Via RSS
Via Twitter
The Obama campaign's point person in New Mexico recently sent an email to supporters defending the president's position on the debt deal and bashing the Nobel Prize winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and the "Firebagger Lefty blogosphere."'Firebagger' is, of course, a derogatory combination of 'Fire Dog Lake,' the progressive website, and 'tea bagger.' Jane Hamsher, founder of FDL, responds to the statement made by the director of Obama for America NM, and suspects it is part of a strategy to attract independent voters:
But if this is a brilliant political strategy on the part of OFA, someone is going to have to explain it to me. I know the goal is to attract the much-prized Independent for 2012. But who do they think is keeping Obama’s poll numbers afloat?If Democrat dead-enders such as Hamsher believe the Democratic party prioritizes Independents over dedicated progressive partisans, the appropriate strategic response by progressives should be self-evident. They should declare their independence from the Democratic party. Coincidentally, the email from the Obama campaign director in New Mexico was sent just days after the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party passed a resolution calling for a primary challenge against Obama next year, which happened to be the topic of yesterday's column at CAIVN:
The fate of the California Democratic Party's Progressive Caucus remains uncertain following its passage of a resolution calling for a primary challenge to President Obama late last month. . . .
On July 30th, as the White House and Congressional leaders were engaged in last minute negotiations that ended the first round of the debt ceiling debacle, the Executive Board of the California Democratic Party was meeting in Anaheim. At that meeting, roughly 75 members of the California Democratic Party's Progressive Caucus passed a resolution stating that they would begin exploring the possibility of backing a primary challenge against President Obama for the nomination of the Democratic party in the 2012 presidential election.
The negotiations in Washington DC were clearly on their minds. The resolution criticizes President Obama for "negotiating away Democratic principles to extremist Republicans." At the top of their list of grievances stands the "unilateral closed-door budget offer to slash Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, thus endangering The New Deal and War on Poverty safety nets." Additionally, the CDP Progressive Caucus resolution decries the Obama administration's "unauthorized wars," its extension of the Bush tax cuts and Patriot Act, its refusal to include a public option in the health care reform act, and the privatization of public education and housing, among other things.
Needless to say, not all members of the CDP's Executive Board agreed with the resolution. "This was kind of seen to some people as pretty seditious, to others, they completely agreed with it," said Karen Bernal, a delegate in the California Democratic Party and Chair of the Progressive Caucus, in a telephone interview with David Swanson earlier this week. The response from the leadership of the California Democratic Party was swift. The Progressive Caucus was singled out and refused recertification at the meeting, even as other caucuses received the routine certifications. Thus, technically, the California Democratic Party's Progressive Caucus no longer exists, though its status will be reconsidered at an Executive Board meeting this November.
John Burton, the California Democratic Party chair, was clearly not pleased by the measure. Asked by the San Francisco Chronicle's Politics Blog whether a primary challenge would help the President's chances of reelection, he stated, "F---- no, what is that going to do?" Burton did not hold back in the interview: "A lot of people are frustrated about the war. People talk about cutting Social Security and they're not talking about paying for the war. People are frustrated about a ton of stuff," he told . "It's how they feel. There's discontent," he continued. "There's a frustration in the country. Look at the f------ polls. So f---, that's news to somebody?"
For her part, Karen Bernal of the Progressive Caucus does not appear to disagree with Burton's assessment, though her language is less colorful. As she told David Swanson: "We are simply a reflection of the unhappiness that everyone knows about, we just brought that heat inside . . . it was definitely a strategic decison on our part that this heat out to exist inside the party as well, and that was one of the reasons why," they determined to pass the resolution.
Among those who have been the most vocal in calling for a primary challenge against President Obama from the left is former presidential candidate Ralph Nader. In an interview with the Daily Caller earlier this month, Nader stated that he has no plans to run for president again, whether as an Independent or a Democratic primary challenger. However, he predicted that a primary challenge against the president was a veritable certainy in the wake of the debt ceiling debacle.
“What [Obama] did this week is just going to energize that effort . . . I would guess that the chances of there being a challenge to Obama in the primary are almost 100 percent.”
The CDP Progressive Caucus's resolution may well provide a major boost to the effort. Reporting on the resolution at Democracy for New Mexico, one progressive activist writes: "Similar questions are being asked right here by members of the Democratic Pary of New Mexico, and I imagine similar concerns are being discussed among Democrats all across the country. I'm not the only one who thinks the horrible handing of the debt ceiling "negotiations" was the straw that broke the camel's back."
One person who is often mentioned as a possible challenger to Obama is Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. His name tops the list of potential candidates at Stop Hoping, a website devoted to organizing a primary or Independent challenge against the President. There are likely a great many progressive Democrats who wonder why their party's representatives do not measure up to a dedicated democratic socialist such as Sanders. The answer is probably quite simple. Sanders is not a Democrat. He's an Independent.
20 comments:
If progressives aren't going to bolt, yet want to pressure Obama, they might consider reviving the old "favorite son" strategy. Instead of seeking out someone to challenge Obama across the country, progressive Democrats could elect delegates loyal to cooperative state party leaders, who would then control those delegates at the national conventions but wouldn't be understood to be candidates for president. These delegations and their leaders ideally would be in a position to dictate terms to Obama, making their endorsement conditional on specific progressive planks in the platform -- for what they're worth -- while leaving the option open to draft a challenger at the convention itself, just like in the old days. If deference to the President prevents such a strategy, progressives may finally recognize the necessity of their own party -- if they can overcome their fear of the Tea Party.
Every few weeks I see more of the same thing we saw on the right in the years before the formation of the Tea Party. These are the left wingnuts who call Obama a centrist, or even conservative, just like the right wingers were calling Bush a liberal.
All they're lacking is someone to rally against. If Obama implodes and Romney somehow pulls out a win next year, I'd bet every cent I have that a left wing tea party rises and we see the dems significantly speed up their efforts to catch up with the republicans in extremism.
The talk of spinning off is just hot air. No different than Tea Party talk of leaving the republican party en masse.
I'd frankly LOVE to see some left winger like Kucinich or Grayson go up against Obama. Would be hilarious, just like it is watching Ron Paul people rage on the libertarian wing of the GOP. Would be even funnier if it was some crackpot like Cynthia McKinney.
D.eris,
I think what we're seeing Hamsher channel is some of the unfortunate feelings much of the Progressive left have held for the past 30 years, that is, a hostility to "middle America" because the conservatives were able to capture them as Saul Alinsky predicted so long ago. Her attitude "they want to prioritize independents, pfft fuck them!" is counter productive when it should be "how do we capture them into our movement". Long have we ignored these constituents.
I don't think we're necessarily seeing the beginnings of independence for Progressives from the Democratic party. They're still way too afraid of the Republican party (remember, they still believe they're evil incarnate, where they simply believe the Democrats are "corrupt"), and the Democrats if wise, will throw a fig leaf or two. I suspect it will be advancement on Gay Marriage, much like Cuomo did.
Btw, I find "Firebagger" an awesome term. They should take it as their own.
imo, Progressives would do better to join the Independent movement and try to persuade Independents on their own (i.e. Independents') terms rather than stick with the Democrats.
@D.eris
100% agreed.
The reason why progressives are so ineffective imo is because they're not in independent concert with their own policy objects. They're too dependent on an institution that has little use for them (Democratic Party).
This goes for other demo-graphs/persuasions too.
Progressives might be able to pressure dems more from outside the party, but no chance they're going to move the country to their perspective. There are already plenty of people arguing for that perspective, and just changing your label wont change how the vast majority of the country rejects far left positions they take, any more than changing the label they use from very liberal to progressive.
And there is no "independent movement". I really wish there was... but at best we can call it a groundswell.
Well, one doesn't even really need to have that large of an electorate to be influential, some movements in history have only garnered 5% of an electorate and still played a long lasting effect. Whether that's a good or bad thing is up to the individual perspective.
That being said, the public doesn't astoundingly reject "Progressive" or "left wing" views per se, though it's dependent on the specific polling and how the questions are framed. There's certainly enough of a base of support amongst left of center views to become influential if they had their own independent institutions to advance such policies. Media bias against certainly doesn't help though.
With respect to the debt deal, the country already agrees with the progressive perspective to a significant extent. Poll after poll has shown that a large majority of Americans think the proper response to the debt issue is cutting spending (as conservative Republicans desired) AND raising revenues (as progressive Democrats desired). The number is even more pronounced among Independents. The debt deal, at least as I understand it, was lopsided in this regard, focusing entirely on cutting spending and doing nothing to raise revenues or even close tax loopholes etc.
"the public doesn't astoundingly reject "Progressive" or "left wing" views per se"
Of course they do. If they didn't, you couldn't call them left wing views. The public leans left on some things, but nowhere near as far left as this segment does.
"With respect to the debt deal, the country already agrees with the progressive perspective to a significant extent."
Again... not true. They lean their direction on PARTS of the equation, but not as far to the left as this segment. They do want to raise taxes, but polls were clear the majority wanted more cuts than tax increases, and it really is just left wingers (not all, of course) who are under the illusion that it's possible to solve the deficit issues with only tax increases, and the left is also where this cockamamie idea that we can balance the budget without entitlement spending comes from. Just as blind as thinking things like tax cuts always pay for themselves or we could just cut spending enough to balance the budget without sinking the economy.
Unless by "to a significant extent" you mean less than 40% or so, or by "the progressive perspective" you mean anything left of center.
"The public leans left on some things, but nowhere near as far left as this segment does."
They do on *some* critical issues regarding the economy.
For example, the majority of people supported including a "public option" in the health care reform legislation that was eventually passed on Obama without such a provision.
The majority of people support eliminating the taxation the cap on Social Security and applying the tax to all income. The majority of people oppose cuts of any kind to Social Security.
More people support cutting discretionary defense spending than cutting discretionary non-defense spending.
The majority support increasing income taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
The majority of Americans strongly favor imposing new taxes on Wall Street profits, in fact a strong majority believe that Wall Street and banking bonuses should be altogether banned.
Source - http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/roCNPdHQmpfc
Does this demonstrate an attitude towards "far leftism"? No, but it's certainly fits somewhere amongst the left of center. Socially speaking is another question of course.
As for "leftists" believing it could be accomplished by tax increases alone, I find that hard to believe, as most of them also rather loudly call for significant cuts to the "defense" spending as well.
"Unless by "to a significant extent" you mean less than 40% or so"
Are we talking 1% or 39%? If the latter, that's quite a good base to exert influence in a representative democracy.
Public option is a good example. The public leans left on that, and some of the other reforms that passed, but are overwhelmingly against the individual mandate, or single payer.
Of course most people are against cutting social security. If you ask me if I'm for cutting social security, I'd say no too. That's not the question though. The question is whether we make targeted cuts and trim the growth rate of social security now, or make much deeper cuts later. Getting rid of the ceiling altogether will never pass. The proposed 2% surcharge might though... and coupled with paying less out to rich people and slowing it's rate of growth a bit and you've solved SS. Medicare is harder...
"The majority of Americans strongly favor imposing new taxes on Wall Street profits, in fact a strong majority believe that Wall Street and banking bonuses should be altogether banned."
That doesn't really matter... telling a company how it can and can't pay it's employees is clearly unconstitutional. They should be taxed the same way any other company is.
They're really saying that TARP should have come with some MUCH harsher strings attached. The federal government should never bail out anyone without getting some huge payoff if they survive. Just making our money back and letting them go is not enough.
"As for "leftists" believing it could be accomplished by tax increases alone, I find that hard to believe, as most of them also rather loudly call for significant cuts to the "defense" spending as well."
You need to look at the debt and deficit projections. You could literally cut the ENTIRE military budget, the ENTIRE discretionary budget and raise taxes significantly and JUST Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest payments on the debt will overtake the ENTIRE budget in a generation or so.
We're obviously not going to cut out the entire military, or the entire discretionary budget. So unless you think you can convince the American people to raise taxes to the level of those in more socialistic European countries, there is no chance we balance our budget. Raising taxes on the wealthy can't get us there, even with rates as high as they were a generation ago.
"Public option is a good example. The public leans left on that, and some of the other reforms that passed, but are overwhelmingly against the individual mandate, or single payer."
Absolutely, with the individual mandate (to buy for profit private insurance) being the right wing option, and single payer the left wing. I call a "public option" left of center, it could be construed however as centrist.
"You need to look at the debt and deficit projections"
I have, but I think you're a bit confused here. I'm not arguing the validity of said positions or of their constitutionality, simply paraphrasing the said positions. Whether I think their valid or "constitutional", is another discussion entirely.
I agree you can't simply "cut" military spending and raise taxes, our entire economy needs reform. But that's a discussion for another time.
By "to a significant extent" I was actually explicitly thinking about the fact that there was and is majority support for raising revenues/taxes as part of the solution to the debt problem. Much of the country continues to support raising taxes for those making over 250,000/yr, I believe. Even more support doing so for folks making over 1 million a year. I'm not saying doing so would magically solve the problem, just that this is a position for which there is broad public support, is especially popular among progressives, and was completely absent from the debt deal.
""Public option is a good example. The public leans left on that, and some of the other reforms that passed, but are overwhelmingly against the individual mandate, or single payer."
Absolutely, with the individual mandate (to buy for profit private insurance) being the right wing option, and single payer the left wing. I call a "public option" left of center, it could be construed however as centrist."
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not here... I have a hard time seeing how someone could actually believe this.
The right wing position is to not have government involved at all. It was an idea floated by a lot of people, bantied around among some on the right for a while, and ultimately dismissed by a large majority of the country. Ideas do this a lot. To call this right wing could hardly be more ridiculous, unless by right wing you actually mean liberal... not left wing, but more regular liberals, which would make the other 75% of the country that is to the right of that... martians, or living in the center of the hollow earth perhaps?
"By "to a significant extent" I was actually explicitly thinking about the fact that there was and is majority support for raising revenues/taxes as part of the solution to the debt problem."
But that isn't the position of these people. I get emails from these groups, as well as right wing groups and everyone in between. They don't accept cuts to any entitlements at, nor cuts to most of the non-military government. This is just as much of a fairy tale as thinking you can solve our fiscal problems with cuts alone.
It was prompted by the right wing for years, not just "floated around". It was pushed by the Heritage foundation and enacted by a conservative governor. If we're calling a policy demanding people pay for for profit private health insurance with almost no cost control mechanisms and skimpy subsidies "left wing", then these terms have simply lost all meaning. It's true though, that policy was unpopular (I didn't support it either)
But, frankly that's besides the point. The public clearly was very receptive to the proposal to create a "Public option", which was dropped out of the reform package, and which is certainly to the left of the status quo.
And for the record, I blame myself for detracting my own point there. Hey, no one's perfect...
"But that isn't the position of these people . . . They don't accept cuts . . ."
Raising revenues is integral to the progressive position, as I understand it. With regard to their opposition to cuts, that's exactly my point: that the debt deal ONLY included cuts, and had NOTHING on the revenue side, even though this is such an important issue for the progressive wing of the Dems and had majority support in the population.
I responded to the comment that the American people agree with the progressive perspective to a significant degree, or whatever the wording was.
Post a Comment