Obama Has No Need To Run Away From the Left

by: Daniel De Groot

Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 00:04


As issues like Obama's position on FISA, or the various Supreme Court rulings causes a lot of debate about Obama's need to move right or to the center, I thought I would raise a point I heard or saw somewhere (but can't remember or I would credit better):  The public already thinks of Obama as a "liberal" and they like him just fine.

From that LA Times/Bloomberg poll again:


Q33. How would you describe the views of Barack Obama on most matters having to do with politics: Do you generally think of Obama as very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative or very conservative, or haven't you heard enough about him yet to say?

Response:
56% - Liberal, 15% - Moderate, 8% - Conservative

Those saying liberal were split 30% saying "very liberal" and 26% "somewhat liberal."  Among Democrats only 19% said "very liberal" so it isn't us driving this number up, and Obama is doing just fine (remember he was ahead by 12 in this same poll).

Apparently being a liberal is not toxic.

I do see a positive in this situation though.  Even if Obama never embraces the liberal label, if he gets elected and governs well that will do a lot to improve the brand regardless.  The public already thinks he is a liberal, so seeing him govern well wears well on liberalism.  

After all, we don't need marketing tricks to redeem liberalism.  All we have to do is govern better than conservatives, which isn't hard at all.  That bar is low.  Government that merely functions being run by a person deemed "liberal" is real world proof liberalism works.  All Obama has to do is not purposely run a kleptocratic, scorched earth travesty of an administration full of flat earthers and theocrats, where the only debate among historians will be whether Orwell, Kafka or Heller best analog its absurdity and malice.
Daniel De Groot :: Obama Has No Need To Run Away From the Left

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Obama Has No Need To Run Away From the Left | 44 comments
Liberal in media (4.00 / 3)
Right after Obama won Iowa, I remember folks in the media calling him liberal without -- for the first time in my life -- any derogatory innuendo or snide remarks.  It was almost as if it was perfectly fine to be liberal, or something.

There are reasons why this may very well be a liberal movement even if Obama is more a follower than a leader.

It sure would be nice (4.00 / 4)
to have a few Democrats who aren't too frightened to proudly embrace the ideals that this country was founded on. Liberalism is righteous and pragmatic. Conservatism is dishonest and generally malevolent. Too bad we live in a totally fucked up world where no one in power is allowed to state the obvious.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
nice (0.00 / 0)
"the only debate among historians will be whether Orwell, Kafka or Heller best analog its absurdity and malice."

Brilliant. I choose Orwell.

hey (4.00 / 2)
Thanks.

I'm a Heller man myself:


The case against Clevinger was open and shut. The only thing missing was something to charge him with.


"But I make a profit of three and a quarter cents an egg by selling them for four and a quarter cents an egg to the people in Malta I buy them from for seven cents an egg. Of course, I don't make the profit. The syndicate makes the profit. And everybody has a share."


"This time Milo had gone too far. Bombing his own men and planes was more than even the most phlegmatic observer could stomach, and it looked like the end for him...Milo was all washed up until he opened his books to the public and disclosed the tremendous profit he had made."


"You have no respect for excessive authority or obsolete traditions. You're dangerous and depraved, and you ought to be taken outside and shot!"


"Morale was deteriorating and it was all Yossarian's fault. The country was in peril; he was jeopardizing his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them."

About sums up the last 8 years rather well.

[ Parent ]
Heller gets 'absurdity,' but NOBODY gets malice like Kafka(n/t) (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
the poll is welcome (4.00 / 2)
I think though you are setting a pretty low bar for governing....and a pretty paltry ambition.

Didn't lots of us see 2008 as another potential 1932...the ability to create a long term progressive agenda and governing majority.  You don't do that without a willingness to actually institute a progressive agenda and progressive bills and policy.

You're almost implying that even if he actually governs in a non progressive way as a moderate  that it's okay if people mistakenly think think that centrist, even conservative policies are progressive.

I don't think that's so great....Why would I want telecom immunity and non universal healthcare to be perceived as the epitome of the progressive agenda?  What effing real life good does that do?

I  think that's called putting lipstick on a pig. We should still holdout as our ambition for a real progressive agenda...because ...hell...the poll shows us that the American people are ready for it ...even if Obama doesn't think so and he might not supply it.


