Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Harold Meyerson, WaPo: Without a movement, progressives can't aid Obama's agenda

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
highplainsdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 11:44 AM
Original message
Harold Meyerson, WaPo: Without a movement, progressives can't aid Obama's agenda
Meyerson has some interesting things to say, but one problem he doesn't deal with is progressive disillusionment with this administration to the extent it seems Obama's goals aren't really progressive ones.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/05/AR2010010502989.html

Unlike Carter and Clinton, however, Obama took office at a moment when the intellectual force of laissez-faire economics was plainly spent. His reform agenda was nothing if not ambitious: health care for all, financial re-regulation, climate-change legislation and a Keynesian stimulus to revive a wounded economy. But as the first anniversary of his inauguration approaches, it's clear that despite the impending enactment of a genuinely epochal expansion of health care, a progressive era has not burst forth. Major legislation languishes or is watered down. Right-wing pseudo-populism stalks the land. The liberal base is demobilized. The '30s or the '60s it ain't.

The reasons for the stillbirth of the new progressive era are many and much discussed. There's the death of liberal and moderate Republicanism, the reluctance of some administration officials and congressional Democrats to challenge the banks, the ever-larger role of money in politics (see reluctance to challenge banks, above), the weakness of labor, the dysfunctionality of the Senate -- the list is long and familiar. But if there's a common feature to the political landscapes in which Carter, Clinton and now Obama were compelled to work, it's the absence of a vibrant left movement.

The America over which FDR presided was home to mass organizations of the unemployed; farmers' groups that blocked foreclosures, sometimes at gunpoint; general strikes that shut down entire cities, and militant new unions that seized factories. Both communists and democratic socialists were enough of a presence in America to help shape these movements, generating so much street heat in so many congressional districts that Democrats were compelled to look leftward as they crafted their response to the Depression. During Lyndon Johnson's presidency, the civil rights movement, among whose leaders were such avowed democratic socialists as Martin Luther King Jr. and James Farmer, provided a new generation of street heat that both compelled and abetted the president and Congress to enact fundamental reforms.

In America, major liberal reforms require not just liberal governments, but autonomous, vibrant mass movements, usually led by activists who stand at or beyond liberalism's left fringe. No such movements were around during Carter and Clinton's presidencies. For his part, Obama won election with something new under the political sun: a list of 13 million people who had supported his campaign. But he has consistently declined to activate his activists to help him win legislative battles by pressuring, for instance, those Democratic members of Congress who have weakened or blocked his major bills. To be sure, loosing the activists would have brought problems of its own: Unlike Roosevelt or Johnson, who benefited from autonomous movements, Obama would be answerable for every loopy tactic his followers employed. But in the absence of both a free-standing movement and a legion of loyalists, Congress isn't feeling much pressure from the left to move Obama's agenda.

The construction of social movements is always a bit of a mystery. The right has had great success over the past year in building a movement that isn't really for anything but that has channeled anew the fears and loathings of millions of Americans. If Glenn Beck can help do that for the right, can't, say, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann help build a movement against the banks or for jobs programs? It might well be too little too late, but without left pressure from below, the Obama presidency will end up looking more like Carter's or Clinton's than Roosevelt's or Johnson's.



"If Glenn Beck can help do that for the right, can't, say, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann help build a movement against the banks or for jobs programs?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. There's no evidence Obama is a real progressive. Yet, voters called for it...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. You missed the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Winterblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. There is evidence that "Change" was called for
Wondering what that really means. No change in our "war policies", no change in Prosecuting War Criminals, No change in "business as usual" in Washington... Where is the "Change"? I have to admit I expected more..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
4. I guess, in response to your comment,
we have been expecting our president to lead us there. It certainly appeared he would, from the tenor of his campaign. I think only now are we realizing that he's not the quite the impetus we thought he was and we can't depend on or wait for him to become it. It really does have to be us. So now, we regroup, set our sights, and get after it. And to hell with anyone and everyone who tells us to shut up and be grateful, patient, pragmatic, and invisible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal_at_heart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
highplainsdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Agree completely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
6. lack of an underlying organization
The democrats leveraged the unions for decades. The current GOP leveraged the evangelicals. These are virtual social groups who already organize and have regular meetings. They have infrastructure that can be untilized (phone lists, banks, meeting halls, etc.) during elections and even in between. Reagan wooed the union members with both issues of guns and race based (they're taking your jobs with "quotas")employment concerns. Ultimately he also helped crush them, NAFTA did the rest. The closest that progressives have now is the very loose confederation of internet based communities. They can't organize well, they have no established leaders, much less alot of infrastructure to leverage. Ron Paul tried to leverage it without much success. Howard Dean was the first to really realize the fund raising potential of this community. But no one, not even Obama has figured out how to use it as a true political "machine" like the unions or the evangelicals. Don't be too impressed by Rush or Beck. As many have pointed out, even within the GOP, they can stir up alot of emotion, but they can't ever seem to win elections. It was the evangelicals that did that. And they've left the party. The tea baggers have yet to demonstrate that they can win elections, and I'm dubious. Of this I agree with Nader. They are the same old collection of Birchers/Klan/militia/NRA nut balls that are always around.

But the left, the progressives, the liberals, the pacificsts, whatever one wants to call them don't have their usual form of coalition forming and action delivery systems. The college campuses aren't radicalized because their is no draft. Labor isn't radicalized because their are fewer and fewer collective bargining units, and they're after the teachers now. Even the jewish community that was so instrumental in the civil rights movement isn't nearly as cohesive and furthermore they are divided heavily upon a single issue form of politics these days. The left needs to find this organizing structure, even if they have to create it as they did in the days of the "Machine". It is what Dean was trying to do as the head of the DNC. It's what the "50 state strategy" is really all about. Organize all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
highplainsdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leeroysphitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. I'm not sure Obama's administration was ever intended to look like Johnson's or Roosevelt's.
The only ones calling Obama a progressive, even during the campaign, was the screw ball right (though they used the term socialist (as if it were a bad word)).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
highplainsdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I guess you missed Obama describing himself as a pragmatic progressive.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/01/obama-dubs-hims.html

Not to mention all the comparisons to, and evocations of, FDR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. FDR was surrounded by progressives: Ickes, Eleanor, Hopkins, Wallace...
who are the progs around Obama?

Going once...

Going twice...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
11. Obama is the man ...
he doesn't need Progressives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-06-10 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
12. The movement was there. It was ignored by the "strategists".
Kill the movement, then blame it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC