
"See you in 2012!" by digistorytellin
A couple of days ago, a friend was telling me about two competing rallies that took place in Washington, DC, last weekend. In the first, about 50 people attended a Tea Party rally calling for drastic cuts to the government. Meanwhile, a progressive rally against a sell-out debt deal that would slash services and endanger programs such as Medicare and Social Security drew a larger crowd, made up of 450 to 500 people.
My friend, like other progressives, complained that the Tea Party rally got more press coverage, despite being far smaller. I understood her frustration.
But, at the same time, I said that I thought she was missing the bigger picture: If only 500 people are showing up for a rally, it’s because the public doesn’t care. In this case, it doesn’t care about politicians bickering over the debt ceiling. America has a different agenda and Washington is missing it entirely.
As has been often noted, we are not facing a debt crisis in our country. We are facing a jobs crisis. Working people desperately need the economy to improve and to start generating well-paying jobs.
Less often noted is the fact that taking on America’s real problems will require the president to behave differently, and it will require us to behave differently.
First, the president.
There are not simple and easy answers to our country’s economic difficulties. The truth is that the challenges we face as a nation are far more complicated than our elected officials would like to acknowledge. To solve them, our leaders must act with an entrepreneurial, can-do spirit and put forward innovative solutions. To do anything less, is to forget the best of what our country represents – its capacity to pull together to solve problems.
The essence of presidential leadership is being able to pull together diverse interests and to find solutions that serve the common good, as opposed to policies that play to extremists at the margins.
Let’s give President Obama the benefit of the doubt and assume that he wants to get re-elected so that he can take on the real challenge of jump-starting the economy and getting America back to work. He is asking us to give him a second chance, so that he can lead without being encumbered by the need to gauge his actions against campaign polls. But for us to give this benefit of the doubt, to operate based on good faith, Obama needs to put something substantive on the table between now and the elections.
This means that, if President Obama is going to cut an ugly deal such as the compromise on the debt ceiling – which is sometimes necessary, given the intrinsic ugliness of politics – he must demonstrate that he is getting real gains in exchange for concessions. In this case, the right framed the range of choices available in public debate, and President Obama conceded to operate within the framework of austerity. His utter failure to produce any real benefits for the Democratic base makes it hard for us to retain good faith. There is a very clear difference between what the Republicans want and what the American people want. Our president ought not be confused.
Now, what is our role?
Those of us who identify as progressives, as labor activists, as people of color, or as working Americans must recognize how important the job ahead of us is – not only in the coming election cycle, but also starting the day after the elections. Our role cannot once again be to simply elect the lesser of two evils. It must instead be demanding – as a condition of our enthusiasm, our financial donations and our ground forces in any campaign – a massive investment in jobs.
Those of us who are going to walk our neighborhoods or open our pocketbooks to elect President Obama or any Democratic members of Congress, should see our real work as beginning after Election Day. The success of our electoral strategy will be gauged not only by results at the polls, but by whether or not we have created structures through which people can remain engaged. Because if they do not remain engaged after the elections and if we’re not putting forward our demands in the clearest fashion, we will be setting ourselves up for the same cycle of disappointment we have experienced so many times before.
Those of us who are a part of the labor movement say to union members each election cycle that the stakes have never been higher and that’s why we have to vote. This time, let us say: There has never been a more important time to stay active after the elections in shaping the future of the country. We are not gearing up to mobilize voters for one act of political participation; we are building a movement to create the change we need after the polls have closed.
It’s clear that, currently, Republicans know what they want, but that those on the other side of the aisle – those who are supposed to be our friends – are confused. In the future, we should let them have no excuse. In her recent Washington Post column, Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote:
The vast majority of Americans want Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid protected, not cut. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that nearly three-fourths of Americans oppose cuts in Medicare. Majorities reject raising the eligibility age for Medicare or cutting the Social Security inflation rate, two reforms President Obama has apparently embraced. For Americans, the most popular reforms to deal with the deficit are increased taxes on those making more than $250,000 (72 percent), hedge fund operators and oil and gas companies.
Katrina also noted, “The Tea Party captured the populist anger in 2010, representing a small fraction of the population. In 2012, legislators in both parties may just encounter a populist uprising that represents an American majority.”
Already, we are seeing grassroots efforts emerging that could form the basis of a lasting progressive infrastructure at the state and local levels. Those involved with the budding American Dream Movement have held hundreds of rallies and House meetings in recent weeks to strategize about how to push policies that will allow us to end corporate dominance in politics and rebuild the American middle class. The AFL-CIO, through its Working America program, and SEIU, through its Fight for a Fair Economy drive, are each launching “open source” initiatives to enlist working people – whether or not they are union members – in an effort to create an American economy whose benefits do not go only to the wealthy.
These are excellent starts. But regardless of who takes office in 2012, if these efforts end on Election Day, we will have lost. On the other hand, if we reinforce these drives and give legs to others like them demanding that progressive constituencies assume a role in governing, we will have begun the work of transforming our country.
Amy Dean
Amy Dean is co-author, with David Reynolds, of “A New New Deal: How Regional Activism Will Reshape the American Labor Movement.” She worked for nearly two decades in the labor movement and now works to develop new and innovative organizing strategies for social change organizations in progressive, labor and faith communities. You can follow Amy on Twitter at @amybdean, or she can be reached via her web site, www.amybdean.com.



27 Comments

Amy, our organization, founded here at MyFDL last fall, is working to create a long-term presence for Progressive values and policy, and the same sort of critical mass that the first Progressive Era did, and for the same reasons: Robber barons have taken over our government and our lives.
Today our Steering Committee (David Swanson, Jill Stein, Cindy Sheehan, Kevin Zeese, Richard Winger and others) ratified what we are calling the Unified Progressive Platform, which harkens to that first Progressive Era and which we believe can help usher in a new one. It is being presented at the annual meeting of the Green Party as I type.
We believe a key in creating a second Progressive Era is dropping the whole “Left/Right” paradigm which the elites use to keep us divided – and conquered. Just as the first Progressive Era united people of every political and social stripe against a common enemy, so must the second.
We would welcome your participation at NewProgs.org, and thanks for this diary!
Anthony Noel
NPA Facilitator
From the diary above:
That’s just not true.
We are in this mess because Obama has ignored the lessons of FDR.
The answers really are simple, we need to tax the rich and put our people to work rebuilding our infra-structure.
It’s worse than that.
He holds FDR’s ideas in contempt; if it was merely ignorance, then at least there would be something to be optimistic about.
I’m sorry, but I’m not giving Obama a 217th second chance. He lost me at TARP, and sealed the deal in granite with a wet sloppy kiss to the insurance thieves known as Obamacare. Not to mention Bradley manning. BP. ETC.
He could nationalize the banks at this point, and I still wouldn’t trust him.
The democratic party will never fight for progressive ideas as long as progressives blindly support them. This democratic party from Obama to Pelosi to Reid needs a purging before it can be of use to the people again. I am sorry but the last thing progressives should do is fight for the democratic party in 2012.
Word.
I agree but there is one facet that you have not considered. the dems can win without progressives and where does that then leave progressives? Clinton won a second tern easily and without many progressives.
In fact, I believe that Clinton could have won a third term had he been constitutionally able to run. And by that time, with welfare reform, he’d lost pretty much all progressives.
Oh contraire.
By the time Billy Bob was done there was a major shift away from the Democrats. People had lost faith in them.
The result.
The Battle of Seattle. Which shut down the WTO. When the Trade Unions, mainly the Steelworkers joined the anarchists.
So, who is going to October 6th in DC? See you all there.
Clinton cruised to re-election. And without progressives for the most part.
Oh and for the record, screw these “the progressive fight starts now” cheer leading American Dream Movement, Working America Obama/Dem apologists calling for progressives to get back into the veal pen folks.
Progressives have left the veal pen. We ain’t coming back.
Um, exactly who identified as progressive in ’96? Just one poll will do.
Progressives were the folks against throwing people off welfare. And Clinton traded them for the alleged “center”. Successfully btw
He benefited from the Rs running a ridiculous candidate, Perot taking some Repub votes, and a rebounding economy. To say that his re-election proves the success of hippie-punching is a little post hoc, ergo propter hoc, IMO.
“…see our real work as beginning after Election Day.”
Your value to BO and the Lemmingcrats and their interest in you end at the moment when the polls close in November.
And had I said that, you’d be correct. What i said was that progressives deserted Clinton in droves and he still won. In fact, he enjoyed very high approval ratings even when he left office.
Precisely. And if he has to choose between progressives and prized independents, progressives can kiss it goodbye.
Let’s not give Obama the benefit of the doubt. This is just a re-elect Obama diary.
Is there any chance this person would support primarying Obama?
In this case, the right framed the range of choices available in public debate.
In every case, going back at least as far as the Reagan tax cuts, the right has framed the range of choices.
I used to think this was the case because the Democrats are the worst debaters in the history of politics. Now I’ve come to the realization that the “leaders” of the Democratic Party are on the take–through the perfectly legal form of bribery known as campaign contributions.
I propose a friendly amendment to your first sentence: “The Democratic Party will never fight for progressive ideas–ever.”
And what would be the take away from a progressive challenger getting trounced by Obama by the mainstream people watching their mainstream media: the Progressive agenda is out touch and too radical for Americans.
If progressives want some positive press, let’s get a win. Warren trouncing Brown will take the movement light years down the road further than some ill-fated challenge to Obama.
Warren trouncing Brown would be barely noticed outside of MA, would be re-framed as a “win” for Obama (more power for the Dems in the Senate) thus reinforcing his agenda, and anything progressive that she did would be dismissed as Massachusetts being Massachusetts. Heck, her views wouldn’t even be heard by the majority of the country.
I’d much rather have her airing her viewpoints in debates, running ads in numerous states, and proving that these ideas carry weight in a broad-based campaign. Even if she loses every primary by 70-30 margins, that still identifies 30% of the Democratic electorate as opposed to Obamaism. That’s a good thing in and of itself.
(Are the MA Presidential and Senate primaries even on the same day? I know in NY the Senate primary is in September; for all I know she could challenge Obama, lose and still turn around and take Brown’s seat. And if that’s not possible, she can go after Kerry in ’14.)
Ditto. Stop the Wars!!! Let the Bush Tax Cuts Expire!!!!
There is so much work to be done right here in this country, it is outrageous that anyone is unemployed! South Carolina for sure needs roads, bridges, environmental protection, hi speed rail, free WiFi, all kinds of stuff. The people are suffering. The only reason we have a deficit is because Rich People barely pay any taxes, and we have been paying for these stupid wars. Oh yes, and we have been paying the Big Banks to keep up the stealing.
The Cavinator lost me for good when he went on national TV and admitted he is weak and impotent, and begged us to “call your Congressmen”. Jees, when I hear people compaining about government budget cuts and curtailing of services, I tell them to call their Congressmen! For the president to do that, on national prime time TV, is an announcement of defeat and powerlessness.
As this diary implies, quite unintentionally, one suspects, there is considerable “concern” about the prospects of a very difficult election season for Barack Obama.
At Huff Po, we find Valerie Jarret, Senior Adviser and Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, saying. “The President has also always believed that a leader’s job is to act on behalf of the people he serves, not to score political points. The President will never stop fighting on their behalf. I could not be prouder to be a part of his team.”
And Michael Fauntroy, Professor, Author, and Columnist at Michael Fauntroy . com, has this to say, “The President could lose his reelection bid is enough black voters stay home because they either believe that the Republican nominee can win or they do not feel the urgency to show up on election day.”
Somebody is getting worried.
Apparently, that somebody is convinced that happy words and telling other human beings what to think will save the day for the failed Presidency of Barack Obama.
We shall see if propagandistic fluff and blatant color-based appeals will be sufficient to hide the truth of that continuing and unnecessary failure and its cost to American civil society as a whole.
Amy B. Dean, you might wish to ponder why your diary has not met with happy acclaim and rousing support, at this site.
DW
She has stated she is saving all her rock for the Republicans, so I think one can forget her doing a primary challenge to Obama.
And I think you underestimate the MSM desire to talk about the Kennedy. This would be a fight for the seat once held by Ted Kennedy. The seat of the Lion of the Senate to be won by the future Lioness of the Senate. There would be plenty of those in the MSM that would love this. Moreover, Brown was in part pushed into power by the Tea Party who are not pleased with him for some of his actions since getting to the beltway. So if there was a Senate race that would get national attention it would be this one.
And if Obama loses the national election, then what do you have – 30% of the losing side want the country to head left. In other words, progressives make up the fringe of the country political ideologies. It would reinforce those polls that show liberals only make up 20%+ of the population, and that it is really about the moderates and the conservatives duking it out for control.
Showing that a minority of the Democratic party opposes Obama will mean nothing in 2013 when the battle over austerity versus stimulus starts anew. In fact, I would argue it would weaken an already weak hand. But having Warren in the Senate would strengthen that weak hand immeasurably.
Of course not. But she deserves to hit the NPA site and see what she and other pseudo-progs are going to be up against.
mwahahahahaha…