Obama Self-Identifies As Progressive

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 20:02


This is hopeful (emphasis mine):

"Look, let me talk about the broader issue, this whole notion that I am shifting to the center," he said. "The people who say this apparently haven't been listening to me."

To this, he adds, parenthetically: "And I must say some of this is my friends on the left" and those in the media.

"I am someone who is no doubt progressive," he said, adding that he believes in universal health care and that government has a strong role to play in overseeing financial institutions and cracking down on abuses in bankruptcies and the like.(...)

"I believe in a whole lot of things that make me progressive and put me squarely in the Democratic camp," he said. But, he noted, he does not believe that the active hand of government is a replacement, say, for parental responsibility in education.(...)

"One of the things you find as you go through this campaign, everyone becomes so cynical about politics," Mr. Obama said. There is an "assumption that your must be doing everything for political reasons."

Voters should understand, he said, that they rarely will find themselves in 100 percent agreement with him. "But don't assume that's because I'm just doing it for "political reasons, he said.

"That just means we disagree," he said.

This is positive for several reasons.

First, and most obviously, Obama self-identifies as a progressive twice in this speech. While it is not a replacement for standing up for progressive policies, it is still important for a Democratic nominee to publicly identity with an ideological term associated with the American left. This strikes me as quite novel, as least in recent decades.

Second, Obama also self-identifies as a Democrat, rather than his typical post-partisan rhetoric. This is good both because it helps build up the Democratic brand, and because it will actually be new Democrats, not Independents or Republicans, who carry Obama to victory.

Third, the speech is actually directed at what Obama calls "my friends on the left." I can't remember a Presidential nominee specifically courting left wing voters and activists before. Honestly, I really can't. This is a sign of increased respect and being taken more seriously. The Obama FISA group played an important role in this regard.

Fourth, Obama says, bluntly, to take him at his word. Since it is now vogue to believe that Obama has secret plans to stand up for left-wing policies that differ from his public statements, it is nice to have confirmation from Obama himself that we should stop believing in such secret plans.

Overall, a very positive statement, and a sign that progressives are being taken more seriously. Hopefully, Obama will continue to self-identify as a progressive as the campaign goes on.  

Chris Bowers :: Obama Self-Identifies As Progressive

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

I think the most important part of this message is "I am being honest with you" (4.00 / 1)
Because stories about "moving to the center" make Democrats look like weasels with no ideals.

Of course, in the context of FISA, if we take Obama at his word, then he really thinks that the Senate bill is a worthwhile compromise.  Which is a little difficult to stomach.


He said it was flawed and said he would remove the immunity Title II (0.00 / 0)
...and he was in the small minority of our dems in the senate to want it out enough to stop them. Lets give him some credit for that cant we? 60 % of his caucus voted against him to the right.

"my friends to the left" thats a hell of a lot better than a hell of a lot of Democrats to date.

Wait I was getting a drink....

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
total joke (0.00 / 0)
opposed title II - what a laughing stock! the weasel could even bother to schedule himself to appear in the senate today to voice any concern about immunity. BUT he will be at Jay Rockefeller's fundraiser tonight - oh wait - was already there. Congrats Obablablabala - bs lip service to opposing this, will vote for extending the Protect America Act he orginally voted against, and pretends I can't tell piss from sunshine. Whatever. He gets credit for pooping on my sneaker.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Wow, now I wont sleep at all. (4.00 / 1)
Edwards is willing, Paul made maps showing a landslide with an Obama/Edwards ticket and now Obama self Identifies as a progressive. Holy crap.

Sugar plumbs.

I know things wont always look this good, but wow, wow I have to get a drink.

Tomorrow things will be less rosy I know.

But right now (shhhhh) yipppeee.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


Words are good, but actions are the critical (4.00 / 1)
element by which to judge what his words mean. We will have a clear sign of who Obama is by his choice of VP pick because this is the only substantive example of action we will have in lead up to November outside of his vote on FISA. If he chooses someone 'safe' like a Nunn or frankly Sebelius (she's progressive for where she's from- but I dont'  sense across the board that means much outside of where she's from), then his actions will say a lot more than his words. Clark, or Edwards, or someone I'm not thinking of, but progressive, will be  the signal that he's going to govern as a progressive (or at least provide substantive proof) that he will.  Incidentally, like I said, one hopeful sign to me was the stuff about Webb because of Webb's views on economic issues. But that could have been a sign that they were considering him due to foreign policy rather than economic populism. We shall see.

only substantive example of action we will have in lead up to November outside of his vote on FISA (0.00 / 0)
word - the first test he's about to fail miserably. god damn it.

oh but its an "open campaign" you could "win tickets" to the convention! Obama fulfilled the vision of the mtv presidency this week.

no, i don't have anything good to say today. so bla!

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare


[ Parent ]
I saw that (4.00 / 1)
And the real picture is..he is more progressive than McCain, but not too far from the DLC, hate to say it.   Obama is not not very progressive otherwise, compared to Edwards.

But Obama will get the LOTE vote for that reason.

Otherwise, I don't think Obama is dishonest..or very honest either.  But I've known that for a long time being his constituent.  Thank goodness I don't have to work hard for rec'ds or not here.  Like EENR, OL is a honest discussion place.  


so (0.00 / 0)
he believes in gun rights, using government funds for religious initiatives, bellicose rhetoric towards iran and other countries, and an undivided jerusalem as a capital of israel.

But he believes all that because he believes it, not because he's a crass politician.

Great.  As he said, it's up to people who disagree with him to hold him accountable, whether what he's doing is done out of cynicism to win an election or done out of belief to win an election.


Right to bear arms (4.00 / 3)
Well, the right to bear arms is liberal.  Like all liberal notions, it balances the power between the common people and those who would naturally have more power.  

Somewhere along the lines we've forgotten that, probably due to the urban, rural divide which correlates with liberality, but isn't the same thing.


[ Parent ]
yeah (0.00 / 0)
i dont want to make a mountain out of a mole hill issue here, but as a bleeding heart I fully support gun rights and was happy to see the DC ban struck down with force. the only thing keeping the nypd from being stark mad lunatics is that the door they're about to bust down might have a gun behind it.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
and the only thing that allows the nypd to justify shooting a Black man 45 times (0.00 / 0)
is that they think or can say they thought someone's wallet/hand/piece of paper/[insert your harmless object of choice here] is a gun.  so it works both ways.

[ Parent ]
hahahahaha (0.00 / 0)
you've obviously never dealt with the nypd.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
apparently neither have you (4.00 / 2)
I don't care one way or the other on these issues (its not a biggie for me because I grew up in Southern Virginia and hunted as a kid) but I find your comment well- to be hyperbole and the whole rugged individualism crapola that signifies nothing. The thing that keeps the NYPD from screwing up is proper training, community police so that the people in a neighborhood aren't 'strange others' and a whole lot of other techiniques. Your theory produces more dead people , not less.

[ Parent ]
just been handcuffed by them on a subway platform... (0.00 / 0)
for watching them arrest someone else and not moving away quickly enough for their liking ;)  apparently i was "obstructing public administration"  the civilian complaint review board found that i was teling the truth but their actions were justified.

also they stole my scarf at the anti-war demonstration (a police horse got between me and it).

so no, i don't think the guns are doing much to stop them from acting oppressively.


[ Parent ]
That's not an argument for gun rights (0.00 / 0)
That's an argument for proper controls on the police.

If people are going to keep constructively misreading that appallingly written clause that is the Second Amendment, then we can argue that it provides the citizens the means to overthrow their government. We can't really argue that logically, but bear with me.

It doesn't provide the right to shoot policemen for the hell of it.

