Can Obama Save a Failing Democratic Party?
39 comments on this post
I think that the reason Obama seems to offer so much hope as a Presidential candidate is the same as why he inspires so much fear from his opposition (and why he so easily gets labelled as a racist, socialist, idealist, etc.). It's because he embodies the promise of a real alternative to the politics as usual of the status quo. Unfortunately, that status quo has been propped up by the failings of the Democratic to position itself as a true opposition party. Let me take a moment to quote from Sheldon Wolin's Politics and Visionin order to make my case:"Beginning with the Goldwater campaign of 1964 and gathering momentum with the Reagan presidency (1980-1988), the Republicans evolved into a unique phenomenon in American history, a major party that was fervently doctrinal, zealous, ruthless, opportunistically populist, pro-corporate, and successful in winning a popular majority, sometimes by dubious methods. As the Republican party grew more stridently and intolerantly ideological, the Democratic party conceded that the Republicans had succeeded in conservatizing the electorate, thereby setting the ideological parameters for the politics of the new millennium. The Democratic party all but abandoned its critical, reform-minded constituencies to embrace the ideology of the end of ideology...Unlike the Republican part, which, when in the minority, vigorously played the role of an opposition party -criticizing and offering a genuine alternative - the Democrats were ineffectual at both."
As a Democrat, I have furiously watched as Republicans have had a monopoly on setting the terms of political discourse, while Democrats must either be constantly on the defensive or sit idly by while they concede their positions. Even during the 2006 elections, Democrats played the role of centrists, again appealing to "the ideology of the end of ideology," without offering a successful critique of Republican policy positions (apart from the war in Iraq, which has not resulted in much of a change). Obama seems to offer some promise of altering the terms of the debate. "Change" has certainly become the cliche of this election, the question now is whether Obama can really deliver the goods. He has made attempts to alter the terms of political debate, with varying degrees of success. However, I wonder if the Republicans have been so successful in defining away what constitutes legitimate political dialogue that future attempts to reconfigure that rhetoric by Obama will easily be dismissed.
By Kevin - 5/07/2008
39 Comments:
Remember January when we had like 10 candidates on stage during the debates? The discussion was about issues and policies. Obama really shined. So did Senator Clinton. They have a lot of similarities when it comes to policy. Over the past couple of months, the battle between Senator Clinton and Obama has been one of personality and a manufactured debate about experience. Once Senator Clinton concedes defeat, there is going to be a period of calm. Democrats will breathe a sigh of relief, regroup, and remember what it is we started fighting for when this campaign began: end the war, health care reform, and the economy.
Kevin, John McCain has made his career trying to buck the mold that your quote outlines of the modern Republican Party. I strongly believe that it is important for Democrats to get their nominee so that the Republicans can start infighting again. McCain pulled 30% - 40% in many of his primary wins. There are segments of the Republican Party that are going to be extremely critical of Senator McCain's policy positions. That is going to give Obama the opportunity to rise above the infighting and get back to the politics of hope and explain issue by issue how he is going to change Washington.
His first test will be his VP appointment.
Is it possible he will be branded as a socialist not because of the "politicas of divisivness" but because he is? If you look like a duck, quack like a duck, why not proudly claim to be a duck?
I guess I don't understand what about Obama looks and acts like a socialist (and why is that such a bad word anyhow?).
I mean, all the hype about Obama being supported by the Chicago branch of the DSA and his appearance at a supposedly socialist conference does not equate to him being a socialist. That is just fallacious reasoning. Furthermore, this is part of the problem that I was discussing in my post, when a candidate tries to be progressive, a label like "socialist" gets applied so that he or she can immediately be discredited.
i would think driving for increased social programing would lead to being labelled a socialist. just a thought though
Just because someone advocates social programming doesn't mean that they are a socialist. Socialists advocate the formation of a classless society in which the state assumes control of all economic activity. I haven't heard anything Obama has said that sounds like that.
Calling someone a socialist is usually the last resort of someone who has run out of ideas.
The label tends to stick even if it isn't true.
My elderly aunt in California a few years ago voted for every proposition she could that cut social services.
Then she found out all her "necessary" services got thrown out with the bath water. Next time around she voted to restore them. I guess she's a socialist now too.
Kevin - Here are some Obama quotes:
“The reason they don’t believe that government has a role in solving national problems is because they think government is the problem,” Obama said to approximately 1,500 people at the Kansas Democratic Party Washington Days convention.
Obama, a Democrat from Illinois, said Bush’s political philosophy consists of giving tax breaks and encouraging “everyone to go buy your own health care, your own retirement and security, your own child care, your own schools, your own private security forces, your own roads, your own levees.
