'Progressives need to be as clear-eyed, tough and pragmatic about Obama as he is about us'

[bigtree]

By Katrina vanden Heuvel

This article appeared in the December 15, 2008 edition of The Nation. (reprinted yesterday, November 25)


__I think that we progressives need to be as clear-eyed, tough and pragmatic about Obama as he is about us . . .

At 143 years old (that's the The Nation's age, not mine), we like a little bit of history with our politics. And while Lincoln's way of picking a cabinet has seized the public imagination during this transition, it's worth remembering another president's template for governing. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was compelled to become a bolder and, yes, more progressive president (if progressive means ensuring that the actual conditions of people's lives improve through government acts) as a result of the strategic mobilization and pressure of organized movements.

That history makes me think that progressives must avoid falling into either of two extremes--reflexively defensive or reflexively critical. We'll be wiser and more effective if we follow the advice of a Nation editorial board member, who shared these thoughts at our recent meeting:

1. It will take large-scale organized movements to win transformative change. There would have been no civil rights legislation without the movement, no New Deal without the unions and the unemployed councils, no end to slavery without the abolitionists. In our era, this will have to play out in two ways: organizing district by district and state by state to get us to the 218 (House) and sixty (Senate) votes necessary to pass major legislation; and harnessing the movement energy that can create a new narrative and thus move the elites in Washington to shift away from failed free-market orthodoxies.

2. We need to be able to play inside and outside politics at the same time. This will be challenging for those of us schooled in the habits of pure opposition and protest. We need to make an effort to engage the new administration and Congress constructively, even as we push without apology for solutions on a scale necessary to deliver. This is in the interest of the Democratic Party--which rode the wave of a new coalition of African-Americans, Latinos, young people, women and others. But the party has been beaten down by conservative attacks, so the natural impulse will be caution.

3. Progressives must stick up especially forcefully for the most vulnerable members of the coalition--poor people, immigrants, etc.--those who got almost no mention during the campaign and who are most likely to be left off the bus.

As a former community organizer, Obama has spoken of how "real change comes from the bottom up." It comes about by "imagining and then fighting for and then working for--struggling for--what did not seem possible before." That is the charge we should embrace. Let's mobilize to achieve what "did not seem possible before."


read: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081215/kvh?rel=hp_picks

[NJmaverick]

1. You are more likely to see Santa in his sleigh, with the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy riding

with him, than you are going to see me listen to anyone tell me how to think and act as a progessive. I will support and follow my new President, as I voted for him and feel he will do great things for our nation. Beyond that, I am not going to let any second rate hack tell me what to think, how to feel or how to act.

[bigtree]

3. It's not as if she, or the board she quotes are demanding anything from you

And what did she suggest which isn't a correct exercise of our democratic right and responsibility?

I didn't hear anything about dissent in your plans, or any support for dissent. I think that's what she was attempting to defend. I don't believe these politicians work well without a loud and consistent public weighing in. Certainly the president will be influenced by many voices which are unsolicited, yet accessible.

In fact, the effort by the transition team to provide substantial means for the public to weigh in on their efforts speaks to Mr. Obama's expressed support for input and participation as was described in this pundit's very mild suggestions.

[Winterblues]

4. Some people just enjoy being obstinate.

:shrug: It has to come from the people as all good things have. If we let Politicians do all the work we get people like Bush*.

[NJmaverick]

5. I will get you a mirror

[NJmaverick]

10. Here is some food for thought sparky

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4538973&mesg_id=4538973

[Blue_In_AK]

16. Why does your link go to MY posts? n/t

[NJmaverick]

17. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4538973&mesg_id=4538973

[Blue_In_AK]

22. Gracias. n/t

[NJmaverick]

6. All she talked about is what is best for her brand of progressive

nothing about what is best for the nation. I am sick of that sort of destructive blind adherence to ideology. We had enough of that crap with George Bush and I am not about to do the same. Being liberal means being self aware enough to realize one's own feces stinks as much as anyone else's.

[bigtree]

14. not what's best for the nation?

Her 'ideology' consists, in this article, of 'ensuring that the actual conditions of people's lives improve through government acts.' She goes on to suggest a strategy for effecting that rather mild, but inarguable proposition.