I'm willing to accept that there is a right to own a gun, although as a gun-owner I think that right ought to be circumscribed - psychotics and fans of Hitler shouldn't be allowed firearms. But if you want to stop police brutality, you do it by cracking down on it and by removing the things that provoke police brutality - like too many guns on the street.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
"fans of Hitler" (0.00 / 0)
Free speech and the absence of thought-crimes means even fans of Hitler should be able to own a gun as long as the don't do anything illegal.

I hate defending the worst of our society, but that is what free speech is about; you have to defend even those you violently disagree with.

Now, freedom of speech includes the right of common citizens to shout SHUT UP!  Which will happen often if Hitler types start talking anywhere near me.  But there is nothing the government can or should do.


[ Parent ]
no, the right to bear arms is in the constitution (0.00 / 0)
there are some people who think it's a good idea (for the reasons you say) and there are other people who don't.  it's an individualist/statist divide more than "liberal" but i would guess that it's not defined as "progressive" in the united states to stand behind the 2nd amendment though maybe the times have passed me by.

[ Parent ]
Take him at his word. (4.00 / 5)
He said he believes in progressive issues like universal health care, reguialtion of the financial industry, bankruptcy reform, he's also on record for sustainable energy, no more tax breaks for the oil industry and some others, including protecting abortion rights (for which the Right is now using slavery imagery against him).

I don't think he has a secret plan to build up progressive policies that are at odds with his speeches.  I think he has a host of progressive issues that he wants to tackle that he has explicitly mentioned in his speeches and in many ways his solutions are progressive. And he's open to a variety of ideas to tackle these difficult problems.

But he isn't doctrinaire.  As a parent he worries about the coarsening of the culture and the influences his children are exposed to, for example.  But that doesn't mean he wants government to step in and regulate anything.  Just for the entertainment industry and parents and everyone else to behave more responsibly.  Often he acknowledges the validity of some issues like these while not saying he'd use government to address them.  It builds a bridge to people who will then  hopefully hear what he says on some other issues.  But he would set a tone that is very different from the irresponsibility and self-centeredness of Bush and McCain.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
i thought the whole point of supporting a democrat (0.00 / 0)
was so that we could use a different rubric than "different from the irresponsibility and self-centredness of Bush and McCain."

Don't get me wrong - I'd rather this guy wins than the other guy.  I'm  just going to feel free to protest in meaningful ways anytime either of them does something that i think is wrong.  And certainly to voice my opinion.  There's a real danger of brand Obama coopting "progressive" (which itself is already watered down enough).


[ Parent ]
On Universal Health Care -- or whatever.... (4.00 / 1)
Let's remember that in the end it will be Congress that will write the Health Care legislation, and negotiate with the President on what he will or won't sign.  Our strength is remembering that, recognizing that to get elected he does not need the heavy breathing of the Insurance Industry making up ads and putting them on TV 24/7, and once elected, then we focus on Congress (which is up for election again in 2 years), and press the true progressive causes and approaches. In this society one just does not get silver bullet style reform -- it takes time and smarts.

FDR had to compromise, in 1935, on Social Security in order to get it on to the floor of the Senate.  He had to exclude domestic workers (maids) and agricultural workers (Sharecroppers)from coverage, because all the Southern Committee Chairs just couldn't deal with majority black occupations having some sort of old age protection.  But in 1956, LBJ, then Senate Majority Leader, got Eisenhower to agree to reform Social Security and cover the likes of Domestic Workers and Agricultural workers -- and given that someone was already working a case through the courts based on the Brown v. Board decision that might have found Social Security unconstitutional because of the exclusion, the Ike/LBJ agreement to extend coverage worked. The point is to win what you can, and then create the strategy for taking the next step, and gaining the support for that.  Politics is not about one time victories -- it is about one after another, and then sustaining them over time.  



[ Parent ]
American politics (0.00 / 0)
Politics is not about one time victories -- it is about one after another, and then sustaining them over time.

it's also about articulating differences, pushing people, and making sure that things are moving forward and positive changes become structurally embedded so they're harder to undo (e.g. Social Security was established as relatively autonomous both in terms of how the taxes are collected and where the physical location of the administration was and was made universal instead of means-tested).

But these two strategies are not mutually exclusive and work best when they work together.  So I think it's perfectly fine to say, "Obama is far from perfect and some of us should push him on this, but he and the legislation that will be passed signed under his administration is a step up."

I think Mike Lux had a diary a while back on this about the three types of activities you need to push forward progressive politics when we're at the beginning stages.


[ Parent ]
Progressive hardly the new kid on the block (0.00 / 0)
Teddy Roosevelt did Pure Food and Drug Laws a hundred and one years ago -- and that was "Progressive" and part of what is our origins, at least I hope.  

We should not be complimenting any politician for being about the same as Teddy Roosevelt -- nor should we be offering merit badges for advocating something that FDR actually did 65 years ago.  

But FDR made progressive revisions in Teddy's Pure Food and Drug Laws in 1938, and During the Eisenhower Administration, Social Security was made more inclusive.  Understanding that one anchors major reforms with one legislative effort, and then comes back and makes amendments in a subsequent one, is our pattern as to progress.  Ain't pretty, but that is how it works.  


[ Parent ]
He is not for UHC (0.00 / 0)
Although he says it...

He's not a true progressive folks, but he gets the LOTE vote.  I'm sick and tired of being LOTE voters.  However, the media and the blogsophere created it.  


[ Parent ]
he also said (and i paraphrase) (4.00 / 3)
We Will Not Always Agree. Get Over It. Sometimes I won't agree with you and sometimes you won't agree with me. 90 percent of the time we will agree but 5 or 10 percent of the time we will disagree. Get over it. We can agree to disagree.

(please stop trashing me..)


Doesn't anyone know what its like to march in the streets against water cannons and clubs and jails and infiltrators (4.00 / 2)
and try to stop a vicious war? against your own democratic party?

Differences this small are a hell of  lot better. Rent Medium Cool.

What is this, the age of Aquarius?

This is better than I ever thought we could expect. Or at the least seems to have the potential to be. And a landslide on top of that. Wow.

Everyone take a few moments off and just bask in the potential here for a minute, we can be cynical and worried and smart tomorrow. or in an hour. Right now its a psychic spa moment. Enjoy, just for a minute.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


some of Obama's best supporters are his worst advertisers (4.00 / 4)
Honestly, I have more respect for the Obama supporter who says "I disagree with him on FISA, but he'll still be the best administration we've had since Kennedy-Johnson". It's hard for me to take seriously the Obama supporter who says "he's right about FISA, quit making a big deal over nothing." And the supporters who say that he's just pretending about FISA do him no service.

I disagree with Obama on FISA. But he earns more respect for me when he says "that just means we disagree". Focusing on political expediency may seem like smart strategy, but when it undermines your brand as a truth-teller overcoming the politics of the past it's actually counter productive.  


Obama has been partially (largely?) progressive last few weeks (4.00 / 2)
We've centered in on all where Obama has strayed rightward the past few weeks, and we were correct to do so, but he has also re-iterated many progressive themes over the same time period.

Maybe he's listening to the voters (4.00 / 4)

 The most recent polls suggest that the public is saying:

 1. "Gee, I guess Obama's not all that liberal after all."

 2. "And that sucks."

 If Obama trusts his instincts more and beltway consultants less, there might yet be some hope.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


I agree (4.00 / 1)
with Chris's point about the FISA group. They were heard and July was a good time to do that. From convention through November we can, hopefully, be unified in our drive toward a historic progressive victory.  

Kudos to Obama, and so much for the silly meme (4.00 / 2)
about how all this criticism over FISA (including the deserved flip-flop accusations) will just hand the election to McCain. He's a big boy and can handle the criticism and pressure, and showed it today. And I firmly believe that this criticism and pressure is only helping him--and the progressive cause. It's the "Leave him alone, FISA isn't that big a deal/FISA is a big deal but I can live with it" crowd that is hurting him (or at least not really helping him).

Dems can walk and chew ass at the same time.

Btw, I called my senators today, Cantwell and Murray of WA, and both will vote against any final FISA bill with immunity, and support a filibuster by voting against cloture. It's not too late for Obama to do the same thing. It might incur some short term media nonsense about his being a "double whammy flip-flopper", but it won't stick or affect his chances, and would send a strong message that his actions about being a progressive match his words about being a progressive--and that he's with the majority of Americans on this issue.

And if it also sends the message to his fellow Dems that he's keeping his own counsel from now on, all the better. Who knows, he might just get enough to join him and kill this atrocity of a bill. It's not like they can not support him in the general at this point if he does this. And it would be a great way to say "I'm the party's leader now--deal with it".

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


i think you're misreading this (4.00 / 3)
I read this differently.  It sounds to me like Obama is chiding his 'friends on the left' and people in the media for suggesting he is moving to the center.  What he's doing is arguing that he doesn't buy into labels and putting forward the idea that both groups are not listening to him.  He has never really accepted the idea of a center or a left or a right and he has never wanted to label himself except quietly as a progressive or a post-partisan pragmatist.  And he is annoyed at people - the left and the media - who are labeling him based on his recent record of capitulation to conservative ideas.

This to me sounds bitchy and condescending.


Not with the condescension again (4.00 / 1)
I listened as many complained that Obama's FISA response was condescending, and now hear you reiterate the complaint here.

I just don't see it.  If this kind of comment is viewed as condescending, then I don't think it's possible for Obama to avoid that charge.  He's just talking plainly, in my view.


[ Parent ]
Agree (4.00 / 3)
But this took the biscuit:

Voters should understand, he said, that they rarely will find themselves in 100 percent agreement with him. "But don't assume that's because I'm just doing it for "political reasons, he said.

His stand on FISA is principled?

I have to decide: is he bald-face lying, or is he really to the right of Richard Nixon on conducting surveillance of citizens?  But on a much more massive automated scale than anything that was possible in Nixon's time.

I agree with Atrios: it's quite possible that an Obama administration will be brought down by revelations of massive covert domestic surveillance.  He may be laying the seeds of his own demise with this cynical side-stepping of the issue principled stand for what he believes in.


[ Parent ]
I agree with you (4.00 / 3)
He sounded annoyed with crazy lefties who are annoyed with his faith-based initiatives, his abortion talk (complete with abstinence education and all), his turnaround on FISA & NAFTA, etc. Only lefties would complain about that.

I think he was simply trying to get himself out of this story-line about "moving to the center". And you know when a candidate does something like this he/she has lost control of the message.


[ Parent ]
Definitely an element of 'defensiveness' which borders on bitchiness (4.00 / 2)
because the phrase 'moving to the center' is  political lexicon that most people in the electorate recognize as something that 'most politicians' do and have done:it is common, it is calculating, it is pretty definitely 'old politics', it is cynical.....and he got called on it because when he did it( and he did do it) - he doesn't get to say 'when I make these statements and votes I am different from every politician who has ever "moved to the center" that it is only your own cynicism which would make you identify my moves and statements this way'.....seems to me he wants to be everything - judge and jury - on what constitutes brand Obama and he sees the danger of a bunch of us pointing out the obvious.

He wants, desperately needs, to have convinced people that somehow he is different.

As bruhrabbit wrote/paraphrased in a comment from above - his actions will be the final judge but as both he and Deval  Patrick have said:words matter.

There are a lot of us self described as progressive democrats who are watching. And listening.  


