Finally, a pundit with a clue explains Obama to progressives

[ProSense]

Finally, a pundit with a clue explains Obama to progressives

by Willinois

<...>

Finally, I saw an article by someone who does get it. James Warren, writing for the Atlantic, explains Obama in context of his background in the Illinois State Senate and as a "deal-making community organizer." I've always viewed Obama through the same lens and I suspect that's why I'm very rarely surprised by anything he does.

And, as you watch him, be reminded of his informative pre-law school days as a community organizer in Chicago. Recall how they inspired both Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin to openly mock the term "community organizer" at the 2008 Republican National Convention, with the former New York mayor unable to contain derisive giggling as he openly wondered what the term stood for.

Well, it stands for giving power to the powerless. But, for Obama, it also meant a strategic set of notions about finding mutual agreement among people with the most divergent of motivations, according to Obama mentors whom I know from back then and David Maraniss, the journalist-author now working on an Obama biography.

He describes Obama as taking a pragmatic, non-ideological approach to making progress, which incidentally, is how Saul Alinsky describes his own approach in the community organizing favorite, "Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals."

<...>

Yes, he compromised to get less than he wanted, but a bill was passed. The bill included a provision that will allow states to set up a single payer system. The first state which does so will serve as a model and pave the way for a national single payer system down the road. Obama compromised in a way that provides a foundation for continued progress.

Compare that to Bill Clinton, who adopted Republican agenda items (like welfare reform and telecom consolidation) and pushed House Democrats to the right. Obama has continued to make strong arguments for progressive principles and keeps pushing for more even after being forced to compromise with Congress. That's the difference between Clinton's third-way politics and Obama's pragmatic progressivism.

more

[VeryConfused]

1. This should be a must read for every liberal

that has bashed the President

[Armstead]

13. I read it. I don't like the condescending tone, and disagree with the conclusions

I'm a lot liike Obama in believing thatb concensus and compromise are preferable to ideological trench warfare.

However, just like Obama I believe in being flexible to adapt to changing situations.

However, unlike Obama, I believe chaging circumstances requires knowing what you're up against.

We are not up against a GOP that is open to reasonable discussion or compromise. They are dug in, and they don't intendvto budge. And they are ruthless -- and unfortunately very politically smart.

Unless our side, especially leadership, recognizes that and realize that we can't legitimize their positions or cave in, they are going to get what they want, and we'll get less than nothing.

I'm not saying we should also be willing to tank the economy. But there are alternatives that would be tough and strong, but also strategic and sane.

[VeryConfused]

33. Not a good idea to avoid good information because you don't like the "tone"

that's the path toward holding faulty positions.

[Armstead]

57. "and i disagree with the conclusions"

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

100. I understand what you're saying here and agree with everything except

for the claim that Obama doesn't know what he's up against. Here's a guy that has said, "yes, I know that they want me to be a one-term president." He has made jokes about how the Republicans want to destroy him.

And yet, here's the problem: The problem is not that he is hellbent on compromise. The problem is that this country is impatient and angry (and rightfully so) that they voted for Republicans/Teabaggers, or stayed at home altogether. The problem is that the 50-state strategy gave us a bunch of Blue Dog Democrats to the extent that they were voting like Republicans in the House and especially the Senate. The problem is that every single piece of legislation MUST go through Congress first before reaching the president's desk.

If there's stalemate and obstruction in Congress, then we can't get anything done. And if we can't get anything passed through both chambers, nothing reaches the president's desk.

I think Obama looks at the governing environment, analysizes what is possible (i.e., how many votes am I likely to get), and forges ahead based on that analysis.

I also think that he's a "glass half full" person, even if it's just 1/3rd of the way because the policy making process is deliberately slow (that's how the Founders wanted it). Also, policy decisions are typically reached in a piecemeal fashion. Nothing happens overnight. That's not how things work. But Americans are impatient; they want everything done quickly. The result of policy decisions are themselves political; therefore, there will seldom be a policy that everyone agrees with. Those decisions are the result of struggles over values and ideology, but power relationships rule the day. If you have a Republican Party voting in lockstep against a policy, even if the policy represents their own ideas, then you have a power play.

I think the president very much understands that and just wants to get things done even if it's not 30% of what he wants.

[Armstead]

106. I agree he knows what he's up against -- My problem is what he does with it

I believe, given the circumstances of the last two years -- especially the past year -- that a more appropriate response would have been to be more aggressive and go on offense, not only defense.

If as you suggest, one settles for extreme compromise to get 30 percent of what you want, that by definition means the otehr side gets 70 percent, which is a step backward. That is basically what we are seeing now (barring some unforeseen miracle, or a real Mohammah Ali sucker punch delivered by Obama, like trotting out that ol' 14th Amendment remedy).

For example, I believe both Obama and many Congressional Democrats (not all) could have gained a lot more by acting more tactically. The problem has been "too little too late," with avoidance leading to situations where Denmocrats have allowed the GOP to push their backs to the wall.

Bush tax cuts for example. IMO, an bill to extend them for the middle and lower income people while expiring them for the top brackets should have been filed early on in Obama's presidency. The GOP might have been able to block it -- But that would also expose them as the party of the rich. If the Democrats had continued to push and submit that, it would have given them a chance to say to America "See/. We are trying to give you a tax cut, but the GOP is preventing that to protect the ultra wealthy. Who is on your side?" That could have been one piece of ammo that might have weakened the influebnce of the Tea Party, and perhaps changed the results of 2010.

But instead, they put it off until the last minute, which made them look ineffectual and weak, and further undermined any image as a party that fights for the middle class.

The same thing should have been done regarding the debt ceiling much earlier. Perhaps at the end we might still end up down to the wire, but the message -- which translates into votes -- could have done a klot more to reinforce the idea that the Democrats are tghe sane party standing up for average people.

I could go on, but I gotta go.


In any case, it's interesting exchanging views with you.

[eridani]

108. I am less concerned with compromising than with the utterly disastrous messaging--

--that Obama has adopted. It is antithetical to everything the Democratic Party has traditionally stood for.

[Mimosa]

122. Armstead and Eridani, you are great explainers.

Thank you both.

[roguevalley]

117. really? Depends on what the term progress means. if everyone

in a mercedes gets to go forward and the rest of us get turned back to walk on foot, then yeah. He's a peach. Read the thread about children showing up in ERs in AMERICA with starvation symptons. Obama. He's a fucking peach.

[leveymg]

2. Distinction without a difference. Results count.

They're both Third-Way Blue Dogs who are skilled at moving Congress and the country to the Right.

Pragmatic? Maybe. Progressive? Not in any meaningful sense as I understand the term.

[EFerrari]

32. You know, the Mafia is full of organizers. So is the John Birch Society.

I think these people who use the language of liberalism to sell conservatism are hilarious.

lol

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

43. Bernie Madoff was also a pragmatic organizer, wasn't he?

The person who put this out really needs to rethink the premise.

LOL

[VeryConfused]

45. I think you need to work on your message

because your message seems to be lacking any depth or substance

[leveymg]

47. What does "progressive" mean to you, and how are Obama's economic proposals progressive?

Don't just accuse others of lacking substance unless you display it, yourself.

[VeryConfused]

50. Progressive=Progress not spouting ideology

while nothing gets done

[leveymg]

80. That doesn't answer the question. You're equating progressive w/pragmatic

They're not synonyms. Again. What's progressive about Obama's economic proposals?

[VeryConfused]

84. Liberals and progressives share the same basic principles

but liberals talk while progressives create progress

[EFerrari]

48. Nope. When you constantly cut deals that screw working people

you are not a liberal pragmatist, you're something else. LBJ was a liberal pragmatist, Teddy Kennedy was a liberal pragmatist. Obama is not a liberal and he's not much of a pragmatist either, because a pragmatist wouldn't keep doing something that didn't work in the hopes of a different result.

[VeryConfused]

51. Yet the "constant deal" only happened in the vivid imaginations of the PF

in real life the President hasn't screwed over anyone

[EFerrari]

55. Nope, again. Tax cuts do not produce jobs. We all know that

except apparently Barack Obama, who used that as a jobs policy during one of the worst crises we've had in decades. Not pragmatic and not liberal.

[CakeGrrl]

124. The message is simple - "Demonize Obama at every turn."

Including playing devil's advocate for the assertion that he should have been charged for war crimes for the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Why? Because there was probably an issue with the disposition of the body.

Gotta stick up for the side that wants to take down the President!

[grasswire]

3. to neutralize the community leader's effectiveness, you just refuse to give him a deal.

That's precisely what's happening.

"Compromise is a dirty word" -- from the mouth of a Republican yesterday on TV.

"No compromise" -- the slogan of Republicans.

If the operating tactic of the POTUS is organizing toward compromise, you ruin him by simply never dealing in good faith, never coming to agreement.

Ugh.

At some point, then, the tactic is useless.

[bornskeptic]

41. That's totally backwards.

The great majority of voters want to see compromise in Washington, because they want to see something accomplished. If Republicans are seen as the ones refusing to compromise, they lose.

[Phx_Dem]

66. Bingo.

The emos who think compromise is a dity words are no better than the Tea Partiers who think the same.

[JoeyT]

104. Either is better than the

personality cultists that demand absolutely anything be cheered as long as it makes Him look good.

Which explains the sudden shift from "He will NEVER compromise social security! He said he wasn't going to!" to "Social Security should be compromised to make Him look like the only adult!" in the spin.

[rms013]

105. yes but

Compromise is but the sacrifice of one right or good in the hope of retaining another - too often ending in the loss of both.
Tryon Edwards

so far how has this worked out for us?

[A Simple Game]

111. So because I want SS and Medicare benefits left alone and the system

tweaked just enough to fix a slight shortfall, you equate me with a TeaBagger that wants to eliminate the programs?

After all of that stretching you should do some exercises.

And you think my type is the problem!

[TheKentuckian]

110. Polling well and getting votes are worlds apart.

Plus, the complete lack of concept of what a compromise is makes the whole idea fucking inane.

The TeaPubliKlans were obstructionist as an Congress has ever been and bragged about. They went on to a landslide.

When it comes down to the brass tacks "something" can often be worse than nothing. "Something" is not policy and if it was it would be lucky as shit to be of any worth.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

4. Liberal Pragmatism is not an oxymoron. It's what I am and I'm thinking that it's

what the president is.

Randi Rhodes, Larry O'Donnell - these liberal "pundits" actually know how to not be hysterical and actually think about how the government actually works.

Bookmarking and recommending for the insight and emotional-free analysis.

[elleng]

10. Yes

:fistbump:

[Armstead]

18. Everyone thinks of themselves as pragmatic....The devil is always in the details and results

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

98. It might be due to training. I am a policy analyst, so I must see the facts first!

I try and separate my personal views from the facts, especially understanding how government works in this town (I live and work in D.C.).

[Armstead]

102. Facts are very mutable things often -- at least the interpretations are

I assume you've had debates with right-wingnuts. They can trot out facts galore, but they selectively use them to come to very different interpretations and conclusions.
Often (IMO, of course) it's necessary to also apply one's own observations and gut instinct about common sense and common decency with the facts when looking for answers that are pragmatic.


BTW, My own job involves sifting through facts and people's often very different interpretations of them and trying to recapitulate that into something objective. That's a real challenge sometimes.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

103. Yes, that is true. There are "facts" that are subject to interpretation, but there are others

that simply are not.

And I suppose that, as you say, it doesn't matter because wingnuts don't care about the facts, either.

If that is true and Congress is dominated by fact-free wingnuts in the House, then you must ask yourself how you expect Obama to get anything "liberal" done?

If the options are (1) get something done to save the country/economy even if it's only 30% of what we want and (2) do nothing and witness catastrophe, I would choose the former option every time.

[Major Hogwash]

5. Nice article.

I've heard of this Saul Alinsky guy before.
Don't know who he is, but he must be smart.
Will have to do some googling to find out more about him.

[musiclawyer]

6. So we picked the wrong guy

Assuming all of the above is true, deosn't mean he's a bad guy. But he was the wrong guy. When the GOP was down for the count in January 2009, all POTUS needed to do was deliver a knockout. Not invite Rahm to help the GOP up. Not invite the industry to the table when doing health insurance ( which resulted in a PR disaster for him insterasd of a PR coup) And then he invited all the wall street guys to his inner circle which resulted in the bailout (with no strings attached to help mainstreet) and then the much to small stimulus. Had he done all these things correctly, we don't lose the house, and he sails through to 2016 doing whatever he pleases. Now we are on a fucking precipice because his relection is not guaranteed--with all the crazy governors ( who came in with the teabaggers to congress) suppressing millions of votes. ( And he does not even fight them). Nice guy. He has his own set of values. We picked the wrong guy.

[grasswire]

8. I'm afraid so.

I've got a real cynical scenario running in my mind: The GOP knew exactly what he was, and "allowed" him to be elected by running candidates they knew would not win. There's more, but it's too cynical to post.

