290.274.2
5: #1 + #294.793.593.392.682.0
Change in #4__2.10.41.115.9
Change in #5__1.20.20.610.6

A majority of people in all across the political spectrum think we are spending too little on assistance to the poor.  While this is not the same as polling specifically on the individual proposals, it is strongly indicative that support for the programs Nate identified that are listed above is equally widespread, and not just limited to progressives.

This question format gives us three possible answers, but easy comparisons require us to boil them down to just one.  Some political scientists have adopted a "liberalism index," which measures the degree of support for the liberal (pro-more-spending) position with those in the middle excluded.  Another measure of spending support is simply to combine those thinking we're spending too little with those thinking that spending is "about right."    Both those figures are included in the chart, and are used to measure the degree to which support changes across the political spectrum.

Here, the only significant drop-off comes between center-right and conservative, but after this drop, a majority of conservatives still thinks too little is being spent.  There has also been specific polling on low-income heating programs (LIHEAP) in the past that offers further support.  According the results overview on a 2006 poll:

ON the more specific question of LIHEAP funding, 42 percent favor "substantial" increased funding for LIHEAP. Three in ten favor "moderate" funding increases and five percent favor the status quo. Overall, support for increased funding rose from 68 percent in 1999 to 72 percent in 2002 and remains at 72 percent today.

Reduced funding is supported by only nine percent, including only six percent who favor no funding whatsoever.

Even without cross-tabs for this question, the levels of support are so high that it clearly must draw support from across the political spectrum.

Spend More On Education

  • Double $ for after-school programs
  • Fund adult education.
  • Expanded Pre-K funding.

This compares to the GSS spending results, reflected in two different question variants:

Spending On: Improving the nation's education system
Spending?ProgressivesCenter -LeftCenterCenter -RightConservative
1: "Too Little"80.975.274.873.064.5
2: "About Right"16.622.022.323.422.7
3: "Too Much"2.62.92.93.612.7
4: Lib Index96.996.396.295.383.6
5: #1 + #297.497.297.196.487.2
Change in #4__0.60.10.911.7
Change in #5__0.30.10.79.2

And:

Spending On: Education
Spending?ProgressivesCenter -LeftCenterCenter -RightConservative
1: "Too Little"84.979.478.877.761.6
2: "About Right"13.617.417.718.424.7
3: "Too Much"1.73.33.64.013.6
4: Lib Index98.096.195.695.181.9
5: #1 + #298.496.896.596.186.4
Change in #4__1.90.40.513.2
Change in #5__1.60.40.49.7

There is relatively little difference between these two variants, and the pattern of both is quite similar to that of assistance to the poor-only support is somewhat stronger for education spending.  Even after the drop-off between center-right and conservative, a substantial majority still feels we are spending too little.  Again, we cannot speak to the specific proposals, but there is nothing about them that seems to go against the general sense of education spending, so it seems most reasonable to assume they, too, enjoy broad support from progressive to conservative.  Nate assumes otherwise, but given such figures, the burden of proof is clearly on him.

Spending On Urban Problems

  • Community development grants.
  • Create Office of Urban Policy.
  • Fund Urban Promise Neighborhoods.

This compares to the GSS spending results, again reflected in two different question variants:

Spending On: Solving the problems of the big cities.
Spending?ProgressivesCenter -LeftCenterCenter -RightConservative
1: "Too Little"61.349.049.146.637.3
2: "About Right"32.539.638.740.041.2
3: "Too Much"6.411.312.213.421.5
4: Lib Index90.581.280.177.763.4
5: #1 + #293.888.687.886.678.5
Change in #4__9.31.12.414.3
Change in #5__5.20.81.28.2

And:

Spending On: Assistance to big cities
Spending?ProgressivesCenter -LeftCenterCenter -RightConservative
1: "Too Little"33.522.721.420.216.2
2: "About Right"41.846.747.047.434.7
3: "Too Much"24.730.531.632.449.1
4: Lib Index57.642.640.338.524.8
5: #1 + #275.369.568.467.650.9
Change in #4__14.92.31.913.7
Change in #5__5.81.10.716.8

Support levels for the previous categories were stratospheric.  Here we see three changes.  First, support for spending has slipped from stratospheric to merely strong-a liberal index well over 50% all across the boards for the first question. Second, the question wording makes a very substantial difference in how people respond-they are far more favorable to solving problems than to simply giving assistance.  There is every reason to believe that such a difference in wording would have significant impacts on how well Obama's specific proposals might poll as well.  One could probably write a whole book-or at least good fat chapter-about the reasons for this wording difference, but that's not our focus here. Third, one sees a distinct drop-off from progressive to center-left, but it still leaves a near majority of center-left sentiment that too little is being spent.

This is the sole basis on which one could argue that this is exclusively a "progressive" concern.  However, for purposes of comparison, it's worth considering that for military spending, even "extreme conservatives"-(#7 on the GSS scale) do not give majority support to the view that we are spending "too little" during this decade.  Their support levels are...49%.  This is indicative of why the liberalism index seems a better overall measure, while looking for support levels of 2/3rds (66%) or more as a rough guide.  By this standard, spending to solve the problems of big cities is supported across the entire political spectrum, except for conservatives, while simply spending money to assist them is supported by none.  The fact that question wording has such a profound effect-much more than ideological self-identification-is another flashing red light telling us that it this is not an area where a narrow ideological position is the driving force.  Finally, it needs to be noted that support for specifically identified programs is almost always higher than for broad categories.  People want to know specifically what they are being asked to support.  For that reason, all three of Obama's proposals would probably register even stronger support across the spectrum.

Spending On Science

  • Double $ for basic science research.

This compares to the GSS spending results:

Spending On: Supporting scientific research
Spending?ProgressivesCenter -LeftCenterCenter -RightConservative
1: "Too Little"55.143.143.041.534.6
2: "About Right"37.744.844.045.951.1
3: "Too Much"7.612.013.012.714.3
4: Lib Index87.878.276.876.570.7
5: #1 + #292.788.087.187.485.7
Change in #4__9.71.40.35.8
Change in #5__4.80.9 -0.31.7

Here, the liberalism index is above 2/3rd across the board.  Doubling the budget might be a tall order compared to these figures, but it's questionable if that level would pass muster with progressives and not anyone else-particularly as a policy discussion got into the details of the sorts of breakthroughs such spending could eventually lead to.

Spending on Infrastructure

  • $60B in transportation infrastructure [multi-year total for new investment bank]

This compares to the GSS spending results:

Spending On: Highways and bridges
Spending?ProgressivesCenter -LeftCenterCenter -RightConservative
1: "Too Little"34.334.935.234.536.7
2: "About Right"50.853.453.254.152.7
3: "Too Much"14.811.711.511.410.7
4: Lib Index69.975.075.375.277.5
5: #1 + #285.188.388.588.689.4
Change in #4__ -5.1 -0.30.1 -2.3
Change in #5__ -3.2 -0.1 -0.2 -0.8

And:

Spending On: Mass Transportation
Spending?ProgressivesCenter -LeftCenterCenter -RightConservative
1: "Too Little"50.337.535.736.634.7
2: "About Right"42.554.055.353.951.4
3: "Too Much"7.38.69.19.513.8
4: Lib Index87.481.379.779.571.6
5: #1 + #292.891.490.990.586.2
Change in #4__6.11.60.37.9
Change in #5__1.40.50.44.4

In this case, results are mixed.  Support for spending on highways and bridges is actually strongest among conservatives, while spending on mass transit follows the more common pattern.  Put them both together, and it looks like fairly even support across the boards.

There's one more category where broad GSS spending questions apply, and that's regarding Obama's proposal to double foreign aid.  Here, progressive support is clearly higher, but even more clearly far below the 2/3rds benchmark introduced above.  This hardly qualifies as something that progressives support:

Spending On: Foreign aid
Spending?ProgressivesCenter -LeftCenterCenter -RightConservative
1: "Too Little"17.79.69.59.25.9
2: "About Right"31.627.826.326.726.8
3: "Too Much"50.562.664.264.167.2
4: Lib Index25.913.312.912.58.1
5: #1 + #249.337.435.835.932.7
Change in #4__12.60.40.44.4
Change in #5__11.91.50.03.1

There is more to this story, however.  As described in the book, Misreading the Public, Americans vastly over-estimate the amount that America spends on foreign aid.  When asked what percentage of our budget should be devoted to foreign aid, a majority wants to "slash" this figure drastically to somewhere around five times the amount currently spent  So, either this is a proposal that even progressives don't support, or it's something that virtually everyone supports.  The one thing it isn't is something that only progressives support.

This leaves the remaining items in the solely "progressive" column:

  • Reverse Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
  • Close corporate tax loopholes.
  • Mandatate health insurance for kids.
  • Raise minimum wage to $9.50/hour.
  • Exapnd AmeriCorps and Peace Corps
  • Employee Free-Choice Act
  • Expand use of drug courts.
  • Federal ban on racial profiling.
  • Re-engage UN on climate change.

Given what we've already seen, it seems highly unlikely that any of these would actually qualify either.

For example:

  • Bush's tax cuts for everyone barely passed the GOP-controlled Congress, while severely downplaying the amount that went to the wealthy.

  • Polling Report's page on "Work" contains a number of results from questions about raising the minimum wage, routinely showing high levels of support-sometimes 80% or more.  The only breakdown shown puts Democratic support at 94%, Independents at 84% and Republicans at 75%.

  • On November 6, Think Progress reported on that  a swing state poll showed:

    - Nearly two-thirds (60%) of voters believe in even in these tough economic times, it is important to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, and nearly one-third (31%) of voters strongly believe it should be a priority for Congress.

    - When told about proposed legislation in Congress that would "make it easier for workers to form unions by allowing employees to be represented by a union when a majority of their coworkers sign cards saying they want to join that union," voters favor the Employee Free Choice Act by nearly three to one (55% favor; 28% oppose).

  • Last August, California's leading pollster found broad support for paid sick days:

    Three in four (73%) California voters are in favor of a law allowing all workers to earn paid sick days, according to a statewide survey released today. The poll was conducted by the Field Research Corporation for the California Center for Research on Women and Families (CCRWF), a program of the nonprofit Public Health Institute. Support for such a law crosses party lines and includes 85% of Democrats, 75% of non-partisans and 56% of Republicans.

In short, everywhere one looks, evidence shows that the policies Nate has identified as specifically "progressive" are, in fact, broadly supported by the American people.  I am not arguing that these aren't progressive policies.  Rather, I'm arguing that they aren't solely progressive programs, and thus, that supporting them does not by itself make Obama a progressive, rather than a center-left Democrat, which is what his Congressional record shows him to be, according to the DW-NOMINATE scores.

What's more, this agenda is top-heavy with playing catch-up.  For the most part, it's all about enacting ideas that have been around for a long, long time.  It's not much about new ideas.  These are all good things, a vast majority of progressive would agree.  But do they really break new ground? Are they adequate for the new challenges we face?  Are they really that forward-looking today after so many years on the shelf?

This is not the only argument, to be sure.  On foreign policy, intelligence, and military policy there are deeply troubling questions about the direction Obama is headed.  The full range of his plans in dealing with our economic crises are far from clear.  But surveying the broad outlines of his domestic agenda, the conclusion emerges that a major concern is not about what Obama plans to do, but about what he's not thinking of.  This is what my earlier diary on Michael Pollan served to highlight, and I believe that increasingly, this is where progressive criticism needs to focus: What's missing?

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Nate Silver's Curious Categorization of Obama's Policy Agenda | 71 comments
Fine post (4.00 / 4)
A couple people sent me the link to Silver's shitty post, imagining that it was some definitive refutation of the claim that progressives should be angry about O's moves so far. I'll trust those who tell me that Silver is a numbers whiz, but when he tries more qualitative analysis, he comes across as just another Obama shiller.

Obviously, it's not very useful to define the relative progressivism of a pol in a vacuum. Great if universal health care and energy overhaul are progressive, but any Democratic president--even Evan Bayh--at this moment in time would be proposing at least this much. Many would be going much farther. The only gauge that matters is what Obama could be doing. If you believe that further left is better, then it's not enough to say merely that x is progressive, but that x is the most progressive (or close to the most progressive) solution that it'd be politically prudent--as well as morally right--for him to pursue. Likewise, O's stimulus plan will be "progressive" by any measure, but we now know that both Stiglitz and Krugman fear that it won't go far enough.

Furthermore there are good reasons to believe that several items in Silver's progressive column--redoing NAFTA, rolling back Bush tax cuts for the rich, Employee Free Choice--won't be pursued by O--that's one of the main reasons progressive are edgy. If these signals aren't a perfect measure of what exactly will happen come January, they're a better measure than goals announced during the primary (which Silver uses to form his chart.)

And Paul, you didn't even touch on the most ridiculous part of Silver's post:

The initial Bush cabinet contained a number of people who could be described as moderate or center-right, including Colin Powell, Tommy Thompson, Norman Mineta, Christine Todd Whitman, Paul O'Neill and arguably Mitch Daniels and Ann Veneman. Obviously, this was balanced out to some degree by the Rumsfelds and the Ashcrofts, but it is not clear that Bush's 2001 cabinet was any more right-wing than Obama's 2009 cabinet is left-wing

Well, would it be impolite to point out that O won a more commanding victory than did Bush in that he, you know, actually won. Moreover, it's silly merely to beancount the number of moderates because obviously much of the power under Bush resided with Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft. Norm Mineta? Please. Even Powell, we now know, didn't wield much clout, so Silver's analogy is total bullshit, as I suspect he realizes. And progressives are less opposed to O's naming of moderates than they are to his failure to name powerful progressives to powerful positions. Where are the progressive Cheneys, Ashcrofts, and Rumsfelds?

