What Now?

by: Mike Lux

Thu Jan 06, 2011 at 15:02


Now that Bill Daley is the new White House Chief of Staff, there are two directions relations between progressives and populists with the White House can go. And no, those directions are not worse and worser. But worse is definitely one of them.

Let me start by saying something that will surprise a lot of readers from this lefty populist: I actually like Bill Daley personally. I’ve known him for almost a quarter century, and he has always treated me with respect in spite of our many disagreements. He has a steady no-drama manner about him which makes it easy to understand why the President likes him. I think he is an effective manager. Now you would think a DC guy like myself who had warm feelings and a long and positive history with someone would be delighted that he just got the COS position, but it is pretty hard to feel that way. I lobbied against Bill being the guy to get this job, and I encouraged my friends to lobby against him as well, for two reasons.

The first is optics: 35% of voters in the 2010 election said that Wall St was primarily to blame for our economic class, more than any other entity or politician, but Democrats lost those economic populists 56-42. The big Wall St banks are the single most hated institution in America. People already tend to think of Obama as being on the side of Wall St- they think he is a big government “Wall St liberal” in EJ Dionne’s classic phrase. Obama needs to show middle class voters he is on their side, and hiring a top exec at JP Morgan Chase as his COS is not the way to get that done. It is a political mistake with both swing working class voters and base voters, both of whom strongly dislike the big bankers on Wall St. This appointment was a classic “which side are you on” moment, but the side taken was not the right one.

The other reason I don’t like the appointment is that I fear it is a sign that Obama is coming down firmly on the side of DC centrism, rather than where the country actually is. As I discussed right after the election, the exit polls and other post-election polls were completely clear that the swing voters who turned against the Democrats in 2010 were working and middle class populists: they don’t like the big banks, they don’t like TARP, they don’t like the idea of “NAFTA-style trade deals”, they hate outsourcing, they hate cuts in Social Security and Medicare. But the President seems to believe the views of these middle class voters, as well as his own base voters, don’t matter much, and that the better political path is picking an Democratic establishment guy from Wall St who led the fight in the Clinton administration for NAFTA. It’s what I would call trickle down politics: make the DC establishment happy and hope their pleasure trickles down to everyone else.

Enough said on that, though. Bill Daley is the new COS, and progressives aren’t going to change that. The arguments of people like me did not carry the day. The question now is what happens next. If the White House soaks in the applause of the DC establishment and the business community, and decides they don’t need to court those pesky working class voters or their base, I fear it will be a very long couple of years with a sound drubbing in November of next year. If they turn away from populism at every point in order to court big business and the elites, this Presidency is in deep trouble. But if the White House is smart, they will realize that by appointing Daley, now it is incumbent on them to actually be far more aggressive in reaching out to progressives and populists. They could appoint a strong progressive populist as a senior White House staffer; they could announce sooner rather than later they will adamantly oppose Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid cuts; they could empower Elizabeth Warren and give her a bigger role, and they could far more aggressively push the big banks to write down mortgages, since with Daley as COS the presumption will be that the White House has become all pro-Wall St, all of the time; they could send a clear signal that they aren’t going to bow to hostage taking on the debt ceiling issue. If they did these kinds of things, progressives and those swing vote populists would not fear having Bill Daley as COS.  

Having appointed a COS like Bill Daley, the President could take this opportunity to say to the progressives who aren’t very happy today that he understands their disappointment, but still shares their values, and then go out and prove it. Or he can send a signal that he just doesn’t care what they think. And Bill Daley himself could do Obama a great deal of good by sitting down with some leading progressive populists in the party and seeing if we can get to common ground. We’ll see what path they take.

Mike Lux :: What Now?

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

What Now? | 52 comments
Too Late! (4.00 / 16)
Having appointed a COS like Bill Daley, the President could take this opportunity to say to the progressives who aren’t very happy today that he understands their disappointment, but still shares their values, and then go out and prove it.

How?  By getting in a time machine & undoing his decision?

Or he can send a signal that he just doesn’t care what they think

Already done!

Unfortunately, Obama has proven once again that he is, as I once called him, an “Al Smith Democrat.”  Smith was the party’s standard-bearer in 1928.  Personal rivalry was largely blamed for the bitterness that divided him from FDR in 1932, but by 1936, he was fully onboard with the GOP’s “back to Hooverism” platform.  And that’s exactly the same message sent by Obama with Daley’s appointment today

“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


 
Agreed–and this points out what an utter waste of time it is (4.00 / 15)
to continue to focus on the President.  There is precisely zero evidence to suggest that the Administration will make any substantive policy decisions to please or appease progressives.  In part this is because the President himself is decidedly not a “progressive” in the political sense; and in part it is because the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is seen as weak and is taken completely for granted.  Perhaps if Congressional Progressive Caucus members had stood their ground on the health care reform fight, and denied the White House its prize, then progressives would have been seen as more of a threat.  Or maybe not.  But, thinking and worrying and hoping about whether the President is going to finally turn progressive allofasudden, is a colossal waste of valuable time.

[ Parent ]  
Exactly right. (4.00 / 14)
After engaging in coalition politics for the last two years, I also have come to that conclusion:

and this points out what an utter waste of time it is to continue to focus on the President.  

You cannot solve the core problems in our system through Barack Obama.  He’s not as crzy as Rs, and, fine, vote lesser evilism if one chooses to do so, but we need to find ways around the presidential electoral process to build movements.  


[ Parent ]  
Please… (0.00 / 0)
Has Obama shown that he’s not actually Progressive?  Yes… but discounting Health Care (as you seem to), there have still been several progressive “wins” over the past couple years… most recently with the repeal of DADT… So I wouldn’t say there’s “zero evidence” that they care about progressive causes, since clearly there’s a few things that the Administration appears to agree with us on… I’d just say that there’s evidence that suggests that the Administration doesn’t have all of the same goals that most progressives thought he had when he was elected, and this pick is clearly a part of that.

Do I expect to be frustrated over the next couple years?  Definitely, though it may actually be less than before now that there’s literally no chance of good legislation being passed (whereas before there was, but Democrats prefer punting in a way that allows for electoral blowouts, I guess).


[ Parent ]  
Obama stood at the sideline in the battle about DADT (4.00 / 2)
You really can’t say that he fought for the repeal. That victory belongs to Nancy Pelosi and, surprisingly, Harry Reid. They played an active role in it, while all the president did was making promises, while doing more to delay they decision than to make izt happen. It’s simply WRONG to  count the repeal of DADT as an achievement of Obama!

[ Parent ]  
Maybe so… (0.00 / 0)
But as we clearly saw, John McCain would’ve vetoed a repeal.

[ Parent ]  
Yes, that's really what President Obama has been reduced to (4.00 / 2)
At best, he’s a hand that will sign the bills we want, but little more.

At worst, he’s a corporatist shill who cuts deals with the very people he denounced during his campaign.


[ Parent ]  
That's good Paul. (4.00 / 7)
An Al Smith Democrat.

Obama is just not relevant anymore ot progressive change, unless one gets bogged down in whether he is an impediement.

We need to build a real movement for long term change that has nothing to do with this President or the Dem Party.

Mike still ants to beleive, perhaps because he spent much of his life fighting for progressive change w/i the Dem Party. That’s fine, fight soem more, but it ain’t happening for the next decade.  


[ Parent ]  
Well, I Wouldn't Write Off The Party (4.00 / 8)
There are way too many people involved who are serious progressives. But they’re going to have to do the same as everyone else: focus on building up independent bases of power, rather than expecting anything to trickle down from above.

“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 ]  
I already did … (4.00 / 2)
two years ago when only the right-wing, militaristic corporatists Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were allowed to compete for the Presidential nomination.

[ Parent ]  
Did you vote for either Obama or Clinton in the primaries? (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]  
re: party (4.00 / 4)
focus on building up independent bases of power, rather than expecting anything to trickle down from above.

yes, and we must do it while staying away from the establishment democrats.

ps. I’m not saying you suggested otherwise


[ Parent ]  
Are you holding your breath? (4.00 / 9)
But if the White House is smart, they will realize that by appointing Daley, now it is incumbent on them to actually be far more aggressive in reaching out to progressives and populists. They could appoint a strong progressive populist as a senior White House staffer; they could announce sooner rather than later they will adamantly oppose Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid cuts; they could empower Elizabeth Warren and give her a bigger role, and they could far more aggressively push the big banks to write down mortgages, since with Daley as COS the presumption will be that the White House has become all pro-Wall St, all of the time; they could send a clear signal that they aren’t going to bow to hostage taking on the debt ceiling issue.

Obama will not so much “bow” to the hostage-takers as join them and force the rest of us to accept more of his GOPper policies.


“It sounds wrong…
     …but its right.”


 
If Obama (4.00 / 6)
Went on national TV and said “here’s to you, progressives” while extending his middle finger, Mike would say it might be a gesture of reconciliation. Sigh.

 
Not burning our bridges to Obama… (4.00 / 3)
is starting to feel like not blowing up the bridge over the river Kwai (to use a classic movie analogy).

“What have I done?”

“Madness”

(falls over dead, blows up bridge)



The MSM has tagged Independents the party of swing-voting ‘centrism.’ If Democrats no longer represent your liberal values, show America there is still a Left by registering for another left-aligned party.

[ Parent ]  
Great analogy! (4.00 / 3)
Yeah, that’s how it is: Establishment Progressives like Mike are held prisoner by corporatist Dems, and they even whistle a happy tune while putting all their energy into building bridges that will ultimately be used to railroad them!
Madness, indeed. How much longer before those brave, but dangerously misguided victims find the sanity to trigger the detonator?

[ Parent ]  
No, you mischaracterize Mike. (4.00 / 3)
He wouldn’t say it might be a gesture of reconciliation at all.

But he would then go on to explain what Obama now needs to do to win us after he’s given us the finger.

Educate, Agitate, Organize, Mobilize, Act!


[ Parent ]  
re: cos (4.00 / 3)
I’ve known him for almost a quarter century, and he has always treated me with respect in spite of our many disagreements.

hey, when the big banks throw us on the street, it’ll be done with respect. see, if you are thrown out with respect you won’t need a house to live in anymore. but if they throw you out with no respect, oh boy…


 
After two years, it is clear (4.00 / 9)
to me that Obama does not share our values.

What we have seen for two years is what we will get.  Period.  End of story.

This President is not very relevant to solutions to the fundamnetal problem of gross inequality and increasing impovrishment.  Oh, the Rs are worse, but always looking for Obama to do something is a waste of time.

Vote for him; don’t vote for him.  Do what you will.  But don’t expect any real change.  


 
Obviously not mine… (4.00 / 1)
I agree that This appointment was a classic “which side are you on” moment, but the side taken was not the right one.

I think that the rest is irrelevant.

This isn’t bad optics – it’s horrible optics, likely to be followed by horrible policy.

If anyone has started a protest against this appointment, let me know.


 
What good would such a protest do? (4.00 / 1)
Really, the Admin does not view progressive protests, protestations, letters, calls, faxes, e-mails, etc. as persuasive or even worthy of notice.

The President has cast his lot with the powerful and wealthy–and his ratings suggest that this was a politically shrewd maneuver.  We actually worship the wealthy in this country.  Sure, there’s “populist anger” at “Wall Street;” but, it is largely inarticulate and unfocused rage, easily turned by the wealthy and powerful (as it always has been) at some scapegoat (in this case, Mexican immigrants in part).

It is enough to get me starting to wonder whether my socialist Poli Sci prof in college was right in contending that our governmental structures preclude the possibility of achieving progressive populist goals.


[ Parent ]  
I don't know. It's just the best idea I have at the moment. (0.00 / 0)
If you have a better idea, let me know.

“our governmental structures preclude the possibility of achieving progressive populist goals” – somehow, we got Medicare. Social Security, too. They may have an explanation for these discrepancies, of course.


[ Parent ]  
He's the worst of Bush & Clinton …. (4.00 / 3)
in a relaxed meeting with right wing congressional Democrats, the president let slip his mask, if only for an unscripted moment.  “I am a New Democrat,” declared President Obama, firmly identifying himself with the brand and philosophy, though not necessarily with the organization of the Democratic Leadership Council.

http://www.blackagendareport.c…


[ Parent ]  
seems they want 2012 to be 2010 on steroids (4.00 / 6)
if anyone likes the current wh team and policies, why wouldn’t they vote for the republicrats? why would they go for obama?

 
Smart neolibs and neoconservatives realize that the current Pres (4.00 / 2)
can accomplish all their goals, while looking like a very thoughtful and oh-so-moderate pragmatist.  If it were Crazy Johnny McCain, who is not so smooth, there would probably be more resistance from Dems in Congress.  Simultaneously, he provides a great bogeyman by which to focus the rage of their donors.  It’s a win-win for them, and that’s why I think you will see a token candidate a la Bob Dole in ’96 thrown up as the ’12 Repub candidate.

[ Parent ]  
Takes a Democrat to screw a Democrat. (4.00 / 8)
If Clinton had been a Republican, he would not have been able to get NAFTA, WTO, and banking deregulation passed.  The lesson Clinton and Obama taught me is never vote for any Democrat for President again.   If we had a real Democrat in the WH with a veto pen, House Republicans would be as irrelevant as House Democrats were through the Bush WH.

Galbraith: Where progressives go from here

What happens next? Let’s again not kid ourselves, we have lost a great many seats in the House of Representatives and the House of Representatives isn’t coming back into a Democratic majority in the near future. Simply because of the balance of exposures — the larger numbers of Democratic Senators exposed to reelection in the next cycle, the greatest likelihood is that the Senate will also go Republican in two years time. President Obama has set his course. He has surrounded himself with the advisers of his choice and as he moves to replace President Summers we hear from the press that the priority is to “repair the rift with his investors on Wall Street.” What does that tell you? It tells me that he does not have President Clinton’s fighting and survival instincts. I’ve not heard one good reason all day to believe that we are going to see from this White House the fight that we want, that he could win in two years, or any reason we should be backing him now.

The Democratic Party has become too associated with Wall Street. This is a fact. It is a structural problem. It seems to me that we as progressives need — this is my personal position — we need to draw a line and decide that we would be better off with an under-funded, fighting progressive minority party than a party marked by obvious duplicity and constant losses on every policy front as a result of the reversals in our own leadership.

Time to quit whining “would you prefer President Palin” because we are going to get a Republican anyway and the Supreme Court is already a lost cause – thanks to again to lame ass Democrats keeping their powder dry.   Obama’s final capitulation to the Republicans (and banks) will be giving them the WH in 2012.    


[ Parent ]  
re: galbraith (4.00 / 3)
Galbraith:

I’ve not heard one good reason all day to believe that we are going to see from this White House the fight that we want, that he could win in two years, or any reason we should be backing him now.

I guess he doesn’t read mike lux

Time to quit whining “would you prefer President Palin” because we are going to get a Republican anyway and the Supreme Court is already a lost cause – thanks to again to lame ass Democrats keeping their powder dry.

exactly


[ Parent ]  
From the "don't know whether to laugh or cry" department (4.00 / 10)
Last paragraph of a NYT story on Daley:

Supporters of Mr. Daley’s appointment say that his diversity of experience is exactly what Mr. Obama needs – an experienced manager who can serve as an intermediary for the White House with various constituencies whose support the president needs. “The relevant thing is his ability to make the trains run on time and the dedication to public service,” said Nicholas W. Allard, the head of the lobbying practice at Patton Boggs, Washington’s biggest lobbying firm. “Everything one knows about Mr. Daley’s past shows he would come through with flying colors.”

Oh, if the chief lobbyist of the biggest lobbying firm says Daley’s OK, I’m sure we should welcome him! What a relief!


 
And so fascism arrives in the U.S. (4.00 / 2)
The relevant thing is his ability to make the trains run on time and the dedication to public service,”

Sweet jesus, they aren’t even hiding it anymore!  No one better tell me this guy at PattonBoggs was too stupid to understand the historical significance of the “trains running on time…”


[ Parent ]  
I wonder when Obama will hold up a bundle of (4.00 / 1)
sticks to illustrate us all needing to work together in a speech.  You know big business, the banks and the government?

Educate, Agitate, Organize, Mobilize, Act!


[ Parent ]  
And of course the press is dutifully reporting (4.00 / 7)
that this signals a move to the center, cause everyone knows he was a socialist till the great shellacking made him see the light.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_…

Daley’s hiring will likely have its biggest impact on the shifting politics of the West Wing. A political moderate, Daley has publicly argued that Democrats need to move more toward the governing middle. It’s a message that, if heeded by the president, could help him win back support among independents and moderate Republicans ahead of what’s shaping up to be a grueling 2012 re-election campaign.

If heeded by the president. Can you imagine if Obama moved toward the governing middle?

I’m finding the political class especially unbearable today.  


 
The "Governing Middle" (4.00 / 4)
has nothing to do with middle of American public opinion.

The “governing middle” is halfway between Chris Matthews and David Brooks.

And that’s where Obama’s been for the past two years already.

Looks like the governing middle is about to shift 10 yards to the right.

“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 ]  
Halfway between Chris Matthew and David Brooks? (4.00 / 4)
Is that when you are at the Applebee’s Salad Bar and a tingle goes up your leg?

Educate, Agitate, Organize, Mobilize, Act!


[ Parent ]  
Agreed (4.00 / 3)
but he has lost support from swing voters who voted for him in 2008.  This is not because he went too far left (if we can go along with the charade that watered-down stimulus and ORomneycare count as “far left”) but because he, like just about every Democrat, failed to define what “left” is, and so allowed right-wing government-sucks ideology to completely take over once again.

The policy failures of the past two years are actually eclipsed by the political/ideological/optical failures.  Unpopular corporatist centrist policies have been allowed to be defined as what “liberal” and “left” mean.  It’s like being framed for a bank robbery or a house burning down.


[ Parent ]  
This is probably the worst fallout, actually… (4.00 / 1)
Well, maybe not… but making the last 2 years sound like some kind of liberal wonderland is not a good thing for liberals.  Amazingly, as Mike points out here too, it’s not good for Obama either.  He’s going to look even worse to middle-class voters and at the same time take a crap on the base, though I guess that’s been his electoral strategy now for the past few years… Worked out really well for his party in November.

[ Parent ]  
COS Daley (4.00 / 8)
I’m from Chicago and have been active in politics and unions for 30 years until I recently retired. This is an awful choice. Bill Daley has the vision of a back bench alderman. I knew he’d help screw up the Gore campaign, especially when wisdom and steel was needed – i.e. the FL recount. He’s worthless, but it really doesn’t matter because all it does is reflect Barack’s right wing views. It’s a failed presidency and this is just one more sad example.

 
"the vision of a back bench alderman" (4.00 / 1)
That says it perfectly, IMHO.

Although, come to think of it, after the way he helped sabotage Gore in the FL recount, I think it might be slightly insulting to under-achieving Chicago pols.

How about, “the vision (but not quite the guts) of a back bench alderman”?

“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 ]  
Not sure what Obama gets… (4.00 / 7)
…from this. It seems clear he understands that he’s already lost the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party; employing Daley does nothing to encourage its members to change their minds about the Obama administration.

But how hiring Daley does anything to buttress Obama’s position with Independents is hard to see. Daley’s largely known as old-school Democrat. He’s not going to help Obama much at all in terms of the 2012 presidential campaign.

Obama’s a terrible leader and, if he ever had any delusions to the contrary, he probably has at least a little bit of a clue what an awful party leader he is by now. Daley will manage the administration and party business well enough so Obama can run out the clock on his single term in office without needing to bother too much beyond showing up to read the teleprompter when necessary. Works for me.


 
Don't forget photo ops with the dog. (4.00 / 3)
Sorry. Feeling bitter today.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]  
agree, wholeheartedly (4.00 / 3)
one thing only

do we have to call thieves like daley old-school democrats? Old-school democrat brings me warm thoughts of FDR, truman, and LBJ. How about sellout democrats?

But how hiring Daley does anything to buttress Obama’s position with Independents is hard to see.

yes. the center of dc is very different from the center in the rest of the country. wall street sellout isn’t anywhere near the center.


[ Parent ]  
Two words: Citizens United. (4.00 / 1)
Okay, more than two words.  This is the ultimate “pragmatic” decision.  CU opened the corporate donation floodgates:  the Admin took one look and decided their only hope of preserving all-important incumbency was to Dial for those Dollars.  Who better to lead the charge than the ultimate corporate, Chamber of Commerce insider?

[ Parent ]  
A lot of bullshit hope-ism in all these "coulds" here (4.00 / 8)
But if the White House is smart, they will realize that by appointing Daley, now it is incumbent on them to actually be far more aggressive in reaching out to progressives and populists. They could appoint a strong progressive populist as a senior White House staffer; they could announce sooner rather than later they will adamantly oppose Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid cuts; they could empower Elizabeth Warren and give her a bigger role, and they could far more aggressively push the big banks to write down mortgages, since with Daley as COS the presumption will be that the White House has become all pro-Wall St, all of the time; they could send a clear signal that they aren’t going to bow to hostage taking on the debt ceiling issue. If they did these kinds of things, progressives and those swing vote populists would not fear having Bill Daley as COS.

Basically, Bill Daley would be okay as long as the President does all this liberal stuff, that we know he won’t do.  I mean, you could say the exact same thing about a President John McCain and it’d have about the same meaning to me.

This is like saying, “If Superman existed, we would not fear plane crashes.”  Okay… but given that Superman is as fictional as the liberal version of Obama that you described, how exactly does that help us?


 
They could (4.00 / 6)
appoint a strong progressive populist as a senior White House staffer; they could announce sooner rather than later they will adamantly oppose Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid cuts; they could empower Elizabeth Warren and give her a bigger role, and they could far more aggressively push the big banks to write down mortgages

Well what exactly was stopping them from doing any of that shit for the past two years when they had majorities in both houses of Congress to work with and the afterglow of all the 2008, feel-good, eleventy-dimensional chess stuff going for them?

Obama will never do any of that stuff because he does not believe in it. He’s just another elitist scumbag who knows nothing about and cares nothing for the plight of the ordinary citizen.


 
Cornel West and this article agree on elitist. (4.00 / 2)
A broader point to be made about the rift between professor West and Obama is one of class: Cornel West is not just a champion for black people. He is also a champion for the poor, the powerless and the downtrodden. Dr. West’s constituency is almost directly opposed to the latte-sipping, Martha’s Vineyard-vacationing, Harvard University-attending folks who run with President Obama. This reminds us that fighting for black people can be very different from fighting for poor black people: Obama almost always stands up for black folks as long as they either went to Harvard or have millions of dollars in the bank.

http://www.bvblackspin.com/201…


[ Parent ]  
Obama has finally (4.00 / 2)
caused me to lose all hope for the Democratic Party. If he goes after Social Security (which I believe is next betrayal on the horizon) I will vote for Anybody But…

What a waste of effort in the 2008 campaign. I could have spent all those dollars on something fun, I could have spent all that time…doing something enjoyable…

I feel utterly betrayed.

I won’t vote for Obama again, even if some rightwing crazy like Palin or…well any other likely GOP candidate is running against him.

I’m done.


 
I know how you feel. (4.00 / 4)
It feels like I voted for Barack Obama and got Herbert Hoover.

[ Parent ]  
In 2012 Please (4.00 / 1)
spend the same dollars and effort you did in 2008 but spend it on real, independent progressive organizations that are in it for the long-term, trying to build a movement.

[ Parent ]  
Oh, the irony… (4.00 / 4)
For the better part of two years now, Mike’s posts have kinda felt like he’s trying to talk progressives back from the ledge, but once you stack ’em up they illuminate with startling clarity why more and more folks are/should be jumping ship.

“This ain’t for the underground. This here is for the sun.” -Saul Williams

 
I get that impression too (4.00 / 1)
although my image was more of Mike desperately scooping water out of a sinking ship with a thimble.

[ Parent ]  
these posts appear to be directed to a different audience (0.00 / 0)
one that probably includes Ezra Klein and Matt Bai

[ Parent ]  
Maybe it's more like (0.00 / 0)
people are getting into the lifeboats and Mike’s on deck assuring us that the ship isn’t sinking.

I’m also wondering which audience this post is directed at. Based on the comments, it doesn’t seem like anyone here.


[ Parent ]  
Good point (4.00 / 2)
This has become fairly typical of Mike Lux’s posts: he posts a long diary that laments the current state of affairs but points towards an exceedingly difficult path to an unrealistically optimistic-looking future, and in return he gets comments that essentially add up to “No, everything sucks; it’s hopeless; we’re all gonna die”.

Clearly neither side is getting through to the other and nothing really constructive is coming out of this process other than a bunch of people (myself included) whining about our perpetually hopeless state of affairs.  Mike must be a busy guy, but it’d help if he could jump in the comments more often to engage in a dialog with the rest of us.

In terms of what’s constructive, I think in the short-term we might do better in terms of a holding action by electing as many “true liberals” (those who truly believe in the value of active government and support such things as Medicare for All, WPA-style jobs programs, anti-poverty programs, fair trade, etc.) as possible to Congress.  The path of least resistance lies in the 2012 Senate seats in MA and CT, and NY-15 if Charlie Rangel retires.  Other seats that could be taken include CA-Sen (Dianne Feinstein), CA-36 (Jane Harman), IA-3 (Leonard Boswell) and IL-3 (Dan Lipinski).  These are areas that are leaning-to-strongly Democratic but for some reason keep electing relative centrist-to-conservatives to represent them.  Try to get as many true liberals into Congress as possible so they can either lead the resistance against a GOP President or apply independent leftist pressure to President Obama during his potential second term.


[ Parent ]  
What Now? | 52 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS