First off, as a long time Kossack, I'm on the outside, looking in. Personally, I'm not poor, I'm not Black, I'm not Brown, I'm not Latino .. hell, I'm not even gay [and rarely, I'm not even happy, either]. And I'm not a Democrat. I'll never be one of those 'tacticians' on the inside of the Democratic Party.
But I am a 'leftist', I guess. At least that's what people would call me. I believe in no religion, yet on this Christmas Day as a non-practicing Jewish person, I appreciate the Beatitudes and have to wonder, in light of today's politics about those who suffer in need and want, in this modern technological marvel we call "America".
But enough about me; you've now got what you might need to know, before some of you launch your ad hom attacks accusing me of being some sort of fraud. Have at it. I really don't care about what you think about me personally.
The fixation here is about Barack Obama. The 'banned diarist' RainbowGirl had a serious flaw in her last diary; she fixated on one man, not understanding the larger picture.
It's not Barack Obama's fault that dozens of people in the Nixon administration were never brought to trial for the crimes they committed. Obama was about 10 years old at the time.
It's not Barack Obama's fault that dozens of people in the Reagan administration were not brought up on charges of treason for dealing with drug kingpins and terrorists, he was only a teenager at the time.
It's not Barack Obama's fault that tax laws were changed to favor the wealthy and create an environment which destroyed America's manufacturing base in the 1980s. Barack was just finishing up high school at the time.
'RainbowGirl' attacked Barack Obama as an individual, not understanding that it's the Democratic Party hierarchy that is the root cause of why this nation is where it is today. Obama is just being a good Democrat.
The power structure of the Democratic Party has handed a bunch of empty rhetoric to the urban poor and the lower working classes because they know that these groups of people, white, black, brown, yellow and red have no real recourse to obtain political power. The poor and disaffected surely cannot go to the Repukes and expect better treatment. This backhanded treatment extends beyond just the most desperate of the poor and racial minorities - unions, the LGBT community, artists, creators and even intellectuals have been mostly handed empty platitudes for since the 1960s by the Democratic Party.
The one bright spot is that, as society itself has changed, some grudging rights have been accorded to select groups of people. The repeal of DADT was supported by roughly 70% of the population, it's not as if Obama and his administration fought against public opinion to bring this change about.
------
It's hard to pin down exactly where and why this diversion from the Democratic Party platform by Democratic leadership came to be, but perhaps it was Vietnam war protests, and what happened to LBJ that began this radical aversion to liberal and progressive values by the core of the Democratic Party. LBJ, for all his flaws about the war in Vietnam made bold diversions in the name of social justice, bucking his own Party, risking political power to achieve the beginnings then of what we see today as core liberal values: Medicare, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act.
The destruction of the LBJ Presidency lead to the destruction of the military draft; oddly, the one vehicle that would energize the poor and disaffected to get out and vote, taken away. The volunteer military took away the impetus to activate a huge segment of the population's power to be motivated, to have a voice in foreign policy. Adopting a 'volunteer military' was a masterstroke of genius on the part of the Military Industrial Complex.
And those who caused LBJ's downfall, the "DFHs" are still a bone of contention for the national Democratic Power structure. The comments of the WH in response to activism on the part of the poor and minorities is met with derision, and is just one of many indicators of an echo from the top that's been heard for 40 years. Listen carefully to the rhetoric of Democratic leaders from the 1970s on, and you will hear constant attacks on those who brought down a Presidency.
Yes, Barack Obama's administration is clearly antagonistic to the DFH crowd. But it's not like this is news.
Bill and Hillary Clinton early on may have sounded a series of sympathetic noises which made them seem like they were liberals, but it's clear that power corrupted them. During a time of economic resurgence, the Clinton administration took no bold sustainable actions to help the poor: most of the urban decay continued, even with midnight basketball and putting 100,000 cops on the streets. Both Clintons have gone out of their way to bash the left, when it suited their purposes, and adopt right wing memes like "ending welfare as we know it". All just another way to keep the poor from gaining any political power.
The plight of most Native Americans continued unabated in the 1990s under Clinton; for the most part, only those who were able to invoke the freedom of self governance to create vices that attracted the invaders of their lands prospered. Quite an American legacy, right there. Clinton worked with Republicans to move forward the Reagan/GHWB Trickle Down/New World Order agenda, enabling wage slavery overseas with NAFTA/CAFTA/GATT and deregulation of the banks.
So this fixation by people here on Barack Obama as the reason why things are the way they are today is badly placed: Barack Obama is just acting like a 'good Democratic leader', reflecting the continued submissiveness of Democrats to the pressures of Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, the Health Industrial Complex, the Prison Industrial Complex. Obama's own diary posted here in 2005 told us what we needed to know about him then. He professionally is clearly is committed to process over ideals. Obama appears to be willing to suppress and sublimate his own affinity towards the poor, but it's clear he personally believes in what we'd call 'liberalism' and 'progressivism' .. the moral tension between these positions is fascinating to observe.
Some call this 'pragmatism'.
I call it lack of commitment.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.
I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.
-----------
I am not drawing a facile equivalence here between progressive advocacy groups and right-wing advocacy groups. The consequences of their ideas are vastly different. Fighting on behalf of the poor and the vulnerable is not the same as fighting for homophobia and Halliburton. But to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, "true" progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward. When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive "checklist," then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted.
Our goal should be to stick to our guns on those core values that make this country great, show a spirit of flexibility and sustained attention that can achieve those goals, and try to create the sort of serious, adult, consensus around our problems that can admit Democrats, Republicans and Independents of good will. This is more than just a matter of "framing," although clarity of language, thought, and heart are required. It's a matter of actually having faith in the American people's ability to hear a real and authentic debate about the issues that matter.
Finally, I am not arguing that we "unilaterally disarm" in the face of Republican attacks, or bite our tongue when this Administration screws up. Whenever they are wrong, inept, or dishonest, we should say so clearly and repeatedly; and whenever they gear up their attack machine, we should respond quickly and forcefully. I am suggesting that the tone we take matters, and that truth, as best we know it, be the hallmark of our response.
My dear friend Paul Simon used to consistently win the votes of much more conservative voters in Southern Illinois because he had mastered the art of "disagreeing without being disagreeable," and they trusted him to tell the truth. Similarly, one of Paul Wellstone's greatest strengths was his ability to deliver a scathing rebuke of the Republicans without ever losing his sense of humor and affability.
Interesting isn't it, to read 5 years later what was posted here, particularly invoking Paul Wellstone, of all people.
I'm no longer a Democrat, because the I finally concluded the Party has effectively abandoned any fealty to the Party Platform and core values. I don't blame Obama; in fact, in some ways I thank him for finally making it clear how I've been fooled by 40 years of Democratic double dealing.
Barack Obama doesn't try to fool me like Bill Clinton did, by biting his lower and claiming to 'feel the pain' of the poor or the disaffected. He brazenly tells us that blind faith in political process, and working with evil greedy bastards is the only way forward. He believes, like most Democrats in power do, that the power of wealth is the salvation of this country and this planet, that 'market based solutions' are better than what We The People offer through their election of government officials in a democracy. Like almost all of today's politicians, Barack Obama agrees: giving more money and resources to the rich to gamble our future away is the solution to everything.
Barack Obama has no fire to commit to real change. He believes in process. Like almost all politicians, he believes in the power of wealth over democracy.
He told us all of this in 2005.
Why are we all surprised today?
One final chuckle, from the very end of Obama's posting in 2005.
In that spirit, let me end by saying I don't pretend to have all the answers to the challenges we face, and I look forward to periodic conversations with all of you in the months and years to come. I trust that you will continue to let me and other Democrats know when you believe we are screwing up. And I, in turn, will always try and show you the respect and candor one owes his friends and allies.
Perfectly played:
exactly the type of rhetoric I have come to expect from Democratic leaders.