In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

What (white) Progressives Don’t Understand About Obama

Jill

A must-read:

Progressives have been urging the president to “man up” in the face of the Republicans. Some want him to be like John Wayne. On horseback. Slapping people left and right.

One progressive commentator played an excerpt from a Harry Truman speech during which Truman screamed about the Republican Party to great applause. He recommended this style to Mr. Obama. If President Obama behaved that way, he’d be dismissed as an angry black militant with a deep hatred of white people. His grade would go from a B- to a D.

Ishmael Reed is right — if Obama got mad, he would An Angry Black Man. He would be a “thug.” He hasn’t even gotten mad and he’s already portrayed by the right as an angry black militant with a deep hatred of white people. There’s certainly a lot to get mad about, but Obama’s cooler-than-a-cucumber demeanor is part of what has gotten him so far. And the demands to “get mad,” in addition to erasing the political realities of what “getting mad” means when the person getting mad is part of a class that is widely perceived by white Americans as too loud and too dangerous, are kind of too little too late, aren’t they? Dems didn’t get it together for the midterms, and now some are going as far as suggesting that the party nominate a different presidential candidate in 2012. Which is quite frankly asinine. But sure, take your toys and go home.

73 thoughts on What (white) Progressives Don’t Understand About Obama

  1. I’m a little surprised to see a link on a feminist website to an article by Ishmael Reed, since his big thing is (or was) anti-feminism. According to him, feminism is just something used to emasculate men, black men in particular. His comments on Obama seem on-target, though.

  2. True enough, there is a lot at stake for Obama to act like Truman did, and the idea is to win over the middle, not folks on the left, with his demeanor and behavior. Which is totally messed up, but such are politics in this country.

    But “fight” can mean more than getting in front of a microphone and yelling or insulting the opposition or being inflammatory. Fighting can also be simply saying “no” when someone presents you with a policy you know is flawed and does not represent what’s best for your base nor the general population of this country. Many want to see him fight with actions, if not necessarily with words (I actually think some white progressives are doing that piece quite nicely).

    He doesn’t need to be loud and aggressive about it, but he doesn’t need to roll over either. He can be “cool as a cucumber” and still be a fighter, whether it be on tax cuts for the rich, real comprehensive immigration reform or any pending legislation.

  3. I wasn’t very impressed with this article. I think the main point of it was good, but Reed went on a lot of tangents and didn’t finish a lot of his thoughts. I wish he had stuck to the thesis a bit more.

    And this section just confused me, considering that “white progressive,” “unemployed,” and “unable to buy…children Christmas presents” are not mutually exclusive.: “Unlike white progressives, blacks and Latinos are not used to getting it all. They know how it feels to be unemployed and unable to buy your children Christmas presents.”

    But my main problem is with treating all groups as monoliths. I, a white progressive, never asked Obama to “man up,” “get angry,” or any such nonsense. I simply asked for him to not cave when it comes to GOP bullying. I asked him to stop trying to build consensus from the GOP, when people like Boehner have asserted that that term is not in their vocabulary. And the author neglects the reality that Obama does get angry, but it usually only seems to be directed toward people to the left of him.

  4. It’s ridiculous to think that getting pissed off is going to change anything. Reed and Jill are totally right that such behavior will simply stir up the worst kind of energy, and probably would set us all back further. It’s really disappointing how much the Presidency has become about some kind of theatrical performance, rather than how a leader actually leads, and what happens as a result.

    With that said, a “B-” grade is kind of laughable in my view. Obama, in collaboration with a Democratic controlled Congress, has continued most of Bush’s policies, to the point of defending some of the worst of it – the wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, secrecy policies, etc. Saying that the Republicans have stonewalled as the reason for this doesn’t cut it, given how Republican presidents in recent decades have gotten much of their agendas passed without the benefit of both houses of Congress on their sides.

    I personally feel that it’s vital that people who are interested in “progressive” issues and approaches stop defending the Democrats (whether Obama or Congress) and start pressuring for real change. Dismissing this is “pie in the sky idealism” is exactly why this nation has slid to the right every election over the past 30+ years. People need to get organized, stay focused, and stop believing that the election of any single person from either major party is the ticket to a better nation.

  6. I agree Obama should maintain a cool demeanour, but he needs to do a lot more than that.

    Democrats lost the mid-terms because Obama, in conjunction with a Democratic senate and a Democratic house, wasted 2 years basically. They forgot why Bill Clinton was such a successful manager of the economy, i.e. he balanced the budget and rewarded hard-working middle Americans – the backbone of the US economy. Instead, Obama, Reid and Pelosi took a trip down memory lane, returning to the failed big spending policies of Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter. Surprise, surprise, these policies didn’t work this time either, and most Americans decided that even the Republicans couldn’t do any worse!

    Obama is currently about 55% certain to be re-elected IMO. He starts with a slight advantage due to the deference Americans award incumbents, especially the President. However, he has no choice but to radically change his policies if he’s going to win (unless the Republicans nominate a complete moron). Obama has to start cutting that deficit, and he has to start stimulating the private sector, not creating more pointless government jobs that are a further drain on the taxpayer. He could learn a lot from David Cameron TBH.

    And please get over the race issue. America has proved it’s essentially a post-racial country by electing a black president. Obama is under pressure because he’s failing, not because he’s black.

    Just an objective assessment from a politically moderate Englishman.

  7. I have heard about this particular perspective on Obama (i.e., the desire for him to get angry and righteous) before, and it confused me then and confuses me now. I mean, I get the appeal of a well-delivered verbal smackdown (why, yes, I do sometimes drift asleep to happy thoughts of Sady Doyle :P), but at what point in Obama’s campaign or previous career did he ever give the impression that he was going to raise his voice, except maybe to be heard over cheering. I mean, he explicitly and consistently presented himself, then and now, as a mediator and conciliator who would bring everyone to the table. Not only can he *not* get angry, he never even implied or promised that he would – just the opposite.

    It makes me wonder if some of these disgruntled supporters who want to see Obama “rage against the man” have perceived him as a potential angry black man all along based on their own racial blinders.

    I think if we ever see Obama speak with a sharp tongue, it will be after his presidential tenure is over.

  8. nathan:
    I personally feel that it’s vital that people who are interested in “progressive” issues and approaches stop defending the Democrats (whether Obama or Congress) and start pressuring for real change. Dismissing this is “pie in the sky idealism” is exactly why this nation has slid to the right every election over the past 30+ years. People need to get organized, stay focused, and stop believing that the election of any single person from either major party is the ticket to a better nation.  

    I agree 100%.

  9. One last point. I think overall, there is too much emphasis placed on electoral politics. The large social change movements of the past – unionization, Civil Rights, Women’s Rights, etc. – tended to understand that elections alone won’t change much of anything because getting people elected doesn’t threaten the oppressive institutions of power. Every two years, I’ve watched piles of activists disappear to campaign for candidate X, Y, or Z. And whatever movement they were involved in suffers, as numbers dwindle, energy dwindles, and focus scatters. And when some of those candidates get elected, and start turning completely away from the issues they campaigned on, the same people who invested so much time and energy to get them elected, feel compelled to defend them, to the point of marginalizing the very issues they most want to see addressed. It’s kind of a sick cycle if you ask me, one where subgroups within any movement (like the anti-war movement) end up pitted against each other, while the corporate right wing gets more and more powerful by the day.

    Electoral politics need to be addressed, and politicians must be worked with, but this should not be front and center in any social change effort.

  10. GD: And please get over the race issue.America has proved it’s essentially a post-racial country by electing a black president.Obama is under pressure because he’s failing, not because he’s black.Just an objective assessment from a politically moderate Englishman.  

    Sorry, but do you know about the institutional racism of the United States–or any country for that matter? Please educate yourself before telling people to “get over the race issue.”

  11. We expected perfection and got something much less. My disappointment can be summarized in that I want Obama to grow a spine. He didn’t do a good job of selling crucial pieces of legislation, and expected Congress to do its job without needing hands-on guidance.

  12. gretel: Sorry, but do you know about the institutional racism of the United States–or any country for that matter? Please educate yourself before telling people to “get over the race issue.”  (Quote this comment?)

    There’s obviously marginal racism in the States (mainly in rural red states), but nothing that will affect the result of a presidential election (as 2008 proved). Obama himself has conceded that if he loses a presidential election it won’t be because he’s black. I think it’s healthier to think of him as a president, and judge him exclusively by his performance, good or bad, without bringing race into it. Again, I think Obama would prefer this.

  13. gretel:
    Sorry, but do you know about the institutional racism of the United States–or any country for that matter? Please educate yourself before telling people to “get over the race issue.”  

    Really. It’s like saying to women ‘You got the vote, what more do you want??’

  14. GD: And please get over the race issue. America has proved it’s essentially a post-racial country by electing a black president.

    Um, not really even close. Electing Obama was like finally reaching the point where we can see the mountian range where the pass is to get us to where we can see a post-racial society. We have way too many glaring racial injustices to start patting ourselves on the back.

    Oh, sorry. What Gretel said. And also what she said above about not all white progressives calling for Obama to “man up”. He’s been acting so much like an adult already that people can’t handle it. That’s how unaccustomed as acountry we are adult behavior in our elected leaders.

  15. Sorry, but you say you’re English, so I’m curious whether or not if you were in the United States during the 2008 presidential election. Because if you were, then there is no doubt you know about the disgustingly racist anti-Obama campaign materials that circulated or the more subtle ways that his opponents and their supporters injected race into the campaign.

    Racism is a reality in the United States. It doesn’t help to put on blinders to that fact. I don’t want to go into History 101, but if you look at the very founding of this country through the present day, you cannot deny this.

    GD:
    There’s obviously marginal racism in the States (mainly in rural red states), but nothing that will affect the result of a presidential election (as 2008 proved).Obama himself has conceded that if he loses a presidential election it won’t be because he’s black.I think it’s healthier to think of him as a president, and judge him exclusively by his performance, good or bad, without bringing race into it.Again, I think Obama would prefer this.  

  16. GD: And please get over the race issue. America has proved it’s essentially a post-racial country by electing a black president. Obama is under pressure because he’s failing, not because he’s black.

    Hilarious parody of a stereotypical white progressive! Oh, wait…

    The point is to become anti-racist, not post racial. Race isn’t a problem – racism is.

    (And if you honestly think race doesn’t matter in the US, or anywhere else in the world, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you. And also a river in Egypt.)

  17. I don’t want Obama to yell at anyone. But Obama really needs to stand his ground. Whether it’s tax cuts. immigration reform, DADT, etc, he needs to take a stand and then start giving speeches about how we all need to get behind him on this, just like he did with the “Yes We Can” message during his campaign. He’s good at giving speeches, why isn’t he giving great ones anymore?

    Obama’s big problem is that he doesn’t look like he can lead or stand up to the republicans. If he’s not going to stand up to the repubs, then what’s the point of even having a dem in office? He doesn’t need to scream and yell, and I think we should ignore those who think he should, but he’s got some serious problems and unless he stands up we’re getting a repub in 2012.

  18. I have very deeply wanted Obama to run roughshod over the Republicans, shove policy through because we have a majority, and give his charming smile and the finger the the Republican party in general.

    I liked him because he was a mediator, because I thought he’d reach out to the right and the middle and not purposely polarize this country (like Palin does). And HE has done that, but the far right is very a “pick up my toys and go home” kind of group. So, Obama, stop trying to play fair and just say screw them. But calmly and politely. Because speaking in the right tone of completely calm understanding is the perfect way to drive someone absolutely batshit. And I think you know that tone, Mr. President. I’m sure you’ve been on the recieving end of it a lot in your life. Time to give it back.

    Political passive-aggressiveness, the new platform of the democratic party.

  19. My personal thoughts on Obama, as well, and his culpability/responsibility for shifting the American zeitgeist (to oversimplify it drastically) are that one person can be a catalyst sometimes, but they can’t be the whole change. I’m not an uber-Obama fan personally (and as a Canadian, whole lot less of a stake than if I were US-ian), but I resent whenever one person is expected to change the world on their own, and that’s a theme I’ve seen running through criticism of political figures all over the place. Sure, he’s got boatloads of responsibility and authority, but it’s not on him, or any single figure, to set the world (or a country) a-right.

  20. The fundamental problem is that Obama thought he was working with adults that could understand the idea of compromise. And he’s never figured out how wrong he was.

  21. I think we’re massively underestimating the long-term scope of the changes we are getting through. This tax-cut deal, as odious as it is, is better than it might have been (read Krauthammer’s enraged column for all the reasons why). Health care reform passed. No other president got that far. Given the system we have, there are precious few things Obama could have done differently to greater effect, other than be the angry rabble-rouser that he can’t be for all the reasons here.

    Obama is slicker than Clinton, and I mean that with high praise. We could see Clinton’s sleight-of-hand, and we don’t even see Obama’s. We’re moving the country on a more progressive track, but it’s gonna be a decade or two before we see the full impact.

  22. gretel: Sorry, but you say you’re English, so I’m curious whether or not if you were in the United States during the 2008 presidential election. Because if you were, then there is no doubt you know about the disgustingly racist anti-Obama campaign materials that circulated or the more subtle ways that his opponents and their supporters injected race into the campaign. Racism is a reality in the United States. It doesn’t help to put on blinders to that fact. I don’t want to go into History 101, but if you look at the very founding of this country through the present day, you cannot deny this.

    I wasn’t in the US, but I followed the campaign. Sadly elections bring out the worst in people. Even the Clintons resorted to ‘mild’ racism in the Democratic primary. And do you believe John McCain is racist? I don’t, so these racist materials were probably unofficial, local and limited. And how many Americans actually participated in an anti-Obama racist campaign (which didn’t work anyway)? Probably a tiny percentage. So how do this prove widespread racism? There was a small Nazi party in the US in the 1930s, which was supported by some German immigrants. Does this mean America was anti-Semitic at that time?

    Everyone knows about America’s shameful history of slavery and segregation, but everyone also knows how far you’ve come since then. Frankly, I think you’re selling yourself short.

  23. Excellent points.

    People will always find a way to stereotype him and say he’s not good enough, no matter what he does.

    It makes me cringe to hear people say “man up.” Especially so many women doing it on TV directed towards Obama. Foremost, both men and women come in all sorts of communication and leadership styles. The idea that being direct and overbearing is better than any other quality is ridiculous. The idea that someone needs to change who they are to be like someone else is equally ridiculous. Not to mention, it’s always an improvement to “man up,” as if a person was behaving “womanly” before? (and heck, what’s wrong with that?) Good grief.

  24. Actually, re-reading this all the way to the end of the article, this has to be a joke that he’s suggesting that Blacks and Latinos don’t get loud and angry while demanding change in Chicago. We’re the organizing capital of the country, Saul Alinsky honed his direct-action tactics here, and people of color know that their strength is not just in their numbers, but in the loudness of their voices and the strength of their fight. From the sit-ins at Republic Window and Door, to the opposition to the destruction of public housing, to demanding equitable funding for public education, I would not refer to minority communities in Chicago as “cool as cucumbers.”
    Now that I’m reading his argument in this context, I’m even less impressed.

  25. @GD, the failed social policies of Lyndon Johnson, seriously? The Johnsom administration passed, defended, and enforeced the civil rights act. Johnson is given a huge amount of credit for insisting that women be included in the civil rights act as a protected class. Most of the civil rights women have under US law are only there because Johnson drew a line in the sand and refused to pass any civil rights bill that did not include them (the Supreme Court did not start serious women’s rights jurisprudence until after this). Johnson advanced women’s rights by decades in one swoop. Many increases of the legal and social progress made in terms of race in the US can also be credited to the Johnson administration’s passage of the civil rights act.

    What few social support programs remain for Americans were instituted, expanded, and saved from execution by the Johnson administration. Food stamps, medicare, medicaid, HUD, you name a social support system in the US, odds are the Johnson administration played a significant role in it. The Johnson administration virtually eliminated the up til them common death by starvation. It also expanded access to electricity, indoor plumbing, and phone services in rural areas. I am from Appalachia. Johnson’s programs are really the only reason that me and the people I grew up around grew up with electricity and running water. Some of my uncles are still old enough to remember when the Johnson administration moved the kids out of a one room school house with no indoor plumbing to a school with a science lab and a library. Many of the older people still speak fondly of the Johnson administration bringing them running water and electricity and a lot of these people are the most conservative people you could possibly find.

    The big flaw of the Johnson administration was Nam. Not only was Nam a disaster in and of itself, but the damage from the ensuing elections to the administration’s reputation resulted in a lot of roll backs of the programs (including altering the plan to have medicaid and medicare continue expansion into a national health care system). However, even with the political disaster of Nam, Johnson’s domestic policies have had some of the most massive positive social effects of any administration in US history.

    It might seem bizarre coming from the mouth of an anti-military leftist who used to be, up until about six months ago, a pacifist, but we could really stand for Obama to be more like Johnson. We need a hard ass who is willing to watch their party burn to the ground on principle and who isn’t afraid to take a controversial stand. Yes, there are people who will see Obama as an angry black man if he does this, but come the fuck on, those people already do. This is stereotype threat at its finest, Obama is so afraid to be seen as agressive that he has ripped out whatever spine he had and flushed it down the toilet in order to try and maintain bridges that have been burned for years (if you’ll forgive my mixed metaphors). We can’t handle an ineffective doormat president right now. It is better to be seen as an angry black man destroying the country than to be so gutless that you sit back and watch it burn. I’ll take a powerful one term progressive over a weak one term accomadationist any day of the week.

  26. Hmmm, a comment from a brotha…

    When it comes to White Progressives and Obama, I think the issue is that such individuals tends to perceive Obama as an employee, more than they would a white president, and this leads to a dangerous lack of appreciation that Obama is a figure in an institutional setup, with many people inside and outside the government that feel that they have a proprietary say in how the country is run. A mentality of technocratic democracy meets racial lens.

    Judging from my memories of the Clinton years, who was largely before the serious blogosphere, people, including and especially black people, were much more understanding about the courtiers need to be fed. Welfare Reform? Bad, better not need it (it helps if you were never poor, of course). so forth, so on.