“It’s called the ownership society. In our past there has been another name for it; it’s called social Darwinism. Every man or woman for him or herself,” he said.
Owning things is bad? That's socialism. Almost Communism.
His backers in the Houston(?) campaign office displayed a flag with Che Guevara - the murdering, terrorist, socialist - on it. Admittedly, Obama had nothing to do with this...but it does raise the question, what kind of freaknuts are supporting this guy?
In 1996, he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the "champions" of "Chicago's democratic left" and a long-time socialist activist.
Here's another quote:
When I'm President, I will raise the minimum wage and make it a living wage by making sure that it rises every time the cost of living does.
What the hell??? This doesn't sound socialist? This guy wants to take care of all those people who cannot get off their butts and better themselves. Minimum wage is for kids. If you are over 21 and earning minimum wage because you have not done a damn thing to get yourself skilled, you deserve to be poor. Don't worry about school, kids...we'll make sure you earn a living wage. Unlike socialism though, this will create further seperation of classes.
I'll start letting our unions do what they do best again – organize our workers and lift up our middle-class.
Hah! Unions intimidate. That's what unions do best. Unions make sure the guy at the Ford plant in Walton Hills who is a janitor makes $30 an hour.
You know...one thing all of you seem to have not figured out is that governments do not make prosperity...people do.
Governments make sure you have the right, not the guarantee but the right, to be prosperous. Obama wants you all to believe it's the governments job to take care of you.
During one of the debates with Hillary, Obama said he would pay for his proposed programs, including mandatory health insurance, by imposing higher taxes on the wealthy and by raising the ceiling on Social Security. He said, What we have had right now is a situation where we've cut taxes for people who don't need them.
Really?? Should the government determine how much money people "need?"
DO ANY OF YOU BELIEVE THIS???
If you do, you're a socialist/Marxist: "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need."
Obama is indeed a Socialist, and Socialism strips society from bettering itself.
Russ,
I agree with everything you said regarding Socialism. It is an ineffective system of economics/government that has failed or is in the process of failing everywhere it has been tried. Socialism limits the power of the individual and all but ignores individual accomplishment.
I disagree with the fact that Obama is a Socialist. Yes he has some Socialist ideas such as universal healthcare, but to label him a Marxist is not accurate. He is what he is..... a Liberal. He believes that government should have more control over our economy and our personal lives. He does not however believe in complete control. He is for overturning the Patriot Act, which though it may have been necessary, still infringes on our social liberties. He is against domestic spying, which is the main form of population control in Marxist states.
Obama does believe in the redistribution of wealth. However, he does not believe in a classless society. Obama just wants to take more money from the rich. He does not want to make the rich poor or even middle class. This is wrong, but it is not Socialist.
Supporting unions does not make you a Socialist. Unions have played a crucial role in developing and protecting employee rights. I believe that unions are partly responsible for destroying the domestic manufacturing base, but that does not make Obama a Socialist.
Obama is a left wing Liberal. Let us be accurate in our descriptions of political opponents. If we are not accurate then we welcome any mudslinging that would come our way. Many times conservatives are called Fascists, which is funny because fascism as practiced during WWII is more Liberal than Conservative.
I am a right wing conservative. If anyone wants to challenge me on my views I welcome it. I hate being called a fascist or an Anarchist or a Nazi or whatever label anyone wants to give me other than conservative. We should treat our opponents the same way.
I am scared of a liberal not socialist Obama presidency.
ozone...that was a carefully crafted and well thought out piece. And I agree that Obama and many other extreme left liberals do not fit the textbook definition of Socialist. However, there are many bits and pieces of his ideology and governmental policies as you pointed out that are Socialist. It may not make HIM a Socialist, but it gets this country one step closer to Socialism.
As much as the congressional Dems have been a failure, I would not consider the party as a whole as "failing"
we had a good 2006. there will be more gains in 2008. and these primaries in every state are putting in even more organization and involvement.
that said, obama will have to fix some broken hearts.
side note: russ is welcome to think obama is a socialist because he makes statements that are in exact support of the Democratic platform. therefore, the party is a socialist part to russ. that's is your right to believe mocking GW Bush's rhetoric and wanting a living wage is socialism. most americans disagree.
I cannot believe I am about to say this. I agree with Chuck.
Apart from the disaster that is the Democratic presidential primary the party is thriving. Unless something drastic happens between now and November the Democrats will make huge gains in the house and senate.
I agree with Kevin that the party is not getting its message out. The Democrats are the benefactors of an unpopular Republican president. They are also benefiting from the fact that for the first time since Goldwater the Republicans have no unified message. Republicans are so desperate to keep their congressional seats that they are moving to the middle and becoming more populist and less conservative.
It does not help that the Republican nominee is a centrist in McCain. There will not be a classic Liberal vs. Conservative debate in this election. It will be Liberal vs. moderate. Johnny Mac is not trying to shore up the conservative base, which is the obvious key to any Republican victory. Instead, he is courting moderate democrats. I believe that McCain will swing many Democrats into his corner, but it will not be enough to counter the huge lethargic conservative base who might sit this one out.
The only chance McCain has is to promise that he will only seek one term as president and to tap a young conservative governor for his VP running mate.
Chuck! Don't paint me as not caring. I'm approaching this from the point that most American economists' opinions of the minimum wage tend to be against it.
A 2000 survey by Dan Fuller and Doris Geide-Stevenson reports that of a sample of 308 American Economic Association economists, 45.6% fully agreed with the statement,
"a minimum wage increases unemployment among young and unskilled workers", 27.9% partially agreed, and 26.5% disagreed.
Depending on the dollar amount, a so-called living wage could result in the laying off of workers. Hell! I've seen it happen already with the last increase in the minimum wage.
that's is your right to believe mocking GW Bush's rhetoric and wanting a living wage is socialism. most americans disagree.
Hence the decline of American civilization, Chuck. Our unalienable rights are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All of these rights are rights to action - not rights to reward.
I'd be curious to know which socialist govt. programs Ozone, Fred, or Russ would cut.
And Russ, what would your hourly rate be to clean toilets at an auto plant ?
For the first time ever.....a well thought out blog...Kyle..are you paying people now..........
Mencken - I will answer this in some detail tonight, but I'll leave this for those who care to ponder over it...since my reply will be tied closely to it. It's a quote from Rev. William John Henry Boetcker:
The Ten Cannots (published in 1916)
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men’s initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.
Hi Mencken,
I am glad that you asked. I know that the IRS is not a social program, but if we were to switch from the income tax to a national sales tax then we could all but eliminate the IRS. The National Sales Tax or Fair Tax has been gaining steam over the past 5 years. I still think that we are at least a decade away from implementing a national sales tax due to the fact that none of the current presidential candidates is for the plan at this juncture.
I am for a partial privatization of Social Security which would elevate the mounting pressure that this system is having on our budget. This plan deserves a discussion blog all its own.
I would advocate a presidential line item veto. This would allow the president to eliminate wasteful earmarks from both parties. With a line item veto we could stop things like "the bridge to nowhere" in Alaska, the Woodstock museum, the study of salmon spawning, the subsidizing of spinach farmers etc...
I would advocate the elimination of most farm subsidies.
I would cut food stamps. Where I live in MD they advertise the availability of Food Stamps because the people here do not need them. If they do not hand out all the food stamps that they have on hand they will have their budget reduced.
There is so much wasteful federal spending. I believe that liberals and conservatives agree that the government wastes tons of money. Our elected lawmakers need to come together to cut the budget and spend the money more wisely, instead of raising taxes.
russ,
here's the deal with min. wage.
it didn't increase for around 10 years. many companies during that time did increase their wages voluntarily so that a beginning worker was making more than that. many more did not.
the ones that did on their own were less affected, if at all. the ones that did not reaped the benefit of a growing economy with their dollar worth more over the decade of no wage increase.
thus they were making more money over that decade because they were not passing along their increased worth (one supposes) to their min wage employees.
i've long said that a pay increase that doesn't match the COLA is in effect a pay cut. the ppl on min wage took pay cuts for 10 years and the employers who didn't increase it own their on were actually making a profit off the increased value of their dollars and goods AND a profit off the effective pay cuts of their min wage employees.
that's my opinion, anyway :)
ada: What companies are you talking about that didn't increase wages over 10 years?
And honestly...would you stay at a job that you 1) were making minimum wage, and 2) didn't get a pay increase or a promotion (if earned) over 2 years?
What I'm reading is that the only "socialist" program
Russ or Ozone would cut by name is food stamps.
Sorry Russ your commandments didn't name names.
I want to know which specific programs you'd cut.
Mencken...what part of:
Mencken - I will answer this in some detail tonight.
didn't you get?
;)
russ,
i don't have specific company names. but i assume they exist otherwise increasing the minimum wage would be a moot issue.
i can safely assume that any company that was paying some of its employees the minimum wage in 2005 were also paying the minimum wage in 1996, as it was required by law in both instances.
*i* wouldn't stay at a company that did this to me, but the thing is that if there are new employees that are hired in at the minimum wage, then, and new ones, now.
the company's that were still paying the minimum wage over that entire time were still benifitting from the situation i put forth previously.
i will say this, without any statistics to back me as it's just a hunch.
i think many, if not most, companies actually did increase their starting wage beyond the minimum wage for employees over the decade. some fell short, i am sure, of the new min wage, some surpassed.
so i think that the impact on many companies of the min wage increase was mitigated fully or partly by the increased salaries already being paid out.
as for COLAS, the only issue i can see with it is that different areas of the country have different costs of living, and hence different COLAs. i don't see how it is possible to apply a nationwide COLA for the minimum wage. on the other hand, the alternative is a different minimum wage for different parts of the country, which would be kind of messy.
saying all of that, i would like to add, as i have often done, that i have no background in this area. i am just spouting what makes sense to me given what i understand.
if you or anyone else think i am wrong in any of what i have written, please point it out. i won't say that i will agree with you, but i will consider what you have to say.
Hi Mencken,
Perhaps we have a different definition of Social Programs. Apart from food stamps I also mentioned Social Security and farm subsidies.
I would also reduce foreign aid, eliminate the prescription drug benefit, reduce Pell grants and furhter reduce welfare.
OK Menck...social programs I would end (or change):
1) Federal public education:
Indoctrination of the young by the officials of the state is wrong. I would leave education up to private entities....because maybe they (unlike the govt) could get it right.
2) I would end the following government retirement programs:
Civil Service Retirement Systems
Federal Employee Retirement Systems
Railroad Retirement System
3) I would end the followin HUD programs:
Public Housing
Rental Vouchers & Certificates
Section 8 Housing Vouchers
4) Social Security:
Social Security-privatize it.
Temporary Disability Insurance - privatize it.
Medicare - gone
Medicaid - gone
Medicare Prescription Drug Plan - gone
5) Welfare programs
Supplemental Security Income - SSI to you paople who like to use abbreviations.
Food Stamp Program - gone.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) - bubbye
National School Lunch Program - cee ya
School Breakfast Program - a big fat canister of oatmeal doesn't cost that muchg...get off your ass and cook it.
6) I would also end the federal Reserve Bank, if it other countries ended theirs.
It's time people stopped sticking out their hands for handouts...like a fucking begger in the street. Step up, and do something with your life.
ammendments:
1) Maybe if we didn't have the feds regulating education, itthe true story of our brutality towards the Native Americans would be taught.
5) Welfare. I've long believed in the saying, "Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for life. Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day."
The Democrats have adopted this saying:
"Teach a man to fish, and you have a job for a day. Give a man a fish, and you have a job for life."
Entitlements breeds slaves to the system. Democrats are looking for people they can train.
Russ, it's always been my fantasy that Republicans would be able to live in a world completely run, designed, administrated, and (un)regulated by Republicans without dissent.
While their Republican pockets overflow with cash, the poor, the elderly, and the sick vanish from the earth in a magical rapture.
Russ again, there's just a complete almost childlike disconnect on your part. No mention of what would be better than these programs (privatize right... so I can make sure assholes like Stanley ONeal can afford his greens fees) No mention of what happens to the WIC kids who would have no healthcare at all. If you can live with your Borg-like view of the universe, fine. Sleep tight.
mencken grow up
first enough with your constant Stanley O'neill nonsense as some sort of proof for the failure of unregulated business-you aren't the only one who took a bath with Merrill-every time someone makes an argument towards privatization and opening up of markets you inevitably invoke O'neill-
"While their Republican pockets overflow with cash, the poor, the elderly, and the sick vanish from the earth in a magical rapture"
The reason people champion things like the resistance to socialized healthcare is because philosophies like what is proffered on this blog will lead to rationing of services, which will inevitably hurt those that consume the most resources.
I have never heard Russ bash WIC-he bashes welfare which is a separate program-WIC is long term cost effective as it is now-and was extended with the support of the president, although correctly not expanded to include people capable of purchasing their own food.
It is asinine for you to bash all conservative principles as ineffective or directly detrimental to the sick elderly and poor, just as it is ridiculous to assume that the abolishment of all govt aid programs would be good. I do side with the thought that some measure of fiscal restraint and budget control needs to come back to Washington. Does that mean some programs may be scaled down-yes.
"A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened."
