Now To Governing

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 05:59


At long last, after eight years in the wilderness, it is time that we shift our activism efforts away from electioneering, and toward governing. This is a moment I have long desired. Now that it is here, I relish the opportunity. This is just the beginning for Democrats, for the netroots, for the progressive movement. This is just the beginning for Open Left.

Make no mistake--for all of our activism, for all of our new infrastructure, for all of our candidates, and even for all of the demographic changes I have trumpeted so loudly, the fundamental reason why Democrats are now in power is because Republicans made people's lives worse (and lying to people about it while it was happening didn't help, either). If we do the same, then the same electoral fate will befall us. If we do not make people's lives better, there will be no realignment, just a brief, historic blip. It is only when we improve the lives of most Americans that our gains will be solidified, and our realignment will take hold.

We must pivot toward governing immediately, no matter what happens in the few outstanding elections. It is no longer about electing more Democrats--at long last, we have more than enough. Now, it is about making the Democrats we have better and more effective, so that they will make the lives of most Americans better. There are good reasons to believe that, left unchecked, the Democratic trifecta will not go far enough to mitigate, much less solve, the myriad crises we face. In order to make sure they do go far enough, it is up to the progressive grassroots to keep up the pressure through primaries, the activism shifted toward policies and issues, and the dedication to be willing to see our mandate carried out.

And yes, this is the progressive movement's mandate. A mandate to end the war. A mandate for universal health care. A mandate to solve the financial crisis even if it means nationalization and harsh measures against Wall Street. A mandate to repair the environment. A mandate to restore the middle class. A mandate for a truly free and open media. This is our mandate. The country is with us. Better Democrats have shown we can win. Our tenacity and ingenuity have already demonstrated the ability to secure massive electoral gains in a very short time. Now, let's turn those skills to governing. This is just the beginning, but a progressive governing majority is starting to appear on the horizon. Reaching it is a task worthy of our greatest efforts.
Chris Bowers :: Now To Governing

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Now To Governing | 45 comments
Electoral politics are part of governing. (0.00 / 0)
Yay! But its worth remembering that elections will always be part of governing. We still need to make sure we recruit strong senate candidates for 2010. As it looks like we're going to need some Republican votes.
Up for election in 2010 are the following blue state senators: Greg, Voinovich, Spector, Martinez, Burr, Bond (if Obama ends up squeezing out a victor in MO)... If we can get strong challengers for those guys we can coerce them into supporting Democratic legislation.

Unfortunately elections never really stop.

Now comes the time to challenge Obama from the left (4.00 / 9)
In many ways this is a progressive mandate, but I hope that in the next two years the netroots can effectively reframe Obama's positions as moderate and centrist.

Because really that's what they are.  It should be moderate and centrist to end the war, for universal healthcare, and to properly fix the financial crisis.

The current Republicans are more radical than ever as the moderates lose and they opposing centrist things that the country wants.


http://transgendermom.blogspot....

many house republicans voted (0.00 / 0)
against the current bailout crap, the paulson plan was pushed through by democrats. there were many fiscally responsible voices on the gop side of the house, but they were not the majority, and they didn't change their votes when the second vote came around. it was the democrats who did. and Obama in his first use of presidential power personally called many of them to get them to support the paulson plan. seeing this clearly is critical.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Hear, Hear! (0.00 / 0)
Just remember that success will judged en gestalt not issue by issue.

Obama has the right temperament.

Do Progressives have the right temperament to continue to "grow liberalism" or will they prematurely think the job complete merely because America elected a black man named Hussein?

its interesting to hear (4.00 / 6)
the pundits (morning jerk and pat the rat) telling us how this is not a mandate, bush can govern from the far right with his supposed victory but obama must moderate (he has a mandate) to please the cons out of power now. the gop as of now is an isolated party whose supporters are far out of the mainstream of american mores and morals, bigotry, hatred, and extreme partisanship are passe and unacceptable to citizens that want whats best for america and their fellow citizens.

obama is a uniter and center light left and he will govern with intelligence and future elections in mind, especially 2012, he will make the right expose their extreme out of the mainstream agenda and attitude and begin the extension of the progressive era so legislation can be passed to help all the citizens not just the elites at the top of the economic chain.

obama will be a successful president not only because of the policies he supports but because he understands governing and the nuances of political tactics, unlike clinton he will make increasing the dem numbers in congress and in the states a priority so he can make inclusive policies permanent rather then temporary.

history will be the barometer but imho obama will be a very successful president and that could lead to the label of greatness, let history be the guide.  

