Perhaps it's time for the Left to grow up!

It's real easy to get discouraged reading the polls and the pundits. The Democrats are going to get their asses whupped in November, and most impoprtantly Barack Obama isn't Gene Debs afterall! Well, I'm no one's idea of a clairvoyant or prognosticator, so I won't venture any guesses about November. But I can say a few things to add a little historical perspective to the Obama presidency.

First, perhaps Obama isn't as far left as we hoped . . . but to those who thought they were electing Michael Manley or Che Guevara, I hate to be a pain-in-the-ass, but all you have to do is go back and read Obama's platform from 2008, and you will find that he's pretty much followed the script. Moderation and compromise should not surprise you. My guess is that most DUers, including myself, voted for Obama.

Second, and more importantly, go back and read the history of the European Left over the past 125 years. (I recommend David Sassoon's epic "100 Years of Socialism." Every elected left-leaning government has always faced the dilemma of being elected within capitalist society, to manage capitalist economy and bourgeois social arrangements. Hello! This always puts limitations on the extent of changes to capitalist society that an elected socialist, social democratic or labour government can accomplish. So, unless you're ready to toss aside the proprieties of constitutional elections, and embrace radical, militant revolution, then don't bemoan the fact that you didn't exactly elect Lenin and Trotsky!

Third, for all the nostalgia around FDR -- I hate to destroy anyone's fantasies -- the New Deal was hardly a massive, radical undertaking. Roosevelt campaigned on a "balanced budget" platform, sided with the Chamber of Commerce against the 30 Hour Work Week, and hemmed-and-hawed about labor legislation. Social Security was underfunded and subjected to delays. And unemployment was still way above 10% during Roosevelt's second term.

Nevertheless, the New Deal survived . . . and so did the European Social Democracy. Both came to define the extent of progress that 20th Century America and Europe were able to make in terms of social justice and general welfare. The process is annoying to the progressive activist -- and intolerable for the purist -- but that's the way history tends to work. Social change results from the collective, snow-balling labors of generations, rather than the orgasmic moment of political victory. Even revolutions have a problem: they generally win immediate demands, but really changing society still takes generations.

President Obama is not Michael Moore and never has been! It would be lovely if he was. But it is not necessary for him to be. An underlying assumption of Marxism is that ordinary people create far more history than kings and queens, and leaders and elites of all types. In other word, it IS necessary for the grassroots of the Left to remain radical and militant. It is also necessary for the Left to take off it's blinders. Barack Obama was not given dictatorial powers -- he has to manage the system, and at times compromise. If you think not, you only open yourself to disappointment. If Obama is supposed to wave his magic wand and produce social justice or socialism, then kindly get all this Constitutional restraint out of his way.

My point is that the current Left needs to grow up. It is starkly childish to embrace and idolize Obama in 2008, only to excoriate him in 2010 because Nirvana hasn't developed yet. Moreover, revolution -- peaceful or otherwise -- is not a function left to the most powerful position in the establishment. Rather, it is incumbent upon the common folks and the activist to carry that banner. In a very important way Obama serves an integral function for the Left -- he gives us more breathing space than the Republicans ever will. Far more! Remember, that when the media talks about a 1994 repeat . . .

But it's mirror time here. We all know that teabaggers are toddlers with full diapers. But we are the ones being asked to look at our own behavior here.

many of us never did embrace or idolize this president when he was a candidate.
If you think we can create a European-style social democracy without comprehensive social protections for people (as opposed to corporate entities), you are wrong.
Obama wants to have it easy-- protect and strengthen corporations, then make them do what you want them to do.
The first has happened.
The second has not and will never happen because corporations have profit in mind above all else.
They cannot be the trusted custudians of the public interest.
And as for the lack of social protections, and the refusal to implement them?
The elites are playing a game of diminishing returns-- and they will be the last ones to know it.

we are supposed to grow up and STFU

Going extinct faster than 400 species of marine life in the Gulf is the middle class.

LOL.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/6225

Isn't that irony?

:sarcasm:

I didn't just fall off the turnip truck.

The DLC has no authority within the Party; it's an advocacy group for it's members who share a political philosophy. You may not like their ideas, and you're welcome to challenge them as much as possible, but you can't "abolish" other people's opinions.

Telling lies about who you are and what you represent (i.e. the trademark strategy of the so-called "new democrats") is an extremely childish trait. As is calling people "fucking retards" when they call you out on your bullshit.

So those of us who still believe in the party of FDR, and not the party of Bill Clinton and Al From, we have been the grown-ups all along.

:dem:

-Laelth

in the country, and yet they are only a small sliver of the Democratic party (if they even belong to that).

On DU you see them talking as if they are the majority in the country.

It is childish of the centrists to keep calling the left out for holding Obamas feet to the fire.
It is our job as his constituents to hold him to his promises.

Really.

Boo hoo that everyone on the left isn't kissing Obama's ass.

Not one lefty I know of idolized Obama during the election. Not one person thought he was a Michael Moore. However, we didn't expect him to be Rahm Emmanuel either. And we did expect him to live up to his word. He made the agenda he hasn't followed, not the left.

While he was campaigning he said he wasn't DLC. Not much. Unfortunately, the "New Dems" have turned further right than the DLC and are looking like the old Republicans.

The left is the heart and soul of the Democratic Party - not to mention the conscience.

n.t.

I certainly respect your brave and gutsy post since it is a certain thing you will be catching flak over it. I said during the campaign that Obama was not a Liberal and that he was more a centralist on Nova M as did several of my fellow Progressive Talk Show Host after the right branded Obama the most liberal senator just like they did with Kerry. It was shocking to me to see so many decide Obama was a Liberal when he won the nomination, and in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, many never understood the truth and went with the right wing claim. Now we are angry that he isn't what we knew he wasn't and can't understand it. I guess we think if the right claims a dog is a cat enough we will start thinking it is a cat as well.

. . . I'm trying employ a little Buddhism here. One of the main tenets of Buddhism is that expectations lead to disappointment and sorrow.

It certainly doesn't reflect Right Words. Oh boy.

that others held them, just because you did, or because it makes a frothy rhetorical device to do so. Obama is to me, very right leaning and conservative and always was. So assuming that others help expectations because you are disappointed, or because you wish to speak of something other than the cynical hyperbole of the campaign version of 'Obama', is just far too passive aggressive to let you come off all with the Zen. Get real.

n/t

What does that even mean? Phew, what a mess.

Look up a few posts.

rofl

It's more direct. lol :D How nice to see you!! :hug:

It's kinda hard to do Fangzen where I am. In about an hour, though.....

I had a feeling something was "off" but wasn't sure how to put it!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:dem:

-Laelth

".....he gives us more breathing space than the Republicans ever will."

I have had to fight for breathing space every day of my life. I don't think I have ever been given any except in short bursts of my own optimism.

You know, we need our offshore drilling (there is no good reason to diss SUVs), we need to bail out those things too big to fail (put a trillion dollar Band-Aid on it and it will never be a problem again), give the Internet to the big communication giants (because all us little people really do need to pay for what we want to see and the big communication giants will keep it all private for us, based on the right to privacy).


Is that the kind of growing up we on the left need to do?

For the record, the Left did not embrace Obama in 2010, much less idolize him. Some people on the Left caved in or got blinded by hope but the sturdy Left kept its distance. Go read Black Agenda Report or Socialists websites from the campaign period. Read right here at DU and other forums to see where the Left stood.

Your post reminds me of that Che Guevera poster in the background of one of the Obama campaign offices.

Hasta la Victoria, Siempre, Comandante!

As has been pointed out already, there were concerns about Obama right up front. But when the dust settle and he was the candidate, many of us climbed on board. Now, let's review upon what train we climbed:

No mandates
No Cadillac Taxes
The Public Option
Closing Gitmo
Ending DADT (in a 100 days no less)
Ending the Iraq War in 16 months
Focusing the Afghan war on the Pakistan border region
Renegotiating NAFTA
Scaling back the Patriot Act


No one has been complaining that he isn't Leninn, Trosky or Moore. Nice Strawmen though.

The complaints are that he didn't do what he promised.

The complaints are that he has done BILLIONS for the banks. He's done BILLIONS for the war. Home mortgages he's still workin' on though. And folks are still gettin' a run outta the military for bein' gay donchaknow.

Oh, by the by, real nice to come out supporting drill baby drill because it was so safe, weeks before the largest stinkin' friggin' disaster in the gulf..... friggin' ever.

And if you go back a do a tad bit more reading, in his first couple of years, FDR did ALOT for the average little guy. Stuff like food and housing. Dad used to say that soon after FDR was in office, they started seeing relief show up.

But blame the progressives. It's all their fault that the banks handed out millions in bonuses, of our money by the by.
Blame the progressives that there's no public option. They just made that all up.
Blame the progressives that there's a nice "safe" oil platform at the bottom of the gulf and hundreds of thousands of gallons are spilling out into the water.

Cause it's the progressives that are the problem after all.

-- in my own boorish way, I'm trying to point out that for all of Obama's faults, putting the neo-fascist Republicans back in power will solve nothing. And getting too far down on Obama will guarantee another 1994. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

Dunno 'bout you...but if it's self destruction (and it is on the current course) I'd prefer we not be at the helm when it's gonna happen.

Let's not pretend "he's a centrist", shall we?

Pfft...a "socialist" huh?

George Carlin was right.

You can play Polyanna all you want.

Basically, all the left is doing is trying to hold him to his promises. And to the ideals that this website espouses.

I'm not sure what part of that troubles you.

careers in jeopardy. We've got stuff to fix that takes real Change. I'd rather start the clock again 3 years from now than 7. If Obama can get changing, he's not the right man for the job, whatever his uniform. The longer things stay this way, corporations in charge, congressional oversight a joke, administration packed with proven failure holdovers - the longer the repair process. We're 16 months in - when does the Change start?

Not trying to convince you otherwise, just amazed at the naivety.

We are in great peril now, if a truly great leader doesn't emerge pretty soon, there will be significant change for the worse in America.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

No one here is guilty of wanting "neo-fascist Republicans back in power" nor is anyone doing anything to cause that to happen.

You have made yet another dishonest, insulting and divisive attack on the left wing here - there seems to be a rash of them today.

... I think it will solve plenty.

Like an out of control drug addict or alcoholic, this country is going to have to hit rock bottom before anything changes.


Since Obama is not doing jack shit to stop us from hitting rock bottom, the sooner the better.

I'm never going to vote for a Republican, but I won't vote for Obama, he just is not worth bothering to vote for. He's done nothing that I wanted done so why bother?

This man is loose with the truth. If those beaches can be pristine in 2 years, those folks in Santa Barbara must be chumps to have not done that in 40 years.

Gene Debs, Michael Manley, Che Cuevara, Lenin, Trotsky, or Michael Moore.

I also take issue with the notion that "the Current Left" idolized Obama in 2008.

because I DID read his platform. That's why I was appalled at his nomination. I never made any secret of that. For the record, I didn't support HRC, either. There was no worthy candidate on my primary ballot by the time it rolled around in late May, and there hadn't been for months.

I come by my anger, and my opposition, quite honestly.

That said, I agree that it's up to people to carry the banner. Just how to accomplish that is problematic, since politicians don't seem to listen to actual voters any more, and the mainstream media seems more interested in reporting on activists from the far right. Perhaps that's a start...how do we get as much attention for our actions as they do?

I'm not experiencing the "breathing space" you refer to. Things are becoming tighter, more dysfunctional, and more hopeless by the day from where I stand. But then, I'm a teacher.

I'm sorry, but we really need a rich Progressive in the mold of FDR or JFK to advance a Progressive agenda.

. . . but while I understand your sentiment, the track record of well-to-do bourgeois liberals has been somewhat disappointing since JFK and RFK.

. . . but he'd also agree with me that screwing around with all this in-fighting and letting the neo-fascist Republicans take over the Congress is not a really good strategy for social progress.

You blame the disarray of the Democratic Party on progressives?

This is just another shut up and behave post from the DLC.

The Democratic Party serves one true purpose: it brings together the groups of people who can put together a "progressive" majority. Beyond that, it gets a little problematic.

This is not another shut up and behave from the DLC. Fuck the DLC. This is a member of the socialist movement for 40 years talking. And I don't want to see us make the same stupid mistakes as in the past.

Is there disarray in the Democratic Party? Frankly, if we could flush Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson along with Evan Bayh, I would see that as wonderful!

As to Michael Harrington, I have been a member of DSA for a quarter century, and have read every book Harrington ever wrote, And the criticism I'm taking in this thread is not too different from the sort that Harrington took for believing there was virtue in organizing the socialists in the context of the Democratic Party. This is an old debate, and it hasn't been resolved yet.

My desire is to not re-live 1994. If "progressives" keep making Obama the issue, we're heading right back to 1994. I admit it, I think Obama is a better prospect than the neo-fascist Republicans.

Politics is not about beliefs. Of what possible meaning and value is it to call yourself a Socialist and then make the same arguments against the left that the right does, and then trying to deceive people by saying that it is OK because you "are" a Socialist? How does one "be" a Socialist? Join the DSA? Claim to "believe" this or that?

You are not talking to comrades when you are advocating lesser of two evils, compromise, and working within the system. One need not even "be a Socialist" to recognize that all social progress has been driven by powerful and militant outside groups bringing pressure on politicians. How could that ever happen if we follow what you recommend? It could not. "Putting together a progressive majority" within a party and then hoping for change through the partisan political election process is reactionary, can only lead to moving the country farther to the right. It is always the left that people insist must compromise for the sake of "being practical and realistic" so we can put this "coalition" together. The people hollering now, the ones you want to criticize and discipline - "for our own good" as "comrades" - WERE part of the coalition, and we have been lied to, betrayed and abandoned and are being drummed out of the coalition. Yet you join in the chorus against the left, and then claim to be a leftist and a Socialist and want us to think that therefore it is OK and legitimate that you are taking the right wing stand on this issue.

Anyone can call themselves a Socialist and claim to "believe" in it, whatever that means. It can also be nothing more than fancy window dressing on the same old cloudy and opaque window.

1994 was caused by the very thinking you are using here on this thread. "Oh we can't go too far left, what will the Republicans think and then they might hurt us." That thinking began taking over within the party after the McGovern defeat, and the party has lost elections or moved to the right continually ever since. Now even when we win we lose. These may be "practical baby steps" but they are steps in the wrong direction. None of that was EVER the fault of the left - you know, your "comrades" - it has always been the fault of the right wing of the party, whether they choose to call themselves "Socialists" - as though the label were a fashion accessory - or not.

a supposed "socialist" who somehow manages to hit all the DLC talking points. Cute.

Isn't the point of Buddhism is to relieve people of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, not to foster them?
:shrug:

with those who projected their own political ideals onto Obama though.

. . . I have fears that too many on the Left are going to keep chewing up on Obama until we get big Republican majorities in Congress and a new "Dutch Reagan" . . . It's easy to piss-and-moan when you're never in power, and that way you can never be wrong! In the meantime, the Tea Party is taking orders for their Star-Spangled Swastika banners!

punctuated the freeper way.

someone a freeper. If you think I'm a troll, alert the mods.

mistakingly wrote "you're" instead of "your".When I called you on your simplistic reasoning, you changed it to "mall cop" ( whatever the hell that means).

How can the people you attack both have "never liked him" and also have "projected their own political ideals onto him?"

Most of the leftists are saying the exact same things they said before the campaign and before the election. They were often told then that their doubts were misplaced., and that the President would be making a hard left once elected, but that he needed to play to the middle to get into office first. None of those people who had doubts before the election were projecting anything nor are they disappointed. Who might have been projecting and who might be disappointed? The people claiming that the President would be moving to the left once elected, and who now claim that he was always a centrist and that people were not paying attention, that is who. People were paying attention and were saying he was a centrist at best. They were right. They weren't projecting and they are not disappointed. Remember? "They never liked him."

I don't think there's anything childish about expecting him to keep his promises.

Anyone can compromise away everything they once stood for. It takes a leader with courage to stand tough and do what is right. Everyone in the country knew republicans would not ever side with Obama, so why did he give away the store to them? We need a strong president who doesn't take shit off of anyone, and someone who wouldn't let illiterate and ignorant tea baggers beat him.

didn't promise a health system like the UK or Canada. We all know what Washington does to presidents.

from 2008 Senator Obama would prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of health or age. He would mandate insurance for children. He also would require employers to cover their workers or pay a payroll tax to help subsidize government coverage for the uninsured. Some small businesses would be exempt, and would be offered tax credits to provide coverage for workers.

Mr. Obama would strive for universal coverage by establishing a new federal health plan for the uninsured, providing benefits comparable to those offered to federal employees. Premiums would be subsidized for low earners. Eligibility for other public programs — Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan — would be expanded. Mr. Obama also would establish a government exchange that would allow individuals to shop for the new public plan and approved private plans.