-Senator Obama (March 18th, 2008)...what a fucking socialist; calling out the failed aspects of welfare.
t-dawg,
"The reason people champion things like the resistance to socialized healthcare is because philosophies like what is proffered on this blog will lead to rationing of services, which will inevitably hurt those that consume the most resources."
ok, national healthcare *could* ration services if it is implemented like that. but it doesn't have to be. for instance, there is the option of letting ppl choose to keep the healthcare they have now or, if they aren't covered or undercovered, they can still get some or better insurance.
regardless, hmo do ration care, now. my wife and i specifically pay more for insurance so we're on a ppo so we don't have to have to deal with an hmo. and still, there are things that aren't covered. nothing that affects now, but they're there and i hope that they dont' affect us in the future.
i don't know what "those that consume the most resources" do for healthcare. whether they pay for everything out of pocket because they can, or whether they pay alot of insurance premiums to get coverage that will pay for everything with no questions asked. or whether they have insurance coverage more in line with what the typical united stater has.
i have no clue.
but i figure that most americans that are covered already have rationed healthcare to some extent through their insurance.
i do know that there are tens of millions of uninsured and underinsured citzens.
while i don't know that it is likely that those that consume the most resources will have their healthcare rationed (something in me says that they won't), what we DO have now is that those who don't consume the most do have rationed healthcare to a greater or lesser extent, or no healthcare, now.
in the united states.
the wealthiest nation on earth.
that will spend hundreds of billions (today, and in the past in today's dollars) to go to war in our national interest (even when it isn't always true) but haggles over healthcare for its citzens for decades.
it boggles my non-socialist mind.
Mencken - I'm not going into extreme detail because of time and the fact this is not my blog. Yes...I want the above programs out of FEDERAL hands.
I have no problem with placing them in the hands of individuals, corporations and possibly, for some of the programs, the hands of the states.
Show me where in the Constitution it is written or inferred that it is the Federal government's responsibility to take money from SOME people and pay it out to other people? That is NOT the job of the federal government.
This is the rub. Earlier this week my ML broker calls me up and tells me he has investment idea for a CD that's come due. He tells me about this banking/financial fund that that involves about two dozen institutions that is "undervalued" because of the current sub-prime mess. I tell him that I'm not sure it's bottomed out. He says look, you know and I know the Federal Government will bail out the banks if there is a serious crisis... there's no way they'll let the banks go down. So he sees a surefire way to make a buck, and he may be right. What I see is rewarding incompetence and greed with further investment and a less than free market safety net provided by the Feds with our tax dollars. As I said before, they privatize the profits and nationalize the losses. So much for personal responsibility or liability once the accounting is done being sanitized for our protection.
And T-Dawg, as a ML investor, I will continue to drag Stanley O'Neal's dick through the dirt whenever the fuck I feel like it.
I invest with Merrill too, but you don't see me bemoaning the stock market because who I have my money with had an incompetnt for a CEO. Everytime you mention him you sound like a 2 month old with a wet diaper
You missed the point.
And my point was not that I have anything against the market. Nor do I think being against government waste and inefficiency is remotely even a partisan issue.
We're all all against wasteful spending.
The argument being put forth by Russ and others is that people need to be responsible for their choices or suffer the consequences, and the Feds shouldn't nanny the poor. Great. But that should be across the board. I think it's bankrupt to think that feeding poor kids is somehow ruining this country and giving guys like O'Neal $161 million for a pathetic performance as CEO and bailing out failed private businesses is acceptable.
It's not. And I don't think you think it is either.
Hi Ada,
I guess this difference in opinion on universal healthcare comes down to philosophy. It is not the duty of the federal government to provide healthcare for its citizens.
Canadians have universal healthcare and their services are rationed. In the UK private healthcare operations are opening everywhere to handle the overload of healthcare needs which the government cannot handle. They are paying via high tax rates for healthcare. Then they have to take the after tax money to buy more healthcare services that the government cannot provide.
Whether or not you agree on the war, the federal government has the authority and stated duty to provide for armed forces to protect our security.
The government does a poor job administering social services. This was not the intended purpose of government and the bureaucracy of the system makes it severely inefficient. To add more services like healthcare or the recent prescription drug benefit is a drain on our talented human resources and our wallets.
100% agree Mencken. We should not bail out private industry for poor decisions. This gives them the green light to make risky loans in the future with the confidence that the government will use tax payer dollars to bail them out.
hi ozone.
you are right. it depends on philosphy and interpretation.
for instance, the preamble of the constitution reads in part
"...provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare..."
how one interprets defence and welfare, for instance. i don't define defense as what we're doing in iraq. and you don't define welfare as national healthcare.
so we disagree and that is cool. :)
part of the point in my response was taking issue with the idea national healthcare means rationing healthcare, as if that is not what's happening to a degree, already.
but regardless, it's a fair disagreement and i like having the civil discourse with you, t-dawg, russ, and others.
Post a Comment
<< Home