David Sirota: Obama Ate the Left, And We Shouldn't Blame Him At All. But What Do We Do Now?

[laststeamtrain]

Obama Ate the Left, And We Shouldn't Blame Him At All. But What Do We Do Now?
by: David Sirota
Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 20:03

My good friend, Chris Hayes, asks a simple question, echoed by the Progressive magazine and Chris Bowers - why hasn't Obama appointed a single movement progressive? Certainly, a number of progressive voices and institutions have suggested such movement progressives (and there have been many blog posts right here about that). The question has nothing to do with ideological purity - nothing at all. It's just a simple, fair and honest question considering exit polls and post-election surveys showing the country thinks it voted for a left-of-center progressive that will end the war, reform NAFTA, reject free-market fundamentalism, and then considering that Obama has appointed almost exclusively war hawks, NAFTA proponents, and free market fundamentalists.

And the answer to the question, in my opinion, is because Obama effectively ate a huge chunk of the left. And really, Obama didn't eat a huge chunk of the left, celebrity did.

What I mean to say is that we live in a culture that now organizes around celebrity - and Obama knew it, and knew that lots of left organizations aren't really ideological - they are, if anything, organized around the Democratic Party and Bush hatred. So he basically figured out that if he could become a celebrity - and a Democratic Bush-hating one - he could swallow up a huge part of the "progressive infrastructure" and organize it around him (and all the hateful "if you question Obama, you hate Obama" comments that will inevitably be at the bottom of this diary actually confirm this!). And we shouldn't blame him for being a "celebrity" - it's not an epithet. And we shouldn't blame him for seizing his moment. Not at all.

This, by the way, is very different from the Reagan model. Reagan was a telegenic, for sure - but he was a product of a movement. In the age of celebrity worship - the age where we literally organize AROUND celebrity - Obama is a movement unto himself.

<snip>

UPDATE: The knee-jerk anger in the comments section really substantiates the fundamental point of this diary better than the diary itself. To discuss reality about power, the progressive movement and Obama is to automatically subject oneself to vicious personal attacks from those who simply do not want to discuss anything that considers the possibility of independent pressure on Obama. I mean, hell, this is a diary that does not fault Barack Obama in the least - that indeed says he's a progressive. And still - still! - the attacks flow. It's really truly a perfect example of how Obama has successfully organized a huge swath of America around him - not around issues. And again, he deserves no blame at all for that. None at all. The question is simply how to organize in that environment? If asking that question is committing a crime or being "self-promoting" - then dear lord, what are we ever allowed to ask?

<more>

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10094

[groovedaddy]

1. Any issue advocate now begins to lobby Congress on their issue

There are far more populists in Congress now. Let the legislation pass Congress and be laid before Obama for a yea or nay. This will tell us all we need to know.

[Kaye1]

7. I think we'll be just fine

I agree with you completely. Once the bills start coming across his desk, I think we
will see that we (finally) have a president who will do the right thing.

He will pull us out of Iraq, and let our gay friends serve openly in the military
instead of living every day in fear of discovery. He will close Gitmo, stopping
the torture that goes on there.

And every American will get health care!!!!!

I know he will make us proud!

[skooooo]

2. "....he basically figured out that if he could become a celebrity..."

Sorry, not putting on that tinfoil hat. It's too early to judge what Obama's actions will be. Just because he has a bunch of people around him that aren't flaming liberals, doesn't mean he won't have at least a measurably more liberal stance on most issues - domestic especially. I just don't buy into this line of thinking. If he's got the smartest people tellling him all the angles, he will make the right decision most of the time.

[Political Heretic]

3. I think this opinion is potentially accurate, and at the very least deserving of thought.

What scares me most about some people's attitudes toward an Obama presidency is the level of projectionism going on. Some people are seeing whatever they want to see in Obama, projecting whatever the want onto his "celebrity."

Obama never in his life claimed to be a movement progressive. And nothing about his record would suggest that he was one. He's not even accurately characteristic as a "center-left" politician.

What I personally think he is, is a person with a sincere interest in public service and a good heart who currently has the political philosophy of a moderate centrist. I think he cares about ordinary people in America, because his personal and professional history seem to reflect that. And I think he has a sincere desire to help lead America in a better direction. But his political philosophy of how to do that has never been anything other than middle.

Having said that, I sincerely believe that what we need right now in the middle of what is likely going to be one of the worst economic crisis this country has ever faced is someone with personal integrity and a sincere interest in working America more than we need someone who has come from a specific political perspective. In other words, his character is going to matter more than his history of politics.

When FDR came into office, he was not a "Progressive" - not in the slightest. He appointed all kinds of conservatives, business fat cats or moderate friends to his administration, and his first acts as President were decidedly anti-worker. It was the social climate of the time that had more to do with FDR becoming a force for progressive change. That, and the fact that (I believe) FDR had a basic heart that was able to feel empathy and concern for ordinary Americans. He became a true believer in a New Deal because he was a man of character (again, I believe) - who's primary agenda was leading America not serving some interests group's agenda.

I think there are a lot of similarities between to social climate of FDR's time and now, and the evolution of FDRs presidency and what I hope (and pray) we will see in Obama's.

[Hestia]

4. I like this DU thread as an answer --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x404448

[Doctor_J]

5. Ate? Past Tense? As in Sirota has thrown in the towel on the Obama years already?

:eyes:

[Joe Chi Minh]

6. It may well be that he is turning poachers into gamekeepers. People who "know the ropes" and know

that the right has been more comprehensively discredited than most people might have imagined possible. They have an opportunity to play a major part in a historic regeneration of the country and tangentially the world.

If they wanted to go their own way without Obama's blessing, I expect their own personal itinerary would commence from the gates of the White House. It's normal, isn't it? It means that they are starting from where the country is at the moment, and the super-rich will be mugged in a more Byzantine way than the shock therapy most of them would so richly deserve, could effect.

He doesn't yet have honest media, so this way, he would finesse them, until their corkscrew contours are straightened out. Then he would be able to act all together less circumspectly - particularly since by such time, whatever the state of the country's economy, it would be clear to everyone that they are indeed fortunate to have such a wise President protecting their livelihoods and laying the foundations for a much rosier future for all.

[MasonJar]

8. Many DUers were so sold on Obama that they did excuse whatever

policy he expoused. I tried to tell y'all that Clinton was the more progressive of the two, but few would listen. His votes in the Senate prior to running proved his position. That does not mean that Obama will not be a great president; I think he might. However, he is not a traditional progressive.

[LWolf]

11. I didn't, and don't, find either to be at all "progressive,"

unless you mean the kind of "progressive" touted by the "progressive policy institute."

Still, I also pointed out, several times, that Obama is actually to the right of HRC on some issues. Of course, the "HE'S NOT DLC!!!!!" thing drowned that out. It's a good thing he's not dlc, I guess. We won't have to worry about a cabinet full of dlcers.
:sarcasm:

I've never been sold on him, and fully intend to hold his feet to the fire of the left for the next 4 or 8 years; as long as necessary.

[bemildred]

9. You know, this ain't the French Revolution, and that's a good thing.

This is going to take at least as much time as it did for the reactionaries for fuck things up, a couple decades minimum, one or two generations. So calm down and don't expect miraculous solutions. Obama is just a politician and he will do what he can do easily or what WE make him and Congress do that is not easy. But in any case, do not expect everything to change in a positive way tomorrow, it's all going to be incremental.

[crispini]

10. Hammer, meet nail:

In fact, I think I'll bold this part:

"But I will say this - simply blindly trusting Obama (as good a heart as I think he has) or ANY elected official seems rather stupid considering the history and basic dynamics of how power works. "

You'd think nobody around here ever read "Animal Farm." Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.