Among his proposals for controlling costs is a $50 billion investment in health information technology over five years.

Mr. Obama would pay for much of his plan by raising income taxes on those earning more than $250,000.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/issues/health.html

But we got that didn't we?

more than a bit of the "boogieman" meme.

At least the writing is improving with better crafting of the day in and day out shut up and like it diatribes.

Un fucking rec

Oh wait...there it is a few posts above you...

never mind...

And there ain't no left politically.

puerile fawning

My perception of what the New Deal was comes from people who lived through the time. So you need to do more than declare and pontificate and characterize.

If you're resigned to corporate-dominated government, fine. But please-- don't try to tell me your indifference is a virtue.

him.

Those who believed in Obama were not "the Left", not "Trotskyites", not "Marxists", but plain ol' liberals hoping to get a little New Deal mixed into their capitalist Kool-aid. And, by the way, there are no "European Socialist" countries. There are KEYNESIAN policies at work, but none of these are socialist.

The "Left" does not have to grow up. Liberals may need to take a look at the political realities of their situation, but they are not "Leftists" and they are not "childish." They were highly manipulated by a slick political machine.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Now children, don't hit the kids who point out your imperfections, it's not nice.

we need to grow up so that we better mesh with those living in the fantasy world. We have real problems, we are being attacked by real dishonest corporate interests, we are really neglecting our poor population, we are really waging wars of aggression, we are really pissing away more than our share of crude, we really do have a failing infrastructure, and those who just deny those obvious truths think We should grow up?!

There really is nothing to convince the willfully stupid.

So it is very important that we don't vote for any of them again.

of your conclusions, none of what happened in Europe or here to bring about social justice would ever have happened if the left had taken your advice. If they had not agititated, demonstrated, organized and refused to accept the status quo, and they did a lot more, (if you don't like the left in this country you would have hated the left in Europe, or when they were fighting for civil rights, or women's rights) nothing would have been accomplished.

You seem to be saying that if we all just stay quiet and behave ourselves, things will just evolve in the right direction. Sorry, but that is NOT how things get done. What is needed here is a much more aggressive left, as from what I am seeing, what you are objecting to is mere criticism of the president's policies, mostly on internet boards. I agree, that alone will not move this country in the right direction. Nor will continuing to vote for corporate candidates.

I like your post, but couldn't disagree more with the now familiar talking point that we all 'should have known we weren't voting for a Liberal'. Who thought that? A majority of people who ended up voting for Obama did so with a lot of reservations. We KNEW he was being funded by some very wealthy former Bush funders. That was a bad sign. The FISA bill was a bad sign, so was his lecturing of the left regarding religion etc.

But what were the choices? Hillary or McCain. My decision in the end was based on a very minor differences between Hillary and Obama. One was on health care. She supported the Romney Mandated Insurance policy, Obama did not. I did not expect a liberal, there were no liberals in the end, but I did expect a president who did not sell out to Big Pharma or the Oil Industry so quickly.

As for those who enthusiastically supported Obama, many of them still do and had no problem apparently with all the signs that he was a DLC candidate, and still do not. But we had two DLC candidates, one of them was better on healthcare, and many of his choose him for that reason.

that we have a less aggressive left. Being smarter about tactics and expectations does not equate to being less aggressive.

Obama is already the most successful liberal President since LBJ and I look forward to continued progress. My biggest disappointment so far is the left's failure to organize the public as well as we spread cynicism about Obama.

clearly and correctly that Obama is NOT a liberal and that anyone who thought so just wasn't paying attention. I merely pointed out that the OP was wrong to assume that many of us who supported him thought he was a liberal. But apparently I was wrong, you did.

Did you read the part where I observed that history is made by the common folks, and not the elites??? I explicitly said that it's important for the Left to be radical and militant! My point is that all this complaining about Obama isn't particularly constructive. I have no stomach for another repeat of 1994 . . . getting a bunch of new Michele Bachmanns and Mike Pences in Congress won't do any of us any good. For all of Obama's faults, the Republicans have become neo-fascist.

be more militant and radical. But then you offer only one solution, the same one offered in 2006 and 2008 which many people chose as because of their fear of a Republican majority again. And what we got for that strategy was no end in sight to the wars that motivated the left to vote for Democrats. We got a Corporate Health Insurance Reform Bill with zero input from the left. We got Offshore drilling and no accountability for War Crimes. We see no movement to restore Habeas Corpus, and we now have a Democratic president ordering the political assassination of a U.S. citizen not to mention, rather than rescinding the vile MCA, actually using it to prosecute a tortured, child soldier. And a bailout, again with no accountability, of corrupt Wall St Bankers.

So to follow what I believe is your advice, to continue to close our eyes and vote for these policies (which we thought we were voting against)once again will get us exactly what?

I completely disagree that criticizing the policies of presidents 'won't do us any good'. It demonstrates that people are not blinded by party loyalty as the Republicans were which got us an extra four years of Bush.

What should we do when a Democratic President lifts a 30 year, hard fought for ban on Offshore Drilling eg? Remain silent? Email the WH? Call our Representatives? Sign some more petitions? And then hold our noses and vote for the same people all over again?

Now we have come full circle. We see what a Democratic Majority under the current party will do. They will make excuses that they don't have enough of a majority or worse, tell the left to 'stfu' and stop supporting 'retarded ideas' like PRIMARIES.

What is your idea of a more radical left? Mine is to now vote for people whose records show clearly whose side they are on. Marching in the streets, writing letters, phone calls etc. doesn't do any good, we've tried that, but voting for people who truly represent the interests of the people is what will bring about change and voting out people who have shown clearly that only do they not care what we think, they do not want to hear from us at all. Fine by me, but they should not expect our votes either.

