UPDATE after the break
At what point do Progressives get anything we've been fighting for from this White House or the Democratic Leadership. We watched as Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize after announcing an escalation of the war in Afghanistan. We sat by while Sen. Bauccus, at the behest of the White House, had advocates for single-payer arrested instead of heard. We fought for the much less effective and watered down public option and watched this bill calling itself health care reform get rammed down our throats despite our objections.
Now Obama has an opportunity to replace Justice John Paul Stevens. Like some now familiar slow motion nightmare, it appears that the WH and the leadership of the Democratic Party are going to again totally ignore the Progressives in this decision.
The argument that we need to "fall in line" or doom the Obama Presidency isn't going to fly this time.
We watched as the President made a deal with AHIP to include individual mandates and abort the public option. When any of us tried to point out these glaring shortcomings, we were shouted down and told to STFU on this and other blogs lest we doom the Obama Presidency. The Progressive Caucus in the House caved completely and helped pass a bill calling itself health care reform that, well, Nixon would have gladly signed. This begs the question: Does such a thing as a Progressive Caucus actually exist if it has no power what so ever? Oh I know it exists, I've been giving them campaign donations because of their brave decision to vote against any bill that didn't contain a "robust public option". Anyway, for more illumination on this particular health care reform letdown look to "Can Daily Kos accept the truth about the healthcare bill?" by nyceve and watch the Frontline documentary called Obama's Deal.
That's all water under the bridge you say. It'll be fixed later you promise. I certainly hope so, but what about the Supreme Court. What will Progressives do when the President actually moves the court further right? If the plan is to just lie there and act like a doormat, I'm afraid I'm out.
Before I get too far down the road questioning the intentions and Progressive credentials, or lack thereof, of President Obama and the Democratic leadership - let me first tell you a little bit about myself in an effort to forestall the insipid "Obama hater" rhetoric that is sure to flow from those who herniated their principals to "get points on the board" as White House, Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel is purportedly so fond of saying.
I'm a freelance documentary filmmaker and editor. Recently, I've become a photo voltaic solar system designer and sales person to augment my flagging income since the economic collapse. I'm the President of my local Democratic Club, I'm on the county central committee and I'm a delegate to the California Democratic Party. I worked to get Obama elected.
I routinely ride my mountain bike to my solar job, about 7 miles away, and I listen to podcasts on my commute. Yesterday I was listening to Democracy Now. Amy Goodman was discussing the upcoming replacement of Justice John Paul Stevens with her guest, Constitutional lawyer and journalist/blogger Glenn Greenwald. I listened with growing consternation as Greenwald talked about the three front runners for the nomination.
GG: the three nominees, likely nominees, identified correctly by Nan Aron as the frontrunners—Elena Kagan, Judge Garland and Judge Wood—of the three, none of them would be more progressive than Judge Stevens. I don’t think there’s a single person anywhere who would suggest that that’s the case. There are a couple of possibilities, like Harold Koh and Pamela Karlan, whom Nan also discussed, who very well may be as progressive as, if not more progressive than, Justice Stevens, but most people believe that they’re not really viable choices. But the three frontrunners certainly are not more progressive than Judge Stevens.
There's that word again. VIABLE. I was under the impression back during the election that we were working to get Obama elected for Progressive Change, not viable change. Greenwald continues.
GG: So we’re talking about the very real possibility here that President Obama, a Democratic president who progressives worked very hard to elect, with a Senate of fifty-nine Democrats, could actually move the Court to the right.
How is this possible!? And please, don't condescend to tell me all about the morass that is the US Senate in particular and Washington DC in general. I too have a degree in political science and I am abundantly aware of the inherent irony implicit in the fact that before they could build DC they had to drain a major swamp.
Greenwald goes on to explain that Garland is clearly a moderate to conservative judge and that Kagan is essentially a nightmare(my word, not his). To wit, apparently even Bill Kristol is an admirer of Kagen's.
I have to tell you folks, it's taking everything I've got to remain working within the Democratic Party right now. I'm so disgusted I could spit! But before you start firing off in the comments, I'm perfectly, painfully aware that a third party is not an option in our system. That's why I'm still fighting on the inside.
I think it is past time for Progressives to start pushing back. There was a good article in the Huffington Post the other day about the facts of fundraising in the house:
Since 1995, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have collectively given $6.3 million directly to members of the Blue Dog and New Democrat coalitions, according to an analysis by the Huffington Post of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. That's not an overwhelming sum when the average winning campaign nowadays costs more than $1 million, but it represents one-sixth of all giving from one faction within the party to another.
Maybe we need to stop funding these Blue Dog and New Democrats. I'd rather lose a seat held by a false Democrat then watch our legislation watered down and distorted to the point that we give billions of taxpayer dollars to the private, for-profit insurance companies. I do not want to see the Supreme Court move further to the right, and I do not want to hear anything more from the Blue Dogs or the New Democrats about the need to be moderate or centrist(READ right).
In Saul Alinsky's, "Rules for Radicals" he gives the following advice to students during the Vietnam era who were disillusioned with the Democratic Party and asking if they should still try to change things from the inside:
Do one of three things. One, go find a wailing wall and feel sorry for yourselves. Two, go psycho and start bombing-but this will only swing people to the right. Three, learn a lesson. Go home. , organize, build power and at the next convention, you be the delegates.
The CDP convention is this weekend in LA. Hope to see you there.
*UPDATE - It's been brought to my attention that my headline is too pessimistic. Point taken. Also, I called people "Obama do or die types", that was imprudent and not entirely helpful. I've been asked to suggest soneone I would like to see nominated rather than just "attacking" proposed nominees. I would like to see Harold Koh become the next Supreme Court Justice. It was asked how we should get past a Repug filibuster. That one is easy. Make them filibuster. Make them actually piss in buckets for weeks on end if that's what it takes. Maybe even use the Bush dodge of appointing someone so obviously objectionable to the Repugs that they filibuster instantly. Hold that for about three days then withdraw that nominee. Bring on Koh and force the issue. Meanwhile chant Citizen's United, Citizen's United all day and night in the media.