Can Progressives Unite, or Will It Be the Same Old Bit-Politics Story?
Michael Kinsley has an incisive opinion piece at TIME/CNN called "Divided They Fall" -- and I urge everyone to read it. Kinsley points out that Republicans are setting aside their gripes about McCain and uniting to do battle, but progressives and Democrats are up to the same old internal sniping: single issue people bashing Obama for moving to the middle or voting a certain way on FISA, when his vote made no difference at all to the outcome; Clintonites using media sexism in the primary as an excuse to threaten to stay home or vote for McCain; fat cats who backed Clinton complaining to the New York Times, along with the blustering egotists like Carville; Jesse Jackson sniping about the common-sense notion that black people might have to be good parents as well as expect help from government.
This leaves one very sad. The social and redistributive stakes in this election are enormous. McCain can easily win if this summer is wasted, if Democrats do not unite and go on the offensive, if funders withold their efforts, if gripers undermine. But that seems to be what we are all doing.
I look back over an adult lifetime of this, of identity-oriented and single-issue groups undermining any chance for a convincing message relevant to all working middle class people. This lack of discipline and inability to sort out the fundamental from the partial is what has made it so hard for Democrats to win -- and has cost the country terribly in terms of the undermining of middle class wellbeing. Why are we doing it again? Why are we playing along with all the diversions and distractions the media wants to pursue, rather than speaking loudly with one voice for Obama and in drumbeat criticism of McCain? The summer weeks are precious, as we should have learned in 2004 -- mistakes now cannot be fixed later. At a moment when a core, long-term econmic advisor to McCain, Phil Gramm, has revealed the true heartlessness and stupidity behind conservative economic doctrines, we progressives are still talking about Jackson and FISA and Clinton's debts and overwrought claims of sexism. We are not hitting McCain/Gramm/Bush again and again in ways that would force some of the media, at least, to give the Gramm revelations -- they WERE revelations, not a "gaff" -- half the attention and staying power of the Wright ravings!
About ten days ago, I was finishing breakfast at my favorite diner, when I was joined by a well-known 60s-something feminist friend. I won't name her, but people would recognize and respect her if I did. We got to talking about the election, and she left me utterly depressed some 45 minutes later (during which I kept my patience and my cool while arguing, but felt devastated). She probably won't vote for Obama, she says, because she has to "punish" the Democratic party for its sexist treatment of Clinton. "We cannot wait" any longer for a woman president, she says, and she won't accept an "unqualified" man who "cannot win." She barely listened when I told her I could hardly believe what she was saying, that women above all suffer from the terrible economic policies that have been followed the past two decades. It makes a big difference for most working women, most families, who wins this fall -- because, as the research of Larry Bartels and others shows, Democrats follow very different social and tax policies. This is not just about abortion law. It is about the wellbeing of the middle and working strata in this country, and when they suffer, women and children suffer the most.
My friend was so tied up in her identity-politics bitterness she could not see the larger issues. Generations of women in American public life would be aghast at the navel-gazing nature of this sort of feminism, I realized. The women I wrote about in PROTECTING SOLDIERS AND MOTHERS, who always thought about the more vulnerable and families, would never understand an early-twenty-first-century kind of feminism that privileges bitterness and revenge about Hillary Clinton (who entered public life as a political spouse) over the wellbeing of the working nation's families. Jane Addams would not believe this.
I have been kind of depressed ever since that morning at the diner, especially because the supposedly progressive blogs are full of similar kinds of diversions -- and Obama's campaign is clearly being hurt by the lack of unity and discipline, as well as by its own tentativeness. I am not so sure progressives are going to do what is necessary to win -- even in this year when all the stars should be aligned. Unity and practical realism are the order of the day, and the fire must be directed outward, not inward. Can we do It?
Comments (353)
You hold a coalition together by giving the members of the coalition the confidence that you are going to deliver the goods. When Obama gets all mushy on issues that coalition members feel passionate about be it women's rights or FISA or war or whatever he causes you to wonder if any goods are going to be delivered. You talk about larger issues. What larger issues? If you are a woman who has devoted her life to women's issues there are no larger issues. If you are an anti-war Democrat there are no larger issues. If you are passionate about civil liberties there are no larger issues.
Democrats are no longer able to tell large issues from small issues and they have bought into the Republican frame on "identity" politics. It's not about identity, it's about representation. Representation is one of those larger, fundamental issues. If the candidate isn't representing you, what's the point?
July 11, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is, the candidate who is supposed to represent you (individually) is your House of Representatives candidate. Your vote for President is not really important, it's your vote for house (and local races) that matters.
July 11, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh. That must explain why so few Americans vote for president.
July 14, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your representative will be a much more effective representative if there's a Dem President and a working Dem majority in Congress.
Unless of course you're really a Republican. In which case, continue to counsel Dems that it's their local representative that really matters.
July 14, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if that's the only race that really matters, then we're really screwed, because blatant gerrymandering means that the vast majority of House districts have been drawn so that they are not competitive.
July 14, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine. Don't vote for him. But don't bore the shit out of everyone with your complaining. Adults make choices and live with those choices. Adults don't piss and moan and say it isn't fair.
July 13, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah like "don't whine will you, step right into the oven". What you call whining is what vigilant citizens do as a duty to their nation. What you do is shamelessly kiss ass. Who needs it!
This is a discussion board for free, critical and sophisticated adults not childish groupies like yourself. You would be better off at Election Central where you belong herbendorf.
July 13, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're not doing anything for your nation, you big, fat baby. You're whining. If you want to do something for your nation, quit working against the Democratic candidate, quit WHINING, and do something productive.
July 14, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, quit whining yourself. "Ooooh, people are boring me with icky talk about the constitution. I just want a Democrat, even if he's a DINO."
If something is important to me, I pay more attention to it. If you disagree with my priorities, say so, but don't whine about the fact that my priorities differ from yours. Some people, like me, think Obama is a sell-out. If you don't like hearing that, go cheer with the hallelujah chorus on the Obama site. You won't be bothered with conflicting thoughts there.
July 14, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
AND, contrary to Theda on FISA, Obama didn't just have "one vote." He's the putative leader of the Democratic Party.
He had a PLATFORM.
And he deliberately chose not to use it in a progressive way.
July 13, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's the party nominee. He's not the Dictator of the Party, or even a congressional leader. He can't force his fellow Senators, or especially the leadership, to do anything.
Those leaders (Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Rockefeller et al) were briefed on, and tacitly or explicitly approved, all of Bush's domestic spying. They had and have as much to lose as Bush if that spying is further exposed. The disposition of the FISA bill was largely about covering their asses. Obama was in no position to materially affect that. His choice was noble dissent or calculated acquiescence.
July 14, 2008 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
And so you will vote for McCain because he will further your progressive positions more than Obama? Or not vote at all?
So if you don't get your way you will cut your own nose off - and take everyone in America down with you?
Idiocy. Stupidity. The actions of a fool. Shut up and think.
This election matters, if only to get us out of Iraq and get universal health care. Nothing else matters right now except removing and destroying the Republican Party this Fall. Certainly not your petty little concerns. If sacrificing your "progressive" issues (and mine) this Fall is what it takes, then the cost is pretty hight but it's worth it. The alternative is to continue and deepen the disaster for America that is the Republican Party and the conservative movement.
July 14, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Telling people with whom you disagree to shut up isn't likely to win them to your side, is it?
July 14, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dave. I'm trying to spread the old Foghorn/Bugs response a little wider - "Shut up shuttin' up." It confuses them. Worth considering.
July 14, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
on what basis do you imagine obama will be able to get us out of iraq or deliver anything approaching universal health care???
he didn't have the stones to stand up to bush or the blue dogs on FISA's warrantless wiretapping or retroactive immunity for telecom giants. two things that are less popular than the war in iraq. two things that enjoy less support than universal health care.
how is he gonna deliver on iraq?
how is he gonna deliver on health care?
does he even really support either one? if your confidence isn't shaken by his broken promise and lack of commitment to the bill of rights, you are either a party loyalist or a personality cultist.
July 14, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Idiocy. Stupidity. The actions of a fool. Shut up and think.
This election matters, if only to get us out of Iraq and get universal health care. Nothing else matters right now except removing and destroying the Republican Party this Fall."
Okay, lets be just a little more intelligent than that.
1) If the candidate can not be trusted to vote the way he has stated due to a change in political situations (Something he lambasted Hillary for in the primary), how can he be trusted to "get us out of Iraq and get universal health care?" Those are far bigger and tougher issues.
2) There is something worse than a John McCain presidency. A failed Obama presidency. If John McCain comes into office I have no doubt he will fail and it will be bad. If Obama comes into office I trust there is potential for a good outcome. The problem is a bad Obama presidency, i.e. one that shies away from a fight which is what Obama is doing is a possibility. We need someone who will stand up, tax the rich and their capital gains, lower the middle class taxes, get us out of Iraq, lower our spending and provide incentives for more jobs and alternative fuels. Those are FIGHTS. Now today, does he have the stomach for it? I certainly can't say yes. Can you?
But that is only the beginning, if Obama fails we will have 12 years of Republican presidents after it. Just ask Jimmy Carter. If McCain fails we may well have 12 years of Democrat presidents.
I have blind faith in gravity, but having blind faith in a person is stupid--just look at the constitution.
July 14, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos for klarity.
July 14, 2008 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meaning bluebell and the comment about what it means to create and keep a coalition.
July 14, 2008 5:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not everyone gets the Chief Executive that fully supports all of their positions. But for those stupid Nadarites who vote to punish Barack Obama for not agreeing with them, how the Hell many senior political appointees who support their positions do you really think John McCain is going to appoint?
It is simply stupid to make a single personality the key to your Presidential vote. Very few people ever get to have a President who agrees with them. The key is that you put the Party which is most likely to provide more support for your positions into control of the White House.
This single-issue politics at the Presidential level is narcissistic idiocy conducted by self-centered fools.
July 14, 2008 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this says it all. Kudos to Theda as well. Gail Collins also said the same thing last week in the NYT.
Only one guy can be president and he holds a lot of cards. Which one is MOST likely to play those cards to your benefit? You only get to choose one . . . All the rest is whimpering over your own relative lack of importance and influence.
July 14, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Given the track records of the two parties in the past two years, neither of them seem likely to support the positions I would like. Given this, what do you suggest? I mean this as a serious question.
July 14, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Umm, vote for the one who's closest to your positions and against the one who's most likely to pull the government further from them?
July 14, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Question:
Given the track record of any possible employers I might be able to get a job with, none of them seems likely to give me a job that meets all my needs. Given this, what do you suggest?
Answer:
I suggest selling your home, moving to a wilderness area and abandoning all aspects of your social existence.
WTF do you THINK the answer is?
How is it that people make trade offs in every aspect of their lives, probably including their choice of spouse and job but think it strange that presidential politics doesn't dovetail exactly with their ideals?
July 14, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I.e. those of us engaging in the kind of divisive single-issue behavior she's talking about here are blameless and it is the candidate's fault for failing to cater to each and every one of us, even when our single-issue demands are contradictory or politically suicidal.
We are blameless, free of fault and absolutely entitled, yea, obligated to continue to carp, and cavil, and shriek, and threaten, and backbite. Anyone who so much as suggests that our behavior undermines the candidate is trying to undermine our sacred right of free speech which automatically makes us stronger however and whenever exercised by any of us (except for those with whom we disagree).
Indeed, we take exception to this very notion that any of our ideas are politically suicidal. If only they would nominate candidates who were acceptable to each and every one of of us, and especially to those of us who believe our dogma isn't just for identifying problems, but rather, also provides the one and only acceptable solution for each of those problems, people would respect and love our candidates no matter how much they hated their policy prescriptions.
No, we are absolutely blameless. We reject and denounce this post for the vile attempt to suppress us and our just demands for a perfect candidate that it so clearly is.
July 14, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you think that people expressing ideas you don't like are whining, screaming, back biting, etc.? I haven't heard any of that. We don't all have to line up in lock step agreement, do we? Obama's recent behaviors have been alarmingly appalling. Should we keep quiet and be "good Germans" about this?
July 14, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. Godwin's law. You lose.
July 14, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
We all lose when people are condescending assholes. Answer the fucking question. When both candidates act the same, how do you differentiate? "Oh, this one is really expecting you to realize he's not like this, notice he's winking his left eye"?
July 14, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is truly worth a laugh.
Can I hear from ReadyToBlow to culminate the irony?
Or are you just trying to pretend your high horse is better than someone else's high horse?
It seems to me that the main complaint was "at least I already know how bad Hillary is" vs Obama is relatively unknown. Sounds like you already know how bad it can get, but you would rather hope that HRC could bring back the dot com boom and suffer through the parts you will rail against, rather than take the future face on.
July 15, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO
July 15, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's the point?
The POINT is that the OTHER candidate is going to advocate policies that will grind down your constituency!
Abortion, childcare, health...
WAKE UP!
July 11, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You wake up
There is nothing wrong with giving our opinions about the votes of a senator that wants to be our president.
It isn't as if we are taking out ads against Obama for christsake. You guys are too much.
We all said we will support Obama in November.
You guys want absolute fealty to the guy and that's NOT a Progressive Sentiment, but the seeds of a cult
July 12, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. There's nothing wrong with writing Senator Obama a letter to express your concerns, even your outrage. That's productive and possibly helpful. But publicly crabbing about what's wrong with Obama is unproductive.
July 13, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Publicly crabbing" rather than writing a letter, eh? Maybe all further criticism of the Democratic nominee should be sent care of H.R.H Queen Victoria.
The Kinsley article upon which Skocpol's argument depends is nothing more than shallow conjecture masquerading as real news. "If you listen to a lot of talk radio (as I do)," the gritty gumshoe vet avers, "you can hear the troops being rallied."
Without a further shred of evidence beyond his putative AM listening habits, Kinsley's article is irresponsible as journalism and surely nothing that can be marshaled as data to support a serious argument about voter interest.
July 14, 2008 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not your call as to what others might think is productive. Why should someone be able to address Obama in a letter but not publicly? Why do you advocate public censorship of opinions different from yours? If someone doesn't like something Obama says and does, they should and must speak up publicly, whether you are pleased or not.
July 14, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, grow up.
July 14, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unbelievable.
July 14, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you mean before or after the candidate is elected?
July 15, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto Andrew
We presumably live in a representative Democracy. If our only job is to get behind our candidate and quietly show our support, well, that's a pretty pitiful view of the citizen's role.
I, like many, many others, am pretty pissed off about the FISA thing. But Theda is flat out wrong to refer to those of us that are angry about FISA as "single issue voters." It's not as if I am going to vote for McCain - that's not even thinkable. I will keep sending financial help to Obama as well. The sign in the yard will remain. I am still onboard, but don't ever ask me to stop fighting for what is right. And don't accuse me of being a single issue voter just because I happen to be passionate about protecting The Constitution!
Finally, on a more general note, you can almost always say that a single vote didn't matter. Choosing to do the right thing is a question of character - not practicality. Convince me that the FISA vote demonstrated Obama's character and I'll come around - but everyone knows damn well that ain't gonna happen. It ain't gonna happen because it was a vote that was cast out of fear. And until Democrats stop acting like fearful little bed-wetters every time a Republican says "Boo!," we are going to keep losing elections.
July 13, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
[applause]
July 14, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I kind of second the applause for this comment. Good points throughout. Though, I wonder if the author was even referring to you in the 1st place. Clearly, if you're still sending money and supporting Obama, you're not a "single issue voter." Her example was a certain someone who had decided NOT to support our nominee based on a single issue - not simply offer constructive criticism which we should all take part in.
I also think the first few responses here have missed the larger point she was making as well. As said before, it's always a good idea to hold your leaders accountable and offer constructive criticism. But at what point do we redirect at least some of that passion and energy toward defeating the old guy standing opposite our nominee? Have we gotten to the point where we feel so defeated by republicans or the media or uninformed voters or whatever, that the only time we feel heard or that our opinion matters is when we're screaming within our own circles? That is what we have to break free of. We gotta think bigger.
July 14, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, before we do that, why don't you actually read the law and tell me which provisions--aside from the telecom immunity which everyone, including Obama, agreed was bad--are so awful. Don't tell me what someone else told you you should think. Read the bill and either quote the text that you think is the end of liberty as we know it or give me a cite.
I keep asking people to do this, and yet, somehow no one does.
July 14, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Moving post Theda.
There are a bunch of unhappy people on the left. I know there are women who support Hillary that fervently believe she was the target of sexist attacks...and they have a point.
As an Obama supporter I was attracted to his candidacy mainly because of his stances on the Iraq War (immediate withdrawal) and FISA (a vow he would filibuster any bill with telecom immunity). Well to be quite blunt after Senator Obama's vote on FISA I am questioning my judgement about choosing Senator Obama. To say I am VERY unhappy about the FISA developments is the mother of all understatements.
Will we all come together? I hope so. There are many different constituencies with many different 'most important' issues on the left. While Obama has opted to change his position on FISA we will have more of an opportunity to change his mind than we would change the mind of a President McSame. Who will promote the causes important to feminists? A President Obama or a President McSame? There is only one choice for any of us on the left and that is Barack Obama. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail by the time the convention rolls around. That is when I am really hoping to see some 'rallying around our candidate' happen.
July 11, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Convention will be way too late -- especially since the media will play up all Clinton versus Obama tensions during it.
July 11, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the convention is too late. In fact I think the convention will be too early.
Don't forget that here we are all naval-gazers of the body politic.
Joe and Joann Public are not even paying attention right now... Unless its on Access Hollywood... And what they will pay attention to in August is the Olympics. The D and R conventions will be an after thought that they might pick up on the nightly news or Daily Show.
When we all ramp up in late Sept. and Oct... about the time the four-digit heating bills start to arrive....I think the D's will unite against a common enemy.
July 12, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno. Joe and Joann Public happen to be my parents, and they've been getting e-mail forwards about McCain and Obama for nearly a year now.
July 12, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for buttressing my point, Joe Public Jr.
I bet your folks trash those e-mails without a glance.
July 12, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find the posting condescending and counterproductive. If it "made no difference at all to the outcome", why did Obama vote for FISA and immunity? And why no explanation of the broken promise?
I feel the same way about my Senator, the wonderful Mary Landrieu. After supporting her twice against Gothic nightmare Republicans, the one request I made was for a vote against Alito. She wrote back that she strongly appreciated and agreed with my opinion, and had voted against him. But on the vote that counted, cloture, she voted *for* him. She lied, but more insultingly, assumed I'm too dumb to know she was lying.
If the Democrats can't produce candidates who're up to minimal standards of integrity, why bother?
July 11, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's bizarre. Did you write her back? I might have contacted my regional city newspaper about that freaky turn of events.
July 12, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ all
After reading the responses to Theda's article I must say I've misunderestimated you. I couldn't have asked for a better opposition.
July 11, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was Will Rogers I believe who said "I belong to no organized political party, I am a democrat". This was in 1936. Today's problem is nothing new. We just have to work harder to sustain unity -- the republicans attain unity more easily given their authoritarian personalities.
July 11, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post.
Some of the responses illustrate exactly the type of single-issue, identity oriented politics that both this post and Michael Kinsley's article criticize.
At a minimum, electing Barack Obama as President with a working Democratic majority in the U.S. House and Senate will enable, although not guarantee, the country to follow progressive policies on health care, economic security, foreign policy and Supreme Court appointments. That alone is more than enough to justify supporting his candidacy. Many Republicans are less than enthusuastic about John McCain, but they are well aware that a McCain Presidency would look very different from an Obama one in all these areas.
Unfortunately some Democrats seem unable to distinguish the essential from the inessential. Anyone who sits out this election or wastes a vote on a third party - much less supports John McCain - deserves the government they will have.
July 11, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Americans put McCain in the White House, with his increasing mental disconnects, his stable of ignorant and corrupt advisers, his backward looking mental persona of permanent Vietnam POW, his card carrying membership in the millionaire Republican club of 'we don't give a shit about the middle class' and his general ignorance and confusion about almost everything except copying the Rove/Bush campaign plan, then Americans will without a doubt deserve the government they will have.
And Americans can go on blaming the oil speculators, the Congress, the Democratic Party, the media, liberals or people on the other side of the planet, but they themselves will be responsible for accelerating the decline of this nation.
July 11, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thrasymachus is famous for trying to argue (against Socrates) that justice is what is in the best interest of the strong. Needless to say Socrates demolished that view.
July 12, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not that FISA is "inessential" it is that the debate is being framed by the wrong people. That is what those who are so unhappy about FISA don't get -- in order to change the framing you HAVE TO CHANGE the person doing the framing. Right now, with regard to FISA and probably some other issues, Obama and the Democrats are in "reactive" mode. If Obama and Democrats were in "framing" mode FISA wouldn't even be on the table. I am disappointed that FISA passed, and I am eagerly looking to join any "String Hoyer Up" movement that materializes, but the essential problem is who gets to decide which issues matter. And for that, you need a different president.
July 14, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think this is fair. Obama did write a response to people concerned about FISA, explaining his decision on the final bill.
As to a point made earlier, I appreciate that this particular issue is highly important to many, but it seems obvious that Obama as President, working with a Democratic Congress, will be able to make changes in legislation or implementation that speak to the underlying concerns.
I really do have a problem with people who see politics as an expression of any single issue passion. In a democracy, with many points of view, politics cannot be that, especially not in a single-past-the-post-system such as ours. This kind of perspective siphoned votes to Nader in 2000 and brought a nightmare upon us.
Also, I am not being condescending in saying that the losers in single issue left politics are the majority of ordinary people whose concerns are more bread and butter (encompassing a range of rather mundane but crucial social programs and economic and tax outcomes). I never see any passion about those issues on the left blogs, and that leads me to believe that there is something fundamental missing.
July 11, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brains.
July 11, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nader annoys me too but don't even pretend that he "brought a nightmare upon us" in 2000. The nightmare was brought upon us by none other than Al Gore who ran a tepid, safe campaign where he tried to capture the center by running away from the record of a popular two term president. Gore tried to court the right and lost some of the left as a result. Blame Gore for that, not Nader.
July 12, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nader is responsible and I know you don't want to hold him accountable but neither he nor you can talk your way through it and if you voted for Bush, then that was a really dumb move, too, as was obvious at the time.
July 14, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Nader is to blame.
If just one percent of the Nader vote in Florida had gone to Gore, that would have made the difference.
July 14, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still support Obama despite the fact that I am furious over the FISA vote. I have made a kind of peace with it because, really, what choice do I have? But this bizarre fantasy that Obama is going to work to fix the bill later on is one of the more annoying memes of the last couple of weeks or so. Obama has stated repeatedly that he essentially approves of the powers granted in this bill. He likes it. If he is President than they are powers he is going to be happy to keep. He has not done or said a single thing to suggest otherwise.
It disturbs me tremendously but that is the reality. Everything else is pretend. The only time my rage on this issue returns is when people try to defend Obama's move here by pretending that he has some super secret plan to walk it all back later. It is either an insult to my intelligence or a deliberate self delusion. Either way it is intensely bothersome.
July 13, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. If there's one thing I know, it's that those in power never want to give it up, no matter how questionably the power was gained. Obama may or may not sincerely believe that he will give back the powers given by this FISA bill once he's in power, but the fact is that he WON'T. I'm not as pissed off about it as a lot of other people because I expected that he'd do something like this when I voted for him in the primaries. I think that people who are need to learn something about both human nature and the US political system.
July 14, 2008 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
clevomon, you said, "those in power never want to give it up"
Fortunately for the sake of our country, this nation was borne out of a contrary impulse. George Washington could have been Napoleon Bonaparte in America. But he wasn't, thank god.
Regarding Obama and FISA, for the sake of the Democratic party and what is left of the progressive movement in America, I hope that Obama understands how critical it is that he eschews the spying power that he has granting the present administration, because it is a political trap. Given the politicization of the Justice Department, is there really any doubt that sleeper cells of conservative ideologues are planted throughout the intel beaurocracy. Career people who would take Cheney's secrets to the grave will start leaking like a sieve and the cries for an independent counsel from the villagers will be deafening.
The charges may by relatively mild, but with the new spying powers looming in the background, something like Clinton's "Filegate" scandal could look like that watergate breakin. The Broderites who willfully ignored the Bush/Cheney power grab will be screaming about the tyranny of the executive. The cable talking heads who complained that this FISA stuff is byzantine inside baseball that nobody cares about will meticulously explain every detail of the Obama administration's culpability to the viewers. Republican authoritarians around the country will rediscover their libertarian streak and put stickers on their cars to sentimentalize loving ones country while simultaneously fearing ones government. The subsequent Sturm und Drang will leave average American with the energy sapping misapprehension that "they are all the same."
Bank it.
July 14, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Washington was, as they say, the exception that proves the rule. Show me 4 or 5 more Washingtons and I might begin to believe you that he represents an archetype and not a singularity. (But even Washington was not above amassing power when he felt it was power he needed to have.)
Sad day when we have to depend on the selective partisan outrage of the Republican Party to defend the Constitution. :-(
July 14, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
an explanation for his vote which was wholly insufficient. Obama's subsequent rationale for his vote on FISA didn't go anywhere near offering a compelling alternative to the only real reason to vote Yea on this bill, which was the appeasement of Republican framing of "national security" cred, despite the consequence of such framing being a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution. this isn't just an area where progressives have the moral high ground; we have the entire field.
Obama's single vote on a single subject does not anger progressives, Obama's total lack of leadership against a patent abuse of core American principles does. few people will abstain from voting for him in November over this single vote, but it has in my view seriously dampened the progressive enthusiasm so vital to his ground game and outreach programs, which WILL cost him votes. and he has no-one to blame for these lost votes but himself.
July 13, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
My immediate previous post was directed to Roger Bigod, not Thrasymachus, with whom I agree. Sorry for the confusion.
July 11, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much of this comes from certain Democrats being political stupid, myopic, etc. and how much comes from having an excessively individualistic relation to reality. Some Democrats really do seem to place themselves at the foundation of whatever values structure they have. In this regard, they are difficult to differentiate from the greediest people that the business world can produce. I guess the one difference is that greedy business people often end up with lots of money, and Democrats usually end up just whining because nothing else can quite live up to the high regard they have of themselves.
July 11, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe
Some Democrats really do seem to place themselves at the foundation of whatever values structure they have
The foundation of who I am is my progressive value system. I don’t think I invented it no more than I think I invented the truth that 2+2=4. The Progressive value system is at the foundation of what is right in the world period.
You want to be a post modern relativist, go to the Conservative side. They put little faith in rational thought there
Value "systems" are not up for grabs like flavors of ice cream. They are not preferences held by solitary individuals. They are at the foundation of civilized society.
Let me see if I get this straight
Because I believe that the right to privacy is fundamental, and because I believe that sexism is immoral and because I believe that lying is wrong, and because I believe that there should be an equitable distribution of social goods and because I believe that aggressive imperialism is wrong, I’m selfish?
And Because I share those beliefs with my fellow progressives I'm not better than Ivan Boskey?
Pettit you have certainly NOT taken a course in ethics or if you did you must have been asleep.
Progressives do not think everything revolves around them; just the opposite. They believe that EVERYONE should get a fair shake. It is the direct opposite of an Egoist. Progressives are Altruists.
There might be some progressive egoists out there I grant you that, but the Progressive Value System (PVS) is anything BUT egotistic and for you to say it is no better than greed is absurd Joe
July 12, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very well, accurately and eloquently stated Andrew.
July 12, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew:
Whew! Since my house is running wild with kids from a sleepover and my wife just finished an unusual 17 hour shift in the ER and so needs sleep, I will simply limit myself to expressing regret that my words were not better chosen so as to prevent your erruption, and second to call your attention to the qualifier, "some."
July 12, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
sorry Joe. I'm known around these parts as a hardass.
I've penned hasty posts while not in the best of moods. So I fully understand
July 13, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell does that even mean? And how does it translate to some sort of obscene level of greed? And how does making such an accusation against one's fellow Democrats advance the goal of party unity? Because I think this unity thing needs to work as a two-way street, but the expectation seems to be that conciliation should all flow from one direction.
July 14, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Theda
Relax, we are Progressives. It is not in our DNA to follow anyone lockstep like the Republicans are wont to do.
Your Feminist friend was absolutely RIGHT in her diagnosis but wrong in her remedy. There is no question that Hillary bashing was going on everywhere including right here at TPM. Obama was the early anointed one. The fix was definitely in asnd you have had to be blind not to witness it as it unfolded.
Since we are people of principle we do not forget injustices. To forget injustices committed is a sin.
The quickest way towards tyranny is to keep forgetting injustices. The mantra "get over it" is poison to the righteous person.
The issue is what to do about it.
I will vote for Obama despite the fact that he ran a dirty campaign against Hillary. Politics is a dirty business.
But I will NOT lay off when it comes to substantive issues (i.e. non political matters).
We are NOT going to lose the election in November. Trust me. You are panicking. a forteriori he is not going to lose in November because we are holding him accountable now.
As I've been repeating ad nauseum, our job as voters is to make sure that our candidate will do what we want him to do when elected.
This is not a popularity contest. Frankly, Obama personally is way too slippery for me as a person but that's what makes him such an effective politician. A JFK he is not.
But I'm not into the cult of personalities so it does not matter.
I'm sorry to hear that you had such a bad experience with your feminist friend, but this election cycle has NOT been marred by undue identity politics at all. At least not yet.
I'm a man and I'm astounded to hear you say that the charge of Hillary Bashing by the media is overblown. But let's leave it at that.
You are suffering from the Progressive Jitters. What will Middle America say about our self examination (navel gazing as you call it)? They should look at it with gratitude that here we have a movement that is NOT all process and no content. So we are not robotic lockstep zombies like the Republicans. Thank God we are not!!!
To demand that we squelch our voices of disapproval when our candidate derails his own agenda --the agenda that attracted us to him to begin with—is demanding too much from us. He has nobody but himself to blame. It is HE that is confused not US.
WE demand to be an integral part of the Ruling Process. It is in the Constitution, look it up.
It will be HIM that will have to bend.
That is our form of government: Rule by the people through representation.
Obama has to represent US, not just factions of the powerful elite.
Again I leave open the possibility that perhaps Obama needed to vote that way for some undisclosed but valid reason. I doubt it, but it is possible.
That's why we the electorate need to be as well informed as possible. That's why we need to penetrate that inside-the-beltway information barrier as much as possible. That's why we rely on relatively free media such as TPM to keep us informed.
Jonathan Turley should get special thanks for keeping us abreast over at MSNBC as to what is happening to our constitutional rights. You should take that seriously.
Holding Obama accountable for his sharp shift to the right--not just in rhetoric but in actual official votes--is our duty as freedom loving progressives.
July 11, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go apply for your genius grant! Will you vote for McCain's Veep in 2016?!
July 14, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew,
No. Because you believe these things you must do all in your power to ensure that John McCain is not the 44th President of the United States. If you think JFK was not "slippery", I suggest you go read a little history, or at least Google the words "missle gap". JFK was a politician, and a damn good one. So is Obama. Deal with it. Bullshit. The Democrats are fully capable of losing this election. They've screwed up before, and now they're running a young black man in an historically racist country against a white war hero with the full backing of the moneyed interests and the press corps. Americans have voted against their own best interests many times before and they still might do it this year. And that will spell the end of the American experiment.
What exactly do you think you are "holding Obama accountable" for? For one political calculation you didn't like on a vote that in practical terms hardly matters? For using the word "refine"? For Chris Matthews' divining some "tack to the right"?
I'm sorry, but FISA in the end makes little difference. No number of civil lawsuits will bring GWB and the national security state to heel. The death-by-a-thousand-cuts of the Constitution will continue apace until January, and if we as a nation fuck up this election McCain will only accelerate it.
Likewise, this perceived positioning during the campaign matters little. It tells us almost nothing about the government that will follow. The fundamentals are all that matter: One candidate seeks a U-turn on war, economic policy and Earthicide; the other wants to further accelerate along the present disastrous path. Those are the only choices.
Modern American elections are zero-sum binary affairs. They needn't be, but this one will be. The choice America will make over the next 4 months is stark and existential. The "holding accountable" phase starts in earnest November 5th. Until then we all need to row in the same direction lest the boat go over the falls.
July 14, 2008 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Granted, McCain is not an option. But what makes you think Obama is not also in line with the security state agenda? Is it hope, faith, a prayer, what is it that makes you reluctant to have an honest dialogue with Obama BEFORE the election? It seems to me you are much more of a risk taker than wisdom would allow. Nobody that I know in this neck of the woods is going to change his/her vote from Obama to McCain because we are expressing our disappointment on some of the positions he has taken.
Think for a second. McCain voted for FISA bill. So how is someone who is angry at Obama for voting for the FISA bill going to find solace in the McCain camp? You are not telling me how we here at TPM Cafe who are vocally expressing disapproval of OUR candidate Obama, are changing any votes in the hinterland. Something does not jive in your perception of the situation.
Mindless abject fealty is unhealthy.
I think many sophisticated people that I know who are independents and otherwise undecided are PUT OFF by what they perceive as the Obama camp’s whiff of cultism which it actively promotes.
It is quite possible that these Obamanoid posters that have appeared here at TPM might (just might) be Republican operatives trying to sow DIS-unity among Democrats. Just a thought. Very sophisticated techniques are being used by Republicans and you cannot discount the possibility.
They don’t seem to be people that are on the level since ALLTHEY EVER POST ABOUT IS HOW WONDERFUL OBAMA IS AND HOW DISLOYAL ANYONE WHO QUESTIONS ANY OF HIS ACTIONS IS. That’s not the behavior of a normal disputant. It smacks of organized disruption to me.
July 14, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Mindless fealty"..."Obamanoid"..."hope, prayer" blah blah blah.
I'm getting a bit tired of all the Jim Jones analogies. Whenever anyone makes an argument that may place them closer to Obama than you, you (and many others) spew out this internalized right-wing/Clintonite noise and pretend it bears some kind of resemblance to a counter-argument.
Oh, and apparently I'm a right-wing troll as well as a koolaid drinker. Touchee!
You may have noticed I referred to Obama as a politician, and to some of his decisions as calculated. I also pointed out that this places him squarely in the tradition of Saint JFK and every other president or serious candidate in our history.
I thought the Obama's FISA vote was a mistake, possibly even politically. I also happen to think that both the bill's practical import and Obama's ability to materially affect the outcome have been overstated.
Do I know exactly how Obama would handle the security state? No. I do know that he is less vested in the the status quo of that system than any candidate in a while, and certainly less so than, say, Sen. McCain (or Sen. Reid or Sen. Rockefeller). I also know that he has prominently and repeatedly pledged to restore respect for the Constitution, reduce secrecy, end torture, close Guantanomo, and, er, what was that other thing, oh yeah, end the war. Those pledges won't be worth much more a year from now than a losing vote on FISA, except that they provide potentially crucial political leverage for citizens paying the price of eternal vigilance. At present that's the best we can hope for. Of course electing Obama is a risk. I think it's a worthwhile one, or at least the worthiest one left. Strangely, you seem to agree with me on that.
Again I ask what "accountability" you seek? What political price do you seek to exact? The only real price that can be exacted fro