I've read here that Obama is a corporatist. Maybe, but

[socialist_n_TN]

Is he a "true" corporatist? I mean he seems to believe that government can do stuff beneficial for people and not just corporations.

Most of the corporate bigwigs seem to want some sort of feudal government that they send a tribute to for protection and, in return, get NO oversight and regulation at all. Obama doesn't seem to adhere to these corporate anarchist beliefs. So how can he be a true corporatist if he believes in any sort of government regulation of capitalism?

BTW, I'm NOT arguing that Obama is a liberal, progressive, socialist, etc at ALL. I just don't think that he's as much of a corporate shill as a lot of people are saying he is. I personally think he's a centrist/pragmatist. The centrist believes in a regulated capitalism and the pragmatist thinks that the reregulation can only be done gradually.

[Clio the Leo]

1. He's an enigma...

... at least that's the opinion of THIS socialist in TN. ;-)

[DJ13]

2. He's a corporatist just like the rest

Sure he'll propose certain things to limit corporate powers in small ways, but thats easy to do when you know Congress is so splintered they wont pass anything tough in the first place.

And even when Congress finally gets some guts and it looks like they might actually do something meaningful, like the original Fed audit legislation that had been gaining sponsors at a rapid pace Obama sends word through Geithner that its too tough on the Fed, so it ends up so limited in scope to be pretty worthless.

I wont even mention the trillions to prop up the corporations, banks, and the wealthy while forming a deficit commission to find ways to save the government money by forcing the poor, the elderly, and middle class to cut back on government services instead of forcing the wealthy to make up for all their tax cuts since Reagan.

[pnwmom]

11. "Just like the rest"? What does that mean? Like the rest of the Democrats? n/t

[socialist_n_TN]

26. That's speculation too........

Just like MY opinions on his motives are speculation. We won't know for sure UNTIL we have a leftist majority in Congress that FORCES Obama to sign or veto legislation that puts REAL controls on the large corporations and REAL taxes on the wealthy.

[RandomThoughts]

3. Most of the time when they say patience.

They really mean stall hoping they wont have to do something that can be done in a short period of time if they wanted to.

So the argument it takes time, really means they don't want to do it and are trying to find a way to do something else.


They stalled on health care till they got the bill with the original back room deal elements in it.

Been years since market collapse, and there are more mergers not less.

It is not about patience, it is about stalling, in reality if they wanted to do something they would.


So I don't believe the patience argument in that context.

[Go2Peace]

4. There are many shades on the spectrum.

If someone is a pure corporatist as you described they would be a corporate fascist, not simply a "corporatist". Even Republicans, who are very far on the spectrum, believe in some regulation. The critisizm that progressives have for Obama is that he is too far on the wrong side of that specrum at a time when it is critical that we temper corporate power before we get to the corporate fascists stage.

[Dr.Phool]

5. At least you're not reading fiction.

He's already emphasized in a speech to the Hamilton Project, that he's a "New Democrat". The Hamilton Project is a Bob Rubin run think tank. "New Democrats" are corporate whores.

Obama is a corporatist.

[tblue]

6. I think your final assessment is probably right on the money.

Unfortunately, because our nation's politics has shifted so far to the right, we really needed to make a hard left to right our ship of state. Ain't gonna happen under Obama. But we would be hopelessly lost if McCain and his playmate had won.

[pundaint]

7. Labels aren't all that effective. Who has benefitted more from the actions he has

taken recommended or prevented? Was it People? Was it Corporations? Let the People vote for those who help them, let the Corporations try to vote for those who help them.

[flamingdem]

8. He's a pragmatist. What would you do smarty pants arm chair prez' out there?

Think you'd last a day in office? You'd get a bullet in your head.

We don't even know the pressure O is under.

[FrenchieCat]

9. If one means that he's a corporatist like the rest of us who use our cell phone,

use our PC or Mac and the Internet, have Cable television, have a 401K, own a house financed by a bank, and gas up our cars everyday are.

What he isn't is a socialist.....
So no, he ain't about to nationalize everything....


What he is a capitalist who believes in incorporating a mix of government ran social programs
which in essence is what most Democratic President to date have believed.

Look, these fucking tags don't do shit.....in reality.
We will see in review once his term is done
what changes he's made and what progress we've made....
that will tell us all....

[boppers]

10. It's a useless label, applied as a cheap smear.

It's a meaningless slur, usually used to try and define another, while at the same time those who apply it seem to chronically support corporations.

NOW? PETA? Greenpeace? NARAL? DNC? SEIU? ANSWER?

They're all corporations.

You can't support the organized left *without* supporting corporations.

[pnwmom]

12. +1. n/t

[uponit7771]

32. BINGO!!!!

[ProgressOnTheMove]

13. He's doing what's best to maintain a Democratic majority, too far left he loses the middle..

too far right he'd totally lose the left. It's just a cold hard reality that steady, but sure progress can only be maintained by keeping close to the middle ground. Some will say he's already too far to the right, well compare how McCain would of approached the world to Pres. Obama and I'd say not at all, think of Georgia and bomb Iran talk it's a lot of difference.

[Enthusiast]

16. Okay.

Did the electorate vote for Democrats in 2006 and 2008 hoping to move the country to the right? Obviously the electorate would have assumed by voting for Democrats they would move the country leftward.

The electorate is now disappointed that Obama has moved to the right. Democrats were voted in because the public was sick to death of Bush and the Republicans. So why are we continuing with Bush policies? We wanted lower priced pharmaceuticals and a public option. Why didn't we get it? The voters wanted these things.

[dionysus]

27. what dissappointed electorate do you speak of? the tiny handful of pissed of people on lefty message

boards? because poll after poll indicates he's got an 80%+ approval rating among democrats.

from gallup;

Meanwhile, Obama's approval ratings among Democrats and independents have been highly stable. Last week's averages of 90% approval from Democrats and 60% from independents nearly match the averages for his presidency to date.

[Enthusiast]

35. If this is true, and I hope it is,

then we will have nothing to worry about in the mid-term elections. Still, there are many disappointments.

[Donnachaidh]

39. and polls cannot be pushed, can they?

Jeez -- back off the koolaid dude. Back away from teh keyboard and go talk to some REAL people. Not the cheerleading squad that hangs in these threads simmering their poutrage.

:rofl:

[Enthusiast]

41. I don't understand your point. nt

[Radical Activist]

38. I don't see the country moving right.

We have more regulation of banks and credit card companies, more health care that sets up a path toward a single payer system and/or a public option, more clean energy, better fuel economy standards, more direct government action to create jobs, a reduction of troops in Iraq, and more progress on a variety of other issues.

Is it as good as what Obama campaigned on? No, and we should be critical of that. But, that's hardly moving the country right, and there's every indication that the Senate is the main obstacle to moving more left. We didn't get a public option because the Senate was never going to pass that bill. I think your disappointment is a little misplaced.

[depakid]

18. Horsecrap

The majority of Americans hold progressive positions on the issues- sometimes by very substantial margins.

And I guarantee that 80% they would have supported holding banskters, fraudsters and other corporate criminals to account.

[Greyhound]

14. Forget what he and everyone says, look at what he's done.

What are his first actions and where is the emphasis for his plans? Whom has he helped the most in his first year?

[Enthusiast]

15. Isn't Obama pushing a new

free trade deal? Nothing more needs to be said. If he wants a free trade deal he is a corporatist.

I fear President Obama is in power specifically to do the corporate bidding. I now feel that he was a stealth candidate. He was groomed to look like a liberal. Convince me that I'm wrong. I do not want to feel this way about the president. But tell me he did not do the bidding of the pharmaceutical industry.

[Dr Morbius]

17. I think Barack Obama wants to go down in history as one of our most...

accomplished Presidents. I think the right is pulling him their way, and if it leads to getting things done, Obama will tack his sails to the right. If we on the left are noisy enough and pull back, he'll stay in the middle and maybe even lean left. I don't think Obama is a liberal, and he's not a corporatist. Really, he doesn't seem to ascribe to any particular ideology. He's an incredibly driven man, and he is driving towards accomplishment right now. He's pragmatic. He will turn his sails in the direction the wind blows, and we are the wind.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

19. I think that is one of the best and fairest descriptions I have ever read. nt

[socialist_n_TN]

24. This is it, IMO..........

He's much more of a pragmatic politician than an ideologue. It's up to US to bring him left.

[freddie mertz]

20. He has governed as a corporate-friendly, establishment politician.

Not a lot of populism in the mix, and what there is has been unconvincing.

So the label sticks, despite its limitations.

[mkultra]

21. DUers misuse corporatist like baggers misuse socialist

Its like some kind of retardation.

[uponit7771]

33. BINGO 2!!!

[Bluenorthwest]

22. So you claim he is a pragmatist?

And yet he himself claims that he is 'faith based' and makes his decisions according to his religion, at least he says that about human rights and equality issues. He says he is opposed to equal rights because of an invisible being. How do you manage to corral that into your 'pragmatism'? Do you know what pragmatism means? How can his faith based support of discrimination be pragmatic? How can information from invisible beings be pragmatic? What is the pragmatic excuse for bigoted laws?
How can you have your faith cake and eat it too?

[socialist_n_TN]

25. Yep. And I think it's true no matter what he says

to get elected. An atheist won't get elected POTUS anytime in the near future and BO IS a politician. His job ONE is to get elected.