. . . to replace the system as a whole, not just simply to vote out this or that scoundrel. I was not trying to list all the strategies and avenues that the Left could take. I merely said that getting into the silly debate over the efficacy and effectiveness of a Democrat president accomplishes nothing. I have no problem wirth you lighting fires under the asses of the Democrats. However, I do worry that some people on the Left developed unrealistic expectations and are now doing a 180 because the process didn't produce the idyll.

The culprit is not one individual or party. It's the system. It's the antiquated constitution, and the barriers it creates against social change. As long as we keep the focus on the President, we are ignoring the larger problem, and we're fighting the internecine battles that our real enemies want us to fight -- so that we sap our own vitality.

Accept that Obama has failings and move on. If the American Left as a whole keeps wallowing in this trap, we'll be set up for another 30 years like the last 30 years.

He is doing almost precisely what he promised to do. The best example of that is Afghanistan.

My article was not an apology for Obama, so much as a plea for people on the Left to keep things in perspective. If we get to tearing up Obama too much we're playing right into the hands of the right wing and the Republicans. My message is: if you want to build socialism (or some increment) depending upon politicians elected by the capitalist electoral process is not exactly a probability undertaking. Take Obama for what he's worth, and move on!

And such a disappointment. I noticed a big change in him when he sought out the Clintons' backing.

But you are right. He's better than the alternative, and that says little for the U.S.A.

History is made more by the common folks than the leaders.

when he sent the FIRST set of reinforcements over.

What he has done with adding troops is a whole different level of the game and sets up a whole new approach and intent than two brigades.

Maybe it would be meaningful to stop pretending everyone is stupid.

I doubt they would be satisfied with a redution in troops.

Are you trying to Dean the left or are you just not in good charge of the English language?

It's his favorite talking point, um, expression.

You know, when H2O Man objects to the bashing of the left, it's 'way over the top. And given that DU as a whole is more liberal than us 200 or so loudmouths that post, I don't understand why bashing the actual democratic wing of the Democratic Party is so popular here.

Enough already.

Is that clear enough language?

Let me guess.

You know, nice leftists who know their place.

The number in the escalation means a different ballgame entirely from the one he ran on and he has utterly failed to explain why.

His main point, which most understood completely, was that he would focus on Afghanistan rather than Iraq. That is precisely what he has done.

A field army increase is a lot different than "up to twp brigades" dude. I don't care who you are and this kat was a sitting Senator with easily a 130+ IQ.

The main point is what strategy and resources that the action demands in exchange for what results and I don't see how it can be looked at much differently.

that Obama was what we euphemistically call "a centrist". And it was most clear to the left.

And as far as "doing almost precisely what he promised to do", that's a can of worms you probably don't want to open unless your own personal definition of "almost" is extremely elastic.

Beating up on the left is as useless as beating up on Obama. It doesn't get any of us anywhere.

Even a "child of 12" knows President Obama's favorite bock is still the "Team of Rivals".

As far as shock, you can be shocked that we are still abusing prisoners at Bagram without having believed at any point that Obama was a progressive, for example. And there are plenty of those.

to candidate Obama when he spoke, and had grave reservations even when they ended up voting for him. However they overlooked some things in favor of others, such as his position on Offshore Drilling and Healthcare Reform. Are you seriously claiming that he is doing exactly as he promised as a candidate or do I have to post Candidate Obama speaking for himself yet again?

As for Afghanistan, he retained many of Bush's people, the worst of them being Gates. We did NOT expect him to prosecute a child soldier from Afghanistan under the unconstituional MCA or to start ordering the assassinations of U.S. citizens, or anyone else for that matter being that is illegal.

We did NOT expect that, nor did we expect to see the very people who caused the economic meltdown as part of the Cabinet of a Democratic President. One lesson learned from that, ask future candidates who they intend to have in their cabinets.

Stop with the talking point that the left weren't listening to Obama. It is an outright lie at this point as it has been dealt with and debunked numerous times. The truth is President Obama is not the same person as Candidate Obama, whatever the reason, and denying what is as clear as it could be at this point, simply destroys the credibility of those attempting to push that idea in defense of his policies, some of which I mentioned above.

the most consistent and true to his promises of any POTUS in my lifetime.. and I have been voting since the Carter era.

have not been doing their job. I blame it on the two party system. In the end it comes down to 'our team' winning. Maybe with things as bad as they are now, it's a good time to start changing that attitude and start demanding that they DO keep their promises or they won't keep their jobs.

I don't believe Obama's enthusiastic supporters ever had the false expectations you mention.

There's a different group of people who were never excited about Obama and now claim "surprise" that he didn't turn out to be what they pretend to have expected. In other words, there are arrogant people who want to condescendingly tell Obama supporters they were wrong for thinking he would he would solve everything. Dave Sirota comes to mind. In fact, the supporters who listened to Obama's message always had more realistic expectations than his socialist critics.

Yes, there are limits to what we can expect from any President. The hardest work is done by mass movements, and those efforts are the most lasting legacy of the New Deal. Obama understands this and so do the supporters who listened to his campaign message.

is "the expectations of his socialist critics"!

:rofl:

Aren't you embarrassed by that? It takes more to make progressive change than telling people they should be disappointed in Obama. But, it's a fine strategy for media pundits who don't want to get their hands dirty with real organizing work.

I do not see the Obama administration as an agent of progressive change, nor do any of the activists I know.

I guess that isn't surprising with the constant drum-beat of criticism while his liberal accomplishments are rarely recognized. Obama already has some very impressive accomplishments and there's every reason to believe that he will sign any liberal bill that we can get Congress to pass.