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

Nah (4.00 / 3)
We have three big-ticket items Obama is promising even after his move to the center for the general: universal health care, green energy, and ending the war in Iraq.  I still see no reason to believe Obama won't go for all three.

And we have numerous smaller ticket items, like  permanently linking minimum wage to inflation, reasonable Supreme Court justices, reinvestment in infrastructure, and a competent FEMA.

Even the centrist version of Obama should deliver these.  Sometimes we so focus on our disappointments, which was easy to do this week, we forget how high the stakes are.  We've got big eyes right now, but even if we only get half of what we want, that's a pretty major change.  Hell, energy alone is an historic game changer, if done properly.

[ Parent ]
HIS healthcare plan, unlike Clinton's and Edwards's is not universal (4.00 / 1)
And we'll see the scope and extent of his ambition in the other programs....I fully expect him to backtrack on getting the troops out of Iraq.  Green energy ...well there doing something big, extensive, broad ranging and ambitious is the minimum required...anything less is failure.  I don't think he's ambitious.

The fact that you say he has a plan for universal healthcare means you still think he's the primary Obama...and even then his plan was never universal.  How can you say he has a plan for universal healthcare when he never did.....Why do you still believe it?

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Hillary's plan is only "universal".... (4.00 / 4)
...'cos it uses the power of the government to force you to buy insurance no matter how much it costs...  Anyone can achieve "universality" under that metric... means very little if being universal forces people to buy crappy private health insurance ala Romney in MA.

The fact is, no candidate, save Kucinich, proposed true universal coverage...  cheap, affordable, easily accessible coverage that allows anyone to go to the doctor at any time and get care at a reasonable cost without worry.  The only way to do that is single payer, and no candidate comes even close!

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

[ Parent ]
Exactly (4.00 / 2)
Obama's plan was far from perfect, but then again so was everyone else's.  In reality this will largely be dealt with by congress.  In fact, the odds of Hillary being personally involved in all the details may have actually gone up, not down, by Obama's primary victory.

But regardless of the details, expect major changes to how we handle health care in the country.  How big those changes are depends more on our margin of victory, how many we get into the House and Senate, overall expectation and acceptance by the general population, and a bunch of other factors, some of which the netroots can actually do something about.

[ Parent ]
you have fallen for obama misinformation (4.00 / 1)
obama also has you buying private insurance in case you were unaware.

He rplan caps the percentage of income you would pay and it has subsidies that are as genrous as his and it would ultimately cheaper than obama's becasue the lack of universality makes his expensive.

also the universality of her plan makes her public option cheap and effective while his lack of universality pushes all the the expensive cases into the public plan thus destroying the ability of that plan to seque into single payer.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
So where are we on this again? (0.00 / 0)
Are we pro-McCain, pro-Clinton, pro-Obama? Does this whole debate still matter?
[ Parent ]
I'm pretty sure he did in fact refer to his plan as "universal healthcare" n/t (0.00 / 0)


End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.
[ Parent ]
that refence is untrue nt (0.00 / 0)


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
you can quibble all day about if his plan is truly "universal" but don't go around saying that he never ever claimed that it was when he did so publicly several times. n/t (0.00 / 0)


End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.
[ Parent ]
We Don't Get ANYTHING Clean On Any O f Those Three (4.00 / 2)
The problems with his non-universal health care program are well-known.  Medicare for all is what's needed and he won't even try for that.  He's not indifferent, he's opposed to it.

On Iraq, he's also ambiguous.  Who knows how long he'll take and how many troops he'll leave behind.  And in terms of altering the fundamental logic that brought us Iraq, all he's really talked about is going back to the Bush I/Clinton consensus, i.e. a continuation of the Cold War bipartisan multilateralism only without the Cold War or the multilateralism. This is nowhere close to being progressive.

Or effective.

Finally, on "green energy", I'll believe it when I see him denounce the polluter-subsidy bill that Boxer is pushing, and stop it dead in its tracks.

Yeah, right.  Obama to the left of Boxer.  That'll be the day.

So, not impressed.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Thank you, paul... (4.00 / 1)
"I still see no reason to believe Obama won't go for all three."

Hunh?