One final point (I'll leave others to point out the remaining holes in his piece.). Silver's post is no more reliable the National Journal ranking him the most liberal Senator. Votes and stated policy positions only tell you so much. There are telling things that can be placed on a chart--for example O's decision not to highlight the Secretary of Labor as part of his economic team.


Where is your proof ... (4.00 / 2)
Furthermore there are good reasons to believe that several items in Silver's progressive column--redoing NAFTA, rolling back Bush tax cuts for the rich, Employee Free Choice--won't be pursued by O--that's one of the main reasons progressive are edgy.

that EFCA won't be pursued by Obama?

[ Parent ]
I don't have proof (4.00 / 4)
What I have is Rahm refusing to say whether O would back the legislation, O de-prioritizing the Labor Secretary and generally following establishment voices, which are telling him to avoid "polarizing" fight like this one. What I have, therefore, is common sense.

If I'm wrong--if Obama gets out front and champions Employee Free Choice--I'll be the first one here cheering.

[ Parent ]
gee, I dunno (4.00 / 2)
This SEIU video seems pretty definitive, and is Obama speaking on his own behalf.  
[ Parent ]
Right, because (4.00 / 3)
pols never change positions and priorities when they get to the white house. (Or sooner: I could, of course, dig up a quote of him saying he's filibuster any FISA bill that includes...)

In any case, I'm (of course?) not talking about Obama sitting back while it goes through the Senate, quietly supporting it--that won't get the job done. I'm talking about Obama fighting for it.

Which goes back to my original point: it's not enough just to take the right position.

[ Parent ]
"that won't get the job done"? (0.00 / 0)
Actually, it won't take much: You had 48 Ds, plus Sanders, Lieberman and Specter in 2007; Johnson was absent then, and he makes 52.  Seven "no" votes have been replaced by Democrats -- NC, NH, CO, NM, OR, AK and VA.  Just takes one more to break cloture.
[ Parent ]
Well, Blanche Lincoln (0.00 / 0)
is wavering and it's a new ball game, what with the Chamber and other corporate lobbyists calling this their number one priority. Yeah, leadership at the presidential level will be needed.
[ Parent ]
As will many things. (0.00 / 0)
And we may never know the names of all the horse traded or the notches in the logs rolled.  But I wanted folks to have an accurate picture of how close this was already.
[ Parent ]
Is there any argument (4.00 / 2)
that you could use to persuade David based on available evidence?

Their core point is that they believe Obama is lying.

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
Much of this is guesswork, including Silver's post. If you have any evidence other than campaign promises (campaign promises!) that he's going to push hard for it, I'd love to see it.

And lying? I dunno, pols changes positions and priorities all the time. Call it a lie if you want.

[ Parent ]
Interesting position that you are now taking (4.00 / 2)
So now we must prove that the positions Obama has taken  are in fact the position upon which he will govern. This is in contrast to Bowers who was claiming that Obama is not as progressive as we think, which turned out to really mean not as progressive as Bowers wants him to be although he never quite defined what progressive means at Openleft other than not good enough.

But, as I said- I have suspected for a few weeks- that this analysis is more along your train of thought. That whatever Obama says he's doing is in fact a  lie. We must prove to you that he's not lying. Sorry, but I am not going to spend my time doing that. It's a futile effort to try to overcome other people's entrenched beliefs. I have no belief right now other than policies are already being drafted, and why aren't people trying to influence the policy?

This is OT but relevant to the progressives here.

This cynacism (and its cynacism not accountability since the standard shifts) is the same that I see this in the gay community too regarding Obama's plans.

Last week it was reported that Obama has given up on DADT by the Washington Times. That he plans to not address the issue. The Washington Blade did a susequent article in which it turns out that's not what Obama's team said at all.

They plan to introduce it later in 2009 and to also build a policy for implementation. Again , like with other issues the goal being not to make the mistake of Clinton. To get true progress , but not using the previous mistakes

Several gay  activist on the issue were interviewed who are involved in the process for changing the policy right now. They said they agreed with Obama because the goal has to be effective implementation, and not just the repeal. In fact, if you go back to Truman integrating the troops, it was not apparently until Eisenhower that this happened effectively because they came up with a working game plan rather than just a repeal. Previously, the result of the repeal without a plan was that a lot of black careers were harmed since there was no method for addressing the continued discrimination. This was the reality of enacting change. It happened, but it took dealing with reality.

Do you know, the response of several gay political bloggers? Similar to here- he can't be trusted. See this proves he does not mean what he says.

I can't convince you to find trust David. I have a hard enough time addressing my own emotions much less yours. Obama could be lying about everything. The question is not whether I have any proof that he will do as he says. The question is whether based on the evidence so far that I should believe he's not going to do what he says. To that, I say, he's in someways moved further left than even the general election on questions of healthcare, stimulus packaage, energy economy, etc. He's thinking bigger than he did in the GE. ]

They are reporting that he has already begun to push Congress so that he can sign several of his big programs into law within days or weeks after he's inauguarated. He has already worked up a list of hundreds of progressive items that he wants to implement by executive order. I can go on, but this really is about believe, not reality. I don't think evidence here matters.  

[ Parent ]
Lying? (4.00 / 1)
That's your word, not mine. It's common sense that some campaign promises-agenda items will fall by the wayside. I fear that Employee Free Choice will be one of them and gave you circumstantial evidence to justify my fear.

You, by contrast, gave me--well, I'm not sure what you gave me. Mostly a mischaracterization of views apparently deriving from your amorphous and unexamined anger toward people who criticize Obama from the left. You also gave me a fact-free plea to trust O. Thanks but no thanks.

Am I a cynic? Sure, a little when it comes to pols, and proudly so. But not such a cynic that I haven't often praised O's emerging focus on inequality, and not such a cynic that i anticipated the aggressive centrism of his cabinet.

Bruh, seems like you've got some free floating emotions clouding your thinking cause you were much more lucid and persuasive during the primary.


[ Parent ]
i gave you a reflection by analogy of how your thinking (4.00 / 1)
no matter how you characterize it is fundamentally based on a lack of trust. You assume bad deeds regardless of what evidence there is to the contrary. You can call that cynacism or whatever- but it still based on you think he's lying. No matter what you calling this is the base. It's the reason why I proved the DADT analogy which yousay you don't understand. For those gay bloggers I mentioned even with the article correcting the Moonie Times article- they choose to believe the Moonie Times. It's about what you choose to believe when given counter vailing facts. My view right now is wait and see and try to affect policy rather than "he's not progressive enough" since such a statement is not proveable until he acts.
[ Parent ]
They never fully supported obama, hence the lack of any trust (0.00 / 0)
In most cases they are Clinton or Edwards people or people who didn't like obama from the beginning. Now they are coming out as "concerned Supporters" to leverage their position while in reality they were never a supporter in the fist place (or voted for the lesser of two evils and now want to claim leverage). People who actually followed Obama's policies and his positions are pretty satisfied so far (at least majority of them) with his choices and his policy statements because that is exactly how he campaigned from the start.he was promising pragmatism, bipartisan ship and what works instead of ideology almost in every stomp speech which is how he is making his selections so far.

