What ever happened to “change we can believe in”? ( Read whole article before posting reactio

[inthebrain]

What ever happened to “change we can believe in”?

Obama’s policies since he was elected are beginning to disillusion his liberal supporters

THE OBAMA administration is not even one year old, but already it has lost much of its luster. It has disappointed many of its liberal supporters and even led some to suggest that what we are witnessing is, in effect, the third term of a Bush administration.

At the beginning of August, liberal columnist Frank Rich posed the question “Is Obama Punking Us?” on the op-ed pages of the New York Times. Rich quoted an Obama voter in Virginia who had told the Washington Post a few days earlier, “Nothing’s changed for the common guy. I feel like I’ve been punked.” This voter was disgusted in particular by the billions of dollars poured into bailing out the banks while millions of ordinary Americans continue to face the threat of losing their homes. Obama, it seems, has taken care of Wall Street, while largely leaving the people on Main Street to fend for themselves.

As Rich noted, however, the souring of the mood amongst many of those who supported Obama in the 2008 election has a much broader focus than just the bank bailout (otherwise known as TARP—the Troubled Asset Relief Program). It is based, in Rich’s words, on “the sinking sensation that the American game is rigged—that, as the president typically put it a month after his inauguration, the system is in hock to ‘the interests of powerful lobbyists or the wealthiest few’ who have ‘run Washington far too long.’” More precisely, it is based on the “sinking sensation” that, despite his inspiring rhetoric and calls for change, Obama is not challenging those interests, but working hand-in-hand with them instead.

Take the fight around health care reform. Obama was elected on the promises of providing affordable health insurance for everyone in the country and putting a cap on runaway health care costs. The U.S. is the only developed country that does not provide its population with universal health coverage, with the result that over 46 million people in the country are uninsured. Yet despite this, spending on health care per capita is dramatically higher in this country than in Western Europe, Canada, Japan or Australia, while health outcomes, as measured by the World Health Organization, are dramatically lower. The explanation for this amazing discrepancy is that health care is a for-profit industry in the United States, while elsewhere it has long been treated as a government-guaranteed right. The extra spending in the U.S. goes to finance huge corporate bureaucracies, as well as the bloated profits of the health-care industrial complex, including insurance companies, private hospitals and the pharmaceutical industry.



http://www.isreview.org/issues/68/gasper-obama.shtml

[RBInMaine]

1. Enough already with the Obama bashing. Would you be happier with McSAME and FailinPalin?

[inthebrain]

5. You didn't read the whole article

Thanks for the knee jerk reaction.

If you read the end of the article perhaps you would have had a more informed response.

[Skittles]

28. they never do

[CakeGrrl]

33. The only thing different from the same old "The President is a sellout corporatist" meme

is the advice tacked onto the end that tells Progressives to organize and push him and Congress to the left.

But that advice seems to get pooh-poohed around here. People seem to think the President simply needs to stop doing what he's doing and "do what's right".

Apparently, despite what we've seen the Teabaggers and other extremists manage, some Progressives believe they've done the President enough of a favor by casting their vote for him in 2008. To them, what's to organize? I guess they expect the Congressional Blue Dogs to simply snap-to and start being REAL Democrats. :eyes:

[dionysus]

49. well stated

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[inthebrain]

16. So you argue for complacency

Nobody is arguing here that Obama is the next FDR. As a matter of fact, the article I even posted stated that is not the case.

I can't wait for your response you tell those "whiny" 85k workers that just lost their jobs to shut the fuck up.

It is also evident by your post that there is no difference between you and your Republican counterparts when it comes to the suffering of the working classes. Yours is a dissagreement over laundry (Ds vs Rs). It's not steeped in ideas or solutions. Typical of the reactionary politic.

[mrcheerful]

22. Hey those nit wits for the most part voted for the out sourcing of their jobs when

they decided that Reagan was better then Carter. Or did you not realize that the union workers went with Reagan? There lays the real problem, many union workers were anti union when it came to others getting what they had. Growing up in a city that was mostly GM workers I saw how they reacted to the Japanese dumping off goods on the market, it wasn't until after 1980 that GM works stopped buying Japanese autos and motorcycles for their kids.

The auto worker screwed everyone else until it was them that got screwed. My dad used to bitch about how GM workers screwed themselves by voting republicon and how union workers were screwing their jobs over by not voting for the union ideals that would have stopped the job bleeding, dad said his co workers were greedy self centered assholes that wanted everything for themselves and nothing for others. My dad started working for GM in 1951. His dad started GM in 1942 after losing the family farm to bankers in 1935.

What your seeing today was started in 1979 when union workers ignored the union and went for the fuzzy math of Reaganomics, they thought it would only effect non union workers, after all Reagan was a union man. Where were you when the State of Michigan tried to rid themselves of a republicon nit wit named Engler and union workers threw beer cans and rocks at people who got others to sign petitions to get rid of Engler? Yeah and it was union workers that elected Engler because he told them he would get rid of welfare and lower their taxes.

[Dr.Phool]

25. You're way off base Einstein.

Are you going to blame the unions for the completely shitty cars that Detroit was pumping out in the '70s? Cars that would rust out from around you? One year, 12,000 mile warranties?

Aren't you the same moran who posted about union massages this morning? Sounds like you've got a real problem with unions.

[inthebrain]

26. Note the Tombstone

[mrcheerful]

29. I never been tombstoned and I been here since 2005 under the same name

[mrcheerful]

27. Ahhhhhhhh where did I say I had a thing against unions? My problem is with certain types of union

workers who decided that Republicons would give them a better deal then the Democratic party. Unions don't make decisions on what products the auto makers build nor do the workers they just build what they are told to build by the foremans and supervisiors. Where I lay the blame is the anti union union workers that vote for republicons. I never posted anything about unions outside of this today so you got the wrong person. In fact I didn't post a thing on DU before noon today.

[Dr.Phool]

37. My apologies.

It sure sounded like an anti-union rant. The Only unions I can recall supporting Ray-gun, were the Air Traffic Controllers, and you see what that got them.

As for the shitty cars, GM and Ford were getting low quality Japanese steel, and they'd literally fall apart in the rust belt.

[mrcheerful]

39. Yeah I had a 1969 Ford that was made out of that

resold Japanese steel that sat outside for 3 years before Japan resold it back to the US. By 1974 the 69 had 3/4th of the door panels gone from rust.

[jgraz]

19. Yeah. Shut up and eat your gruel.

Fucking peasants. Always complaining. "I'm hungry" ... "My child is dying"... "I got killed in an illegal war"....

Whine whine whine. Can't you just be happy our new president looks dreamy with his shirt off?

[MissDeeds]

23. + 1000 nt

[jgraz]

20. Translation: enough already with the participatory democracy!

Democrats are not quite as batshit insane as the other guys. Can't you just accept without question the leaders we've chosen for you?

[emilyg]

34. Old line.

[babylonsister]

2. Damn, the socialists don't like him either? We're doomed! nt

[fishnfla]

3. The author of the article finds the communist manifesto to be history's most important

document. His judgement is worthless

Me I'll go with the US Constitution.

[inthebrain]

9. The communist manifesto wasn't a document.

LOL

[ShortnFiery]

31. Not to mention somebody's confusing "Socialism" with "Communism" yet again.

:crazy:

[hileeopnyn8d]

32. Ummm

Maybe this is what that poster is referring to:


Phil Gasper is the editor of The Communist Manifesto: A Road Map to History’s Most Important Document (Haymarket Books, 2005) and a member of the ISR editorial board.


That's the author of the article you posted.

[fishnfla]

44. yeah I read the whole thing as instructed

[Better Believe It]

36. "Me I'll go with the US Constitution." The one routinely violated by the government?

[fishnfla]

45. no the other one

[Better Believe It]

46. But if it isn't enforced of what value is it except for the expression of nice sentiments?

It has not stopped the take over of government by a small minority of privileged and wealthy special interests.

It is not a government for, of and by the people and the Constitution was never intended to provide for that kind of "mob" majority rule.

And that we must change.

[fishnfla]

47. it has more value than nice sentiments eom

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Here's the real point of the piece--

There was much talk when Obama was elected that he could be the new Franklin Delano Roosevelt, ushering in an era of progressive legislation and redistribution of wealth downwards. It’s important to remember, however, that FDR did not come into office with a radical program of social reform. He was pushed from below to introduce pro-union legislation, unemployment benefit, social security and other important changes, by militant and disruptive social movements. As the sociologist Frances Fox Piven has pointed out, “The Democratic platform of 1932 was not much different from that of 1924 or 1928. But the rise of protest movements forced the new president and the Democratic Congress to become bold reformers.” The movements were led by Communists, socialists and other radicals, who didn’t wait for change to come from above, but demanded it with direct action, mass demonstrations, and factory occupations. “A pro-union labor policy was far from Roosevelt’s mind when he took office in 1933. But by 1935, with strikes escalating and the election of 1936 approaching, he was ready to sign the National Labor Relations Act.”

The most salient difference between today and 1933 is that, as yet, Obama faces no significant independent progressive movement demanding real change and forcing him to the left. That is no reason for pessimism. The conditions certainly exist for such a movement to be built. But until it is, we will continue to get punked.

I've obviously been very critical of Obama in recent months. This is not necessarily because I have given up on him. It's because I recognize the need for forceful commentary, critiques, and even threats from the left.

I believe Obama can be pushed into a leftward trajectory, but only if the voices on the left drown out the din of corporate money.

[inthebrain]

8. See what happens when someone reads the article?

They get it.

Good work.

[hileeopnyn8d]

12. I can read the article,

and "get" the article, and even agree with parts of the article, and still be annoyed at you for bringing it here and the author for his disingenuous title.

ISO does not support Democrats ever. Period. He, the author, and most likely, you the messenger, very likely did not/do not support the Democratic Party, much less Obama. I find the use and abuse of campaign slogans to express disappointment/disapproval of someone you never supported to begin with disingenuous. I'm speaking about the author of the article, not you, unless the shoe fits.

So you can take your superior "you don't get it" attitude and cram it. Or you could just be satisfied posting on Socialist message boards with the rest of your enlightened friends.

[inthebrain]

13. I've been posting here regularly for five years

I'll take your advice with a grain of salt.

Most people who have posted with me (even those that dissagree with me) will tell you I am one of the more honest and genuine people posting here.

You obviously don't have any answers and choose to play attack the messenger.

[IndianaGreen]

38. It all depends as to what is meant by 'Democrats'

There are the workers that busted their asses off to elect a Democratic Congress in 2006 and a Democratic President in 2008, only to be betrayed on health care by the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress they helped elect.

Then there are those with a "D" after their names that only serve the financial interests that shower them with perks and money.

So which of these two groups of Democrats did you mean when you said "ISO does not support Democrats ever?"

[Double T]

6. 'change' **cough-cough** we can believe **cough-cough** in???

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: What is that?? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[PBS Poll-435]

10. K&U

nt

[graywarrior]

11. Find a nice republican to support,

[OHdem10]

14. Dropping out of the political scene because the Party leaves you

behind is the most frequent path. One party with two
Right Wings--why vote. You get the same RW Policy with
Democratic Control.

[Aramchek]

15. you should change your handle to 'inthestegosaurusbrain'

[Dr.Phool]

17. It changed to "Change some people can make believe in".

We got punked alright.

[laylah]

18. Few will read the whole article...

bashing our Pres is today's sport of choice.

That said, I am still disappointed...he campaigned on so much more positive stuff. Where is it? Where is the change we can believe in?:shrug:

[jgraz]

21. Thanks for the post. It's time we heard from the *actual* left in this country.

:thumbsup:

[nightrain]

24. knr. Thanks for posting this. Excellent analysis.

[ShortnFiery]

30. President Obama has lost touch and has turned into a 100% Corporate Leader. eom

[zulchzulu]

35. History will find Obama one of our best Presidents despite the whiners and purists...

He is taking on a lot of issues that less courageous Presidents would dare not attempt. It's also an illusion manufactured by the Royal Punditry that "all liberals" are disappointed in Obama, even with him in office less than a year facing multiple wars, a tumbling global economy, a fiercely falling housing and banking market and the insane resistance of the Republican Party.

If people don't want to help Democrats win in 2010, so be it. There are more than plenty of us who will continue to work hard not to allow Republicans to get their filthy hands on the reigns of power.

[treestar]

40. A whole lot has changed

I have zero patience with claims to the contrary.

[dionysus]

50. i know. you almost feel like these people are going to be saying this no matter what happens.

[jefferson_dem]

41. To quote one of my film heroes - General Buck Turgidson in Dr. Strangelove...

"That's a load of Commie Bull..."

[Juche]

42. So what are progressives supposed to do?

At the bottom of the article it says this:


There was much talk when Obama was elected that he could be the new Franklin Delano Roosevelt, ushering in an era of progressive legislation and redistribution of wealth downwards. It’s important to remember, however, that FDR did not come into office with a radical program of social reform. He was pushed from below to introduce pro-union legislation, unemployment benefit, social security and other important changes, by militant and disruptive social movements. As the sociologist Frances Fox Piven has pointed out, “The Democratic platform of 1932 was not much different from that of 1924 or 1928. But the rise of protest movements forced the new president and the Democratic Congress to become bold reformers.” The movements were led by Communists, socialists and other radicals, who didn’t wait for change to come from above, but demanded it with direct action, mass demonstrations, and factory occupations. “A pro-union labor policy was far from Roosevelt’s mind when he took office in 1933. But by 1935, with strikes escalating and the election of 1936 approaching, he was ready to sign the National Labor Relations Act.”

The most salient difference between today and 1933 is that, as yet, Obama faces no significant independent progressive movement demanding real change and forcing him to the left. That is no reason for pessimism. The conditions certainly exist for such a movement to be built. But until it is, we will continue to get punked.





But what are we supposed to do? We got politicians elected, and we have had mass demonstrations, we have written letters. We get ignored. What are we supposed to do? What are effective methods of persuasion? Primaries from the left is the only thing I can think of.

Part of what bothers me about some of these kinds of articles is that everything is blamed on us (the progressive grassroots). Its our fault for not trying hard enough (I'm reminded of Ehrenreich and her rants against positive psychology, which are used to blame the victim). Us getting upset with injustice (rather than working for the criminals like the tea baggers do) isn't enough. Neither is electing politicians who we think will fight that injustice. We have to do their job for them. That is bothersome. Many of us who supported Obama did so because he ran as an ant-corporatist. That is why so many of us chose Obama over Clinton in the primaries, Clinton was considered the pro-corporate, DLC candidate and Obama the progressive.

Its offensive when people say its the fault of 'those lazy progressives' for not forcing Obama to do what he told us he would do when we were paying his bills and voting him into office.

I'm not saying this article says that, but I have seen that attitude a lot lately.

Hell, on the subject of primaries from the left, you can argue the Obama ascendancy was a primary from the left. Obama was (we felt) to the left of Clinton. So we supported him. Obama won 2-1 over Clinton in a MoveON poll. But that really didn't work either. We do primaries from the left for president and we still get corporate centrism. Obama got tons of money and volunteer work from people who thought he would stand up to corporatism. Still didn't work.

What are we supposed to do? Arguably even primaries from the left aren't working.

[inthebrain]

43. Those Demonstrations were NOTHING like that antagonisms of the early 20th century

Not even close.

They had national strikes, took over cities, and created hell for the capitalists.

Progressives OTOH really didn't do anything.

[boppers]

48. Not much original thought, here.

Repeat meme, rinse, repeat meme...

:shrug: