Progressives in the Obama Moment

The Nation: Historic Candidacy And Forbidding Conditions Make It Vital That Progressives Focus On Strategy

(The Nation)  This column was written by Robert L. Borosage and Katrina vanden Heuvel.

---

Electric. When Barack Obama receives the Democratic presidential nomination before 75,000 people in Denver's Mile High Stadium on the forty-fifth anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, new possibilities will be born. A historic candidacy, a new generation in motion, a nation yearning for change. Even the cynics running the McCain campaign might be touched, if they weren't so busy savaging Obama as a vain celebrity not up to the task of leading a nation.

No one should be blinded by the lights. It will take hard work to turn the nomination into victory in a campaign that has already turned ugly. Moreover, even if victorious, Obama will inherit the calamitous conditions wrought by conservative failures--a sinking economy, unsustainable occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, accelerating climate change, Gilded Age inequality, a broken healthcare system and much more.

Obama will also be limited by the constricted consensus of an establishment not yet able to contemplate the changes needed to set this country right again. To be successful, his presidency will have to be bolder and more radical than now imagined.

A historic candidate, the forbidding conditions and the constricted consensus make it vital that progressives think clearly and act independently in forging a strategy over the next months. The following is a contribution to a rich and ongoing discussion. We invite others to join it at thenation.com in the weeks to come.

A Sea-Change Election

The Obama nomination sets the stage for a sea-change election, one that could not only elect a Democratic President and increased reform majorities in both houses of Congress but also mark a clear turn from the conservative ideas that have dominated our politics for three decades.

In recent weeks, the media--primed by a Republican strategy contrasting Obama's purported doublespeak with McCain's alleged Straight Talk--have focused on Obama's compromises and backsliding. Much of the alleged retrenchment has been exaggerated. Some of it--like his fold on the FISA wiretap bill, mixed signals on trade, the compromise on offshore drilling--has been clear and deplorable. Many on the left were dismayed as the Obama campaign trotted out advisers from a Democratic bench that had championed the toxic Rubinomics brew of corporate trade and financial deregulation.
These concerns should not distract us from the central reality: this election features a stark ideological contrast. Although marketed as a trustworthy maverick, McCain accurately describes himself as a "foot soldier in the Reagan revolution" and attests that "on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush." He is committed to the full Bush catastrophe: continued war in Iraq, more tax cuts for the wealthiest, more corporate trade deals, more deregulation, more hostility toward labor, more conservative social policies and reactionary judges. Indeed, he's Bush on steroids. McCain seeks not only to privatize Social Security but also to unravel employer-based healthcare, leaving people to negotiate alone with insurance companies liberated from regulation. His bellicose posturing on Iran and Iraq is as disastrous as his pledge of impossibly deep cuts in domestic programs. He embraces the corporate economic and trade agenda that has so devastated the American middle class. If he is defeated, it will mark the end of the Reagan era.

Obama clearly offers a change of course. His victory in itself will require overcoming the racial fears that have so long divided this country. He carries a reform agenda--largely driven by progressives--into the election: an end to the occupation of Iraq, using the money squandered there to rebuild America; affordable healthcare for all, paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy; a concerted drive for energy independence, generating jobs while investing in renewable energy and conservation. He is committed to empowering labor, to holding corporations and banks more accountable and to challenging our trade policies. A social liberal, his judicial appointees will keep the right from consolidating its hold on the federal judiciary. Obama may not be a "movement" progressive in the way that Reagan was a "movement" conservative, and he may have disappointed activists with his recent compromises, but make no mistake: his election will open a new era of reform, the scope of which will depend--as Obama often says--on independent progressive mobilization to keep the pressure on and overcome entrenched interests.

As this is written, an election Obama should win handily is locked in a virtual tie. Both the Obama and McCain campaigns treat the race as a referendum on Obama, with the former focused on getting Americans comfortable with trusting a young African-American with an unusual name, and the Rove minions in the McCain campaign intent on stoking the fears that enabled them to assemble a white majority party in the past.

Obama's campaign will not succeed without the independent efforts of progressive activists. One central task is winning support among wary white blue-collar workers, the core target of the Rovian poison. This will require persuasion as well as mobilization; the work of the AFL-CIO, Change to Win, Working America, religious groups and others with a base in these communities in swing states will be of critical importance.

Progressives generally--and independent media and the blogosphere specifically--can contribute by reminding voters there's a clear choice in this election, with McCain representing the same old, same old. While exposing McCain's doubletalk, his Bush-redux agenda and the money and interests behind the scurrilous right-wing independent expenditure campaigns, progressives can also help build support for reform. The new Health Care for America Now coalition, for example, has the resources to expose McCain's healthcare folly, thereby building a mandate for universal coverage. The antiwar movement should be challenging McCain's saber-rattling on Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, helping to strengthen US support for a change in course. With gas prices at the center of American concerns, the environmental alliance around jobs and energy can consolidate support for a concerted drive toward energy independence, while challenging absurd claims that we can drill our way out of the crisis.

Driving Reform

While focusing on what is certain to be a difficult campaign, progressives should start thinking now about strategy for an Obama presidency. Clearly his election and inauguration would mark an exciting moment. At home, a new sense of energy and idealism will be unleashed. Across the world, his election will begin the process of restoring America's ravaged reputation. Not only will Obama usher a new generation into politics, but for the first time a President with experience as a community organizer will have the ability to mobilize directly a dedicated following larger than any other in politics.

In the first months of an Obama administration, progressives should be pursuing an inside-outside strategy in relation to the administration. For example, in the transition, we should push to place allies in strategic positions, particularly in the areas of economic policy and national security. The AFL-CIO and other groups are preparing lists of potential candidates. These inside efforts should be complemented by watchdog monitoring and reporting on potential nominees. No free pass should be given to those who drove the financial and trade policies that led to the current economic debacles or supported the invasion of Iraq, the worst foreign policy fiasco in recent history.

For Obama to achieve his core promises, he will have to push significant reforms early. As Dan Lazare has argued, our entire political system is designed to block reform, not facilitate it. Periods of significant change in American politics are rare, but they feature spasms of furious activity: Roosevelt's first 100 days, Johnson's push in 1964-65, Reagan's reaction in 1981-82. Inevitably, these spasms don't last long before reaction sets in. So it is vital to move rapidly and boldly and across many areas to have any chance at success.

[taxguydave]

Another thing--since the payroll tax is used as general revenue by the Republicans (as opposed to being dedicated to paying for Social Security and Medicare as originally intended), that changes the "who pays how much tax" picture dramatically, since only income from actually WORKING is subject to the payroll tax.

Factoring both together, the top 5% pay about 30% of the tax.

In the 1990''s, the top income brackets paid a larger share of the tax burden than they do now, yet economic growth was over 3 times faster than today.

[taxguydave]

Conservatives never seem to want to face up to the realities they help create. Y''all talk about reducing government spending, but you don''t want to touch military spending, which takes up more than half of the discretionary budget, and much of which is "off budget". $600-$700 billion/yr. Then you say that you''re going to balance the budget (currently a $400 Billion+/yr deficit) by cutting the $60 billion we spend on social programs, along with about $10 billion/yr in "earmarks".

So, how do you propose to come up with the other $350 billion/yr or so without raising taxes or cutting military spending? Or do you just want to keep rolling up the national debt? It was $4 trillion and falling when Clinton left office, and it''s closing in on $12 trillion today.

"Fiscal conservatism", my ***.

[xlib]

ubrew12-I remember the 50''s and 80''s very well. As for the 70''s not such a good time. I remember gas lines, rationing and only being able to buy gas on certain days depending on the last digit of your license plate. So, what is your answer? More taxes, government control over everything. Hey, the messiah thought the Chinese ports were great, how about we adopt the Chinese form of government?? You know, people starving in the hills, all government control, how''s that sound. But then, we would have to have Dubai Ports manage our ports the way the Chinese do.
Seriously, your points are well made a documented but I don''t see where you have the percentage of taxes paid by "the rich" and you need to define "the rich.". Me, I think the government needs to be made smaller and more power taken from them. Our elected officials have way too much power over us when they can''t manage themselves let alone every ascpect of a country.

[xlib]

maindoggie-try and make some sense, will you. See, we don''t feel the need to change words to hide meaning such as,oh say, partial birth abortion is now late term abortion. I an interview with one of your msm shillings queen nance said that the war in Iraq was merely a "situation", see how that works? AS for compassion, well my friend, where do you work and what do you do and what have you done for your country and fellow Americans?? Me, I work in a soup kitchen that serves the poor in a loca county, how''s that? Your side has shown compassion by telling an entire population of Americans that they can''t do for themselves, that they need to be taken care of. How is that showing compassion?? Your war on poverty has been going on for over 40 years and has destroyed the AA family unit. How is that showing compassion? Son, it''s showing power over people, that''s all.
NOw, try looking up the true meaning of nazi since that''s a term that your side loves to use. Progressive, don''t think so. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Guess that''s why I left your socialist party. Say, how''s socialism worked around the world?? Show me a success story.

[mainedoggie]

===========
A liberal by any other name is still a liberal. Progressive, don''''t think so.
Posted by Xlib
===========

On that note... A conservative by any other name is still a nazi, compassionate, don''t think so.

[cbullcom]

Well maybe if industry and the wealthy didn''t always try to screw the little guy then yes it would be fair. The only accountability in industry is to share holders. The employee''s get laid off because the share holders aren''t making enough profit, the CEO walks away with millions, and look at the economy right now, where is the trickle down. There is a saying...he who has the golden egg makes the rules, and the rich always get better breaks, ie lobbyist in washington, and the average people do what we do, blog about it, but what has really changed?

[cbullcom]

Posted by infe5 at 03:53

We are not great anymore, remove the blinders. Funny the whole world knows it, but I guest when you only see things from an American perspective and not a worldly perspective, then that explains it.

[cbullcom]

I can''t believe people are still talking about communist, and you don''t even realize that it''s capitalistic greed that is destroying you. Unless you are the wealthy 1%.

[cbullcom]

I can''t believe people are still talking about communist, and you don''t even realize that it''s capitalistic greed that is destroying you. Unless you are the wealthy 1%.

[cbullcom]

I just don''t understand, selfish people. What good is amassing wealth to just die and it gets squandered anyway. Also you people think everyone that needs help is a low life. Not the case, everyone can find them self in a bad spot in life, no matter how much money you have, it can all be gone. I see people work all there life to horde money and wealth, then they die of a heart attack because they always worked, because they could never get enough. And if any of you are Christians then you know that god requires us to give, because no matter how you slice it, you really don''t own anything in this world. If you did, there would be no iminent domain, paying taxes even after you have paid for your house and car. What do you really own, and will it really matter when you are laying on a cold slab. I see why the world see this country as selfish. No one in America wants to help others, no we want to judge until we find ourself in dire straits. So hold on to what you think is wealth, you are losing it anyway, and it has nothing to do with poor people, it has to do with the rich strangling the life out of the middle class.

[ubrew12]

Xlib said: "why not go way, way back to the 50''s? Or hey, the 70''s sure were a sweet time, go back to then."

Since you asked:
Share of total income accruing to the wealthiest 1% of Americans:
1910s: 17%, 1920s: 17%, 1930s: 14%, 1940s: 11%, 1950s: 9%, 1960s: 8%, 1970s: 8%, 1980s: 11%, 1990s: 13%, 2000s: 16%, current: 17.5%

Anyone old enough will recall: America was a truly GREAT country between the 1950s and the 1980s. Our currency was the gold standard, our products the gold standard, our democracy the gold standard, our military the gold standard, our standard of living the gold standard. People worked 20% fewer hours than today and one wage earner could afford a home and a family (instead of todays two wage earners and NO family). Thats because we taxed the rich appropriately to pay for public infrastructure like dams, interstate highways, bridges, etc: investments which in turn paid off in greater commerce.

In the 1910s-1920s, low to no taxes on the rich meant America''s streets were mean, her infrastructure poor. Indeed, America was setting itself up for the Great Depression.

We all know whats happened since the 1980s. NO new public infrastructure to speak of, and shoddy maintenance on what our grandparents left us, silly wars for oil, vast mountains of debt, oil-addiction, 40 million uninsured. Frankly, I see another Great Depression on its way.

[xlib]

ubrew12-why not go way, way back to the 50''s? Or hey, the 70''s sure were a sweet time, go back to then.

[xlib]

A liberal by any other name is still a liberal. Progressive, don''t think so.

[progres_sive]

Obama/Biden 08

[progres_sive]

Obama/Biden 08

[ubrew12]

Europe has been Progressive for 40 years: even their ''Republicans'' are progressive compared to the troglodytes in charge of America.

That ''dangerous'' progressive ''socialism'' must be why their currency is kicking sand in the dollars face.

Hey, the DOW hit 11,600 today!!!
Except, in year 2000 dollars, its only worth 6,500.
Thats right: if you own stock your holdings are worth half what they were 8 years ago, even though on paper you ''made'' money. Enjoy your ''Bush recovery'' morons.

[ubrew12]

Income bracket......%Change in income* (1970-2000):
Bottom 90%.... -22.5%,
90-95%.... 0.4%,
95-99%..... 19.5%,
99-99.5%..... 47.0%,
99.5-99.9%..... 90.0%,
99.9-99.99%..... 227.0%,
Top 0.01%..... 412.0%
*as a share of ALL U.S. income. Source: ''Perfectly legal'' by David Cay Johnston

This shift in wealth was due to REAGAN, i.e. it was BEFORE BUSH CUT TAXES AGAIN. These statistics were compiled by Milton Freedman (founder of supply-side economics) and are NOT liberal biased.

[ubrew12]

dmw1167 said: "the top 1% pays 37%, the [top] 20% pay 88%"

America''s wealth is so dangerously lopsided (income slightly less so) that 1 percent of households own 33.4% of the nation''s net worth; 10% own over 71%; and the bottom 40% own less than 1%. And let''s not forget that power and wealth interact and are often equivalent: it''s often luck and special advantages, not merit, that explains this undemocratic distribution of monetary rewards.

Although America spends two trillion annually on health care - more than any other nation - the money goes into the pockets of doctors, lobbyists, wealthy investors, and pharmaceutical companies. As for the medical benefits, the lion''s share goes principally to the well heeled. Most bankruptcies are precipitated by sickness.

[andylance1]

The last anti-war progressive candidate that ran for president was George McGovern in 1972. The only state he carried was Massachusetts plus the District of Columbia. Nixon beat him in a landslide.

Obama is also going to lose the election, once the population realizes how dangerous he is to our economy and international relations.

[justbill5]

Can there be any doubt that anyone who throws around the words "communist" and "socialist" is at least 70 years old?

Talk about out of touch...I mean, at least when you''re voicing your fears about "terrorists" it''s from this century.