Obama Is A Progessive In A Political Environment That's Hostile To Progressive Policies

In his heart, Obama is a real progressive politician. His entire past tells us that. However, he is operating with a congress, corporate lobbyists, and a media that are all arrayed against any progressive policies from being enacted into law. He cannot use the Bush strategy of brow beating his party to pass any legislation that he wants.

Let me give you an example, compare the media coverage for Bush's first tax cuts for wealthy people to Obama's stimulus package. In 2001, the economy began drifting into a recession, and the media warmly welcomed Bush's tax cuts. There was little or no mention of what it would to the budget or the deficits that would follow. It was all about how great it would be for the economy when people got their refund checks in the mail.

In 2009, when the economy was teetering on the brink of complete disaster and 750K jobs were being lost per month, the media heaped scorned on Obama's stimulus package and decried the effect on the deficits, even though without it, the entire economy would have imploded.

The other problem that Obama has is that a majority of the elected officials in his own party are not progressives. Sure, there are a lot of them, but most of the Dems are shameless opportunists who just label themselves as Dems just because it helps their own political careers. Most of them vote based on which way the campaign money from corporate lobbyists are flowing.

In this environment, Obama has two choices. He could draw lines in the sand and take hard positions on the major issues, but this tatic would isolate him and render him completely ineffective. Or, he can choose his battles wisely, create incremental changes, and be open to compromises. This tact allows him to be politically relevant and a strong champion for change.

Not that theres anything wrong with that.

with that. :thumbsdown:

In other words, if Obama compromises away those progressive policies voters expected with "change" the entire Democratic party will take the brunt of his timidity in next years election.

Don't confuse hatred of Bush and Republicans for America being a progressive nation. That is wrong.

A middle of the road, semi-conservative populace wouldnt vote that way.

Think about it.

He defeated his top primary opponent because she voted for the Iraq war. His general election opponent was a doddering old man who had a total bimbo as his running mate. Finally, Obama is an extremely attractive charismatic leader. IOW, the planets all aligned perfectly for him to win.

His election was not a referendum on progressive politics.

Progressives don't rally the Senate to give a trillion dollars to bail out Wall St. banks who robbed and plundered and crashed the whole joint down. Nor do progressives make backroom deals with pharma companies or push for an insurance mandate with a weak, effectless public option.

FDR was a progressive. Truman was a progressive. Even Eisenhower was a progressive compared to Obama.

Where is that in the manual?

If we're to go beyond that realm, though -- Obama hasn't demonstrated a progressive streak with his vow to push on eternally in an unwinnable war and his continuation of many Bush war-detainee policies.

I took "FDR was a progressive" to mean that "FDR was a progressive" not "FDR was a progressive in some areas".

I don't think Obama is a progressive, but I don't think FDR was one either.

If DU were around in the 30s, folks would be screaming that we need to over throw FDR.

FDR interned Japanese citizens into camps and stole their property. Truman dropped a atomic bombs on Japan. Eisenhower put events into motion that lead to the Vietnam war.

Oh, and all of these men were president when there were Jim Crow laws in the South and the KKK violently terrorized thousands of African Americans.

Obama was given the choice of either bailing out the Wall Street banks or have then entire economy implode. Now, if you're happy seeing billions of retirement accounts, pension funds, the life savings of millions of Americans wiped out over night, then how is it that you are a progressive, again?

Answer this question: how, exactly, would the economy have collapsed had the banks not been bailed out? The specified purpose of TARP was to allow banks to move toxic debts off their books, which would then be followed by an "unfreezing" of the credit markets. However, banks by-and-large used the funds for other reasons -- like buying up other banks and making various other investments. And they're still not lending.

And without the bailouts, they would have had to declare BK which would mean that all of their assets would have been seized and anyone holding debts owed to them by these banks would have lost their money as well. This is known as systemic risk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_risk.

If these banks were to fail, there would have been a major flight to safety, which would mean that people would have sold their stocks and bonds as quickly as they could, thus destroying billions of dollars of market value. Even the stocks of well run companies would have collapsed.

We saw a little of this when Lehman Bros. declared BK. The Dow went down to 5000.

Trillions of dollars of value would have been wiped out. There would have been zero liquidity as people would have not lended money, and the UE rate would have soared to 30% or higher.

and if it keeps up that his accomplishments are not acknowledged,
and everything he does (or is rumored to) that folks don't like is magnified,
pretty soon, everyone catches the "hate" bug.....
and we will not only defeat someone that can really bring change to this country,
if we give him the damn time,
but those with the biggest negative mouths will also defeat themselves and their own agenda.

Keeping his feet to the fire till he can't walk is stupid,
and that is what I regard those that complain all the time,
and never, ever acknowledge the good that he has achieved....

They are the losers, not Obama.
And they aren't progressive; they are abusive.

But they're not looking at the overall picture which I tried to paint in my OP. Bush could ram through tax cuts and blow up the deficits to boot because the media gives passes on tax cuts. Their corporate bosses benefit so there's no analysis of what tax cuts for the wealthy will do nor is there any analysis of what effect the tax cuts have on the economy, esp. job creation.

Anything that Obama wants to do is analyzed and over-analyzed and the general tone is skepticism and suspiscion of anything that he wants to do.

That's why using Bush style tactics won't work for Obama. It will only alienate him and make his presidency completely ineffective.

God for how many years has that been repeated over and over, regardless of the political climate of the moment?

Here's a thought. Maybe the political environment is hostile to progressives because we never get any progressive leadership from the Democrats.

Instead of supporting the efforts of progressives to build a political power base, Democratic leaders (and their enablers) always make excuses or worse demonize them.

Or they court progressives for the few weeks they need their votes, but once in office find any excuse to back away and go back to gtheir corporate masters.

Jeezus. Imagine if Ronald Reagan had said "The country is not ready for a conservative revolution. We have to play it close to the vest, keep our powder dry, wait until the time is right....etc. etc."

He crossed over in one of his first votes in the Senate to deny Americans access to class actions- further insulating abusive corporations from liability.

Hard to imagine a less progressive stance than that. Put him right alongside the Chamber of Commerce- which sponsored (red- drafted) the legislation.

I'm sorry. I just don't buy that story.

One that Obama was proud enough of to bring up during the campaign in in one of the debates.

Discussed here:

http://www.thetortellini.com/2006/12/obamas_anticons.html

Defended here:

http://www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=145202&keyword=&phrase=&contain

Just about anyone with a functioning brain and a decent heart would be better than McCain.

strategy. Geitner and Roberts makes perfect sense if he wants to achieve anything they could of tore to shreds anyone Obama had chose to appoint by doing this he neutralized a lot of critique and is finding ways to get things done with both of them. He perfectly understands the environment he's in and is playing them at their own game. It may not be miraculous change but it's definitely change what is humanly possible.

He's opposed to civil rights for minorities his religion tells him are inferior. That is not progressive, but rather highly conservative. And the fact that he does so while ignoring all of the dictates of that faith toward himself and his wife make him even more like a Republican in that regard.
Progressives do not look at their neighbors and see second class citizens. And pretending time is over. No more.

but Obama has been 10x more scrutinized.

Bottom line: people won't care so much as there are JOBS in one year.

If the economy - and I mean JOBS - does not pick up; in one year the election will be a disaster.

(Graphic from the DLC Website)