Cross posted at Conceptual Guerilla.
So today, what am I reading? Another pair dueling diaries praising/critical of Barack Obama.
"He didn't give me my pony,"
"Oh yeah? He never promised you a pony."
"Did so, did so."
"Did not, did not."
Here's the truth. This ain't civics class. We don't all come up with "good ideas" and then have a healthy spirited debate . . . and may the best policy win. In fact, a President's ability to give you whatever pony you think he promised you, is far more limited than you imagine it is.
But wait, I was re-reading my "People's History Of The United States" when I ran across a passage written by Howard Zinn that explains it all for you . . . perfectly . . . after the jump.
Samuel Huntington, a political science professor at Harvard University and long-time consultant to the White House . . . wrote . . .
To the extent the United States was governed by anyone during the decades after World War II, it was governed by the Presdient acting with the support and cooperation of key individuals and groups in the executive office, the federal bureaucracy, Congress, and the more important businesses, banks, law firms, foundations, and media, which constitute the private sector's 'Establishment.'"
That was probably the frankest statement ever made by an Establishment adviser.
Huntington further said that the President, to win the election, needed the support of a broad coalition of people. Howeever, "The day after his election, the size of his majority is almost -- if not entirely -- irrelevant to his ability to govern the country. What counts then is his ability to mobilize support from the leaders of key institutions in a society and government. . . . This coalition must include key people in Congress, the executive branch, and the private-sector 'establishment.'" He gave examples.
Truman made a point of bringing a substantial number of non-partisan soldiers, Republican bankers, and Wall Street lawyers into his admimistration. He went to the existing sources of power in the country to get help he needed in ruling the country. Eisenhower in part inherited this coalition and was in part almost its creation . . . . Kennedy attempted to re-create a somewhat similar structure of alliances.
Howard Zinn, A People's History Of The United States, 2003 Edition. pp 558 -- 560.
Did Barack Obama hire Wall Street banker Tim Geithner to be his Secretary of the Treasury? Guess what, so did FDR. His name was Henry Morganthau. So did Truman, and Eisenhower, and Kennedy. Remember Kennedy's Secretary of Defense? His name was Robert McNamara . . . and he was once the President of Ford Motor Company.
We don't live in a democracy . . . we live in a capitalist oligarchy, with some democratic representation. In fact, we have enough democratic representation, it turns out, to occasionally get some things we want. Have you ever heard of Social Security, Medicare, rural electrification, the minimum wage, or labor unions? The capitalist oligarchy didn't want those reforms . . . but they were forced to accept them.
As long as you think that the President is some wholly independent political force, who can just do any old thing that strikes his fancy, you're going to be disappointed . . . no matter who gets elected. It has always been this way . . . every President you think of as "progressive" was every bit as cautious and slow moving as Obama JFK? He dragged his feet before going along with desegregation and civil rights. He also put "advisers" in Vietnam, and was rumored to want out AFTER the 1964 election. Seems he didn't want to anger hawkish factions of the capitalist oligarchy a/k/a "the establishment."
President Obama . . . like every President since the Civil War . . . must make important compromises with "the establishment" if he hopes to accomplish anything . . . and if he hopes to keep his job. You need to understand and get over this fact of life . . . and learn how to deal with it. Because you need to understand another key and ugly fact of life . . .
If Obama loses, you can kiss Social Security and Medicare goodbye. You're already seeing it in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Florida. If Obama loses the tea party will step right into the power vacuum, and do their level best to bring back what Grover Norquist calls "the McKinley era, without the protectionism."
Does "the Establishment" want this? They're probably indifferent . . . which means they'll put up with it, if the tea party forces them too.
You see, the tea partiers know something you don't.
They know they're outside the power structure. So are you . . . you just indulge yourself in thinking the real power brokers give a rat's ass what you think. Does Obama care what you think? I think so . . . he just understands the realities of the political world he operates in. Some of you do . . . a lot of you don't.
The tea partiers do. They know they can count on being ignored . . . unless they make sure they aren't. They are in an argument right now with the Chamber of Commerce . . . and don't count on "the establishment" winning. The tea partiers do one thing. They don't always get what they want . . . they want "the McKinley era without the protectionism." But they come back, year after year, and THEY VOTE.
They showed up in 2010. A lot of you didn't . . . and are petulently threatening not to vote this time. That will not get you what you want. It will get THEM what they want.
By all means, put pressure on the president. By all means, put pressure on your Democratic Representatives and Senators. But make sure there is no doubt . . . you are going to show up and vote. Strenghten the President's hand . . . and he will have to make fewer compromises with "the establishment."
The establismeht isn't going away. Neither are the tea partiers. What happens if you stay home and pout?
Nothing good.
This diary was written while taking a break from post-production for "Megadittoes: Inside The Tea Party Cult." Stay tuned for clips and segments. Nobody anywhere has looked at the tea partiers up close like I have.
12:09 PM PT: Rec list . . . how about that. Thank you.
2:40 PM PT: I think I need to clarify something. One of the commenters suggested that I offered "false dichotomy." I don't.
I do not suggest for one minute that you should happy about all of those items on the progressive agenda that remain undone. I am personally disappointed about a number of things . . . including not closing Guantanamo Bay, not including a "public option," and not allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.
I merely state the progressive agenda is BIG . . . and in the capitalist oligarchy with a little democratic representation . . . it is extremely difficult to do a fraction of what we want. It is impossible in 2 1/2 years.
I'm saying stop attacking the President, and start helping the President.
How you ask? By doing all the "direct action" stuff some commenters have discussed. FDR famously told a group talking about Social Security "go out an make me do it."
Don't attack the President . . . attack the forces who have the President hemmed in. Stop blaming the President, and start asking "what can I do to put pressure on the oligarchs."
Two years ago the Tea Partiers hit the streets to oppose healthcare reform. Where were our rallies in support of it . . . in support of single payer . . . in support of the public option? I don't remember them. They rallied . . . and then last November they showed up and voted.
And you want to know why the President isn't doing more to fight the oligarchs? What are you doing to help him? What are you doing to fight them?