Before I get to my main point, I would like to EMPHATICALLY state that I am not a blind Obama follower. I'm disappointed that he surrendered on the public option without a fight, angry that he escalated the War in Afghanistan without a defined exit strategy, furious that he froze public sector pay, and (most of all) absolutely dumbfounded at his unwillingness to fight the corporate special interests head on!
Ever since Obama was inaugurated, I have STAUNCHLY believed that Progressives should mobilize themselves as tthat hey did during the 1930's and the 1960's to not only to pressure Obama from the left, but to forever reshape America's political dialogue.
I would also like to make it perfectly clear that I am NOT in any way happy about this tax cut deal! As to whether or not I would have made the same deal, the truth is I'm not at all sure. I also will admit that I'm completely undecided on whether or not Progressives in Congress should kill the deal or let it pass. The reason why is that the circumstances surrounding the Bush tax cuts make the issue much less black and white than most people realize.
The main purpose of this diary is not convince you that Obama made the right decision because I'm not entirely convinced he made the right decision. Rather, by the end of this diary I hope that you, my readers, will at least understand why Obama made his decision and that he did not simply make it because he was spineless.
Fellow Kossacks, I understand that the Bush tax cuts will go down as one of the most egregious mistakes in American history. I don't have to convince you that this is the case because what we've seen this country go through this past decade has proven that this is the case. For years I have strongly believed that these destructive tax cuts should at least be rolled back for the richest 2%.
So when I first heard about Obama's latest tax cut deal, my immediate reaction was to decry this as an act of betrayal and demand that Progressive Democrats in Congress torpedo the deal! While I haven't ruled out this course of action, I decided to take a step back and try to understand why on earth Obama would make such a deal.
The first thing that came to mind was his statement from the 2008 campaign that as President, he would place helping the American people over scoring political points. Then I remembered how a few days ago, President Obama declared that he would not sign any agreement that did not include financial relief for working families and the unemployed. All of the sudden, a surge of realization hit me. From Obama's perspective, he could have just stood firm on his original position and let the Bush tax cuts expire, and that certainly would have been the more politically popular route. Yet, this would have cost him his last opportunity to help keep millions of Americans from slipping into greater economic distress.
Don't get me wrong. I understand that the longer the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans stay on the books, the more at risk vital programs such as Social Security and Medicare will be in. For this reason, if the deal goes through, grassroots progressives should immediately begin to mobilize in order to ensure that these tax cuts are never extended again!
Though let's put this into perspective. Social Security and Medicare have survived 10 years with the Bush tax cuts, so surely they can survive for another 2. On the other hand, the unemployed and the working poor have absolutely no time to spare! While this kind of short term insurance is no substitute for a real jobs program, we can't simply take it out of the equation. Ideally, we should let all of the Bush tax cuts expire and funnel the revenue into a second WPA that would put millions of Americans back to work. However, if we can't expect the next congress to extend unemployment insurance, how can we possibly expect it to enact a second WPA?
Yes, Obama could've and should've fought harder for his original position. But honestly, would that have made any difference in the Senate? The Republicans and most of the ConserviDems are supported by the same corporate oligarchs who control the media and have access to massive amounts of campaign contributions. In other words, they are not afraid to take any stance because they are given the tools needed to prey upon a desperate electorate. I'm saying that we should therefore just give up. On the contrary, it only reinforces my call for a left-wing counter-weight to the Tea Party and more militant (but non-violent) anti-corporate activism (this would be a good start- http://www.dailykos.com/...).
But in the mean time, let's stick to the present reality and step into Obama's shoes. From his perspective, the choices were saving millions of people from poverty and looking weak, or allowing millions of people to slip into poverty and looking strong? In the end, what is politics all about? Is it about public grandstanding or rigid ideological doctrines? Or is it about the improvement of people's lives? Why don't we ask these people:
http://act.aflcio.org/...
So to sum it up, Obama made the decision he made because he saw it as a contest between playing cowboy or securing people's livelihoods.
Given these circumstances, I don't know what decision I would have taken. In the mean time, if Obama truly believes in these sentiments, then he desperately needs to come out and say so in a way that grabs the public's attention. Might I suggest the Michael Douglas model:
http://www.youtube.com/...
This way, he can find his voice, reconnect with the American public, and remind people why they were attracted to his new politics. Of course, he also needs to rally the base by standing by us in the fight for a more equitable tax system going forward.
In the mean time, we need to stand behind Bernie Sanders' effort to organize a filibuster in response to this deal. This way, we progressives will regain crucial bargaining power which we can use to improve the deal and perhaps even roll back the tax cuts for the super wealthy.