The narrative

by: Mike Lux

Thu Jul 15, 2010 at 15:30


I have enjoyed reading the (mostly) thoughtful reactions to my post a couple of days back entitled “Time for a new conversation”, and have to admit that I was convinced by some of the arguments people made. Debcoop, Paul Rosenberg, and several others made really cogent, compelling arguments about the need for building a progressive narrative separate from the Obama narrative, and the need for having a strategic foundation underpinned with an understanding of where Obama is coming from and trying to get to.

Here are some further thoughts about narrative and strategy for progressives in the Obama era:

1) I was intentionally trying to be provocative in “Time for a new conversation”, and it clearly worked. I agree with debcoop that it would be helpful to know more about where Obama intends to end up on key issues in terms of plotting our own progressive strategy. But it is always hard to read Presidential tea leaves and motivations. What we can base our strategy on is what we know about the nature of modern Democratic coalitions.

Unfortunately, the Democratic coalition in the modern era has shifted more toward the corporate side. However, the progressive elements of that coalition still have enough collective strength that they ought to be using what juice they have to force more concessions than they generally get, wherever Obama personally may be on a given issue. Every single fight needs to be analyzed more in advance to see what we think we have the capacity to win.

2) We need to do better at keeping hope alive, as Jesse Jackson used to say. I know this may not seem like it is related very much to a discussion about how much we should be arguing about whether Obama is a progressive or not, but it seems to me that a lot of the Obama arguments are weighted with a sense of hopelessness and a level of cynicism that makes hope impossible. Now just to be clear before people start attacking me as being an apologist for Obama: I don’t believe Obama is a strong progressive, I have been disappointed in a great many things he has done, and I think his political strategy so far has mostly sucked. But I also believe what I was taught in my first organizing workshop (by Saul Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation) 35 years ago: the only way you can organize people and win victories is if people have hope. Thinking that all is lost, that all Democrats suck, that Obama will each and every time screw us, that the forces of corporations and the right will win every single battle, or that none of the things we do win matter, is not conducive to winning anything important that matters in real people’s lives, or getting people to take action.

Read, if you can bear it, Eric Alterman’s 17,000 word piece on why the Obama administration has been a disappointment (he’s more on the “it’s not Obama, it’s the system” side of things). Page after page after page of unmitigated depression about how horrible things are for our side- and he likes Obama! If I believed it was as hopeless as all that, I would quit politics all together and just try to figure out how much money I could make. It is not a great way to inspire people to action. While I think we need to be realistic about the very big challenges we face as progressives, looking at what is possible and at the good trends is useful as well. Here’s some examples:

  • Eric was dismissive of the blogosphere and the potential for new media, and he didn’t even mention most of the exciting organizing going on in the field. When I came to DC with Clinton in 1992, progressives were a scattered bunch of mostly weak single issue or constituency groups, whose main membership was an aging and passive direct mail list. MoveOn, the Huffington Post, Media Matters, the Center for American Progress, the Daily Kos, and Campaign for America’s future didn’t exist. And there were no major media figures with platforms on the progressive side of things. Now we have Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Ed Shultz, the Young Turks, Dylan Ratigan, and the ever evolving, incredibly creative blogosphere.

  • In the 1990’s, gays in the military and a tiny stimulus jobs program were crushed early, health care reform was a flaming disaster, and Democrats as well as Republicans were speeding down the track in the wrong direction on financial regulation. For all the flaws and compromises, in the last 18 months we have seen by far the biggest stimulus jobs package in history, a bill providing near universal coverage and some protections against the worst abuses of insurance companies, and a financial reform bill that audits the Fed, has an independent consumer protection agency, and wins some other solid regulatory victories.

  • Here’s the other thing: as Chris has done such a good job of pointing out, the long term demographic trends play very much in our favor. People of color are rising dramatically as a percentage of the electorate, as are unmarried folks and non-Christian and/or less traditionally religious people. All of those demographic groups tend toward progressive politics, as does this generation of young people coming into the electorate right now.

    I understand all the challenges, and I totally get the frustrations with Obama. But hope springs eternal, and history shows that progressive breakthroughs are possible even in tough times (sometimes especially in tough times).

