The Point (4.00 / 6)

at least for me, as I wrote on Saturday:

I want to stress that although President Obama is the focus of this discussion, this is really about something much bigger: it’s about how we understand history and politics and the meaning of being progressive.

Of course, many others will have different reactions, as the comment threads always remind us.  But that’s what I’m up to.

“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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 14:12:13 PM CDT

 

Bingo (4.00 / 1)

This is all about narrative. That’s why the endless critique of Obama is, at least in my view, as destructive as the endless celebration. Because without the belief that progressives are actually making the world a better place there is nothing but alienation and a certain kind of ironic hipness. You’ve probably already read it, but if you haven’t I’d suggest Rorty’s Achieving Our Country on this topic — and Jim Livingston’s response in Pragmatism, Feminism, Democracy. Rorty was wrong about the importance of multiculturalism, etc., but he was right about the importance of rebuilding utopian narratives into the left’s understanding of itself. Critique only goes so far.

---

by: Joe Gabriel @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 14:24:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

You got it (4.00 / 5)

Just as Herbert Hoover defined Republicans for much of the 1930s and 1940s; FDR and the New Deal defined Democrats.  We were nicely positioned to repeat that by contrasting 8 years of W with a new era of progressive governance.  Oops, that went down the drain and 40 years of promises got put on hold.

If we are to make something of this, it is incredibly important to separate Obama and his bi-partisan conservadem approach from where I stand and from where many of the posters on this site stand.  Eisenhower, for example, was not a complete loss but he would never be confused with a liberal Democrat outside of John Birch meetings.  Well, Obama is not a complete loss but he should never be confused with a liberal Democrat.

If we are constrained between Obama on the far left and the Teabaggers on the right, this country is going to continue going right and it will do it surprisingly quick.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 14:42:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

The problem that I see (4.00 / 1)

is that we want a face to represent our goals and our enemies. Hoover, Reagan, Bush and Cheney represent all that’s wrong in America. FDR, Truman, JFK and RFK represent all that is good.

And that’s pure crap. FDR was not a progressive. He was forced into progressive policies by the situation he was in. Fortunately he was open to looking at alternatives to the crap fed him by the bankers. Hoover wasn’t all that bad. But he was a Republican and couldn’t gain and hold his office without placating Wall Street. He didn’t dare act in ways that fit the problem he faced because he belonged to the people who had created that very problem. There are strong lessons in the politics of the late 20’s and of the 30’s.

Progressives today need two things. They need a clear message that resonates with the voting public (unfortunately the voting public is largely unreachable by progressives), and they need a face to put in front of that message. Many of us thought we had that when Obama came out of nowhere and provided a real alternative to Hillary. We saw the message (“Not Cheney/Bush/and the radical social Republicans and dominionists”) and we saw the face (America’s first African-American President.) But the message and the messenger were not the same. No one was. Our national political system does not create or select an opposition leader. In fact it represses such individuals.

The vacuum that Bush/Cheney created produced the opportunity to put someone – anyone – into the Presidency. We grabbed the opportunity. It really was desperation time. But neither the message nor the messenger was ready. More important, no qualified messenger had a history of carrying the message we needed.

Now we have the problem of molding Obama to be the messenger America needs. He is clearly reluctant to be that person – that face of a message. He also is self-isolating as well as reluctant to accepting the guidance he desperately needs.

So if I am correct, then the problem has two largely separate elements. One is to convincingly get the message out to the voting public and the other is to convert Obama to become the face of that message. The first runs afoul of the media and big business, and the second is very dependent on the success of the first element.

That’s the problem as I see it.  

---

by: Rick B @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 19:52:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Hey, kids, look at this…. (0.00 / 0)

I think Mike Lux just called me a wanker. Well, I’ve been called a lot worse, and it is his blog. 😉

---

by: William Timberman @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 14:15:10 PM CDT

 

I'm not sure what this post is about… (4.00 / 1)

…but I think he just called almost all of us wankers.

---

by: ThirdCoast @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 14:34:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Name calling (0.00 / 0)

I didn’t call anyone wankers or any other names. Look, if you want to spend a lot of time debating whether Obama is a good guy or not, it’s fine with me. I also have absolutely no problem with anyone who wants to take a metaphysics class or spend time discussing the nature of the soul. I (sometimes) find such discussions interesting myself.
My point is that the more I listen to and read such debate, the more I wonder whether if, for those of us who want to change the country for the better, there isn’t a more tangibly productive use of our time.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 15:46:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Unfortunately, Mike (4.00 / 3)

all too often I find myself wondering the same thing (if “there isn’t a more tangibly productive use of our time”) about trying to get some legislation passed, as it gets alternately hacked and whittled to pieces.