What's so self-interested about that?

[NJmaverick]

19. This why I find this objectionable

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4538973&mesg_id=4538973

[bigtree]

21. you're ranting to the wind in that thread

How about addressing what she actually says here.

[NJmaverick]

23. lol! You are in denial my friend

you keep your liberal ass in the air waiting for it to be kissed. Me, I have more pressing worries.

[bigtree]

24. no, you're just insulting

. . . and vague. It would help if you bothered to address what she actually said.

It's hilarious that you've resorted to 'labeling' me here (liberal ass). Remarkable display in the face of your promotion on this thread of a rant by you decrying labels.

[NJmaverick]

25. I made it my position more than clear

I don't need to be catered to or told what to do or think. I am labeled a progressive, but my views and positions are mine. It will take more than some person telling me I should act a certain way or think a certain way because their progressive group has not gotten their ass kissed enough by President Elect Obama.

[bigtree]

26. good. She wasn't telling you what to think.

She was telling you what she thinks. You are more than free to disagree, but all you've done here is rail against the strawman (woman) you've constructed.

[NJmaverick]

28. Funny, I see an article that leads with the following comment:

"Progressives need to be"

I am thinking that she is trying to tell people, labeled as progresive, what to do or think a certain way.

[bigtree]

29. what follows are relatively mild suggestions of ways to advocate

None of that has a thing to do with your rant and none of what she wrote is any kind of a demand. It's a suggestion.

It certainly has nothing to do with having my 'liberal ass in the air waiting for someone to kiss it.'

[NJmaverick]

31. I smart man learns from his mistakes, a wise man learns from the mistakes of others

I see the mistake the right wing made, when they made George Bush kiss their ass at every turn. I am not about to make the same mistake, although you are free to put ideologoy ahead of Country (I guess it's all right when you do it, because you are a liberal and not a conservative:eyes:)

[bigtree]

33. You haven't shown at all where I or anyone else has asked anyone to kiss our ass

As I said before, you are just being (unnecessarily) rude and insulting in an effort to defend the strawman you've constructed in the thread you're promoting here. Boring.

[NJmaverick]

34. So you keep saying

Stubborness in the face of contrary facts, is not an endearing trait in my book. Hence your perception that I am "rude and insulting" for not supporting your position.

[bigtree]

36. no, rude and insulting was suggesting my 'liberal ass' wants someone to kiss it

And, you actually expect that to be taken seriously?

For all the talk from you about rejecting 'labels' and 'ideology' you certainly are full of it.

[NJmaverick]

37. That is what you and the author of the article you posted want

It's telling that all you and her could talk about is progressives, while not once mentioning what is good for our nation.

[bigtree]

38. no. what you describe is a demand. There is no such demand in the article

There are only suggestions for effecting whatever change you happen to believe in, hence her explanation of what progressive means to her:

" . . . ensuring that the actual conditions of people's lives improve through government acts."

*People's lives improving*

Why isn't that 'good for the nation?'


*Shifting away from failed free-market orthodoxies*

Problem with that?


*We need to make an effort to engage the new administration and Congress constructively*

Is this really asking for ass-kissing?


*Push without apology for solutions on a scale necessary to deliver*

Something about the exercise of democracy which offends you?


*Stick up especially forcefully for the most vulnerable members of the coalition--poor people, immigrants, etc.*

Someone in that coalition who doesn't deserve sticking up for?


Either address what she's actually said or fiddle alone with your strawmen.

[NJmaverick]

39. Yes there are plenty of demands

Even though the vision President Elect Obama laid out for our nation is a progressive one, that wasn't good enough for you or the author. Now the author (and by extension you) suggest that we "progressives" must band together to "force" Obama to become more "progressive".


Sorry that is wrong on so many levels.

1) Obama has laid out a progressive vision of the future. So to say Obama needs to be "forced" into becoming more progressive suggests he was lying about that vision.

2) There is a supreme arrogance to suggest you or her are more capable of helping the Country achieve that progresive vision, than President Elect Obama (who by the way is the person I voted for, not either of you two).

3) Finally with terms like "need" and "must" and "compelled" it's clear it's about Obama not kissing enough progressive collective ass.

[bigtree]

41. Even Obama has said that power doesn't concede willingly

If you believe that sitting back and waiting for politicians to effect change without prodding and protest is the best course, you haven't been watching Congress. And as for the rest, you've resorted to hysterical distortions to make your petty point. Nothing that the author suggested was anything more than a standard exercise of democracy. Arrogant? Bull.

Have fun 'following.'

Oh, and yes. You certainly do invite a desire for that ass-kissing you've gone on about.

[girl gone mad]

47. Seems like you're revising history rather dramatically.

The right wing demanded very little of Bush, and in point of fact they kissed his ass while he expanded entitlement programs, ran up the deficits, mismanaged two wars, and made the government bigger than it's ever been.

The only things they actually complained about were immigration reform and the nomination of Miers to the SC.

You're rant is also insane in that you are engaging in false equivalency by comparing right wing ideology to left wing ideology as if they are both equally flawed. In fact, where implemented, progressive ideas have a positive benefit to most of society while conservative ideas only benefit a select few.

[NJmaverick]

11. Here is why I am unhappy with the ideas she expresses

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=mydu

[bigtree]

15. your link takes me to mydu

make your point.

[NJmaverick]

18. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4538973&mesg_id=4538973

[ljm2002]

7. Katrina vanden Heuvel is a "second rate hack"?????

Well at least I know what weight to give your opinions, LOLOLOLOL

[NJmaverick]

8. Here is some food for thought sparky

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4538973&mesg_id=4538973

[ljm2002]

42. I note your propensity to aware nicknames...

...to those you disagree with. For me, it's "sparky". For someone in the other thread, it's "ace". Hmmm, who does that remind me of...

But on to the topic at hand. I get that you disagree with Ms. vanden Heuvel, and I do not have a problem with that. We all have a right to our opinions, and no one is right all the time, no matter how brilliant or learned or even right-minded they may be -- including Ms. vanden Heuvel. But the same goes for Barack Obama, and you seem to have a problem with people bringing up any sort of criticism. Again, that is your privilege. My objection to your post was your calling Katrina vanden Heuvel a "second rate hack". Best you should educate yourself before making such silly remarks. Ms. vanden Heuvel could run rings around you, me and most of the people in DC when it comes to politics, and in fact does so on a regular basis. Second rate, she ain't.

[rucky]

9. Does this mean you're not "Walkin' on Sunshine?"

[NJmaverick]

12. It means this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4538973&mesg_id=4538973

[Le Taz Hot]

2. K & R

Good article. Thanks.

[John Q. Citizen]

13. My analysis is the same. I'm glad there is a consensus.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. In a democracy it's our responsibility NOT to trust the politicians.

And, despite the raft of cheerleaders here, as citizens, we're supposed to criticize them and hold them accountable for what they do.

Allegedly, they work for us, we pay them, and we are obligated to keep watch on what they do or suffer the consequences of their misdeeds or incompetence.

[Greyhound]

30. It is heartening to know that some people still get it. Thank you. n/t

[antigop]

27. and remember that the noise machine will be out there denigrating any progressive efforts n/t

[amitta]

32. Obama said he will listen

Bill Clinton did not listen to the left at all, so what the method of communication will get his ear?

[Deja Q]

35. Well, Bill Clinton liked lots of women and somebody found Monica... So what's Obama's vice?

:sarcasm:

[guruoo]

40. Poker, beer, and Cigarettes, appairently. (but he's trying to quit the cigs)

:toast:

If Obama stops smoking, will he lose his amazing voice?
"Many famous voices in history have pathologies that are part of their vocal signatures,"
http://www.slate.com/id/2157523/

Obama's poker game foreshadows governing style.

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) _ Barack Obama's triumph in the 2004 U.S. Senate race earned him a memorable send-off from his friends in the Illinois legislature — they emptied his wallet in a take-no-prisoners night of poker.

"We brought him down to earth real quick," said state Sen. Terry Link, chuckling at the memory.

Obama was a regular at the low-stakes games — sometimes stud poker, sometimes draw — designed to break up the tedium of long legislative sessions. Poker, beer and cigars were staples; Democrats and Republicans, lawmakers and even the lobbyists who Obama sometimes rails against dealt the cards and placed their bets.

The traits Obama displayed around the card table those many nights are ones he brings to his presidential bid and are certain to be evident — and analyzed — if he wins the White House.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/09/sweet_blog_extra_mondays_obama.html

[scarletwoman]

43. Excellent piece, thank you!

Not that anyone ever takes notice, but I've been posting here for years that the Left HAS to move outside of electoral politics to actually bring about change.

Being an Obama fan is NOT being part of a movement. Working from the ground up, organizing, and making demands on power is absolutely essential.

Otherwise we're just passengers along for the ride -- the folks at the wheel will just keep steering along their preferred course, protecting the status quo of those in power.

sw

[bigtree]

46. Right. The author recommends an 'inside/outside' approach

Baynard Rustin, a key organizer of the 1963 March on Washington, argued in his book, 'Strategies for Freedom', that for a movement to have a permanent and transforming imprint, it should have a legislative goal attached which will transcend the whims of the emotions of the moment. Describing a different struggle that America faced with the advancement of civil rights, he wrote that:

"Moral fervor can't maintain your movement, nor can the act of participation itself. There must be a genuine commitment to the advancement of the people. To have such a commitment is also to have a militant sense of responsibility, a recognition that actions have consequences which have a very real effect on the individual lives of those one seeks to advance."

"Far too many movements lack both a (legislative) perspective and a sense of responsibility, and they fail because of it," Ruskin wrote.

"My quarrel with the "no-win" tendency in the civil rights movement (and the reason I have so designated it) parallels my quarrel with the moderates outside the movement," Rustin wrote in his book, Down the Line. "As the latter lack the vision or will for fundamental change, the former lack a realistic strategy for achieving it. For such a strategy they substitute militancy. But militancy is a matter of posture and volume and not of effect.

Another important point Ruskin made in reference to unity among blacks within the movement rings true for our own party's diverse coalitions which have massed together in protest and advocacy, and will be advocating within the system (together or independently) along with or against the new administration.

"In a pluralistic democracy," he wrote, "unity (among we who agree) is a meaningless goal. It is far more important to form alliances with other forces in society which share common needs and common goals, and which are in general agreement over the means to achieve them."

That doesn't mean rolling over and compromising our principles or our positions. Many protests assume that the legislative process is the dominion of the opposition, and that compromise in the system can only mean a sacrifice of principle or belief. But, our political institutions are designed for both argument and compromise. There is little room in our democracy to dictate one view or the other. While our legislators may come to office with similar goals, like ending the Iraq occupation, they, nonetheless, come to office with a myriad of ideas and approaches to achieve those goals.

Those different views and approaches must be reconciled if legislation is to move out of their respective chambers and up the legislative ladder. That's where our 'progressive' advocacy is beneficial. Without that progressive pressure there is often no progress at all. Progressive politics is, in it's essence, an insistence on thoroughly resolving issues within our political system; the very heart and purpose of our democracy.

[itsrobert]

44. Pragmatic Eye for the Progressive Guy

Could be a tv show?

[bigtree]

45. many would view progressive politics as pragmatic in it's pursuit of ultimate solutions

. . . as opposed to centrist politics whose desire for incremental compromise in their efforts frequently falls short of those solutions.

[leftofthedial]

48. when millions of us volunteered for and worked for the Obamarama,

we thought (naively) that we *were* working for a movement.

I guess we were. Just not a progressive movement.

[FrenchieCat]

49. Speak for yourself. I was neither naive nor working for a movement....

I was working to elect a Democratic President.

I got what I worked for.....and We will see how it all turns out soon enough,
but certainly you are naive if you think you know the future in reference to
what Barack Obama's presidency will bring, two months before he takes office.
Even you are not that smart.....nor are our friends.

If you haven't read Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope yet, I suggest you do.
If you have read it, than you are naive to believe that the last 21 days
have shown you anything but exactly what he wrote about in his book.

[leftofthedial]

50. truthfully, I never thought of him as anything other than a "free market" corporatist.

He was preferable to mcsame though.