3) The narrative thing on Obama is very tricky. I completely agree that we need to project a progressivism that is not Obamaism, an ideological center of gravity stronger, clearer, and more idealistic than Obama’s. But the experience from my earliest days in politics with the Carter presidency is not especially positive on this scene. Carter had a bad relationship with most progressives, got a strong primary challenge from the left, and had a general election third party candidate (Barry Commoner) with some major progressive endorsements running on his left. But Republicans and their allies in the media still pegged Carter as the personification of liberalism for a generation. And Carter did not push through a major deficit spending jobs bill, a universal health care bill, and a big re-structuring of bank regulations as Obama has. Not that we don’t have a great case, and not that we shouldn’t try to create a progressive narrative separate from Obama, but it will be a serious challenge.

That’s enough for one sitting. I have enjoyed the discussion on this topic, and have definitely moved as a result. I look forward to more dialogue on how to react to Obama, and- more importantly in my mind- how to win more progressive victories in the Obama era.  

Mike Lux :: The narrative

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The narrative | 48 comments
Boy, That's A Mouthful! (4.00 / 3)
Now I know what people feel like reading one of my mid-sized posts!

But mostly I guess I say that because I don’t have too much better to say, at least at first reading.  I pretty much agree with almost everything you’ve said–though the emphasis might be different–and the outright disagreements are relatively minor.

There is, however, one major caveat:

Here’s the other thing: as Chris has done such a good job of pointing out, the long term demographic trends play very much in our favor. People of color are rising dramatically as a percentage of the electorate, as are unmarried folks and non-Christian and/or less traditionally religious people. All of those demographic groups tend toward progressive politics, as does this generation of young people coming into the electorate right now.

This is precisely the area that worries me.  If Obama-style corporatism  (“Benneton on steroids” one might call it) is successful, it will effectively destroy the implicit progressive promise of these demographic trends.  That is the real long-term battleground, IMHO.  Or at least a very central one.
I

“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


 
Counter narratives (4.00 / 2)
Perhaps this is related to your comment. My fear is that all the young people and new voters who voted for Obama and change, only to see him mostly turn into a Republican at the policy level (with mild progressive ideas for seasoning), that they’ll lose hope or worse withdraw from politics saying all politicians are alike.

One way to avoid that fate is for progressive Democrats to offer a counter narrative loudly and early and often. To not say we’re against Wall Street. Instead, to make positive statements, for example, saying the country should be run to benefit all working Americans and here’s how. To offer a simple but solid counter vision of what government should be and can do.

The simplest way to define progressives is to say they want to improve the lives of working people. That’s 99% of the country and anyone in that group will know what that means, and will vote accordingly, assuming it is followed up with policies that truly benefit people on salaries and we restore the balance between the interests of the wealthy and the interests of other groups in this country.


[ Parent ]  
ABSOLUTELY! We Definitely Need To Develop Our Own Narratives (0.00 / 0)
And the means to deliver them over and over and over again.

No question about it.

99% is definitely it.

I’ve shown in past diaries using data compiled by Emmanuel Saez that it’s not just the bottom half or even bottom 80%, but the entire bottom 99% as an aggregate that’s seen virtually no improvement in economic status for the past generation or more.

So, you can badmouth the bottom 10 or 20%.  You can disparage the bottom 50%, perhaps, indirectly if not directly.

But how can you pretend that 99% of the people are just no-count?

Yet, that’s where we’re at at this point in time.

“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 ]  
And they keep doubling down on it! (4.00 / 1)


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

[ Parent ]  
This is a no brainer. (0.00 / 0)
The big problem is that the Democratic Party is not on board. I get in arguments on facebook with conservatives and they are armed with a set of ideas and talking points that make them immune to facts and logic. Conservatives have done a great job of convincing people that their ideas and principles are better for the overall economy and that liberals only want to soak the rich so that lazy black people don’t have to work. And somehow they have managed to make people think that “the rich” includes middle class whites, so that basically liberals want to enslave all the white people to work for the liberal socialist elites and the lazy minorities.

Conservatives have an entire political party on board with their giant message machine. Democrats don’t even show up to play on this field. They mimic conservative frames and just offer policies with no coherent narrative at all. How many elected Democrats will even self-identify as liberal or left? It’s a joke. How the fuck can you promote a coherent political philosophy when you won’t even admit to having one. We have two opposing ideologies. One has a political party behind it and one doesn’t. And “progressive” as a replacement term is a fail. Most people don’t even know what it means.

The Democratic Party has been captured by corporate elites. It’s time for Howard Dean’s “Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party” to become more than a slogan. Someone needs to write a democratic code – “code” in the dual meaning sense of Lawrence Lessig’s book of the same title. Our Constitution is a legal code that set up a functioning democracy. The software that powers Daily Kos is another example of code that enables a democratic system of communication. (The technical protocols of the internet itself is Lessig’s main example of such code.) We have all these groups like DFA, MoveOn, etc. that comprise a haphazard ecosystem of benevolent dictatorships. If there was a single democratic institution that the Dem base could be and collectively own, I think it could be way more effective and therefore way more attractive to citizen participation. If some of you computer geeks can devise an online system that can function as a virtual political party that can operate as “one person, one vote” rather than “one dollar, one vote,” such a party will naturally reflect the economic interests of the masses. People would flock to such a party because there is no alternative that represents their economic interests.

Because we effectively have a two-party system, the best strategy would be to make such a party a “sub-party” that focuses on virtual local conventions to nominate sub-party branded candidates to run in Democratic primaries. Call the sub-party “True Democrats” or “Liberal Democrats” or Labor Democrats” or whatever. The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party should have their own candidate in every Democratic primary. Such a sub-party should gradually be able to subsume and become the Democratic Party by wielding power and influence and imprinting the democratic “code” onto the Democratic Party governance. But in the beginning, at least it would provide some clear economic populist framing and branding that is impossible with the current corporate Democrats.

miasmo.com


[ Parent ]  
A positive, value-based, evolving and actionable narrative (4.00 / 1)
I strongly agree with this basic point made by TSlavin:

One way to avoid that fate is for progressive Democrats to offer a counter narrative loudly and early and often…to make positive statements…[and] to offer a simple but solid counter vision of what government should be and can do.

The gist of my view and recommendation is expressed in a comment I just posted in the discussion prompted by Paul’s recent diary: Why is it so complicated to be a progressive, which relates to defining and communicating the essence of progressivism.

The comment starts with a response to Paul related to appropriate language/labels, and then gets into some suggestions for action that I believe can help bring a productive focus to the point TSlavin seems to be making:

I like your combining of the two terms and might revise it further by adding back the word “creating” from your definition, which provides a more action-oriented tagline.

Common Dignity, Common Sense
Creating a World that Works for Everyone

In fact, this strikes me as a good name for the book I’d like to see (and help) the progressive community collectively author–with you being one of the authors and also a primary editor.

As I see it, key editorial roles would include outlining the topics to be covered and the structure used to present them, inviting and working with key authors, and drafting and editing text that synthesizes the brilliance and passion of leading progressive thinkers and activists into a clear, compelling and actionable call to principled, unified and progressive mobilization.  

That strikes me as a job you’d be good at and would enjoy, and I’m pretty sure I and many others would be happy to help out in whatever way we could.

As I see it, there’s no shortage of important books worthy of the challenge of condensing their core messages into a chapter or two that can be combined with others in a way that amplifies the power and significance of each chapter, while helping readers understand their mutually reinforcing relatedness, and travel further down the path of paradigm shifting, system-level thinking, and renewal of attitude and activism.

And, in the Internet age, a book need not be a static printed document, but rather a living, updatable, adaptable, expandable, multimedia and “mashable” creative expression, especially if designed that way from the start (which I’d recommend).

What I’d add to that comment is that I have a growing sense that the OL community is increasingly primed to take a lead role in making something like this happen.  Given the level of frustration and emotional investment so many of us experience about these issues, it’s been a pleasure to see the tone of discussion remain so respectful and constructive.  This reflects well on both the front-pagers and the rest of the OL community.

And since you folks seem so well-read and politically experienced (hard for me to keep up much of the time), it’s easy to believe that the kind of collaborative writing/editing project I outline above could be launched by the OL community and expanded in a healthy and self-propagating manner from that base.  

And, I think such a project also speaks to Mike’s point about the importance of and linkages between hope (which provides the positive fuel) and value-based framing, system-level thinking and positive, compelling narrative, which make sure that this fuel gets used (and renewed) most efficiently and in the right directions.  


[ Parent ]  
Agree totally with you Paul (4.00 / 2)
Mike’s piece is great, and I especially liked the bit about “Keep Hope Alive”.  Quick aside:  I’ll never forget the time Jesse Jackson went on Black Talk Radio in Chicago with a nearly 100 year old Bob Hope and poked fun at himself by saying “Keep Hope Alive!”.  As hokey and hopey-changey as that might sound it’s not unimportant.  That’s why I’ve tried wherever possible to bring to this community’s attention things that I thought did worthy of some real hope.  These Quick Hits have mostly been ignored, as people seem to want to avoid hope and that, it strikes me, is bad.

I also agree with Paul that Mike errs by investing a little too much hope on this “Demographic Change” business.  (haven’t heard the “Benneton on steroids” term before.  It fits.) It doesn’t matter what we do, demographic change will save our butts.  This is weak stuff and ultimately helps perpetuate racial divides.  Just read my Quick Hit on the singing Louisiana crawfisherman (which, to my knowledge, nobody has).  Over-reliance on demographic determinism means we have nothing to say to guys like that, who ought to be our ally.  Not good.  

If Latinos trend solidly Democratic, Republicans will look for and find a way to disenfranchise them.  A weak-kneed Democratic response has no answer for that.

You may have noticed Bill O’Reilly’s takedown of Sarah Palin the other day on the immigration issue.  He made clear that Palin’s just mouthing of anti-immigrant demagogy wouldn’t cut it with him.  He wanted specifics.  Make no mistake though, O’Reilly was no friend of ours and serious as a heart attack.  We on the left may have lulled ourselves with the idea that there’s nothing that can be done about 12 million illegal aliens.  “You can’t deport them all.”  That’s not stopping O’Reilly though.  What O’Reilly wants is someone to get specific, so that they can implement that program, whatever it is, and no matter how horrible it is.  We need to think about that sort of thing and not blithely assume that Demographics will save Democrats.  It’s the Democratic Party, not the Demographic Party.

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


[ Parent ]  
Good Points All Around (0.00 / 0)
And I did read that quick hit.  Unfortunately, I didn’t find it as a compelling as you did, or I would have turned it into a diary. Should have commented though, so you’d know someone was paying attention.

But I agree with you in principle 100%.  The songs can’t all be “The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carrol”.  It’s still good that people are writing and singing them.

And yes, I do recall hearing second hand about Jackson’s corny Bob Hope joke.

“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 ]  
Which Jackson either stole from In Living Color, (0.00 / 0)
or which ILC stole from Jackson.  

[ Parent ]  
re: obama (0.00 / 0)
This is precisely the area that worries me. If Obama-style corporatism  (“Benneton on steroids” one might call it) is successful,

how can it succeed? corporatism says take, take, take away from the people and give it to the few. well, when you do that after a while the people don’t have any money left and can’t buy the stuff your corporation makes. and their life becomes a living hell. and sooner or later the people will put an end to that. how can this scheme succeed?


[ Parent ]  
Take Me To Your Leader (4.00 / 4)
Throughout most of the adult lifetimes of most people reading this the great liberal leader was Sen. Ted Kennedy.  As Kennedy aged most of the successors fell by the wayside due to scandal, health or disaster.  Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash.  We all know what happened to John Edwards.  Jesse Jackson wore out his welcome.  Gary Hart went down on the good ship “Monkey Business”.  Mario Cuomo and Ann Richards were defeated at the polls.  Al Gore was robbed by the Supreme Court and his own timidity.

Narratives need characters, protagionists and leaders.  Somebody needs to fill Ted’s empty shoes not necesarily as a Presidential aspirant but as a leader.  


 
The first name that came to mind… (0.00 / 0)
…for me was Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, but I really don’t know that much about him or where he stands.  What I like is the appearance that he’s an “unlikely” Democrat or liberal in that he’s a farmer and yet he still articulates the frames of empathy and responsibility that I think are progressive values.  He’s a populist, not an intellectual.

I think a Westerner, an Hispanic, a young working class firebrand (woman or man), an activist, or maybe even an artist/novelist would be the kind of character I would pick if I were writing a fictional narrative.

Who in real life might work?  Who’s not in politics right now but leads as an activist?  These are the kinds of people that I’d like to see in office as Progressives.


[ Parent ]  
Leadership (4.00 / 1)
Does not have to be one person. Start a social/political movement and they will come, but let’s not wait for them.

“It sounds wrong…
     …but its right.”


[ Parent ]  
Thanks! (4.00 / 1)
Thanks, Mike, for putting into words what I had been observing lately. It shocks me to no end, for all the progress we’ve made in a leftward direction in the last 18 months, that ostensible progressives have become defeatist and negative.

I’ve seen entries at HuffingtonPost, DailyKos, here and elsewhere that have just made my jaw drop.

Frankly, if Progressives can’t be supportive of what’s been achieved so far, why should the people they would like to persuade to join them?

And if Progressives can’t have hope to make more progress in the future, why would anyone believe in the term “Progressive” in and of itself?  It renders the title a sham.

Look at the last dozen or so presidential elections as an example: almost without exception, the winner has been the one who came off as the bigger optimist. Voters want to vote for the optimist.


 
Mike, what's your thoughts on the National Initiative for Democracy? (0.00 / 0)
I’m wondering, because I’ve been involved in political organizing and Democratic Party activism, albeit on the state and local level, for almost as long as you have; and it is only recently that I have come to the conclusion that the Democratic Party and its candidates are no longer viable vehicles for meaningful progressive change.  I am finding the National Initiative more and more attractive as a way around the corporatist nature of the Democratic Party.

 
NID (0.00 / 0)
I don’t know as much about them as I would like to, will try to learn more.

[ Parent ]  
Fair enough. Don't let the associations of Gravel and Nader (0.00 / 0)
with the NID automatically scare you off, as they did me for the past couple of years.

[ Parent ]  
I just looked this up. (0.00 / 0)
And watched the video on the front page, so that’s all I know about the NID, but I have to say that I’m initially pretty skeptical because in Colorado we have voter initiatives and every election we have to spend time and resources to battle crazy-ass right wing initiatives like 2008’s “Personhood Initiative” which defined a person as existing as soon as an egg was fertilized.  We luckily defeated it (by a smaller margin than you would expect) and that Initiative isn’t finished.  We’ll be seeing it again in 2010.

I have to say that as frustrating as the process currently is, I like a representational democracy in practice better than a direct democracy.  That said I think there are some basic structural changes that would go a long way toward making our current system run better (such as doing away with the fake 60 vote threshold in the Senate).


[ Parent ]  
As a fellow Coloradoan, I get what you're saying– (0.00 / 0)
I just do not see any hope, whatsoever, of taking our party back from the corporate masters–especially now that Citizens United has opened up the floodgates of corporate cash to the ever-hungrier campaigns.  As Dick Durbin said of the Senate, “banks own this place.”  It is only going to get worse; and I don’t think we can legitimately call our current system a representational democracy in anything other than name.
 

[ Parent ]  
Great post Mike… (0.00 / 0)
Especially the part about “hope.”

I think you are absolutely right about the

“but it seems to me that a lot of the Obama arguments are weighted with a sense of hopelessness and a level of cynicism that makes hope impossible” (couldn’t figure how to put this in /quote format)

part. Also right about the part where compared to the nineties (although not as good for most of us financially) we are making a lot more progress, which gives us some reason to be hopeful for the future.

Another part I found interesting is what you said about the Republicans and Carter. If any of you guys could bare to watch Fox or listen to talk radio for five minutes, you would hear them talking about Obama as if he was the second coming of Marx.

Of course they don’t really believe this and they are just pushing their narrative for the midterm elections, but this disconnect between how he is portrayed by them and how he is portrayed by many on the Netroots is really striking and seems to be to a much bigger extent than anything I’ve seen previously in my (albeit short) lifetime.

Of course Obama isn’t nearly as progressive as we’d like him to be, he’s not keeping all his campaign promises, and it is fair to make that point. But what I got out of Mike’s previous post is that that point has been made to death by posters and commentators alike on this site. And anybody who hasn’t been swayed so far, probably won’t be by us continually beating them over the head with it. I also don’t think their are very many “15th level chess Obama apologist” reading or posting on this site, which further defeats the purpose of proving over and over again why they are wrong. Even though these people do exist, it eventually becomes like beating a straw man to death (at least with respect to the majority of readers and posters of this site).

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.


 
"it seems to me that a lot of the Obama arguments are weighted with a sense of hopelessness and a level of cynicism that makes hope impossible" (0.00 / 0)
is observing things that have happened now construed as cynicism?

because, really, what hope is there’s things like this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/… are out there?


 
If Denmark Vessey, Nat Turner and Gabriel Prosser Had Thought Like You Do (0.00 / 0)
We’d still have slavery in the US.

“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 ]  
let me clarify (0.00 / 0)
I mean “hope that Democrats will ever not be fucking terrible” and “hope that change can be accomplished within the current duopoly” as opposed to “hope that anything will ever improve”

that said, I really wish Canada or Norway or somewhere would start taking political refugees

also if Nat Turner posted here a bunch of 50-something Reagan Democrats would be giving him shit about chasing ponies


[ Parent ]  
WHAT 50-Something Reagan Democrats??? (0.00 / 0)
Who are you to complain?  You’ve obviously got much better drugs than anyone else here.

“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 ]  
do you mean "which" (0.00 / 0)
and I mean Matson, Lux, Stivo, etc

[ Parent ]  
Lux a 50-something Reagan Dem? I don't think so. n/t (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]  
he worked for Clinton (0.00 / 0)
the OG Reagan Democrat

[ Parent ]  
And, of course, nobody working for Bill could be a lefty? (4.00 / 1)
I understand much of the Clinton bashing, but now pretending that no real progressive has ever worked for that administration really goes too far. Death by association, much? That’s lame.

[ Parent ]  
While I don't disagree with anything you say… (4.00 / 4)
The word “Obama” appears 21 times in your post.

The words “Senate” and “filibuster” appear 0 times.

I completely agree that the former is very important, but I posit that the latter is even more important — but, because it’s, well, boring, it’s not given as much attention. Which I think is wrong.

Of course, your post discusses meta, movement, narrative: high-level, whereas the filibuster is procedure: low-level. Usually it’s the high-level factors which determine outcome, and the low-level are just details, but this is, how to say it, a Big Huge Fucking Exception. For one thing, the purpose of a movement and a narrative is to generate positive outcomes, whether in the short or long term. And the filibuster is incredibly constraining on short term outcomes. A small effect would not really be significant, but this one is so big that it disruptively affects and shapes the high-level factors. On two levels: both because movements are encouraged by political victories, which it deprives; and because narratives are shaped by policy outcomes, which become a lot worse.

If Obama had had a better political strategy, we would be somewhat better off; on the other hand, if we had majority rule in the Senate, the stimulus would have been hundreds of billions of dollars larger, and a much stronger health care reform bill would’ve passed by early autumn, if not August, to say nothing of what would’ve happened since then. (Remember the Gang of Six? If we had had a surplus of 9-10 votes rather than a deficit of 0-1, no one, not even Max Baucus, would’ve courted Republicans that seriously.) Heck, I think the House would’ve been more of a constraining factor on legislation than the Senate. A bigger stimulus would’ve meant the economy would be doing better, which in turn would’ve meant Democrats would be doing better; big political victories would’ve meant progressives and the base would be less depressed than they are. But instead of positive feedback loops we’re getting negative, or at best break-even.

Going from a 60 vote threshold to 50 is a bit hard to imagine, so imagine instead, as a first step, that the threshold for passage in the Senate was, rather 60, 57 or 58. In that case, already Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe wouldn’t have been able to chop off a hundred billion or two from the stimulus. Already Joe Lieberman wouldn’t have been able to kill the Medicare buy-in; maybe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Lincoln wouldn’t have been able to kill the public option. These would’ve been very substantial improvements in policy outcome. So I don’t think I’m really going out on a limb here when I posit that if the threshold were 50 instead of 57 or 58, results would have been much, much, much better.

Or consider another perspective. Consider if the threshold for passage were 50, but we only had 48-50 Democrats at any one time, which is analogous to having 58-60 when it’s 60. Consider that under these circumstances — the slimmest of majorities, or not even a majority — that Obama and the Senate had passed the legislation which they have: a $700-800 stimulus, comprehensive health care reform, and now Wall Street reform. Would anyone think him a weak leader, in that case?

Anyway, people focus too much on Obama, in a relative sense. We’d be much better off if they forgot about Obama entirely and focused laser-like on the filibuster, instead. But the filibuster is an arcane procedural tool of the Senate, while Barack Obama is an entire living-breathing person and the President of the United States, so people don’t do that.


 
Yup. (0.00 / 0)
I mostly agree.

[ Parent ]  
But It's Also The Case (4.00 / 3)
That if Obama had camped out in Snowe & Collins back yard when all this started, he could have flipped them very easily, and the situation with the fillibuster would have never gotten as badly out of hand as it has.

Sure, they had the fillibuster.  But we had the presidency.  That means Obama. He had the bully pulpit, and rhetorical gifts comparable to Clinton, at least.  No Rep since Reagan comes close.  

So it’s not entirely a matter of misdirected attention here.

“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 ]  
"But we had the presidency" (4.00 / 1)
depending upon who “we” is in this case, I’d argue that we clearly did not

[ Parent ]  
No Argument From Me (4.00 / 1)
If by “we” you mean the Symbionese Liberation Army.

“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 ]  
everyone with whom you disagree is crazy (0.00 / 0)
also I generally agree with you so this is weird

[ Parent ]  
NOT Everyone (4.00 / 1)
And NOT “is”.

When you ACT crazy, I’m just disinhibited from pointing it out.

All the more so, in fact, if we share a significant amount in common.

Reason: I don’t people thinking that just because I agree with you on X, Y and Z that I agree with you when you say, “Martians ate my homework!”

“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 ]  
never said you did/should/whatever (0.00 / 0)
but it’s odd to me that on one hand you would praise my POV and deride me for not falling all over myself to side with people who are totally ok with/patient with/not totally worried about the direction this administration (and the DNC) is leaning

that’s what I find weird


[ Parent ]  
I Agree With What You Are For (Most of the Time) (0.00 / 0)
I disagree with how you shamelessly misrepresent the positions of others who do not completely agree with you.

It’s pretty simple, really.

“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 ]  
"shamelessly" implies I'm putting one over on anyone (0.00 / 0)
or that anyone cares what I think

also I don’t think I’m really misrepresenting anything…I mean, Lux’s whole point seems to be “yeah maybe Obama sucks (but I don’t think so) but there’s been awesome progress so cheer up fellows”

and I kind of feel like that’s dogshit, in the context of the onslaught of hippie punching and corporation suckling that has been the motif of this “liberal” administration

I mean look, in this very entry, Lux refers to a “universal healthcare bill” being pushed through.  Uh, when did that happen?


[ Parent ]  
Are You Spoofing Yourself Now??? (0.00 / 0)
If so, this comment is brilliant!

“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 ]  
no need to respond to my points there (0.00 / 0)
demonize, marginalize, mock

[ Parent ]  
Aw, come on, not such made up arguments, pls, Travis! (0.00 / 0)
This obvious isn’t true. It’s possible to disagree with Paul without being called nuts. I just tried that recently and have no reasons to complain!

[ Parent ]  
This is mercifully shorter than what I wrote, so I'll take it piece by piece. (4.00 / 1)
[But It’s Also The Case] That if Obama had camped out in Snowe & Collins back yard when all this started, he could have flipped them very easily

Possible. It’s quite true that Obama has consistently refrained from personally and publicly pressuring Senators (though Snowe/Graham/Brown have certainly gotten a lot of face time in the oval office), so there aren’t really any instances to cite to either support or refute this. In any case, I don’t doubt that Obama could’ve moved 1-2 more votes in some cases than he did with better strategy/tactics/execution, but 1-2 is also not 10.

and the situation with the fillibuster would have never gotten as badly out of hand as it has.

This I’m a lot less sure about. How badly out of hand the situation with the filibuster gets depends, quite directly, on how badly out of the hand the Republicans want to take it.

One exception to this is the nuclear option. I can’t tell whether Obama/Reid had any chance at all of rounding up 50+1 votes for it; it’s clear that they didn’t try. Whether they didn’t because they didn’t want to or because they thought it was hopeless (and in this case I think they would know better) is unknowable. If they could’ve and didn’t, that’s nearly criminal. But because Obama isn’t the only one here with any power or responsibility, I’ll go out and say that it’s a crime on the part of the 58-60 Senators in the Democratic Caucus that they did not, first thing, get rid of the filibuster.

The other thing is that Obama, and Democrats in general, could’ve done more to make Republicans pay a political price for filibustering every damn thing. (This includes, for the record, progressive activists). In that case, either outcomes would’ve been somewhat less bad, or Republicans would be somewhat more unpopular. But, again, “somewhat less bad” is not nearly the same as “complete elimination of badness”.

Sure, they had the fillibuster.  But we had the presidency.  That means Obama. He had the bully pulpit, and rhetorical gifts comparable to Clinton, at least.  No Rep since Reagan comes close.  

And this is just buzzwords. “Bully pulpit”, “rhetorical gifts”. You say “Sure, they had the fillibuster.  But we had the presidency.” like the latter automatically invalidates the former. It does not. That is the whole point. The filibuster is a much stronger determinant of domestic policy outcomes than the presidency.* It is counterintuitive, but it’s true. Obama can give speeches all he wants, but if 41 Republicans insist on filibustering it, and 50+1 Democrats don’t have the balls to nuke the filibuster, then a bill doesn’t get passed.

But, yeah, I completely agree that if Obama had deployed his considerable rhetorical skills against the filibuster (“upperdown vote, upperdown vote”), it wouldv’e done some good. Not a huge amount, but a lot better than nothing. But that applies to progressive activists as well: rather than focusing on Obama, we could be doing more to mobilize against the filibuster. Chris is devoting effort to this, which I heartily applaud.

* In the sense of the power of the presidency to pass bills versus the filibuster to block them; the power of the presidency to block bills with the veto is greater still.

So it’s not entirely a matter of misdirected attention here.

Sure. The presidency is very important. The filibuster is even more important. The presidency gets a huge amount of attention, the filibuster gets a lot less. So not entirely: just mostly.

(Maybe this whole post is just an argument about how much we agree. I can’t tell whether you were saying “sure, the filibuster is the primary factor, but Obama could’ve done more”, or “Obama could’ve deployed the bully pulpit and his rhetorical skills to become a bigger factor than the filibuster, if he had really wanted to”.)


[ Parent ]  
Lack of Imagination (4.00 / 2)
The bottom line is that seemingly no one can even conceive of what Obama could have done.

Well, I can.

He could have held a series of town hall meetings with schoolkids, parents, teachers, principals, PTA leaders, schoolboards, local officials and state representatives, creating a drumbeat of coverage about why Collins and Snowe were conspiring to shut down schools all across the nation.  He could have, in short, threatened to utterly destroy their wholesome all-American images forever.

How long do you think that would have taken?

One or two days, max, is my estimate.  But certainly not longer than a week.  And once Snowe and Collins had been flipped, who would be next?  My bet:  at least 3-7 other senators would not be interested in finding out.

But no one can even conceive of Obama doing anything like that.

He’s a very much deep inside the box kind of guy.

The exact opposite of what was advertised.



“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 ]  
Well, obviously the filibuster has become a big problem (4.00 / 1)
but I think your analysis, Paul, of Obama’s actions with Snowe and Collins are right on the spot.

For me the real problem with the filibuster in the last year has been the Democrats using it.  Remember we had a 60 majority between Franken being seated and Kennedy dying.  A robust Health Care bill didn’t happen then because of people in the Democratic Caucus siding with the Republicans.

Why shouldn’t they?  Obama had already shown that he wasn’t going to make anyone pay for filibustering, so they figured it was to their benefit to work with the opposition.  They knew they wouldn’t pay any price.

It’s really a moot issue whether Obama didn’t really fight for a fuller stimulus because he was just too non-confrontative or because he really in his heart agreed with Snowe and Collins.

So, back to Mike’s points about a hopeful progressive narrative that is distinct from Obama, how do we do that regarding this issue about whether the problem is Obama or the Senate?

Educate, Agitate, Organize, Mobilize, Act!


[ Parent ]  
Well, The Problem Is Both (0.00 / 0)
And right now I’m trying to focus on broader narrative themes, so I’m not sure I’m the best person to respond.  I’m in the place where I’d have to chew on that for a while before I’d be comfortable & I’m not sure how worthwhile it would be, since I don’t see much real interest in solving that problem just now.  It’s more a blow-by-blow battle mode right now.

“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 ]  
Well, (0.00 / 0)
Your argument is thought provoking, at the least.

And I honestly can’t tell if it’s completely correct, divorced from reality entirely, or somewhere in between. Counterfactuals are sometimes like that.

But no one can even conceive of Obama doing anything like that.

He’s a very much deep inside the box kind of guy.

The exact opposite of what was advertised.

This is accurate in one respect, but seems off in another. I certainly expected him to be more imaginative, engaged, and well — what’s the opposite of tone-deaf? — than he has been. I mean really, what ever happened to the whole “president as community organizer” thing? I’d have expected him to lay out a choice for the American people — deficits and jobs, or no deficits and no jobs — rather than the – the popular term for it seems to be “austerity theater” – that he’s been doing. Possibly his most attractive quality to me was his intellectual honesty, and he’s sometimes fallen down on that. (Though he hasn’t been bad, per se; I’d give him a B-.)

On the other hand, he could’ve, should’ve, could be, and should be more confrontational with the Republicans than he has been and is, but if you expected him to publicly single out and demonize individual Senators for opposing his initiatives then we weren’t watching the same person. Maybe it would’ve been better if he were that kind of person, but he’s not. It’s not just that he doesn’t want to do it – but that it would sound utterly fake if he tried.

Anyway, it’s an interesting discussion and I have nothing at all against those, but in the end we’re not going to be able to change Obama, so the best we can do is to change the circumstances he finds himself in. This holds, as well, for the Senators in the Democratic caucus, who hold considerably more direct power over domestic policy than Obama does.


[ Parent ]  
Nit pick here (4.00 / 1)
Barry Commoner, hunh?

Moderate Republican Congressman John Anderson of Illinois ran as a third party candidate against Carter and Reagan in 1980.


 
Yes, Barry Commoner (0.00 / 0)
Anderson ran to Reagan’s left as a Republican-turned-independent, and Commoner ran to Carter’s left.

Anderson did considerably better at the polls, but he wasn’t part of the story Mike was telling.

“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 ]  
The narrative | 48 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS