Harold Meyerson speaks from the analytic abyss today, talking about the “stillbirth of the progressive era,” evidently not understanding that Pres. Obama didn’t come into office as the leader of an ideological block he wanted to lead, but as a politician whose persona and image paved the way, with the Democratic Party ticket simply the vehicle. As no one worked harder to de-politicize, de-partisanize, de-couple his campaign from the progressive ideological engine than Barack Obama, utilizing words that have still not met action. Meyerson missed Obama’s core, which was about winning, now represented through health care legislation, a “win” being all, so bemoaning the “stillbirth of the progressive era” is silly, because Obama was never the bell signifying that the progressive era had arrived.
But as the first anniversary of his inauguration approaches, it’s clear that despite the impending enactment of a genuinely epochal expansion of health care, a progressive era has not burst forth. Major legislation languishes or is watered down. Right-wing pseudo-populism stalks the land. The liberal base is demobilized. The ’30s or the ’60s it ain’t.
[...] The reasons for the stillbirth of the new progressive era are many and much discussed. There’s the death of liberal and moderate Republicanism, the reluctance of some administration officials and congressional Democrats to challenge the banks, the ever-larger role of money in politics (see reluctance to challenge banks, above), the weakness of labor, the dysfunctionality of the Senate — the list is long and familiar. But if there’s a common feature to the political landscapes in which Carter, Clinton and now Obama were compelled to work, it’s the absence of a vibrant left movement.
Upon Pres. Obama’s start in the White House, the entire Democratic Party and non-partisans beyond were ready to get his back, support his moves and trumpet his political actions away from the Bush-Cheney years. Yet as weeks, then months passed, little happened that heralded the “Obama era,” except that the presidential bully pulpit was utilized from the U.S. to Cairo to Oslo to solidify people from candidate to Pres. Obama’s political persona. Review Andrew Sullivan’s “his face” post. It’s the mother of all set ups for what now ails Meyerson:
What does he offer? First and foremost: his face.
Still missing is action. Meyerson, continued:
But he has consistently declined to activate his activists to help him win legislative battles by pressuring, for instance, those Democratic members of Congress who have weakened or blocked his major bills.
It’s hard to know just when Mr. Meyerson tuned out. “His activists,” as Meyerson refers to Obama’s supporters, cannot be activated to “help him win legislative battles” through pressure or other means, because many of the die hard supporters, including Obama for America, don’t recognize the man they deified.
If Glenn Beck can help do that for the right, can’t, say, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann help build a movement against the banks or for jobs programs? It might well be too little too late, but without left pressure from below, the Obama presidency will end up looking more like Carter’s or Clinton’s than Roosevelt’s or Johnson’s.
I can’t begin to dismantle the paragraph above, except to say that Carter to Clinton presidential analysis from the so called progressive intelligentsia is how we got in this mess in the first place. Believing hype and hope from a man who sold that he would be different, when an African American getting to the presidential peak would have to know how to play The Game, tap the corporate spigot, sing for his paycheck and policies, or lose out. It’s American politics 101.
Yet Meyerson completely missed that Obama’s problems don’t have anything to do with “the absence of a vibrant left movement,” but instead that the President isn’t interested in the ideology, the progressive era, Meyerson is trumpeting.
If the progressive issues don’t survive it will be because of President Barack Obama – he alone had all the good will and public opinion that he chose to drown for the benefit of his benefactors. The ones who knew a Republican wouldn’t likely be elected and who wanted a corporate embodiment to serve their needs. They got it and Main Street got screwed….’er bamboozled.
It was Obama who walked out of Grant Park and said goodbye to David Plouffe and into the arms of Rahm Emmanuel, a blue dog who said screw the progressives, let’s win at all costs.
He then proceeded to select an economic team made up exclusively of people with little or no interest in reforming the system. The campaign was over, now it was time to appease those perceived as powerful rather than take then on.
WE were bamboozled. Obama is the culprit. He’s no progressive and probably never intended to be one.
djjl and Ramsgate: well said. That’s it in a nutshell.
TM got it exactly right.
I guess what we expected and didn’t get is a “Cairo speech” for Americans. “I have come here to seek a new beginning . . .” Instead, we got the same old, same old. What are we, chopped liver?
I hardly think that mandatory medical insurance, which may or may not deliver, while reducing Medicare benefits, is an “epochal expansion of health care.” The US bailed out Wall Street and stiffed Main Street, and we haven’t missed a step marching on to war.
Freedom. Nothing like being free eh? Free at last, and all that. Dodd is free. Dorgan is free. Or are they? Are they free enough to now stand up for the public option? Or to re-instate the Glass-Steagall Act? Or are they already plotting their cushy next steps?
Don Bacon makes a good point. I do think Obama sees himself as a world figure.He is exactly what I feared he would be only worse domestically.
It is a little frustrating that there were many of us who saw this all along and we warned and warned.We were called bitter knitters and racist.
I will say this whole experience has been very educational. I would have never believed the level of sexism that existed in so called progressive bloggers and MSM types.There are individuals who really revealed themselves and I will not forget who they are. I lost respect for many.
Ed Schultz has partially redeemed himself with his passionate support of real health reform and by the fact that he dropped sexist themes. Olbermann on the other hand will never redeem himself no matter how many healthcare fairs he organizes. He continues to be a sexist and hardly a program goes by that he is not trashing some attractive woman. I don’t care what their politics are he disgusts me.
Ramsgate I have wondered the same,particulary about Dodd. Dorgan seems like the real deal to me. Someone suggested this morning on ‘Morning Joe’ that he would be a real asset in the WH as a counter balance to Rahm. To that I say…fat chance!
Obama sees himself, perhaps, as the one he’s been waiting for.
Lake Lady, you are right – he is proving to be everything I thought he was in his entire cynical and cut throat – do nothing political career. He danced the tune for the moneyed interests and continues to do their bidding. He’s got one hell of a long way to go to redeem himself as a Democratic President…..I’m not sure he’s got the legs.
If I seem angry – you got it – I am. The Democratic Party is getting nothing from me – no money – no work.
“A Movment Requires a Leader” — Your headline says it all, Taylor.
Lake Lady says:
06 January 2010 at 4:02 pm
I would have never believed the level of sexism that existed in so called progressive bloggers and MSM types.
Agreed, LL. The general lack of leadership was clearly revealed in the free and easy use of sexism.
Lake Lady says:
06 January 2010 at 4:06 pm
Lake Lady, Fat chance is absolutely correct.
This may strike some as odd, but back when I had hope for Obama, I envisioned him getting rid of Rahm, and replacing him with Colin Powell, who would bring discipline, organization and integrity to the WH operation. I even felt it would be a more progressive administration.
Were such a thing to happen now . . . well . . . it would at least send Limbaugh’s heart all a-flutter.
There may be some effort to initiate legislation that will do what some think Glass-Steagall was accomplishing at the time of it’s repeal. But, it isn’t the repeal of Glass-Steagall that led to this mess. That was picked away at many, many, many years before.
Obama was a merchandise made available – he was a hot commodity – kind of the new pet rock for the newly enamored of politics. Yeah – that’s a nasty thing to say – but it’s a nastier turn of events against the Democratic electorate that’s been done by the cheer leading crew. I AM PISSED!!!!!!!!!! What could have been accomplished has been likely lost at the altar of the personality cult.
Sorry but I blame myself and every progressive who left the corporations that gave money to conservaties in congress alone for the lack of progressive legislation.
We could have had a horde of people contacting these conservative funding companies way back in the summer demanding their CEOs get us single payer or a single payer public option legislation and that we would not buy their products until they do what we want, but noooo people it looks like do not want to go right to the source of congressional power.
People can still go to http://www.democratz.org but you will have to hurry to replace the current health care bill with something better.
djjl says:
06 January 2010 at 4:38 pm
That is exactly right.
djjl says:
06 January 2010 at 4:28 pm
Obama sees himself, perhaps, as the one he’s been waiting for.
———–
Best description of the man…evah! succinct and pithy!
We should be rejoicing. Dodd and Dorgan are kaput. Good riddence. They were not among the 21 brave Democrats who voted “No” to allow bush to illegally invade Iraq. Today McCain threw his support 100% behind Obama and his escalation of the war in Afghanistan. Therein lies the reason that Obama will ultimately be defeated. Obama is so concerned that he will be called soft on defense by the Republicans and the ego maniacal neocon warmongers in his own Party that he would rather wage half-assed and pointless wars in far away places than to do the right thing. Obama wants, nay needs, to be loved and reelected more than he wants to be an agent of change and a real leader. In the end, unless he changes course, he will neither be loved nor reelected. Peace
Well said, TM. I especially like this: “because Obama was never the bell signifying that the progressive era had arrived.”
The extreme-Left thought that Obama was their liberal savior, and the colour of his skin is the baton used to beat Hillary Democrats — and now Republicans — with charges of racism. But he’s always been an over-privileged, under-employed, self-serving, Chicago politician who’s only goal and concern was forwarding the career of Obama.
It’s fascinating watching the heads explode, particularly over at Dk.
Thank you Blue Puppy – the color of his skin seemed all that was important to many voters as well as people like Daschle who eagerly prompted him to run before he “had a record.”
Remember, the Chicago paper – I don’t remember which one – wrote years ago that he chose Chicago because Chicago had long been good to black politicians. Such posturing and decision making concerns is likely how he survived in the church of Jeremiah Wright without ever hearing him saying ANY of the controversial things he said – hearing wasn’t politically expedient.
I still believe he has the intellect to get it right – it remains to be seen if he has the moral and ethical principles to do what is right for the vast majority of American citizens. I think he can do it = still = if he so chooses. Sure as hell won’t be as easy as it would have months ago.
Does anyone know who now owns the LOT next to his home in Chicago? Where is jn and JF?
“I try to avoid hyperbole, but I think Obama is possibly the most dangerous and destructive president we have ever had.”
Nat Hentof
http://www.rutherford.org/Oldspeak/Articles/Interviews/oldspeak-Hentoff_2009.html
I agree with everyone, but especially LakeLady. Tim Russert and company flaunted their sexism and Clintonphobia openly. Our household supported Hillary and were worried that Obama would turn out just the way he has. But damn, “I told you so” is no consolation.
When I remember the vitriole Taylor attracted from Obamabots, I still shudder. Those were progressives?
BluePuppy says:
06 January 2010 at 9:59 pm
_________________________
That reminds me, I wish I’d bought one of those leatherbound copies of Atlas Shrugged before Mr. Boortz sold them all.
Sandmann says:
07 January 2010 at 3:38 am
______________________
Ha-Ha!! Incidentally, isn’t the bipartisanship criticism particularly misplaced? Aren’t the far left and the far right, before our very eyes, coming together in an orgiastic explosion of Obama hatred? We’ve already had the FDL-Grover Norquist-Phyllis Schafly jumpoff. Now we have the Rutherford Institute-Nat Hentoff slobberfest. That’s fast work.
BTW, is the pic of Narcissus apropos of Obama, or progressives? ‘Cuz all that sputtering sounds like someone fell in some water. You know what they say around the way: if yo’ a** can’t swim, then you bound to drizzown!!!
Imhotep says:
06 January 2010 at 7:52 pm
Dodd *may* have a chance to head to Treasury, if a spot opens. Though that floating rumor casts questions galore.
BTW, is the pic of Narcissus apropos of Obama, or progressives?
Now you’re getting it, ogenec. The former absolutely not excluding the latter; with old time readers around here obviously not included.
alphonsegaston says:
06 January 2010 at 10:27 pm (Edit)
But damn, “I told you so” is no consolation.
It sure as hell isn’t, though I appreciate the slew of contrite emails I’m getting.
This comment has been edited.
Ha,
the picture says it all, Taylor, and thank you! Narcissus loved nothing and no one as well as his own reflection; and Obama is a classic narcissist, a perfect embodiment of his era and culture. Meyerson knew that; he, like others, thought they would harness the power of Obama’s charm for their own agenda. But, dealing with narcissists is always a fools game, since they have no agenda except their own aggrandizement. In other words, if Obama senses that he can benefit more from aligning himself with power elites, then of course, that is what he’ll do. And, he’ll never take a stand against those power elites–”just words!” is all anyone else will get–because they are the primary source of his self-aggrandizement. Progressives made a bad bargain if they believed that Obama had any guiding core principles except what is best for him; you can’t harness a narcissist for your own agenda if your agenda differs from the narcissists.
Ah-ha. Now I understand the Palin/Far Right fascination. She’s Nemesis, set to punish Obama for the crime of not requiting progressives’ love. Of course, it will never happen. But I understand the psychology a little better now.
You know…….people who are in love with themselves above everyone else are more prone to be afraid for their own safety first and foremost. I.e., they don’t want to die. Ever. How would you impress upon a person who is wrapped in a cocoon of security protection that he isn’t really safe? At least nowhere as safe as he thinks he is. You know being the first black president and all. Maybe you throw the first state dinner and every Tom, Dick and Harry shows up, none of whom are invited guests or properly screened??? Extortion comes in many forms. Peace
There was no one who annoyed me more than Mr. Andrew Sullivan during the primaries. Taylor, glad you brought back the “His Face” quote. As if just being Barack Obama was going to help change the World’s view of America. Thanks for the reminder. I have another reason to be mad again today. The first being our first paycheck of the year and more money coming out for Federal Taxes (and I’m not a rich guy, I’m middle class making 45K living in the big city). And people are still going to be surprised when the GOP wins back some seats this year — That’s what gets me.
What are your federal tax increases BC30? What categories of tax – is it ss, medicare, etc?
Thanks