I’ve been meaning to write this blog post for a couple of weeks now and I keep putting it off, in no small part because I don’t like what I have to say. And that’s part of the problem. Nobody on the left wants to say it. Nobody wants to hear it. Although I think most progressives know on some level that it’s true, nobody wants to admit it.
Here it is: Even if he’s reelected, Barack Obama isn’t capable of getting us out of our current economic crisis.
Early in 2009, I saw a bumper sticker on some redneck’s pickup truck that read, “You Can’t Blame Bush Anymore.” Of course, that was ridiculous. Obama had only been in office for a few months at the time and the Bush administration had had eight years to screw up the economy—not to mention the environment, international relations, the Justice Department, the city of New Orleans, and anything else Bush and Cheney could get their hands on.
But that was then, this is now. Three years into the Obama administration, the job market is no better than it was when he took office. The official unemployment rate has been stalled somewhere around 9 percent since 2008, and it’s only within the past few months, as his reelection campaign began, that the president has even begun to consistently address the issue. And he still doesn’t seem to grasp the enormity of the country’s economic problems or the fundamental, systemic changes that are going to be necessary for us to recover. At some point, if they’re honest with themselves, Democrats have to admit that this is Obama’s economy too. He may not have been the one who wrecked it, but he needs to take at least some responsibility for the fact that it’s still broken.
My pointing this out makes some progressives uncomfortable. They’d like to continue kidding themselves that Obama’s their man. But the truth is, Barack Obama is not a progressive. He never was and never will be. Barack Obama is a moderate, a centrist. He is, above all, a compromiser.
In the opening chapter of his 2006 book The Audacity of Hope, Obama presents liberalism and conservatism as two extremes that are equally out of touch with the problems of real Americans, and he seems to hold both political parties equally responsible for legislative gridlock and partisan bickering. Here’s a representative passage:
And yet publicly it’s difficult to find much soul-searching or introspection on either side of the divide, or even the slightest admission of responsibility for the gridlock. What we hear instead...are deflections of criticism and assignments of blame. Depending on your tastes, our condition is the natural result of radical conservativism or perverse liberalism, Tom DeLay or Nancy Pelosi, big oil or greedy trial lawyers, religious zealots or gay activists, Fox News or the New York Times... I won’t deny my preference for the story the Democrats tell, nor my belief that the arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact. In distilled form, though, the explanations of both the right and the left have become mirror images of each other.
The explanations of the right and the left are mirror images of each other? The New York Times is the mirror image of Fox News? A gay person who wants the right to marry the person he or she loves is the mirror image of a religious zealot? At least Obama doesn’t “deny [his] preference” for Democrats. But coming from the man who would become the leader of the Democratic party, that’s a pretty tepid endorsement.
He continues:
There are those who still champion the old-time religion, defending every New Deal and Great Society program from Republican encroachment, achieving ratings of 100 percent from the liberal interest groups. But those efforts seem exhausted, a constant game of defense, bereft of the energy and new ideas needed to address the changing circumstances of globalization or a stubbornly isolated inner city.
So Democrats shouldn’t try to defend social programs from Republican encroachment? And those who do are somehow behind the times? Obama goes on:
...I believe any attempt by Democrats to pursue a more sharply partisan and ideological strategy misapprehends the moment we’re in... For it’s precisely the pursuit of ideological purity, the rigid orthodoxy and sheer predictability of our current political debate, that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challenges we face as a country.
In fact, the entire first chapter of Obama’s book is a thirty-page argument for liberal appeasement. No wonder the first three years of the man’s presidency has played out the way it has. Barack Obama can’t wait to make concessions to conservatives. He’s ready to start compromising before the debate has even begun.
Here’s just a small sample of instances in which the president has capitulated to conservatives:
• Obama extended the Bush tax cuts, which lowered taxes for the wealthiest Americans and increased the deficit by $1.35 trillion.
• Obama supported the bailout of Wall Street banks with no strings attached and no accountability for how the banks would spend the money they were given.
• Obama has taken no action to regulate the bond market, repeal the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, shake up the SEC, or anything else that might prevent the economic disaster of the past five years from happening again.
• Obama didn’t fight for a single-payer health plan even though a majority of Americans wanted it (59 percent, according to a 2009 New York Times/CBS News poll).
• Obama shelved EPA regulations on ground-level ozone, delaying their implementation until at least 2013.
The list goes on and on.
Truthfully, I take no pleasure in pointing any of this out. I greatly respect our president. He’s a man of intelligence and integrity. His commitment to being fair-minded and even-handed, his willingness to see both sides of an issue, his ability to see the value of any political position—these are admirable traits. At a different time in our nation’s history, in a different political climate, he’d be a wonderful leader. But not now. Not in this political climate. Not in the midst of this economic crisis. Not when such fundamental changes must be made to our system in order for us to recover. At this point in time, we don’t need a diplomat in the White House.
We need a fighter. We need someone who’s more committed to progressive values than to compromise. We need someone who isn’t afraid to use the bully pulpit to rally the masses, someone who knows how to throw an elbow in a political skirmish, someone who’s willing to strong-arm his supporters and steamroll over his opponents. We need a cross between FDR, Huey Long, John L. Lewis, and a pit bull. And that is most definitely not Barack Obama.
Why are liberals supporting Obama’s reelection then? Only because they think his being reelected would at least be better than electing a Republican. Well, maybe. If a Republican were elected, the country would have at least four years of counter-productive Republican economic policies rammed down its throat. And if Obama is reelected—well, based on his first administration, the country would apparently have at least four more years of counter-productive Republican economic policies rammed down its throat. So what’s the difference?
Okay, so there is a difference. I admit, I’m being too glib here. But I find it interesting that, in backing Obama, liberals are selling out progressive values in the same way that he does. They’re settling for what they think they can get. They’re ready to start compromising before the debate—or in this case, the election campaign—has even begun.
Why don’t progressives run a third-party candidate, someone who’s more committed to their values? Only because conventional wisdom has it that a third-party candidate can’t win, that Obama is the only one who could beat the Republican nominee. But is that true? How intimidated should we be by any of the Republican candidates? None of them is particularly impressive. Heck, even the Republicans don’t seem to like their own candidates. And, as long as we’re being pragmatic, Obama comes with some significant baggage that another candidate wouldn’t—no president has been reelected with such a high rate of unemployment since World War II. Given the current political climate, the time may just be right for a truly independent candidate to step forward—someone outside the political mainstream, someone who doesn’t accept corporate contributions, someone who is in no way beholden to corporate interests.
Because the truth is, Barack Obama is not the one who’s going to lead us out of this economic crisis. I wish he were. But he’s not.
What America needs is a truly committed progressive in the White House. What America needs is a serious independent candidate for president.