The progressive case against Obama

Post Reply New Topic

HDI rank:

The United States: 4.
Cuba: 51.

... just saying...

Cuba is afflicted by other poverty related issues not least because it is still in a de facto state of war with a much larger aggressor (the USA). Compare Cuba to its free market south american counterparts for a fairer comparison.

Besides broader national stats are a poor guage for average living standards. For example a country with a higher GDP does not necessarilly mean its average citizen has access to the wealth.

In the first instance I was not trying to argue that Cuba is wealthier, or that it even enjoys a higher mean life expectancy. I was saying that every Cuban has a home and unconditional access to health care without any financial repercussions. The same cannot be said for every American citizen, far from it in fact.

I believe both Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson would be considered left of the Democrats.

I think you're misunderstanding Marshall's point, which is not about ideological or structural strategy but electoral strategy. What the Tea Party has demonstrated is that to really move one of the major parties, you need to be willing to take short term losses and not vote the lesser evil out of fear of the "other" guy winning. The usual tactic here is the "I may not be perfect, but look at how scary the other party is!", and the Tea Party strategy was to buck that and vote for the riskier but more ideologically pure candidate regardless of it causing a possible GOP loss. To them, party matters less than ideology, and by sticking to their guns they've managed to shift the entire GOP in their direction. Unless I'm completely misreading him, Marshall is suggesting that progressive elements do the same to the Democrats, cost them elections in the short term if they fail to live up to their promises in order to get better candidates and a better party in the long. IMHO short term focus has been one of the most destructive elements in US politics over the last few decades.

Your view is correct if you're only looking at the one election cycle, but I don't think you'd disagree with me that our system is broken and in need of an overhaul. One of the first steps in that direction is the emergence of strong alternative parties, and that's not going to happen unless people break out of the fear cycle and vote their heart rather than their party line. A vote for Obama or Romney is a vote to stay the current course, a vote for an alternative is a clear demand for change.

Incidentally, I've been hearing a rather novel argument for why a Romney Presidency might be better for progressives, and that is that unlike Obama, Romney would be held fully accountable when he takes things in illiberal directions. Obama has gotten pass after pass from the progressive left on everything from marijuana to drones to the economic policies outlined in my OP article, while a President Romney would have had to fight through an endless wall of liberal outrage to enact the same policies; that's if he even could enact such policies at all. I'm not using this as an argument for Romney, honestly I think he'd be about a wash with Obama, but as a reality check for those afraid to vote third party out of fear of costing Obama the election.

My point was more to steer the congressional Democratic party farther left by getting real progressives to challenge DINO's on the Democratic primary ticket. The problem is progressives don't seem to take civic duty as seriously as conservatives. They don't infiltrate the Democratic party the way conservatives infiltrated the Republican party. Just compare the number of registered Democrats to the number of registered Republicans. Going third party is a loser strategy for the left at this point as there are just too many damn conservatives in this country. The Tea Party had independent libertarian roots during the Bush presidency but healthcare reform transformed them into a far-right wing of the Republican party. Successful Tea Party candidates didn't run for office as third party candidates. That would have been a stupid losing strategy. They won by joining the Republican party and radicalizing it from the inside.

Ahh, I suppose that's the part I've been leaving out, the infiltration end of it, though I think much of the Tea Party were already Republicans, or at least Republican voters, before the rise of the movement. I still think my point stands that in order to be effective, any such group has to be willing to vote for the candidate they actually want or not vote at all, otherwise the group is impotent and will just be pandered to like any other interest group. The Tea Party can direct the greater GOP because they will stay home on election day rather than vote for any old schmoe who happens to be a Republican, and if the progressives want to steer the Democrats they need to establish that same voting ethic; give me a real candidate and not a lesser evil, or you don't get my vote. Period. In this election, I'd like to see more third party votes than plain absenteeism because it sends a stronger message to the current parties and because I'd like to see some of the alternative parties qualify for federal funding, but the principle is the same.

Another example of this technique in action that I'm very familiar with is the NRA, an extremely powerful lobby with clout far in excess of it's numbers. Look at the way they score votes, refuse to compromise, and ruthlessly target politicians who go astray; no one panders to them and doesn't keep up their end of the bargain because they know the NRA won't hesitate at all to back their opponent and use their muscle if crossed. On the other hand, if you're a friend of the NRA you can count on their full support and all the influence that brings, meaning that if you're in an area with significant gun ownership, you can't ignore them. It's classic plata o plomo, and it works because the threat is credible and has been demonstrated, which requires dedication to principle before pragmatism.

On a related note, why do you think it is that the Left is usually not as politically adroit as the Right? I mean they do get up to their share of political shenanigans, but on the whole it seems like I see much more cleverness coming from the Right, though it's often of the dubious achievement variety. It's particularly odd since the Right has been so ham-fisted when attempting to match the Left in politicizing entertainment, but when it comes to actual politicking I feel like the Left are often babes in the woods.

Even in cases where the GOP'er incumbent has an all conservative constituent, the tea party no issue in dethroning them, and they have the numbers to make effective change. They are communitarians, deeply involved in understanding the inner-workings of their own local governments, and very very active at the local level in various civic institutions.

The understanding is that it will take'em many election cycles to achieve these goals, and that is what keeps tea party movements around the nation alive and active, and even by putting forth a candidate who will loose against the opposition, they are sending a clear message to the GOP to alter your views with a more palatable option or risk the loss of a seat from one of our random members who decide to run for office.

The Democrats got this country into this mess, or so the thinking goes, and the solution is to punish any republican who reaches across the isle, and from our grass root efforts, only send to washington the most staunch ideologues.

With the ways that districts have been realigned, that is a very realistic possibility.

Progressives run most metropolitans and city halls, things are easy when your seat goes uncontested for many election cycles. That is why Conservatives do not take anything for granted, because we don't have the numbers working the mechanics in the system. We take every election seriously now at the local level, and thats where it counts... by having an attuned populace to things as simple as voting in the next head of the county's planning agency, or school board, there has been a real shift to get a man at every station, and it is beginning to work; 600 local organizations that began at the start of the movement are still alive and very involved in local matters.

that said, I don't think its good for either party, and last I heard, the tea party wing of the GOP are not very popular with a large number of the electorate. The Democrats would probably have an even worse time electing hard core lefties, and it would not change much, its just that now, not only are Republicans not reaching across the isle, but Democrats as well.

one citizen=one vote [no electoral college- direct democracy] is the only way out of the two-party straightjacket.

Instant runoff voting is cleaner and would be easier to implement. Besides which, the electoral college only applies to the presidential races and the problem is far more widespread than that.

the electoral college means that it is impossible for a third party canditate to become president

Well, I think gridlock is built into our system with the dumb filibuster rule. When we have a populace separated by extreme ideological differences compromise isn't really possible anymore. At this point it seems the extreme ends of the political spectrum want to do opposite things, so the compromise position is naturally doing absolutely nothing.

At some point I feel it would be better off to just let one side or the other have complete power for a couple years (despite what conservatives think this never happened in the 2009-2010 period because too many democrats were conservative). I really don't even care which side wins at this point. Let the Tea Party take full control for a while. If they don't improve the economy or make things worse the ideology will die and the tide will hopefully swing the other way. I don't think the Tea Party is quite as dangerous as the neoconservative mainstream Republican party in terms of wanting to infringe on civil liberties and start wars. We need to get the ultra-social-darwinist rugged individualism fetish out of the system. Slash social spending, gut the social safety net, put government workers out on the street, privatize everything. Then if it turns out to be a colossal failure maybe people will finally change their minds and we can start from scratch again.

I agree with much of the article. Obama is a conservative, or at least he is implementing the policies you would expect a conservative to implement. Affordable healthcare and gay marriage are policies commonly accepted by centre right political parties, such as the UK's Conservative Party.

You should do both. Direct elections would be useless without instant runoff, you'd still get people voting for "Obama" to keep out "Romney" even though they'd rather vote "Stein" or "Anderson" or even "Johnson" (names merely for illustrative purposes).

What are the electoral colleges really there for? As far as I can tell they provide no benefit and just mean that someone can get elected without the popular vote.

Oh, and I maintain North America is divided in the wrong place...

You are absolutely right--I was looking only as far as next week. That was partly due to the "progressive case against Obama" who--unlike the Democrats--only has one election left in him.

The broader view of electoral reform is a compelling one. I think a great deal could be accomplished with some basic reforms: If every state abandoned the "winner-take-all" formula and adopted a Nebraska style approach to the electoral college, I think that a profound change in approach would be necessary--accompanied by a move to the center.

So what about Obamacare? What would Romney replace it with ? Would each state be allowed to have its form of socialized medicine?