[ Parent ]
It's also good because it respects, not insults me (4.00 / 2)
For decade after decade I've stood on the right side of issues, only to be insulted (occasionally directly, but usually by proxy in a generic sense) as some wacko extremist liberal leftie who just needs to grow up and learn how to play the game.

At least here, Obama has clearly endorsed the notion that liberalism and progressivism are good things, even when there are issues on which he departs from a lot of people who would apply those terms to themselves.

I get awfully tired of having worked really hard for a lot of issues & Democratic election campaigns, only to then here some snotty media dork or so-called analyst or frequent campaign loser insult ME for being and having been right on the issues.

I don't care if someone is in the "center" or "middle" or whatever -- if the policy or issue they back is right, it's right;  and if it's wrong, it's wrong, whether or not 99.999% of the Democratic Party thinks being right is too liberal or being wrong is appropriately 'centrist'.

Damn it, let's stop giving it to Reaganite New Rightism and fight back for once in a couple generations.


"My friends on the left..." (4.00 / 4)
It's interesting that a bunch of people like us, who favor respecting the Consititution and hold pretty traditional American values are now "the Left."

Once the McCain people start using Obama's words to attack him (0.00 / 0)
for being a radical MoveOn lefty, and as the media echo chamber mindlessly harps on those talking points, Obama will backpedal toward the center right again.

I tell ya, I used to be such a strong Obama supporter, but this FISA thing has resurrected all the cynicism I had before for the Democrats and their party.

Slacking toward the apocalypse


Black man raised by white Kansas grandparents (4.00 / 2)
So he gets some values from each side.

Incidentially thats why he can embrace the left moreso than past presidents.  People inherently repsect those with the same value base thus red state democrats can be persuaded to vote for more left wing policies than they are comfortable with as long as they think obama has the same value base as them.

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


And by a progressive mother (4.00 / 1)
Who dedicated her life to helping poor people in Indonesia and other countries.  He really did imbibe a contradictory set of values and to expect him not to be able to listen to all sides is to ask him to deny one side of a multi-faceted heritage.  He learned to deal with this by listening, studying and then adopting mainly, but not entirely, progressive views.  I can't defend the FISA position, only explain it as some sort of nod to the fix that the cowardly Dem leadership allowed themselves to get in.  But I think he deserves some slack on the rest of his positions.  Listen to him talk on economics and taxes, immigration, energy, health care and it is not only better than McCain, it is better than our last 3 presidential candidates.  Not all the way to where I want to go, but getting us there.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Identifying as a progressive (0.00 / 0)
Its great to have a democratic nominee that is willing to use that term as a political identification, especially as "liberal" has become somewhat damaged goods.  The progressive blogosphere gets a lot of credit for helping resuscitate the term and give it meaning.

On the other hand, above and beyond the general fight over policy, its important that progressives continue to make clear that certain stances are not progressive policies and do not reflect progressive values.  We want Obama to adopt that term, but we don't want him to redefine it and that is a tricky juggling act.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."


progressive label (0.00 / 0)
although i am far left i realize in a con nation like the u.s. that any liberal politician must be center left if that person is to survive our prejudice in america to those that are truely progressive, even though those people have the interests of more americans at heart then the more popular right in the u.s.

brain washing is obviously not a skill only held by the dreaded commie red menace the right have used to get most americans to vote against their and our nations best interests for decades.


Hopeful, but still concerning (4.00 / 2)
And I'm not just talking about ridiculous bullshit like hi claim that FISA was a "principled stand". He's still using straw men against us. That this, for example:

But, he noted, he does not believe that the active hand of government is a replacement, say, for parental responsibility in education

Maybe, as the son of a teacher, I'm reading this differently to others, but does any lefty really believe that parental responsibility in education isn't important? Don't we all accept that children are complex machines and that their mental development does not take place entirely between 9AM and 4PM?

This reads to me like a warmed up defence of family values. It's not that what he's saying here is wrong - it's exactly right - it's that I really don't see how the left is likely to disagree with him on that.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox