Lately, I've stopped reading most of the diaries on DailyKos. Why? It certainly isn't because I'm ideologically opposed to the politics that this website sponsors (FAR from it). Rather, it's the seemingly unbridled support for Obama--under any and all circumstances--that I find far too reminiscent of the Bush Administration days vis-a-vis his own supporters. Why isn't there more outrage over his economic policies? Why isn't there more scrutiny of his plans to ensure they fulfill the objectives of the progressive agenda? What is it about Obama that makes so many of us, it seems, forget about just being a faithful progressive?
Look, I know there's plenty of silly criticisms to go around. Nit-picking at the President's "special olympics" comment is not really what I had in mind in terms of hard-hitting analysis. But what I am concerned about are things like this, for example:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/...
Despair over financial policy
The Geithner plan has now been leaked in detail. It’s exactly the plan that was widely analyzed — and found wanting — a couple of weeks ago. The zombie ideas have won.
The Obama administration is now completely wedded to the idea that there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the financial system — that what we’re facing is the equivalent of a run on an essentially sound bank. As Tim Duy put it, there are no bad assets, only misunderstood assets. And if we get investors to understand that toxic waste is really, truly worth much more than anyone is willing to pay for it, all our problems will be solved.
So, what, the economy is fundamentally sound? Good grief, I didn't vote for John McCain! I voted for CHANGE. At least, that's what I thought I was voting for; that is what Obama was advertising himself as, anyway.
Or, what about the musings of former Labor Secretary Robert Reich?
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/...
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
In the Wake of AIG: Obama's First Priority
AIG is rapidly becoming a nightmarish metaphor for the Obama Administration's problems administering the bailout of Wall Street. One central problem is the lack of transparency. According to some news reports, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner knew weeks ago that AIG was planning to issue the bonuses to executives in its notorious credit default swap unit, and felt it was contractually bound to do so. But even if Geithner discovered all this just last week, he faces an awkward question about why he didn't know sooner. These bonuses in fact were only the latest if a series, and were not even distributed until last Friday. But it was not until Saturday, after the story leaked to the press,that Geithner went public to express his "outrage" about them.
Meanwhile, the Treasury has been readying yet another big multi-billion-dollar payout to AIG on top of the $170 billion already provided the company, because AIG has been hemorrhaging red ink. The company's balance sheets have been deteriorating far more quickly than the Treasury had anticipated. But there's been no clear exit strategy for stopping the flow of taxpayer money.
What’s particularly embarrassing for the current Administration is that it had promised to undertake the Wall Street bailout far more transparently and effectively than the way the Bush administration went about it. The Obama Administration had assured the public that, among other things, taxpayer money would no longer be used to backstop Wall Street bonuses. (It’s worth noting, in this regard, that the related plan put forward by the Obama Treasury to limit executive pay in Wall Street firms that received bailouts turned out to be riddled with holes.)
Let me ask you all this question: What would YOU be saying if President Bush had appointed someone like Tim Geithner? Seriously. Don't quibble or dodge the issue; I want you to really let that sit for awhile.
Admit it: you'd be pretty pissed off.
If you can honestly say with a straight face that you would be okay with Geithner under any administration, then you're either: a) not paying attention, or b) insane.
Now, to address some criticisms. Yes, I know Obama supports federal funding of stem cell research. Yes, I also understand he's pro-choice, more-or-less pro-gay, and "pro" this-and-that on a number of critical progressive issues. Terrific, that's what I have come to expect.
HOWEVER, you must understand that the economy is a bread-and-butter issue for everyone; it is the binding fabric of America that determines outcomes for not just the poor and middle-class, but as we've also seen, for the wealthy, too. If Obama fails to put together and execute a cohesive, effective plan for economic recovery, it could have devastating consequences for the progressive agenda (i.e., we lose an election). If we don't have an ally in the White House, it could be significantly more difficult to bring about the kind of change I'm sure we'd all like to see.
Do you think the majority of Americans are as concerned about the broad gamut of progressive issues like the DKos community is? Please. Hardly. At this point, the economy is the number one priority for them. Look at it the way Maslov would with his "hierarchy of human needs": people need to be able to take care of the basics, such as food, clothing, and shelter, before they can focus their attention on more abstract principles of fairness and justice. If Americans can't find economic solace in this president, then down the road, they will find someone else.
"Oh, but Chris, Obama's SO POPULAR!" Yeah, so was Bush. Get over it. Of all the arguments I've heard in support of Obama's current handling of the crisis, this is by far the most feckless of positions.
Don't grow overconfident about the Congressional trends, while we're on this subject. I know it's tempting to fall back on the notion that we'll have our majorities in both chambers of Congress to ensure our agenda is not forestalled even if we, in theory, lose the presidency. However, I'd invite you to take a look at the Clinton-era. Despite convincing Republican majorities, it was ultimately Clinton--one person--that thwarted the conservative agenda (excepting those occasions where he capitulated, like with welfare "reform"). Now, just reverse the scenario. Oh, and keep in mind, those Republican majorities weren't permanent, either. The GOP failed to maintain them, for whatever reason, and now they are paying the price. Does anyone here want what happened to the GOP lately to happen to us? No, thanks.
So, what are we, ladies and gentlemen? Are we progressives? Or just Democrats? I see many of you don't have any problems criticizing the Blue Dogs. So, why the hesitation when it comes down to the President? Fear of being factious? Divided? Would it be a strategic blunder to look divided on this community?
How many Green Party members do we have? Anyone? Is there anyone that, dare I say, is a Socialist? Anyone from Vermont, here? =) Seriously, I'm getting so sick of all the Democratic Party drivel. Why do some people here think the only way to be progressive is to be a Democrat? Frankly, at this point, I'd rather have Ralph Nader in the office. And no, I didn't vote for him. But, that about sums up how I feel.
We've all got our hearts in the right place. Why not put our actions and words in the same place? If you want to support the Democratic Party, fine. But, why not offer support ONLY when they do the right things, Obama included?
Progressivism first. Party second.