The hand wringers here are in most cases the same people who in primaries and general were comparing him to Dukakis (Matt) criticizing his foreign policy speeches and policies (Pual, who wrote a long rant on his speech defending General general petraeus) and chris who argued he wasn't aggressive enough in tearing into McCain and might loss because of it (he compared him to Dukakis AFTER he won in a landslide; you have lost all credibility after that post Chris). The same people that proved to be so wrong are at it again indulging in their hand wringing and sometimes passive aggressive behavior by calling obama basically a liar before he even gets into office. Obama supporters should read into who were their friends in the beginning and who are the wana bees now try to exploit his administration for their own purposes. For the people indulging in their ritual hand wringing, you have four/eight years! don't blow it out too fast.

[ Parent ]
I did not originally support Obama (4.00 / 2)
and still think criticism is fine. My problem with it is that it's not reality based criticism and a lot of well he's wrong because he can not be trusted despite what he says and does. I am not interested in feelings as criticism no matter how those feelings are dressed up.
[ Parent ]
Agreed. (0.00 / 0)
perhaps I went too far in this case but still hold the similar view. Reality based criticisms of his promised policies if he doesn't follow through them are fine with me.
[ Parent ]
Put another way (0.00 / 0)
Do you actually believe that O is going to do everything he promised to do during the campaign: repeal NAFTA, do away with Don't Ask Don't Tell, Push Employee Free Choice, roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy...?

Either you're deluded or you think Obama is "lying."

[ Parent ]
well ... (4.00 / 1)
... there's a difference between "wants to do, but circumstances may delay" versus "never actually wanted to do," isn't there?  

Did you really think John Edwards was going to take away the health care coverage of members of Congress until they passed his bill?

[ Parent ]
Of course (4.00 / 1)
That why I didn't say that Obama "never actually wanted to..."

I don't know whom you're refuting but it ain't me.

As for "circumstances may delay..." that's just fancy lingo for ducking a fight.

[ Parent ]
you: (0.00 / 0)
"Right, because (4.00 / 2)
pols never change positions "

implies he is lying.

[ Parent ]
I don't think he's lying because I know several of the things (0.00 / 0)
you wrote is not what he said. I thinkt he problem again is your expectations of where the goal post is . not mine. You can call me delusional but I am not the one setting unrealistic expectations.

It's ironic you mention DADT since I just used that to basically point out how you are wrong in practical terms, and even the claims regarding DADT (first reported by the Moonie Times) are in fact not correct when you read the article by the Washington Blade.

The central thesis of Obama on DADT is to make it a nonissue. 75 percent of the public supports repeal. A bare majority fo the rank and file supports repeal. Congress does too. But, to address the military leadership - he wants to set forth a plan that includes them unlike what Clinton did in the 1990s. Rather than getting hammered in the public sphere, he's playing it smart.

My own perception was that this was something that would happen at the earliest in 2010, and yet, they claim, and the activist working on this, that there is no set date (as in the early claiming that they permanent postpost) and that the focus will be on implementign as quickly as possible. Some bleive that means late 2009, but the main goal as one former lesbian military commander said was to first create a implementable plan. See my statements above regarding Truman and how long it took to integrate the troops.

On the other issues, I can do similar anlaysis to cut through to the heart of whats happening with the actual issue. for example , on the Bush tax cut, he plans to grandfather it out, which is what he said he planned to do in the last of the debates with McCain.

On NAFTA, his postion was never that he was against all trade treaties. Just one's without protections for the enviorment, etc. So- where was he lying ont hat front?

[ Parent ]
Specifics (4.00 / 1)
Paul, try polling on more specifics, for example.  Ask the question as to whether people believe that housing is a basic right?  Then, perhaps ask about the type of housing, and then finally about whether they will welcome specific housing types in their neighborhood.

Example, single family homes, does everyone have the right to own a home? and if so, would you welcome such housing next door?

Rental housing for seniors? a right? in your neighborhood?

Rental housing for families, a right? in your neighborhood?

Group home for mentally retarded, a right? in your neighborhood?

Housing for people living with mental illness, HIV/Aids, a right?  In your neighborhood?

Let's see is housing as a basic right, a progressive issue? yes it is but not in my neighborhood.  Progressive is yes to both!

This may seem simplistic but this is the issue at the local level.  thoughts?

My Idea (4.00 / 2)
is that a progressive political leader is one who leads people in a progressive direction.  So it would be someone who would start with the core idea of housing as a right, and then build support for dealing with the reservations people have when you start to push their buttons.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
housing as a right (4.00 / 1)
We cannot get concensus here locally that this is a basic right.  Beyond that is the time and education needed to build consensus that siting such housing cannot be fought.  San Pedro is a good example of the NIMBY mind set along with all 88 other cities in Los Angeles County.

Progressive to be goes to the housing is a right and of course not just housing that we are comfortable with.  I cannot see into the inner workings of the choices being made for Obama's urban policy group to know what they will do.  His urban promise neighborhoods for instance.

Here in Calif. State Sen. Daryl Steinberg did a trememdous job getting California voters to overwhelmingly support Proposition 63 (millionaire's tax) to support housing and services to the mentally ill. Their strategy was to be quiet in their outreach and talk to people about mental illness (we all have a cousin John who is mentally ill) and people said yes we need such housing and services.  So it passed and the state has huge amounts of money to spend on housing.  He never took the second step however, to say, ok, now can we build that housing for your cousin john in your city or on your street.  So L A County is sitting on $115 million in capital and $75 million in operating subsidies with very few projects in the pipeline.  For numerous reasons but the main part is getting the political will to site the housing.  So it was progressive to push this agenda but it stopped short on completing the circle and educating people.  We need to show politicians the cost benefit of such work (i.e cost avoidance, how much it costs the county not to do it) and to work with people's fears.  Why is cousin John ok but nobody else?

[ Parent ]
The American People Have ALWAYS Been MORE Progressive! (4.00 / 2)
Than the D.C. elites. For decades in polling, people have favored single-payer health care if given the chance to state  a preference for instance. Yet single-payer health care is simply "not on the table" because too many entrenched interests are utterly opposed. The entire insurance industry for one would be uprooted and there are a TOO MANY people who would scream bloody murder to even attempt it.

Obama for instance has publicly recognized this would be the best solution, but acknowledges that we can only take action within the existing broken system.  

Thus the challenge is to reverse decades of "traditional thinking."

Obama can NOT what the "people want," because what "people want" is NEVER on the agenda! Obama can do only what an organized lobbying effort supports! Our enemies are organized and on the ground in Washington. Where is the public pressure on Obama to hold his feet to the fire on his promises when right wing advisers say "we can't afford to do that!"

If progressives band together we can ramp up the cost for abandoning things like NAFTA renegotiation and card-check labor, bankruptcy law reform and tough environmental regulation. But it certainly won't be easy. Public humiliation and beatings of back-sliding politicians are the only answer.

The right-wing has learned how to do this and we can too! Remember the fire-storm of right-wing anger when Arlen Specter merely HINTED that he opposed an anti-choice litmus test for judges. They instantly forced him to publicly issue a humiliating apology or else lose his judiciary committee chairmanship!

Where is OUR organized pressure group?

[ Parent ]
Alright (4.00 / 4)
It's a fair argument and well researched.

What difference, from a practical perspective, is there if most of these 'progressive' issues are shared by most people? Besides serving to knock Silver's classification system logic over...

I guess it shows that Obama is not a 'progressive' in the Open Left front pager sense and is a 'progressive' in the good-enough-for-government-work sense.

Isn't that kind of like George Bush not being a 'conservative' in the National Review Online sense but being a 'conservative' in the good-enough-for-government- work sense? In the end, the only people not agreeing that Bush is/was conservative-enough-to-be-labeled-a-conservative are the professional bloggers with a dog in the fight, getting paid to publicly pontificate about this. And what did the conservative movement get out of this? Are you sure you're not the reverse-spectrum version of an NROer, demanding ideologically and substantively pure actions from a newly empowered partisan ally that will eventually come back to haunt us?

In the end, we probably really agree on the following: Obama isn't going to fight for the stuff you most want him to in the way you want him to; he is going to fight for the stuff I most want him to in the way I want him to. I've been fighting against pinning these things to the traditional left/right spectrum but if I just let it go for a minute, I can admit that I'm not as far left on the spectrum as you and others here are.

To Answer Your Question, No, We Are NOT NRO! (4.00 / 2)
They criticized Bush only after he'd become radioactive. They were in love with him at the height of his popularity.

This criticism comes while Obama is quite popular, and is intended as much to critique the ongoing critical discourse as well.


"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
there were in fact NROers who, beyond the daily fellatio, would regularly point out the ways in which Bush wasn't conservative enough for them. Jonah Goldberg did it all the freakin' time.

But, okay, let me jostle my criticism around a little. There is no doubt that one of the main reactions by right wingers to their house of cards collapsing has been to argue that they need to purify their actions -- that Bush wasn't conservative enough. That would be an enormous strategical mistake.

Granted, this is on the tailend of it for them while we're on the front end, but couldn't this also be a strategic mistake ('true progressives' demanding 'truly progressive' programs? To demand more than just a lot of successes on issues, some small and some large, that most non-professional progressives would view as 'progressive' and worthwhile.

Short version: What if you're wrong?

[ Parent ]
Could Be =/= Is (0.00 / 0)
Granted, this is on the tailend of it for them while we're on the front end, but couldn't this also be a strategic mistake ('true progressives' demanding 'truly progressive' programs?

I've been making a fairly sophisticated historical argument about this here almost since the site opened.  And sadly, most of the criticism I've gotten back hasn't been much above the level of slogan-tossing.  Not all, by any means.  But most. It sure would be nice if that started to change at some point.

Sure, the micro-level things matter.  But the macro-level matters, too.  As does the meso-level and multiple connections between them all.  Repititious harping just a few micro-level themes as if they were the be-all and end-all of political wisdom really doesn't do a hell of a lot of good.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
For all our back and forth (4.00 / 3)
on this and other threads over the last two weeks, it seems we're really saying the same thing.

You want Obama to be more progressive than he is. I like where he is on the spectrum, as do most Americans, judging by the popularity of the various things Obama has proposed that you don't consider 'progressive' enough. We probably are not going to get the level of 'progressive' change under Obama that you are seeking. You've all but admitted it in this piece -- folks here and elsewhere (see Nate Silver) are setting the parameters, both in theoretical and practical terms, at least a few notches too far to the right on the traditional spectrum for your liking.

Yes, you have made many detailed, sophisticated analyses but they all ultimately stem from this, as nearly as I can tell.  

[ Parent ]
Obama's A Follower In Leadership Drag (4.00 / 2)
as far as all those issue positions go.

And compared to BushCo, that's a great leap forward.

The problem is, quite simply, if he'll be able to keep ahead of all the catastrophic consequences BushCo--and Clinton/Bush/Reagan before that--have set into motion.

You think I'm arguing based on my political desires.  But that's not really accurate.  I'm talking about our long-term survival as a functioning, technically advanced democracy.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
You hit the nail on the head (4.00 / 1)
It's why when you ask them about any number of specific programs- its never good enough or silence follows.

When talking about policies Obama has actually endorsed above David questions the honesty of Obama with regard to his position.

I asked Chris Bowers about the 800 billion stimulus, and he rattled out something about taxes, which is not as far as I can tell the plan.

My hope is that this is more about they want to move the overall overton window than this is substantively the approach they plan to take for the next 4 years.  

[ Parent ]
Right (0.00 / 0)
See my above reply to why some of these vocal people are acting the way they are. they never really supported obama and his policies in the fist place. Hence the continuation of hand wringing and mistrust is just the continuation for them but now they can cloak them selves as "supporters" to get some leverage while the truth is they never really supported him and kept second guessing him during the GE. (but probably voted for him as a lesser of two evils, glad they learned from the Nader debacle eight years ago).
[ Parent ]
You can say that all you want, Paul, but... (4.00 / 2)
...that's starting to be a perception. Open Left, the NRO for the progressives.  
[ Parent ]
Yes, Well (4.00 / 1)
I have never lived my life based on the ignorant opinions of others.

If I had, I would never have become a progressive in the first place.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
In whose mind? (4.00 / 2)
Those who define their politics as blind allegiance to Barack Obama?
[ Parent ]
Misperception -- you've got it backwards (4.00 / 4)
We're not supporting his policies and method because we like Obama; we're supporting Obama because we like his policies and method.

And of course it's not blind in any fashion but I suppose it's a fun, satisfying accusation to make that makes it easier to dismiss the substance of our arguments, so if it's feels good do it, I guess. And this is a double-edged sword of an attack, you know -- puts in the same class as Republicans and PUMAs, who used the same arguments for two bloody years without bothering to, well, actually take our arguments seriously.

[ Parent ]
This Cuts Both Ways (4.00 / 1)
I know what you think you are doing.  And I'm quite willing to believe that it even feels that way from the inside. You like the policies and methods first.  But from outside, the discrepancies are quite noticable.

And simply equating us with the PUMAs and Republicans is simply an example of you engaging in a "satisfying accusation to make that makes it easier to dismiss the substance of our arguments."

When things get this far absracted from the nuts-and-bolts substance, this sort of situation is bound to emerge.

It's pretty amazing to me that here I am, writing a diary in which I've focused on a range of Obama's frankly more progressive policy initiatives, and I'm being attacked for it, simply because I've tried to accurately access just how exclusively progressive they are.  To me, it simply seems like you are stuck in automatic attack mode, and there is simply no pleasing you, except to surrender and abandon not just what I beleive in, but what I see with my own two eyes.

And I'm the one who is supposed to be all ideological, rigid, and incapable of dialogue.  And you're the one who is supposed to be able to groove with folks who think somewhat differently from you.

This does not compute.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
I think this is the problem in a nutshell (4.00 / 2)
There really is an opening right now in our politics for truly progressive, socially democratic policies of the kind FDR and Harry Truman tried to push through.

Instead you're trying to basically concern troll us by repeating stale DLC attacks on us - "omg you leftists want us to lose every election through ideological purity." It was a weak attack in 2003 and it's a weak attack in 2008.

Your comment gets at the heart of the matter - is this political moment Obama's moment, or a progressive moment? Do we try and give the country a hard shove away from the right, or do we quietly fall in line behind Obama, tell ourselves "he's good enough" so we can sleep at night, and shy away from actually fixing the problems this country faces?

There is a genuine disagreement here about tactics and strategy. There's no need to go all Al From on us as a result.

[ Parent ]
DLC? (4.00 / 5)
You think the following are DLC?

a) 800 billion stimulus package to work on infrascture and new energy economy
b) Universal healthcare that includes a public option (the Baucus/Kennedy plan that Obama has made clear he is fine with)
c) Climate change and energy economy, including , even in the 25 billion loan to the car industry to require them to create fuel efficiency cars and to meet a much higher fuel efffiency standard.
d) Ending media concentration.
e) Net neutrality
f) Working on telecommunication infrastructure
g) The grandfathering out of the Bush tax cut for the rich

There are more- can you demonstrate how that's like the DLC?  

[ Parent ]
I think you need to reread my comment (4.00 / 2)
I was suggesting that Matt H's reply to Paul was using the same attacks that the DLC has used against us for a long time. Nowhere did I equate Obama to DLC.
[ Parent ]
I still do not see how equating everything to the DLC fits here (0.00 / 0)
I think some of you need to come up with new language to explain present circumstances. Matt's criticism of Paul is that he's much further left than Obama in the same way that NRO is much further right than Bush , but that does not mean Obama will not govern as a progressive (even a hard cored one) than it means that Obama will not govern as a progressive, even a hardcore one. Hence the list.  The DLC argument would not be to make a point about Obama being a progressive, even a hard core one. It would be to triangulate with the Republicans to the right, where the Republican right is. The question here is whether this is proper terminology at all for what's occuring. Was Bush triangulating for not being exactly like NRO. Is Matt H demonizing for pointing out Openleft wants Obama to be further left, but that does not mean that Obama is not in fact a progressive? I do not understand your analogy but-for one can not criticize the idealogical scales of where peopla re at to say you know Obama is a progressive, but just not like  a progressive like you. It's not an attack in the vain in which the DLC argument would make. It's an attack on the goal of moving the overton window by pretending nothing Obama does is progressive. Your argument without this context makes no sense.
[ Parent ]
Substantively (4.00 / 3)
I think that most of the Obama supporters in here and elsewhere lie somewhere on the spectrum in between folks like yourself and the DLC types like Al From.

I don't think the Froms of the world would ever make the argument that is generally being made here by myself, Bruhrabbit and others, which is that Obama actually is 'progressive' enough for government work. The Froms just flat out reject progressive politics.

[ Parent ]
Again, What Robert Is Saying (4.00 / 1)
is not that you are like Al From, but that you're using his language, his approach.

I think that's a really important distinction.  I've been really trying to open up different ways of talking about what's going on.  Here I am, critiquing but also agreeing with two different strains, represented by Digby and Silver, and all I seem to get in return from folks like you and Bruh is a broken record, the same old rhetorical moves over and over again, as if I wasn't saying anything different.

That's what Robert is trying to highlight here.  That you're buying into a narrative that carries implications from its source on the center-right that you might not consciously embrace, and yet you are empowering anyway.

Does that make any sense at all to you?

I should point out that substantively, I think you and Mark Matson are probably pretty close to one another.  But Mark and I have gotten a lot better at listening to, and paying attention to the core arguments each other are advancing, so that we're more focused on the points of agreement, and the conditions that might tip us more toward each other or away.  We have, in short, a more reality-based relationship, which is not simply a matter of substantive agreement.  And this is something I think can and should be much more widely established.   It's a vital foundation for everything else that needs to built and done.

Unless, of course, you just think that Obama will wave his magic wand and solve all our problems.  Which, I am sure, you do not.  Otherwise you wouldn't even be here.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
No he's criticizing you for an entirely different reason (4.00 / 3)
and using an entirely different approach. There is no comparison to DLC at all , but-for they are both criticizing you. That's where the comparasion ends.

This is bad argument unless you are claiming that you are above any criticism, and threfore any criticism is similar to the DLC. The DLC would be wrong in its criticism in that its trying to demonize you. Matt is right because he's trying to describe how your behavior is not helpful for progressive causes other than to serve a similar function as NRO.

One criticism of you is incorrect for progressive agenda. The other is a fair critique o fyou because it is saying you do not represent the gold standard of what can be considered progressive. Thus the comparator to NRO. He didn't compare you to some communist. He compared you to an idealogical comparator on the right which functions in a similar role that this site is starting to take.

You are the one saying Obama is not progressive enough. Matt is responding that you are the one calling Obama's policies not progressive enough. He's not trying to run away from progressive. He's saying that one can be progressive and think you are wrong.

[ Parent ]
Another practical example (4.00 / 1)
Single payer versus other approaches to healthcare reform

I am not per se against or for single payer or any other plan that works so long as it solves the problem of healthcare universality.

There are those who would label me as "not progressive' because of my concerns  over cost controls still being a problem under single payer. The critique is not one of whether I want to implement progressive values in progressive policy ways, but that I do not accept their exact solutions to how to address the problem.

Even the term "moderate progressive " is kind of wrong because it assumes there is a gold standard of progressive action, and that from there, eveything else is a weaker more conservative position rather than effective versus ineffectve position.

[ Parent ]
Except That Reality Is Biased Against You (0.00 / 0)
You:

There are those who would label me as "not progressive' because of my concerns  over cost controls still being a problem under single payer.

Reality: Our existing system costs far and away more than any single-payer or other sort of non-privately centered health care system in the world.

This is not to say that cost controls are not a concern under single-payer.  But it is to say that it's totally bogus to pretent that they are more of a problem or unique to single-payer.

in short: Red herring, much?


"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Except it's not because I didn't say that (4.00 / 1)
I want to continue with our existing system. That's your assumption, and therein lies the problem. For all your claims bout me, it's you who is not understand.

