Progressives in the Obama Moment

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

(The Nation) 
Obama's first decision--to be made, no doubt, during the transition--will be the most telling. He has pledged that he will instruct the Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare a sensible plan for ending the Iraq occupation. Already, Democratic security advisers who initially supported the war are calling for "conditional engagement," arguing that the United States can't afford simply to set a timetable to get out. Thus it is vital that the peace movement organize aggressively during the campaign, and mobilize independently and visibly immediately after the election. The Obama White House must have no doubt about the firestorm in Congress, in the streets and within the Democratic Party that would be caused by a retreat from this pledge.

If the Iraq promise is kept, progressives will sensibly work to help define Obama's agenda from the inside and support key parts from the outside. He will lay out a major initiative on jobs and energy. He has said that he'll try to push through healthcare reform quickly--although that is likely to trigger trench warfare in Congress (and progressives will have to overcome deep internal divisions to ensure that fundamental reform succeeds). Obama will reverse many of the reactionary Bush executive orders, from the global gag rule to secrecy excesses stemming from the "war on terror." His first budget decisions most likely will have to deal directly with a broader stimulus plan to get the economy going. He has pledged to support passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, enabling workers to organize unions without employer harassment.

But Obama will encounter formidable obstacles. He'll face a business lobby girded for battle. Corporations have already begun moving more of their money to Democratic incumbents and are snapping up former Democratic legislators and staffers for their lobbies [see "Dollars for Donkeys" on page 28]. They will do everything they can to stall healthcare and drug-pricing reform, empowerment of workers and re-regulation of Wall Street. Moreover, while Democrats are likely to enjoy larger majorities in both houses, their caucuses are likely to be less progressive as they pick up seats in very conservative, formerly Republican districts.

Progressives will enjoy their greatest strength mobilizing independently to support Obama's promises. We can organize constituent pressure on politicians who are blocking the way, something even a President with Obama's activist network would be loath to do. We can expose the lobbies and interests and backstage maneuvers designed to limit reforms. Now that newspapers increasingly lack the resources for investigation, progressive media, online and off, and the independent progressive media infrastructure--from The Nation to Media Matters to Brave New Films to The Huffington Post--must assume a greater role in monitoring the opposition, even as we mobilize activists in targeted districts across the country.

In doing this, we can help give backbone to the Obama agenda, even as we supply muscle and energy to help pass it. The best way to achieve this is to generate large-scale independent-issue campaigns. A clear example is the Healthcare for Americans Now Coalition, which is ready to take on the insurance companies and support the White House's commitment to universal care. The new Half in Ten Campaign, spearheaded by ACORN and the Center for American Progress Action Fund, will help ensure that poverty does not disappear from the agenda. Progressives generally should join the AFL-CIO and Change to Win in their drive to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. The Apollo Alliance and a range of environmental efforts will support the initiative on jobs and energy.

Acting in support of Obama will require challenging legislators in both parties who stand in the way, a task progressives should undertake aggressively. The Service Employees International Union has already taken the lead in announcing a $10 million "accountability program," designed to force politicians to heed the will of their voters, with a new plan--Justice for All--as the core vehicle. This should be complemented by other independent efforts, despite likely objections from the Democratic Congressional leadership and possibly the White House. Democrats should be on notice from their own constituents that they will be expected to help move reform, not stand in its way.

The Constricted Consensus

The great challenge for progressives is whether the energy and idealism unleashed by the Obama candidacy--and the collapse of conservatism--can expand the limits of the current debate. McCain promises merely more of the same bankrupt policies, but Obama's reform agenda is itself limited by a very constricted establishment consensus that is an obstacle to real change.

On national security, both candidates have pledged to increase the size of the military, adding billions to a bloated budget that already represents nearly half the world's military spending. Both assume America's role as globocop; neither suggests unraveling the US empire of military bases. Both seem intent on deepening the occupation of Afghanistan. Neither has dared to embrace the conservative RAND Corporation's conclusion that the very notion of a "war on terror" is counterproductive, and that aggressive intelligence and police cooperation should be the centerpiece of our strategy.

Obama has called for a second stimulus plan focused on new energy and rebuilding America, but he hasn't suggested anything like the major public initiatives--the combination of public investment, revised global economic strategy, industrial policy and financial regulation--that would be essential to get the real economy moving again while responding to the threat of catastrophic climate change.

Obama has made affordable healthcare for all a centerpiece of his agenda, but he has not addressed the unraveling of the private social contract once delivered through corporations and unions. It will take independent efforts to drive an economic bill of rights, from healthcare to pensions to Social Security to guaranteed paid vacation, in addition to paid sick days and family leave.

Obama laid out promising principles for financial reform in his Cooper Union speech in March, but he hasn't challenged the Wall Street bailout, nor has he mobilized support for policing the shadow banking system that has proved so destructive in its greed.

Obama defends liberal social reforms, but a serious war on poverty--or an initiative to transform our brutal criminal system of injustice that is devastating the lives of young minority men--is not yet on the agenda.

And while Obama is a former professor of constitutional law, he hasn't called for dismantling the imperial presidency. It will take independent efforts to reclaim for the Congress and the people the powers Bush has arrogated to the presidency.

This corrosive consensus reflects the entrenched power of the established order. It is enforced by aggressive lobbies--the military-industrial complex, Wall Street, corporate interests--and rationalized by well-upholstered house scholars. The establishment's strength is its ability to simply exclude alternatives from serious consideration.

After the first flurry of activity, an Obama administration may well realize that the dire condition of the country demands a far bolder agenda than what is now on the table. Progressives should recognize that an Obama administration would have no alternative but to be one of constant experimentation. We should embrace the best of the public-policy proposals that scholars are developing in our universities and think tanks. These ideas challenge limited assumptions about government and call for everything from dismantling our empire of military bases to curbing the imperial presidency, from passing progressive tax reforms to strengthening the public commons. Again, independent campaigning--particularly regarding concerns not high on the national agenda--will help lift issues into the mainstream.

Here it will be vital to sustain a reform infrastructure independent of the administration or the Democratic leadership in Congress. Progressives in the Senate and House, many grouped around the Progressive Caucus, can provide both leadership and a public forum for new ideas. Independent research institutes--like the Institute for America's Future, the Institute for Policy Studies, the Economic Policy Institute and others--can help think outside the establishment box. Progressive bloggers can track the limits of the debate and give new ideas greater visibility. Reform leaders at the state and local levels, coordinated by centers like the Progressive States Network, can champion legislation--like paid sick days, mandated vacation minimums, early childhood education, tighter regulation of insurance companies, creative financing for energy conservation projects--that will be a model for the national agenda. Grassroots organizing--neighbor to neighbor, supported by the energy of the young, linked to national concerns--will be essential if Obama's election is to generate thoroughgoing reform.

When John F. Kennedy was elected President, he too summoned a new generation into politics. While Kennedy's agenda was limited, the energy he unleashed helped build the civilizing movements of the following decades--the antiwar, civil rights, women's, environmental and gay rights movements.

America now is very different from the America of the 1960s. Those movements, nurtured in the cradle of postwar prosperity, assumed the country could afford to be more just. This generation has grown up with much greater economic insecurity, is laden with debt and is struggling to find decent jobs. It faces an economy that cannot be sustained--and must be transformed.

But once more a young and exciting candidate, seeking the presidency after a long and failed conservative era, can spark the hope and sense of possibility that carry far beyond his campaign platform. Progressives should be focusing less on the limits of the Obama agenda and more on the possibilities that a successful candidacy opens up.

As a former community organizer, Obama has taught that "real change comes from the bottom up." It comes about by "imagining and then fighting for and then working for--struggling for--what did not seem possible before." As President, he will face conflicting pressures, and undoubtedly he will carefully pick his fights. The movement that he has called into being will have little choice but to embrace his charge and mobilize across the country to achieve what "did not seem possible before."

[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.