I see absolutely no evidence that he'll DO any of the three.
His health-care plan is universal, in that Blakean way: the universe in a grain of sand. His plans to disengage from Iraq are tenuous, at best. Can you say "Three More Years (Minimum)". As for green? Is Cargill "green"? ADM? Monsanto? Cuz they're his benefactors...

Am I holdin' up my end as a "Meta-Troll?"

[ Parent ]
Yeah, ethanol (0.00 / 0)
is fairly high up on the list of bs political moves.

When every environmental expert says that it's too inefficient to net emissions lowering, but he ignores that to pander to voters in the Midwest and to major corporations? All while knowing that it will drive food prices up even further, sending more and more into starvation globally?

That doesn't come anywhere near my definition of progressive. Sure, he'll be better than McCain, but...

 

[ Parent ]
Left of Boxer (0.00 / 0)
But this just shows you were we are at.  You don't consider anyone truly progressive unless they are to the left of Boxer.  I doubt more than a percentage or two of our elected officials qualify for that standard.

The FISA betrayal passed 85-15.  15!  That is how far we have to go.  Somehow, that 15 needs to become 30, then 50, then 60.

So I'm basically agreeing with you, but taking a half-full view.  (er, 15% full)  As a poster says below, there isn't such thing as the "left" in the U.S.

But our elected officials are wusses.  They will follow if they think they have to.  That is why I really like this diary.

[ Parent ]
A STUPID Misreading, Mark (0.00 / 0)
But this just shows you were we are at.  You don't consider anyone truly progressive unless they are to the left of Boxer.
 

I never said any such thing.  You usually know better than this.  Boxer's the one pushing the truly dreadful, $billions for polluters cap-and-trade bill.  Ergo, doing something better, something that isn't socialism for rich environmental criminals, would be to the left of Boxer.

Probably 80-90% of the American people, if they knew the facts, would want something like that.  So, yeah, I'd be with the vast majority of the American people, out to the left of Boxer.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
He didn't promise to end the war. (0.00 / 0)
He promised to bring home "combat troops."

Which means he intends to leave "residual forces" in place. How many? We don't know. No one asks and he doesn't tell.

Obama plans to continue the occupation, watch and see.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
response (0.00 / 0)
I'm just accentuating a positive aspect of this.  We want someone to revive the brand of liberalism somehow and I think Obama has that potential even if he never openly adopts liberalism.  

Of course it would be preferable for him to do so.

[ Parent ]
He isn't going to run from the left (4.00 / 1)
But neither will he run towards the left either.  The fact that his opinions are mostly liberal is mere circumstance.  

The thing is Obama is mostly uninterested in the brand of the politics he espouses.  He is much more interested in whether or not he thinks those policies are good ideas.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

Call me crazy... (0.00 / 0)
but that's his appeal.  He's progressive (though some may doubt it) without being stiff-necked.

In discussing the senate, it was mentioned that only "ideas that have a chance of getting through" are worthy of support.  Obama's willingness to reform the party line based on pragmatic benefits (such as culling support) is a breath of fresh air precisely in opposition to Bush's insistent steamrolling.  We need someone who's willing to adapt national strategies in the face of changing circumstances rather than forcing his way between a rock and a hard place.

Obama has not only perspective but pragmatism.


[ Parent ]
There Was NOTHING Pragmatic At All About The FISA Betrayal (4.00 / 5)
That was a good line, but it became "inoperative" as a certain war criminal named "Nixon" would say, once he stabbed us in the back on FISA.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
His FISA position is 100% Pragmatism (4.00 / 2)
Read Mimikatz's piece from a few days ago to see exactly why.  Illegal surveillance, the potential criminality of State behavior 2001 - 2006 is not a solely Republican problem.  The current congressional Dems are up to their eyeballs in complicity with Cheney.  

Would it be pragmatic for Obama to come into office yelling about surveillance abuse when he will need a strong congress to govern?

All this talk about "moving to the center" is a red herring.  He has taken this position on FISA for political, NOT ideological  reasons.  

I'm sure he knows it stinks.  You can see he knows how awkward it is in that nonsensical video clip from Monday.