As with a lot of professing religious people, IMO, he's torn between the original teachings of Jesus (as they've come down to us)with it's radical social justice agenda and the "religion" of capitalism. But IF we can force him to see that the country has changed and is MORE leftist than at any time since the 70s, then he's pragmatic enough to go along. At least, I THINK I'm reading him right. I don't think he believes that the country has shifted that far left........YET. So it's ALL speculation on all sides at this point.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Again, you need to pick a stance and hold it

First you claim his religion is a fake to get elected, then that he is torn about his view of Jesus. That is my point. Faith and pragmatism are oil and water. A man who says he holds a faith when he does not is a liar. Politics does not mitigate that. One can not just say 'that's showbiz' and wipe away the fact of it. A lie is a lie.
He's bigoted against gay people. The rest is just a set of rationalizations for those who are not comfortable wearing the jackboot to defend that policy.

[socialist_n_TN]

34. Nope I did NOT claim that his religion was a fake

Just because someone doesn't live up to the principles of his religious beliefs ALL of the time doesn't make them any less religious, it just makes them human. And that's ESPECIALLY true when your religious beliefs and your chosen profession conflict. It's also true when a secular belief like capitalism in the USA has been elevated to the status of a religion.

I could easily see where he could be conflicted and torn between the religions of Christianity and Capitalism. And BTW, don't make the mistake of thinking that ALL Christianity is of the fundamentalist, American Taliban variety. It's not. In fact, when people use the word "Christian" my first statement is usually "Define Christian."

And just because he hasn't done much on gay rights issues, doesn't mean he's bigoted against gay people. As part of his pragmatism, I think that there's a LOT he wants to accomplish, but he does have to prioritize. To a lot of gay folks, it's THE priority and I can't blame them for thinking that. But to somebody with double digit priorities, he has to list them as to what can be accomplished and how quickly they can be accomplished. Just because your issue, as important as it is to you, isn't on the front burner YET, doesn't mean it's bigotry.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

23. He's a corporatist but not DLC. However, the lines seem to be blurring more and more these days.

[wyldwolf]

28. is he not DLC or just not "true" DLC?

It was Bill Clinton that recognized the categories of conservative and liberal played to Republican advantage and were inadequate to address our problems. Clinton's third way... tapped into the pragmatic, nonideological attitude of Americans. - Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope

“I am a New Democrat.” Barack Obama to the New Democrat Coalition.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

31. He's not DLC in the sense that he doesn't belong to the group. Is he DLC in his actions?

I think so.

Triangulation created the problems that we have today. And to Bill Clinton's credit, he at least admits as much. My problem with the "New Democrat" concept is that oftentimes these "Democrats" have bought into the conservative meme that liberals are bad, non-pragmatic, emotional, illogical. They tend to co-opt Republican ideals, which lends credit to the conservative philosophy. The problem is that economic conservatism has been proved wrong and we saw that with Bush and the Republicans.

The truth is that many policies passed by Bill Clinton, though well-meaning in theory, led to many of the problems that we face in today's political climate. Again, I appreciate that he admitted that he was wrong about deregulation; he admitted that Rick Rubin had misguided him and gave him wrong advice; he admitted that he should not have celebrated DOMA; and he admitted that NAFTA has to be reformed. Still, it doesn't discount the fact that his policies created a mess for the current president who I believe understands that he cannot make the same mistakes. Or, does he?!??!

We shall see...

P.S. I wholeheartedly disagree that being a liberal is synonymous for being "impractical". Not all liberals think and act the same. I am a pragmatist.

[wyldwolf]

29. Democrats and "real" Democrats. Corporatists and "true" corporatists

It's all beginning to come into focus...

[NJmaverick]

36. Hyperbole is the number one tool of the President's critics

[ClassWarrior]

40. And of his fanclub...

...if a search on your posts is any indication.

NGU.

[Radical Activist]

37. He thinks change comes from the people.

These aren't just slogans he used during the campaign. It goes back to his basic ideological beliefs formed in his youth as a community organizer.

So while he'll use government regulation to curb corporate abuses, I suspect he's going to be looking for mass movements to carry forward the next stage of change. My concern is that much of the left has an authoritarian mindset that views organizing as little more than harping on Obama to produce more top-down change for us. We need to be more sophisticated than that.

[TheKentuckian]

42. He's a 'centrist' corporatist, if anything.

See there are authoritarian corporatist that believe it is important to utilize the government to advance the corporate agenda (especially to diminish competition) including throwing a few bones to the masses to keep them subdued and compliant while the anarchist corporatist see most government as an impediment to the corporate agenda, the crumbs for the masses as a waste of resources, and that need will keep the masses in line.

Obama sits somewhere in between those two poles. I think your definition of a corporatist is too narrow and was made narrow to allow the assertion to be summarily dismissed.