    I do find it irritating that people seem to believe that Obama could just will policies. Sure, he could have not appealed the anti-DADT ruling, but he probably had a pretty fraught relationship with the military, and he had a priority on not antagonizing the old bulls that still gives a shit about gay soldiers. It’s hard enough to get them to give him a roadmap out of Aftghanistan, as Seymour Hersch revealed. It’s sure fun to say that single payer was a winner and all, but I don’t thing anyone who has ever paid attention to just how many deals Obama made, and just how many compromised and weakened regulation he agreed to, and just how much talking he had to do in general, just to get Bob Dole’s health care plan to the one yard line. It took sheer and completely certain recognition that the Democratic Party would be annihilated just to get it over the hump.

    In the end, Obama doesn’t work for us. It’s best not to think as if he does, and I suspect there is a lot of latent ‘cism from framework people tends to absorb from the zeitgeist. Obama works for the people who fund him. We don’t have a say in government any more, not really.

    And, oh yeah, Bernie Sanders is a worthless socialist, and I’ve always wondered whether he’s ultimately a sock-puppet.

  27. I’ve now read more posts criticizing this purported phenomenon of ‘progressives telling Obama to get angry’ than I have posts where a progressive is actually saying that. I read a fair number of progressive blogs, Jill … can you please provide a citation of a significant progressive blogger exhorting Obama to “get angry” (as opposed to, say, “grow a spine”)?

    There’s a huge difference between standing up for progressive ideals and having a shit fit. Being cool and rational is a laudable approach when confronted with some of the angrier, crazier parts of the Republican opposition. But, you actually have to oppose their crazy policies, and not just act cool and collected while you ratify their shredding of Constitutional protections and provide Democratic cover to their deficit hypocrisy and discredited trickle down economic theories.

  28. If President Obama behaved that way, he’d be dismissed as an angry black militant with a deep hatred of white people.

    …you mean he isn’t already being called that?

    He has gotten angry as of late… at his own supporters, who expected something other than the thrd term of GWB.

  29. I like Ishmael Reed personally, having interviewed once on a community radio station, but his article misses the point entirely. Lower middle income and lower income people, as well as young people, have walked away from Obama and the Democrats because they rightly perceive that he failed to do what they expected him to do. They didn’t vote for a continuation of trickle down economics, a health care reform on terms dictated by the industry and an intensification of US military involvement in the Middle East and Central Asia, but that is what they have gotten, so they’ve tune out, lacking the enduring commitment to politics that so personifies those who comment on it. Progressives (and not just white ones, by the way) have tried to persuade the administration to adopt policies that would provide immediate benefits to these people, but they have been given the back of the hand, and now we have a tax cut proposal about to make its way to the President’s desk that will raise taxes on the working poor while decreasing them for the wealthy. So, instead of engaging in this sort of handwringing about progressives, and their failure to get on board with Reaganite economic policies and Bush foreign policy, it would be a better use of everyone’s time to ponder the consequences of abandoning much of Obama’s base to the ruthlessness of financial capital.

  30. “He hasn’t even gotten mad and he’s already portrayed by the right as an angry black militant with a deep hatred of white people.”

    But this cuts both ways: you can say, “so just think how vicious they’ll get if he really acts angry,” or you can say, “so he might as well express some anger, since he’ll be typed that way in any case.”

    But regardless, I think Reed’s whole article was a bit of strawmanning. He refers to a lot of progressives saying Obama needs to get angry, but doesn’t name or quote any (the phrase “man up” is in quotation marks, but not actually ascribed to any commentator). What I’ve mostly seen is progressives demanding that Obama actually offer less generous deals to conservatives, which is a very different thing than having an angry demeanor (he could very politely say, “I’m sorry, but my convictions require me to veto any bill extending the Bush tax cuts,” for example).

    Also, a second to the above commenter who points out that anger has, in fact, had a significant place in minorities’ struggles for equality.

    Oh, and to several of the commenters here: don’t feed the moderate British trolls, please.

  31. Honestly, I watched him ignore gay rights and grant whiny rich people tax breaks they don’t need. He completely lost me when he acknowledged that he didn’t need to go through TSA himself, but that we, the general public, had to humiliate ourselves for our own good. If he had even made the effort to do the “enhanced” pat down himself as a move in solidarity instead of going the “sucks, but it’s not my problem” route, I would consider voting for him in 2012. As it stands right now, I won’t. The only thing that will get him my vote is if the Republicans elect Sarah Palin or someone equally heinous. I voted for Obama because of his stance on social issues, and I feel like he’s mostly peed on them in the last two years.

    I don’t want him to be angry. I just want him to be my president, instead of the president Republicans can tolerate. I voted for him; what the hell does he owe them?

  32. Marle: But Obama really needs to stand his ground.

    I understand this, but what has worked for him in the past, and for us, has been rope-a-dope. He has established a pattern of coming out right where he planed to be all along.

    This is personla for me. DADT was until recently a very personal matter, and marriage equality is a very importnat matter to me. maybe since they really matter to me, I know better than to rant about how he should be doing this or that. I don’t have the luxury of gesture politics or ideological purity.

    He is trying to change how things work in the federal government, at a fundamental level. Partisanship and feel-good gesture politics are one big reason we never get around to dealing with any of the real problems in this country. Give the man time.

  33. Ooookaaay. So we can’t ask Obama to get mad, we can’t ask him to stand up for us, or the other side will call him Bad Names.

    WHAT %#$@%#$@ PLANET DOES THIS GUY LIVE ON???

    They’ve been calling him an angry n***** white-hating socialist islamo militant thug SINCE HE ANNOUNCED HIS RUN FOR PRESIDENCY!!!

    Obam standing up to the assholes won’t hurt him in their minds (because they ALREADY think all that), but it’ll sure help him down here in the friggin trenches!

    You know, I’d really like that Obama guy that I voted for to show up for work someday…this republican stand-in we’ve got really sucks at it.

  34. Amanda: It makes me cringe to hear people say “man up.” Especially so many women doing it on TV directed towards Obama. Foremost, both men and women come in all sorts of communication and leadership styles. The idea that being direct and overbearing is better than any other quality is ridiculous. The idea that someone needs to change who they are to be like someone else is equally ridiculous. Not to mention, it’s always an improvement to “man up,” as if a person was behaving “womanly” before? (and heck, what’s wrong with that?) Good grief.

    Indeed. It’s exactly analogous to telling a woman not to worry her little head about something. So aside from the misogyny you identify in it, is also loaded with misandry too. Double fail.

  35. Sigh. I’m not Obama’s biggest fan (I’m one of those lefties the administration loves to hate) but I’m continually gobsmacked by folks who are shocked, shocked by his pandering to the right wing. It’s not as if it wasn’t clear from the get-go that he was a center-right candidate when he was running, fantasies about Obama suddenly coming out as a left-wing progressive after his election notwithstanding.

    This whole thing reminds me of the Clinton years, and I wish the Dems (not just Obama) would get a fucking clue already. Bill Clinton pandered to the right, and the right hated his guts and fucked the country over to spite him (I remember the shut-down). That caused a lot of hard feelings among the rank-and-file, who saw Dems push through NAFTA, welfare deform, and DOMA among other crap.

  36. Ok, I’m not going to spit out a long polemic over a B- grade or “We’re moving the country on a more progressive track, but it’s gonna be a decade or two before we see the full impact.” (Hugo). I disagree with both of these assessments, but the details are for another thread.

    These are my points: (1) Demands that Obama “man up” are, as other commentators have pointed out, misogynistic; sadly, this is all I have come to expect of a “left” that’s dominated by white cis currently-abled men. (2) I’m fine with Obama being cool as a cucumber. I’m fine with the Democrats adopting a similar approach, to the best of their abilities. In fact, I’d prefer that they calmly let the Rethugs twist in the breeze and gain a reputation as angry white men (which they are). (3) But what I want to see is for the current administration (not just Obama, but the entire administration) and the Democrats to stop caving into every Republican and big-industry / big-business demand. I want to see them become as rock-solid as Orthanc.

    But I don’t see that happening as long as the the “two-party” system continues to be invested in neoliberalism and the police state that neoliberalism needs to survive.

  37. re: shah8’s comments – it’s quite telling that Bill Clinton popped up to help sell the continued handouts to the rich bill they’re trying to pass in Congress.

    If people had actually read Obama’s voting record in the Senate, or combed through his proposed policy platform back in 2007-08, instead of drooling over his speeches, perhaps there would be less surprise right now.

  38. I am so with you on this, Sheelzebub. I am consistently amazed that folks are so amazed by Obama’s actions…as far as I can tell, everybody is getting pretty much the man they voted for. Some of that is good, some not so good. I can be disappointed and not surprised…

    Sheelzebub: Sigh.I’m not Obama’s biggest fan (I’m one of those lefties the administration loves to hate) but I’m continually gobsmacked by folks who are shocked, shocked by his pandering to the right wing.It’s not as if it wasn’t clear from the get-go that he was a center-right candidate when he was running, fantasies about Obama suddenly coming out as a left-wing progressive after his election notwithstanding.This whole thing reminds me of the Clinton years, and I wish the Dems (not just Obama) would get a fucking clue already.Bill Clinton pandered to the right, and the right hated his guts and fucked the country over to spite him (I remember the shut-down).That caused a lot of hard feelings among the rank-and-file, who saw Dems push through NAFTA, welfare deform, and DOMA among other crap.  

  39. The far right call him a radical socialist liberal and the far left call him too conservative. To me, this confirms why I voted for him.

    I admit the guy could probably have eeked out a couple more wins for the dems in the tax compromise, and I admit that the compromise mentality for healthcare was an absolute clusterfuck. But it was a clusterfuck that many didn’t foresee. I put my blame where it belongs, on the procedural stalemate known as the fillibuster and the few senators who did the most to kill a strong healthcare bill. (Lieberman, I’m looking at you).

  40. Obama has been reigning in his anger. I hear it seethe during his attacks on the left. That anger seems to me to be the frustration misdirected at his could-be allies because he will not allow himself to direct his anger at stonewalling republicans, where it belongs.

    It’s been pretty horrible to watch this and other self destructive behaviors and policies he has been engaging in.

  41. They forgot why Bill Clinton was such a successful manager of the economy, i.e. he balanced the budget and rewarded hard-working middle Americans – the backbone of the US economy.

    Was it the part where Bill Clinton deregulated your financial industry where he was so successful? You do realise that this what part of what led up to your GFC?

    This is what I find interesting about democrats – they seem capable of any evil, but as long as they are not up front about it (slick, as they say), its ok and forgotten by their voters. Obama is Bush 2.0 (more war, more surveilance, more protection for the rich, Guantanamo, ‘extraordinary renditions’) – his policies are similar and in some cases worse.

    My advice to anyone who still supports Obama; take off the rose coloured glasses. Democrats are not ‘democratic’ or ‘progressive’ – they are twins with the republicans. They represent the corporate elite who voted them in with their dollars.

    (Also, I’m an Australian labor voter, before I get accused of being a republican troll)

    RANT END/

  42. Totally with you Sheelzebub.

    During the election everyone loved his ability to “cross the aisle”, but now they see it in action, and it’s not so much fun.

  43. I don’t think “cross the aisle” ever meant “renege on campaign promises” or “stand by while the fourth amendment is flouted in the name of flight security” or “continue bankrupting the country.” The idea when you cross the aisle isn’t to be like, “fuck it guys. Team Republican. It’s where shit gets done.”

  44. Sheelzebub: Sigh. I’m not Obama’s biggest fan (I’m one of those lefties the administration loves to hate) but I’m continually gobsmacked by folks who are shocked, shocked by his pandering to the right wing. It’s not as if it wasn’t clear from the get-go that he was a center-right candidate when he was running, fantasies about Obama suddenly coming out as a left-wing progressive after his election notwithstanding.

    Yep. His record in the Senate was less than stellar, to say the least.

    Up almost until election day, I was planning on voting for Cynthia McKinney, but I wound up voting for Obama on the hypothesis that voting for a third-party candidate was “giving my vote to the Repubs” That’s in scare quotes on purpose, because if I had voted for McKinney, I would have voted my conscience.

  45. I just find comments like gold‘s to be pathetically useless. The “I’m not a sucker like you are” attitude wears. If you’ve got some google-fu, find some of the columns Steve Gilliard wrote about Obama shortly before he got ill. He compared Obama to Cory Booker. And Obama is very much the kind of guy Cory Booker, Ronald Nagin, or Fenty are. Bougie light-skinned black men selected for appeal and capability. Someone like me or TNC, no matter our liberal bonifides, would almost be indistinguishable from Obama in terms of policy actions, because both of us are like him in preferring a fairly Vulcan attitude towards the issues. We’d also be both, for different reasons, ill-suited for the job temperamentally in ways that Obama isn’t.

    I knew all that from the start, so I toyed with voting for that other democrat, Edwards, because I understood where people stood when it comes to the Clintons. Edwards turned out to be incompetent and insincere. So there goes that idea…

    Now, think about some of the things Obama has done…Do you think, left to his own devices, Obama would have preferred Hillary Clinton to be his SoS? Or keeping Ben Bernanke? I can buy retaining Gates, but some of the people in his economic policy circle? A ton of people in the Obama administration are representatives of various interest groups, and there a ton of self-serving leaks that helps reinforce their position until they go too far. How do you think it was so hard for Romer to be effective, or E Warren to even be getting that wierd job?

    There is massive pressure on Obama not to take progressive voices seriously, and there is massive pressure on Obama not to give credence to progressive voices. Obama is conservative, and anyone who’s paid attention knew that. Moreover, anyone who’s paid attention to US politics knew that TPTB would not have allowed a particularly liberal candidate to be successful. If you think Spitz’s little scandal had more to do with hypocrisy than his aggressive regulatory habits… Obama was simply the best we were going to get. He might be Gordon Brown, but it could be worse…he could be Clegg.

    The kind of ignorant “they’re all crooks” is just deeply disturbing to me because we have a paralyzed political and economic system and I am quite worried about what’s going to happen when it *stops* being paralyzed. We have to be more engaged than that, but I’m at a loss as to how that can be achieved when we have apparently very little democratic translation to results, either in people or their policies.

  47. Step 1. Start a new party and a half (a la tea party for progressives) with a snazzy sufficiently “American” sounding name. We could try American progressives or maybe American liberals.

    Step 2. Announce that you are a party that is strictly for unfettered abortion and reproductive rights, strictly (and I mean strictly) anti-war. Announce that you are for removing tax loopholes for corporations, a general restructuring of the bloated corpse that is the American tax system, and a reduction in (now less meaningful) military expenditures. Also, you are for complete across the board access to civil rights, marriage, and complete integration of LGBTQ individuals into society. Maybe we can throw in increased education expenditures (and an expansion of the healthcare bill into a single-payer system)

    Step 3. Stay on message. Don’t do the whole “crazy angry mob thing” that the tea party are doing because in the long run it invites animosity. You’ll have enough of that already. As a corollary to staying on message, if someone asks you about something unrelated to the core issues (which obviously don’t have to ONLY be what is mentioned in step 2, but please, try to keep it small) you just give them a blank look and start talking about the issues in step 2.

    Step 4. Profit. Or instead of steps 1-4 you could try to turn the green party into a viable third party, but it remains to be seen if 2000 and Ralph Nader were the nails in the coffin for that particular group.

    Even if you didn’t get any votes, you could still make a pretty snappy looking facebook page and website. Incidentally, I think that as much effort is being put into the web for political movements, more could still be done. Where’s my green party app for windows phone 7?

  48. Gee-whiz folks — he’s not a progressive. Never was. In fact, he’s doing exactly what he said he would do.

    Please remember, strength has nothing to do with anger. Saying no , telling folks why, and asking them to consider your viewpoint — without being the first to break , is showing strength, without being an “angry black man”. He is supposed to represent ALL the people. It’s the place of the house to represent their districts. Pres Obama has shown he neither represents nor understands the needs and wants of working class, lower middle class, and middle class Americans.

    We have REAL unemployment at 17%. One in seven folks is on foos stamps. The talk is all about supporting the rich, while giving the everyone not in the top 10% a pittance.

    This is not a good deal for America. Even the stimulative effects of this bill are very inefficient. Raise taxes on the wealthy, and spend the exact same amount on a long term federal stimulus — by golly!! It’s even paid for.

    The other shoe will fall as far as real estate goes. How many homeless people can we afford to have? Who’s going to buy the stuff we make or import if there’s no place to put it?

    Giving the rich more is a foolish economic policy — especially since they are the folks who are doing well in this mini-recovery. A “recovery” with high unemployment, is a “recovery” for the rich. The rest of us still need either jobs or more hours (underemployment) — how is that a “recovery”? Do you really think we should give those who have “recovered” a TAX BREAK – while children go hungry?

    Strength is not anger. In fact, anger often is a sign of weakness. The article quoted is crap.

  49. Shocking…white people generally don’t understand the institutional racism faced by non-white people. Next you’ll tell me that men generally don’t understand institutional sexism…oh, no wait I think the recent rape threads pretty much demonstrated that already.

  50. Politics aren’t so all or nothing. Yell and be angry, or shut up and take it. For a candidate that campaigned on a platform of change, just taking it doesn’t seem to be a winning strategy. Maybe we dems didn’t pull it together because our democrat president just took it, instead of putting his support behind democrats up for re-election. Republicans campaigned with emotion, they used their voters anger to get themselves into office. I think dems would rally to a little emotion.

  51. Barack Obama is a conservative. He’s not a progressive. He favors the banks and the health insurance companies and the moderate Republicans because that’s where he is politically. He’s opposed the repeal of DADT and DOMA because the LGBT people who are radical queers enough to want the same basic civil rights as straight people are no part of his base. He’s done nothing to close down Guantanamo Bay or get justice for those harmed by the international crimes of the Bush regime because he supports the powers of the Executive over the ideals of international human rights law.

    None of this is, or ought to be, surprising. Obama won the Democratic caucus because he was far more acceptable to the right-wing PTB than either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards.

    To quote a Kos diarist:

    Every president takes risks, but President Obama challenged and defeated presumptions that even many of his strongest supporters had taken for granted. He prevailed because he is smart. He prevailed because he is tough. He prevailed because he is almost fearless.