Let me repeat- this was not an argument for staying as we are. It's an argument for assuming that single payer is per se the final formulation of what the solution may look like. It maybe the one we come up with in the end, but I actually think the competition between a public sector plan and a private one m ay produce a better result for us because there maybe innovations that I do not now see and others do not now see.

In short, the red herring is yours regarding what i was saying about single payer. It's a certain myopic approach that's become the norm here./

The point is that in using single payer as the gold standard, any other ideas that may have a progressive approach are per se "wrong" becuase theya re per se, just as you just did, ignored as "conservative."

I will be the first to say I don't know what the right solution is. My point was more about realizing that single payer is not necessarily the only prorgressive one. Perhaps a combination of approaches maybe necessary to achieve the goal of unversality and a sustainable system.

Without this later element over sustainable system , you do not understand why cost matters.

In Europe they are facing similar issues with cost of healthcare increases that will increasingly eat up a part of GDP. It's a slower rate. But it exists. The question is how to keep it at inflation rather than above it.

Our costs are highter, and thus our system needs to change since that rate is greater here, but that's not to say that this means that single payer is the absolute solution in the long term as much as it would first appear when we look at what's happening in Europe.

What it means is that because healthcare is a right (my progressive belief)- the goal must be to continually experiment to allow for a system that will continue to work not just now but into the forseeable future.

That's my version of the progressive vision.  Yours is to say anyone who says single payer is problematic is "not progressive enough" and thus why thi sargument will always miss the point. It's how to we accomplish progressive ends? To me, the answer to that question is not always clear or certain as you pretend.

Even your arguments or hegemony can be turned on its head. How do we end hegemony? I am not sure, despite your certainty, that we know.

[ Parent ]
Of course it's possible (4.00 / 3)
that you're not taking my arguments as seriously as you claim.

Yes, you've been trying to open up new ways to talk about these things but so have we. When we try to partake in these conversations you harangue us for not staying within the narrowly proscribed lanes of the discourse. And some of our core requests are never answered. You see what you want to see, critique what you want to critique and move on to the next battle without taking many of our core comments and thoughts seriously. We're told we're not reality based. It really is trying.

Case in point: Of course I don't believe in Obama's magic wand. You wouldn't have to ask that if you had been reading my many comments here on this honestly and with an open mind, instead of cherry picking them for offending dissent. None of us who are getting so deeply under the Open Left collective skin have ever made anything resembling a magic wand argument. But this is what we get.

Some recent comments of mine:

Defending criticism of Obama:
http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

Agreeing with Stoller's analysis of Dingell v. Waxman:
http://www.openleft.com/showCo...

Praising an Obama critic's post:
http://www.openleft.com/showCo...

A response to you in which I clearly state my views of the practical limitations on Obama's ability to govern:
http://www.openleft.com/showCo...

Another doing the same:
http://www.openleft.com/showCo...

NB: for the above two comments, you didn't bother to respond. What I get instead is this 'magic wand' crack.


[ Parent ]
again completely agree (4.00 / 1)
no dialogue at all or interaction.
[ Parent ]
Why Can't You Simply READ??? (0.00 / 0)
You:

You see what you want to see, critique what you want to critique and move on to the next battle without taking many of our core comments and thoughts seriously. We're told we're not reality based. It really is trying.

Case in point: Of course I don't believe in Obama's magic wand. You wouldn't have to ask that if you had been reading my many comments here on this honestly and with an open mind...

But that's EXACTLY what I said:

Unless, of course, you just think that Obama will wave his magic wand and solve all our problems.  Which, I am sure, you do not.  Otherwise you wouldn't even be here. [Emphasis added]


"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
they do not have a language to address (0.00 / 0)
what is being said. So they fall back on what they know.
[ Parent ]
See you after my self-imposed exhile (0.00 / 0)
Hang in there!
[ Parent ]
More important than....... (0.00 / 0)
wether they think we are spending "too little" on something is if they would sacrifice something to pay for more. For expample 61.6% of conservatives say we spend too little on education, but ask them if they would be willing to pay more taxes to improve it? That would be a much better question. Progressives not only say certain things need more money/attention, but they are also willing to prioritize them and raise taxes on the rich/corporations to pay for them. Hell, your examples do not surprise me at all as everyone wants to improve many things, but conservatives will not give anything up to do so.
Please Look At The Question Wording (0.00 / 0)
I agree with your sentiment, but in fact the GSS question does include a mention of trade-offs:

We are faced with many problems in this country, none of which can be solved easily or inexpensively.


"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
Many people taking a poll would miss that comment...... (4.00 / 1)
and focus on the ending question for each issue. They would not realize the possible cost of implementing anything as that would require thought. They hear we have stupid kids and they think we need to do something, but most would not give up any "specific" thing to do so - progressives would gladly give up many things for other things. My point is that improving education would be a priority for a progressive, but not so much so for center-right-left people. So, yes a generic improving education question seems to spread across the political spectrum, but the devil is in the details. We shall see in time just how progressive Obama actually is - many of the issues you address above may seem mainstream by your stats but only a progressive would agressively persue changes that actually cost money.  
[ Parent ]
Fuzzy (4.00 / 1)
Thanks for that analysis. Now I'm not so sure about what is exclusively progressive. For me its populist, wanting to get the very rich out from under the table and consider them as the major players they are. That's missing.
   I don't pretend to know all the effects of the privatization of the country's assets into so few hands, but it seems like a huge burden for everybody else. How does the right to preserve a hundred million dollar fortune for your heirs fit in with the right to free speech and the right to bear arms? The right to clean air, education, work, health, etc.
Well, To Me (0.00 / 0)
places such questions front and center is an important part of what progressive leadership is all about.

I will be very pleasantly surprised if Obama starts doing that at some point.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Leftover Turkey (0.00 / 0)
You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, saute it.  There's turkey-kabobs, turkey creole, turkey gumbo. Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. There's turkey chili, turkey pot pie, turkey casserole, turkey curry, turkey burgers, turkey a la king, turkey pasta, turkey soup, turkey stew, turkey salad, turkey omelette, turkey bagel, turkey pita, turkey wraps, turkey hash, turkey nachos, turkey tacos, turkey pizza, creamed turkey, peppered turkey, turkey quiche, turkey croquettes, turkey pilaf, turkey enchiladas, and turkey sandwiches.  No matter how it's prepared, it's still leftovers.
Well, You're Right (no pun intended) (0.00 / 0)
It's not just a position a politician takes on an issue, though.  Also important are the actual steps the politician takes to deal with the issue.

An anecdotal example: Even conservatives, even Bush, say they want to "protect the environment."  Nobody is against that as a general proposition; where the rubber meets the road, however, is on specific policies and priorities.  Drilling or no drilling?  List an economically important chemical as causing cancer or not?  Put old growth trees in the National Forests off limits to logging or not?  List carbon dioxide as a chemical regulated under the Clean Air Act or not?

