Yesterday, I wrote my first diary here, “A passionate, progressive defense of Barack Obama.” If the title doesn’t give it away, it was my take on what I believe to be a truly progressive Obama administration. It definitely can be pretty apologetic, but I stand by the points I made. One of these points, a very big one for me, and one that should be repeated much more often on this site, is this: The 09-10 legislative session produced more PROGRESSIVE MOVING legislation than any in the past 40 years. More than the four congresses working with Bill Clinton. More than the two with Jimmy Carter. This diary will try to explain that phrase, “progressive movement,” its history in the last century, and how it all relates to Barack Obama.
I will start with something we should ALL agree with: Progressive change, in this country, at this point in time, is hard. It’s damn hard. This site reports on why pretty much every single day. Progressive change, pretty much inherently, means going up against big money. It is true with health care reform. It is true with Wall Street reform. It is true if you are trying to tame the wild beast that the American military industrial complex has turned into. Politics, on the other hand, especially the higher up you go, pretty much runs on money. Progressive change means going against big money. Big money controls politics. These are both things that are covered here very often, and I think we can all agree on them. This does not even factor in that, as also faithfully reported by this site, Republicans will often out and out LIE… While the Democrats on our side offer fact based but feeble rebuttals. This is why it is so frustrating to be a Democrat. It is simply politically easier to keep things the way they are or to make minor changes than to change them in a significant, progressive way.
So now, let’s talk history. Let’s look at the periods in time, in the last hundred years, with the most progressive change. It is almost universally agreed by progressives that, at least domestically, the presidencies of FDR and LBJ took this country in a better direction than any other of the 20th century. FDR saved the economy, was tough on the big banks, and enacted VERY progressive legislation, just when the country needed it most. LBJ, were it not for Vietnam, could today possibly be held in even greater reverence than FDR. We all know what these presidents got done.
But now let’s look at the circumstances. FDR had the Great Depression. As bad as the economic depression of today is, the Great Depression was a different beast entirely. He was a master at using this to his advantage, and using it for progressive causes. Also, FDR’s first two years, according to some, placated big business too often. The New Deal did not go far enough, was a common argument. His third and fourth years, however, was an undeniable firestorm of progressive legislation, expanding on the things he started in the first two. LBJ also used a national tragedy to his advantage: He was able to take a lot of the good, progressive proposals that JFK had been unable to do anything with, and pass them on his mantle. LBJ’s time in office and FDR from 1935 on have another similarity: huge Democratic majorities. As I said above, FDR’s first two years were considered a disappointment by some on the left. Then the midterms happened, and the senate went from 49 Democrats to 69. After his second presidential election, that number jumped to 76(!). LBJ’s congresses had anywhere from 64 to 68 senate Democrats. So, let’s be clear on this: The most significant progressive change in the last hundred years have come from savvy presidents, with the help of a HUGE Democratic majority, using national tragedies to their advantage. I do not mean this in a bad way. That’s just the way politics in the country are.
So now we come to the presidency of Barack Obama, and what it means for progressive change. We can look at an almost endless list of things that seemingly betray progressive ideals: Unjust wars being fought, the rich paying far too little in taxes, Guantanamo still open, Wall Street reform about as minimal as can be while still honestly calling it “reform”… I could go on. And I refer back to my original point: Progressive change, in this country, is hard. And make no mistake: Obama inherited the presidency from the man who did more to destroy this country than any in recent history. Bush’s crimes went beyond crimes to progressive ideals. They were crimes to American ideals. And, like it or not, when Obama took office, he IMMEDIATELY took that presidency. There were many progressive changes that needed to be made, and needed to be made immediately. And so, again the point: Progressive change is hard. The fact is, when Obama takes what was an extreme right policy and makes it a centrist policy, or even a center right policy, it looks disappointing to us, it can look TERRIBLE to us… But it is a progressive change none the less.
