On being left out at the table

[MadHound]

Well, as we continue to approach the start of the Obama presidency, it's becoming increasingly clear that one group on the political spectrum is being left out, and that would be those of us on the left. Obama has made certain, in his major administrative choices, to please every single contingent except the left. He's pandered to the DLC, the Republicans, the financial sector, all the biggies except those of us on the left.

Once again, after having given mightily of our money, time and effort, it's looking increasingly like a repeat of the Clinton years, where the left will be ignored, while the corporations and center right will be well fed and well represented.

Hell, Obama is even airing out trial balloons about leaving a "residual force" in Iraq, and putting off the tax hike for the wealthy, two issues near and dear to the left.

I know, I know, this isn't a popular viewpoint around here, but the fact of the matter is that not only is it a valid POV to hold, but it's a crucial matter to address. Many of you continue to decry, eight years on, the desertion of the left for Nader and the Green party. Well think about it, isn't the set up for that scenario being put in place now? If the left has no reason to stick with Obama, then what happens come 2012? The left flees for Greener pastures, and frankly the Democratic party can't win if that happens.

I see many of you folks castigating those of us on the left for complaining before Obama is even in office, but the fact of the matter is that Obama's administration choices, and the trial balloons that he floats, give a good indication of how he will govern. You know that, I know that, the left knows that, which is why we're unhappy. But rather than castigating the left for those views, rather than trying to shout us down, demand that we fall in line, perhaps you should listen and take heed. We all had a hand in putting Obama in office, and we all deserve our own slice of the pie, whether it be Clinton as SOS or Geithner at Treasury. The left is waiting for its slice of the pie, and so far all we've seen is crumbs.

Yet despite all this grousing and complaining, the left is willing to wait and see what an Obama administration will bring. Hopefully Obama will bring about a full troop pullout by 2010. Hopefully he will repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy next year. But be aware that if he doesn't throw either policy or personnel bones to the left, the same kind of nice juicy bones he's thrown to everyone else, then the left will disappear in 2012, it's that simple. This isn't a threat, but rather a warning and a word of advice.

The left felt so substantially left out of the eight years of a Clinton administration that they cost Gore his shot in 2000. Do you want a repeat of that in 2012? Think about it.

[democrattotheend]

1. He has appointed some progressives to sit at the table

Many of the people who will surround him daily are progressives, and they have arguably more influence than the cabinet. Check this out: http://washingtonindependent.com/20365/progressive-circle-forming-around-obama

With regard to the issues, he had talked about a residual force in Iraq during the campaign, so I am not sure why you are surprised. And he initially only called for letting the Bush tax cuts expire, and most economists of all stripes think raising taxes going into a recession is a bad idea. Is waiting one extra year to let them lapse really something that's "near and dear to your heart?" As a progressive, I don't necessarily consider it "near and dear to my heart" whether the Bush tax cuts expire in 2009 or 2010.

I consider myself progressive and I know that Obama is going to break my heart many times because he is not as progressive as I want him to be, but unfortunately, most of the country is not as progressive as I want it to be. I recognize that my views are to the left of many people and I understand that a president's job is to represent all Americans, not just the base of his party, and not just the people who voted for him. My coworker who is arguably further left than I am put it best: if we have a president who pisses us off 25% of the time, isn't that a lot better than a president who pisses us off 95% of the time? And those who vote for a third party candidate in 2012 are essentially voting for a president who will piss progressives off 95% of the time, just as they did in 2000.

[MadHound]

2. You know as well as I do that the big kahuna in rewards is a cabinet post

The left isn't getting that, they're getting a few upper tier bureaucrats at best, and while you may argue that they have more influence than the cabinet, most people wouldn't.

While I recognize that he has always stated that he would leave a residual force in Iraq, the trial balloons that have been put out since he won has seen the size of that residual force grow, and the time that they remain there get longer. And yes, while he initially stated that he would simply let the tax cuts expire, he later changed that to repealing them sooner, like next year.

I also recognize that the president's job is to represent all the people, but so far the indications that I've seen show him representing all the people except the left. Like I said, all we've gotten are a few crumbs while others, including Republicans for heaven's sake, have gotten nice fat steaks.

And don't sell yourself short, the views of progressives and liberals actually aren't out of line with mainstream America. Poll after poll has shown that. What has happened though is that the left has been effectively demonized over the past thirty years to the point where nobody wants to be associated with that name.

[Sadie5]

3. I agree with you

to a certain point. It's the part about costing Gore the 2000 election that I don't agree with. Clinton cost Gore nothing, Gore's fate was decided through a less than ethical supreme court who handed GWB the election and Gore chose not to fight for what was rightfully his. As for Obama appointing these people who are Clinton cast offs, well...there are some who were aware that this could happen but we were shouted down, called traitors, republicans, you name it. BTW:what part of the Clinton presidency didn't you like? The peace or the prosperity??? Clinton presided over the best economy this country has seen and which we likely will never see again.

[MadHound]

5. Actually the post WWII years were the best economy that we've seen

That said, there were several things that I disliked about the Clinton administration, some of which set the stage for where we're at today. His support and signing of NAFTA for one. His ongoing deregulation of the financial sector(he in fact pushed through more deregulation than Reagan did). Welfare "reform" which essentially stripped away our social safety net. His support for the '96 Telecom bill, which allowed the consolidation of the media to the point where five corporations owned ninety percent of the media. His approval of an ongoing slow motion destruction of Iraq via sanctions and up to thrice weekly bombing runs. His ratcheting up of the War on Drugs. All of these positions and actions I disagreed with.

Furthermore he presided over a period of time where the gap between the wealthy and the rest of us reached record breaking proportions, and the serious emergence of the working poor in this country, and he did nothing, in fact he contributed to the problem with his pro-corporate stance.

As far as Gore, I don't know, I suspect that Gore would have governed in from much the same stance as Clinton did. We'll never know however. The SC did play the pivotal role in appointing Bush president, however the Green vote cost Gore enough votes in key states to make it close enough for Bush to steal.

I figured that Obama would appoint some Clinton retreads, however I wasn't expecting this many, and certainly not of this prominence. This sends a clear signal that I'm simply not comfortable with. Like I said in the OP, I'm willing to wait and see what the man actually does, but judging from what I've seen so far, it doesn't bode well for the left.

[Radical Activist]

15. Susan Rice. Tom Daschle.

You may not like Daschle's job as leader but he has progressive views on healthcare and is a heavy weight in the cabinet. Your premise that liberals are left out is simply untrue.

[FrenchieCat]

4. I do not believe that the Obama administration will be less left leaning

than would have been the Gore or the Kerry administration.

I think all of this premature speculation is just that; speculation.

The facts are that Obama was against this war, and he stated so at the time.

I also believe that anyone who has organized poor people for years, is a constitutional scholar,
and ran the kind of campaign that he did will be as left as we could have hoped....

But until he is sworn in and we start seeing him in action, speculation is all that we have,
but we shouldn't forget still that it is still just that!

[EFerrari]

8. Obama's choices are not speculation. They are unconfirmed

but they still constitute an action on his part, a choice.

[Stand and Fight]

6. I'm on the Left. For the most part, I'm happy.

I'm fairly happy with his choices. I do agree with you on the notion of taxing the wealthy.

[NJmaverick]

7. poor baby

:nopity:

[MadHound]

10. Oh that's an intelligent response

Got anything more substantial to contribute?

[EFerrari]

9. "Wait and see" is not a recipe for political success.

People advocating that the left "wait and see" should ask themselves if they would be content for Obama to "wait and see" at crucial political moments. Seems doubtful they would.

[county worker]

11. I would not expect a president of a country that is mostly centrist to govern from the center.

When I look at an issue I tend to not care how it fits into the ideology of the right or left but how it affects the good of the whole. Access to affordable health care is such an issue. I think that it is becoming a main stream idea and as such it is a centrist type issue. I think the far left would like to see a single payer government sponsored system and the far right would like to see every man and woman for themselves. But the solution we will get is something in between I think.

If there is one thing I hope we learned from the past 8 years it is not to use purist ideology as the yard stick with which we measure our response to issues.

It's funny to hear conservative say the reason they lost the election is because they weren't conservative enough and I'll bet in the future we'll hear from some that we lost an election because we weren't liberal enough. I hope it that never happens because that would mean the electorate did to us what it did to the conservatives this time.

We didn't lose in 1994 because we weren't liberal enough. But we can sure as hell lose in the near future if we don’t govern in a way that is supported by the majority of voters. I don’t want to go through what we went through the last eight years. So I guess the far left will have to get use to being left out or become centrist.

[EFerrari]

12. The left and the right are not comparable in that way.

The right wing is authoritarian and seeks to impose an agenda.

The left wing is democratic and seeks to raise questions and to place issues on the table for public debate.

There is no comparison.

The real choice is to either purposefully include the left or to expect a further slide to the right. Because when you placate authoritarians, you get more. When you include (or, even "placate") the left, you get a more open discussion.

[gkhouston]

13. Oh, we're included. He'll meet us at that booth in the back in the corner in the dark

every time he needs a smoke. :eyes:

[PassingFair]

17. Oh no! Are you saying we'll be Obama's "booty call"?

:spray:

[Shiver]

14. Welcome to DU!

Some interesting points made... I like this line especially:

"If there is one thing I hope we learned from the past 8 years it is not to use purist ideology as the yard stick with which we measure our response to issues."

A very good point; we've seen 8 years of an administration that didn't give the Left ANYTHING. Eight years of a White House that shunned any ideas the didn't conform to it's ideology.

The left will have a place at the table, and already does. There are still several Cabinet positions yet to be filled, but it's more important to have lefty advisers than Cabinet posts. White House staff and council advisers carry more weight, and meet with the President more often than the Cabinet does. The Cabinet implements the policies and advises on what they are told to do; the advisers help form the policies that are to be implemented.

[Raineyb]

25. I don't think the OP is talking about purist ideology

I think he or she wants to see someone who is not a DLC, wishy, washy, milquetoast so-called liberal in a cabinet position and I'm not talking about something like HUD or some other weak cabinet post which has little if any influence in the grand scheme of things. I don't think it's asking too much to have someone who is truly anti-war involved in foreign policy. I don't think it's asking too much not to have the same supply-side corporate people in charge of treasury. And it's certainly not too much to ask to keep the jackasses from Wall Street far away from anything to do with our economy since they've more than proved that they are poison to a sustainable economic system.

How about having Ravi Bahtra in treasury? He called out Greenspan as a fraud long before everyone else picked up a hint. How about Juan Cole as an adviser instead? Juan Cole has certainly been calling this war right all this time only to be vilified by the idiot right for his troubles. Clinton aka Senator Obliviate? And while Geithner may not be as gung ho on Wall Street as his predecessor he certainly could have said something as President of the NY Federal Reserve about these toxic loans banks have been selling. The Federal reserve does have some insight into how the money flows does it not? How much oversight can we expect from someone who was part of the ranks?

It's entirely possible that these picks can actually do something that won't completely screw over the country but it's also true that these people will have more of our President-Elect's ear than we with our impotent protests and easily dismissed e-mails will. And that is the problem as I see it.

Regards

[political_Dem]

16. That is why we must not stay silent. Now more than ever, we must continue to organize and fight.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of people who are telling those on the left to stop their questions and simply have blind trust in the President-Elect. That didn't bode well for the Republicans. So why should it be used as a solution for the Democrats? There is one thing about the left. We don't take to obedience and complacency very well. And it is nothing but centrist and rightist propaganda to propose that we sit down and shut up.

Mr. Obama has already made choices. And since leftists and progressives donated to his campaign, they have the right to question, dissect and probe his choices as much as they please. Obviously, the centrists and the right doesn't have to work that hard to get his attention. They've been supplicated. But the left has to fight for their recognition and their issues--by any means necessary.

[truedelphi]

18. Hear, hear. n/t

[leeann1317]

19. Most of us here are on the left, too. Most of us don't feel left out at the table....

Obama is sitting at the head of the table. Why don't you see him as your President?

[Splinter Cell]

20. Who would you suggest?

I hear Castro is not busy....

This crap is beyond old. President Obama is trying to find the best people for each job, and he's not using a quota system.

How far left is left enough for you?

[MoonRiver]

21. I didn't get EVERYTHING I wanted! OH NOES!!!!!!!!!!

[endarkenment]

32. Anything, not 'everything'. nt.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. He's Made Decisions For ALL Of Us. Every Choice He's Made So Far Shows His Intellect And Greatness.

He will likely be one of the best presidents ever, and I see more proof of that with every speech, every press conference, and every decision he gives.

Can't find a true flaw in anything he's done or said yet. I'm sure he's sorry that he hasn't gotten some on the extreme fringe left to cheer and applaud constantly, but I'm sure he'll find a way to sleep at night.

GOBAMA!!!

[qwlauren35]

23. I'd like to see the Left Go Green...

and I'd like to see the Republican party split as well. More of the factions in both parties will have the courage to venture off into their own parties.

At this point, I no longer understand why the political left supported Obama, given that his viewpoint - which is relatively centrist - was always on display.

I hope someone can help me see it.

I am becoming more and more convinced that Hillary is to the left of Obama on some issues, but in holding onto the image of a warhawk (which may have been political suicide to abandon), people just didn't take notice. Even before she became Senator, the media has always pointed out that Hillary leaned farther to the left than Bill. As such, a Hillary Clinton presidency would not have been a "repeat". Heck, I think she would have blown him off from time to time, and clearly distanced herself from his political positions.

If Obama had been white AND if I'd known that he was only trading Iraq for Afghanistan, I would have gone with Hillary pretty quickly after Richardson dropped out. But I thought Obama was anti-war; it's the one issue on which I am very disappointed.

I think the Left could create a pretty solid party on its own. And I think that there would be some areas in which the Left and the Moderate-Dems would see eye to eye.

I really see the Republicans going in 3 directions. The religious right, Big Business, and those leaning "Capitalist-Libertarian".

I think it would be good for America to have 5 parties instead of two. Time will tell.

[DevonRex]

24. I am way to the left. I am very happy with Obama's choices.

[BzaDem]

26. The problem is that people like you think you can actually punish Democrats by voting Green.

I'm curious -- where did that get them in 2000? Did it get them a Kucinich presidential nomination, due to Democrats cowering in fear? Nope. It got them a candidate who voted for the Iraq war, who was chosen over Dean. The trick is to realize that voting against your interest to make a statement doesn't actually ever cause a leftward shift in the short or long term. Nader voters don't move back into the Democratic column because the Democrats nominate someone leftward -- they came back to the Democratic column because after 4 years of Bush, they realized there are consequences for their actions.

If for some reason people in 2012 did the same thing, it wouldn't cause someone farther leftward to be nominated in 2016. The same people who voted Green in 2012 would similarly realize that elections do have consequences, and they would return to the fold in 2016.

The truth is, they can't win by cheating. They can't win by pretending there are more than 2 viable parties, they can't win by pretending we don't have an electoral college, and they can't win by trying to move a country in a direction that most people in the country don't want it to go. They can only win by organizing and convincing the majority of Democrats (and then a majority of Americans) that we should have a President farther to the left. It's called an election. If you want further-left governance, then you should work harder for such a progressive nominee in the primary (instead of pouting in the GE that you didn't get such a progressive nominee and voting against your political views out of raw emotion).

[bvar22]

27. K&R

The OP speaks for me, but I do acknowledge that there are many people that are happy with Obama's picks.


"The new administration is off to a good start."
-- Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell.


"Superb ... the best of the Washington insiders ..."
-- David Brooks, conservative New York Times columnist


"Virtually perfect ... "
-- Senator Joe Lieberman, former Democrat and John McCain's top surrogate in the 2008 campaign.


"Reassuring."
-- Karl Rove, "Bush's brain."



"I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain ... this all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators, and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign ... Clinton and Steinberg at State should be powerful voices for 'neo-liberalism' which is not so different in many respects from 'neo-conservativism.'"
-- Max Boot, neoconservative activist, former McCain staffer.



"I see them as being sort of center-right of the Democratic party."
-- James Baker, former Secretary of State and the man who led the theft of the 2000 election.



"Surprising continuity on foreign policy between President Bush's second term and the incoming administration ... certainly nothing that represents a drastic change in how Washington does business. The expectation is that Obama is set to continue the course set by Bush ... "
-- Michael Goldfarb of the neoconservative Weekly Standard.


"I certainly applaud many of the appointments ... "
-- Senator John McCain


"So far, so good."
-- Senator Lamar Alexander, senior Republican Congressional leader.


Hillary Clinton will be "outstanding" as Secretary of State
-- Henry Kissinger, war criminal


Rahm Emanuel is "a wise choice" in the role of Chief of Staff
-- Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, John McCain's best friend.



Obama's team shows "Our foreign policy is non-partisan."
-- Ed Rollins, top Republican strategist and Mike Huckabee's 2008 campaign manager



"The country will be in good hands."
-- Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush's Secretary of State



http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/109160/neocons%2C_republicans_and_war_criminals_rave_about_obama%27s_%27team_of_rivals%27/

[live love laugh]

28. He is not president of THE LEFT he's president of the diverse citizenship of the US. nt

[endarkenment]

31. So the right is well represented. The left: not at all.

yes indeed we are a diverse nation, and the progressive left, a voting block that accounts for probably half of the Democratic vote, is unrepresented in Obama's cabinet.

[TankLV]

29. While I understand you're concerns, and can agree with their idea,

HE'S NOT EVEN INAUGURATED YET!!!

JEEBUS FUCKING CHRIST - GIVE THE MAN A CHANCE!

We have to stear this fucking ship of state in a new direction, and it's not gonna happen QUICKLY!

Yes, keep the pressure up!

But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!

I for one, who considers himself almost a SOCIALIST, am perfectly happy with Obama's LEADERSHIP so far...

While he may have NOT been my ideal choice at all in the beginning - he is making me PROUD and HAPPY once again.

If things qo vastly awry or in some right wing direction, I'll be among the first to complain, loudly and bitterly...

but give the man a CHANCE to prove himself and earn your trust!

[MadHound]

30. GREAT JUMPING JEEBUS ON A CORN COB

I think that I already addressed your point both in the OP and elsewhere in this thread.

You can stop trying to chew me out like a child now.

Please, next time read for comprehension rather than the quick snark, thank you. I don't appreciate being screamed at over nothing.

[robcon]

33. Another misguided OP.

I think this quote is pathetic: "We all had a hand in putting Obama in office, and we all deserve our own slice of the pie, whether it be Clinton as SOS or Geithner at Treasury. The left is waiting for its slice of the pie, and so far all we've seen is crumbs."

Electoral politics is simple: Democrats will vote for the Democratic candidate (85-95%); Republicans will vote for the Republican candidate (85-95%); independents and unaligned voters are where the rubber-meets-the-road in politics, and where presidents are elected. Obama IS taking care of those who elected him.