Also important is how much political capital a politician is willing to spend on these issues.  Clinton talked a good game about favoring unionization.  He supported federal legislation to prevent the hiring of scabs.  But he didn't lift a finger to get that legislation through the Senate.  Especially compared to the political capital he burned to get NAFTA passed.

What Obama says in general about certain issues really means less than nothing.  As you note, what he says has broad popularity across the political spectrum and most of it is, basically, platitudinal.  

It's possible he's masking a true progressive agenda because he knows better than to put his enemies on guard before he has to.  Or he could simply be the centrist Blairist-Clintonian his "stands on the issues" and his appointments (so far) appear to make him.

We won't really be able to tell how progressive Obama actually is until we see what he proposes, what kind of regulations he issues to implement it, and how hard he's willing to fight for his agenda.  

More useful would be a guide for how -- at this point -- we can exert a progressive influence on Obama's administration.  At least Al Giordano is trying to get some organizing going, trying to take advantage of some of the structure and enthusiasm engendered in our attempt to get Obama elected.

I'm heartily sick of digby's style of simply wringing her hands and whining that "we'll always be betrayed."  That does nothing for us but make us discouraged.

I think its about drama (0.00 / 0)
Part of catering to hardcore supporters is that you need a constant amount of drama to keep them entertained.  McCain and Hillary catered to that sort of thing.  Whereas Obama was always the opposite.

I think they just worry that peace and prosperity will break out and people will become satisfied with the current system plus obama changes.

When most Obama supporters see him as enough for right now and don't believe that too much radical change will work out like they expect.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....

Thank you for helping me understand... (4.00 / 5)
why I think the front-pagers of Open Left are out of their minds and why I need to (again) take a long break from this site. This little nugget sums it all up:

In short, everywhere one looks, evidence shows that the policies Nate has identified as specifically "progressive" are, in fact, broadly supported by the American people.  I am not arguing that these aren't progressive policies.  Rather, I'm arguing that they aren't solely progressive programs, and thus, that supporting them does not by itself make Obama a progressive, rather than a center-left Democrat...

So in essence, the shit fit that you and Stoller and Bowers and Sirota have been throwing for the past three weeks is because Barack Obama (who by the way is not yet the President) is not making a priority out of policies that are unpopular with the majority of the electorate.

It's not enough that most of his priorities are in step with progressives, they need to be supported only by progressives. We don't need to spend any energy shifting the debate in a progressive direction, we just expect Obama to do it for us by making unpopular proposals, right?

Well, thanks for clearing that up.

Love this sentence (4.00 / 3)

It's not enough that most of his priorities are in step with progressives, they need to be supported only by progressives.


[ Parent ]
And I agree on the need to take a break (4.00 / 5)
Part of me wants to stay and hash it out but it just ain't a level playing field.

I (and presumably others) have on multiple occasions asked for some diversity of thought on the front page but our thoughts are treated as dissent to be rejected rather than alternatives to be considered.  

[ Parent ]
agree completely (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
No, I'm Afraid You've COMPLETELY Misunderstood The Argument (4.00 / 3)
I am in no way attacking these programs, or attacking Obama for advancing them.  And it puzzles me greatly that you would think so.

What I'm criticizing is--right up there in the title of the diary!--Nate's curious categorization of them.

What I would like to see is something in addition to these programs.  I'd like to see a mix of the already-popular and pushing the boundaries to bring forth new ideas that haven't been around so long.  

And to get there, I would like to see an honest, fact-based acknowledgment of what policies are progressive, center-left, centrist, whatever, just so that we have a common coordinate system that allows us to understand one another.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Can Potus, matt h, or bruh please tell me.. (4.00 / 2)
why it is so bad to figure out where Obama is in his thinking so that we can understand where to push him? You all keep throwing up this rediculous strawman that nailing down Obama's positions and then talking about how likely he will be to push on some or fold on others is akin to ideological purity tests. Its clearly not. Its a vitally important activity because it helps clarify the strengths of weaknesses of various policy positions politically so that we know where to go from here. How are you gonna get to the goal of assuring health care as a right for every American if you don't know where you are?

Putting aside Sirota for a minute because he can get a bit out of hand, I have not seen anyone call Obama a traitor to the progressive cause or whatever. As a matter of fact I don't see how you can't call him a center-left politician - thats clearly the impression that most people have of him, and its fucking wonderful that so many of his positions are progressive or work towards progressive goals, even if at the same time some of his positions are clearly contrary to our goals. Still, the fact that the center-left has been validated by the people and enhanced by numerous progressive positions is something to be celebrated. That doesn't preclude asking for more, and it especially doesn't preclude figuring out where we are most likely to succeed in pushing for more, and that I think is where Paul is coming from.

Perhaps you all need to take a step back, go outside, whatever, because not only are you all way too emotionally caught up in this but you all aren't even that far apart. Please take a break if necessary and then please come back.  

[ Parent ]
Thank You! (4.00 / 1)
I am truly mystified by this myself.  It's like I'm covered in goo, and trying to wash it off only gets more goo on me.

Yes, I want Obama to be more overtly progressive.  And yes, I'm troubled by some actions--FISA, Gates, Afghanistan.  But overall I am quite happy to have someone who will do a lot of good things, that I won't even have to fight for.

Indeed, that's why I can focus more attention on those areas that aren't that progressive, in my view.

I don't expect any politician to be perfect.  The fact that I criticize only means that I'm being a responsible citizen, at least according to the way I was raised.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
I think the only thing for it (0.00 / 0)
is time.

Three or four Friedman Units from now, it should become more clear which side is right, and we will be able to unite again and move our country forward.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
I agree with much of this (4.00 / 2)
especially the part about going outside and taking a break ;-) I agree with and accept your suggestion to take a necessary break. It will be better for everybody :-)

But first (hee-hee): I am all for figuring out where Obama stands on issues, what his appointments show about this, analyzing the findings in relation to how he is governing, etc. It's the predetermined, closed and narrow-minded singular intensity of thought that gets in my shorts and up my craw. It's the fact that not only are all the front pagers of the same mind on these issues but they are also in the habit of cruising through each others' diaries to set the heretics straight. And the inability to take anything that we have to say with other than a dismissive attitude.

As for Obama's center-left/progressive bona fides, you'll get no argument from me.

See y'all after my self-imposed breather!

[ Parent ]
I Love Nate Silver! But..... (0.00 / 0)
While there's still a long a way to go for the rest of  President-Elect Obama's cabinet appointments, it's obvious our future President feels much more comfortable with Republicans and Center-Right Democrats than he does with the Liberal-Left that worked it's collective heart out for him! It's terribly naive to think that a politician will not say or do anything he/she needs to to get elected! It's like the equivalent of  "location, location, location," in making wise real estate investments! All savvy politicians master the craft of making promises!

Give a DINO more than a bone!
Nate Silver's Curious Categorization of Obama's Policy Agenda | 71 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

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

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox