This Was Not a Defeat for Progressives
by: Eli Zaretsky on November 3rd, 2010 | 6 Comments »
This was not a defeat for progressives. With a few exceptions such as Russ Feingold, and Nancy Pelosi, there were no progressives on the ballot. This was defeat for the corporate politics that Obama, Geithner, and Schumer represent. No one should mourn for a defeat of this politics.
Obama lost because he made the most elementary mistake that a president can make. He ignored, dissed, and was even ashamed of, his base. He was put in office by people who wanted, not change in general, but change toward peace and away from unregulated markets. Once he became President he ignored them in favor of the bankers and generals, insisting we have to get beyond left and right. As a result, all the ideas, all the passion, all the hard work was on the other side. Very few progressives should be upset to see him rebuked today, even if they are worried about the future.
The tea party is not the enemy. It is a complex, multi-centered phenomenon but there are certainly elements that progressives can work with. Probably the most important current in the movement is the resentment against the bailouts — why shouldn’t people resent the bailouts, at least in the form that they took? Much of the early resentment against the health plan came from people who feared that Medicare would be cut. Well, friends, it was Obama who went around complaining that a huge amount of health care spending took place in the last six months of life, the kind of political insight that surfaces in fascist societies, but not in liberal democracies. Of course, the tea party is dominated by an anti-government, deficit-reducing ideology that is almost completely misguided (though while I can defend the New Deal and the Great Society it is hard to defend the New Democrat’s government). And insofar as there are racist elements, obviously, this is abhorrent and must be opposed. But overall, it is not clear to me why corporate liberals are preferable to tea partyers.
The lesson of the last two years is clear. We need an independent left that knows who it is, has values it believes in, starts developing dialogues about where the country is at and where it can go. We need to start from the ground up. The country’s long slide, its basic loss of values and self-respect, the handing over of its wealth and potential to the rich, most of this began with Democrats like Carter and we have seen that the utter disaster that Bush led the country into was simply replicated by Obama. We have to start thinking for ourselves.



Eli, very good comments! Two or three months into Obama’s presidency I felt that he lied his way for our votes. Personally, I see Obama as a very weak president.
The Republicans have Obama walking like a dog.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ed-Schultz-Obama-Stands-P-by-Rob-Kall-101104-295.html
Who do you see that would be so much better than Obama? Not defending some of the disappointment I feel as well. Just asking. Both parties have been co-opted.
The bailouts are a very complicated matter. What would you have done instead? Would you have taken a laissez-faire attitude and allowed the system to collapse, taking with it pensions, 401(k)s, investments, savings, etc. Suppose we had turned away from some of those countries who purchased our toxic debt? Would they have retaliated? Suppose we told Saudi Arabia to get lost. Would they retaliate by telling us that our oil shipments would be greatly reduced. I don’t know. I really don’t know.
Something had to be done. Receivership? Was that the way to go? I don’t know the pitfalls of that. A total government takeover? Would that have sent such convulsions through Wall St. that things would have worsened?
What I feel is that concessions should have been extracted from these banks and they weren’t. Concessions were demanded from auto companies to whom we gave bailouts, but not the banks (as far as I can know). From all I read, however, the government had to do something about a collapsing economy. Whether they went about it the right way is still unanswered for me.
I agree that Obama has to get a backbone and stand up for himself and the country. He might want bipartisanship and it’s a noble gesture but the opposing party doesn’t want it and that was made clear, again and again.
In truth I have not read the whole article expect for the first line where Pelosi is characterized as a progressive. Now, how is this possible when she happily funded all the recent wars. Is killing the other considered progressive? She also defended Israel when it killed and destroyed a good part of Gaza. I have not kept up with Feingold, so no comment.
Russ Feingold was a gem of a senator. He will be greatly missed. He lost the Independent vote and never could we find a more independent voting person than Russ Feingold. Only senator to vote against the U.S. Patriot Act. Voted against the Iraq War. Opposed the expansion of war into Aghanistan.
Pelosi, in my opinion, is a very effective House Speaker and that’s why she’s so disliked by the right. She’s done some good things but, yes, I sadly agree that there have been some bad things, too.
Two good articles on the election results:
Message to Obama: Americans want jobs
By Drew Westen, Special to CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/03/westen.repudiation.election/index.html
and
Don’t Listen To The Media: The Progressive/Liberal Coalition Is Responsible For This Election – Not The Tea Party
Richard Greener
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-greener/dont-listen-to-the-media_b_778629.html