The progressive case against Obama

Post Reply New Topic

Well, what do you make of the progressive case against Obama, electoral implications aside? I was really hoping to get some of the forum progressives' opinions on the article, but so far that hasn't really happened.

I am still waiting (a progressive tense, BTW) for someone to explain what progressive is. Even the Wiki wasn't very informative...

A dinner party?
A derivative of Jazz music?
A subset of lenses used in eyeglasses?
A muscle exercise to reduce anxiety?
A gradual increase of stress placed upon the body during exercise training?
A degenerative disease?
A taxation strategy?
A Canadian solid waste management company?

I think that it is a well articulated case. But it should be borne in mind that I am a progressive on social issues and a centrist on economic issues. So in that sense I am far less disappointed by the last four years in the United States. I am firmly of the view that universal health care coverage and the repeal of DADT are very strong successes that are both strongly attributable directly to the President.

And while he dropped the ball by extending tax cuts, I am not sure that Congress is going to have any options in the medium term but to turn to the revenue side to close the fiscal gap. "No new taxes" is a lovely piece of rhetoric. But no one who actually has done the math can believe that you can get rid of $1 trillion in government spending and not trigger a full scale depression as a result. So for all the Tea Party's bluster, I think they are going to be profoundly disappointed over the next two years. Even if their Representatives draw a line in the sand, the balace of the GOP will find a solution in common with the Democrats if only to preserve the country from external forces that they cannot stop.




The simplest answer, in my view, is that a progressive is the opposite of a reactionary.

A reactionary begins from the view, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." If you can prove to a reactionary that it is broken, they will then insist on proof that the proposed solution will fix what is broken. By way of contrast, a progressive looks to effect change to address that which is perceived to be a problem, and to be prepared to modify change if it is insufficient to respond to it.

Neither is a perfect definition--but so too, neither is a perfect political philosophy. "Government should do nothing," is just as ridiculous a notion as, "Government should do everything." The truth is that the best answer lies somewhere in the middle--and the best answer isn't always the same from year to year or from issue to issue.

The statement in bold is actually a fairly straightforward approach to avoid the Nirvana fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

Example: Killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians by nuclear Holocaust is monstrous...

But if the (realistic) alternative is this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ ... casualties

... then I prefer the nukes... (of course, this is a counterfactual, so no one will ever know the *actual* results).



I. Just. Can't. Help. Myself. I. Must. Post.

A dinner party?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_dinner

A derivative of Jazz music?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_jazz

A subset of lenses used in eyeglasses?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_lens

A muscle exercise to reduce anxiety?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressiv ... relaxation

A gradual increase of stress placed upon the body during exercise training?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_overload

A degenerative disease?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressiv ... lear_palsy

A taxation strategy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax

A Canadian solid waste management company?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressiv ... _Solutions

There is a madness to my method...

romney/ryan would replace it with the pre-obamacare status quo of NOTHING but financially punitive and ultimately financially ruinous tertiary care for the indigent/working class, all the while spouting smirking bosh about "jerking oneself up by one's own bootstraps." after all, the upper classes see workers as mere disposable wetware bots- when one breaks, just kick 'em to the curb and choose from an endless supply of replacements. GOP healthcare plans amount to nothing more than guaranteed employment for bill collectors and debtor's prison employees.

The reactionary view is more like "if it is broke, government / gays / poor people / lazy people caused it...". Also, the best solution to any given problem is to try and get back to the good old days.

I disagree--in part. (As is so often the case).

While many conservatives demonize gays, poor people and lazy people, so too, many progressives demonize corporations, professionals and investors (including, incidentally, their own pension funds!). Neither of these practices lies at the heart of conservativism or progressivism.

For all that I am a progressive on social issues, I respect the argument that begins, "show me that your proposal will address the mischief that it is intended to solve." The challenge function is an important element to policy making, and conservatives are well placed to exercise that function with progressives.

And similarly, progressives are well placed to challenge conservatives on the premise of, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Considered on a global scale, Pres. Obama is a moderate conservative. The fact that some people call him a leftist, a communist, etc. says a lot about them, not about the president.

Progressives don't demonize professionals or ordinary investors. They demonize bankers and CEO's.

So they pick on some of the people most responsible for generating economic prosperity and growth?

I'm still voting for Obama. Its nice to be idealistic, but I really don't want Romney in and a continuation of Bush style politics. At least when a democrat is in office they do millitary interventions more economically. They fly some bombers and weapons in, and then they're out.That was the case with Kosovo, as well as Libya. With Bush and Cheney, they used military intervention as an excuse to indefinitely line the pockets of their cronies (Halliburton) with public funds.

f**k the top echelon bankers and CEO's. All they're doing is organizing labor. They print the money supply through the so-called Federal Reserve, flood the market with it. and make us chase after it like puppets so that we can get limited access to all the useful land and resources which they have an ever increasing monopoly on. If its more profitable for them to close down perfectly good factories and dairies, they'll do it, even at the expense of everyone having to pay more money for commodities. The real people who make things happen, who do all the grunt labor and actual planning, are professionals, ordinary investors, small businessmen (Bain Capital does not apply), construction men, engineers, teachers, farmers, steel workers, truck drivers, etc etc, not these big wigs at Bilderberg, WTO, IMF, and CPAC conferences trying to figure out how to carve up the planet.

I would have thougth more like centrist, but for the lefties, especially in South America, Obama is "the lesser of the two right-wing evils".

You're asking to get a lecture on neoclassical economics and the theories of perato optimality and endogenous growth. How things like technology, global trade, capitol mobility, natural resources, currencies, central banks, etc... must be small peripheral influences because the neoclassical growth model doesn't contain them.

I beg to differ. There is a strong progressive argument that views institutional investors and investment professionals as the driving force behind the excesses of Wall Street. Pension and Mutual fund managers are looking for a quick turnaround, and are driving directors and CEOs to look at nothing beyond share price; and to look no further ahead than the next quarter. Rip out the profits and bugger the future--that's the institutional investment model.



Bankers create no growth and no prosperity. They provide the means whereby goods and services are exchanged, but they produce nothing beyond the services that they provide.

And CEOs rarely produce anything either. They manage production that actually occurs in the hands of people that manufacture the good or deliver the service. There are exceptions--certainly in the IT sector, many CEOs are directly responsible for innovation.

But do not be deceived into believing that managing production is the same thing as producing.

Have you really not noticed that Obama has doubled down on nearly every odious Bush era policy save outright torture, and gone much further in other areas such as extrajudicial assassinations and unauthorized foreign excursions? Exactly which "Bush style politics" are you so afraid of?