I am quickly coming to the conclusion that we Progressives are not really ready for prime time.
I don't believe we have come to terms with the political realities of today, I think we haven't decided if what we want is a Barack Obama or a George W. Bush, and I think we lack the gumption and the stamina to affect a 30 year revolution like the Right just completed. We are self-imploding after 8 months of a new President, how are we going to fight for an entire generation?
Self-Righteous back-biting, constant victimization, and all the public pity and foot stomping an opponent could wish to see when THEY are losing.
WTF?
Are Progressives really ready for the political challenges of these days? Like most Republicans, too many of us have not turned the page and wish for the good ol' days of the 30's ("FDR would have...""and 60's( "LBJ would have...". You see,we read the polls and saw that many said they agreed with many of the same policy outcomes we'd like to see enacted. Many of us then worked hard and joined with millions of others to elect a new President. Sadly, many thought that was all the CHANGE we needed to do. Shame on us.
When the going get's tough, when the glow of election night meets political reality(everyone isn't as Progressive, we not only start feeling sorry for ourselves, we decide those on the Left who disagree with us do so because of flawed character. This kind of thinking will never attract more people to our perspective.
I love Bill Maher, feckless as he may be at times, and I continue to have the utmost respect for Bill Moyers he really is the "conscious of journalism" and we are better off because of his work.
That said, his book tour interview on Real Time this past Friday is illustrative of why I think it will be a very long time before Progressives become the dominant political force. This interview was another pity party in the middle of a big fight.
Sadly, in this interview, Moyers appears to have become a Naderite. It's 2009 and Bill has just discovered corporate influence in the Democratic party.
When speaking about Rahm Emanuel he says (around the 3:00 Part 1):
"I think he understands that the money for Obama's reelection will come primarily from the health industry,the drug industry, and Wall Street and so he is a corporate Democrat so he is destined,determined, that there is will not be something.....that will turn off those interests"
Really? Moyers appears to not only be able to mind read, but forecast the future as well! He usually is meticulous about sourcing, but he gives no support for this declaration. Were these entities Obama's major contributors in the last campaign? And is it logical to assume that they are going to contribute to Obama once he delivers the public what they want in the form of a government-run public option?
Are we to believe that regulations such as outlawing of the preexisting conditions exclusions, as well as discrimination in cost of coverage turns on the powerful interests?
Are we to believe that the $80 billion that PHARMA will concede to help halve the prescription drug "loophole" was done out of generosity? Further, the reported 150 million they have pledged to spend in support of health care reform is not something they had to do, but for fear that they would be losers in the fight if they didn't make a deal. Is this a bad thing? I think not. Imperfect, yes, but a sign of "sellout"? Consider the following:
A new coalition this morning is launching $12 million in TV ads to support President Obama’s health-reform plan, in the opening wave of a planned tens of millions of dollars this fall. The new group, funded largely by PhRMA, is called Americans for Stable Quality Care. It includes some odd bedfellows: the American Medical Association, FamiliesUSA, the Federation of American Hospitals, PhRMA and SEIU.
...
The group’s campaign is likely to mean that White House supporters keep the upper hand on the airwaves. PhRMA’s participation is key, because the group has promised to kick in as much as $150 million for advertising and grass-roots activity to help pass the president’s plan. But the new group could provoke complaints from the left. The debut ad is mean to shore up support among the conservative House Blue Dog Democrats, and to target swing senators. So it’s airing in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota and Virginia. The first buy is expected to run for two weeks, with a weekly spend of around $3 million.
While it is clearly obvious that there is too much corporate influence in politics and our daily lives, is this how we fight for our desired policy outcomes? Is this type of interview what we need as part of our public face during this historical health care fight?
Maher further channels Nader early on we he says that every Democratic
"The Democratic Party, really...Lyndon Johnson was the last to be elected... on Democratic values and virtues. Every other Democratic victory that came after it was more or less because the Republicans screwed up so badly...it sems like the Democrats cannot win an election on their own"
Gee, I thought that is how it works. Citizens don't like what is going on and the make a change. Is it logical to expect any incumbent of whom the public approves to be booted out of office?To his credit, Moyers admits what Maher, and many Progressives haven't come to terms with and that is:
There's been a Conservative revolution over the last 30 years... and so values have shifted in that direction..
He also mentions the horrible Buckley v Valeo decision and what it has wrought upon the political system.
Moyers says(7:27 Part 1):
"I'd rather see Obama go down fighting for a vigorous public option...look everyone knows that the White House has made a deal with the drug industry...if he would do that and lose it would reinvigorate the party... Harry Truman fought for Medicare and lost...let's come back and fight again"
He lost! Got that? This isn't the 20 Century anymore. Things are bad and we cannot afford symbolic presidencies. I think anyone who suggest such a thing is not only incorrect, but would hurt more Americans longer in order to derive perfect political outcomes. There's a velvet savagery in that idea no matter it's noble wrapping. We're in the business of getting elected and staying there, or am I wrong about the mission statement here?
I must humbly suggest that Maher, Moyers, many most-rec'd diarists here at DK, and the rest of you "disappointed", or "disenchanted", that the first African-American President has not dismantled the entrenched white corporate structure in this country have set a standard no President can reach and I find it curious that you not only expect Obama to do it, but to do so in under a year! I don't recall Gore or Kerry having this type of expectation placed upon them in this community so why Obama?
Sadly, conservatives were right. Many on the Left do, or did, see Obama as some kind of political messiah, capable of forcing Congress, Wall Street, and the entrenched power structure to do as he wishes using his charm, blackness, and the oft-cited inspiring speeches!
Maher again (2:01 Part 2):
"I think the President should just drag them (the public) along. That is what President Bush would have done. I think, he had horrible ideas, put he really didn't care what the people thought...
Say what?
Bush-envy is also characteristic of many on the Left apparently. But this is illustrative again of why I do not believe Progressives are going to increase our influence until we do some serious soul searching. Bush-envy isn't our only pathology, we also have some dissociative symptoms as well.
On one hand we say, "Obama=Bush" apparently when it comes to detainees and interrogation policy, transparency, fed policy and a few other things, and we say "oh that's bad". But now comes the health care fight and now we want Bush and aren't shy about mentioning his name as an example of how we'd like to see our President think and behave. Who knew that some many of us secretly admire him while publicly denouncing him. What kind of values are on display with this dichotomous behavior?
A third reason why I don't see Progressives increasing our influence is that we don't exhibit much political stamina in support of the ideals and changes for which we say we are fighting. I, and I think many others did not work as hard as we did to see Obama fall on his sword in less than a year. We do not understand what seems to be instinctive in Republicans. You have to stay in power to get all that you want!
I will not waste Obama or any other Democrat in the White House because the Supreme Court is on the line, and Congress is not yet gotten over the 30-year long shift in political values. It is self-defeating to willingly give up and hope things get bad and then people will come running to us. That is no long-term outlook, that is not a vision, and it is a prescription for marginalization.
If we only get an inch this time,we keep fighting, inch by inch if necessary,until we complete our journey.
You want Obama to deliver more, then we must deliver him a better, more cooperative Congress. You want to take on corporate power? Well then we must persuade many more of our fellow citizens on just how we plan to do that. We need a clear message on what to do and I do not see a consensus opinion on this issue. Some want complete revolution, others cosmetic changes, and then there is a wide middle range of choices.
I do think that Moyers inadvertently captures what I am saying in this diary when he paraphrases Freud(:11 Part 3):
"Each of us experiences our own present naively."
Winning an election is not enough. Sitting back and critiquing any President's every word and deed is not going to get us beyond dropping his/her poll numbers. Effecting the changes we want to see is not a one-off deal, but a, at the very least, generational endeavor. Barak Obama should be seen as the beginning of CHANGE, the tip of the iceberg moving at a deliberate pace. It is going to take several Presidents to make these changes.
In the meantime, we need to go to work on those Democrats who continue to send the Bayh's, and the Nelson's, and that ilk back to Congress. A better Congress= better outcomes. The opposite, as we see, is also true. We need to present a strong united public face if we are to enact a good amount of our preferred policy outcomes. A divided, disheartened Left is easy pickin's for the craven Republicans who know how to bring it, even after a defeat. They are trying their best to turn what should be one of the final nails in Reaganism's coffin into a dagger to the heart of the Left. Having public pity parties only ensures that their hands alone will not deliver the killing blow.
UPDATE: Apparently those caring to comment on this diary are only able to respond to a couple of typos and an imagined attack on the venerable Bill Moyers. This is too bad. I like Bill Moyers just like I like the President. I give neither blind loyalty. I have disagreed with the President ( but do not wish to see him unseated), and I have, on rare occasion, disagreed with Bill Moyers. I will not apologize for either stance. To take expand my critique of this one interview to include everything Bill Moyers has ever done is not only a dishonest overreaction, but is symptomatic of the issues I raise in my diary.
Sadly, the Moyers defenders could care less about my points regarding unity. Nope. They could care less about my points of long-term vision, or gaining more influence. Nope. My point about a more progressive Congress=better outcomes has been ignored too. It's all bout how dare I disagree one time with Bill Moyers! Shame on y'all.