Let me start by saying I completely understand why progressives are upset with the Obama administration, why they feel used, ignored, dissed, and angry. Sometimes I feel that way too, so I've spent some time thinking about why Obama (and his people) are acting the way they are, across a range of issues -- HCR, banking reform, Afghanistan and military spending.
I also want to make it clear that I am not in favor of arguing the administration's case. I disagree with them on many policy issues, and I continue to contribute money and volunteer support to several progressive issues mentioned below.
But my disagreement has not made me lose faith with Obama or his administration. After thinking about it, I've concluded that we: 1) should take care in our attacks on Obama and his administration, so as not to provide fodder for the RW sleaze message machine and 2) continue to exert progressive pressure on policy and legislators.
(Follow me over the jump so I can make my case)
If this seems a strange combination (supporting the administration, while also supporting progressive causes), it stems from the following analysis. By trying to put myself in their shoes, I have thought of two reason why the administration acts as it does:
1. As with any governing leadership group, the Obama administration must move to the center; and
2. They have little choice in the matter.
About #1: Moving to the center is widely understood and practiced by most elected officials. If progressives can break the 60-vote threshold in the Senate and hold on to a comfortable majority in the House, then we can provide Obama the needed cover to play the role of centrist leader. Thus, if he capitulates to progressives, it must be because he has to. This centrist appearance is key to his remaining in office and being able to broker agreements across political factions.
GWB was an exception to governing centrism, and he did very well in the short term, not so well in the longer term, and disastrously in the long, long term. Nevertheless, given the history of the former administration, we all understand teh infinite stoopid that mires US politics in a centrist blatherdom that has moved far to the right while the center shopped and slept.
I hear progressives say that Obama had an historic opportunity to be FDR2 and to fundamentally reframe US policy in many areas. In addition to the traditional centrism of governance, I would like to advance reason #2 for why this course was not really open to the Obama administration.
About #2: In order for the Obama administration to get the Progressive Seal of Approval, here is a list of the interest groups they would have had to take on:
1. Military-industrial complex - Wars in Iraq & Afghanistan
2. National security apparatus - Patriot Act, rendition, torture prosecutions and anti-torture legislation
3. Healthcare oligopoly: Health insurance companies and big Pharma
4. Banking: Wall St. with banking reform and return of Glass-Steagall
5. Military - Repeal of DADT
6. Agribusiness: Sustainable, non-chemical, non-lethal agricultural practices and food distribution
7. Big Oil, Coal, and Energy: National grid, oil use reduction, other environmental legislation
8. Christian Right: Equality rights for GLBT community, especially marriage
I think it was unreasonable to ever expect any leadership entity to try to do battle in all these arenas. Several of these interest groups could have sabotaged the administration entirely, just as they did Clinton in 92-93 and Carter before that. In my view, they have enough money and influence to bring down any government they decide must be stopped. Bush got where he got because he was with them, not agin 'em.
So the administration must have looked at the overall wide-area disaster and prioritized their actions. They might have had other plans, but were forced into the bailout by economic conditions on the ground. With the banks threatening all-around failure, I don't think they had a choice there.
Once beyond that immediate problem, I think they decided to pursue a strategic course of "moving the ball forward" and picking the low-hanging fruit, in place of out and out confrontation. They have used "divide and conquer" tactics when they could. An example is their making a deal with Pharma to leave them more free to rein in insurance companies and to promote what is already a growing breach between these two competitors for a share of the health care dollar. I think more of these opportunities are likely to arise in the future, such as a wedge between the military and the corporate defense establishment.
To summarize, I think Obama administration has made the decisions they had to in the environment where they found themselves. I trust that they will press for change where they can and that we will continue to make incremental progress. The list of accomplishments makes for good reading, and shows the administration is taking constructive action where it can, when it can.
Based on my analysis, I think the best forward steps progressives can take as we move into 2010 are:
1. Replace Republicans whenever possible
2. Replace mediocre and "bad" Democrats with progressive Democrats
3. Stop criticizing Obama and the administration in a personal manner; stop whining about betrayal; stop blaming; stop providing quotes for the rw sleaze machine
4. Rally the base
5. Continue community grass roots organizing
6. Continue funding progressive issues and organizations
7. Continue to pressure all elective officials to support and vote for progressive legislation
8. Follow thereisnospoon's excellent advice to create progressive think tanks and research organizations that will follow up on the amazing work by Howard Dean and the progressive election apparatus. He's right: Now we need consistent and widespread message formulation and dissemination efforts.