There’s a somewhat lengthy piece by Euegene Goodheart in the summer issue of Dissent–“Obama On and Off Base”–that’s well worth reading. Goodheart makes the case that far from selling out his liberal base, the President is operating as efficiently as he can within the the constraints (from constitutional to political) his administration faces, and has some genuine accomplishments to boast of–not, actually, a bad record for a president in his third year. I think it’s well worth reading for those who don’t understand why we don’t have single-payer, why Copenhagen went so terribly wrong, why enough isn’t being done in terms of economic stimulus. In any case, the historical comparisons to (and contrasts with) Lincoln and Roosevelt are insightful and rewarding.
There’s a disingenuous element here, too, however, in that the author, focusing pretty much entirely on domestc policy issues, doesn’t touch on military spending or the wars–two items that, to my mind, threaten the well-being being of the republic more than most anything else. The president doesn’t require supermajorities to drastically alter US involvement in Iraq and Af-Pak; when it comes to his status as Commander-in-Chief, he need accede to no powerful Senator nor fear a filibuster. In fact, a growing number of congresspeople and senators are pushing de-involvement, and there does exist a VERY broad colaition, which includes paleo-cons, who would vociferously support withdrawal. Unfortunately, standard-issue Dems are reluctant to criticize the President on this most critical of issues–the election of Obama was the single worst thing that could have hapened to what there was of an antiwar movement, as we got, not “Bush Lite,” but but Bush squared–and a movement that decided to castrate itself in obesiance.
I have no idea how to rescuscitate that movement, but I’m open to suggestions.
#
Markos Moulitsas can complain about corporatists in the Democratic Party till his mouth (fingers?) goes hoarse, but its entirely nonsensical and won’t make a tinkers damn of difference while he remains even more fervently hostile toward progressive/populist third parties. Might be a bit unfair to Paul Krugman though, he supported Hillary and is pessimistic enough to not expect his suggestions to be acted on.
And I don’t know if Goodheart separates the substance of the criticisms enough from the expectations game and who the critics are. The Green Party and other non-Democrats are making similar criticisms, but the expectations are not there.
I can agree Obama is a smart, pragmatic leader who has surrounded himself with establishment types and has managed to prevent all out chaos. But that’s the kind of president he is, I don’t expect him to fight for single payer, for a carbon tax, for a multi-trillion dollar stimulus, for fighting tooth and nail for gay rights, blah blah etc.
The real issue is not so much the netroots bloggers or other writers and pundits whose protests only carry so much weight, but the fact that issue groups and movement organizations got way too caught up in the “Obama is elected, we can sit on our hands” crap.
Like the anti-war issues you point out Michael. When Obama announced his Afghanistan strategy a group started in the Pioneer Valley with a name like “Coalition of the Shocked and Outraged”. At the first meeting most the people, progressive Democrats, were sincerely surprised, outraged, and disappointed. And of those people, most of the groups they were involved previously had been rather dormant since the election regarding the wars.
So yes, very lame. There are a few things that might help out building an actual antiwar agenda.
The first, is the constant bad news (like those leaks, McChrystal) and the sheer distance between now and the start of all this idiocy. And Obama is no longer magic.
Second, the federal government has high enough deficits that people are actually beginning to take cutting parts of the budget seriously (either very soon or in the not too distant future). That 700 or more billion in military spending looms high. Finally, the question of guns and butter is being made substantial and real for many Americans and organizations that don’t normally pay much attention to foreign policy. Aid to states or aid to Afghanistan?
Third, those paleo-cons you talk about are starting to have some say in the Republican party through certain facets of the Tea Parties. Despite all the crap I disagree with when it comes to them, it would not be bad to have anti-war stances be more bipartisan (and tri-partisan in our case).
If the traditional parties fail to come to grips with the wars, there is an opening and possibility (no certainty, and perhaps a low probability) for others to take on the mantle.