Inflexibility and denial

[Bonobo]

Regarding the major issue which has perplexed, obsessed and haunted DU for the last 2 years -to "back" Obama or to "criticize" Obama...

Or to put it another way, "Party first or Issues first"...

Let me ask you all this basic, very basic question.

"Do you see yourself as flexible still?" "Do you think it is even POSSIBLE for you to jump to the 'other side' (as you see it).

This is a vital question, because without even the potential for being swayed by the other side's argument, there really is no discussion -just a bunch of shouting and self-satisfying, self-justifying bluster, snark and gnashing of teeth.

Perhaps you can ask yourself if your opinions have changed over the last 2 years? Are there any issues that you would not allow to be sacrificed in the name of electoral victory (a victory in name only, surely, if all issues can be potentially jettisoned...)

Speaking for myself, I went from one of Obama's most ardent supporters during the primaries to being one of his critics. All talk of ponies aside, the reason is that I feel he is not left enough, that he does not support the issues that I think are fiercely important bedrocks of the Progressive, nay the Democratic Party.

You could argue that I am wrong for any number of reasons, but at least I can point to a viewpoint that has resolved in response to happenings.

Take a look at your own positions and do a self-check, will you? Consider one more time:

Are you inflexible? Are you in denial?

[JDPriestly]

1. Obama was not my first choice in the primaries. But when Edwards dropped out,

I supported Obama. Now, I am very disappointed in Obama. He is far more right-wing than I would have liked. But then I knew that, while Clinton was preferable to Bush II, Clinton would be even worse than Obama. I really thought Obama would be more independent than he has been.

As Robert Scheer is pointing out, Obama's stance on economic issues pertaining to the fraud on Wall Street was pretty good prior to the election. But once Obama was elected, he chose Geithner, Summers and the Wall Street crowd as his closest advisers. That was a huge mistake, and the country will pay for that mistake for years to come.

The Republicans are far, far worse. The problem is that our establishment is holding on to ideas about certain issues including economics and the role of our military that were realistic in the past but no longer are.

So, I would say that many of us on DU are flexible, but Obama and his advisers and too many in the D.C. crowd are not flexible. They are hanging on to old ideas that cannot work in today's reality. That is why so many of us are unhappy.

Thanks for the OP. I agree with you, Bonobo.

[BzaDem]

2. It really depends on your view on the structural impediments to change, historically and currently.

From my perspective, political history teaches us that any change in the progressive direction is very difficult, even with a Democratic President and our majorities (which happen to be small compared to LBJ/FDR's majorities). In a sense, any significant change in the progressive direction is a major accomplishment in and of itself, and would place Obama in history as a President that did more for progressive causes than any President since LBJ. And since the change Obama has enacted certainly rivals the change of LBJ, I am of course ecstatic at the results.

However, the Obama critics here look at this differently. They believe history teaches us that progressive change is not difficult with our majorities, and that Obama is simply making a voluntary choice not to move the country in as progressive a direction as they want. They therefore compare Obama's change not to the previous status quo, but rather to their optimal policy. Instead of looking at each accomplishment as a positive step that we are fortunate to have (given the structural impediments to change), they look at each non-accomplishment (relative to their vision) as a reason to criticize the Obama presidency in general terms. And furthermore, some (though not all) take obvious monumental accomplishments and claim they are not only not accomplishments, but actually take us in the wrong direction.

As far as the history is concerned, I simply believe they are wrong, and that this is relatively easily shown. So if they were to convince me that Obama's presidency has been a failure, they would first need to produce new historical evidence I have not seen (or a plausible reinterpretation of historical evidence I have seen) that shows that change is somehow easy, even with our majorities. They would also need to connect this to today, with an analysis of our current structural impediments to change and how they relate to those of history. This is purely a historical/structural/objective matter.

But I don't see those kinds of posts. I just see more and more posts saying "Obama did NOT do this, therefore his presidency is sub-par." Without any historical evidence of the form mentioned above, this kind of post is wrong to me on its face. It doesn't matter what the "this" is -- it is simply incorrect. Given the positive accomplishments that have occurred, the lack of additional positive accomplishments is not reason to describe the presidency as a failure, as general matter.

In addition, as for the separate "question" as to whether Obama's legislative accomplishments actually move us in the right direction, most of the posts I have seen claiming otherwise are full of evidence that the OP does not actually understand the legislation passed. Most contain many factual inaccuracies related to the bills. So someone who cannot accurately discuss the bills is certainly not going to convince me of their point of view. Beyond that, I still doubt it is possible to make a convincing case that the bills actually move us in the wrong direction. I could absolutely be convinced that the relative magnitude of his accomplishments are less than I thought. But for people who think what he accomplished is not actually an accomplishment, I think the gulf is too wide to be bridged (similar to the gulf between my ideology and the Republican ideology is likely too wide to be bridged).

[Bonobo]

4. I could mount an argument, a convincing one I think, that Bush enacted radical change.

It would involve pointing out that he went from a nation that was not at war to a shift to a more-or-less perma-war.

Many other radical changes occurred as well, such as the codifying of torture, etc.

[BzaDem]

5. Well that would be in the executive sphere, where the President DOES have somewhat unilateral

power that he does not have in terms of domestic policy (despite some posters here who tend to believe otherwise).

President Bush certainly did not enact radical change in terms of domestic policy. The base of the Republican party wants to voucherize Medicare, privatize Social Security, and end most financial regulation (and other types of regulation). The far right wants to abolish many departments of government, phase out Medicare and Social Security entirely, end all programs providing any kinds of assistance to the poor, and believe it is unconstitutional to do anything differently.

Bush didn't even enact radical domestic policy changes from an objective perspective, let alone from the perspective of the modern Republican party.

[Klukie]

35. But....it took a catastrophic event (911) to enable the radical change

[Greyhound]

49. As catastrophic as the deliberate collapse of the economy? n/t

[Klukie]

36. +100000

[SidDithers]

42. Good post...nt

Sid

[RandomThoughts]

3. Never liked the phrase 'in denial'

Many times people think it is just a phase to acceptance. Denial is only a phase to acceptance in some place where you can't believe things can change. The Phrase 'in denial' is trying to get a person to accept they are wrong on something, if I am wrong, show me where. You have to be wrong to be in denial, so that has to be explained first, and it has not been shown that I am wrong by a just argument.

:shrug:

If that is supporting people because of what they say, even if they sometimes ignore what should be corrected, that's fine.

And I do think the Democrats are better then the Republicans on many issues, but think more on the issues themselves, and many of those issues neither party are correcting. But then again, people have never really came through for me, not in my life at least.


As far as being inflexible on issues, the top sways while the bottom is rooted. So you can be flexible without changing your position.



And if the Democrats go Nanny State I won't follow that stuff, just like I did not follow the Republican war ideas.

[Greyhound]

6. I'll have to decide once I hear an actual argument from the "other" side.

All I've heard so far is a lot of noise composed mainly of attempts to intimidate or instill fear of what might otherwise be.

These tactics, used extensively by the republiks for so long, seem to be all "they" have. It didn't work on me when the republiks used them, they won't work on me with the 'Democrats' using them, either.

My objections to Obama are not that he hasn't done enough, it's that he is doing exactly the wrong things, moving in a bad direction, and empowering the very people that he should be helping us fight against.
:kick: & R

[BzaDem]

7. I agree about waiting to hear an actual argument from the "other" side

though in this case, you appear to be on the other side.

As I put upthread, I think the gap between me and the other side (the people who believe Obama's legislative accomplishments are somehow not accomplishments) is so wide that I doubt there could be any valid argument supporting their view, let alone a valid argument that has been posted thus far. Most "arguments" I see just show profound ignorance of what actually passed, as well as ignorance of the previous status quo (and how they compare).

[cornermouse]

10. Can you "hear" yourself?

That's why you only run into closed doors. That's exactly why people turn and walk away from you. n/t

[BzaDem]

11. Of course in your mind, I run into closed doors, and people turn and walk away from me.

Then again, just because something is true in your mind doesn't mean it is true in reality. In fact, I would say truth in your mind and truth in reality are probably negatively correlated.

[Klukie]

38. I can hear him/her....however

I am of the same mind and my form is similar....and yes people do walk away from me. I am working on it!

[Greyhound]

48. Do you want to start with the Health Insurance Industry Profit Protection Act?

There have been literally hundreds of well written, thoughtful, and factual pieces posted here as to why this is one of the worst of all possible courses to take in addressing what is the most shameful system on earth.

You and your club consistently respond by ignoring the points and shouting the arguments down, followed by empty threats of how much worse the republik plan would be.

In short, your position on every issue boils down to Obama is good, everybody that disagrees is bad. That will never result in anything but escalation of animosity.

You might have noticed that the GOP was all but dead two years ago when they lost, badly, in two successive elections, but have now come back as the only 'viable' alternative. It's no wonder that republiks are the default winners in this country and Democrats only win when they can run as "not republican" after they fuck things up.

[MrScorpio]

8. This is what I understand...

Obama is responsible for running the franchise, true.

But the fact is, that no matter WHO runs the franchise, its own momentum will always make it hard to steer it to where it needs to go.

So, maybe too many folks had their hopes up too much in the beginning... Which is understandable, because reality is a sumbitch when it sets in.

I think that all of us are smart enough and aware enough to see and judge what we see and judge for ourselves.

The hard part is always convincing others that what we're seeing and judging for ourselves is the same thing that others are seeing and judging for themselves.

[Bonobo]

9. Momentum alone did not lead to an increase in drone attacks in Pakistan.

That, as the poster above mentioned, falls under the Executive branch, a branch in which said poster admitted that the President enjoys broad powers and massive, almost singular, influence.

For those of us for whom war is so abhorrent, this alone can be understood as having driven away many followers from Obama.

It is...inexplicable, repellant, unacceptable.

[BzaDem]

12. While of course people who disagree with the war have a legitimate beef with Obama

(since, after all, Obama is in charge of foreign policy), it is important to realize that Obama ran on doing exactly what he is doing.

This doesn't make this criticism any less legitimate, but many other posts from other posters are of the form (either explicitly or implicitly) that Obama betrayed them, as if Obama ran on foreign policy as a candidate remotely similar to, say, Kucinich did. They then combine that with complaints about his lack of various legislative accomplishments (which, of course, has little to do with Obama), and end up forming a two-prong narrative of "Obama the betrayer" (when both prongs of the narrative aren't even valid, let alone persuasive).

[MrScorpio]

14. I'm sure that if you look honestly enough at every presidency...

You're bound to find something that you won't like.

Every single president has to be a bastard sometime, because we don't elect saints to the White House.

Even still, I don't see any reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Bonobo]

16. Wars to me are not really an issue that fits into the category of...

"If you look hard enough".

Hamburg-Based Islamists Targeted in US Drone Attack

Eight militants killed in US drone strike in North Waziristan

Drone attack kills seven in Pakistan

4 killed in US drone attack in Pakistan tribal area‎

Briton killed by US drone 'had wanted to attack UK'

Seven militants killed in US drone attack in Pak tribal belt

US drone strikes kill 28 in NWA, SWA

Nine killed in US drone strike in Pakistan

Etc.

[MrScorpio]

21. I've been reading Chomsky for the past 20 years...

So, I'm no under no illusion that anyone, Republican or Democrat, will and does preside over a country which has the blunt object of a military that's the most lethal on Earth.

Its job is to kill people and destroy things. That's what it always has been done and in every war, the innocent are killed along with the enemy.

We're never going to elect a pacifist as president, because we never have. So, it shouldn't be any surprise that we didn't elect one this time.

Look, the problem isn't with the president, it's with the nature of war. It's MAKES MONEY... Too much money, as a matter of fact.

It makes Americans feel good to kill and destroy other people. We write songs about that shit in this country. We just cover it up with flags and fireworks, but everyone knows what that all means.

No one expected these wars to stop on a dime. especially when the vast majority of Americans refuse to do something to make them stop.

So sure, go ahead and blame Obama, if it makes you feel any better. But let's face facts, it doesn't matter who was elected president to preside over this war.

Those horrible pictures would be just as horrible, regardless of whoever else was elected.

[Bonobo]

23. Anyway you slice it, if there was ever going to be a turning point, it was 2008.

It had all the earmarks of being revolutionary and and representing a rolling back of every crazy-ass thing Bush had done.

The election was a referendum on Bush/Cheney.

It was historic.

It SHOULD have been represented, in the admin's actions, it should have been reflected -all that enthusiasm, all that hope and work for change.

We steamrolled the republicans. We left 'em in the dust.

Obama was given the keys to a new car and asked to drive it.

He didn't. He took the shiny new car and left it in the showroom window while he kept driving Daddy's oldsmobile.

[MrScorpio]

24. I'm sorry, it's ALWAYS been the old Olds

We just got a new driver.

[BzaDem]

25. Just keep in mind that it wasn't nearly as much of a victory as FDR and LBJ had.

Then again, FDR and LBJ were both war presidents (though FDR not by choice).

You should also keep in mind that just because there is enthusiasm, hope and work for change, etc does not necessarily imply that there is enthusiasm, hope, and work for your point of view in particular. Remember, Obama RAN on escalating Afghanistan (the "good" war and all of that). Even Obama's 2002 speech said he wasn't opposed to all wars -- he was opposed to dumb wars.

So I think it was unreasonable to expect otherwise with respect to foreign policy, given what we knew about the candidate.

[KoKo]

28. I think we were confused by..

the BRAND. Chris Hedges has written about this. The Brand Obama was what we voted for. It was an historic election to have the first Black President and his middle name was Hussein and he wasn't from the South. He was international and well connected. It was such a huge change from Bush. In retrospect we thought he was so different that there was no way we would have Bush policies continue. We heard what he said and thought he was for the "change" we all had been working for...getting more Dems into House and Senate and building the Netroots and internet to fight against the Right Propaganda that got Clinton Impeached..

As it goes on...some of us see that things weren't quite what we thought they were. Others knew all along and were fine with it. Interesting times.........

[Bonobo]

29. That hits the nail on the head, yup. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

37. +1

As it goes on...some of us see that things weren't quite what we thought they were. Others knew all along and were fine with it.

[mmonk]

13. I'm known as a critic but not as well known is that I was an Obama delegate.

The problem does not lie with us though we are told it does. It's just like you said about major issues. On the major issues of our lives, Obama is not progressive. The administration is trying to cover that fact with the idea he is bipartisan. The Republicans, however, are partisan to the extreme and that is the problem.

[BzaDem]

15. No one is saying a delegate can't be a critic.

Though if you are saying his presidency is a failure, or we are worse off after his presidency, or he has not had some major accomplishments, I believe the problem would lie with you (or rather your point of view).

[mmonk]

17. Did I say that?

No, I did not. But what I did say, he is not progressive on major issues. Those major issues are in foreign policy, education policy, regulatory policy, energy issues, GLBT issues, Constitutional issues and executive power, and the role of government in economic issues (though he speaks a good game). That being said, things he has gotten done have improved things overall. However, the devastation left us by the previous administration requires much more. Much of the problem lies with the current condition of the party.

[KoKo]

20. "Much of the problem lies with the current condition of the party. "

That's my conclusion, too. Howard Dean started to reform the party by getting new folks involved. I've seen his work come undone. I've posted about it. The Party is returning to what it was before Dean became DNC Chair. It's top down and filled with folks who want to control...and not be inclusive of welcoming new ideas. The enthusiasm is gone. It's only about getting Democrats elected...even if they aren't really Democrats. It's just about elections and not building a better and bigger party.

[mmonk]

31. Yes. Powerful people in the party have worked to scrap

the Dean model (for the purpose of chasing corporate money which ironically is going to the Republicans again).

[Panaconda]

18. I'm inflexible on this...

'Peace Prize' President Submits Largest War Budget Ever
Obama Seeks Record $708 Billion in Defense Budget

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama on Monday asked Congress to approve a record $708 billion in defense spending for fiscal year 2011, including a 3.4 percent increase in the Pentagon's base budget and $159 billion to fund U.S. military missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

...

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_20144.cfm

K&R

[SammyWinstonJack]

39. Even while seeking to gut Medicare and reduce SS benefits.

How disgusting!

[Catherina]

45. Me too. It's my first and biggest item. n/t

[Doctor_J]

19. My complaint is not issure-oriented, but structural

I was one of the president's most vocal and ardent supporters. The ass-kicking we gave the Repukes in Nov 2008 was a signal that the entire Bush/Rove/Hate Radio/Fox "News" agenda was rejected, and should be done away with. Boner, McConnell, Cantor were soundly repudiated by We The People in 2008. Then almost before the door of the oval office hit Smirk in the ass, the president started reaching across the aisle to the very people we'd said we don't want to be in charge any more. He triangulated, appeased, negotiated. Exactly the reasons I supported him instead of Hil in the primaries.

Also, as many have pointed out, the Repukes continue to get away with horrific crimes, and every time they are not prosecuted, the next round gets worse. His failure to apprehend Rove, Bush, Cheney, Yoo, and Bybee will likely lead to yet another impeachment next year, and even more egregious offenses by president Palin/Gingrinch/Huckelberry in 2013-2017.

[BzaDem]

22. The funny thing is, while Obama explicitly ran on bipartisanship in the primary, he has NOT

worked with the Republicans in any significant way. So the situation is almost exactly the opposite as you described it.

How many Republicans did he get on the Stimulus? Exactly the number needed to pass ANY bill (3). How many did he get on Healthcare? Exactly the number need to pass any bill (0). What about Financial Reform? Exactly the number required to pass the bill (3). All 3 of these bills got EXACTLY 60 votes, and not a vote more. It's almost as if you would rather have had him scream and yell for 2 years instead of actually legislating, and have all his bills go down.

So he didn't triangulate, he didn't appease, and he didn't negotiate. He steamrolled over all of them except the few he needed to pass any bill.

[Doctor_J]

43. Just because the Repukes didn't vote with him doesn't mean

he didn't appease. The final health care deform bill contained almost all of the Repukes modifications, as has every other piece of "change". He gives massive concessions to the right wing on every issue, they don't vote for it anyway, and then the next time he offers them more. 70% or so of the American people want a strong public option to compete with Big Insurance. He took it off the table before the talks started. How exactly is this "steamrolling" Boner?

You need to replace your breakfast Kool-Aid with some strong coffee to clear off the fog you're looking through. As I said, the president was given a mandate to kick the Repukes' ass and make them negligible, instead he (as he himself has admitted) tried to reason and deal with them. Yes, I would have rather he yelled and screamed than given in to the people we threw out of office in 2008.

[KoKo]

27. I don't think we will get any of them as President. They are Straw People.

Given that our Party has moved so far to the Right that it's silencing it's activists on the Left and still working with Repugs to implement legislation that's conservative or at least keeping much of what went on from Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush II the Right is far more happy with Democrats in charge than we are led to believe from the hooplah over the Far Right's antics.

That Democratic Establishment, (now minus Howard Dean and others who worked for change)is comfortable with the Status Quo by placing former Bush folks and Clinton Administration retreads back into power.
Legislation is just tinkering around the edges, which is fine with those in power in corporations, and Wall Street.

Going after the "professional left" was the sign that "Status Quo" must be maintained at all costs.

As I said...the rest is all distraction to create an enemy and make Dems fearful. Dems could shut down all the noise if they wanted to. But, it serves our Party to have the noise to distract from the lack of legislation for reform that we Democrats expected after living under the harsh Bush regime for eight years. We thought it was the Republicans....it isn't. It's the power structure of both parties who depend on the big money and people on Wall St., Corporations, Military Industrial Prison Complex, Think Tanks and Global Structure.

There are some really good thinking minds with great ideas who will never be heard and never be given a chance to serve. Because of the "Status Quo" which must be maintained.

[Bonobo]

30. Ah, I miss the old DU...

Seemed like people like you (and me) were the majority back then...

[CBR]

26. I do not think it is a clear choice between issues and party.

For example, I strongly support the Prez. I think he has done great things. At the same time, I think he has sucked on certain issues that I think are very important. For example, mountaintop removal. I think so many of our problems are obviously structural but I do not think there is a revolution, or even a rebellion, coming anytime soon. I just don't; therefore, I think we work within the system to progress. I believe that President Obama is pushing us in that direction. I would protest in front of the White House for a ban on mountaintop removal. I will still, however, throw my strongest support (volunteer, organizing, money) behind the President in 2012 and in the public discourse leading up to the election.

[bvar22]

32. On some issues, I AM inflexible.

I will NOT support ANY move by Obama or the Democratic Party to:

*Keep the WARS/Occupations going

*Increase Defense/Military spending (immediate steep reductions are vital)

*Expand the "War on Terror" to any other nations

*Expand "Free Trade"

*Cut Social Security/Medicare

*Order ALL Americans to BUY Health Insurance without a Public Option

*Give Get Out of Jail FREE cards to War Criminals and Wall Street Crooks

*Bailout ANY more Banks

*Privatize the Public Schools

*Withhold Equal Rights and Equal Protections from ANYONE...NO exceptions

*Help conservative Blue Dogs get re-elected (i.e. Blanche Lincoln)

*Expand the powers of the Unitary Executive

*Reinforce the Patriot Act

*Expand spying on American Citizens

*Direct Public Money to Private Prisons, armed Private Police, armed Defense Contractors, private intelligence agencies, or For Profit Health Insurance Corporations.

I will actively and LOUDLY OPPOSE any and all of the above.

I will be voting straight "Democrat" (as I have for 44 years) in the coming election with one exception, but I believe that it is important that the Party understands that its "Centrist" (1/2 Republican) policies have alienated this proud and loyal FDR Democrat.
If the present direction is maintained, especially on the above issues, I make no promises for 2012.

"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."---FDR

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[SammyWinstonJack]

40. ...

:applause:

[Odin2005]

41. AMEN!

:applause:

[Catherina]

46. Totally! n/t

[KoKo]

47. This goes into my Bookmarks and the "Fridge Door"...(a place of honor in our house)

:applause: to you..... The New MANIFESTO! ...and thank you for this...I'm sending it around to my dwindling Dem folks...but the BEST of the Dems is in the Dwindling! :D

[aikoaiko]

33. There are times to criticize and times support the party. Yes, i consider myself flexible.

:hi:

[blindpig]

34. Party and Administration are secondary

The primary issue is the economic system, Capitalism, which dictates and limits the range of possibilities to those beneficial to the Capitalist ruling class.

[Panaconda]

44. Bumping