Obama and the Left, Part 2,048

[ProSense]

Mike Lux

Obama and the Left, Part 2,048

<...>

Here's the thing that drives me most crazy, though: the only thing making the Obama White House take the huge gamble of not reaching out to the professional left is their own arrogance. Engaging the "professional left" would be easy to do if they cared about it at all, and had a strategy to do it. In the Clinton White House, that presidency of NAFTA, failed health care, the 1994 election fiasco, and "triangulation", the progressive community- the professional left as well as progressive voters- progressives never deserted Clinton. Through his two elections, special prosecutors, the Lewinsky mess and impeachment, the Democratic base stayed loyal to and enthusiastic about Bill Clinton (even when he didn't always deserve it). Why? Because Bill Clinton cared about having a good relationship with progressives, and because we had a strategy for working effectively with them. President Clinton frequently asked me about who was happy with us and who was disgruntled in the progressive world, and we made sure to bring in everyone in the latter category for meetings and social events at the White House. At the height of the NAFTA fight, we organized a dinner for labor leaders where the President hung out with them for a long, social evening, telling them in his remarks "I know we are in a fight right now, but I want you to know that my White House will always be your house too, that we always will be friends." We made sure progressives always had chances to have serious input into policy development. Whenever we had bad news to deliver to progressive groups on any issue big or small, we reached out to them before the announcement, talked about how to make the damage hurt less, and talked about what we could do to help them on other issues. And whenever there was good news, we made sure the folks who cared about it were part of the celebration.

Here's the other thing: other Democratic politicians in 2010 get the need to work effectively with progressives. I have had my share of disagreements with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, but they and their staff have never failed to work constructively and conscientiously with me and other progressives I know. This is politics 101 as far as I am concerned, but to my knowledge, this White House isn't engaging in much of it. I am on the board of many different progressives groups, and know a wide assortment of folks in the blogosphere, in organizations, in the progressive donor world, on Capitol Hill, and I rarely hear about any kind of high-level outreach of this sort going on. One other important point on all this: what worries me the most is that I am as insider-y as a person can get. I have known Rahm for 30 years, Axelrod and Plouffe for over 20. I have been a client of Jim Margolis, Anita Dunn, and Axelrod's firms. I was a co-founder of Strategy Group, the Chicago based firm that was one of the closest inner circle firms in the Obama Presidential campaign. I have worked in the White House, and I even worked on the Obama transition. I am one of the professional left (not at all the only one, by the way) who, in spite of my disappointments with some of the compromises made, ended up supporting, enthusiastically working for, and praising Obama on all those initiatives mentioned above. Now I know that some folks in the White House are mad at me and have shut me out because I have been critical at times of this White House, but I still have to think: if the relationship with the "professional left" is as shaky as it is, and someone like me is not being reached out to much or asked to help, what about all those bloggers and progressive media people and organizations who don't have much in the way of inside connections? It worries the hell out of me, and it ought to be worrying the White House.

Gibbs' statement has caused a flurry of damage control, just as all the other statements in paragraph one did. But it's not enough: this White House has to do a better job of working constructively, every single day, with progressives. The White House should be in genuine partnership with the progressive community. That doesn't mean agreeing on every issue, and it doesn't mean avoiding some frank conversations behind the scenes where voices get raised back and forth. But progressives, including the "professional left" would be a lot more loyal and enthusiastic, a lot more willing to give credit where credit is due, if they felt like the White House cared what they thought.

Our job as progressives is to never be satisfied, to always be impatient with the pace of change. Frederick Douglass, Alice Paul, Walter Reuther, Martin Luther King, Jr.- none of them were ever satisfied with the progress being made, and the Presidents they worked with were constantly aggravated at the pressure they received. But big changes got done when Presidents understood the importance of working effectively with them and the movements they represented. It is time for Obama (and his staff) to understand this and make the effort. Even when we are being irritating, even when you think we are being unfair, the White House needs to reach out their hand to progressives and work with us instead of venting about us to the media. FDR understood that and got re-elected by landslides with enthusiastic base support in the toughest of times. LBJ understood that in 1964, got re-elected in a landslide with progressives happily behind him, but then forgot it and let Vietnam break his party in the '68 election. Bill Clinton understood that, avoided a primary in tough political circumstances, and won re-election easily with a pumped up progressive community strongly behind him. I hope President Obama comes to understand that it is your base, including the professional left, that can sustain you in tough economic and political times, but that you need to reach out to them rather than complain about them.

President Obama is suffering the aftermath of Clinton's style of governing: claiming to love progressives while triangulating. Clinton created deep distrust, and almost everyone linked to his administration is written off as DLC.

[impik]

1. So all the professional left wants is to feel loved

And if they don't, then who cares that Obama actually moved the progressive ball forward more than almost any president in 100 years.

[still_one]

4. "moved the progressive ball forward more than any president in a 100 years"????

Not even close

From FDR to Lyndon Johnson, and every Democrat in between those, moved the progressive agenda more than this administration has done in their little finger.

This administration is equivalent to Bill Clinton at best

Better than the repuke counterparts, but not particularly progressive except on a few social issues.

[ProSense]

6. "This administration is equivalent to Bill Clinton at best" Two significant points

for the Obama administration:

Health care reform (a 100-year goal)

Pro-regulation (which is across the board, not just health and financial reforms).

[MH1]

8. point 3, without even thinking about it: Clinton signed DOMA

ETA: and I hadn't read the post below this yet (which mentions DOMA in the body of the post). GMTA I guess :)

[still_one]

9. In my view in was HealthCare Insurance reform. It may eventually become HCR

but not now. Not insignificant, but not particularly progressive. It may end up that way, but currently it isn't. As for the financial reforms, in fairness, there are some significant elements, but only because both Democrats and republicans undid all the regulation put in by FDR during the depression, and that regulation remained until the Carter administration started by deregulating the airline industry, followed by reagan's deregulation of the financial industry, with the stamp of approval by Bill Clinton.

The Obama administration has made a move in the right direction, but did not implement most of the suggestions by Volcker. However, I will definitely take notice if work to push Elizabeth Warren through, and will modify my views in a much more positive way

[alcibiades_mystery]

5. I just learned the other day that

Clinton's signing of (rather than veto of) DOMA was actually the best we could hope for at the time, since we would have gotten a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage otherwise. Clinton was apparently actually GOOD for signing DOMA, I was told (while Obama is a total homophobe for not already having put forward its repeal).

No doubt Clinton's signing of NAFTA and overt push for the dismantling of social safety nets were also great progressive legislation! :wow:
Obama's failure to repeal all trade agreements and his failure to establish a new Works Progress Administration, on the other hand, show us that he is an evil corporatist bastard!

It's really a sight to behold these days.

[Whisp]

7. yes, quite a sight. ;)

even the definition of progress is changing before our eyes. It now means a huge leap frog to your destination all in one painless hop, instead of incremental changes and improvements toward a goal.

it's been a year and a half, after all!

AREN'T WE THERE YET???!!!!! :)

[still_one]

12. All true, but after 6 months into office, it should have become quite clear to the

administration that they could NOT work with the repukes, and yet they seem to continue to try to encourage favor among the repugs at the expense of the progressives

[Whisp]

22. I am not understanding something here

You mean Obama didn't have to try to get any co-operation from the Repugs and had all the power and votes he needed? That he could have pushed through any progressive agenda without their help at all? He had to fight with the Democrats as well on many issues, at least that is how I remember things.

Not saying that you want to do this yourself, but there has been so much lieing and misinformation here.

[frylock]

36. how many republicans voted in favor of health insurance reform again?

i forget.

[still_one]

41. The point is he should have been spending more time influencing the Democrats instead of the repugs

[still_one]

11. For social issues the Democrats are always better than the repukes. In my view the Obama is a mixed

bag on the social agenda, definitely better than any of the opposition

[damntexdem]

15. Well, maybe a little respect, too. And especially some liberal initiatives.

I don't know about the administration yanking my balls forward, but I will admit that some good legislation has emerged -- though nothing at all like the New Deal or the Great Society. So I'd say that the Administration has moved the progressive ball forward more than ANY president in the past 10 years.

See, I don't say that he's just like Dubya. In fact, I have argued against that meme. My take is that whereas Dubya was a total disaster, Obama has been a good president -- but at a time when we needed an excellent one.

[still_one]

2. It will be interesting to see if the "professional left" turns out in the upcoming election

The message of losing the Kennedy seat because they took it for granted would be very sad if they take the progressives for granted, or worse, treat them as the enemy

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. LOL

"Because Bill Clinton cared about having a good relationship with progressives, and because we had a strategy for working effectively with them."

By "working effectively with them," he means snowing them completely, no?

[BootinUp]

45. He seems to have the creds

to know what he is talking about. Its just another clue to the folks that have never worked in DC but think they what they are talking about.

[wyldwolf]

10. I'm enjoying the back and forth on this issue but one thing really bugs me

Why are the "professional left," or liberal activists constantly referred to as the base? They're part of the base, but certainly not its entirety nor its majority.

As Will Pitt wrote back in 2004:

I hear a lot of stuff… about anti-war left-wing types being the base, and (the Democrats) better not piss us off, or (the Democrats) better court us, or Kerry has already pissed us off, so screw you guys, I’m going home.

I hate to break it to you, but anti-war left-wing types are not the base of the Democratic party.

Union members are the base of the party, particularly in the northeast and Pacific northwest. Women are the base of the party, particularly in the northeast, far west, and portions of the midwest. African Americans are the base of the party all across the country.

Anti-war left-wing types are the single most unreliable voter group in America. Unless you are simon-pure, you are unworthy of support from that group. As no politician in 21st Century America (with a snowball’s chance of winning a national election) is simon-pure, they are not likely to bust their asses to get anti-war left-wing support.

Anti-war left-wing support, by the way, is buried by the aforementioned real base. Yes, anti-war left-wing support can swing an election, but because of the aforementioned unreliability problem - anti-war left-wing voters will bolt at the first sign of impurity, even in a tight race (See: 2000) - it is too often a hopeless exercise to try and court that group with any real vigor. The real base outnumbers anti-war left-wing types 10-1. That’s where the focus goes.

So all you anti-war left-wing folks should probably stop referring to yourselves as the base of the Democratic party. Don’t feel bad; I’m a anti-war left-wing type, too, and so I’m out of the fun as well. We were close to being the base, but blew up in 1968 because we couldn’t stand it anymore. The party looked at us and said, “OOOOkay…let’s look elsewhere.”

the base of the party are working class men and women of differing races and levels of “liberalness.” Many are regular church goers and many shop at Wal-mart.

Rank and file Democrats are not one issue voters. Our base - our most reliable voting block - are only aware of the “progressive” crutch of “corporate malfeasance” from news reports about Enron.

Who is the “base?” Democrats get most of the homosexual vote. Democrats get most of the African-American vote. Yet a big portion of African Americans DISAGREE with gay marriage (Pew research survey found a few years back found 60% opposing it.) African Americans also more likely to oppose abortion according to an ABC news poll.

Who is the base? Blue collar union workers - often very religious, often anti-abortion. Women, most concerned with health care, education, their children, jobs and the economy.

See, the base is a hodgepodge of beliefs that conflict with the “progressive” mindset displayed so often in the blogosphere. Parts of the base are religious. Parts are anti-abortion and pro-gun rights. Parts are anti-gay marriage. Yet the base consists in part of women and gays.

If the base was “anti-corporate progressives,” as often floated in the netroots, corporations would not be flourishing as they are in blue states. With the country pretty evenly split, I don’t believe only Republicans are doing business with corporations.

To state it bluntly - if anyone within the Democratic party IS NOT the base, it is the “progressive” types. They voted third party against Harry Truman in 1948, opposed John Kennedy’s nomination in 1960, sat out the 1968 presidential election, led the party to ruin in 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, and aided in putting George W. Bush in office in 2000. In effect, “progressives” look at politics the way they do Indie music. In their mind, they have superior music tastes and everyone else is a sell-out.

But politics is not pop music.

President Obama is suffering the aftermath of Clinton's style of governing: claiming to love progressives while triangulating. Clinton created deep distrust, and almost everyone linked to his administration is written off as DLC.

Only to the afore-mentioned unreliable voting block.

[Phx_Dem]

14. Agree. The Democratic party is big and diverse,

and progressives are not Obama's or the party's "base." They are one group of many within the party.

[still_one]

17. and it is a foolish thing to publicly dis any part of your base /nt

[Phx_Dem]

23. Then why do you continually and pubicly diss the President?

It's okay for you to whine and bitch nonstop, but no one is allowed to call you on it.

Don't think so.

[still_one]

34. I'm not the president speaking to the fricking media about the "looney left"

I am on a progressive forum. If the Obama administration wants to bash the left or some progressives through the MSM, lets see how that will help with the donations of money or time, or even turnout at the polls

"I bitch and whine nonstop"?

bull

If you look at my posts, my views have been varied since Obama took office. For the first year I was 110% behind his administration, in full support to give him a chance. I donated a good chunk of change to his campaign and managed the phone banks, based on his promises

I have every right to "bitch"

I look at what the wonderful "compromise" he has tried to do with the repukes, and I can tell you I am quite disappointed in his administration.

[frylock]

37. because i'm not counting on obama to cast a vote for me this fall?

[still_one]

16. You are right, they are only one part, but no part of that base should be dissed

As for the argument that the "left" put bush in to office in 2000, that is rubbish. Gore ran a terrible campaign, and his choice of lieberman, was better than palin, but not by that much

As far as the assessment that the left "ruined" the party in 1968 etc, that is also rubbish. I would like to remind you that part of the 60,000 Americans, and over 1 million people that were killed in the Viet Nam war were not due to the "progressive" types, who ruined the party? It was the acceleration of that damned war that ruined the party.

That progressives opposed the Kennedy nomination is also without merit. The ones who opposed the Kennedy nomination were those who were anti-Catholic, and far from what I would consider progressive. Also, within those years that the progressives supposedly ruined the party, I would like to point out that george wallace was a democrat who helped split the party, and was NOT a progressive, or supported by progressives

Excellent re-writing of history though

[wyldwolf]

19. Show me, with sources, where I've "re-written" history.

As for the argument that the "left" put bush in to office in 2000, that is rubbish. Gore ran a terrible campaign, and his choice of lieberman

Regardless. No Nader, Gore wins Florida. That is fact.

As far as the assessment that the left "ruined" the party in 1968 etc,

I'll stop you there. I said they brought the party to ruin. Anyone reading knows we're discussing electoral politics. Hello Richard Nixon.

That progressives opposed the Kennedy nomination is also without merit.

It is an absolute fact. Eleanor Roosevelt and the ADA opposed his nomination, as did liberal backers of Adlai Stevenson who opposed the nomination from the 1960 convention floor.

I really don't expect everyone to know Democratic party history, but to deny it for no other reason than you don't like it is funny.

[still_one]

35. Fine, nader or the left, had nothing to do with the terrible campaign Gore ran

Gore lost his of state says everything. However, assuming your argument of Florida is correct, I will argue that Gore actually won Florida, but because of either his advisors or ineptness, instead of demanding a recount of the ENTIRE state of Florida, in his attorney's wisdom they only decided to pick key areas where to do the reount. All they needed to do was have a recount of the entire state, and things would have been different

Yes, you are correct about 1960, I was not thinking about the Convention, where they did oppose the nomination, I was thinking of the populous in general, not those in the convention, but even those at the Convention, there is no way they would have voted for nixon. A lot of the concern within the Democratic party at the convention was because of Joe Kennedy, and John Kennedy or his brothers were not from the same mold as their father

Richard Nixon won because of the "Southern Strategy" after Johnson steped down, not the progressive movement. The progressive movement, rightly so, saw the falacy of the war, Johnson refused to run a third term, and Humphrey essentially had no change in policy on the war then what Johnson was doing. It wasn't the progressives who lost that election

In 1972 the reason Nixon won is because Bobby Kennedy was assasinated, and McGovern, even though he was right about Viet Nam, was not strong enough. There is no doubt in my mind that Kennedy would have beaten Nixon, but we were never given the chance.

I disagree, respectfully, in your characterization of progressives being the ruin of the Democratic party during the late sixties and seventies

If anything it can be argued that it was because of the porgressives that we finally got out of Viet Nam, got Medicare, and Civil Rights legislation during that period

[wyldwolf]

47. no, but polling shows most Nader voters would have gone for Gore in Florida

Yes, you are correct about 1960

so I did not "rewrite" history. Glad you decided to research it for yourself.

but even those at the Convention, there is no way they would have voted for nixon. A lot of the concern within the Democratic party at the convention was because of Joe Kennedy

Even if that was the root cause of liberal opposition (which it wasn't) it would still be liberal opposition. It was Eleanor Roosevelt's reason (Kennedy being Catholic also concerned her), but he was opposed by Americans For Democratic Action and other liberal leaders because of his earlier support for Joe McCarthy and his unwillingness to support liberal congressional candidates. The left also had serious issues with his selection of LBJ. Seriously, this stuff is in half a dozen bios of Kennedy and Eleanor Roosevelt.

Richard Nixon won because of the "Southern Strategy" after Johnson steped down, not the progressive movement.

Nixon's team only formulated what would be called the 'southern strategy' during the '68 election. It was utilized fully for the '72 election. In 1968, "progressives" were angry at Humphrey for not breaking sooner with LBJ over the Viet Nam war. Humphrey nearly won the popular vote that year and the states that would have made him president he lost by inches. But progressives were angry at the war and angry that Humphrey beat Eugene McCarthy for the nomination. So we got Nixon.

In 1972 the reason Nixon won is because Bobby Kennedy was assasinated

Bobby Kennedy was assasinated in route to the '68 nomination, not the '72 election.

[still_one]

48. Appreciate the corrections, however, Bobby would have won the nomination in '68

I don't think we will change each others minds on Florida. I will only say that their were so many election irregularities from screwed up ballots, to lost and closed polling places, that had nothing to do with progressives.

The anti-Catholic sentiment was very strong in the country at the time when John Kennedy ran, this I remember. What was nice or maybe not so nice to some during that period, is that going into the Convention there was always a doubt who would get the nomination. Today, there is almost no doubt with Super Delegates etc, however, 2008 did have some touch and go moments who might be the nominee

"progressives" were angry at Humphrey because of the war. There was essentially no difference between what Humphrey and nixon said about the war. "Peace with honor", was not just from nixon, Humphrey said the same thing. Again, I do not blame the progressives for the loss in that election.

The real problems, though we didn't know it at the time was when Carter became President. He should have never deregulated the airline industry. The republicans had been pushing for deregulation forever. Of course it was reagan who was the real father of deregulation, and brought us to where we are today.

Interesting discussion

[wyldwolf]

49. we like to think so.

[frylock]

39. those nader votes were never gore's to begin with..

now, you could make the argument that the 200,000+ registered dems in florida that voted for bush cost gore the election, but that would seriously fuck with the narrative, no?

[still_one]

42. So perhaps one should not take votes for granted, uh, like Massachusetts and Kennedy's

seat.

If every vote counts by that logic, it sounds like it would be a good idea if you wanted the left or progressives votes you wouldn't insult them.

[frylock]

43. yep..

but what do i know?

[Bluenorthwest]

32. So I am a Union member in the Northwest. Gay and Progressive

I have voted for Democrats in every single election since the day I came of voting age, local, state and national.
So how do you work that out? This whole label game is nonsense that only serves the folks who claim to be able to define these groups.
The base is made up of those who consistently vote Democratic, never miss an election. That is the base. The only common defining characteristic of the base is that they show the fuck up and vote. And that is a trait that is personal, not assignable to any group or type. If you always vote Democratic, you are the base. What else you may be or what views you may hold matter not. The base=those who vote.

[wyldwolf]

33. How do I work that out? Odd question.

um... you're a Democrat. How's that?

[still_one]

38. The reason people vote for Democrats is because they generally agree with the Democratic

platform I would think, compared to the oppositions platform

[Phx_Dem]

13. And when did Clinton ever tell the left to hold him accountable?

He didn't, but Obama has. And, for the record, "hold me accountable" doesn't mean bitch about every single thing every single day.

Not yet repealing DADT is a legitimate gripe. Unfortunately, it gets lost in the noise because the far left is so busy bitching about anything and everything they can think of.

If they would pick their battles, people might actually listen to them.

[ieoeja]

28. Why is "not yet repealing DADT" a legitimate gripe?

Identical language repealing DADT was added to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 in both the House and Senate on May 27th. The amended bill was approved by the full House the following day.

While the full Senate has not yet voted on it, they will before too long. Or the Pentagon will have to close its doors on October 1st!

[frylock]

40. so what does "hold me accountable" mean?

since you're the one defining things around here.

[flpoljunkie]

18. Thanks, ProSense. Worth reading in its entirety.

[BootinUp]

20. How come you so brazenly contradict the author

your assessment has nothing to do with the points in the article. Stop using Clinton as your damn punching bag.

[ProSense]

21. If I contradicted the author, it was

completely intentional. Clinton did create deep distrust among progressives. Do you deny that almost everyone linked to the Clinton administration now currently in the Obama adminstration has been labeled DLC by the Obama administration's most vehemment critics?

[BootinUp]

27. I am not going to get into a long discussion

about this. I simply point out you conveniently ignored the article for suspicious reasons in my opinion.

[ProSense]

29. I ignored the article by posting it?

Just because you don't agree with my opinion means it's suspicious?

You seem to have avoided the question: Do you deny that almost everyone linked to the Clinton administration now currently in the Obama adminstration has been labeled DLC by the Obama administration's most vehemment critics?

[Milo_Bloom]

24. Wow, this one is just kinda sad.

The conclusion he/she comes to at the end, "President Obama is suffering the aftermath of Clinton's style of governing: claiming to love progressives while triangulating. Clinton created deep distrust, and almost everyone linked to his administration is written off as DLC." COMPLETELY ignores the fact that these progressives actually tried to give Obama a real chance. Many of them/us donated to the campaign, worked phone banks and otherwise did what needed to be done to get him in office and give him a SOLID majority with which to work.

The PROBLEM is not because Clinton created deep distrust, the PROBLEM is ACTION taken from day one proving that this administration ACTUALLY DIDN'T CARE about progressives, but instead used them to get in office and then left them behind, choosing to stock his administration with the very people who created many of the problems in the first place ... while ignoring the PROGRESSIVES he levereged and relied on so heavily during the CAMPAIGN.

The PROBLEM is this administration's willingness to bend over backward to please the republicans... starting nearly every negotiation from a point of weakness, by instantly giving away the farm.

This is why none of the legislation passed so far is going to have any solid impact... it's all WEAK and filled with loopholes. This is why the climate bill was abandonded... the political capital was spent getting us a shitty health insurance bill, a shitty credit card reform act and an even shittier wall street "reform".

The enthusiasm has left the building because of actions this administration has taken to systematically tell its most important supporters that it doesn't care what it thinks, not because of some leftover resentment from Clinton.

[ProSense]

25. "COMPLETELY ignores the fact that these progressives actually tried to give Obama a real chance."

"The PROBLEM is not because Clinton created deep distrust"

The Obama administration staffed up in late 2008, early 2009, it has been a DLC namecalling fest since then.

[Milo_Bloom]

26. Who did they staff up with????

[ProSense]

30. You tell me. n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

44. Don't you know?

You're the one making up the accusations.

[ibegurpard]

31. so how is Obama's style of governing different than Clinton's?

who I held my nose to vote for the second time and whose wife I never would've voted for?

[backwoodsbob]

46. what is this proffesional left shit?

they throw out a coined term and suddenly all the suckups are running with it

[BeyondGeography]

50. Vanity

They want to feel the love, and Obama's not playing along. Probably too busy running the country and keeping his life as straightforward as possible, or something like that.