I came across this insightful article from James Vega (http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2008/11/the_relationship_between_obama.php#more) that I wanted to share with all of you, which I think offers some useful perspective on how we could more constructively think about our role in influencing the Obama administration over the next four years.  Mr. Vega  presents two models for how progressives might relate to a Democratic President.  In Model A, the progressive citizenry is engaged in a "battle for the soul of the Democratic President."  In Model B, progressives are actively engaged in organizing independent movements around issue-specific agendas.  He explains the contrast this way:

The first, which might be called "the battle for the President's soul" perspective, visualizes progressives and centrists or conservatives as engaged in a permanent tug of war to win the President's support for their agenda. In this perspective, each cabinet appointment and each policy decision the President makes represents one more episode in a perpetual struggle to pull, pressure or cajole the President toward progressive approaches and solutions

For progressive Democrats who entered politics during and after the Clinton administration, this way of thinking about a new administration seems entirely natural and indeed almost completely self-evident. By late 1980's most progressive movements had become increasingly Washington-focused and political campaign-oriented, in contrast to previous eras of independent progressive grass-roots organizing and mobilization. For many younger progressives, working for political candidates and campaigns was actually their sole form of progressive activity. As such, it made sense for them to feel that a victorious campaign naturally ought to deliver a very clear and explicit ideological "payoff" to progressives after the election, one properly proportionate to the effort they invested during the campaign and the degree of their success.

But during past eras of major progressive social movements - the trade union movement of the 1930's and the civil rights movement of the 1960's -- there was a very different perspective. It could be called a "natural division of labor" point of view. A Democratic President was basically assumed to be a ruthlessly pragmatic centrist who would make all his moves and choices based on a very cold political calculus of what was necessary for his own success and survival. He might have private sympathy for some progressive point of view but there was generally no expectation among social movement progressives that he would "go out on a limb" for progressives out of a personal moral commitment to some social ideal. As a result, the most fundamental assumption of progressive political strategy was always the need to build a completely independent grass roots social movement, one that was powerful enough to make it politically expedient or simply unavoidable for the political system to accede to the movement's demands.

I really like the way that he's framed this and I see this tension playing out in our discussions on this blog and on others in recent days.  As our discussions have unfolded over Obama's recent appointments, for those of us who are not happy with one or more of those appointments, I have found myself asking, "So what should we be doing about this?"

As I noted in the comments on a thread in TPM-EC, I don't believe that it's constructive at this point to adopt a wait and see attitude.  Obama's policies are in the process of implementation right now - as he chooses the individuals that will be heading these agencies, he is defining what his policies will be and how those policies will be implemented.  If you care about any one of those policies, now is the time to respond.  The question is, how to do that effectively?

I think that if you adopt the posture of "battling for Obama's soul," you will find yourself extremely frustrated and unhappy with this administration.  I don't believe that Obama will govern in a manner that will prove wholly satisfying to many of those who hold firmly to progressive ideals.

But, I still believe that there are constructive ways, as a progressive, to work with this administration, if one follows the "division of labor" model.  I think that we need to decide which issue(s) we hold nearest and dearest and then we need to be willing to fight hard for those issues.  That requires focus, organization, commitment, and being well-informed about and current on your issue of choice.

This isn't about pragmatism vs. ideology - Obama needs to demonstrate both.  This is about where he's going with his policies in the Middle East, what he intends to do in regards to our energy policies, what he intends to do in regards to regulation for the financial industries, whether this bailout money is going to continue to flow uninterrupted and to whom - and that's just for starters.  It is not too soon to start debating these issues and asking the hard questions - and yes - challenging Obama on exactly what his positions are and what we think they ought to be. 

Centrist government may be politically safe and it may even be smart, but as constituents who care about some very specific issues, political centrism from our President is not good enough.  We need to push to have our positions on these issues heard.  It's our duty to do so.