By now its clear that all but a minority of people here are angry at Obama for not carrying out a progressive agenda. We wanted change, but very little has changed.
Naturally people point towards the guy in charge. He certainly deserves some blame, but there is more than enough to go around.
First of all, a lot of people here considered Obama to be something he wasn't.
if naming our favored policies is the main thing we do, we are headed for a terrible letdown. Let's face it: Barack Obama is not a visionary or even a movement leader. He became the nominee of the Democratic Party, and then went on to win the general election, because he is a skillful politician. That means he will calculate whom he has to conciliate and whom he can ignore in realms dominated by big-money contributors from Wall Street, powerful business lobbyists and a Congress that includes conservative Blue Dog and Wall Street-oriented Democrats.
Think about how things are at your own work. If people are telling you what a great job you are doing, are you going to change what you are doing? Of course not.
So why do you expect Obama to react differently?
There is a minority of people here who want to keep all criticism of Obama suppressed. That attitude not only does a disservice to the progressive cause, it even does a disservice to Obama.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Remember that old saying? That same is true in politics. If Obama looks out the window of the White House and sees 100,000 protesters all demanding he do something real about, say financial reform, then chances are he will do something. But if all he hears from the left is how great a job he is doing, then chances are financial reform will drop down his to-do list.
"If you don’t let us do this, those who will come after us will rise and bring you to ruin."
- Teddy Roosevelt speaking to J.P. Morgan
Consider the quote above by one of the great reformers of the 20th Century. Does that sound like a guy who simply one day decided to do the right thing?
No. It was a guy who had no other choice but to break up JP Morgan's Northern Securities Company and Rockefeller's Standard Oil. Roosevelt was forced to.
Now let's move forward 30 years. Do you think that FDR simply decided one day to roll out the New Deal?
No. Like Teddy Roosevelt, FDR had no other choice. The communist and socialist parties were growing in size, and where active in many communities. Labor unions were becoming radicalized. The farmers of the midwest were practically in full revolt.
FDR became a great president because the mass protests among the unemployed, the aged, farmers and workers forced him to make choices he would otherwise have avoided. He did not set out to initiate big new policies. The Democratic platform of 1932 was not much different from that of 1924 or 1928. But the rise of protest movements forced the new president and the Democratic Congress to become bold reformers.
Either FDR rolled out real reform, not phony reform like we are seeing today, or FDR would find himself fighting a popular revolution, or see communists elected, or a coup. Either way, FDR had no choice. The way FDR knew this was because people were taking to the streets long before he was elected.
Even more importantly, people continued to take to the streets after FDR was elected. They kept the pressure on.
The unruly protests continued, and in many places they were crucial in pressuring reluctant state and local officials to implement the federally initiated aid programs. Then, beginning in 1933, industrial workers inspired by the rhetorical promises of the new administration began to demand the right to organize. By the mid-1930s, mass strikes were a threat to economic recovery and to the Democratic voting majorities that had put FDR in office. A pro-union labor policy was far from Roosevelt's mind when he took office in 1933. But by 1935, with strikes escalating and the election of 1936 approaching, he was ready to sign the National Labor Relations Act.
Now fast-forward to today. People want real reform, yet there are no demonstrations. The only political activity, the only people who care enough about leading the country, are the teabagger nutcases.
Sure there is still the ballot box, but that is a less effective method of governing from below when there are only two parties. Notice how Obama rolled out a new Glass-Steagall proposal, the first serious financial reform from this administration, just a one day after the Democrats got beaten in Massachusetts.
The left finally made themselves a squeaky wheel by not showing up at the ballot box, and the administration finally responded. Don't you think it might be even more effective if people were out in the streets several months ago?
If you wonder why the progressive causes are getting shelved, look no further than yourself. Voting is the least that someone can do.
If the progressives really cared enough, then they would take a couple hours out of their weekend to protest. The teabaggers do, why don't you?