On the major issues, they are nonexistent: healthcare, education, war, the environment, poverty, unemployment...

and you have google so I'll pick one topic. How about the environment.

Passed better auto mileage standards.
New incentives for hybrids and plug-in electric cars.
Took thousands of old gas guzzlers off the road.
Major investments in high speed rail and other mass transit.

Those were the most important responses to the oil spill and he did all of it before the spill happened.

Largest federal investment in renewable energy ever.
Largest investment in energy efficiency projects ever.
Those happened because spending to reduce climate change was the top focus of the stimulus bill. That's a pretty damn liberal thing to do.
He ended mountaintop removal coal mining, which I believe was a worse disaster than the Gulf spill.

That's what I can come up with off the top of my head. I think the habit of left pundits to exaggerate betrayals and ignore accomplishments is unhealthy. Cynicism and disappointment build apathy, not movements.

And as for HSR...I can tell you...nothing is being done...

I do. I hope 8 billion on rail gets something done. They're improving lines in my state right now and Obama has requested more. It forced state and local level transportation planners to get their head out of their ass and start making serious plans for HSR. So it already has accomplished something of long term significance.

Speaking of "common sense" let's address the 800 lb gorilla. The defense budget is funding 2 wars...both unwinnable...even the "popular" one has a poorly defined win attached to it and we are spending more money than we did back in the days of the Soviet Arms race. Just who are we competing with? Any president who can use "common sense" on that...even to a small scale is a leader.

And as for HSR...nothing is being done. I work the rails. All talk and chest puffing...and very little design.

Teams were called for. Then the jobs never hired. Just more talk. In the meantime I see more Employees laid off in lieu of overexpensive and poorly serviced outsourcing contracts with IBM, AT&T, and other service providers who accomplish 1/4 the work in twice the time at twice the cost.

and working outside the party for the most part on important issues.

"The left" isn't being "out-organized" by the teaklanners. "The left" has by and large found other venues to organize.

This thread is funny. "Grow up, shut up and get to work for us".

lol

I'd be amazed if you let go of your cynicism over Obama long enough to talk about any issue constructively. I hope it goes well.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

One day the internet "left" will get off their blogs for a few hours and actually get things done.

That statement is so damning when you think of the activism we had in the 60s and the activism it took to take back Congress and elect President Obama.

Now a bunch of racist retirees are running circles around the internet "left".

and doesn't have Dick Armey and Glenn BecKKK as spokestools.

It's sad that the biggest left contributors generally insist on giving to political campaigns and/or established, tax deductible non-profits that can do very little direct political work. They aren't funding new efforts creatively like the right feeds their network of pundits and front groups.

But thanks for the free projection.

onto Obama's supporters in the hopes of finally being proven right in the end. But in reality, his ratings continue to be very high among Democrats.

When people talk about their disappointments with Obama, they are echoing their expectations . . . and that's where the problem lies.

My Comrade who uses Comandante Ernesto Guevara de la Serna as his/her avatar: revolutions don't happen by depending on the promises of bourgeois politicians! So why do some many "leftists" get uptight when a bourgeois politician disappoints them?

If you want to build a revolution or radical step forward, it won't come from the top-down! It must come from the people, parrticularly those who have no capital other than their labor! That those radical accomplishments haven't come to fruition is not Barack Obama's fault. Rather it's the failure of the Left to connect with a majoritarian mandate.

In the meantime the Republicans have become about as neo-fascist as I've ever seen. I really prefer the Democrats to the Tea Party's Star-Spangled Swastika!!!!

Isn't that logistically impossible?

And there is no problem in expecting people to keep their word. We call that "a social contract".

And expecting someone to keep their word is not equal to expecting them to be omnipotent and it doesn't mean they are the only agent with whom you have a contract.

What this thread tries to do is displace disappointment to a third party and, you know, it won't work.

You wrote: "revolutions don't happen by depending on the promises of bourgeois politicians!
...If you want to build a revolution or radical step forward, it won't come from the top-down! It must come from the people, parrticularly those who have no capital other than their labor! That those radical accomplishments haven't come to fruition is not Barack Obama's fault. Rather it's the failure of the Left to connect with a majoritarian mandate."

I agree. Obama obviously agrees as well since this was a major theme of his campaign. Thus, as I pointed out, the people who listened to and understood Obama's point about change coming from the people (not from one leader) aren't particularly disappointed. It's the people who never appreciated that message who are.

"Change you can believe in" was the slogan, not "You're on your own". And the co-opted "Yes We Can", not "Yes You Can".

Politicians spend millions of dollars projecting an image. You can't now claim that image was just a mass hallucination because a lot of people have the receipts. lol

Again, bashing the left is as useless as bashing Obama.

Obama used the "Yes we can" slogan in his US Senate Democratic primary, which raised less than $1 million. So the idea that he spent millions to craft that image in an underdog race that raised less than $1 mil is pretty funny.

If you had listned closely, you might have noticed that there was more depth to his campaign themes than the slogans repeated in the press. They're the same principles he was talking about as a State Senate candidate and the same themes he explained during his training sessions for ACORN activists.

and why are you retreating to the Senate race?

Don't bother telling me I don't "get it" when you can't retell it with a modicum of integrity.

The point is that the messages and themes in his Presidential race are ones he had been using for many years. So, they weren't created by image consultants when he ran for President, as you cynically imagine. They are part of his core philosophy.

because he had used them before?

How lame is that.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You say that if a person idolizes a politician during the campaign, that person has to continue to idolize him forever. Do you feel that statement makes sense?

Just curious.

:D

:)

Liberal is not Left. Progressive(whatever that is) is not Left. Left is for the workers, against the Capitalist. Left is for the abolition of Capitalism. The parochial definition of the 'left' in the US is a self serving capitalist ploy, precluding even the consideration of another way to organize the economy. Those who find solace in this dog's breakfast of an OP undoubtedly feel comfortable in the miasma, not having to choose sides but they are going to have to soon, we cannot tolerate this shit for much longer. Somethings got to give, our very survival is at stake.

Kill Capitalism

Apparently the Democrats have progressives, liberals and leftists.

Suicidal.

But, I do prefer a realistic strategy for accomplishing that.

"Responsible Socialism"©

A socialist who wants to avoid some of the bozo mistakes of the past. I have no desire to live through another Reagan, or a triumph of the neo-fascist Tea Party. If we keep screwing around, that's where we're headed.

I'll give you credit for that.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I found that amusing. Although our old buddy Hammy used to claim he was a socialist who passionately believed in propping up Wall Street, so maybe we've already covered that ground too, Comrade.

Inform the cell, comrade.

rofl

"In America, you watch television. In Soviet Russia, television watches you!"

Proof in the fucking pudding.

"As a lifelong liberal leftist who personally burned a flag while urinating on the grave of a veteran, I think that George W. Bush is doing a great job of leading America."

Um, yeah.

Well done.

If this "comrade" is a Socialist, I am turning in my membership card.

What I read was:

1) Obama is not any kind of "Leftist" and he is following some kind of script (disingenuous?). There is no "hope" there.

2) Moreover, even if Obama were a Leftist, there is nothing of substance that he could do... as is proven by 100 years of "Leftism" in Europe. So, there is no "hope" anywhere, at least from an electoral standpoint.

3) Finally, FDR was not a "leftist" and there is no "hope" being nostalgic about him either.

4) Nevertheless, shit happens... through a process that apparently includes "waving banners".

5) So grow up.

Now, admittedly, the meaning of point 5 is not explicit, and the point is lonely, hanging out there by itself.

But... given the analysis above, and presuming that the OP is not proposing that the OP's readers move to New Caledonia or join the Church of Scientology, the OP can only mean one of two things through this prescription:

Either, the "Left" should grow up by turning its back on Obama, the Democratic Party, and electoral politics in general...

OR...

...the "Left" should grow up by becoming middle-of-the-road, centrist Democrats with no expectations whatsoever.

Judging from his later comments, I am thinking Mr. ain't-no-socialist intends the latter.

The only thing I can't figure out is, why the reference to "breathing space"? Maybe, this:

Your points 1-3 are certainly there and together they make a good argument, but not that of the OP. Oh yeah, 'either' is the obvious conclusion.

...is that it purports to believe in a larger social dynamic: "the people make history". Fair enough. But the author then goes on to exempt himself and everyone he writes for from that same dynamic. If the "people make history", they presumably don't arrive at "history", all at once. They learn. They "embrace and idolize... only to excoriate" individuals, politicians, political parties, and political strategies. The OP wants to simultaneously show pride for his understanding of his social dynamic, and to show contempt for those whose actions are proof of it ("the Left should grow up").

Curiouser and curiouser... this is very "conflicted".

Meanwhile, he has drawn support for this from others... sort of a conflicted-cubed.

How about- "No"?

How about you grow up and stop trying to whine and wheedle the Left into playing nice just to assuage you of the night terrors you get of some kind of Return of The '94 Boogey Man, and stop with the tone suggesting the Republicans might be hiding under the bed... or, ironically, in the closet, just waiting for an opening to steal control of the government like some nightmare dingo stealing a baby...

"It is starkly childish to embrace and idolize Obama in 2008, only to excoriate him in 2010 because Nirvana hasn't developed yet." ... it is tacky purple prose to ascribe "embrace and idolize" to Obama supporters, only to then turn to "excoriate". Those who "embraced and idolized" Obama are still doing so. Very much so. Some, like yourself, try to leverage childish fears in order to make the rest of us play along... and try to confuse everyone by accusing those with the courage to speak aloud criticisms of needing "to grow up", an ironic use of Rove's tactic of accusing one's "opponent" of exactly that which one knows oneself to be guilty of.

I think those who wet their beds in terror of the Boogeyman-Possibility of a '94 elections-repeat are the ones who ought to "grow up".

Maybe, once you and your ilk get over your bed-wetting, then we can move on to talking about some of the ramifications of your statement: "ordinary people create far more history than kings and queens, and leaders and elites of all types. In other word, it IS necessary for the grassroots of the Left to remain radical and militant."
:hi:

now own Obama. The last election was the most expensive in the history of this country. Same goes for Congress. They may be Democrats but they are corporate Democrats. And any Marxist knows that the interests of Big Business are not the interest of the workers.

a committee for managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie as a whole."

So? What else is new?

LOL. Fat chance.

they always throw a tantrum.

Then again, that's not a good line to persuade somebody, unless you are trying to persuade them to pop you in the snoot. Most of the people praising you do not consider you to have been talking to them.

Before DU I sorta considered myself part of the left, but it's hard to embrace what seem to be common principles to the left.

1. 99% is never good enough, much less 90% or 60% or 43% (the glass is always more than half empty)
2. we need more anger and violence to fix things
3. +2 = -10 (or Sotomayor = Roberts)
4. everybody who does not agree with me and my peeps is an idiot or has some other moral defect
5. life in America totally sucks (or if not, then it soon will for 85% of us)
6. mankind is doomed, probably within six months

We seem to desire purity, not common ground.

by claiming that the left is always on the attack. LOL

Take your six points and apply them to the OP. Have fun.

Let me be the first to "throw a tantrum." (That is so hostile and false, and as bad as we hear from the extreme right wing about the left. You "sorta" considered yourself left at one time? And now?)

You claim that the left says "99% is never good enough, much less 90% or 60% or 43% (the glass is always more than half empty)"

That is correct. 90% of the people having civil rights may as well be 0%. 90% of the people not being tortured may as well be 0%. 90% of the people having access to health care is not good enough. 90% of the public schools not being privatized is unacceptable. 90% of the oceans being free of oil spills won't cut it.

You claim that the left says "we need more anger and violence to fix things."

That is a lie. There is no advocacy of violence going on here. Many are angry - should we not be?? Connecting that to the word "violence" is a sneaky and dishonest stunt.

You claim that the left says "+2 = -10 (or Sotomayor = Roberts)."

Someone may have said "Sotomayor = Roberts" but if they did it would have been isolated and rare. You smear any and all who may have reservations about any of the administrations' nominees with this little trick.

You claim that the left says "everybody who does not agree with me and my peeps is an idiot or has some other moral defect."

There is a certain amount of that going on, but at the very least there is much of that directed AT the left as there is coming from the left. So again, you are making a false and malicious smear here.

You claim that the left says "life in America totally sucks (or if not, then it soon will for 85% of us)."

Many are suffering, and you mock that with this remark.

You claim that the left says "mankind is doomed, probably within six months."

That is simply a lie.

I see you have been here less than 3 months. Just because you have not seen something does not mean it does not exist.

Here's a very recent example, saying that we should all be scared exrementless, apparently the BP leak is going to kill us all.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8569047&mesg_id=8569047

You sorta proved one point with your reply.

"You claim that the left says "everybody who does not agree with me and my peeps is an idiot or has some other moral defect."

There is a certain amount of that going on, but at the very least there is much of that directed AT the left as there is coming from the left. So again, you are making a false and malicious smear here."


See, my claim, or belief, is not just wrong, it is malicious. It is me "making a smear". In other places, your answer to my POV is j'accuse. That I am lying. That I am pulling a 'stunt'. That I am mocking.

In other words, I am not just wrong, I have several moral defects.

Of course, it's not like I would never call somebody a liar. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=153x9435 but I do goto the trouble to prove that they are wrong. It's a little bit harder for you to prove that there are never threads on DU or posts calling for revolution.


"You claim that the left says "life in America totally sucks (or if not, then it soon will for 85% of us)."

Many are suffering, and you mock that with this remark."

I don't see the mocking. Not of actual suffering. Of leftists being all hyperbolic about the suffering - yes, but not of actual suffering. I don't see how it helps the poor to engage in a rant claiming that almost everybody in America is poor, or about to become poor. Rants which I have often seen cheered here over the years.

...the "silent majority" of the 1960s.

Choose an issue... any issue.

How about war?

From the time of the Bush administration to today, in Iraq and Afghanistan, are 99% of the troops withdrawn? How about 90%, 60%, or 43%? How about private contractors? 99% eliminated? How about 43%? Casualties? Down by 90%?

How about "Equality before the Law"?

How many War Criminals have been prosecuted? How many economic criminals? Is it 99%? Is it 10%?

How about the unemployed?

Is it 99% who are now employed? Is it 20%?

What about foreclosures? What about...

It is the job of the Left to care about such things. Otherwise, it wouldn't be the Left.

It is not the job of the Left to make excuses for the government or to explain why it can't possibly make an impact on anything of substance. That is the job of press functionaries.

You are right not to consider yourself "a part of the Left".

Along with "pragmatic", "realistic", "sensible", etc, etc, etc.

:thumbsup:

:rofl:

Thank you, Hermana.

I believe in giving an OP such as this all the careful consideration to which is it due.

:hug:

Radicals had all the fucking answers. You know it and so do I.

It's the rest who are fucking holding the world back.

The problem is with those damned goalposts.

Now the stark raving loony RW are considered "Center Right" and almost ANY Democrat is bowing before them, courting them and scared shitless of being labelled a "socialist" just becuase they want to preserve a BASIC social safety net and tough regulation of the monstrosity that we now we call "capitalism".

Most Americans aren't Sean Hannity, not even close. Why is America governed as if it is?

when evidence increasingly points to the contrary.

Obama gets the support he is earning.

It's not a big mystery.

Next.

just sayin'.

From the official 2008 Democratic Party platform:

Source: http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html
PDF: http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

. . . we'd double the prison over-crowding problem by tomorrow morning . . . just for starts.

Frankly, I don't want to stop with a "public option," or "single payer" -- I want a fully nationalized healthcare system like the British National Health Service!!!!! My plan never was on the table. But you're heaping blame on Barack Obama, when the much larger roadblock is simply how the legislative process in this country works. It's unrepresentative. It's riddled with procedural obstacles. And it is primarily designed to protect the propertied class from the "rascal masses." The president doesn't have the power to govern by decree.

The trick is to actually democratize the law making process. End the filibuster. Redesign or desolve the U.S. Senate. Institute proportional representation. Allow for national referendums. The fact that the Republicans could use 41 senators to hold the process hostage is an undemocratic, national disgrace. The fact that Obama had to compromise to get something passed only illustrates how the system intimidates the process.

If you spend too much time beating up on Obama, all that will result is bringing the neo-fascist Republicans back into office. The problem is more systemic, and requires a systemic solution.

Oh, am I? :eyes:

This sort of hyperbolic response is neither accurate nor helpful to the progress of a reasonable discussion.

:thumbsdown:

Something of a cut above the usual whinging.

Let corporations run everything.

You might want to read the OP again.

Of course, it will cause the Blame Obama At All Costs faction to go ballistic, but I'm glad you posted it anyway.

I appreciate your post.

And you call yourself a Democrat?

Maybe his point is the 'left' should grow up and accept our newly minted serfdom with grace.