Obama, time and time again, on all of the big issues, proposes the most progressive policy possible. It is this “possible” part that we can have a problem with. Let’s look at HCR. Single payer was NEVER possible. It would have looked completely unreasonable for Obama to seriously propose it. Why? Because it has been proposed. Single payer health care bills have been voted on. And they have failed. So Obama took the next possible most progressive position: Subsidies, with a public option… But, I will admit, I do not think he ever thought that the public option was possible either. He still proposed it. He defended it many times, in many speeches. He compared it quite wonderfully to public universities. But, let’s be clear: It did NOT have the votes. You could argue that, without a public option, it is a conservative bill. It just drives profits into the hands of insurance companies. I disagree. This bill will still give an incredible amount of people better health care coverage than they will have otherwise gotten. They will be helped by government subsidies. It is not perfect, but, like the best progressive legislation before it, it can be built upon. And, if we get the votes in congress, Obama has made it clear that it WILL be built upon.
You look at almost all of the “capitulations” and “progressive betrayals” and almost all come out looking something like this. With Guantanamo Bay, Obama specifically ordered it closed. He specifically instructed congress to cut off funding. He did everything he could. But progressive change is hard. When you even have Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold voting against you… Well, would you pursue it? With tax cuts, again, you see action by Obama: He specifically asked congress for a straight vote on keeping the middle class tax cuts and ending the ones for the rich. Congress, with midterms approaching, did NOT want to vote for higher taxes. So it was delayed. Anyone who argues that Obama did not fight this issue hard enough on this is ignoring reality. He brought it up time and time again. He went on a mini-tour advocating his plans. It was the failure of congress, just as with Guantanamo. The bill he ended up getting was not perfect. But he had only the two choices: to sign or not sign the bill he got. He made the right choice, and if you seriously disagree with me on that, then I argue that you are not a true progressive. You would seriously argue FOR increasing taxes on the middle class AND cutting unemployment benefits, and during a financial crisis to boot. And just for extra revenue? Because, while it would be nice to “stick it to the rich”… In this case, doing so would be, to use a phrase, “playing politics with people’s lives.”
My overall point in all of this is to really try to reach out to those who are disappointed in Obama. To remind everyone to look at the big picture. If this was a blog where people only praised Obama, I could certainly write a longer diary than this explaining all the problems of his presidency. But, in my mind, to accuse him of betraying progressive ideals, to even consider to primary him, the leader of our party when we enacted the most significant legislation in my lifetime, despite him being a black man with a name that sounds Muslim because IT HAS MUSLIM ROOTS, despite a significant portion of the country believing you ARE NOT EVEN ELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB… Well, you see my point.
I invite anyone who is really angry enough at Obama to consider not voting for him to head over to Red State or NRO some time… Not to gaze at the mutated wasteland of their comments section, as some of us like to do, but the actual articles. The will provide constant reminders of the progressive things Obama has done. Are you one of those who think Obama should have been more on the attack when it came to unions? That he should have gone down to Wisconsin and delivered a fiery speech defending unions as an American institution? Well, I respectfully disagree: That would have made it a fight about the president, when the fight clearly needs to be about the people. Well, OK, you say, but Obama clearly did not really want to lead on the issue… He probably didn’t even care. Well consider this:
http://www.redstate.com/...
This is an article that makes all truthful claims. That AFL-CIO boss Richard Trumka visited the White House four dozen times. That Trumka claims he talks with the president almost every day. This really should put the “Obama doesn’t care about unions” argument to rest.
I said it in my diary yesterday, and I say it again today: This is a president that has consistently been for the most progressive change possible. Many of us NEED to see the big picture and get past that “possible” part. We should be standing enthusiastically behind him… To a point. I do not suggest for a second that we excuse all of the things he has done that we don’t like, but only that we understand them. We should, of course, always be pushing him in a more progressive direction. As the “angry left,” it’s part of our job. But this president will only be as progressive as the political realities allow him to be. That is part of being president in a country as large, politically diverse, and ridiculous as the United States.
Progressive change is hard. But this is not something we should hold against Barack Obama. It is hard to pass a tax increase. It is hard to create a system of government controlled health care. It is hard to end two irresponsible wars responsibly. It is hard to close an unsafe and inhumane prison in a safe and humane way. But Obama has fought for all of these things. And if we give him another four years, more Democrats in congress, and, most importantly, if WE can help to push the country in a more progressive direction, I think he may surprise even the most cynical of you.