On the Need to Challenge President Obama from the Left [View All]

[Time for change]

As a liberal/progressive American voter, I have been a long-time supporter of Democratic candidates, ever since I worked as a volunteer in George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign at the age of 22. Yet, as a liberal, I believe that if there is anything that liberals can and should agree on, it is that an individual candidate’s predispositions and actions are more important than the Party s/he belongs to when deciding which candidates to support.

National political parties change over time. The “Party of Lincoln” in the 1860s was the anti-slavery party, while the Democratic Party was the pro-slavery party in those days. Yet, by the 1930s, the Democratic Party was the clearly the party of the people, compared to the Republican Party, which was the Party of wealthy elites. That remained the case for many decades. But today, increasing infusion of corporate cash into the Democratic Party is corrupting it and moving it further and further to the right. Unqualified support by liberals for a Party that is progressively moving to the right will do nothing to slow down or reverse that trend.

I contributed money to and worked as a volunteer in Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, and I also wrote and posted numerous favorable articles about him on DU and elsewhere in the run-up to the 2008 election, as in this article, in which I favorable compared Obama to McCain with regard to numerous important policy issues. Yet, I have been very disappointed in Obama’s performance in office, as time and again he has reneged on the most important promises on which he ran for president in 2008. Consider the major points that I espoused in the above noted DU article in support of Obama’s major campaign promises, which now make me look somewhat foolish:


BROKEN PROMISES AND A SHARP TURN TO THE RIGHT

Torture and other unconscionable “War on Terror” policies

Torture
In my 2008 DU article comparing Obama with McCain, I pointed to Obama’s strong stand against George W. Bush’s Military Commissions Act of 2006 and a major Senate speech in which he took a strong stand against torture.

President Obama does deserve credit for banning torture on the second day of his presidency. However, as Alain Nairn explains in “The Torture Ban that Doesn’t Ban Torture”:

What the Obama dictum ostensibly knocks off is that small percentage of torture now done by Americans while retaining the overwhelming bulk of the system’s torture, which is done by foreigners under US patronage. Obama could stop backing foreign forces that torture, but he has chosen not to do so. His Executive Order instead merely pertains to treatment of “an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government…”, which means that it doesn’t even prohibit direct torture by Americans outside environments of “armed conflict,” which is where much torture happens anyway since many repressive regimes aren’t in armed conflict.

Secrecy and immunity for human rights abusers
And despite campaign promises to the contrary, Guantanamo Bay remains open and a source of serious human rights abuses:

It is absolutely undeniable that fundamental human rights violations are occurring in this detention center…. And although the current Obama administration has pledged to shut down this oasis of human right violations there continues to be an unacceptable disregard for fundamental right.

Many aspects of our current War on Terror are unknown because of the cloud of secrecy that surrounds it. Indeed, the Obama administration continues the designation of “state secrets” in a number of cases that seek to challenge alleged misconduct of the Bush administration.

One of the most important requirements of a democracy is transparency of government actions. To the extent that citizens are not aware of what their government does, they cannot hold it accountable for its actions. For that reason, “state secrets” should be invoked to shield citizen knowledge of government action only in extreme instances. This is especially important where the rights of the accused are concerned. It is difficult to understand what information could be so important to our national security that efforts to hold our government accountable for its actions should be obstructed. Russ Feingold, previously one of Obama’s most enthusiastic supporters, commented on this:

I am troubled that once again the Obama administration has decided to invoke the state secrets privilege in a case challenging the previous administration’s alleged misconduct. The Obama administration’s action, on top of Congress’s mistaken decision last year to give immunity to the telecommunications companies that allegedly participated in the warrantless wiretapping program, will make it even harder for courts to rule on the legality of that program.

The Obama administration has also actively sought to obstruct prosecution of war crimes. According to UN special rapporteur Manfred Nowak:

Obama has the authority to pardon crimes, not obstruct efforts to investigate crimes for political purposes. This may not be politically advantageous for Obama, but these treaties do not exist for his comfort or advantage. We made a pledge to the world that we would aggressively pursue any war criminals – even if they happened to be made in America.

Climate change and the environment

Climate change
During his presidential campaign Obama used rhetoric that emphasized the need to combat global warming, saying “I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation.”

It was widely recognized by climate scientists prior to the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference of December 7-18 in Copenhagen, commonly known as the Copenhagen Summit, that failure would likely eventually portend world-wide disaster. An article in Scientific American by Douglass Fischer, titled “What Would Failure at Copenhagen Mean for Climate Change”, written a month prior to the Summit, summed up the stakes:

Climate experts, scientists and negotiators say that, absent international agreement, the children and grandchildren of those living today will negotiate a world where planetary geo-engineering is a part of daily life, sea-walls defend coastal cities, the world's poor are hammered by drought, floods and famine and our planet is heading toward conditions unseen for the last 100 million years…

The accord that the 30 leading countries agreed upon dropped the goal of 80% greenhouse gas reduction by 2050, despite the fact that our best climate scientists say greenhouse gas emissions must be cut 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 in order to avoid catastrophe. It retained a (non-binding) commitment to reducing global temperatures by 2050, but contained no concrete plans for achieving that goal. Consequently:

Many countries almost immediately tore to shreds the compromise plan that the group of 30 countries presented in the main hall. Those countries that could face destruction as a result of climate change, in particular, could not see any solutions in it. Now we are faced with the threat of an impasse in global climate politics. And the consequences of this holdup will primarily be felt by the poorest of the poor. Experts anticipate that they will be subjected to storms and flooding stronger than ever before. Their crops will wither. Melting glaciers might deprive several million people of their water supplies and deprive them of their livelihoods.

Later, the United States committed to a 4% reduction in greenhouse gas emission from 1990 levels by 2020 – a puny and laughable gesture compared to 80% reduction by 2050 that climate scientists say is necessary in order to avoid catastrophe.

More recently, renowned NASA Climate scientist James Hansen was arrested protesting the Obama administration’s decision to ok the construction of the Keystone oil pipeline. Asked why he was willing to be arrested over this issue, Hansen explained:

President George W. Bush said that the U.S. was addicted to oil. So what will the U.S. response to this situation be? Will it entail phasing out fossil fuels and moving to clean energy or borrowing the dirtiest needle from a fellow addict? That is the question facing President Obama. If he chooses the dirty needle it is game over because it will confirm that Obama was just greenwashing, like the other well-oiled coal-fired politicians, with no real intention of solving the addiction.

Smog pollution standards
Obama also recently gave in to Republicans and corporate polluters on smog standards which his own EPA strongly recommended be strengthened:

In a dramatic reversal, President Barack Obama on Friday scrubbed a clean-air regulation that aimed to reduce health-threatening smog, yielding to bitterly protesting businesses and congressional Republicans who complained the rule would kill jobs in America's ailing economy. Withdrawal of the proposed regulation marked the latest in a string of retreats by the president in the face of GOP opposition… and the American Lung Association threatened to restart the legal action it had begun against rules proposed by President George W. Bush…

In March, the EPA's independent panel of scientific advisers sent a letter to the agency's administrator, Lisa Jackson, saying it was its unanimous recommendation to make the smog standards stronger and that the evidence was "sufficiently certain" that {it} would benefit public health…

Explaining why these standards are so important, Obama’s own EPA:

estimates that up to 12,000 lives could be saved annually from heart attacks, lung disease and asthma attacks by implementing the new standards.

War

In September, 2010, Obama announced an end to U.S. combat operations in Iraq, thus apparently fulfilling a major campaign promise. However, not only is the commitment to withdraw from Iraq uncertain, but the total U.S. casualties between Iraq and Afghanistan has not changed a lot since the Bush presidency. Between Iraq and Afghanistan, there were 469 military fatalities between the two wars in 2008, Bush’s last year as president. There were 466 military fatalities in 2009, Obama’s first year as president. There were 559 in 2010, and 404 in 2011 so far. While casualties in Iraq have decreased substantially, the war in Afghanistan has escalated.

Iraq
President Obama promised the withdrawal of all “combat troops” from Iraq by August, 2010, and the withdrawal of all troops by the end of 2011. All U.S. “combat troops” were in fact withdrawn from Iraq, on schedule, in August 2011. But what exactly does that mean? There have nevertheless been 47 U.S. military fatalities in Iraq in 2011 so far, and U.S. casualties in Iraq continue to occur throughout 2011. Furthermore, “non-combat U.S. troops do engage in combat”, and while helping Iraqi forces to fend off an attack, US troops used helicopters and unmanned aircraft. Worse yet:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has admitted that US troops are likely to stay in Iraq beyond 2011, making another scheduled withdrawal date nothing more than an empty meaningless promise. There will be no withdrawal, because a permanent military occupation was agreed long ago. The date for the final pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq keeps being pushed back further and further. Obama campaigned in 2008 on the promise that he would “immediately” withdraw troops from Iraq, then that was put back to June 2009, then it became August 2010, and now the date has been pushed back to the end of 2011. Every time a deadline gets close, the Obama administration simply insists that the situation is too unstable for withdrawal and the date is pushed back again.

Afghanistan
Regarding Obama’s escalation of the Afghanistan War, Professor Gregor Schirmer notes the illegality of the continued war:

Nine years after the start of the war, the war of aggression of the US and its allies in violation of international law continues. An occupation regime exists despite the progressive so-called “Afghanization” of the conflict and transfer of responsibility to Afghan authorities. Under this regime, Afghans cannot realize their right of self-determination.

The continued occupation of Iraq also constitutes a violation of international law, notwithstanding Obama’s removal of “combat troops” – as described in “US Violations of Occupation Law in Iraq, Report to the Ninth Session of the Human Rights Council”:

This report is grounded in the assumption that the U.S. is not above the law, but rather should be bound and limited by law. Yet the entire thrust of U.S. policy in Iraq stands in contradiction to the post-World War II legal order and particularly the legal framework governing occupation. The primary conclusion to be drawn is that the occupation itself is the root cause of systematic rights violations. They will not end until the occupation ends and Iraqis are allowed to exercise genuine self-determination. Full justice will not be done until all war criminals – U.S. as well as Iraqi – are put in the dock and held to account, and the U.S. pays reparations for the illegal devastation inflicted on Iraqi society.

Health care

As a presidential candidate, then Senator Obama offered a national health care plan to all Americans to buy affordable (through government subsidies) health care coverage that is “similar to the plan available to members of Congress.” The plan that Obama eventually offered the American people as president was nothing like the one he promised as a presidential candidate. Instead of a plan “similar to the plan available to members of Congress”, he offered us the option – or, rather, mandate – of purchasing a plan from the same health insurance industry that has consistently abused its near monopoly of its product for the past several years or decades – albeit restrained by some government regulation. Instead of a system that provides competition to that insurance industry he offered us a system that mandates most Americans to purchase health insurance from that same industry – thus solidifying their monopoly.

Worse yet, Obama didn’t even appear to fight for the plan that he promised the American people. It simply slipped off the table. Worse still, he didn’t even acknowledge his about-face. He unveiled his shocking surprise in a speech of September 2009, in which he said:

An additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. (Applause.) Now, let me be clear. Let me be clear. It would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5 percent of Americans would sign up.

In other words, the plan that as a candidate he offered to “all Americans” – the not-for-profit public option – was now being offered to “less than 5 percent of Americans”, as Obama struggled to make clear to the insurance industry that threatened to fight him tooth and nail at the slightest indication of competition to their racket. But even that proved to be too much for the health insurance industry to accept. Obama was forced to take even his measly offering of 5% off the table – without a semblance of a fight.

The fact that the plan left control of health care insurance in the hands of the private insurance industry is reflected in large part in the fact that the plan has utterly failed to achieve its presumed major objective – a decrease in the number of uninsured Americans. By the end of 2010 there were 52 million uninsured Americans – up about 5 million from what it was at the beginning of the health care reform debate.


The economy

Continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy
Far from reversing the Bush tax cuts that Obama promised as a presidential candidate, he waited until they were about to expire, and then he castigated progressive Democrats for not submitting to Republican blackmail to hold extension of unemployment benefits to the unemployed hostage to tax cuts for the rich.

Jobs
So far job creation has been negative during the Obama administration – representing the worst job creation record since Herbert Hoover. One thing that could be said in Obama’s defense is that he has been president for less than three years, and that he inherited a nation in economic crisis. That is true, but so did FDR. Yet the philosophy and actions of the two administrations have been very different. In fact, Obama’s philosophy leans towards the Republican side of the spectrum, as he made clear in a statement:

See, I’ve never believed that government has all the answers to our problems. I’ve never believed that government’s role is to create jobs or prosperity. I believe it’s the drive and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs, our small businesses; the skill and dedication of our workers… that’s made us the wealthiest nation on Earth. I believe it’s the private sector that must be the main engine for our recovery. I believe government should be lean; government should be efficient.

Favoring the wealthy
He brags about us being “the wealthiest nation on Earth” during the midst of an economic crisis that is driving millions of Americans into poverty? Worse than that, his actions have not been commensurate with the magnitude of the crisis: Though our best economists recommended a much stronger stimulus package, he decided instead to go with the advice of his much more conservative economic advisors; his solution to the home foreclosure crisis was “Making Home Affordable”, a program that William Kuttner explains in his book, “A Presidency in Peril”, was orders of magnitude more favorable to banks than to homeowners; his continuation of the Bush bailout of Wall Street without demanding much fiscal reform from Wall Street bilked trillions of dollars from American taxpayers, who received little in return; and in his 2010 State of the Union message he indicated that deficit reduction would be a priority over stimulation of a stagnant economy. Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman’s response was scathing in his criticism of that:

A spending freeze? That’s the brilliant response of the Obama team… It’s appalling on every level. It’s bad economics, depressing demand when the economy is still suffering from mass unemployment… And it’s a betrayal of everything Obama’s supporters thought they were working for. Just like that, Obama has embraced and validated the Republican world-view.

Parroting right wing economic talking points
Perhaps one of the biggest reasons why our economic crisis has failed to improve under Obama is that, until very recently he failed to recognize or acknowledge the nature or existence of the class warfare perpetrated against the American people by the American oligarchy. Instead, he has mostly bought into the right wing point of view and worsened the situation by conceding to erroneous right wing talking points about such things as the origin of our expanding national debt. William Greider recently commented on this in his article, “Obama’s Bad Bargain”:

The claim that cutting Social Security benefits will “strengthen” the system is erroneous. In fact, Obama has already undermined the soundness of Social Security by partially suspending the FICA payroll tax for workers – depriving the system of revenue it needs for long-term solvency.

The mendacity has a more fundamental dimension. Obama helped conservatives concoct the debt crisis on false premises, promoting a claim that Social Security and other entitlement programs were somehow to blame while gliding over the real causes and culprits… There should be no mystery about what caused the $14 trillion debt: large deficits began in 1981, with Ronald Reagan’s fanciful “supply side” tax-cutting. Federal debt was then around $1 trillion. By 2007 it had reached $9 trillion, thanks to George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy and his two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the massive subsidy for Big Pharma in Medicare drug benefits.

ON THE NEED FOR A CHALLENGE TO OBAMA FROM THE LEFT

I acknowledge that Barack Obama is a better presidential candidate than any of the current Republican candidates or any candidate who is likely to run on the Republican ticket. Yet, under Obama’s presidency the wealth gap continues to explode, the American empire continues to expand, planetary destruction portends world-wide catastrophe, the economic and political power of the wealthy climbs to obscene levels, and the rest of us remain mired in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. How much more of this can we afford?

A challenge to President Obama’s reelection could come in the form of either a primary challenge or a third party, or both. There are many Democrats who are very nervous about any kind of challenge to Obama’s reelection from the left, fearing that that would derail his chances for reelection and pave the way for a lunatic Republican to be our next president. An example that many of these Democrats cite in making their point is Ted Kennedy’s primary challenge to Jimmy Carter in 1980, with Carter’s subsequent loss to Ronald Reagan in the 1980 Presidential election.

But that is a very select reading of history. I have great admiration for Jimmy Carter, but I think there is very little evidence that Ted Kennedy’s primary challenge had anything much to do with his failure to get reelected. Primary among the reasons for Carter’s defeat in 1980 were the long continuation of the Iran hostage crisis, high inflation, and biased media coverage against him from the right. Several presidents in U.S. history have faced substantial primary challenges (or third party challenges) and yet gone on to win reelection. Some relatively recent examples include: Harry Truman’s upset victory in 1948, despite two third party challenges from former Democrats (Henry Wallace and Strom Thurmond); Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 landslide victory, despite a serious primary challenge from George Wallace, who won around 30% or more of the vote in three state primaries, and; Richard Nixon’s landslide 1968 victory, despite a challenge from both the right (John Ashbrook) and the left (Pete McCloskey) that garnered a combined 30% of the vote in New Hampshire’s primary.


On support for a third Party

I am not going to advocate for a third Party, as it is against DU rules to do so. But I think it is important to point out that if corporate influence within the Democratic Party causes it to stray far enough from its ideals and so much resemble the Republican Party that American voters are put in a lose-lose position (which is already happening), a viable third Party is likely to emerge, as it has on a number of occasions in U.S. history. One can currently see a good deal of support for a third Party among the American people in: the fact that, though the president’s approval ratings continue deep in the red, he still remains in relatively decent shape against a Republican field that most Americans feel little affinity for; continuing woeful Congressional approval ratings, currently with a 6 to 1 ratio of disapproval to approval; a poll indicating that only 17% of the American people say that our government has their consent; a poll showing that 57% of American voters feel the need for a third Party, 31% say that having a third Party is very important, voters want to see a third Party candidate for president in 2012 by a margin of 58%-13%, and 20% say that they would be certain or very likely to vote for a third Party candidate for President in 2012; and a Gallup poll showing 52% of voters (68% of independents, 52% of Republicans and 33% of Democrats) picking the latter option (with 40% picking the first option) to the question “In your view do the Republican and Democratic Parties do an adequate job of representing the American people, or do they do so poorly that a major third party is needed?”


Reasons why our country needs a challenge to President Obama’s reelection

Either a Democratic primary or third Party challenge implies an avenue for continuing criticism of Obama’s presidency. In order for that criticism to be of value to our country, it must be constructive. Let’s consider some of the advantages to our country of a challenge to Obama’s reelection that brings with it a flurry of constructive criticism:

Criticism from the left helps to put the lie to Republican talking points
One of the biggest talking points of Republicans is that President Obama’s positions are so far to the left that he is a Socialist. When Obama receives a barrage of criticism from the left for not being liberal or progressive enough, that makes it more difficult for Republicans to maintain the fantasy that he’s way to the left of the American public.

Criticism of a Democratic candidate from the left helps to move him to the left and ensure a more successful presidency
It is not a bad thing for a candidate to know when he is alienating a certain segment of the electorate. A challenge from the left has the potential to make a candidate pay attention to many more issues affecting many more Americans. It may not work, but at least it has the potential to work. I don’t believe that Obama’s second four years has much chance of bringing value to our country if he continues to adopt so many Republican points of view in lieu of taking more seriously the issues of most importance to the American people.

Giving voice to fundamental liberal principles that affect the American people
A challenge from the left will help to give voice to the fundamental principles and agendas that represent the soul of the Democratic Party, which has increasingly been deeply tarnished by corporate influence. It will command media attention for the Democratic primaries, which will have the potential to better acquaint the American people with issues that most affect their lives and the health of their country. A letter written by some prominent progressives makes this point:

Certainly, President Obama will not be pleased to face a list of primary challengers, but the comfort of the incumbent is far less important than the vitality and strength of his party’s Progressive ideas and ideals. President Obama should emerge from the primary a stronger candidate as a result.

Failure to criticize or challenge when appropriate sets a dangerous precedent
And finally, the most important reason of all: When a candidate’s base fails to criticize the candidate when appropriate, that is not good for democracy in my opinion. Bill Burton explains why. Burton made this comment in the context of Obama’s support for Bush’s FISA bill prior to the 2008 election. But these words apply to any candidate, any time, any where:

This attitude that we should uncritically support Obama in everything he does and refrain from criticizing him is unhealthy in the extreme. No political leader merits uncritical devotion – neither when they are running for office nor when they occupy it – and there are few things more dangerous than announcing that you so deeply believe in the Core Goodness of a political leader, or that we face such extreme political crises that you trust and support whatever your Leader does, even when you don't understand it or think that it's wrong. That's precisely the warped authoritarian mindset that defined the Bush Movement and led to the insanity of the post-9/11 Era, and that uncritical reverence is no more attractive or healthy when it's shifted to a new Leader.