I've seen a lot of Obama bashing on this thread. Some may say it's "holding his feet to the fire" however, the fact that so many of them have been locked would say otherwise.
Someone asked me on another thread when I was critical of
Ed Schultz rage fest against the Prez...and I made mention that He, the left and some of DU have basically displaced anger against the President. Then someone asked...well if
I'm not of the left...What am I? Another poster suggested that it's obvious.
I'm not of the left.At this moment in time I guess I can say that no, I'm not of the left. I always found the title limiting and I always found myself leaning to the more extreme left than probably some other people. While in some cases I've found myself to be very conservative.
I have yet to see a response, but I felt it would be pragmatic to provide some understanding into my thinking and I found an article that defines who I am. I stated very clearly to the poster that....No, I am not of the left. However, I am 100% Progressive. Upon looking for a good article to really express my view point on politics, and to do it eloquently. I, to my shock, found it.
Before I go into the article, since I read it several times. The article was found on a great website, that I don't remember seeing posted on DU but I think should be posted a few times. The online mag is
WIRETAP, sadly lost it's funding a year ago.
Article:
What is Progressive?By
Andrew Garib, July 25, 2005:
It's not liberalism
The first key to understanding progressivism is that it's not the same as liberalism, as many might assume. "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics," Halpin said in an interview with Campus Progress. "It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept ... that accepts the world as dynamic." Progressivism is not an ideology at all, but an attitude towards the world of politics that is far less black-and-white than conservatism or liberalism, breaking free from the false and divisive dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative that has dominated American politics for too long.
Said simply (perhaps oversimplifying), American liberalism is an ideology grounded in traditionally liberal American values: individual freedom, democratic government, freedom of thought and belief, and equal opportunity. Government intervention is generally seen as the solution to society's problem.
Progressivism, on the other hand, is far more flexible than any one ideology. Traditionally, conservatives see the world, especially human nature, as predictable and static. Liberals are often burdened with endless optimism - a belief that all problems can be solved through implementing utopian visions (especially through government intervention).
Progressives aren't simply liberals; progressives see the world for what it is, accept it as ever-changing and dynamic, and choose the best course of action in line with decidedly American values.
In any event, this article I found was a jewel. Many people have accused Obama of not being a progressive, but it would seem, if the definition provided in this article is the general definition. President Obama is more of a Progressive than even some on DU. It clearly separates
Conservatism from
Liberalism and states the understanding of political change. It's really sad when I come to this site and I see threads claiming Obama didn't fight for this and that---while I spent countless hours listening speeches, debates, Q&A's from him to the American people and pundits and newscasters at rallies and tv shows and radio. It was like every issue he pushed was also fought deeply by him and yet---he's seen as not a leader and not a fighter.
I think much like the definition of
Progress that's so desperately needed on this site at times to give people a reality check. I need to find out what the definition of
FIGHTER is....I ask this wondering...what actions describe a fighter? Or words that Obama could have used that would have made him seem a "fighter" to so many. I remember when Grayson had that horrible advert, many here saw him as a fighter---while I found him a great fighter when he was grilling the clowns at the FED. It wasn't that petty advertisement that was him as a fighter, actually it made him appear weak to me. But when he fought for change. I found that Obama did fight for change. He fought really hard and got a lot of what he wanted... As a Progressive he was 100% on the ball. However, as a "fighter", a "liberal", even a "President," to some, he's a failure.
I felt that the person for change I wanted. I got from my President. As a progressive, I think he's even more so progressive than myself or most people I've spoken too. As a progressive in relation to his political climate---ie particularly the Congress before the elections and the Congress after---they were never progressive. If people don't think Obama is a Progressive----I wonder what they would say to some of the sweeping changes he did with executive order to make some lives better. The changes he pushed and some of the successes of them.
Now imagine if he was given a Congress who was PROGRESSIVE. Do you all really believe that he we wouldn't have the LIBERAL changes so many asked for?
1. If you had 220 House Reps and 61-65 Senators (Progressives made up of Liberals or Conservatives) who supported single payer (or a really functional and progressive form of health care)---do you people really believe we wouldn't have it?!
2. If we had 220 House Reps and 61-65 Senators (Progressives made up of Liberals or Conservatives) who wanted to repeal DADT/DOMA and legalize gay marriage; do you sincerely believe Obama would veto it? I mean seriously, especially if he's for repealing DADT and DOMA.
3. If we had 220 House Reps and 61-65 Senators (Progressives made up of Liberals or Conservatives)who cared more about the American people than their own pockets; we wouldn't have serious laws enforced?
4. If we had 220 House Reps and 61-65 Senators (Progressives made up of Liberals or Conservatives) who wanted viable immigration reform and improvement? We wouldn't have it?
5. If we had 220 House Reps and 61-65 Senators (Progressives made up of Liberals or Conservatives)who cared about anything Progressive that would lead to the improvement of the nation as a whole for the future of the children and not their bank accounts like off shore drilling or climate change? Do you not think we would have it?
The reason I ask these questions is because, believe it or not...but the majority, maybe about 95% if not more of what Obama has pushed has been for progress and progressive. Why do I say that? Because majority of people don't complain about it being progressive, but that these things don't go far enough---they are not liberal leaning enough. But as for changing the way things work, and in most cases for the better (for some not as great), he has done that and I find that to be the case even on DU.
We gave our President shit back up. Seriously. From day 1, as far as it goes for Congress. The American people felt Obama could do it all, with a stroke of a pen. He could stall DADT, and then we come to find out some law was passed which makes stopping DADT with an executive order is a problem additionally we thought the Repubs would care about the people. More and more they don't. But more and more it would seem the American people who voted them in don't care about the American people either. I think we have to see that the problem isn't 100% Obama but the problem lies in a lack of PROGRESSIVES in the American people, which is reflected by our Reps and Senators.
The Dem reps were never 100% Progressive. One minute they support one thing, when it's up for vote again they vote against it 2 years later. We have Senators and Dems who stated very clearly that they would fuck health care in the ass if there was a public option AND Reconciliation was done. That's not Presidential back up people.
We want our President to push his Progressive and some of our Progressive be it Liberal or Conservative (hopefully good conservative) ideals---we give him the back up. Without that, you have stagnation or you make a compromise to get some change due to the shitty political environment he was dealt. People range blame from Obama to Rahm. The real blame has always lied in Obama's back up in Congress. They have always been our problem. Them and the damned Right wing Military (because really, there's not many progressives in the army).
Anyway I just thought I would but this out there. So what I find to be the problem was never Obama, not really. He's someone I do think the American people can trust. I find the problem is we vote in crap back up. These are the people who turned their backs on him over Guantanimo, these are the people who threatened No votes if they didn't what they wanted or if they found something too liberal. Another thing is...we just don't have Progressives running for office. What a world of difference the our nation would be if ALL OF DU decided to run for political office in their district or town? So many of us claim the title and not many of us are running. I'm one of them. Maybe if 1 or 2 or even 20 of us ran in our town or our district or state for political office we could be the Back-Up the President obviously needs.
Instead of voting for that Crist guy, we had one of our own with the voice and the push on the national stage to really convince someone in Florida that progress is good and that changing health care was good, that the economy is slow but it will change, that we will fight for Progress and we'll explain to you why we voted for what we did and the benefits of it. The fringe right managed to get political seats cause they were angry enough and look at the future we have to look forward too. Imagine if the fringe left or the liberals or Progressives were angry enough what we could do. While the Repubs threaten impeachment the Progressives push new aid and support for struggling families. While the Repubs push retroactive revolting immigration ideas and minimization of the right of women, the Progressives push abortion funding in cases of rape, incest or the life or the mother and protection rights for abortion doctors and the LGBT community having full rights.
Dudes, the President didn't let us down. Our Reps let us down and fellow, uneducated, or angry, or frustrated, or racist, or just whatever Americans let us down. As Obama said, this is bigger than him, it's about us and unfortunately US (the American people, the left and progressives) didn't go far enough. It's one thing to put a man who pushed Hope in Change in power, we had to make sure he had the arsenals in overload to do it, and that's through Congress. Remember guys, the popular vote doesn't get you the President----so if progress doesn't happen with the popular vote either. We need to put the people in power who can get it done and get the racists out. When I see people like
Rubio, the Pauls,
Bachmann,
Demint,
Cantor,
Foxx...and so on in power and the crazies with more seat---I really see that our failure lies in us and really educating people. The Black man is not out to get them....we're not out to get them. We want to make a difference and I think that voice was lost. Obama tried, but he couldn't do it alone and in many cases our fellow Dems turned their back on him like so many others did. Like many of us have. His voice gets smaller and nothing happens.
People spent more time complaining about hurt feelings to even see that Feingold was suffering until much too late. I think Rachel Maddow was the ONLY newscaster and someone on a Progressive who dumped hurt feelings to really focus on those local elections. And then all the help came to late. Obama was rallying and people were arguing about the WH said this or that. Dude, it doesn't matter what the WH said...because it's what we do about things to promote change.
As a progressive, I definitely feel that I've been too lax in my duty. Maybe I'm spending too much time typing than acting. That phone calling is not enough, but maybe proper organizing and providing information. Maybe I have to physically knock on houses and talk to people. That the calls aren't enough, but I need to rent space on
MNN and get articles published at local news papers to get the word out there. Shit...maybe I should fuckin' run for office.
At this point, as a progressive, I think my ultimate duty would be to run for some local political office and get the change I want and be the back up my President deserves. Shit, if he had me during the health care debacle in the Senate and House, or maybe 20-30 of us in the Senate---we'd be chillin' with either the public option, single payer or some form of it. Sadly I had no vote on that. The legislative body is limping and dieing and I think instead of talking any more...we need to take action like the teapartiers and be come as organized.
I read a post that stated...every year we wait for democratic leadership. Leadership isn't from the President people. That leadership is supposed to come from us. We should ingest ourselves into it. Like the fringe right said that they don't subscribe to Republican ideals, but if they have too---that's who they would go for. Yet, on our side, we bitch and moan seriously. We should have said---the Dems aren't as strong as we want them to be...so we'll make them strong.
I've seen lists of DINO's...were are our fellow DUers who live in those states who could rise up to take those seats from DINO's. Shit...I'll give you funding and I'm sure Rachel Maddow and KO would push anyone on here who are pushing for progressive ideals. We have the outlets, let use some of them. IF they can be loud, we can be louder. If Al Franken can be a progressive Senator---so can we.
I think I'll be taking a break from DU after this...I need to see how I can get myself organized for 2012----because I intend to get all Progressives in office (no DINOS, no crazy Repubs, no asshole independents).
Later.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