Taking healthcare reform as the quintessential example, I thought it was basically a bad bill in the end, but one that could still, nonetheless be used to build on to create something better.  But whether that would happen was in part dependent on my evaluation of the larger political dynamic, and the evaluation of what Obama’s real political/ideological beliefs/commitments are is inescapably a huge part of that.

In short, while I can appreciate (and even envy) your task-oriented focus, I think it’s virtually inevitable that there will be many more for whom the lines simply can’t be drawn so narrowly.  The questions of immediate practicality and grand philosophisizing will inevitably bleed over into each other, to varying degrees for different individuals.  And rather than fight a losing war against this inevitability, the most practical thing you can do is to look for ways to help steer it into a more productive direction.

“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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 16:23:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Warp vs. woof (4.00 / 4)

…for those of us who want to change the country for the better, there isn’t a more tangibly productive use of our time.

Well, first, I was having a little fun with you. That’s what the winkie at the end of my comment was about. Second, tangibly productive is pretty much in the eye of the beholder. If the President isn’t going to be straight with us about who he is, or what he wants, we’re just gonna have to guess, and IMO, guessing out loud is as good an organizing tool as any. I have to say, too, that the fact that most professionals like yourself would call me politically immature for even imagining that he would, or should be straight with anybody isn’t much help in being tangibly productive, it’s part of the reason why it’s so damned difficult.

We have a context here, Mike — and regardless of your impatience with us, the President’s inclinations, and his unspoken goals and strategies are part of it whether you find specualtating about them a nuisance or not. Frankly, I don’t give a damn what the Beltway operatives of any political flavor think is possible, effective, etc., etc. Their track record up to now is less than stellar, as I’m sure you’d be the first to admit.

Context. You think it’s fairly narrow — go out and make something happen. I think it’s broader than that, as in what the fuck are we aiming at, and why, and doesn’t any means by which we can share that count as being productive? If not, I promise you, you’re very likely to get a lot more of things that we both despise.

---

by: William Timberman @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 17:17:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Mike, there is a reason to ask about how really progressive he is (4.00 / 7)

I agree we have to help when he’s right, work against his policies when they are wrong, and try to figure out how to move him to the better solutions.

If you don’t have a theory of how he really feels in his gut about some things, how important different thinga are to him, if you don’t have a theory of why he compromises ahead of time, then you actually are in the dark as to what will really move him.

You need to know how high the hill and how steep the hill in order to climb it to the top.

The public option was a case in point. We all had a theory that if the progressives in Congress held in their pledge to vote against the bill, if it didn;t have a publlic option, that the bill would have a public option.  I knew if all the pressure at the end would be on progresives, they couldn’t be the last Dems in the way of universal healthcare. I knew it required real leadership from the president to take the pressure off of the House and especially in the Senate.  If we didn;t get it, there would be no public option.  There was no presidential leadership, because it wasn’t important enough to him to go out and fight AHIP, the Hospitals and Big Pharma.

I personally devoted tons of energy and time to that campaign, despite the fact that I thought it would only happen with the president.

It is the role of the progressive community to put together ideas of change, programs of change and to create some pressure – push or pull – for the president go with us.  But you really have some sense of whre he is before you start pushing.  The problem with the public option is lots of people on the left actually thought he was for it, and so they didn’t need to do anything but wait for him to do the right thing.

The progressive community is weaker and less effecitve if those people are not mobilizable because they think that the president, they so happily elected, will do the right thing without a push from the progressive community.  

“Incrementalism isn’t a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place”
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 17:22:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Why wait? (4.00 / 2)

At some point next year, we all may need to make a decision about whether to help a primary opponent to Obama if someone decides to take him on. It may happen, it may not.

Noise of potential primary candidates, or defections to alternative parties are useful now, are they not? Why wait? Not how many angels on a pin, more how many names on the ballot.

The decision you cite will come. Its a fact of our political system. But 2012 is a long ways off, yet. Still time to influence the content of that choice.  

“It sounds wrong…
     …but its right.”

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 14:30:02 PM CDT

 

I think it matters (4.00 / 15)

I think it matters whether Obama has progressive values.  (I don’t think he does.)  It matters because it determines how we relate to him, and above all whether we trust him.  Right now there are a LOT of progressives who are giving Obama a huge amount of slack because they think he’s doing all he can.  They’re not putting heat on him, and so he gets away with misleading excuses and fake rationalizations.  You may say: It shouldn’t matter, because people just should fight for the causes they believe in.  But people are balancing busy lives and at the end of the day, their degree of trust in Obama does shape their political judgments, choices, and actions.  

The issue I follow most closely is GTMO.  It’s remarkable how many commenters on DKos think Obama is doing all he can in the face of an obstructionist Congress and GOP.  It just isn’t true.  Obama blocked repatriation of the Uighurs to the US, formally authorized indefinite detention without charge or trial, furiously resists habeas corpus petitions on the basis of contrived and disingenuous arguments, resists investigation into the 3 GTMO “suicides,” put a blanket ban on releasing nearly 100 Yemeni prisoners (just because they’re from Yemen), and is trying to force GTMO detainees back to Algeria, where they face probable torture.  

But if you think Obama’s a genuine progressive, his heart is in the right place, and he’s doing as much as he can, then you’re more likely to go easy on him.  The result is bad news for our prisoners in GTMO.  I think it is the same story in several other policy domains.

I agree with you that we have to “fight him when he is doing wrong,” but some assessment of his values is, in fact, inseparable from the determination of when “he is doing wrong.”

---

by: perdita @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 14:30:35 PM CDT

 

This Is Quite True (4.00 / 3)

Right now there are a LOT of progressives who are giving Obama a huge amount of slack because they think he’s doing all he can.  They’re not putting heat on him, and so he gets away with misleading excuses and fake rationalizations.

And this is why I will continue writing on the subject.  I can’t really think of a single subject on which we wouldn’t have been better off with more people distrusting Obama, and therefore putting more pressure on him.  (Without that, all the pressure comes from the other side.) And the best way to bring pressure is with the help of the best understanding you can muster.

At the same time, I think that Mike is a very dedicated results-oriented kind of guy that we have far too few of, particularly ones who’ve worked in as many issue areas as he has.  And so I can really understand his impatience.  But you do a very good job of bringing it down to the level of why it matters to many of those whose actions will all add up.

“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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 14:40:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

And you could insert a dozen issues in the place (4.00 / 6)

of Gitmo. My guess is that about two percent of Kossacks know that Obama worked furiously to weaken the financial reform package. The frontpagers there won’t tell them. Rachel Maddow might but probably won’t. We can’t accept the pro-Obama mythology or we can, you know, tell the truth.  

---

by: david mizner @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 14:42:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Interesting (0.00 / 0)

I took Mike’s point to be, if I may be blunt, “Forget about analyzing Obama with regard to his progressity and work with those political figures that are progressive enough (you decide what that means)to move on issues of relevance”. Issues like GTMO, for example.

Not in opposition to Obama, as much as with indifference to Obama.

How would the Tea Party respond to a strong push by congressional committees to review Obama’s record in GTMO, rendition, and such? Do you think such deference would be shown a a President McCain? (That may be rhetorical)

Why not hold up a war funding bill? How could it hurt the righteous?

“Make him do it” morphs into “Keep him honest”.

“It sounds wrong…
     …but its right.”

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 14:42:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

I want to agree with you (4.00 / 10)

Like most everyone else, I’m bored by the endless loop of Obama-centered debate in which few minds are changed and many people are smeared.

But alas, it’s important, and it’s not really about Obama. It’s about what progressivism is, what it should be, and how we should go about pursuing it.

It’s easy to say let’s stop arguing about Obama, until people claim Obama is the most progressive president since FDR, or that the economy is turning the corner, or that the health care reform package is similar to Social Security, or that a progressive is anyone who makes progress, or that Obama is as progressive as possible given the context, or that progressive critics of Obama are undermining him, or that Obama’s bailout of the banks saved the country from a depression, or that Obama is an ally of labor…

We ignore such lies at our peril.

Put another way, it’s hard for me to imagine progressives making gains when so many progressives don’t understand what progressivism is.

---

by: david mizner @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 14:30:43 PM CDT

 

Bingo! (4.00 / 4)

Put another way, it’s hard for me to imagine progressives making gains when so many progressives don’t understand what progressivism is.

When Horace Greeley said, “Go West, young man, and grow with the country,” one could debate many things.  But no one had to debate which direction he was talking about.

Today, not so much.

“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

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 14:43:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

(Similarly puzzled expression) (4.00 / 10)

I think there’s a pretty simple way of explaining this: a lot of people are upset at the realization they voted for a Republican in drag; the others are upset at the people who are upset they voted for a Republican in drag… for being upset about that.

I agree though, that it’s been a bit of a strange kerfuffle. Indeed, you express some of that strangeness with this statement quite well:

Our job, as citizens and activists, isn’t to bitch about or praise Obama, but to fight him when he is doing wrong, help him when he does the right thing, and work to shape the choices he makes.

To which I ask: what’s the difference between those two sentences and why are those sentences deemed to be some kind of distinction?

Having said that, I fully understand it’s not pleasant to be caught between two groups of people who are really unhappy with each other. I don’t want to add to that–although I probably am in some way. Sorry about that!

As unpleasant as it is at times, the fact is, people are finding their positions and having disagreements. The amplitude of this argument mostly has to do with the fact that people are increasingly either 1) increasingly paralyzed by cognitive dissonance, or 2) seeing their futures being flushed down the loo by the people they voted for, organized for and gave money to.

Obama’s defenders will continue to bray against a rising tide of anger to their left and center for as long as they can. That’s their right, I suppose. But it’s also a fool’s errand, as all the evidence is mounting in one direction and one direction only: We got sold a bill of goods and we’re going to pay dearly for that Bait & Switch, with our rights taken away in addition to our standard of living.

So the critics aren’t going to let up either, as one could well imagine.

This is a crisis. A genuine crisis of legitimacy. It would be silly not to expect this kind of brouhaha at this point. This isn’t some pathetic argument about a blue dress, the improper use of cigars and the definition of “what is is.”

This is about survival issues now. This is about whether many of us will be dining on cat food in our declining years. This is about whether we will lay waste to much of the planet in our war for profit scheme. This is about whether our grandchildren will have to fight each other for food after we’re gone because we didn’t want to upset Big Carbon. This is about the wholesale looting of American wealth, just to hand it to people who are already obscenely wealthy.

This is just too serious to let go. People have to decide whose side they’re really on now. I know it sucks, but that’s the simple truth in all this now.

Have a better day, Mike!

“Lies are often much more plausible, more appealing to reason, than reality, since the liar has the great advantage of knowing beforehand what the audience wishes or expects to hear.” — Hannah Arendt

---

by: Emocrat @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 14:38:14 PM CDT

 

Two things. Yes and Please. (4.00 / 2)

I have two very true things (FMHP) from this:

What matters in my view is not how we judge Obama, but what we do to shape his actions, and what we do in response to his actions. Everything else is just metaphysics and your particular perspective on life.

and,

I could write a big post about the good things it does, or a big post about all the disappointments and bad things about the bill, or all the things left out of it.

My response is yes on the first, and please on the second.

There is no difference between Obama being an elebinity-seventeen level checkers player (and secret progressive), and a fairly conservative politician, if for no other reason than we need to act the same for both. And we have not been doing enough. Some writers here think the best way to deal with either, is to express anger and disappointment, and become disengaged from the electoral system, perhaps even encouraging others to do the same(A.D.B.D.F.T.E.S).

Defense, as in; ‘this is the best we can expect,’ ‘it really is progressive’ and ‘just shut up’ are all formula for creating more A.D.B.D.F.T.E.S. On the other hand, your second point, pointing out all the good done, and all the bad done, the good appoinments, the terrible ones (the bad ones fought for, and the good ones left hanging in the wind & the good ones fought for, and bad left hanging) help us a lot.

If we know, not because it “proves” Obama is Bush (he isn’t) but because we need the lay of land. We need to know when an un-removed, unrepentant Bush appointee is continuing to wreck havoc on democracy or the environment, and needs pressure to be removed, checked or exposed, and which are the direct result of decisions made in the W.H. – because it shapes our thinking about what to do next, it also acts against despair.

The drive to unseat Lincoln, didnt hurt Lincolns voting, and it was very (VERY) helpful in helping others resist the tendency to sellout, buckle or hide. The bill got better in the last weeks, or appeared to, and that was because we were watching, demanding change, working with others (like unions) and making good on what we promised, which is working hard on creating politicians that are more accountable.

If people oppose Obama including advocating making Beck/Palin the next two WH occupants, they are not our friends, not members of our coalition whose thinking is little more 0actively hoping for magic outcomes.

I would support a search for a candidate that could be nominated, who could be more pushable than Obama and who could be elected. There is no point at all of fighting a battle to hurt Obama, unless that’s done.

But knowing what to expect, knowing what has happened, what will be happening, all contribute to the things we msut be doing. Building an engaged demanding coalition of voters who challenge and remove the sellouts the corrupt the cowardly and the dim.

More effective accurate writing to keep people engaged, more effective accurate writing to keep people challenging and removing reaganesque democrats.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 14:41:11 PM CDT

 

I don't accept this (4.00 / 5)

There is no difference between Obama being an elebinity-seventeen level checkers player (and secret progressive), and a fairly conservative politician, if for no other reason than we need to act the same for both.

Consider just one issue: the public option. Those who believed he was a secret progressive gave Obama the benefit of the doubt (he wants it because he says he does) and blasted those who went apeshit whenever he sent mixed messages. It was the latter group who succeeded in making it almost become law and the former group who helped assure it wouldn’t become law.

And as people above point out, beyond legislative fights, there’s all-important narrative.

---

by: david mizner @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 14:53:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

I will accept the difference. Yes. (0.00 / 0)

Some thought that “letting” Obama just govern, and we could all go back to reading People, drinking redbull and clubbing till dawn, was going to be fine.  I accept that.

Now no one should be comfortable “letting” anyone govern, we have been shown again (and again) that what we need to do is act as if only we (the people) have the power, the right and the very pressing need, to govern. Our rights are completely tied to our responsibility. We have a right to govern, we do govern, all decisions even the disgusting make us weep and scream ones, are ours. For if we do not organize hard enough to govern, we are letting others use our power for their ends. Responsibility.

I do not argue against working hard seize power, all the time, every time and in ever yway, I do not argue against resisting (even Obama’s – ooo!) bad decisions, but fight as hard as we can, while at the same time making others recognize their need to get organized, to do organizing, while at the same time letting go of no even paltry ability to effect change.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 15:41:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

In regards to Obama's assault on public education (4.00 / 10)

I don’t see any choice other than to openly question his values. This is especially true since his values seem to align perfectly with Republicans and centrist Democrats.

Of course, some Dems who consider themselves “progressive” agree with the President’s education policies. Mike may be one of them, I don’t know. And they need to be made aware of the anti-progressive framework they’ve been led into by false profits.

So when it comes to evaluating the President’s efforts to increase the privatization of public schools, does it matter if he’s doing it because he really believes in it or he’s doing it because he — like other “progressive” Democrats– does not understand the consequences of his thinking? Yes, I think that does matter.

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 14:57:44 PM CDT

 

"prophets" (0.00 / 0)

Interesting slip.

---

by: jeffbinnc @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 18:24:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

Well, here's the thing, Jeff (4.00 / 1)

As you probably know, you’re one of my favorite front pagers here and on the small patch of politics you write about I am close to 100% in agreement with you.  

I have NO PROBLEM blasting the neoliberal “education reformers” or whatever you want to call them.  I have NO PROBLEM blasting Obama for supporting these policies.  
I nonetheless am also in close to 100% agreement with Mike Lux.  IT DOESN’T REALLY MATTER how we assess Obama.  It doesn’t matter nearly so much as doing something about it.  Ultimately it’s about getting butts in the streets (doing what there is an argument waiting to be had, I suppose, but that’s not an argument worth having if there are no butts in the streets), getting people active.  If we can do that, we may have a chance to defeat the oligarchy.  If we can’t, then we have none.  

I strongly disagree with those who say it’s more important to refine the assessment.  The assessment is pretty clear.  Obama is either a person with progressive tendencies who is too chickenshit to really fight about them or a person with no progressive tendencies who has promoted a giant bait and switch on us.  Or maybe the other side is too strong to be easily resisted by even a President.

Does it matter?  

Hell no.  The remedy in any case is to figure out how to put pressure on them.  By continuing to avoid this question, the Left online community hurts itself.

“Philosophers have merely interpreted the world.  The point, however, is to change it.”

sTiVo’s rule: Just because YOU “wouldn’t put it past ’em” doesn’t prove that THEY did it.

---

by: sTiVo @ Tue Jul 13, 2010 at 16:24:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]  

The most important discussion to be had is how to develop political muscle (0.00 / 0)

I’ve only listened to a few programs by Mark Rudd, of Doing the Spadework, which is a meta-oriented show about activism, as much as it is about specific activist causes being pursued. From what I’ve heard, he doesn’t spend time trying to figure out the true Obama.

Unfortunately, I’m not sure that OpenLeft is a particularly good place to have those discussions. John Emerson (my favorite diarist at OpenLeft) posted a diary over the weekend called Any suggestions for HOW?, where he laid out his thoughts on what a good strategy for change would look like. (I.e., developing “political muscle”). What he described had a lot of overlap with the Progressive Democrats of America, but nobody wanted to talk about that, even though the PDA provides somewhat of a real-world experimental laboratory of what Emerson was describing!

As for those people who want to analyze and re-analyze Obama’s psyche, I’d suggest looking to get whatever arguments you consider stellar outside the blogosphere, and then judging it’s effects. IMO, that will provide a reality check as to how much emphasis those sorts of analyses should get, versus building up a movement that can install politicians sympathetic to it, in Washington, D.C.. Staying within a mostly friendly blogosphere may seduce one into believing that stimulating arguments are accomplishing a great deal, or just plain make you forget about a higher purpose.

Let me put this another way. Instead of trying to figure out the real Obama, it might be a better use of time trying to figure out the real activists, who are presumably trying to get things changed, either with or without Obama’s help. Unlike Obama, who I don’t trust at all, I tend to think that most people who call themselves activists have a purpose that at least they, themselves, consider noble. However, where I tend not to trust activists is in their unwillingness or inability to judge their own effectiveness, their wisdom with regards to who they trust, and their level of outspokeness, especially towards those who betrayed them. That is where some psychological and sociological probing might well prove useful.  

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

---

by: metamars @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 15:45:35 PM CDT

 

This comment (4.00 / 1)

is really all that matters:

At some point next year, we all may need to make a decision about whether to help a primary opponent to Obama if someone decides to take him on.

The rest of the discussion is interesting, but not very important.  

For my part, the make or break issue is whether Obama sticks to his timelines on Iraq. If he does, then you can at least hope that he will also stick to the timeline in Afghanistan (which calls for withdrawals after the primary season).  A withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan by 2012 is critical for a number of reasons.  If he doesn’t do it, I would vote against him in a primary.

That is all I have ever really expected out of Obama.  I expected liberal supreme court appointments – which we have gotten.  I expected a modestly left of center economic policy, which is about what we have gotten. The HCR package was close to what I expected (I don’t think the PO is as important as others think).  

I have never believed he understood globalization, and in that sense he really doesn’t get the most important force in people’s daily economic lives.  This is why I wasn’t for him in the primaries.  

---

by: fladem @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 16:20:42 PM CDT

 

"Why the debate matters" (4.00 / 5)

> at the end of the day, I find myself confused as to why
> it matters.

It matters because as long as a very large number of people incorrectly believe that Obama seeks to achieve a more progressive world, those people will continue to make bad, and likely counterproductive, resource allocation decisions with respect to their activist time and dollars.

If a person believes that Obama’s intentions are progressive and that “he’s doing the best he can” – aka the “give Obama a chance” contingent, then that person is presumably more likely to give dollars to OFA, perhaps even to the DNC, and support rather than oppose a variety of watered-down and poisoned-pill legislation.

If, on the other hand, a person believes that Obama’s intentions are hostile and/or corporatist and that the DNC is presently operating as a DINO protection racket, then that person will make dramatically different choices about how to allocate his/her activist time and money, AND will seek to persuade people in the former camp to do the same.  

A small example:  the local Dean Democratic club’s upcoming meeting is dedicated to a presentation by the local field representative from OFA.  So here we have a local Dem club that grew out of Dean for America and is “dedicated to the issues brought forth by Gov. Howard Dean, M.D., and his message of progressive, positive change”, turning over the core content of one of their monthly meetings to OFA.  My opinion is that this is a misuse of the group’s time, that they shouldn’t give OFA the time of day much less a full membership meeting, and they should instead spend that precious monthly activist time doing some form of education, training, or empowerment which has a higher probability of eventual progressive payoff.  If a majority of the leadership of that club can be convinced to abandon the “give Obama a chance” contingent, then that club’s time and funds might be redirected towards ends more consistent with the club’s progressive mission statement.

– Bruce

---

by: hahne @ Mon Jul 12, 2010 at 18:38:25 PM CDT