    So, why would a person of such intelligence make what seems to be so many foolish political decisions? Why does he appear not to come to understand the nature of his opposition? Why does he seem to get rolled on so many issues on so many occasions? Call it The Obama Paradox. Or realize that the answer may lie in the nature of the questions.

    The Obama Paradox presumes that the president is a liberal or a progressive, and that he is ceding his principles based on faulty strategies or a disinclination to face confrontation. Many of the president’s more ardent supporters also buy into this presumption, but rather than accept that the buck stops in the Oval Office, they concoct a series of ever more ridiculous rationalizations.

  52. Anyone who seriously thinks that the Democrats should primary Obama should keep one thing in mind:

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg is over 80 and frail. Does anyone really want to take even the slightest risk that her replacement will be named by any of the current crop of Republicans?

  53. There is massive pressure on Obama not to take progressive voices seriously, and there is massive pressure on Obama not to give credence to progressive voices. Obama is conservative, and anyone who’s paid attention knew that. Moreover, anyone who’s paid attention to US politics knew that TPTB would not have allowed a particularly liberal candidate to be successful.

    THIS. Thank you, shah8.

    God. damn. Has everyone forgotten about the Clinton administration? Like Sheelzebub, I have my (strong) critiques about some of the shit Obama has done and said since taking office—but people, he didn’t get there alone, and he didn’t get there just from the votes of progressives, labor, African-Americans, and women. He is saddled with a Democratic Party that has gotten increasingly conservative over the course of my lifetime. I was born during the Johnson administration. The Dems have basically done an about-face from the policies pursued by the Johnson administration (and since this is a feminist blog and all, let’s give credit where credit is due to Lyndon Johnson—we owe a lot to him).

    Where was all this outrage when a white man (Bill Clinton) was rolling over for the Republicans? Yeah, there was outrage, but it was coming from the easily-brushed-aside labor movement and poor mothers who relied on AFDC. “Progressives” were all about the realpolitik back then, and the rest of us were told to pipe down and be glad we weren’t getting screwed even worse. Ishmael Reed is right. (and BTW, he is not an “anti-feminist”; his critiques of feminism largely parallel that of many feminists of color. It’s more accurate to say that he is a critic of the racism perpetuated by the leading lights of mainstream middle-class white feminism. It’s also worth mentioning that he is one of the few literati who supported Italian-American writers coming out of the woodwork, back when publishers would literally laugh at them (YO!! ADRIIIAANN!”)—especially Italian-American women.)

  54. Did anyone here say that we should primary Obama?

    Really, I’m not pissed at Obama. I’m unimpressed with him but I knew who he was and what he stood for during the election. If I was a betting person, I’d have cleaned up after running odds that this would be “Clinton kissing up to while being pilloried by the GOP” all over again. I’m pissed at the Democrats who have been following him down a rightward path, who have been reaching across the aisle to some really hateful and bigoted people in the GOP. I’m pissed that the administration and their Dem allies, in response to the activism on the part of their base, engaged in hippie punching instead of listening and acting on our behalf. I’m pissed at supposed lefties and progressives who either didn’t bother to learn about his policy positions and voting record during the campaign, or just completely ignored it because they were so desperate for a messiah. (I have to laugh at people who think that there was any huge difference between Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton policy wise. Any differences were small and rather academic, and I would have voted for either with the same lukewarm enthusiasm.) Now you’re shocked?

    Shah8, I agree that the powers-that-be won’t be open to anyone really progressive on the Presidential ticket–which is why the process is so paralyzed now. How much more are progressives, how much more is the base supposed to do and get ignored or slapped down in response? When the Dems had majorities they didn’t push as hard as they could have; they capitulated quickly and fed the interests of their base–women, the poor, people of color, and LBGT people–as so much red-meat compromise to the GOP. Compare that to the GOP, who, with the slimmest of majority support, decided they had a mandate from the people.

  55. Clinton started the grand tradition of “Promise them anything, but give them moderate-to-right-leaning solutions,” and Obama is continuing it. It’s what the Democratic party IS now. The last president to take any wild, radical risks (like speaking seriously and gravely about climate, environment, pollution, etc.) was Carter. Look how well he did.

    As far as anger: Anger is a powerful and necessary emotion. We can’t be complete without it. The problem is, anger gets a bad rap, and it’s manifest in violent ways, so people conflate anger and violence. Anger fuels justice. We need anger. “Getting angry” has solved lots of problems.

  56. I’m not entirely sure why this is a discussion of whether or not “we’re shocked” and whether this in turn gives our anger more or less credence. Why the hell can’t we be disappointed that the leader of the free world isn’t representing it? I was pissed off when Bush was the president too. I don’t think either one of these emotions is more or less justified.

  57. Getting angry has never solved any problems. It’s only a first step. I think it’s fine for people to get angry. To realize the country is is trouble, really the world is in trouble. But we tend to stop at anger, which flames out, and/or spills into violence and oppression. Any anger must be harnessed individually and collectively, and transformed into wisdom and intelligent action. Otherwise, what happens is one group of thugs is overthrown, and another installed. It feels great in the short term, but it isn’t long before you start seeing how nothing really has changed.

  58. Sheelzebub: I have to laugh at people who think that there was any huge difference between Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton policy wise.

    During the primaries, the only difference I could see what that Clinton’s health care plan would require everyone to have health insurance, while Obama’s would only require children. Since I do not believe that the government can make health care affordable for everyone, I voted for Obama. Should have gone with Clinton. She’s got more of a spine than Obama, and the repubs can’t possibly think of her as more of a angry ball-busting bitch than they already do, so she’d have nothing to lose from standing up to them.

  59. Screw democracy, let’s go back to monarchy. Between the milquetoast democrats, the witch hunters, and the sheep baaing for blood, I’ve kind of soured on the whole dim-witted notion that these United States were founded on. (No offense to all the thinking people on this board, but for every one of you, there’s a dozen sheep. ) Frankly, I’m absolutely positive that most people don’t want to think for themselves- so let’s make the world a little
    more comfortable for them, and box the U.S up in time for the royal wedding.

  60. nathan: But we tend to stop at anger, which flames out, and/or spills into violence and oppression. Any anger must be harnessed individually and collectively, and transformed into wisdom and intelligent action.

    Oh, this is just too precious.

    It’s pretty freakin’ hard to do this magical transformation when your government is doing everything it can get away with to suppress dissent and First Amendment rights.

  61. GallingGalla: Oh, this is just too precious.
    It’s pretty freakin’ hard to do this magical transformation when your government is doing everything it can get away with to suppress dissent and First Amendment rights.  

    GG,

    The first article I agree with. The second I have trouble agreeing with because it has a sympathetic POV toward the FARC. The third would be interesting too, but I am skeptical that we don’t hear any more details about the specific copyright infringements. (Or that, the gov’t is referred to as fascist. Little bias giveaway there)

  62. Clinton started the grand tradition of “Promise them anything, but give them moderate-to-right-leaning solutions,” and Obama is continuing it.

    This doesn’t sound right. Clinton campaigned explicitly as a new democrat, a DLC guy, a reconstructed leftist who would guide the world in an age of triumphant capitalism. The era of big govt was over, he said. And thats how he governed: balanced budget, NAFTA, welfare-to-work, repeal of glass-steagel, deregulation…

  63. Yeah I can’t imagine why certain groups/populations in the US would refer to the government as fascist. And why can’t these article writers show no bias? you know, like writers from the New York Times or Rolling Stone?

    /sarcasm

  65. “And, oh yeah, Bernie Sanders is a worthless socialist, and I’ve always wondered whether he’s ultimately a sock-puppet.” shah8

    Tell us more why don’t you ? Connect some dots.

  66. GallingGalla – you think I don’t get pissed about what’s gong on? that I’m just spreading some pie in the sky niceness as a solution?

    I’m fully aware that transforming anger, especially in the mess we are in, is no easy task. Frankly, we aren’t even to the point as a country where enough people are so pissed off they actually want something to change on a major scale. Even with higher unemployment, suppression of rights, never-ending wars, and handouts to the rich, still, too many people are comfortable enough, or are focused on some non-issue (like the President’s poll ratings or the latest Sarah Palin gaffe).

    The thing is, though, I’m not talking about some “magical transformation.” I’m talking about the way people have historically gotten together when they’ve had enough of it, and have trained together to stand for a new way of living, and in the process, have broken down the terror and rage that previously had paralyzed them.

    It doesn’t always work, and sometimes large scale movements set people back in the short term. But those in power bank on the fact that most of us have lost faith in any kind of group effort, that we don’t believe it’s possible to collectively rise and break through the oppression that’s been created. With every repressive law change, court decision, and international agreement, those at the top watch as more and more of us squirm in fear and disgust – or turn away, and loose ourselves in TV shows and other useless distractions.

    The kind of cynicism today amongst many on the “left” isn’t based on realistic assessments. It’s based on an uneasy comfortableness in things being “too screwed up” to do a lot about.

    There hasn’t been a sustained, large scale justice movement in the United States since the 1960s. Everything since then has been fragmented, with one set of groups pitted against another. And so it’s easy to be cynical because any of us under 50 years old really don’t remember a time when people stood in huge numbers for a vision – and stood for that vision for long enough to get something done. Sure, the Civil Rights movement didn’t do enough, but without it, we’d be nowhere near where we are today.

    If we want to see real systemic change, we have to figure out a way to have faith in the power of numbers – of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people working towards a somewhat shared vision of some kind. I don’t know how to do this. I don’t even know exactly what kind of vision is needed. But you can bet that neither did Martin Luther King Jr. and the others when they started.

    People gotta start thinking big again – otherwise, we’ll just remain chickens pecking at the crumbs handed out by the powers that be.

  67. Ok, nathan, thank you for clarifying your viewpoint. It’s actually fairly close to mine.

    nathan: And so it’s easy to be cynical because any of us under 50 years old really don’t remember a time when people stood in huge numbers for a vision – and stood for that vision for long enough to get something done.

    FYI, I’m 52, and I do remember the civil rights era (at least the last years of it, ’67 – ’72).

  68. As a youngster, I feel duty bound to point out that the guys in the 60s and 70s started this mess. Thank you, all the hippies who sold their soul in the eighties, and thank you for giving the Religious Reich the shot in the arm it didn’t need.

  69. FYI, I’m 52, and I do remember the civil rights era (at least the last years of it, ‘67 – ‘72).

    Coincidentally, those are the very years people 10 years older oftendon’t remember.

  70. Cosign what everyone has said about “act angry” vs. “grow a spine” — I certainly don’t want Obama ranting about the ebil Republicans (no matter how true it is) but I don’t want him caving all the damn time either. I truly think there’s a middle ground there.

    And I really don’t want him desperately brushing off and dismissing his former supporters, trying to distance himself. The rightwing is all “OMG liberals and feminists and brown people are so gaddamn loud and angry!” and Obama is basically saying “I know, right? I’m sure not like those people! Cut it out, angry liberals!”

    And I know perfectly well that asking a black President to get angry at white guys is never going to work out… but, on a different axis of privilege, I would love to hear a male President get angry about women’s rights at a bunch of other men. Because women are equally hampered by the “don’t get angry!” message, and we’re kinda relying on him to look out for us. (Ditto for the need for a straight man to get angry about the lack of gay rights, an employed & insured man to get angry about the rights of those who are not, etc… Obama is privileged in almost every way aside from race, and a lot of people really kind of need him to bring that privilege to bear on their behalves.)

  71. Who cares about the slander and nonsense that bigots would hurl at Obama? I think that gets me even more. To hold himself back because some people’s stereotypes about black men might kick it… that’s a terrible reason to guide one’s actions. I don’t know really what Reed and you are proposing. I’d rather see Obama be the person he is and stand up for what he thinks is right. If he’s mad, then let him be mad. Don’t live your life fearing some bigots will call you names and hate you.

  72. Politicalguineapig:
    As a youngster, I feel duty bound to point out that the guys in the 60s and 70s started this mess. Thank you, all the hippies who sold their soul in the eighties, and thank you for giving the Religious Reich the shot in the arm it didn’t need.  

    Hair bands were pretty cool though, as a whole.

  73. Meh, I like disco better. The hair bands didn’t have enough growl for me. They spent too much time on their hair and not enough on their bass.

Comments are currently closed.