The problem isn't Obama -- It's the Democratic Party framework, and his role in it

Armstead

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Dec-14-09 10:59 AM
Original message

The problem isn't Obama -- It's the Democratic Party framework, and his role in it

Edited on Mon Dec-14-09 11:28 AM by Armstead

The Republican Party is going through its own version of a circular firing squad at the moment, with their own ultra-conservative "base" battling it out with the party's "moderate" leadcership....You might say a Bizarro Universe version of what the Democratic Party has been going through for decades.

But you can't draw too many parallels. In some ways the dynamics are similar, but the details are very different.

For one thing, this disarray in the GOP is relatively recent -- and understandable as the party went from having it all to being cast out into the wilderness in the elections. Plus they had a disaster of an administration who screwed things up beyond all recognition....So finger-pointing is inevitable.

However, despite their fractures, the GOP has one thing we don't. They stand for something. They have a clear set of basic principles, and they don't deviate from them -- except when it's due to incompetence, like Bush chalking up huge deficits. But otherwise, they are very predictable. They oppose the role of government, they oppose taxes and they want business and "the market" to be able to run rampant, regardless of the consequences on everyone else.....(Their emphasis on "freedom" does fall short when it comes to individual rights -- but that's an internal contradiction within their coalition they are going to have to figure out.)

Even the "moderates" champion this view. There is not really a fundamental difference between what the teabaggers want and what the mainstream GOP leadership wants, except in degree and style. Mitt Romney's views are not really different from a Sarah Palin, except he is more intelligent and reasonable about expressing it.

What do the Democrats stand for? Who do they stand for? What is the guiding principle of a Democrat? Is there that same consistency of principles?

No. We are all over the map. Can you actually picture someone like Jan Schakowsky or Ted Kennedy being in the same party as Ben Nelson and Max Baucus? Can you say that diehard, pro-labor liberals like Sherod Brown and Tom Harkin have the same worldview as DLCers like Evan Bayh or Bill Clinton?

This is not a matter of whether to be a Big Tent or not. Big Tents are good, and necessary. Nor is it a matter of ideological "extremists" versus "pragmatic" moderates. If that were the case, Democrats could still be effective, because at least we'd all be rowing in the same direction -- just at different speeds.

It's a more fundamental difference in goals and allegiances. The problem is that we are rowing in different directions. Which ultimately means we go round in circles, and thus remain adrift. Which is ultimately worse, because the current carries us backwards.

Put another way, a "centrist Democrat" is NOT the same as a "moderate liberal Democrat." Their worldviews are different, their allegiances are different, their goals are different. Their underlying philosophy is different. We've seen this play out over countless specific issues as well and in the bigger "framing" of basic goals and principles.

Healthcare reform is the latest example, but we've also seen it in previous debates over NAFTA and "free trade," over financial and other deregulation, labor and welfare policies, etc.

We've also seen it in more basic terms, in arguments over what the party should stand for, whether it believes in government or not, and how much we should placate Republicans and conservatives.

President Obama is in the middle of this, and in many ways he personally embodies this contradiction. When I listen to Obama speak, I love the guy. He pushes all of my buttons as a relatively moderate liberal and progressive. He "gets it."

However, I also am very worried and somewhat suspicious of him. The actions of his administration, and his leadership tone, are more DLC. He seems like half of him is in the camp of liberalism and the other half is being pulled in the direction of the DLC/Wall St./Beltway Insider Consensus. And too often the DLC seems to be winning out.

Thus he becomes a Rorschach test. You can project your hopes onto him, but if you are suspicious of the status-quo crowd of Corporate Democrats you can also project your worries and anger onto his actions -- or inactions.

Bill Clinton was the same way. Listening to him, even a progressive can often say "Yeah. Right on Bill." But the cumulative effect of his actions and policies helped drive the country into the ditch during the 90's (despite the glittery surface of the ice in the 90's). It was a consistent bridge between the Corporate COnservative policies of Reagan/Bush Sr. and Bush W. The devastation we have seen over the last year is just as much a consequence of what happened in the 90's as it is the results of GOP CONservatism.

Because of that, many of us are torn by Obama. he is certainly better than a Republican. He is certainly better than some other Democrats would be in that office. (President Bayh anyone?)

We have to give him the benefit of the doubt. His administration is still young and formative. he also stepped into a mess o'crap that no one could clean up overnight, and which created a crisis mode which prevented any normal handling of situations.

But we worry when we see signs that the Democrats are up to the same old stuff. We worry that what was ultimately a MANDATE FOR LIBERAL CHANGE in the election is being squandered. And as the LEADER of the Democratic Party at the moment, Obama does have both symbolic and practical importance in defining its identity and direction.

That is why the stakes are high, and why many of speak out critically. We're doing what we can in our own small ways to prevent a DLC2 -- The Sequel from occurring.