It totally sick, but it is the right call given the degree  of rot that he will have to take on and work with in the current institutions of governance.  He is very likely making deals for support of his agenda (healthcare, Iraq) in exchange for mouthing an uncritical position on FISA.

My hope now is that once in power, he and Dean and the national progblog groundswell unite in '09 to blast the Bush Dogs out of the party in '10.  

And, with the right AG and purge of the DOJ in '09, Bush/Cheney & Co. could be prosecuted for various acts in criminal courts and not merely embarrassed by disclosures in  evidence at the current civil suits against the Telcos.

The everyday people of the whole earth are ready to run the sphere in peace.

[ Parent ]
thanks for mentioning this (4.00 / 2)
There has been quite a bit of justified belly-aching over the past week on some of Obama's decisions, especially FISA. While I'm disappointed, I also find it hard to believe that more people aren't looking deeper into the pragmatism of his decisions. In order to be an effective commander in chief, especially while still campaigning, you have to make a lot of people happy. Yes, that means compromise which doesn't fit well into a progressive ideology. But it makes me sick to start hearing people label Obama like he's just a shell for the liberal brand or only support him to defeat McCain. Give me a break, if Obama steamrolled a progressive agenda it would be no different than Bush/Cheney only we would all be in favor of the results.

HOWEVER, I still think that supporting FISA would have been a great way to build on his campaign messaging and it's too bad he didn't choose to capitalize on it.

[ Parent ]
He didn't choose not to capitalize on it -- (0.00 / 0)
he is not capable of capitalizing on it.

As even his defenders admit, he is a bought-and-paid-for member of the corrupt DC power structure and will never willingly do anything to rock the boat.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Bought and paid for (0.00 / 0)
by 1.5 Million citizen supporters.

Never do anything to rock the boat, like say, upset the DLC/Clinton coronation.

C'mon, prog-ists, there are more than two positions in the world.  

I was pissed as hell when I heard Obama flopped on FISA.  It didn't make sense to me.  As I've posted elsewhere, given the electorate's loathing of Bush/Cheney, I don't think "tacking center" on FISA makes electoral sense.  

Nor do I see the ideological evidence to support the argument that he's just a closet conservative.  Going from Harvard Law to community organizing is a pretty circuitous path for if that is who he 'really' is.

The more plausible explanation has to do with ugly realities within the present, ossified, cowed Dem Leadership, again the very same (DLC/Clintonian) leadership Obama will have to go to for any kind of action in '09 - '10.

If there is to be a Prog takeover in '11-'12, the reality is  we should prepare for a two-step process.



The everyday people of the whole earth are ready to run the sphere in peace.

[ Parent ]
And Obama (0.00 / 0)
is part of that ossified, cowed Dem leadership.

He has been telling us this since the beginning, but people hear what they want to hear.

If a totally unnecessary cave like this one, betraying fifteen of his fellow senators, is not enough to convince you where Obama really stands, then I don't know what will.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
And now in the quick hits: (0.00 / 0)
Dodd has said some nice things about Harry Reid, yet another totally unnecessary cave and betrayal!

Feingold has helped push the vote off into July.  With luck and more pressure, perhaps bad-FISA can be pushed off to the the next congress when the right FISA fix can be enacted, not the one Reid and Pelosi picked for amendment.  That would be the best outcome and it is still possible.

Everything being said right now on FISA is noise and posturing.

Again, I think Mimikatz's post got at the institutional chess-game that is likely going on within the Dem Caucus.  I think it is a more plausible explanation for Obama's awkward flip than "bought and paid for".  

Didn't Maplight show Hoyer's telco contribution take, among the highest, at under $30,000?  How does that compare to Obama's $200M primary budget?  And again, with 1.5M contributors?

I just wish there was more reason (based on evidence) in the discussion here about why politicians, including Obama, might act the way they do.  Instead it seemed like it is all enraged binaries, "You are for or against".  You are a heroic firebrand or you are a corrupt devil.

America has been half a good idea and half totally fucked for over 200 years.  It's going to keep going like that for a while.


The everyday people of the whole earth are ready to run the sphere in peace.

[ Parent ]
Telecom immunity is not even the main point (4.00 / 2)
Obama endorsed rolling back all the reforms of the Church committee.  In doing so, he explicitly endorsed the RW meme that rationalizes the national security state that is enveloping us.  

That is, for example, the state surveillance apparatus that is logging your IP number as you comment here and tracing it back to your home address via ISP logs.

Or as Atrios might say, how is that shit sandwich you're munching down on?

[ Parent ]
Wait (0.00 / 0)
so covering up for crooks is now a desirable thing in a leader?

I thought that was what we were trying to get away from, corrupt politicians who scratch each other's backs.

So much for "hope" and "change," eh?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
I think the reasoning goes (4.00 / 1)
that since most of our politicians are corrupt, that covering up for them is the pragmatic thing to do.
[ Parent ]
If Protecting Rotten Deals In Congress Were Pragmatic (0.00 / 0)
Then Dennis Hastert would still be Speaker.

Nice try, though.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Giving this some thought... (0.00 / 0)
First off, I don't see any clear reason for supporting FISA unless, as is argued below, that support earns reciprocal action.  That being said, and I recognize that this is not the consensus here at the moment, it seems to me as though OPPOSING the bill would serve no practical purpose but would merely be political posturing.  I gather you're becoming red in the face now, but let me explain:

Like most of yours, any faith I place in the government is tenuous at best, and I think this is sensible since, even if the government were currently trustworthy, it has the built-in mechanism of routinely changing hands.  Certainly I recognize that the government's collecting any and all information about its citizens could potentially facilitate totalitarianism.  That being said, the technology exists.  If the government doesn't collect the information, the corporate regime will, and if the government outlaws the collection of information, then only criminals will collect it (this is starting to sound uncomfortably like an argument against gun-control); this is not to suggest that information should be thrown around but to suggest that
a) the internet cannot be secured - I don't know the statistics, but I imagine it to be only slightly less secure than the postal service; cellular phones cannot be secured - once the signal is in the ether, so to speak, it can be received by whoever is looking to pick it up.  
b) legislation can only be marginally effective at best.  Moves to prevent information information's falling into the wrong hands can only work if they're technologically based.

The reality is that opening one's mouth is sticking one's neck out, but refusing to do so would be irresponsible - antisocial if not immoral.

Now, until you brought this up, I opposed FISA without giving it much thought, but I'm actually curious what we expect it to accomplish and whether those expectations aren't naive.

BTW, I'm not sure how Nixon used "inoperative."  The day I was born, the SF Chronicle said "Nixon May Be Asked to Testify."  Perhaps needless to say, my confidence in representational government has never been particularly high and is now, to the best of my recollection, at its apex to date.  Thanks for demonstrating political efficacy, Open Left...

[ Parent ]
Liberal ideas work that way (0.00 / 0)
At its best, it's the non-ideological ideology.  After all, when rationalism is your core, you have to be able to show your ideas work out in the real world or you have to try different things.  

And he is running from the left.  This is hardly the first time he has done or said something to distance himself from the DFH's and I'm not talking about Wright either.

[ Parent ]
There was a post about this (4.00 / 1)
at 538. Maybe that's where you saw it?
That's probably it (0.00 / 0)
Somehow I have some hint of a memory of hearing this on the radio, maybe on NPR, but I do read 538 from time to time so that's got to be it.

Thanks.

[ Parent ]
political compass (4.00 / 2)
US Primary candidates 2008
Irish political parties 2007
UK political parties

Just as a favor to those of us who actually are on the left --whether by choice or default because of how far to the right the center has swung--could we please stop calling anything in the American electoral world "the left"?  It's not.

And certainly not Obama.

That doesn't make it worse - just if you want to restore a brand, truth in advertising.

Maybe "Leftish" rather than "Leftist" (0.00 / 0)
may be more appropriate in the US?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Title Nitpick (4.00 / 1)
Daniel,

When I saw the title in my RSS feed, I thought this would be a blog suggesting that Obama already has the base locked up, so he has no need to run as a liberal.

Now i see that it's really "Obama can win as a liberal"

Oh you're right (0.00 / 0)
Good point, I'll try and ensure my post titles are not subject to multiple interpretations in future.
[ Parent ]
How about (4.00 / 1)
Obama Has No Need To Run Away From The Left
[ Parent ]
Obama Has No Need To Run Away From the Left | 44 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.
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
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox