Just today, President Obama repeated his call for Republicans’ Holy Grails: Obama wants cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
The deal Obama is seeking with Republicans will allow the elimination of cuts in military spending, putting the entire burden of cuts on the middle class and poor. What’s more, Obama is making this offer even though Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit or the debt because it is not a part of the budget.
How did we get in this predicament where a Democratic President is offering Republicans what they have craved for more than sixty years?
We are learning the lesson of lesser evil politics.
If we look at each Presidency issue by issue rather than by party affiliation, we cannot deny that each successive government that we’ve had since Jimmy Carter has been farther to the right than the previous one, particularly when it comes to spending on vital but “discretionary” programs. Bill Clinton gave us “welfare reform” that has failed miserably during this financial crisis, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which was Wall Street’s wet dream and (at least) a huge contributing factor to the financial collapse in 2008, and the Defense of Marriage Act, to name a few of his right-wing policies.
Barack Obama has overseen the dramatic growth of an authoritarian state, curtailing individuals’ rights under several amendments in the Bill of Rights even to the point of saying, in actual effect, that he can kill anyone anywhere at any time for reasons that he specifies without review by another branch of government. And there can be little doubt that corruption in government has gotten worse under his tenure, while he has done nothing to try to combat it except give a few speeches. Many officials in the executive branch have gone to work for corporations that they were formerly responsible for regulating. Such employment is widely and justly seen as a reward for those former public employees not doing their jobs while they were in public service.
In fact, there are no issues other than abortion and the Lilly Ledbetter act on which the actual results of government policy are not farther to the right than what George W. Bush gave us.
The problem is how we vote. We have become convinced that Republicans are so terrible that we are unwilling to hold accountable Democrats who are not actually very different from them. There are no primary fights because we’re afraid to weaken Democratic incumbents. The result is that we get what we don’t want anyway. The entire focus of Democrats becomes not policy but making sure that someone with a “D” behind their name holds office. The impediments to reaching our goals has become not Republicans but corruption and Democrats who support right-wing policies.
Of course, the excuse we always hear is that things would be worse under Republicans. This is, however, clearly a fallacy since we end up with the very policies that Republicans would work for anyway. (Tax hikes? Even Ronald Reagan eventually saw that he had to increase taxes, which a Republican-controlled Senate helped him to do.)
Our shift to being more concerned about personality than principle is what has gotten us in our current predicament. Only when we become more concerned with actual results than with who holds office will things begin to change for the better. But that’s a tide that will take a long time to shift. In the meantime, get ready for austerity (which everyone should know by now will only make things worse), for the loss of even more of our fundamental Constitutional rights, and for the further demise of human habitat at our children’s and grandchildren’s expense.



9 Comments

The problem is that the bulk of voters are more conservative than they were in 1976 in part because they are not the same voters. New Deal Democrats who came of age in the Depression are almost gone as an age cohort. Reagan Republicans who came of age when Barack Obama was coming of age didn’t exist in 1976 but came to dominate politics for more than a decade.
These sorts of moral analyses miss too very important factors in elections: geography and math. Progressives are much too concentrated in certain areas to affect all Democratic primaries. And neither progressives nor Democrats have invested near as much time an effort in persuading other voters as do conservatives and Republicans. While progressives fight among themselves, conservatives are creating a social culture that says that this is a conservative culture. And that sways lots of moderates who don’t pay much attention to politics but who get hit by conservative propaganda from neighbors, at church, at work, and from their bosses. There is nothing like that effort going on by progressives.
The fact is that most Democrats depend more on votes from people who think more like Eisenhower Republicans than they do on votes from people who think like FDR Democrats. And they reflect their constituencies at least in that general respect.
The other fact is that out of the 435 Congressional Districts in the country, in most of them voters have only the choice between a Republican and Democrat – if they even have that choice. That sets the political tone of the Congress.
The fact is that voters have generally been more concerned about personality than principle in elections. Personality dominated even more in the days in which legislatures of the states pretty much exclusively elected the President and they personally knew and had dealt with the candidates they were choosing among.
Our political system is broken not because folks in the progressive blogosphere have voted personality over principle. Our political system is broken because voters are being systematically prevented from making informed decisions about issues that affect their lives. The fact that the last election generated close to $3 billion in campaign contributions if you consider all offices means that the deception is systematic. It was much more straightforward when politicians in the turn of the 1800s bought voters rounds of hard cider to influence who got elected to state assemblies or to Congress. (President and Senate were elected by the legislatures.)
I don’t know why progressives cling to a notion of a principled American politics that never was in reality. Yes, principled politics is desireable and something that we should work to institute. But that job is going to take more effort than just deciding who to vote for.
I have to disagree with your statement that “the bulk of voters are more conservative than they were in 1976″. First of all, Ford lost mostly because the economy began to falter. It was only late in the campaign that people started to think that Carter would win. Besides, voters has voted for Nixon in the two previous elections.
Nevertheless, in 2009, while Obama was giving away the store to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries in backroom meetings, the polls showed that huge numbers of people wanted a public health insurance option. And even in 2010 and later, when equally large polls showed that people wanted tax hikes on the rich, Obama refused to work for them, actually /cutting/ their taxes, instead.
Since your initial assumption is false, as are the conclusions that you derive from it, I didn’t bother reading the rest of your comment.
The people know what they want. They just don’t know how to get it.
Oh I see.. it’s our fault.
blah blah blah…
You voted for Obama and the Democratic party so your charge is that voting third party isn’t the answer. That’s quite convenient, huh? But your “insights” into history, math, demographics, etc do not make an effective argument.
“…neither progressives nor Democrats have invested near as much time an effort in persuading other voters as do conservatives and Republicans.”
And how, exactly, does FDL’s institutional refusal to take a truly progressive stand against the crimes and betrayals of the Obama Administration qualify as an effort in persuasion? It doesn’t.
I’ve no specific anumus against you, TD, but your exercises in circular logic are defensive, tiresome and self-serving.
I suggest you look at more data about political attitudes before dismissing my comment because it does not fit your narrative.
When there is one progressive elected official in over half of the Congressional districts, I’ll believe that geography and numbers are not a problem. I don’t understand how my comments could be taken as self-serving; my interests are not being served at all.
Thank you EveningStarNM … I find your viewpoint(s) to be well placed and your take away regarding what Barack Obama does and is doing to be both accurate in profile and framing. Recommended.
Barack Obama plainly has played a sharp game of politics that Barack Obama has been able to merchandise as being not so sharp while going on about platitudes and political posturing Barack Obama eloquently has packaged with words and adorned with the ribbons of Obama’s oratory skillset.
Barack Obama seems to easily shapeshift his campaign politics into a quite different collection of governance politics.
One at this point is led to conclude upon/after observing Barack Obama as POTUS since early 2009 that Barack Obama very easily could have declared to be a R and it would have been a better fit with the politics Obama tilts towards and appears to seek out and want to do.
Too bad Barack Obama was so dishonest about what Barack Obama intended to be and do during 2007-2008 run up to the 2008 WH election. It soon became plain to see post Jan. 20,2009 that Barack Obama had misled many USians about what Barack Obama was going to be doing / not doing as POTUS.
Here in March 2013 again after 2012 WH election this could not be made any more clear.
Obama and D Party zealots wanted Barack Obama re-elected in 2012 and they worked hard to avoid engaging what Barack Obama is and has done as POTUS while insisting on berating and dwelling on Mitt Romney — the 2012 R WH candidate with the ludicrous LO2E premise and SCOTUS fearmongering nonsense being bandied mindlessly about. Meanwhile Barack Obama plainly was not able to differentiate much between what Obama had been doing/ done, stood and stands for and has sought and seeks to do when compared to Mitt Romney.
The O/D zealots got what they wanted. Barack Obama was re-elected as POTUS. Too bad about that. Too late now to stop Barack Obama. Barack Obama will be POTUS until Jan.2017.
In recent days Barack Obama has openly declared as a so called D POTUS Barack Obama would be / is willing to cut/gut SS/MC as a negotiation give away with the Rs on Capitol Hill in exchange for whatever the Rs are prepared to dangle in front of Obama that Obama can convert into another false ACA “win” bit of political theatre and kabuki stageplay. The nonsense in all this being SS has nothing to do with this deficit BS and to be mixing SS in with this mindless austerity recanting is a big lie being told and done by Barack Obama.
Barack Obama is a war criminal who belongs in jail for having failed to bring G.W Bush up on war crimes charges and then proceeding to become a war criminal as well. The O and D zealots chose to overlook this fundamental Obama failure to uphold Rule Of Law and willingness to become/be a war criminal.
Obamapologist now will spend the next four years abetting Obama and suggesting Obama has been misunderstood or it really was/is the fault of USians that Barack Obama can not be a better D POTUS. By all means blame the Rs then too. More R vs. D junk. More misdirection about “electing” more Ds though having done so in 2006 and 2008 was a fools quest for what it led to then.
That Barack Obama is doing what a good R POTUS might be doing seems to fly over the O/D zealots and apologists heads.
At this point USians cannot do much about Barack Obama and the wealth gangsters and arms dealers and MIC/Security state/CIA puppetmasters Barack Obama is fronting for and servicing. One day this rotted edifice will collapse as it will have no more reason to not do so.
Hopefully the legacy of Barack Obama will be known for the deceptive trail of serial betrayal(s) it is and was. The Ds have failed to dislodge the Rs after 2006 and after 2008 elections. The fact that both Ds and Rs are allied in a UniParty/MIC/CIA tilting imperial regime has become plainly obvious. The Ds need the Rs to sell LO2E while the Rs need the Ds to set up the political charade(s) that then make it possible for someone like Barack Obama to claim to be a D while doing what a R would seek to do and want to do.
Barack Obama is literally getting away with murder while now doing to SS/MC what G.W.Bush could not pull off after 2004.
What part do the O/D zealots and apologists not get? What part?
Party politics fails the left because the left by and large bailed from it decades ago, in the wake of McCarthyism:
What a great quote! Thank you for sharing that Richard Wolff link, though you really should have named him, you know, but I quibble. His analysis is damned accurate, IMO.
Well-said and recommended. The Opologists and D-Team cheerleaders certainly deserve your scathing analysis. As far as the little kerfluffle with TarheelDem up there, I submit that perhaps the two of you are looking at the same picture from different angles.
You, Evening Star of New Mexico, are looking at poll after poll of Americans on individual issues. Many of them are from so-called “mainstream” media organizations and consistently show that most Americans are in favor of something like Social Democracy when they are asked about many individual issues, such as health care, jobs, foreign military adventures, and regulation of Wall Street. And you’re right.
You, TarheelDem, are looking at who actually gets elected, and you’re right, too. The problem is that many, if not most, voters DO vote based on personality, appearance, perceptions from political ads, and upon what their friends and families and coworkers say. Unfortunately, many of the most outspoken of the latter are Limbaugh Dittoheads at worst and people who benefit in some way from capitalism at best.
IOW, many, if not most, voters do not bother to study the actual positions on the issues of their candidates, and many who do see that there’s no real difference and therefore don’t bother to vote because of that.
A real leftist movement with some leadership, organization, and resources could change that, but right now there is nothing even close to the old CIO or socialists or communists who scared the bejeepers out of the PTB back in the Great Depression.
So America drifts closer and closer to the precipice of real, sudden, chaotic, and probably violent revolutionary change. And our PTB won’t even admit the possibility of that happening but, as I’ve said before, they’re really not all that bright. They’re just spoiled children who never had to grow up.