Defining Obama As A Progressive

I'm about to take on a new job that will prevent me from blogging about electoral issues through November, so I'd like to lay out what I see the general arc of the race being from now until election day, and where the progressive movement fits into that story line.

Barack Obama will no doubt continue moderating his positions, as most politicians do in general elections. Hell, he might even moderate his stance on Iraq a bit, though I doubt it will be significant. It will continue to piss progressives off, as it should.

Eventually, most folks will realize that Barack Obama is basically saying, "Trust me," as he did Thursday with his response to the anti-FISA group on my.barackobama.com. Once again, I feel this is pretty typical. Politicians make all sorts of campaign promises, both explicit and implicit. Obama will moderate his stances in an ambiguous way while trying to reassure progressives he doesn't really mean it, or at least that when it comes time to sort out those ambiguities, he'll come out on our side.

Eventually, I'd hope that progressives realize the answer to Obama's strategy is to outflank him, positioning ourselves to hold his accountable to his statements in the way that we want. Electoral strategy says define your opposition before they define themselves. If Obama can be considered "the opposition" once he's elected - and I think he can - then we need to position ourselves to define him as a progressive president as soon as he gets in office. We must keep track of his statements and his rhetoric, and being ready to use it to push him towards progressive policies or use it against him if necessary.

This positioning won't be easy. It will help if progressives make a point to reward good behavior during the electoral season. We should loudly cheer Obama's progressive positions, and certainly pressure him however possible to adopt more of these positions. He'll probably ignore these efforts for the most part, or at best acknowledge the opposition without changing his position. But through these efforts we keep our integrity. Over the election season, progressives can develop a critique of Obama and keep their credibility, both of which can be effectively used to push him once he's in office and we have actual leverage for accountability.

On a more specific level, though the presidential election tends to suck all the fundraising money into their vast machine, we should try and focus on building strong progressive institutions. Grassroots groups like MoveOn.org, think tanks like the Center for American Progress, and netroots activists like Blue America will need to be at their best to effectively move an Obama administration in a progressive direction.

**************

No president was every great without strong forces pushing him towards greatness. Even FDR experienced strong pressure from mounting pro-labor sentiment sweeping America in the 1930s. In fact, FDR's presidency represented the beginning of labor's peak in America; in 1945 they represented over 1 in 3 American workers. These outside movements have traditionally built the political clout necessary to move administrations. That's what we need to build in preparation for an Obama presidency.

The role of the progressive movement as we move from an outsider group in a minority party to a strong presence in a ruling party is going to make for lots of wrenching changes. Preserving our credibility, building an independent power base, and positioning ourselves to define Obama as a progressive and hold him accountable to that definition are going to be key parts of those changes. If we get it right, we'll have real power to sway Obama's policy positions. If we don't, we'll find our cries falling on deaf ears.

But this is just one man's view of things to come. What do you think? How can the progressive movement best position itself to hold maximum power over an Obama administration?

J Ro's opinions are his own, and do not represent those of any other individual or organization.



Display:


I have been pondering your final question (none / 0)

and I haven't come up with any good answers. I see progressives having no leverage with an Obama administration on any issue where what we want is different from what the Washington Post editorial board wants.

Good luck with your new job. Your voice will be missed here.

I owe my role as a state blogger to Drew Miller, who did all the work of setting up Bleeding Heartland and then got a job with the Iowa Democratic Party that prohibited blogging.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:08:15 PM EST

Re: I have been pondering your final question (2.00 / 1)

Oh, I'll still be here (with Jerome's blessing), just not blogging about the election. With any luck, I'll still be able to write here about a progressive issue dear to many of us.


The Seminal :: Independent Media & Politics
by J Ro on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:21:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

excellent (none / 0)

That is good to hear.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:32:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have been pondering your final question (2.00 / 1)

You can't withhold your vote but you can  withhold contributions or delay it. He will see the dip in his money raised week after week  giving it time to sink in.


He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."
by roxfoxy on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 12:35:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's a Big Tent (none / 0)

Everyone will be unhappy with something at one time or another.


by parahammer on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:10:01 PM EST

Re: It's a Big Tent (none / 0)

Except that's a lie created by branding and narrative rather than by fact and history. Demostrate in the last 30 years where the centrists and conservatives have been "disapointed" and then I might believe the tent was really big rather than just ATM for progressive dollars with conservative wing ofthe party in control.


by bruh3 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:18:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defining Obama As Progressive (2.00 / 2)

I thought Obama was the guy with the judgment to lead.  Lead means leading!  Now we progressives have to drag him along and force him to be progressive!! We have to define him before someone else does!
 
by moevaughn on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:14:09 PM EST

Re: Defining Obama As A Progressive (none / 0)

We're supporting Obama...right? Then let's do our job and support him.


Mary Alice
by marya on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:19:29 PM EST

Re: Defining Obama As A Progressive (2.00 / 1)

Yes, absolutely, but we can do both, right? We can support him, but it is important HOW we support him and what rhetoric we use when we do. We should cheer his progressive policies and make it clear what our support of him is conditioned upon.


The Seminal :: Independent Media & Politics
by J Ro on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:22:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defining Obama As A Progressive (none / 0)

I don't think most voters at this point are capable of this level of complexity. I agree with you, but after having this converswation with way too many people over issues like FISA, I now conclude that Bush voters weren't the only ones who view life in black-white, for us-against us terms. This is I think the way American voters think.


by bruh3 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:33:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defining Obama As A Progressive (none / 0)

Well, sure, but this isn't an exercise for most voters, at least right now. This is what movement progressives should be doing, supporting Obama loudly, but in a specific way, so come November, when he's in office, we can put on the pressure.

Not all folks will be able to think like this, but I have a feeling the number who can is larger than you might think.


The Seminal :: Independent Media & Politics
by J Ro on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:55:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defining Obama As A Progressive (none / 0)

I guess my point is your faith in your fellow progressives is higher than mine in them because they are just like every other voter.


by bruh3 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:59:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defining Obama As A Progressive (none / 0)

I'm not sure how we go about defining a candidate or what real leverage we've got.  As I'm sure anyone who liked Kucinich or stood by Edwards already knows, Obama was never really as progressive as we would have liked, but I took the Big Tent view and I'm glad that I did.  I'm excited to see him elected because he'll be more likely to work with us than either McCain or Clinton would have.

I think that leverage means that Obama needs something from us, and after the election is over, I don't know what else he'd need.  So I think now is also the time to re-up our support for our progressive members of congress, because that's where we need to get the most work done.  Bills like FISA won't be an issue to find grievance with Obama if in the future we can get better and more progressive legislation to his pen.

More than anything else my hope for Obama is to trailblaze a successful root to gaining the White House without reliance on large corporate funding or other major contaminants.  And I think he's going to succeed there, and give more progressive candidates in the future a path.


$439Billion spent on the US Military and still no universal health care.
by jlars on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 07:44:04 PM EST

Re: Defining Obama As A Progressive (2.00 / 3)

Bullshit. The netroots backed the wrong candidate. Period. Judging by his recent positions and flip flopping there will be no oversight nor accountability at this point. New politics indeed. The "progressive" movement got punked and frankly you deserve it. You became what you parodied in 2000 and 2004 and became Bushies 2.0 aka the "regressive" movement.


by Iceblinkjm on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:11:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defining Obama As A Progressive (2.00 / 1)

Maybe the question to be asked is..How can the progressive movement best position itself to hold maximum power over a McCain administration? Just in case.


by GeeMan on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 10:46:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defining Obama As A Progressive (none / 0)

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think if you look at the commentary on this site before Edwards dropped out you'll see many progressives arguing for and supporting him over Obama, so as far as we've been dupped, I think we knew where we had to relocate our support after the more progressive candidates were gone.


$439Billion spent on the US Military and still no universal health care.
by jlars on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:10:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If there's one thing Bush has taught me (2.00 / 1)

more now than ever, it's to never trust anyone with power.

I'm not about to trust Obama blindly when his words and actions say the opposite.

And I've been one of the staunchest Obama supporters here and elsewhere.


by Yalin on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:06:23 PM EST

Re: Defining Obama As A Progressive (2.00 / 1)

Just to get things straight, what EXACTLY do you mean by a progressive?  I have seen democrats of all stripes, conservative/moderate/liberal say that they are progressive, so I am a bit confused...is your progressive the same as mine?

I ask this because it seems like you want things to be similar to the way the Ruthugs run things now...small number of voices who get to pull the pres' ear.  What if most of the COUNTRY does not agree with the "progressive" platform of the Dem party?  Do we drag them kicking and screaming over to our point of view?  Isn't that what has been pissing us off for the past 8 years?

Comparing the progressive movement, depending on how we define it, to the labor movement is really disingenuous...I doubt nearly as many Americans even know what the progressive movement is let alone wether they want a part of it or not.  America is more than the progressive movement and the rest of us.

The biggest "problem" I see is that a minority of VERY vocal people want to see maximum change immediately and they do not want their values or beliefs diluted or compormised one bit.  That is ok if the MAJORITY of the people being governed agree.  And if we start going off into "well, we will save them wether they want to be saved or not" territory, then big red flags go up in my head.

Obama is doing what I think is best for ALL of America, not just a sliver, which is a old GOP trick.  America, as a whole, can only handle so much change at a time.  Right now people are excited about Obama because he is speaking to them.  He is constructing a framework to begin dialogue with the WHOLE country.  That is a HUGE, temperate, and delicate thing to do.  He is actually RESPONDING to a extreem minority with a respectfull discourse rather than simply ignoring them like SO many other politicians.  He gets what ALL Americans want and is working to deal with ALL of us.

Yes, the progressive movement, as I define it, is dear to my heart and I will fight for my beliefs.  But I also learned a LONG time ago that what I want/need is NOT what the entire country needs.  I also learned that progressive ideas have to be planted and cultivated, not BOMBED on people.  That's George the 3rd's way...Shock and Awe your ideas into the population.

Maybe that is why I changed from Hillary to Obama...Hillary KNEW what was best for you, she had a plan to put it into play, and she had your seat picked out for you to help.  But what if I did not want that seat, or agree with that idea, or want to move in that direction?

Obama has a more genteel note...come sit at the table and let's all talk and figure out what to do. We may end up in the exact same place as if Hillary were in charge, but it goes along in an entirely different way that lets me percieve being respected.  Wether that is correct or not can be honestly debated, but it it starts from me FEELING like I am being treated fairly, then half the battle (and the HARD half in my mind) to making progressive changes has been won before the argument has even started.

And none of this, NOT ONE NOTE, is what Republican's are offering...not even close.  You gotta pick who you would rather deal with...there is NO contest at all in that regard.


by Hammer1001 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 08:27:55 PM EST

Re: Defining Obama As A Progressive (2.00 / 1)

I agree that the majority should rule even if progressives disagree.  With that in mind, I would like to try and answer what I think a progressive is.  Progressives believe in an end to the war in Iraq, less dependence on oil/alternative energy, resoting the checks and balances in our government, internet neutrality, a woman's right to choose, universal healthcare, more investment on our infrastucture/less money on defense, and corporate accountability to name a few.  We differ from liberals in a few key ways, such as understanding the power that we have in standing together and reforming the system from inside it (versus the green party, Nader, etc).

Here's the question I have for you (all of you).  Where does the majority differ from the above listed goals of progressives (at least as I define them)?  I don't think it does.  The majority of Americans agree with progressive ideas.  

FISA is an example of Obama acting like a normal politician, afraid of how the right will spin a vote that "supports the terrorists."  Progressives need to stand up to our congress and tell them it isn't about supporting terrorists its about giving up our oversite and the rule of law.  If you asked a majority of Americans if they support terrorists they obviously would not agree.  If instead you asked them if the laws we have should apply to everyone including the President and our telecom industry than I think a majority would agree.

In short progressive values ARE majority values.


$439Billion spent on the US Military and still no universal health care.
by jlars on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 12:09:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defining Obama As A Progressive (none / 0)

Great comment.

Defining progressivism is tricky. Almost by definition, large movements don't really agree on a definition all the time. Inclusiveness sometimes wins out over a concrete definition.

And of course, sometimes progressives will be the minority view. Our job isn't to have our way anyway, it's to convince the majority we're right. That's where I see the pressure moving.


The Seminal :: Independent Media & Politics
by J Ro on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 12:56:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defining Obama As A Progressive (none / 0)

this is probably one of the best posts I've ever read on MyDD

the problem with progressivism right now isn't that we don't have politicians willing to take progressive stances, its that we have a country that isn't entirely comfortable with progressive positions across the board.  There are certain progressive stances that enjoy broad support (such as health care), and others that do not (2nd amendment rights).  

The first step in advancing progressivism is to pass those progressive policies that the country does by and large support.  That's where Obama's focus is, and thats where I think it should be.


by direwolfc on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:04:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defining Obama As A Progressive (none / 0)

"this is probably one of the best posts I've ever read on MyDD"

I was referring to Hammer1001's response.  


by direwolfc on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 06:05:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

First we need to win the election (none / 0)

Really, we have to win for any of this to matter.  The current narrative the MSM is running is that Obama is flip-flopping.  In the case of FISA this is true. On Iraq and campaign financing less so, but that is the narrative and the continuous chatter on blogs that should be supporting Obama just reinforce this narative.  He has heard us and it is time to move on.

The problem is that FISA is a big risk for the Democrats.  Think what would happen if there is some kind of attack between now and the election.  The first words out of Bush's mouth would be that the failure to pass FISA helped the terrorists, that Democrats are somehow at fault, etc.  It would be lies of course, but that hasn't made much difference in the past (ask Max Cleland).  

We should concentrate our disappointment on Congress, in particuliar Reid.  This way we could avoid wounding Obama, while still pressing the point.  Supporting progressive Democrats in primaries and winning will have a much greater overall effect.

In the end, a bad FISA bill with an Obama presidency is better than a good bill with McCain in charge.  Win the election, put heat on Dems in the House and Senate and look to 2010 to make real gains in the number of progressives in power.


by Do Something on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:28:04 PM EST

Re: First we need to win the election (2.00 / 1)

The wounds Obama is facing are self inflicted, and this isn't a new narrative. Its one faced by every Democratic nominee. It will not decrease if we sit back quietly and not point this out to our nominee. We do him no favor to tell him that he's not f'ing up when he is.  This is something he should have anticipated. That he did not is why I am concerned. As Huffington said this week-  he's messing up a well earned brand for change. He's hurting his chances. Better he gets it right now rather than waiting until the fall when the view sets in. I also remind you that in 2004, people said said don't call kerry out too. That kerry is the 'great finisher." Well kerry lose because no one wanted to tell him to get his crap together.


by bruh3 on Sat Jul 05, 2008 at 09:59:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Defining Obama As A Progressive (none / 0)

Why don't we get him elected first as there is no alternative candidate and always make him aware of what is important to us. War and Health care would be a great start. But he needs to be elected to do anything.


by Politicalslave on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:33:39 AM EST

You've accepted a logical fallacy (none / 0)

You're operation with the belief that there is a clear distinction between means(getting elected) and  ends(doing things once elected).  There's not; all ends are modified, tainted really, by the means used to achieve them.  A President who wins without respect to the progressive movement will be a President who rules without respect to the progressive movement.  True, there will be Congressional paths to moderating the President...I imagine our faith in that is equally tepid at this point.  
As much as it exposes us to ridicule to say "Obama must give us the respect we deserve," the alternative is a legacy of failure and dependency.  
Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.
by Endymion on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 02:05:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pssssst..... he's the presumptive nominee, we can (2.00 / 1)

demand of the delegates to vote for Hillary at the convention, at least we know what we are getting -it's not a done deal yet!

He's sure turned out to be the change candidate - he changed the moment the bought delegates gave him their support.

Have a look at this:

www.counterpunch.com/fatina07062008.html :

July 5 / 6, 2008

What Can We Believe In?

Obama, Iraq and Change
By ROBERT FANTINA

Illinois Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is headed for Iraq where his policy about the U.S. disastrous war there may be `refined.'

It must be difficult for Mr. Obama to keep straight what audience he is addressing. Is it the one that sees him as an agent of change; you know, `change we can believe in?' This would comprise mostly people who see the war for the oil-driven, murderous exercise that it is. Or he is standing before a group of aging veterans who tend to support their equally aged former fellow soldier, Republican presidential candidate John McCain of Arizona? These are mainly the people who will accept anything as long as it is delivered wrapped in an American flag.

But Mr. Obama seems to feel, perhaps justly, that now that he has wrested the nomination from New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, he has a different opponent who requires a different offensive posture. During the agonizing primaries he was able to hammer away at Mrs. Clinton's initial vote for the war, a vote that she, and many other members of both houses of Congress, will never be able to live down. Mr. Obama need not mention that he did not vote for the war because he was not a member of Congress at that time, and therefore couldn't, nor did he ever spend much time explaining why he has consistently voted to continue funding the war every chance he got.

But now he is going to Iraq, "to do a thorough assessment," and continue to refine his policy.

read more.....

there's 2 more eye opening articles you can read on their site!


by suzieg on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 05:53:56 AM EST

It won't work. (2.00 / 2)

Obama has been planning ways to make us obsolete for a long time now.

His refusal to engage in the blogosphere, his labeling us as part of the partisan problem, his creating a parallel online infrastructure and attempts to control or reduce the influence of 527s and cultivation of his own personal small donors mean that he sees that  he doesn't need us, never did need us, and never will. Is this actually the case? To what extent are his own small donors made up of those in the blogosphere upset about his recent stances?

When I believed Obama's new politics rhetoric was more than a flat out lie I was willing to go along with it because he was a better class of politician--but I can't anymore... unfortunately it's too late.


by MNPundit on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:51:55 AM EST

Re: It won't work. (none / 0)

It simply requires multitasking.  Everybody holds some contradictory opinions (If I give any examples, it will needlessly upset someone, but you know); totally supporting the Obama campaign and totally supporting progressive organizing may conflict, but we can all still do both, mostly.


Yes, I'm aware there's a possible misogynist reading of the myth. Sorry.
by Endymion on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 02:27:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clearly - Obama is lying. (2.00 / 2)

Many people are excusing Obama's move to the Right as a good campaign strategy. "Don't worry", they say, "After the election he will move 'back' to the left.  He is doing this only to gain votes".

I have some huge problems with that.  

First of all, I've believed all along that Obama is a closet republican - especially considering his appeal to republicans to be a Democrats-for-a-day.  His moves prove my thought.

But more importantly it shows he has a weak backbone and has forgotten his early promises to end the Iraq war and 'change' the politics of Washington.  Where is the leadership?

Here's my point...

If Obama is pretending to move right to pander for votes - with the intention of abandoning them after January 20, he is clearly lying to them.

If Obama actually has no intention to come 'back' to the left then he is only pandering for votes and he is lying to US!

So... either way Obama is lying.


by wblynch on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:37:41 AM EST

Re: Defining Obama As A Progressive (2.00 / 1)

No, Obama has been very consistent (with intentional vague-ness) and people have been reading into that what they want to.  Obama is a left of center candidate that looks like a progressive to the country because of the crazy hard-right people who have been incharge for 8 years.  

IF he gets elected, I think he will GENTLY pull tot he left and bring a large part of the electorate with him, rather than making lurching moves that will rend the country apart.

If Obama listens to you, but does not entirely agree with you, it does not mean he is lying.  If he says things you agree with but he is not silling to do them on the time-table YOU want, he is not LYING to you.  If he talks to "the enemy" and is willing to listen to them and their concerns and takes it into account, he is not LYING.  If he acts like a President of ALL Americans, and not just the presumptive candidate of the democratic party, that is not LYING.  That is leading.

I am sorry if that means you do not get all the things you want immediately, but I am not going to get what I want either.  But maybe will will get something better that we can digest easier.  Sometimes a really good change that comes too fast can turn sour.


by Hammer1001 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:27:03 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.