Login Here
Not a single, solitary, actual dyed-in-the-wool progressive has, as far as I can tell, even been mentioned for a position in the new administration. Not one. Remember this is the movement that was right about Iraq, right about wage stagnation and inequality, right about financial deregulation, right about global warming and right about health care. And I don't just mean in that in a sectarian way. I mean to say that the emerging establishment consensus on all of these issues came from the left. There's tons of things the left is right about that aren't even close to mainstream (taking a hatchet to the national security state and ending the prison industrial complex to name just two), but hopefully we're moving there.
Many people managed to convince themselves that Obama was a genuine, dyed-in-the-wool progressive at some point during the primaries. For no reason as far as I could tell -- his voting record in the Senate was pretty much identical to Hillary Clinton's, and the people he surrounded himself with weren't exactly "outsiders." But in the midst of the pie fights, that hardly seemed worth dwelling on for the pointless vitriolic arguments it would have engendered.
I'm actually modestly sympathetic to his current predicament. There are an awful lot of entrenched interests who will quickly line up to sabotage Obama if they think their privilege is threatened before he's even out of the gate -- we're talking about a group of bitter Beltway denizens, after all, who hamstrung Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter for populating their administrations with "outsiders" simply for the catty, junior high hell of it.
Obama is going to have to keep these vultures somewhat quiescent if he's going to achieve any real change.
His isn't the administration I'd pick, but the proof will be in what he actually does. If for instance he sets up a panel to take on torture, opens up intelligence files and lets the public know how this horrible, malignant policy came to pass, it will go a long way towards assuring people that a choice like Brennan for CIA chief isn't just "business as usual."
Look, for people who convinced themselves that Obama was the second coming of Saul Alinsky -- wake up. He never was. He may, however, be the most progressive person we could have possibly hoped to elect as President of the United States.
Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to help keep the obstructionists off his back and push him to fulfill his campaign promises to end the war, pass health care legislation and the Employee Free Choice Act, clean up the environment, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, repair our infrastructure, create good jobs and restore the middle class.
That's what he promised us, and while I'm obviously not wild about the dearth of progressives in his administration (while anti-choicers like Hagel and Lugar are evidently a-okay), I'm less concerned with who he chooses to implement his policies than with his ability to ultimately do so.
Spotlight
Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Campaign Silo
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
Yup, yup and yup.
The trick is to keep our heads here and to avoid falling into either of the two extremes: To be reflexively defensive or reflexively critical.
Over at Daily Kos last week, I saw two Recommended-List diaries by two different authors one day — they shared the Rec List for most of prime blogging time that day. Both diaries concerned who Obama might pick for Secretary of Agriculture. One diarist and her commenters thought it would be Collin Peterson and that OMG OMG this would be a horrible betrayal. The other diarist was even more certain that it would be some guy named Wolff and OMG OMG this would be a horrible betrayal. (Ironically enough, neither of those names is on anybody’s radar screen at USDA, as far as I know. Granted, Collin Peterson could try to muscle himself into consideration, as could the other guy, but then again so could I.)
Thanks Jane.
digg
No uncloseted glbt Americans yet, either, that I’m aware of.
GLBT rights should be added to Chris Hayes’ list of things the left is correct about, that’s becoming mainstream.
Absolutely. We’re not going to get Noam Chomsky.
i don’t see how he can without having some people who actually believe in what he’s promised to do. and i actually don’t mind him having some rightwingers in his cabinet - imo it’s good to have a diversity of view and some devil’s advocates in order to avoid group think. but that’s not what i see - i see a very narrow ideological range representing the elite establishment.
david brooks seems delighted. me, not so much.
that’s not the point. how about stiglitz and similar?
I believe anyone frightened by his choices isn’t getting it. Obama is looking for people with whom he can work. His choices are not necessarily reflective of his philosophy. He’s on a shifting sea that can break into a tsunami just as easily as it can be calmed. The names we’ve seen so far have made most people smile — maybe we’re not jumping up and down, but we’re smiling.
Maybe we all need to read “The Rivals” again before we decide that any group is “under-represented.”
boy, coulda used this post a few days ago . . .ah, the agita
thank you Jane. dead solid perfect
but, but, what about Boyd ?!?!? /s
Odd you should bring up Alinsky. I’m rereading him for the first time in many, many years. I’m not so sure that Obama isn’t using some of Alinsky here in using any means to achieve his ends. If it is necessary for Obama to use people that aren’t necessarily considered progressive but that will follow the policies that he has promised us, then what’s the problem?
I was worried that he was going to appoint Larry Summers as Tres. Secy. I wasn’t worried because of Summer’s knowledge or expertise, but I thought it would just start a fight that was unnecessary. I was delighted when he appointed Geitner. It seems to me that he is picking his battles very well and I plan to have his back. If it ends up that he doesn’t follow through on his promises then I will bitch, but right now, I’m reserving judgement.
Bravo Jane! Precisely right!
and a refreshing
neoliberals and hawks don’t make me smile.
jeremy scahill had a great article at alternet: This Is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama’s White House
the one thing i thought was different between obama and clinton was their circle of foreign policy advisors. but that was during the primary.
“I’m less concerned with who he chooses to implement his policies than with his ability to ultimately do so.”
With you on this Jane.
I was not on the Obama bus immediately (watched him too closely in the Senate) but after he won the nomination worked my ass off like so many others for him. He was our best “hope”. But these cabinet picks are painful. Have we heard the word “change” pass his lips since he won the nomination as he announced, Emmanuel, Clinton etc.
Do you think Wesley Clark is out of the running for any position?
ot
Juan Cole has a request at his site
Joint Experts’ Statement on Iran
Below is a statement on Iran that I and others are hoping will be adopted in Washington as a way forward. Any of my readers who has a way of getting this statement to decision-makers in Washington should please do so. Just Foreign Policy is doing it as a petition. Also, my blogger colleagues should please comment widely on it.
It was carried by wire services such as Reuters and also the Associated Press.
http://americanforeignpolicy.org/
The petition and new report are here
http://capwiz.com/justforeignp.....38;type=CO
I’ve always assumed that Obama was very centrist, and very moderate. He certainly has a low opinion of partisanship — read his books; statements to that effect during the campaign are not new for him.
Outrage at his opinions, I agree with Jane, are dumb, and indicate the people in question haven’t been listening to him. He’s going to be a great improvement over the Current Regime. But I think we’re foolish if we think Obama is going to be all that progressive. I’ve been thinking about him as a sort of 21st Century Eisenhower. Which would be a tragically lost opportunity for pushing the country in a progressive direction if I’m right.
We need to organize ourselves as a sort of “loyal opposition” from his left. When he does right, we support him. Where he doesn’t, we need to develop contacts in Congress so that there is a strong enough progressive faction that Obama feels forced to dicker with it. If we work this right, Obama will spend most of his time fighting with what’s left of the GOP, but will not be overly tempted to compromise with them — he’ll need to worry at least some about his own left flank.
Not smiling here.
If Obama doesn’t choose progressives to head the FDA, USDA, Labor Dept., and OSHA, then it’s unlikely that industry will be well-regulated.
I truly do not understand this. Obama is not a progressive but he is going to push the government in a progressive direction. How? Why, if he’s not progressive?
That Goodwin woman’s “Rivals” book is mostly historical fiction and should be read as such. The four rivals Lincoln picked were gone by the end of his first term. I don’t really count Richardson as a rival; he endorsed Barack after presenting absolutely no challenge to his nomination. The person Obama distinguished himself against was Hillary Clinton, because of her supposedly divergent foreign policy views, and lack of judgment on Iraq and Iran.
And now she’s going to run State? Something’s amiss here, and I fear our President-Elect has fallen in love with the Establishment. I want to see some fire-breathing progressives: Barney Frank at Treasury, Russ Feingold as Director of National Intelligence, Barbara Boxer at EPA, Bernie Sanders at Defense, Kucinich at Commerce, George Miller at Labor.
I mean, when are we ever going to have like-minded Americans in a national Administration if not now? And how are we ever going to get them if we don’t start hollering?
i don’t get this. i spent a decade of listening to bush and i still got outraged when he did things i thought were wrong and/or bad for the country. just because i may have learned along the way to expect that from bush did nothing to temper my outrage at decisions i thought would hurt people.
*** disclaimer: this is an analogy about my outrage, it’s not a comparison of bush and obama.
Making his worry about his own left flank is our mission.
actually, the more i think about this, the more i’m concerned that obama is not picking particularly competent people. that’s more important than ideology.
I for one am going to give O a Friedman Unit. /s
Thanks, Jane. We have to hang together as a party and a country. We can all retreat to our favorite “save the…” political corners, next year.
Jane said, “He may, however, be the most progressive person we could have possibly hoped to elect as President of the United States.”
This is what I have thought about Obama ever since I began supporting him when John Edwards dropped out. Even then, I wasn’t sure he could be elected.
Saul Alinsky, or Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich for that matter, could not have been elected President of the United States in 2008, in my opinion.
Obama is reaching out to conservatives, both Democratic and Republican. He isn’t reaching out to progressives at all. I always hate it when people tell me not to believe my lying eyes. There are no subtle or deeply laid plans here. Obama is surrounding himself with conservatives and choosing them for his Administration because he wants too, because he believes that the system isn’t broken it just needs tweaking, because he doesn’t disagree with what Bush did but thinks only that the execution was poor.
You know, if he picks the wrong people because we didn’t yell loudly enough about who we thought were the right people, and he has to re-staff in a Friedman Unit or two, the Village will be calling it a failed presidency. Best we help him get it right first, and that means hiring DEMOCRATS from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, damnit!
We need to send this report to Obama’s new Secretary of State Clinton
Joint Experts Statement on Iran
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/experts.pdf
Have to be careful about usage of ideology & competence after W, when we learned how intertwined they were. If the world views are not evidence based (i.e., any DC foreign policy person I’ve ever heard; in economics: Supply Siders, Washington Consensers, Friedmanics), then competitence is a negative because they will accomplish a negative goal.
I think many posters still retain some notion that in the USSA, “the Left” and “the Right” refer to political ideologies or even moral convictions. In the spirit of turning a page on the grotesque abuses of the last eight years of partisanship, let us resist the temptation to criminalize the policy distinctions of the past and embrace the modern vernacular in which these terms are now consumed:
The Left - those left out of serious political discourse due to the insignificance of their opinions. In Theocratic terminology, also refers to those left behind in the Rapture.
The Right - those who by virtue of their national prominence and/or political power rule by divine right. In Theocratic terminology, also refers to those whose thoughts and deeds are Biblically righteous.
I’m worried. If this is so this will be a one term round
if you’re right about this (and i think you probably are) that was a good reason to support him in the election. what i don’t get now, after the elections, why progressives defend him when he does stuff that is very far from being progressive.
good call. fair enough.
Perfect. I may steal your comment without attribution!
here’s the thing;
I would give Barack the benefit of the doubt if he had shown that we can trust him to progress this government
so far he has not shown that with any opportunity he’s had, he had popular consensus on fisa telecom immunity, he instead decided these criminals should get immunity even before he found out what they stole, who was damaged, and how our country’s national security was compromised with that immunity
that was huge since Barack claims to be a constitutional scholar, claims to love and respect the constitution, I was show with that vote that he will choose expedience over principle.
then of course there was this economic bailout, a CLEARLY flawed bill, yet he had our lawmakers sign off on a bill that was certain to redistribute more middle class assets to the wealthy
and then of course with Lieberman, man oh man, if we were ever told he does not want oversight over the previous administration he told us with his acceptance of Lieberman
there are other times when I think I am happy with the man and what he is telling us, I love that he is closing gitmo and will supposedly return to honoring our treaties with other countries.
however, the fact that he wants to end torture without prosecuting the criminals that engaged in this depravity (which certainly harmed our country and put it at far greater risk) leaves me feeling as though I am punched in the stomach
in the end, all I can do is hope, I know FDR did not begin office as a progressive, but FDR was faced with a situation where he could not dare to be cautious, in fact, caution would be the real risk and he absolutely had to be bold
Barack is faced with that same scenario, caution for him will be devastating for our country, bold is the only way Barack can be cautious
counter intuitive I know but it is true never the less
According to Robert Reich, Obama’s economic team consists of (besides Tim Geithner at Treasury), Peter Orszag at the Office of Management and Budget, Jack Lew and Jason Furman at the National Economic Council, and Austan Goolsbee at the Council of Economic Advisors.
Peter Orszag struck me as non-ideological and competent. Anyone familiar with the others?
And Jeremy Scahill know the reality the harsh harsh reality of more of the same. He has every right to be outraged
I would rather you give him 6 months, a freedman unit by definition is an eternally moving perameter that is never reached
a freedman unit is “the end of the rainbow”, it is not there
I am giving him 6 mmonths, I do not know if that will convert to a freedman unit, but what am I to do if he does not deliver?
I will probably award another 6 months, hense, a freedman unit
*sigh*
No reason they should. But if you look at the cabinet appointments at a whole, I have a theory.
* First, Obama is *very* serious about passing universal health care. Most of his non-finance related picks in domestic policy have a health care back ground. So I’m guessing that he intends to gird down for a fight, and that he intends to win it.
* He wants to seriously deemphasize and depoliticize foreign policy generally. Likely, he looks at withdrawal from Iraq as mostly a technical problem over which he’s going to be somewhat hostage to events, and that Afghanistan is not that different. Israel/Palestinian relations will be somewhat in stasis until after the Israelis form their next government, and potentially for years after that if Netanyahu forms the next government. So mostly, he needs to manage his foreign policy in as “non-controversial” way as he can, so that it doesn’t derail his health care initiative.
* The financial/fiscal crisis is developing too quickly for his team to plan what to do about it, beyond the clear requirement for a very large fiscal stimulus. So he’s picking technocrats. I know a lot of people don’t like the idea of Larry Summers having lots of responsibility, but folks like Krugman and others who have worked both in academia and in posts in government have a very high opinion of his creativity, technical, and management abilities. I don’t think that Obama is taking on either for his ideology or even his charming personality. He certainly isn’t taking him on as a spokesman But if you assume that Obama sees this as mostly a practical problem where his team will need to improvise and be very fast on their feet, his appointments make sense.
In all, it looks like he intends to concentrate heavily on structural and institutional changes to what government does, starting with and emphasizing on health care. Everything else he intends to manage well enough to prevent it from derailing everything else, and to be prepared for opportunities they do not believe they can foresee.
Since Obama isn’t progressive, I’m assuming this means that a progressive can not be elected President. Curious though because the country agrees with a lot of progressive positions and Congress didn’t achieve an approval rating lower than Dick Cheney’s by an enacting a progressive agenda but by failing to do so.
because we don’t want another 1980?
If he doesn’t perform in 6 months, the economy will be in deep depression.
Justin Raimundo sees division of labor. Obama will concentrate on the domestic side and Clinton will direct foreign policy.
Maybe the only change to foreign policy will come when the economy is running on empty.
I happen to believe he was the least electable candidate we could field, I thought edwards was eminantly more electable, though of course he would have had to bow out after his affair became public
I also thought kucinich was far more eletable.
I think there was such vile hatred for bush and the republicans we could have run anyone and we would have won.
but barack is who we ran, (only because we were forced into it by the media) and he is who we have, we will make due, if he is not up to the task then in 8 freedman units he will not be in office
not saying that we should not keep the pressure on; we should. but we have to give him a chance to build a record that can get him reelected, even if we don’t agree on every point.
now,if you believe as some apparently do that we will not agree with him on any point, then it becomes hard to see why his reelection would even be a goal. I’m just not there yet. By any means.
the country doesn’t get a say in a vetting process that determines which candidates can 1) raise enough money and 2) not be destroyed by the msm. a democracy deficit.
agree otherwise.
you know of course, I am convinced we ARE in deep depression, we have been in mild depression for two of the last 5 years, the first three being recession.
I have seen domestic investment shrink, wages shrink, assets shrink, long before this current crisis.
as the crash of the great depression, the crash didn’t cause the depression it was a result of the depression, same thing here
the thing is, it is irresponsible for anyone to call this a depression in public, that would create fear and more collapse, so I agree they shouldn’t be calling this a depression in public, never the less that’s what I believe it is
ianae
Despite the absurd Fox Noise talking point that Obama was the “most liberal” member of the Senate (more Liberal than Kucinich? Feingold? Sanders?), anyone paying attention knows that he’s a solid centrist. You had to be deluding yourself as a progressive to see him as an ideal candidate.
