How liberal/progressive vs. centrist do you think President Obama would be if he could be?

[Douglas Carpenter]

Okay we all agree that no politician can get all their agenda through - Some maintain that President Obama would be a lot more progressive if he had the Congress and other political forces on his side. Others maintain that he really is a centrist, at best a center-left centrist - but perhaps even a somewhat center-right centrist. What do you think?

5 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	.I think President Obama is really a strong progressive at heart and if he had the political backing he would have cut military spending, brought in much tougher reform of the financial industry, instituted single payer universal healthcare and expanded the social security system significantly
	2 (40%)
	I think President Obama is really a pro-Wall Street centrist at heart and is largely achieving an agenda that is at most center-left and perhaps even closer to being center-right
	1 (20%)
	I think at heart President Obama is somewhere between a centrist and a New Deal liberal who would probably be more progressive than he is currently being - but would not be pushing major Great Society/New Deal type reforms even if he had a very strong chance of getting them made into law.
	2 (40%)
	I think President Obama is essentially non-ideological and is more a manager type of leader than a movement politician. He would pursue whatever agenda that is the accepted consensus of the political class as being pragmatic and politically viable.
	0 (0%)
	I really, honestly don't know
	0 (0%)
	Right now I could go for genuine bruschetta with a glass of a good quality red wine followed by a light olive oil based pasta.
	0 (0%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[PeteSelman]

1. I believe we are in Reagan's ninth term.

I fooled myself into thinking Obama was going to be different. The first year proved that he was completely disinterested in swinging the pendulum back toward the left. We needed bold, aggressive, arm twisting leadership and instead got wishy-washy weakness and constant capitulation to a party that had zero interest in cooperating or compromising.

[PowerToThePeople]

2. I have no idea. and it does not matter

What could have been does not matter. What matters is what has been.

[Douglas Carpenter]

3. I think it does matter in terms of what direction will be pushed when the opportunity is there

There is no doubt some truth to the idea that the Republicans have doggedly blocked everything they possibly could. That is largely true. The question is - is there even an attempt at a progressive agenda?

[Orsino]

4. I think he would be as progressive as America were, plus a little more, on at least some issues.

He knows that change comes incrementally, in here in the real world, the amount of progressive change he can effect is severely limited.

[woo me with science]

5. Corporations pour billions into elections and candidates.

Last edited Sun Jan 19, 2014, 08:54 PM - Edit history (4)

They do not select lightly, and they certainly do not select someone who is not willing and able to carry their water. Barack Obama was selected long ago for his clear aptitude and willingness to carry corporate water. As early as 2006, he was speaking quietly to groups of corporate Democrats re: cutting social safety nets, saying, "This is not a bloodless process."

However, that being said....OUR REAL PROBLEM IS NOT ANY INDIVIDUAL POLITICIAN.

IT IS SYSTEMIC.

Obama is the current, temporary, most high-profile *symptom* of our real problem, which is systemic corruption of our elections, media, and government by corporate money.

Our problem is not Obama's character or whims. Our problem is that the corporate machine now runs this country and selects and runs candidates who govern against the will of the people. That is why major policy doesn't significantly change anymore from administration to administration, no matter which party is elected. They have purchased and restructured our government and elections to ensure that only corporate candidates can compete, and after Obama they will simply choose the next corporate puppets to carry on.

[polichick]

12. Those connections matter for the post-presidency career too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4362444

[one_voice]

6. I think he's a combination...

of the 1st, 3rd & 4th choice.

I don't think he lines up totally with any but is a mixture of all of those.

I do believe that if he had the congress to work with we'd see more liberal policies in effect.

I also think he'd still be as 'strong' on defense as he is right now. Not saying he wouldn't cut some spending there, just that he's very strong on defense. The repukes hate that as do many liberals. Guess it's a matter of taste...

[Armstead]

7. A non idelogical manager

[Marr]

8. I'm often reminded of an interview I saw with one of his law professors.

The professor said he was surprised that Obama was running as a Democrat, as he'd "always assumed he was a Republican", judging from the positions he took.

I think Obama a very Wall Street/Neoliberal/big money first sort of politician. They're the most cynical of all political types, in my opinion. Their only real agenda is to service big money (and join the big money themselves).

To do so, they'll use whatever marketing they need to use. Social issues are generally where these types get their liberal bona fides and set themselves apart from the Republicans, since the 1% doesn't really care one way or the other on those issues. Neoliberals watch the trends there and "evolve" their positions at the most opportune moment for their careers.

[polichick]

11. Interesting - I'd never heard about that professor.

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. another

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. one more