Barack Obama lost the first debate for one reason: he couldn’t take a consistent left/center position and defend it coherently for 90 minutes. Romney had a philosophical point of view and a debating strategy. Obama tried to convey reasonableness, decency, the complexity of modern problems and so forth but always making sure he wouldn’t be seen as a leftist. Strikingly, Obama didn’t mention the 47%, one of the most repulsive remarks ever made by an American Presidential candidate, and guaranteed to turn a great part of the country against Romney. Similarly, he barely mentioned social inequality or women. Instead he reverted to his first three years (prior to Occupy Wall Street) in which he basically ran by claiming to be the more grown-up of the two candidates. His strategy was obvious: pick up some independents; no need to worry about his base, because they will support him whatever he does. But you can’t lead the country without rallying your base. Only the kind of progressive agenda that began to emerge after the OWS demonstrations last fall can revive his candidacy or give meaning to his Presidency. Only with the development of an independent left, centered on the problem of inequality, can some rationality and direction be restored to our politics.
As journalist Michael Grunwald indicates in his book, “The New New Deal,” about Obama’s stimulus package, his administration has done a good even impressive job of steering the country back from economic catastrophe. But just as in the debate, Obama is AWOL when it comes to explaining what he’s been doing.
Some policies can certainly be criticized from a progressive point of view, especially in foreign policy. But his failures in domestic policy are mostly “political” in the sense of not getting the politics right of rebutting relentless Republican attacks and explaining to the country how “Big Government” can and must do good things.
Eli Zaretsky is correct that Obama is not a leftist, but what’s more baffling and damaging to the country is that he’s not defending his record as a liberal in the tradition of the New Deal.
Hard to see how Barack Obama’s domestic policies fit into a definition of New Deal liberalism by any stretch. First, his $800 billion Stimulus was at least 50% short of the amount needed to produce a broad recovery, according to Keynesian economist Paul Krugman. The Stimulus was just large enough to restore record corporate profits & recovery for Wall Street, while the 99% languish in a long term recession in which Obama points with pride to a reduction of the unemployment rate to 7.8%. While there was not enough money for a proper stimulus, there has been enough to allow the Fed to give away $16 trillion to the banks in the last 4 years. Meanwhile, Obama gives us a healthcare plan based on that of the Heritage Foundation, a corporate-friendly plan introduced as a conservative alternative to Hilarycare in the ’90s; the Public Option goes out the window, & instead of ending the Bush Tax Cuts to pay for it, per his 2008 campaign promise, Obama extended them. The Employee Free Choice Act also vanishes. How can a progressive run on a record in which the average yearly wage has fallen $4k during his watch? This is hardly a progressive record, & the problem goes way beyond its author’s inability to defend it as progressive.
There’s much truth in Mr. Miller’s criticism of Obama, and I am a big fan of Paul Krugman, but there was no likelihood of getting 60 votes in the Senate for a bigger stimulus bill. What drove Krugman crazy was that most of the administration didn’t realize how bad the unemployment situation was.
There is no excuse for the Obama administration not explaining the value of what they actually achieved. They averted another Great Depression and they needed to do the politics of explaining to the country everyday what the $800 billion was doing for the country, both concretely (literally) and in economic terms.
The central focus on health care while the country was suffering an employment crisis was wrong
politically, and the individual mandate was a poor alternative to simply extending Medicare (for example), but it was a step forward for this country. But here again, the main problem politically was that the administration has not adequately explained how much of an advance this is for the average family. It might be useful for all of us to read Michael Grunwald’s book or at least see his C-Span presentation(http://www.booktv.org/Program/13770/The+New+New+Deal+The+Hidden+Story+of+Change+in+the+Obama+Era.aspx).
My basic point is that Obama’s fixed position is to not seem like a leftist. This started with CLinton. It is how the neo-liberal Democrats paralyzed themselves. Obama could have used the 47% remark to organize the whole debate. Suppose it had been a racial slur? But Obama obviously decided not to use it, because it was too much like “class warfare.” In cutting themselves off from any left voices, the Democrats have legitimized the right. Any “debate” with rightists just keeps the problem going. Only an independent left can break this dreadful cycle. Otherwise the country will continue to get worse.
I understand Eli’s frustration, which I share, but it’s hard to see how a stronger independent left party could impact our system other than to weaken the Democrats and help the Republicans. What’s more practical is for the Democrats to regain their voice as progressive liberals.
We don’t know exactly what happened to Obama during the first debate; maybe Gore was right that he should have gotten to Denver a day or two earlier than he did. But it’s also true that the Democrats tie themselves into knots proving how “mainstream” they are rather than that they favor Big Government programs that actually help most people — and do work.
A left party! what a great idea. But even a left presence of any sort would be great.
It’s important for the historical record to point out that when Al Franken’s election was upheld in court in mid-2009, President Obama did have a filibuster-proof 60-seat Democratic majority in the Senate – & did exactly nothing with it.
Bertram,
You need to appreciate that our political parties do not enforce the discipline of more overtly ideological parties in parliamentary systems. Having 60 Dems on paper does not meant that the Dems automatically have these votes in their pocket. In fact, they didn’t. There were as many as a half dozen Democratic Senators who were not reliable for every vote, but all you have to do is think of two: Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
Respectfully Ralph, may I remind you that in the Bush era W could count on absolute unanimity among Congressional Republicans, in both Houses. Stories were written suggesting that American politicsb had taken on an almost European parliamentary character in terms of bloc voting. The American presidency was viewed as being at the apogee of its power. Yet when Obama sweeps in with a landslide, he cannot hold the votes of his own party. What happened to the acknowledged power of the president as leader of his party, the man who controls the flow of campaign funds to all officeholding members of his party. Did you ever hear of a single threat emanating from the White House targeting Blue Dog Dems blocking Obama’s progressive agenda? I never did. But we certainly heard about the threats Obama made against the Progressive Caucus in general, & Dennis Kucinich in particular, at the slightest hint that they might stand by their campaign promise (& Obama’s) for a Public Option. And in the end, Obama abandoned the pretense of even needing a 60 vote majority in the Senate by passing Obamacare through Budget Reconciliation, which requires only a simple majority. If Obamacare could be passed via Budget Reconciliation, surely the needecd $1.2 trillion Stimulus Bill could have been passed the same way. It wasn’t, not because Obama lacked the votes, but because he lacked the will. As Eli Zaretsky points out, Obama is desperate not to be seen as a ‘leftist’ – because he is not & never has been one. And I think that is the lesson we need to draw from his 1st term.
Those who are trying to rescue the Democratic (Demagogic) Party are dancing with a corpse. The center of that party has gone so far to the right that it is ideologically barely distinguishable from the Republicans of, say the Reagan era. Forget it and build something with which we can work and be proud. The Green Party is the best alternative to date, and the standard support from labor and minorities need to go there (Green Party) and help build it, giving it nourishment as one would a baby, not let it die from neglect.
There IS an left alternative to the Democratic Party, it’s called the Green Party. It supports the Occupy Movement and calls out Obama for betraying the people who elected him:
http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=551
The Republican Party has to compete with the Libertarian Party, Reform Party and Justice Party for votes, so why can’t the Democrats handle having to actually appeal to voters and defend their pathetic waffling?
In fact, by NOT voting for the Green Party, leftists are stabbing their sisters and brothers in the other “third” parties in the back. Why should they risk running against the Republican establishment when the leftists are supporting the Democratic establishment?
But the responsibility for presenting a strong left progressive voice is OURS — not the president’s.
I was interviewed in France. Here is the question and my answer:
• Considering the risk to see Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan elected, must Obama be fully supported?
Absolutely. Along with the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, Romney’s choice of a hard-line Tea Party ideologue as his running mate has made this election into a real choice. Romney’s extraordinary description of 47% of the American people as dependent takers and parasites had a very deep and emotional effect: what had been a seemingly technical econometric argument over budgets and deficits was transformed into a question of the solidarity of the American people, and respect for one another as human beings. In addition, the demographic changes in the country– the growth in the Hispanic and Asian-American populations, the rise in women working outside the home, the emancipation of homosexuals– have given the Democratic Party a huge advantage. A victory for the Democrats in this election will be a great victory for progressive forces everywhere in the world, but there is no reason to think that Obama will act to realize its promise. That is why we will need an independent left– to give a long-term meaning to what otherwise will appear as a merely personal victory.
Having said that I can really understand supporting the Green Party. I live iN New York, so my vote is not needed and I will likely vote green.
He lost the debate because he didn’t have his teeleprompter, A press corps that rolled over like a little puppy. And an opponent that didn’t genuflect to his greatness
The influence of money from the plutocrats & oligarchy is not discussed in the above discussion. Should it not be discussed? With 400 top earners – earning as much as bottom 150 million – unless we identify them it will be very difficult to set things right. $16 trillion secretly for banks and $760 billions(more than half out of it again for banks). Inequity – lowering of wages & increase of CEO salary in Industry and society.
No prosecution of the bank officers, who are the culprits – fines of .01 percent or less on banks – has created a situation where greed prevails. All these will be issues if Obama wins.
If not, we will soon lose Medicare, Medicaid & Social Security. Though they will not be safe even with the democrats, – unless there is a strong public opinion to push the Dems. The sloth in activism after 2008 election sweep surely turned out to be disastrous.
Although the media has altered the Romney comment on 47%, WE havn’t forgotten the Obama comment ” later I’ll get them”, “the disgusting people in the flyover states, clinging to their guns and their Bibles” Assuming only NY City, DC and Chicago, that leaves a lot of “flyover territory” With one hand on my Bible and the other holding my gun…I guess he means ME! But what can we expect from a closet Muslim?
May I respectfully ask Eli Zaretsky, whose insights I find consistently invaluable, how the Occupy Movement has made this election into a real choice? Especially since Obama himself seems to have orchestrated the crushing of the Occupy encampments through the National Parks Service. In addition, while I understand that voting for Obama can be seen as a statement of social solidarity in response to Romney/Ryan’s attacks on women, et al, I do not see how victory for Obama & the Dems would therefore “be a great victory for progressive forces everywhere in the world.” Simply beating back the proto-fascist forces of the contemporary GOP hardly seems a great progressive victory when its beneficiary is a neo-liberal who seems likely to leverage our continuing economic doldrums into an attack on Social Security (COLA benefits) & a broad range of social spending, after his re-election.