My saying throughout the campaign was, with Obama you won’t get everything you want, but with McCain you would get NOTHING you want.
What we have, I sincerely hope, with Obama is a president who will restore the Rule of Law, who will respect the Constitution (although I was profoudnly disappointed with his FISA vote), and who will get us out of Iraq, who will not invade Iran, who will make sensible Supreme Court appointments (I hear Justice Stevens has already booked two weeks at Sandals in May), and who will apply actual intelligence to addressing this nation’s problems.
But he’s not a progressive. He’s a pragmatist. He will accomplish progressive goals IF THEY MAKE POLITICAL SENSE. To that end it’s up to the people to supply the impetus to make progressive political goals the kind of sensible political goals that Obama will pursue. That means if we make Universal Health Care a sensible goal for him to pursue - a goal that is likely to succeed, and a goal that will bring him increased political capital - then he’ll pursue it. If Universal Health Care only presents Obama with political outlays that bring no return, then he won’t undertake UHC.
I think that’s a fair tradeoff. If we want it, we need to be the ones who make it worth his while.
Would I prefer President Kucinich and Vice President Feingold? Sure. (For one thing that’s about the only conceivable way we could have gotten a HOTTER First Lady.) But as it is, we’re lucky to have Obama, and the best way to approach the next four years is to think of ways to make progressive goals the kinds of pragmatic undertakings that his Administration will want to pursue.
you think it was the fault of progressive criticism of carter that caused him to lose in 1980?
Goolsbee is a free trader from University of Chicago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11.....038;st=cse
other than obama != bush i really expect very little from mr. change.
But now it’s not the election tradeoff that’s important anymore. Now we must consider the objective difficulties O is facing and whether he & his appointees are up to the task. So far, not so much.
lol!
Or, another way to consider it is, if Obama is a pragmatist and these are his appointees, what is it he’s sizing up to accomplish? I’m not disagreeing with you, I’m just saying that he’s showing his hand here. If we want his priorities to become ours, well, what ARE his priorities, and what can we do to align them with a progressive agenda?
it sure didn’t help him. I supported Ted Kennedy in 1980. I believe that campaign harmed Carter’s chances of reelection. Of course, it is much more complicated than that.
with the evidence we have to date, how do you compare the various theories?
well if my only legitimate role as a citizen is now to support and not criticize the next president, i can see why so few people bother.
I actually don’t have a progressive agenda right now because keeping the economy from tanking irretrievably is far more important than universal medical care. The probabilities are probably a bit greater than 50% that O will pull it off, only because he seems to be signing onto the Build Baby Build infrastructure stimulus. But that seems likely to come with wasting a hell of a lot more taxpayer dollars bailing out financial institutions with his crew.
I agree with this post. Obama has been very honest and straightforward about himself. He is not a progressive at all, if that term is taken to mean strong advocacy of policies that are ‘left’ in the conventional two dimensional poltical spectrum we hear about on the TV. But the TV is whacked, so do you want to limit youself to their terms? Obama has been very open about this. When he said he was a coalition builder and a post-partisan, I think he was also honest.
I have very serious doubts about the post-partisan stuff. I think for the post-partisan stuff to work, he needs to be very firm about who is boss, and that his underlings are there to perfrom and produce, not wing their own policies. In other Obama needs to produce some tough FDR/Truman/LBJ leadership. I think the best sign so far is that he has picked Emanuel and Biden to be at the top of his WH -and they can enforce. If Obama is strong enough to lead them rather than the other way around, then it will work.
I would hope that Obama said to his hires, in a pleasant but forceful Edward G Robinson way “Look, this is the way it’s gonna BE around here, SEE! And you’re goin’ with my plans? SEE! You better be, if you say yes, SEE!
Things can be done if a president has conviction and character, and has wide popular support. Even a goofball like Reagan stood up against almost his whole staff when he decided to deal with the Soviet Union.
I will not stand silent if post-partisan means continued namby-pamby, weak, split the baby, nonsense in order to keep from making waves (That is, if Obama will adopt recent Democratic Party SOP).
I do think he is truly progressive in the sense of encouraging bottom-up social change. If we believe that the US is really a center-left country on really big issues (when they are not being manipulated by fear or resentment), then that that type of progressivism will pay off in the long run. If Obama can build wide spread popular consensus for sensible policies, that will be great progress. I have faith that if that is done, then as good policies get implemented, things will gradually move towards our ‘lefty’ ideas, more or less, as they are shown worthy.
We have seen where Rove’s “50% plus 1 vote” strategy for national governance got us. I do not want to see good policies in critical areas flame out using the “50% plus one vote” leaderhsip strategy.
We need to look at all these people, in their political lives, as mere political tools for making progress. We, as citizens need to advocate for whe we think is the right direction, and not be too bothered by whether the current office holders are our dreams come true or not.
When asked recently, Obama would not admit that he would raise taxes on the wealthy.
Was his non-answer more stealth maneuvering to avoid Right Wing sabotage? Or was he only joking about raising taxes on the wealthy? FISA, Rahm, Lieberman, Bailout, and lousy cabinet picks. It could mean anything.
I did’nt see a whole lot of difference between Hillary and Obama during the primary debates, except I liked Hillary’s healthcare ideas over Obama’s, and she had what i felt at the time the edge on experience. In the end I grew to love Obama just because I thought he would be a better president for the period we were in and a whole other period we are in now. I did’nt vote for him because he was the most progressive or center this or that, just because I thought he would do the best job of being our President for the whole country.
I wrote last night at Digby that I think the the GOP will continue to be the obstructionist party because it is all they have in the way of power in congress. They won’t have Bush anymore waiting with his veto pen if all else fails to block democratic majority legislation. We have more votes now, a democratic president, and a chance of getting things like healthcare passed and the occupation in Iraq ended. I hope Obama will find a way around the obstructionist GOP who hope by doing this they will be able to stymy meaningful legislation and his administration, then being able to say they failed hoping voters will come back to them as an alternative in the next election. This seem to be their only strategy as they have no new ideas or anything else to offer. If Obama, Reid, and Mrs. Pelosi thinks reaching out to the conservatives is worth a try then I am willing to support them on it for now.
As I have been saying for a while now, Obama has no problem acting decisively when he wants to and when he wants something done he isn’t waiting until he’s President.
So no, his leading the charge on the FISA Amendments Act was not an aberration. He wanted it. He got it.
Pushing through the Paulson bailout? Ditto.
What he did on Lieberman is very interesting. Compare how he treated Jeremiah Wright and how he treated Lieberman. What he wanted he got. He could have cut Joe loose just like he did Wright as a matter of “principle” but he didn’t. That he didn’t says a lot about his character and the kind of President I think he is going to be.
And, of course, let us not forget his selection of Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff. Again no aberration. Obama has in fact been very consistent since he sewed up the nomination, just not in ways progressive like.
It’s worth remembering that by European standards, and even by US historical standards, US politics have been dominated by the radical right. By most standards, the US has been run by its lunatic fringe, and the opposition has been a pretty conservative, pro-business party — the Democrats.
Progressives of all kinds have been locked out, and we’re only recently gotten our feet back in the door after about 30 years on the outside. So an Eisenhower type would be a distinct improvement.
I don’t think Obama’s coalition is really stable — I think he’s going to absorb the sane conservatives, and we’ll be relatively low in influence until we start building up independent areas of influence and power. We’re allied with Obama for now. But I think it will turn out to be an alliance of convenience until we can dependably field progressive candidates and beat the pro-business opposition.
I believe the solution to the economic crisis is a progressive agenda.
especially universal healthcare, if we had single payer our industry would be far more competitive, our labor force would have far more to spend, far more to invest.
if we rebuild our infrastructure, invest in alternative fuels and research cooling the planet, that gets dollars back into the economy and it gets product in return, rather then simply dumping those dollars with nothing to show for it, (ie, the bailout, ie printing money to pay debt), we get assets to show for the investment
the two, progressive agenda and getting our economy from tanking are not mutually exclusive
A progressive agenda and keeping the economy from tanking aren’t mutually exclusive.
Not that much can be done with bush still office and other members of the status quo retaining their place.
But who cares when there is world wide youtube party!
http://www.youtube.com/live
*sigh*
yep. we’re there.
Re Jane- For no reason as far as I could tell…. ” me either.
did anyone really think we progressives wouldn’t have our work cut out for us- so to speak? apparently so. mmh.
How do you square his choices with “Bringing change and a new way of doing things to Washington”? Because to me that pledge is seeming more and more like a steaming load of crap.
& perris,
It’s a matter of timing. Economy needs something RIGHT NOW, and you know perfectly well progressive agenda can’t be enacted quickly.
Another point, at least as far as economics goes, I do not believe in judging economists by what they said or did in the 90s. What matters to me is how they have responded to changing evidence regarding the Washington Consensus.
How would we have judged Jeffrey Sachs, or Paul Krugman, from their positions in the 90s? None too good, they would still be suspected of crypto-fascist, corporatist, tendencies.
What botheres me about Summers is not his positions in the 90s, but the fact that unlike many other economists, I have not seen him reveal much about how the last ten years has changed his thinking. Krugman, Sachs, DeLong, even very vocal globalizationists like Baghwati, have clearly demonstrated their ability to react to evidence and alter their thinking. Summers? Not so much. For that reason, I would prefer him to have no position at all in the administration.
Stiglitz has had the most detailed and sensible, and comprehensive, and theoretically sound mastery of several big economic issues over the last ten years. He knows the big picture and he knows the details. He understands the role that empirical evidence plays in a science that has pretensions to being empirical (and many other famous econ pooh-bahs do not). He has the macro and the micro down. I hope he has some official role (assuming he wants one) or at least is listened to very carefully.
Stiglitz also has practical accomplishments. He was a main advisor to China’s economic modernization. Whatever you think of their governance, the economic development program has been more successful there than in the Soviet Union where the free market fundamentalists did their work.
All 3 points are based on either what he’s said or written — I think he’s been real consistent going back to when he was a state senator — or on the appointments.
He’s very focused, and the focus is on passing health care. Everything else he’s hiring very smart people who are mostly managers and improvisers. FP isn’t that ideological a deal for him, and he and his people have made a judgment that he’s going to be constrained by events. My sense is that the fiscal and unemployment crisis he’s also going to be very practical about, and he’s going to run the show with technocrats.
Obama is not an ideologue. He is only somewhat progressive; he is emphatically *not* a populist or a leftist.
Unless Obama plans by force of will to compel all his establishment appointees to do things his way and not their own, yeah. Bidness as usual.
Perhaps we have finally succeeded in making Michael Dukakis president.
Kucinich will never be electable. Don’t get me wrong, I like him, but there is no way, ever.
True. Building block could still be set into place but that would some original intent.
from pnhp: A letter to our new president:
Very astute observation. Quite brilliant. Obama did kick Rev Wright to the curb, while Lieberslug enjoys full power. Just wait and see how long it takes for ol’ Lieberslug to commence sandbagging Obama.
I can see by your post you have something in mind…this sounds interesting too.
what would be a good economic strategy right now?
and the reason being?
s/would/would require
The thing is that Bush only used the veto a handful of times. Even in the last two years when the Democrats were in a majority in the Congress, most of the Republican agenda continued to be enacted because the Democrats caved so much. So the picture is more complicated. Yes, the Republicans successfully obstructed the Democratic agenda but the Republicans because of repeated Democratic spinelessness continued to be able to enact their own, even with Bush being the worst and most unpopular President in our history.
I think that this may be priorities more than anything else.
He’s going to pass the middle class oriented tax cut. But he may be willing to let the rich keep their abnormally low tax rate, and just let that expire in 2010 as is currently the law.
I think he’s decided where he wants his fights to be, and he’s willing to take the path of least resistance on high bracket tax rates. Balancing the budget is not on the table right now anyway, and while we’d get better employment effects if we shifted those tax breaks away from the rich and gave them to someone who actually needed them, he may think it’s not worth the fight in 2009.
Maybe we disagree on that. I never thought Obama was a anything like a left-liberal progresive in the contemporary sense of that word. I thought he was a progressive in what I think of as a ‘procedural progressive’ -bottom up change, consensus building among the population for change, dismantling of monied insterests and their influence in political campaigns and governance.
If you think like me that the US population is not essentially conservative, or center-right, but rather moderate liberal on the most important issues, then that will a good thing in the long run.
We shall see. In any case, no point in worrying to much about it. We so-called lefties have to make our case apart from Obama, and we need to start right now. Obama is a political tool, and I do not trust him to be one thing or the other. He was the better choice we had in the general, so I supported him. I do not have to defend him any more than that.
You don’t have long to wait — RGJoe will appear on Meet The Press tomorrow!
I absolutely agree with the Jane and the post. President-elect Obama is the man we have. He may even be the right man for the time. Among his first tasks - tasks he must accomplish before the age-old progressive-vs-centrist debate need come to dominate our verdict on his administration - will be to undo shrub’s monstrous administrative rules power grab, restore the rule of law at home, restore America’s reputation abroad, provide us with a path to ending at least one of shrub’s two wars (he’s already stated that he has no intention of ending them both), guide our disintegrating economy to something other than a suicidally hard landing and then convince us he has a real plan to returning it to growth, and introducing compelling strategies for action on the environment/energy/ climate change and healthcare. None of these are necessarily partisan issues except for the most wingnutty of wingnuts, and none of them need become a source of contention between centrist and progressive Dems. Let’s support the president (and I say this as a former ardent Clinton supporter)
Which means we will have plenty to occupy our time.
Going after right wing hacks has become a specialty here and so has pushing hard for what we want.
Kudos to Ms. Hamsher for creating a politicians worst nightmare, proactive constituents.
minor disagreement wrt delong. but maybe he’s changed his mind since 2003? i eventually stopped reading him for his indefensible positions on trade and especially forced capital market liberalization.
He is just not broadly appealing. Like it or not this country elects men it “likes”, it finds “attractive”. Now don’t shoot the messenger, I personally find this disappointing, but it is the way it is.
Build Baby Build, i.e. massive infrastucture spending passed quickly after 1/20 (if not in a lame duck session after the Nov employment data are reported on 12/5) with massive funds dispersed to states & locals quickly to commence programs already on the books.
Let’s hope the leadership in Congress will be willing to act more boldly with Obama in the White House, because the GOP is certainly not going to hold back or be any more willing to go along.
Thanks for reading my hideously long comment.
Summers at NEC (better than FRB chair, but that could still happen when Bernanke’s term is up) and Gibbs as press secy.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/.....ouncement/
I’m with you.
excellent point.
No, I think you’re wrong about that.
When pressed about “change”, he’s been willing to define it, and he’s been consistent about it. But “change” for Obama is mostly about process. On policy, he’s a pretty boring centrist, very market and business oriented, technocratic, who avoids populist rhetoric and policies unless forced into them.
So it isn’t that his claims of being for change are a “steaming pile of crap”. It’s that what he’s been calling change isn’t progressive change. I don’t like it and you don’t like it. But none of us have any right to be surprised by what he’s doing.
New and improved, HDTV ready!
should have said that i am big big stiglitz fan (although of course that doesn’t mean i agree with him all the time).
I think you have it right.
I wonder how many writers are writing books on Obama right now as we speak?
Exactly.
Atoned for past sins?
looks like a steaming pile to me.
well you know I agree with that, I’ve been saying that for about 3 years now.
I think of course that needs to come before universal healt care but check this out;
these new jobs should have the employer paying health care as part of the salary
that will serve two purposes, most important it will lower the cost of health care, comapanies will be forced to compete for these big contracts
it will also set the pace for a universal plan, by plan would be as follows;
the employer provides the health care for the labor force, they will obviously be able to pay less to the worker since a huge expense is payed, this should be at least sum zero for the employer since he can get better rates then the individual
the individual pays an added “health tax” which is not for “his” health care but for those unemployed
the same as we pay into disability, we don’t pay it when we are disabled we pay it when we are healthy
what say you?
It’s a steaming pile for being bad policy. But in all fairness, Obama told you he was going to give you a steaming pile.
I’m not saying it’s not a steaming pile. I’m saying you shouldn’t be surprised it’s a steaming pile.
juliani had no problem getting elected and would have been president if he wasn’t a criminal, a murderer and a suporter of bush
he is clearly more grotesque then kucinich
I might say the same thing about fdr I might add
his or mine?
heh, this youtube live thing is pretty funny
I mean to say fdr was certainly not an attractive man, nor was bush sr
and I have to say, bush jr is really dweebish as far as I am concerned
heading home, see all in the next chapter of “the lake of fire and dogs”
You greatly minimize all the difficulties in getting any medical care program enacted and are vastly optimistic about what it will include, not to mention cost savings. I predict some whimpy program will be passed in a year that will satisfy no one, giving “universal” medical care a bad name and setting back the process by another 4 years until the following prez election.
The reason I’m so pessimistic is because I’ve been watching this closely since 1992.
Guiliani appealed to a certain group of conservatives, he was obviously not broadly appealing or he would have gotten the nomination. FDR was before teevee. Kucinich is appealing to a certain group of liberals, obviously not broadly appealing or he would have gotten the nomination.
His, of course. I don’t know your sins & don’t want to. Shutting eyes & covering ears. Lalalalala.
Like it or not, everyone who is eligible, and would like to, can vote.
never been surprised. i’ve been saying fuck obama ever since he said fuckk off on fisa.
l8r
I would rather say kucinich didn’t get the nomination for the same reason edwards didn’t get it
the media wanted beatable democrats, in a country of bigots and mesonginists the republicans thought they could beat a women or a black man, that’s who they wanted to run against and that’s what the media delivered
using your metric, edwards would have won both nominations he ran for
Color me cynical but in nearly 30 years of fighting for GLBT rights I’ve heard this same song and dance one too many times. Patiently waiting for promised future change that never quite comes while working your ass off to keep electing Democrats who govern as Republicans has made me weary.
I haven’t heard a single word coming from the Obama camp about any programs that will help me, a poor public employee who is nearing financial ruin due to salary cuts. I am drowning in the proverbial one-paycheck-away-from-ruin scenario. My coworkers and I are all suffering from substantial salary cuts combined with ever-increasing cost of living, added onto outrageous interest on credit card bills from paying for medical care and car repair and student loans that we won’t be able to pay off until we are 130.
All of Obama’s proposals (so far) help those who are already flush, in the game, younger, healthier, richer, and more able to change location quickly. Wall Street gets billions, automakers are saved, and millionaires can continue to breathe sighs of relief. Me and my coworkers get a shitty bankruptcy law no one is talking about fixing, that our ever-decreasing wages forces us to subject ourselves to with no light or hope provided by Obama or the Democratic party, and nary a word about what they will do to help US. Jobs building roads and schools aren’t going to help me one whit at my age and in my physical condition so I guess I’m just not a part of the new New Deal so far.
I really want(ed) to believe in CHANGE! but I haven’t seen any signs of it coming. Jane is always pragmatic and optimistic. I’m nearing the end of my rope financially, physically, and emotionally. We’ll see what the first 100 days brings….
it is hard for me to quit this place but here I am, pushing the button, see you later 2
i probably haven’t been following long enough to know his. please share (his, not yours *g*)
Bottom line, the people who get the most votes, win. The media had nothing to do with Kucinich not getting the nomination.
it’s not one of the most dangerous addictions we could have. travel safe.
He was Washington Consenus while Chief Economist of World Bank. It opened his eyes after which he repented. Also had a personal experience with him, indicating extreme hubris on his part. Doubt he’s overcome that.
I’m not sure if it’ll help you long run, but…
They *are* talking about taking steps that state and local governments don’t cut back right now, since it’s the last thing we need during the increasingly grim economic climate.
Whether they can do anything fast enough to help is a different question. I’m watching the situation here in California with a lot of concern, since unless we can get the idiot GOP reps, senators and governor to stop blocking tax increases, people in your position will continue to see their paychecks cut and their jobs disappeared. But at least it’s beginning to dawn on some of the idiots that this might not be the time and the place for that.
I was never an Obama fan, but he definitely lost me when he folded on FISA. I’m sorry, but anyone who isn’t willing to stand up for civil liberties and constitutional principles isn’t someone I can support.
I wish him luck, though; there’s a lot on his plate.
Thanks for some consolation but the cuts have already been taken here in Florida and they are poised to make even more before Obama is even sworn in. Two of my coworkers recently filed bankruptcy and thanks to the new pay it all back now rule, they have less than $150 a month to actually live on. We all have 2 jobs and many of us are now seeking a third which isn’t exactly easy in the high unemployment atmosphere we have down here. I want to hear about what my party is going to do soon to help the millions like me. When we go down (credit card defaults and car loan defaults are supposed to be the next big wave of Big Shitpile from what I’m reading) then the economy really will be tanked beyond repair, I fear.
But I will keep on keeping on and see what Obama and the new Democratic majority we elected to the congress do for the millions of Americans like me who don’t have massive investment portfolios or inherited wealth to rely on in this depression.
I hear you–
we’re also in the same boat here- flat incomes that won’t rise at all, and student loans that are crimping our ability to save and get ahead. This country is going to have to confront personal debt if we as a country want to improve things. I hope a lot of commenters here are right, and that healthcare will be seriously reformed, because that’s one critical element of improving everyone’s financial situation.
i would not call him washington concensus (wrt to trade at least) while at WB. although i do think his time there radicalized him (for a reformer). he has talked about his almost traumatic experience wrt to ethopia v soon after joining WB.
also before that, while at the CEA, iirc, he argued against TRIPS saying among other things that it was bad for scientific progress (something i think was not appreciated w/in scientific communities at the time).
why do you think washington consensus while at WB?
short drive from coffee shop to home, here I am back
can’t agree
the people the media covers get the most votes, the media had quite a bit to do with who we nominated.
