mug     

Please Donate To the Greater Falls Warming Shelter in Memory of Julie Waters



Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Search




Advanced Search


Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.




Cenk Uygur frames the progressive dynamic - including Obama, Dean, Sanders - perfectly

by: odum

Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 13:43:57 PM EST


Cenk Uygur has written what may be the most important piece currently out there on the interwebs for progressives to read. It ends up optimistic, although considering the article's almost behavioralist slant, its hard to get very excited.

On Obama:

I'm sure Obama is a progressive that would help the average American if he thought he could. But apparently he thinks he can't. He can only bring them a small amount of change because of what he thinks the system will allow.

You can criticize him for lack of imagination, duplicity during the campaign, lack of spine and political miscalculation. And you might be right about some or all of that, but all of those aren't the essence of Obama. The core of Obama is a man who is a cautious politician. That is what he is at his center. He can't help himself.

[...] so why did Obama drop the progressive reformer angle and go toward the right and corporate America? Because his field changed. He went from campaigning all across the country to being in the middle of Washington, DC. The center of Washington is very different than the center of the country.

[...] Right now, Obama perceives the center of the country to be somewhere between Dick Cheney and Harry Reid. Do you know where that leaves him? Joe Lieberman. That's why we're in the sorry shape we're in now.

On Dean:

The reality is that Howard Dean is a moderate. Progressives in Vermont were upset with him when he was governor because they thought he was too far right. I just heard from someone who was on a cruise that The Nation organized and that Howard Dean spoke at. The crowd on the cruise nearly booed him when he spoke because they thought he was far too moderate.

If you look at Dean's policies, they are right down the middle of the country. That's part of the reason his 50 state strategy worked so well. But the establishment media hate him. Why? Because he points out when they're doing something wrong - and he winds up being proven right in the end. There's nothing that irritates the establishment more than that.

On Bernie:

As things stand, Howard Dean is perceived to be to the left of all of the Democratic senators in Washington (not because he's more liberal than Bernie Sanders or Harry Reid; it's because unlike them, he's willing to fight for his positions (sorry Bernie, at this point, it's true)). That's unconscionable. Washington has shifted so far right that Dean is considered some sort of wild-eyed liberal. We have to move it back if we are to have any hope that Obama will move further left (and much closer to the true center of the country).

On what's next:

It's not pretty, but it's necessary. We have to attack Obama relentlessly from the left. Right now he is a giant that is unmoved by anything in his left flank, he keeps looking to his right and ducking and worrying and moving to accommodate them. They are so loud and so visible. It's hard to miss them. We have to make him look left. We have to shake him off his foundation.

Rahm Emanuel gave a wonderfully condescending interview to the Wall Street Journal where he explained that the White House has nothing to worry about from the left. That's exactly what we have to change. Unfortunately, the only way to capture their attention and make them accommodate us rather than Fox News Channel is to hurt them. When we can put on the same kind of pain and pressure on the Obama White House as Fox does, that's when they'll have to move, at least to get out of the way.

You inflict political pain by voting things down. So far progressives have been completely unwilling to do this. They got rolled on healthcare because they had no intention of putting their foot down - and everyone knew it.

For my part, I'll be honest. It's been a while since I felt this beat up, exhausted, and discouraged. Even cynicism takes a certain amount of energy, and I'm out.

But I suppose tomorrow is another day. Heck, its Christmas. Happy (?) Holidays.

odum :: Cenk Uygur frames the progressive dynamic - including Obama, Dean, Sanders - perfectly
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Raise Your Voice!

It's about structure (0.00 / 0)
Sorry to hear that you feel beat up, exhausted, and discouraged. I don't, because I do my best not to get invested in the personalities that move in and out of political positions. I see them more as actors stepping in and out of written roles.

There is a structure in place, involving two major parties, corporate lobbyists, corporate appointees, millionaire campaign finance, a patchwork of tricky electoral laws, and a semi-monopolistic news media. That structure filters out some people and allows others to pass through. Our political system has predefined places for these people to fit in. They wouldn't be there if they had policies in mind that would make major changes in the parasitized hulk of our empire.

Sanders has found that if you try to change a meat grinder from the inside you change more than the meat grinder. Dean is finding his mojo because he's got nothing to lose at this point.

Harassing Obama from the left won't do much, because he was filtered through the corporate/political structure in order to get where he is today. He has behaviors and beliefs that fit the way things are run now. As I wrote in a recent post at minorheresies.com, you wouldn't expect the CEO of Exxon/Mobil to turn that organization into an environmental non-profit. One, he wouldn't be allowed to, and two, being who he is, he wouldn't think of it.

My point is, stop thinking "Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Dean, Sanders, McCain, Inhofe, Boehner, Lieberman." Start thinking "Campaign finance laws, electoral laws, lobbying laws." Change the filter and you change the next occupants, or more importantly, the political beliefs allowable in the next occupants. It's going to take a new civil rights movement, one for 99.9% of Americans, to get that done. I wonder if we have the social strength for that.

Minor Heretic
"Damned for 25% of eternity"


Exactly! (0.00 / 0)
Very well put. Ditto, ditto, ditto. Publicly fund all national elections on a bare-bones level and criminalize private contributions.  This is the age of the internet; we don't need  candidates jetting all over the country and buying slander time on TV.  Full information enabling a responsible decision can be made cheaply and conveniently available, using media that is already in place in the typical U.S. home.  I guarantee this would not only ventilate "K" street, but it would also end up saving taxpayers inconceivably vast sums of money.

Still, I am all for hollering loud and long from the left when  Congress disobeys its mandate.  No matter how vehemently the right begs to differ, there is abundant evidence that the American people have spoken for a public option.  


[ Parent ]
funding (0.00 / 0)
direct expenditures publicly would help but would not solve the problem; the Supreme Court maintains that money = speech so we cannot stop big private money from paying for "slander time" (as you so nicely put it)

we need new faces on the Court but the other side is comparatively young


[ Parent ]
If that really is the position of the Supreme Court (0.00 / 0)
I believe it may be in violation of the Constitution itself.  I'm no expert, but, since not every citizen has equal "money" to every other citizen, this position itself would seem to violate the Constitutional language establishing and protecting equal rights.  I think that it is only a lack of will in Congress to change the power dynamics that prevents the elimination of private funding from the election process.

[ Parent ]
it is (0.00 / 0)
the Court that determines what is and is not constitutional; the congress does not have the power to unilaterally make such decisions; and, frankly, I'm glad; imagine what the Republican's would have done to the bill of rights by now (although Republican appointees are doing pretty well on their own!)

as for equal protection, recall that it took a civil war and a constitutional amendment to get rid of slavery (property rights cannot be easily overcome in this, the best of all possible worlds)

and even after the amendment, it took decades to make it real; it was only 45 years ago that the Court ruled in Gideon that the indigent had to be provided with legal counsel in criminal cases; imagine, equal protection was supposedly the law but if you were poor and faced the loss of life or liberty you were shit out of luck

unfortunately, even "rights" such as this are not guaranteed if the states fail to provide sufficient funding to make it real; this goes on in every state including VT; I recall vividly during a fierce budget battle in the 90s when the Defender General's funding was at risk that Howard Dean said what's the big deal, "they're all guilty anyway"

my point is that while voting rights have (to some extent) been protected by the 14th amendment (except in Florida in 2000!), we've been stuck with Buckley v. Valeo for over 30 years and it would shock me if the Court overturned that precedent in our lifetimes; imagine someone arguing that Michael Bloomberg didn't have the right to spend his own money to buy the Mayor's office in NYC

the Court likes property rights because, well, that's what separates us from mob rule after all; anything else would be UnAmerican...


[ Parent ]
Buckley vs Valeo (0.00 / 0)
I've thought about that. The Supremes equated money with free speech back in 1976, effectively ending legitimate democracy and trading it for plutocracy. Still, there is an out.

They prohibited overall spending limits and have ruled against extremely low contribution limits as restricting free speech. Ok, fine.

Public financing should be based on multiple matching, much like the statewide public financing system here in VT. Cap individual donations at a day's wages at minimum wage - around $50 right now. After tax? Anyway, multiple match those donations 7:1, so $50 becomes $400. That would get around Buckley. No cap on total raised funds. It would cost us about $2-3 billion a year, but would save us about 100 times that.

That way Bill Gates and the guy who mows Bill Gates' lawn have the same clout.

Minor Heretic
"Damned for 25% of eternity"


but (0.00 / 0)
such a scheme would NOT cover private expenditures on behalf of candidates; Buckley does not prohibit public financing but it does prohibit any infringement on the right of private parties to "speak" using the media or any other means available

we are screwed for the forseeable future


[ Parent ]
A possible wedge in Buckley v Valeo (0.00 / 0)
The court ruled the way it did on expenditures ostensibly due to the need for large amounts of cash to get a national message out. In the 1970's that was absolutely true, but in the 2000's with the widespread use of the internet that is no longer a fact.

A legal argument that a real and viable alternative exists combined with the narrowness of access to the standard outlets (serendipitously because of the need for large amounts of money to access those same outlets) could rule the day.

The personal expenditures thing short of a constitutional amendment will never, and probably should never, be gotten around ... but there is an answer to that.

The first part is for congress to pass a law stating simply that constitutional personhood is reserved for natural persons only. It is important to realize there really is no constitutional beast as corporate personhood .. it all comes from the reading of laws as written. Vermont's statutes, for example, define person this way: '"Person" shall include any natural person, corporation, municipality, the state of Vermont or any department, agency or subdivision of the state, and any partnership, unincorporated association or other legal entity.'(Title 1, Chapter 3, Secton 128)

Corporations are creatures of the state after all.

The second part is a tax system, including estate taxes, that actively discourages large accumulations of wealth ... especially of the hereditary kind. This brings the economies of free speech closer. (I'm leaving 'large' undefined for this purpose right now as that is a political, not numerical, question.)


It's over at http://ramabahama.net ... only it's still under construction (but so is the rest of my life)


[ Parent ]
Still, there is value in keeping the issue before the public. (0.00 / 0)
With growing income disparity and a vanishing middle class, the conversation must be held; and it will resonate louder and louder, with more voices joining in, the more often it is discussed.  That is the only way that change happens.  We can't simply accept that this perversion of the democratic process cannot be stopped.  We must demand meaningful election reform, over and over and over again until something moves.  Otherwise, we have simply ceded our democracy and deserve what we get.  The natural progression is the current push for corporations to be granted "personhood."   I'd just as soon live under a hereditary monarchy.

[ Parent ]
Brown vs. Board of Education (0.00 / 0)
Consider that people of color were screwed in terms of constitutionally approved, rock-solid-stare-dececis (sp?) school segregation - right up until they weren't.

The text of the constitution stays the same over long periods of time. The generally held opinions of society slowly change, and the court along with them. Sometimes they change abruptly. For example, peaceful civil rights marchers getting attacked with dogs and clubs on national television changed the civil rights debate.

The Supreme Court didn't just wake up one morning and collectively say "Hey, I just realized, segregation is wrong!"

Sue Prent is right. Demand and demand and demand, get refused over and over, and continue to demand. Never stop demanding.

A union organizer on strike was once asked by a reporter, "How long can the union hold out?" He answered, "One day longer than management."

If a comprehensive campaign reform bill, as Buckley compliant as possible while still effective, was passed and shot down by the court and re-passed a few years in a row, I'll bet they would eventually get the message.

Minor Heretic
"Damned for 25% of eternity"


[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
that we shouldn't (can't) stop

but THIS Court will NOT bend to reason; they represent power & money and have no intention of changing their ways or the law; and it's only gotten worse since the coup of 2000

Re. Brown v. Board of Ed: this court (like the Rehnquist court) is systematically undoing much of the post-Brown jurisprudence; it may seem like history is with us, but that odd period from the mid-50s through Roe v. Wade was an anomaly and has been under attack ever since

moreover, the idea that Congress could pass a comprehensive campaign finance reform bill is not realistic; they are the ones who benefit most directly from the system we have; why would they change it?

hell, they can't even do health care


[ Parent ]
Campaign finance (0.00 / 0)
As a former staffer for Sen. Russ Feingold and then-Rep. Bernie Sanders, let me just chime in briefly.

As far as campaign finance, we may be about to face a tsunami.  The Supremes are working on their decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which the Roberts Court may use to overturn all campaign finance laws, even those dating back to the early 1900s, which put the original restrictions on corporate and union spending.  See my blog post - http://scaypgrayce.wordpress.c...

If the Court's majority comes down as I think they will, they are about to open the floodgates on millions, perhaps billions, of dollars in corporate largesse.

So if you think you were feeling beat up, exhausted, and discouraged before . . .

As for Bernie, I'm also disappointed in his vote, but I understand it, and he got community health center funding (yes, I know, a drop in the bucket compared).  The real problem is Obama.   Bernie may have tried and failed - or caved, if you want to see it that way - but Obama flat out lied to us.  He's even saying now he never campaigned on the public option.  He never intended to support it, and he played a rhetorical three-card monte for months, trying to pretend he wasn't screwing us and millions of Americans and their families while handing a major Christmas present to Health, Inc.

Obama's the one who should be receiving the withering fire, not Bernie.



GMD Links

Vermont Daily Briefing
Rational Resistance
VT News Guy
VT Digger
Minor Heresies
What's the Point?
Vermont Yankee, evacuation plans, & more
Mulish Behavior
Political Animal (with Steve Benen)
Reason and Brimstone
Blazing Indiscretions
sneigwh
Dohiyi Mir
Blier Watch
five before chaos
Blue Hampshire
Blue News Tribune
Burlington Pol
Norsehorse
Rip & Read
Integral Psychosis
VT Secession
Tenselblog
VT Bloggernaut
Morgan's Gov. race blog
Bureaucracy Blog
Austanspace

Non-political

Candleblog
iBrattleboro
WKVT 1490 AM
Vermont Mornings
False 45th
Bosox Wally

National

Congress Matters
Daily Kos
Open Left
BlogPac
Talking Points Memo
My Left Wing
MyDD
Docudharma
Glenn Greenwald
Firedoglake
Atrios (Eschaton)
Think Progress
Driftglass
Pam's House Blend
Hullabaloo (Digby)
The Plum Line (Sargent)

Legacy Media Blogs

Vermont View
vt buzz
Blurt (7 Days)

International

The Irish Independent
Comment is free...(Guardian UK)
Al Jazeera
Pulse Media
Global Voices
All Voices
Vermonters for a Just Peace in Israel/Palestine




Specialized Feeds:

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Subscribe with Bloglines
Subscribe in NewsGator Online

Add to My AOL
Subscribe in Rojo
R|Mail
Add to Technorati Favorites!


RSS FEED


blog advertising is good for you
Event Calendar
May 2012
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * 01 02 03 04 05
06 07 08 09 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 * *
<< (add event) >>

Follow us on Twitter! or Like us on Facebook!


Featured Stories
State and Local
National and International




Powered by: SoapBlox