It's asymmetrical (4.00 / 6)
The Democratic Party is a coalition of everyone who doesn't want to be a Republican.  It's almost like a de facto multi-party government where you have Progressives and New Democrats and Blue Dogs as parties.  Obama has to avoid situations where he loses the more conservative part of his majority to the point of losing a vote of confidence if this were a parliamentary democracy.  The Republicans are more tightly knit, so they need to govern differently.  Remember, FDR got the New Deal passed because he was willing to compromise with racist Southern Democrats.  Obama's challenge is to figure out a progressive compromise between different factions without being a doormat.

Bipartisanship isn't really about working with Republicans; it's about creating a fig leaf to get the non-progressive parts of the Democratic coalition to support a more progressive agenda.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
it is going to take years (4.00 / 3)
for Obama to repair the damage Bush did to the government. All the departments that were subverted and perverted have to be fixed. The ones that were gutted have to be built up. It's easier to destroy than to build up, it's going to take a lot.
Morning Joe (4.00 / 7)
Oh God, I'm so hungover. I might still be drunk, because I just saw Pat Buchanan arguing against the center-right nation narrative, saying pretty explicitly that conservatism has passed its peak and the country is moving left.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!
wierd Guiliani (0.00 / 0)
really wierd, but certain Guiliani policies are probably the key to liberal success.  no graffitti

our financial crisis is rooted in oil

our oil crisis is rooted in cars

we can build trams and commuter rail, but large numbers of people will NOT accept high density living while they fear for the safety of their kids at school and after school

we need to embrace the need for after-school programs, mentoring and zero-tolerance for small time vandalism and other expressions of disorder

a liberal Guiliani without the fascist overtones

a wierd agenda for progessives, in a way.  But I think it is key

no one here likes to talk about crime, as an issue, except to rail against prisons

but we cannot ignore the problem.  and we shouldn't.  crime afflicts the poor the worst

our financial crisis is not rooted in oil (4.00 / 2)
that betrays quite a profound misunderstanding of the problems with the financial sector, and with the economy. the financial industry and americans in general are way over leveraged. this is the problem, and this is what needs to unwind. house prices still need to fall further, as the price to income ratios are much too high; when that finally happens, and the banks have come down from 30:1 to 10:1 leverage ratios, and tax payers pay off the 1.5Trillion of debt Treasury just added, then the economy will be able to move forward again. I wouldn't get my hopes up for at least 2 years.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
Latin America 1970s (0.00 / 0)
recycling petro dollars

call it what you will

it affects the world economy and our economy

it is a root trouble

[ Parent ]
your agenda is clear (4.00 / 1)
but it doesn't make you right about the financial crisis. you could have $100 a barrel oil AND not have the current economic crisis. you could have $100 a barrel AND not have a recession. is reliance on oil a problem for the environment? yes. but alternative energy was only price competitive with oil last summer because of oil's hi prices. it will be at least years if not a decade before alt energy can be price competitive with oil at current levels. if you're worried that oil drags down the economy, you'd probably not want to add a carbon tax. that's not how I feel, but following your causality assertion to its logical conclusion that's where you'd go. if oil is not critical to economic stability then you can put on a carbon tax and phase in alt energy.

but this is all here or there, much of the whole western world is over leveraged and that's the real problem. you won't even see loans possible for alt energy development for years. you'll be lucky to get investment out of the central govt for alt energy too since Treasury plans to add another $550 Billion in debt this month, and the Fed Reserve is basically printing money.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Ballot measures (4.00 / 5)
I hate to put a damper on the beautiful night but all the anti gay ballot measures passed last night.  This is not merely symbolic hate- its also an economic and health care issue.  I say this as someone who might now lose my health insurance and can end up one more uninsured Floridian.  The campaign against the measure in Florida was pathetic- how many ways can we say stop amendment 2 without saying the word gay.  Last night did not include all of us.  Sorry but Obama's continual need to state that marriage was between a man and a woman allowed people to vote yes for him and yes for these ballot measures writing discrimination into state constitutions.  Being included in a speech is meaningless compared to the real life impact of these measures.  
I disagree (4.00 / 1)
I don't think his stance made a difference. Barack Obama is not the messiah.  People need to stop treating him like a messiah whose flaw is a refusal to be crucified.

This may sound cold-blooded, but for me, all the things that Chris Bowers listed as mandates in his post are much more important.  Gay marriage is not among them, and rightfully so. It sucks for you personally, but it comes down to numbers and a utilitarian argument for trying to tackle first the things that do the most good for the most people.  

One criticism I have of the progressive movement is that everyone seems to whine a lot if they don't think there is enough attention being paid to their personal causes. For a progressive movement to work, there needs to be prioritization of issues and the discipline to stick to that plan.  Otherwise, it will just be an anarchic mess that doesn't accomplish anywhere near as much as is possible.  The coming fight will partly be over what issues are prioritized.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
I would agree with you (0.00 / 0)
if it didn't mean people would lose benefits that have an economic impact on the larger society.  I recently had emergency surgery and without health insurance would have been one more person in bankruptcy and one more drain on the public health system in Florida.  Its NOT just about me personally.  Also- we thought that the purpose of the amendment in Florida was to gen up the right wing  for the Presidential election.  Because of Obama being who he is, that didnt happen, but what did happen sets the stage that is is perfectly okay to leave some people behind.  
[ Parent ]
jeez (4.00 / 2)
why you wouldn't prioritize equal rights for all people is beyond me.
[ Parent ]
Because it won't happen anytime soon (0.00 / 0)
The lesson of Iraq is "only fight winnable wars".

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
as i recall it was a pretty narrow loss (4.00 / 1)
what you're saying doesn't make any sense. It had already happened in CA and could have been defended. It won't happen in Mississippi anytime soon, but it is certainly a "winnable war" in some places.
[ Parent ]
When I say anytime soon (0.00 / 0)
I mean not for a few years.  It is perhaps something to be put on the backburner and revisited.  From a strategic POV, I would council waiting until Obama appointees have filtered through the judiciary.  And I never believed that Prop 8 was going to be defeated, so I never saw it as defensible.

Meanwhile, pass health care along the lines of the Dean04/Obama08 plans this year.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
there needs to be prioritization of issues (0.00 / 0)
priorities are personal, why should anyone prioritize something that doesn't effect them. you think something else is more important, but everything has a context; you can't really be upset that people have different priorities than you. you're doing it yourself right here.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
I'm not upset that someone has different priorities (0.00 / 0)
I expect it.  I just don't think it is accurate to think that Obama could have made a difference.  That was really my main point, then I got carried away with talking about how the world works.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
I disagree (4.00 / 2)
If Obama came out strongly against it would have made a difference. Not to say he should have done this, since it might have cost him other places (is that what you mean by prioritizing?). But he could have made a difference.
[ Parent ]
Its not marriage (4.00 / 2)
that I care about.  I actually agree that it is not a priority.  Its the "substantial equivalent" language in Florida that will have a  economic impact not just on individuals but on the state's health care system.
[ Parent ]
I can't understand (4.00 / 1)
I can't understand the sentiment here that equal marriage rights are not a priority. What does that mean? We shouldn't raise money to fight for them in elections? We shouldn't care? I don't understand this concept of prioritizing political support (note that I understand candidates for national office not being able to full-throatedly support certain things, but that's an entirely different issue), especially when progressives are in a strong and well-funded position nationally.
[ Parent ]
well... (4.00 / 3)
the marriage equality movement is reactionary in some ways.  Its not the social arrangement of "marriage" that is important to me- its the rights and benefits.  Let religious institutions keep the word "marriage" if they must (its never been a kind institution to women) but make sure that everyone- regardless of relationship status- has full access to economic benefits.  That actually is Obama's position, but he uses rhetoric that makes it seem otherwise.  
[ Parent ]
fair enough (0.00 / 0)
i actually agree with this completely.  
[ Parent ]
But religious institutions (4.00 / 1)
don't own the word marriage. They just act like they do. Ever noticed how, even in a church service, the priest/pastor/rabbi whatever says, "and now by the power vested in me by the State of ...?"

It's because only the government has the power to legally marry people, not any religious institution. Churches can "spiritually" marry people (like the FDLS marries men to as many teenage girls as they want) but those marriages carry no legal standing. When a clergyperson marries a couple in a church, they are acting, for that moment, as an agent of the state.

It's a matter of religious freedom, really. My church for example, believes that gay people should be able to marry each other, but is forbidden from practicing that because of the bigots. Yet at the same time we don't get to tell them they have to people they don't want to, like mixed race couples.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
What are Democrats? (0.00 / 0)
I've argued in the past that Democrats are a coalition whose various factions are tied together by progressive-populist economic principles and (temporarily) the war in Iraq.  But it is not a lock-step ideological coalition and never will be.  To hold it together, you sometimes have to compromise on Issue A to get your way entirely on Issue B.  Right now, all of the mandates that Chris Bowers listed are Issue B's  Right now, I think gay marriage is more of an Issue A, which means it is probably better to endorse the status quo for now while setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, working on national health care, and creating a sane environmental policy.  

The more progressives get elected, the fewer issues they have to put in the Issue A basket.  So I'm not saying you shouldn't care or that you shouldn't have your own personal priorities.  What I am saying is that there are certain strategies that maximize the progressive shift of policy.  I think there is room to disagree about what is negotiable and what is non-negotiable--which is what I believe we are doing--but I think there are always going to be issues that require compromise, just not nearly as much as the national media seems to think.


Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Wow..... (4.00 / 3)
basic rights for thousands of Americans- lets deny them so we can accomplish a more important agenda.    i feel all yummy about the progressive movement now!!  These aren't personal priorities- they are peoples lives.
[ Parent ]
Don't feel bad. (0.00 / 0)
Jesus here is also anti-choice. It's not just gay people who are expendable to his plans, we women are too. You are in good company with over half the population.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Missing the humanity (0.00 / 0)
Anthony, I appreciate that you are trying to present your perspective in a calm and logical manner, and I can understand how you get to your conclusions.  The basic premise -- that it is necessary to think strategically to get progress -- is a no-brainer; obviously, I agree with you that strategic planning is necessary.

I feel, however, that you might stating things in a manner that is slightly oblivious to the lives of LGBT people.  I don't mean this to sound harsh -- I think we're all in our own worlds to some extent, and we don't really understand what other people go through and why they have the priorities they do.

I could write at length the reasons I think basic civil rights for everyone should be a priority -- and I happen to feel, as others have commented, that the word "marriage" doesn't really matter to me that much, but the rights themselves matter a great deal -- but perhaps another thread, or another comment at least.

My point here is that at the very least, have a little compassion.  Today is a day when most in the progressive community are celebrating, but most LGBT folk I know feel very left out of this celebration.  Our community is devastated by Prop 8.  Perhaps common human decency would dictate a little restraint here, rather than posting that gay marriage is not an important enough issue because there aren't enough gay people for it to matter that they are denied basic human rights, and that gay people whine about their issues too much rather than shutting up and working hard for the "real" issues.

You're entitled to your opinion, but just from a human perspective, can you see how this might come off as a tad insensitive?

Republicans can't fix our country; they're too busy saddlebacking.

[ Parent ]
I think it's not just quantity (4.00 / 1)
I don't think it's simply a matter of choosing the issues that affect the most people.

What if it were legal to, oh, I don't know, have a daily execution of one randomly-chosen person?  Would you argue that this was not a priority to change because if only affected a small number of people?  Of course not; you weigh not only the numbers of people, but the seriousness of the problem itself.

Also, guess what -- if we "prioritize our issues" based only on numbers, as you seem to be suggesting, and then "stick to that plan," the LGBT community will be waiting FOREVER.  We will always be a small minority (despite our incredible powers of persuasion that the wingnuts would have you believe), and there will always be progressive policies to pursue that will affect larger numbers of people.  

So who gets to decide what the priorities are, then?  You?  

(Sorry if you think I'm "whining" simply because I'll have to pay tens of thousands of dollars more in taxes and health care in my lifetime, my children can easily be taken away from me, I am prevented from adopting children at all, I can't get pension benefits when my partner dies, and I can lose my job and my house and get harassed and beaten in the street, all because of this one little issue.  You're right, when I look at it like that, it seems totally trivial, and I see now that I merely belong to this Nation of Whiners.)

Republicans can't fix our country; they're too busy saddlebacking.

[ Parent ]
thank you (4.00 / 1)
for saying it so well- you whiner you!!
[ Parent ]
What were you thinking? (4.00 / 2)
That you are a citizen or something?

Just kidding. It sucks, but last night is only the middle of the story, not the end.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Thanks (4.00 / 2)
I'm really sick of people telling me to be happy today.  I don't feel particularly happy.  

Your comment is a nice sentiment that doesn't include negating my feelings -- appreciated.

Republicans can't fix our country; they're too busy saddlebacking.

[ Parent ]
from the horse's mouth... (0.00 / 0)
John Stemberger, the state chairman of Yes2Marriage.org which had backed the amendment, said he and supporters were "elated" and "thrilled" once it became clear the amendment was headed toward passage.

"It's telling that in a state where (Barack) Obama has clearly won, the marriage amendment has also passed," Stemberger said.

[ Parent ]
Another of the "progressive movement's mandates" (0.00 / 0)
Education reform. One of the first policy debates that the Obama administration (gotta get used to saying that!) will face is renewal of NCLB.
Exactly (4.00 / 1)
Democrats have to produce for people. And we have to figure out how to use this new infrastructure and medium to MAKE them do better than they'll do if left to inertia. That includes the man of the hour!

Can it happen here?
science and intelligence is back (0.00 / 0)
alcoholic impulsiveness is out!

great points Chris, and im one of the more cynical so i totally agree. that said, Obama even more so than Clinton is going to put a high premium on science and education and just plain old being smart. vilifying 'smartness' and dismissing science as 'inconclusive' or 'confusing' or putting it on the same level as mythological fiery tales about women spontaneously having a baby are out! this alone will be a sea change and we don't have to do anything. the second dark ages has come to a close! thank FSM!  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

Why not do both? (0.00 / 0)
It is no longer about electing more Democrats--at long last, we have more than enough. Now, it is about making the Democrats we have better and more effective,

Is there a convincing reason not to do both?  Elections are a good time to change people's minds, because they are willing to act like citizens when the time to vote is coming around.  Electing more non Blue Dogs is a good thing and still worth doing (and there are plenty of places - upstate NY for instance - where such gains are possible).  

Also, as someone else said, without the threat of primarying out bad democrats there is little way to actually force democrats to support good legislation.

Filibusters (0.00 / 0)
A few years ago, when the Republicans had a slight majority in the Senate, Dick Cheney would occasionally say that if the Democrats try to filibuster, we will use the "Nuclear Option".

Can anyone tell me what he meant by the "Nuclear Option" and whether we'll be able to use Cheney's idea in the Senate?

someone else (0.00 / 0)
someone else like Chris would probably be better able to explain this accurately than me, but suffice it to say it would be a very bad idea, in my opinion.
[ Parent ]
Nuclear option (0.00 / 0)
I think that meant rewriting the rules of the Senate.
[ Parent ]
Actually, (4.00 / 1)
He meant it literally.  But because of societal pressure and falling approval ratings, he had to change it to the "Blow Your Face Off With a Shotgun Option."

Republicans can't fix our country; they're too busy saddlebacking.
[ Parent ]
repairing our constitution was not part of Obama's speech last night (4.00 / 3)
We need a balance between cleaning up and moving forward. His speech did not mention repairing the constitution.  Without a commitment to clean up the mess, we will have horrible constitutional precedents laying around like landmines for the future.
Now To Governing | 45 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