Get ready for a rant. I managed to engage in far less blogging than I’d hoped to over the course of my four days in Charlotte. Here’s what I was left with:
The convention had its moments, for sure: What I heard of Elizabeth Warren was very good, certainly by the standards of what you can get away with on national TV. Her losing to Scott Brown would be a blow as big as Russ Feingold’s loss last cycle. If genuine, incorruptible, economic populists can’t win in moderate and left-leaning districts then my continued hope for the future of our country seems particularly naive. Feingold lost to one of the very worst hacks the Tea Party put up last cycle — one who incessantly and successfully framed Feingold as a lock-step party shill, even though he had voted against financial reform from the left (because it didn’t address too-big-to-fail), was the only vote against the Patriot Act, and even cast the sole Democratic vote to try Bill Clinton during the impeachment process in 2000. (Though voted not to convict him.)
Scott Brown’s only legislative achievement is to have gotten a bill through the Massachusetts General Court outlawing public funding of sex-change operations for prisoners. FOR REAL. We shouldn’t be losing to these jokers.
Anyway, Warren is great. But it was tragic that somebody so knowledgeable about, and dedicated to the cause of, banking reform had to bite her lip and introduce Bill Clinton, whose administration was responsible for much of the deregulation of Wall Street which precipitated the Crash and whose cast of economic “experts” spent eight years twirling though the revolving doors of Manhattan’s tallest towers only to be dredged up by Obama — helping compel him to hedge, again and again, on behalf of high finance.
Clinton’s speech was, of course, gripping and brilliant, but hinged on one’s willingness to suspend disbelief and forgive the corporate shill who brought us financial deregulation, NAFTA, and all that. (At least he had the sense to veto the Joe Biden-backed bankruptcy reform bill in 2000. Bush later signed it.)
As mediocre as he’s been, Obama is right to claim superiority to Mitt Romney when it comes to domestic economic policy. Even if he’s made no move to break up the banks or hold Wall Street accountable for its crimes, Romney would manage to be even worse in these regards. Obamacare will probably be better than the status quo, even if he could’ve fought harder for a public option. There’s a real risk that Obama will implement regressive reform of Medicare or Social Security — but Romney would (try to) obliterate them. It’s good to see Obama take a more aggressive tack against Citizens United (now that he’s realized that he’s going to lose the mad dash for dollars that it’s precipitated).
In the civil liberties realm in which I now work, it’s actually difficult to imagine that Romney could be far worse than Obama: This brilliant video by Gawker was recently circulated – it has the videographer asking prominent Dems if they think that Romney’s ready to be put in charge the kill list Obama instituted. He supports the Patriot Act. He supports warrantless wiretapping. And I’m flabbergasted by his crack-down on medical marijuana — that cause is just so popular with Americans that I can’t even conceive of a cynical political calculus that could’ve driven him to take such a heavy-handed stand against it.
He’s kept us in Afghanistan, took us to war in Libya without approval from Congress, and as the Onion headline asked, could the use of flying death robots be hurting America’s reputation worldwide?
Obama’s made two recent attempts to jazz up the progressive base he once called his own: announcing his support for gay marriage and pushing through a modified version of the Dream Act. Both are genuinely wonderful developments, but we should note that neither runs contrary to the interests of finance: The Chamber of Commerce has consistently supported immigration reform — and fewer people will be helped by the Dream Act than have already been deported by Obama — who has deported immigrants at a rate about 50% faster than George W Bush.
But the most defensible reason to support Obama (at least in the swing states) is the chance that he’ll get to appoint another Sotomayor (and not a Kagan) to the Court during his continued tenure in office. Those appointees who’ve made it past an intransigent Republican Senate caucus have actually been pretty good — some of his appointees have even been willing to buck the administration when it’s the right thing to do: Katherine Forrest, whom Obama appointed just last year, has so far defied his DOJ’s attempts to defend the indefinite detention law that he signed this past New Year’s. (Demand Progress, the org I run, is helping fund the lawsuit against indefinite detention.)
This is all to say that while there are reasons to support Obama and hope that he beats Romney, it’s also imperative to remember that the national Democratic establishment leaves much to be desired. Activists must remain in constant vigilance, and push back hard against party insiders who, in large part, came to power because of their allegiance to moneyed interests. And the lack of such a nuanced understanding of the attributes and failings of our party was stark in Charlotte. I participated in a wonderful event put on by Progressive Democrats of America, which attracted several hundred attendees over the course of the first day of the convention, but that was just about it.
Absent was any broader sense of the need to — let alone a strategy by which to — push back against a Democratic establishment whose inertia has it shifting ever-further to the right (with rare exceptions like gay marriage) — a phenomenon which serves neither the interests of the party nor those of our country. (And just makes me so darned sad.)
As RI is a safe state for Obama, I’m wirting in a third party candidate (or maybe I’ll just write in Bernie Sanders). David has hit it full on – Obama is better than Romney, but he isn’t good. We have to stop settling for “better than the other” guy. We may lose a bit in the short term, but if we want a society of equality, economic justice and actual (not fake) freedom, then we need to explore options outside the Democratic Party.
(And this essay doesn’t even mention Obamas pathetic environmental record, or the Federal Reserves stealth trillion dollar bank bailout, or the new set of secret spy bases across Africa, or…)
“But the actual reason to support Obama (at least in the swing states) is the chance that he’ll get to appoint another Sotomayor (and not a Kagan) to the Court during his continued tenure in office.”
I’d add that Obama is slightly more likely to take action on climate change than the Republicans, who are intent on pandering to the crazed fringe no matter what the long-term cost. Other than that, I’m hard pressed to find a reason that could counter the noxious policies of war and assassination abroad and police state type surveilance at home.
Where to start.
Bill Clinton and Obama, “New” Democrats who acknowledge that corporations rule America and that not much can be done to change that reality, thus believe that the only way to get any concessions for the poor and middle class from our corporate rulers to work with those rulers and win their consent. hence Clinton advised Obama to work with the health insurers or any attempt at a health care bill would be doomed. Clinton learned this “lesson” in Arkansas. He opposed the corporations and lost. Then he worked with the corporations and was reelected. The “people” voted out out the Clinton who stood up to the corporations. The “people” voted back in the Clinton who was friendly to the corporations. As community organizer Obama would have learned a similar lesson” corporations will get their way no matter what, so you might as well cooperate and get some concessions.
As for Obama’s ridiculously overblown rhetoric in 2008, no loss now that it’s gone. In 2008 Obama ran as the hare, setting high expectations, unable to to accomplish most. In 2012 he’s running as the tortoise, setting low expectations, maybe accomplishing some and more.
As for war, foreign policy becomes the number one priority of every president and the number one foreign policy obsession is to secure access to cheap energy (oil) to the “western democracies (and this gets mixed up with the domestic priority of being a “friend” to Israel). The number two priority is to avoid losing a war. the number three priority is free trade and globalization. Number four, is making sure everyone fears the military might and threat of the USA. That’s Obama and every president.
On entering office, Obama, as the pragmatist that he is, was genuinely concerned that we could not afford our foreign wars and still maintain at our current level domestic policies that benefit the poor and middle class. Hence the policy of “no troops on the ground,” special ops and drones instead (much cheaper). These tactics were demonstrated in Libya, the capture of bin Laden, and increasingly in the Pakistan-Afghanistan area. That is why McCrystal at the CIA has been given carte blanche to operate as he pleases throughout the world. Obama figures that McCrystal’s operations, once in full swing, will replace the Pentagon as our chief arm of force outside the USA. Much cheaper. Of course any damping down will lead to more unemployment.
Unions used to be a very effective line of defense against ravenous capitalism. They are still critical but mightily weakened by globalization, outsourcing of jobs overseas, the threat of outsourcing overseas, the financial weakness of state and local governments, and the greater and greater acceptance of a “right to work” ideology even among workers, and certainly among the young, besotted as so many of them are by pro-capitalist anarcho-libertarianism that focuses blame on the government rather than corporations and ideologically justifies a rapacious, unfettered laissez-faire capitalism. Obama’s own czr of the auto industry, who got it back on its feet, has siad that he fears for the future of the American worker, citing the fact that an auto can be produced in Mexico for $7 an hour at the same quality standard as an auto made in the USA. Of course new auto workers will be hired at $7 an hour.
One bright spot is the growth, outside mainstream politics, of worker-owned cooperatives. They will evolve in to our most effective way to spur local economic growth and provide some autonomy form the globalizing corporations.
Love that graphic.
The two legacy party electoral system is broken. Choosing Corporate, or a bit-less-Corporate, is tacit approval of the perpetual sham. To claim that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote is in fact Orwellian. Those who make such a claim, after all, appear to be quite knowledgeable on the topic of wasted votes.
Well, it’s not quite Orwellian, as it’s not exactly the government putting out that position (though yes, government is complicit in promoting a two-party system and shoring up support for the Democrats and Republicans).
Lawyers, Guns, and Money had an interesting post about Nader in the 2000 election: www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/09/the-st-ralph-lecture-series
If you don’t feel like reading that, I’ll give the shortest version possible: essentially, you weren’t voting for the Green Party in 2000, you were voting for Nader; which isn’t the same as voting for structural change that would break down the two-party system.
100% right, Sam — Nader doesn’t even support electoral reforms like IRV. Current GP candidate Jill Stein is a much better person, but the Greens and most third parties too frequently aim for the presidency without ever even making a serious run for a Congressional seat. Progressive Party in VT is the only consistently functional third party in the country.
Sen. Bernie Sanders is a Socialist. We do need more sensible fully left people like Sanders in the Senate and House.but few states are like Vermont.
Hello Everyone,
People responding to this article seem to be lamenting that there are “no” third-party candidates who are aiming at anything less than the presidency, and yet right here in Rhode Island, right now in 2012, there are INDEPENDENT candidates who are on the ballot for each of the two congressional districts in this state:
Abel Collins in District 2
David Vogel in District 1
Each of us has a standalone website (you should be able to get to mine simply by clicking on my name at the top of this post), and each of us has a facebook page. At each place, there is plenty of information regarding what we are like.
If people are seeking something different from what each of us has to offer, then it escapes me what it is everyone wants….
If you are seeking someone “more experienced” in the political sphere, then please resign yourselves to finding Bernie Sanders (and pretty much only Bernie Sanders), or else simply continue to accept career politicians;
If you are seeking someone with big “war chests,” then understand you will be getting a corporate shill (or something pretty close to it);
If you are seeking someone with greater name recognition, then please re-read the last two sentences.
At least take a look. If you don’t like what you find, then perhaps you will have found a starting point from which you can articulate a clear answer regarding what it is you actually want.
Thanks.
David
“If people are seeking something different from what each of us has to offer, then it escapes me what it is everyone wants….”
First off, if I were still in Abel’s district I’d be voting for him. As for seeking something different, you introduce yourself to the progressive community with an attack on the Congressional Progressive Caucus about the need to give preferential tax treatment to investment income?
You kind of lost me there with comments like this one… “the CPC would remove entirely [by taxing capital gains as income] the incentive for anyone to take the risk of which we are fond of saying is the foundation upon which the economic health of this country is built.” That’s nonsense, not to mention that it’s the workers of America that are the foundation upon which the economic health of this country is built. Go sell that “progressive” idea over at AR.
@ PinkHatLib,
If you insist on sounding off without having taken even a few minutes to learn anything about me, there is nothing I can say other than that you are too stubborn to be bothered to perform even a modicum of research. Oh well — I hope you are happy with the choices of Mr. Cicilline or Mr. Doherty.
I practiced tax law for the first three years of my life as a lawyer after having passed my first bar exam, and dealt with clients from all over the economic spectrum. It might surprise you to learn that with few exceptions, people (at least, back then) tended to view capital gains as something to which to aspire — like a reward for having achieved. They actually did not want to see that “taken away.”
Perhaps times have changed, but it might not matter. Since “it’s the workers of America that are the foundation upon which the economic health of this country is built,” then I suppose there is no reason for anyone to ever believe that reality and aspiration/constant optimism could ever coexist. Nope. In your world, everyone is in perfect psychological tune with where they came from, with where they are, and with where they are going.
I missed the memo that said that everyone’s perception of reality is now a fixed quantity…. or that it conforms to your particular concept of what that might be.
David
“If you insist on sounding off without having taken even a few minutes to learn anything about me…”
I read your post and comments, visited your Web site, then I posted my comment. Your response that we all benefit from tax cuts for the super wealthy, who we can all aspire to be like one day tells me my initial impression wasn’t far from the mark. Not sure what all this perception of reality stuff is about. Apparently the rich need “rewards for having achieved” more than I do when I actually have to work for a paycheck.
And, yes, I’m happy with the progressive credentials of Rep. Cicilline.
*** quote ***
As you know, under current tax laws, working men and women may be asked to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than wealthy individuals, many of whom derive a significant portion of their earnings from capital gains. Although there are many issues on which we may disagree, surely both Republicans and Democrats must acknowledge that there is something wrong with a system that asks a Fortune 500 CEO to pay a lower tax rate than his or her secretary.
– Congressman David Cicilline
*** end quote ***
Hear, hear.
@ PinkHatLib:
Since you seem so fond of quoting, please quote to me where I said we all benefit from tax cuts that only benefit the super rich. As long as we’re at it, please show me where I advocate driving this country deeper into its economic straits by wanting policies that benefit only the people at the top.
Because it could not possibly be me who has as one of his “Key Points” that it’s time to undo a century of a harmful legal fiction that allows corporations to run amok by virtue of their having been artificially granted “person status.”
Because it could not be me who has as one of his “Key Points” a true overhaul of the immigration system (coupled with an excoriation of the way in which the federal government feigns any concern or compassion).
It could not be me who believes that the feds (and, I argue, the parties themselves) have blindsided common sense in such a way as to get the public to believe that augmenting the military’s budget is a good idea when it comes at the expense of those who actually could benefit from the correct domestic use of those dollars.
Nope. That couldn’t be me — because I am dead sure you can find quotes from me to contradict every one of those points (and more).
Also, since you are so fond of quoting, and because you clearly feel that if you can quote Mr. Cicilline, then the words must be true:
A few weeks ago, I was sitting about 12 feet from Mr. Cicilline as he was making some remarks about the progress that has been made recently with immigration reform. As a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, I might have been in a better position than most of the people in the room to assess the veracity of what he was saying.
I’m sure he appreciates very much knowing that you believe whatever he says merely because he says it.
You are a perfect constituent. One bottomless kool-aid…. to go.
David
“please quote to me where I said we all benefit from tax cuts that only benefit the super rich”
Hey, I simply made the point that for a progressive audience you might start with something other than an plank found in the Repulican Party Platform like preferential treatment of capital gains in the tax structure. I don’t doubt you hold some progressive opinions, most folks do.
“I’m sure [Cicilline] appreciates very much knowing that you believe whatever he says merely because he says it. You are a perfect constituent. One bottomless kool-aid…. to go.”
So now the CPC doesn’t truly believe in their own budget? Perhaps he too (secretly) wants to vote like a Republican on this issue. btw, good move insulting your prospective constituents. Who is it again that’s judging someone without bothering to learn anything about them?
@ PinkHatLib:
Excellent! I feel like we finally are connecting, as your last note had the “feel” of someone who perhaps is not so intransigent that she or he is unwilling to at least consider other possibilities.
I do not cite the CPC budget as problematic because I am trying to advance some destructive right-wing agenda. Rather, I believe it is flawed because it appears to me to place undue strain on the very sectors of the population that can least afford it. The plan itself calls for even more tax revenue to be derived from the greatest bulk of taxpayers (i.e. the not-rich), and not nearly enough from the corporations and the zillionaires behind them. Moreover, the plan does not go far enough in either cutting what I believe is wasted, or in reallocating the dollars to places where I believe the money would be well-spent domestically. In my estimation, the CPC budget fails to address what I view as many of the root causes of the economic mess in which we find ourselves. And, personally, I believe it fails to do so precisely because, whether one is (D) or (R), our current lineup is owned by the special interests…. and that does not serve the greater good.
To be sure, there are other examples I could have chosen. For example, the fact that Mr. Cicilline voted “No” with respect to a drought-relief package this year that would have aided the farmers who literally grow our food. By voting the way he did, he has helped to impose a “back-door tax” on the nation in the form of higher food prices for (the estimates are) at least the next twelve months.
I chose to focus upon the budget proposal because I had to choose something; maybe that was a bad idea.
As with everything else, my opinions, my ideas, and even my ideals are rooted in my own experiences. Clearly, they will be different from yours, but the point is this:
I try to do my homework, and make the sincere attempt to formulate ideas that would make things better in the aggregate, and not for a small sliver of the population while at the expense of everyone else. I am not afraid to disagree with you merely because I am a candidate for office — because debate and discussion is the only way there can be any true participation in the process.
A huge part of the reason for my candidacy is that I am tired of the mind-numbing vacuous platitudes that are spewed constantly by politicians who call themselves public servants, but who really are prostituting themselves in broad daylight. If my style is considered and rejected, at least I will be able to sleep at night with the knowledge that I was straight-up in my attempt.
Meanwhile, by continuing to elect people who win votes merely by spouting empty rhetoric (or who simply agree with voters because they feel that that’s what voters “want” to hear), it is my belief that the population unequivocally forfeits its right to complain when today’s “tried and true” choices prove themselves to be as bad tomorrow as they were yesterday.
David