I agree. A friend and I were so frustrated by these obstructionist Republicans in the California legislature that we seriously considered writing/drafting our own proposition to reduce the 2/3rds budget passage hurdle down to say, 55% from 67%. Now they’re talking about possibly putting on on the ballot in 2010. A bit farther down the road than I’d like, but I think it’d win in a heartbeat. Those idiots in the Central Valley, Inland Empire, foothill regions, etc., may think the state’s population thinks they’re “heroes,” but just about everyone I know (and admittedly most aren’t Republicans!) thinks they’re totally obstructionist jerks.
y’know he IS the president and he DOES get to tell the people he hires what to do — the shill in the Oval Office the last eight years doing whatever he was told is the aberration. Obama and his workers said he was going to be progressive and I expect he will be — in time, if not immediately.
And as much as I sympathize with anyone’s financial plight, especially working, as I do, in a collapsing industry, I really don’t think it’s possible for a progressive, or a liberal or a centrist or a moderate to fix a country that has been so thoroughly and relentlessly corrupted and plundered for eight years — in 100 days. It is simply not going to happen, in 100, or 200 or 300, or 600 days.
Hell, it’s going to take Obama at least a year just to sift through the wreckage and disarm all the booby traps Bush and Cheney are leaving for him. We are fucked for the time being. So let’s let the guy do what he can and do what we can close to home.
Prop 8 aftermath in California has obscured a truly remarkable and heartening development in the general: Obama won in many GOP strongholds — San Diego county for one; Riverside, San Bernardino as well, — and McCain won by just a slim margin in Orange County.
As a veteran poker player, I can spot another one. Obama is a consummate poker player.
We ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
If we want to win on this — and we need to win on this — then 2010 is the right time to vote on it, and the time to start working on it is now.
I’m not sure how best to start hammering on this at the grassroots, but I’m pretty sure that this is the right window to start on it. For good or ill, I don’t think that grassroots activists are going to have much influence on Obama. We’re much better off building up independent organization than sitting around venting about how much Obama disappoints us. So if we work at the state level and build up organization that can change things in the states, we’ll have a platform to push a more progressive agenda on the federal level as well.
Personally I don’t giving a flying fry pan what implements Obama uses to achieve what he chooses. By surrounding himself with moderates he is avoiding idealogical fights coming out of the gate. The people he has chosen are effective fighters and may be the most useful tools to employ in the fights ahead to fulfil what in the end will be his vision. “A tool is a weapon if you hold it right.”
Keep in mind it’s President Obama who is calling the shots, not his appointees. And also keep in mind that Carter and Clinton brought in a lot of outsiders, which hamstrung them big time.
Obama hasn’t even taken the frickin’ oath yet! Relax!
I think people need to cool down a little. Lots of people got very excited about Obama. They volunteered, donated money, and voted for him. I fear some of that passion could go in the opposite direction if people have unrealistic expectations. If he manages to undo the damage of the Bush years, that will be a monumental accomplishment. Maybe Obama will turn out to be as great a President as FDR, but it’s unreasonable to take that as a given. He will certainly be better than McCain and Palin would have been.
here are an awful lot of entrenched interests who will quickly line up to sabotage Obama if they think their privilege is threatened before he’s even out of the gate
its just stupid to think that it is possible to appease the punditocracy. Selesting republicans and center-right Democrats is a hude waste if the intent is to ward off non-stop criticism from the entrenched interests.
I’m less concerned with who he chooses to implement his policies than with his ability to ultimately do so.
the two are inseparable. This is pure delusional happy talk. Obama can not steer the ship clear of all the icebergs while his first mates are all grabbing the wheel to go in a different direction.
But he has done things.
He has indicated who some of his appointees are.
He has acted on Lieberman.
He has pushed through the bailout bill.
He has voted on FISA.
By his actions he shall be known.
Well if you do, we are SO coming to your swearing in!
Oh, do you have to get confirmed by the Senate??? Oops.
Jane,
Thanks for this post. I’m late to the party, as usual, but I’ve been busy all day out here in Hawaii. I agree with all of your points.
But I suspect we’ll still be peopling the barricades, cause we still won’t be satisfied!
Bob in HI
Ian,
Perhaps you’d like to update this song:
Bob in HI
Guy I know, always claimed to be an independent voter, told me after the election that for the first time in his life, he voted a straight Democratic ticket. Wondered why I didn’t seem more enthusiastic about Obama winning the election.
Just didn’t know how to tell him: Obama was about my last choice from the entire Democratic field. I like the guy; O’s just too…conservative. I wanted a true populist & got…something slightly better than a Rethuglican.
How can I rejoice about that?
Yeah I’m sure Scahill is feeling pretty duped right now. He went out on a limb as someone who thought Obama would achieve a Clintonian purge.
Dennis Kucinich was the ONLY real progressive running for the presidency this year and last, but if I’m not mistaken, it was the “progressives/liberals” who couldn’t look past this man’s ears or his height. Yep! Apparently they were stuck on stupid and judge people by this and not about what the person stands for! But, I digress. When Kucinich said to his supporters to throw their support to Barack Obama, I did. I know Barack is no where near as progressive as Kucinich is, but if he’s happy with him then so am I.
He’s not “the most progressive person we could have possibly hoped to elect as President of the United States.” We could have gone a little further I think.
But, he may well be the person who can get the most progressive agenda passed.