[ProSense]

12. "We picked the wrong guy." You did, and it' s

your fault that health care reform passed, he CFPB exists and the Iraq war is ending.

I picked the right guy!

[dflprincess]

115. "Health care reform passed"

:rofl:

You guys crack me up. Requiring that we buy insurance policies from the same old crooks with no guarantees that we'll be able to afford to use them is not "reform" - unless you're the CEO of UnitedHealth, Cigna, Aetna, etal.

[tblue]

17. "He can't help it" is the bottom line I guess.

Does not make me feel better. If, say, a husband ignores, belittles, and shushes his wife while bending over backwards to charm and please his neighbors, I'd say, yeah, she married the wrong guy. And I don't care that he means well.


"We've got to educate the American people at the same time we educate the President of the United States. The Republicans, Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. The President of the United States called for that."
- Rep. John Conyers

[jamieque]

60. Wow..... looks like Rep. John Conyers is

one of those less informed representatives that has no clue what he is talking about! That is my opinion of course but then again it is based some very accurate facts and observations. I know I know but then again hearing someone voicing their doubts about the president is no surprise when their own hands aren't so squeeky clean. Bad choice of quotes, tblue. Let me ask you a very good question. Would you have perferred McCain and Palin to be in charge instead of Obama? Please, I am really curious to know your answer because I know what my response would be.... HELL NO! Those two would have been a worst disaster for this country and the world. What people need to do is stop second guessing the president and stop this routine of thinking they know what he should do. He is the president and he knows what he is doing. The question is do you know what you should be doing right now instead of wasting precious little time complaining.

You say you don't care if he means well... well in my humble opinion you should care because he is fighting for everyone of us including doubters like yourself. He can't win this fight without us and by 'us' I mean ALL OF US. We owe it to him and to ourselves to stand up and make a difference because the only way true change will ever come to this country is for the people to make it happen. I know it is easy to just be apathetic and not give a damn because past presidential administrations sold us out but this time I have a feeling that things are different. The difference this time is that we actual have a president who gives a damn about us. All you have to do is remember that true change comes from the bottom, not from the top. The president hinted this too all of us during his run for office. I think it is time people take his message to heart and realize 'WE ARE THE CHANGE WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR!'

[CakeGrrl]

99. I didn't pick the wrong guy. I'm fine with my vote.

It's really tiring to say that POTUS lost the House.

If people couldn't see fit to keep Teabaggers out of Congress, then there's a failure on local levels to defend one's seat against them. Are you trying to say these Reps couldn't make the case for their own re-election compared to the nutters trying to get in?

And where did POTUS lose the PR vote on Healthcare, except on DU? The fact that the GOP keeps trying to dismantle it at every opportunity bespeaks the fact that "the industry" isn't as cozy at the table as some want to believe.

[flamingdem]

7. Nearly every leftie from the 60s knows that book nt

[Cali_Democrat]

9. This is essentially what I've been saying

Obama believes in compromise and consensus. As James Warren noted, he's a deal-making community organizer.

He believes in building bridges with people that want to destroy him. He will continue to reach across the aisle as the other side constantly tries to smack him upside the head.

However, at some point he has to realize this approach has completely and utterly failed because the other side is too extreme.

[grasswire]

19. community organizer v. ideologue

consensus builder v. those willing to let millions suffer to get their way

[polmaven]

24. Absolutely right on the mark.

Se did not need another rigid idealogue in the oval office. We had that for 8 long years, and that was more than enough.

[tblue]

11. Does it make any practical difference why he does what he does?

How incredibly sad that we have to go deep into his psyche to accept what he does. A serial killer may have been beaten as a child. Does that bring his murder victims back? The president is blowing it and I really couldn't care less what is going on deep inside his noodle.

[ProSense]

14. Hmmmm?

"How incredibly sad that we have to go deep into his psyche to accept what he does."

Have you missed all the other commentary? Do a search from January 2009 to now or even one from last week to today.

"The president is blowing it and I really couldn't care less what is going on deep inside his noodle."

I guess that explains why you consider the OP "sad."

[tblue]

21. Explaining why the president caves doesn't make it okay.

If it makes you happy to have that insight and you think it makes a difference, good for you. I think it means we have very little hope of anything more from him. This is our fate as long as he is president. Don't you get tired ever of making excuses for him? We really don't have the luxury of having a president who is not in top form! And I guess you want us to know he just can't help it. Yeah, that's real sad. People will literally die as a result of bad policy because he cannot, according to you, be the type of leader that we desperately need.

[ProSense]

26. Hmmm?

"Explaining why the president caves doesn't make it okay."

Did you mean compromise?

Obviously, he's the first President ever to engage in that practice.

When FDR passed Social Security with 16 Republicans he likely should have told Congress to screw themselves and ensure the bill met the NAACP standards.

"This is our fate as long as he is president."

What, getting stuff done? How horrible!

[Fornit_Some_Fornus]

52. "In any compromise between food and poison,

it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit...

The truly and deliberately evil men are a very small minority; it is the appeaser who unleashes them on mankind; it is the appeaser's intellectual abdication that invites them to take over...

When intellectual leaders fail to foster the best in the mixed, unformed, vacillating character of people at large, the thugs are sure to bring out the worst. When the ablest men turn into cowards, the average men turn into brutes...

When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it's picked up by scoundrels--and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and an self-righteously uncompromising evil."

The source of the above quote isn't necessarily the best source, however, the quote has merit in this situation.

Compromise, in this instance, is poison.

[ProSense]

61. Thanks

"When intellectual leaders fail to foster the best in the mixed, unformed, vacillating character of people at large, the thugs are sure to bring out the worst. When the ablest men turn into cowards, the average men turn into brutes..."

...you've just described the Republican leadership and the teabaggers!

[Fornit_Some_Fornus]

67. You're welcome. And the rest?

Or do you just cherry-pick?

We know the teabaggers and their ilk are scum. No brainer. We're discussing Obama's actions here, aren't we?

Please don't be deliberately obtuse. It doesn't look good on you.

[Armstead]

15. Um, I hate to point this out, but many of his critics are also very effective community organizers

They work in the trenches and also know those theories and they apply them.

But they too disagree withbthe way he is going about things, and are concerned about the results.

[VeryConfused]

39. Pretty much none

most are well off liberals living on upper middle class to wealthy incomes

[Armstead]

54. I'm sure they wish that were true...I know many of them. They are not.

But if you want to fling around conservative meaningless and phony stereotypes, please feel free.

[VeryConfused]

71. Of course they are also not organizers getting things done

but I address your point

[Armstead]

73. They often get very impressive things done

[VeryConfused]

76. The professional left, not really

although their grifter like ways do make themselves a whole lot of money

[Armstead]

85. Oh brother....Been watching too much Fox News latelty?

[VeryConfused]

87. Nope, just keeping my eyes open

Although I have noticed the PF loves to appear on FAUX news

[Armstead]

90. You noticed them on Faux news eh? So you ARE watching too much Fox News.

If not, I am really curious what reality filter you are using.

You think all progressives are either crooks or trust fund babies, eh?

Hooookay. I just have to say you live on a different planet than I do, and leave it at that.

[VeryConfused]

92. How do you draw that conclusion?

I don't have any ideology filters distorting reality. I guess that's why you find my point of view so hard to comprehend.

[Armstead]

95. I find your illogical and inaccurate stereotypes hard to comprehend.

You may be confused but I'm not (about certain things in life anyway).

The vast majority of people who are liberal and progressive are average people, with just as much diversity among us as the overall population. Some are rich, some poor most somewhere in between. Most are honest and hard working, even if there are a few "grifters" scattered among them.

They also hold a wide variety of views on specific issues, and on President Obama.

So your inaccurate stereotypes, which do come straight out of people like Glen Beck and places like Faux News, are very difficult for me to comprehend.

[VeryConfused]

96. You're correct in your characterization of progressives

and it's why the President enjoys 70%+ support among that group. What I was referring to was the professional left and you were trying to claim many community organizers disapprove of the President with out an ounce of evidence to support that claim

[Armstead]

101. There is plenty of evidence, both nationally and in my own experience

Yours too, if you go out and talk to a broad spectrum of liberals and progressives.

Many enthusiastically support Obama, many support him but are very discouraged about him, and some are very fed up. It's a spectrum, and has very little (nothing) to do with the meaningless stereotypes.

[VeryConfused]

125. You are ignoring the likes of Hamsher, Adams and Greenwald

who run fake PACs to con gullible but well meaning liberals out of their hard earned money. You are neglecting the cults that have formed around these slick grifters.

[Tarheel_Dem]

16. The entire article is well worth the read, and a timely reminder. Thanks for posting.

:hi:

[southernyankeebelle]

20. I have a tremdous amount of respect for our president. But we should have

picked Hillary. She has more balls then Obama. Obama turned out to be a conservative democratic.

[BklnDem75]

23. And Hillary is a true Liberal...

Let that one sink in for awhile

[Tippy]

25. Hillary. helped organize the DLC.....

Can't get much more conservative than that....

[Enrique]

29. i agree, but Hillary was a conservadem too

i said all through the primaries that it made no sense for a Hillary supporter to be strongly against Obama, or vice versa, because their policies were nearly identical. John Edwards was also a conservadem, imo. I thought his poverty talk was the phoniest posturing I'd ever seen in my life.

[madfloridian]

22. How many states with teaparty governors will set up good health care systems?

Just think about that.

[ProSense]

30. So

it's Obama's fault if they don't do it? He made them teabaggers?

Many states, even the ones that joined repeal, have already moved to set up exchanges. If they don't, the health care law includes a provision that requires the government to operate at least one exchange in each state.

[jaxx]

27. It's an excellent article.

Thanks for posting.

K&R

[Chan790]

28. I don't need Obama explained to me...

I need us explained to Obama; that he needs to not work from the presumptions:

1.) We're going to turn out for him regardless. (We're increasingly not going to.)
2.) That a compromise win is necessarily better than refusing to accept a poison compromise and simply withdrawing. (How many issues and constituencies has he fucked for a generation or more by not simply drawing lines in the sand and refusing to budge, even if he loses and gets nothing? More than I can count.)

[VeryConfused]

40. Threats and blackmail

don't impress

[Chan790]

93. Ironically.

I don't care what you think. If I wanted to impress you, I'd impress you. I just want you to go away, you ideals-challenged sycophant toady.

Go away. Shoo!

(Your screen-name is very apropos!)

[bvar22]

31. Well, at least..

...the Spimmasters have given up on trying to market Obama as more Progressive than FDR!!!,
and are starting to settle for,
he's a little to the Left of Bill Clinton,
which I find debatable.

[Armstead]

34. Debatable? Even Clinton says he should use the 14th Amendment threat to break this stalemate

[ProSense]

36. FDR

was a pragmatist too.

FDR's statement on the 1939 amendments to the Social Security Act of 1935

IT WILL be exactly four years ago on the fourteenth day of this month that I signed the original Social Security Act. As I indicated at that time and on various occasions since that time, we must expect a great program of social legislation, such as is represented in the Social Security Act, to be improved and strengthened in the light of additional experience and understanding. These amendments to the Act represent another tremendous step forward in providing greater security for the people of this country. This is especially true in the case of the federal old age insurance system which has now been converted into a system of old age and survivors' insurance providing life-time family security instead of only individual old age security to the workers in insured occupations. In addition to the worker himself, millions of widows and orphans will now be afforded some degree of protection in the event of his death whether before or after his retirement.

The size of the benefits to be paid during the early years will be far more adequate than under the present law. However, a reasonable relationship is retained between wage loss sustained and benefits received. This is a most important distinguishing characteristic of social insurance as contrasted with any system of flat pensions.

Payment of old age benefits will begin on January 1, 1940, instead of January 1, 1942. Increase in pay-roll taxes, scheduled to take place in January, 1940, is deferred. Benefit payments in the early years are substantially increased.

I am glad that the insurance benefits have been extended to cover workers in some occupations that have previously not been covered. However, workers in other occupations have been excluded. In my opinion, it is imperative that these insurance benefits be extended to workers in all occupations.

The Federal-State system of providing assistance to the needy aged, the needy blind, and dependent children, has also been strengthened by increasing the federal aid. I am particularly gratified that the Federal matching ratio to States for aid to dependent children has been increased from one-third to one-half of the aid granted. I am also happy that greater Federal contributions will be made for public health, maternal and child welfare, crippled children, and vocational rehabilitation. These changes will make still more effective the Federal-State cooperative relationship upon which the Social Security Act is based and which constitutes its great strength. It is important to note in this connection that the increased assistance the States will now be able to give will continue to be furnished on the basis of individual need, thus affording the greatest degree of protection within reasonable financial bounds.

As regards administration, probably the most important change that has been made is to require that State agencies administering any part of the Social Security Act coming within the jurisdiction of the Social Security Board and the Children's Bureau shall set up a merit system for their employees. An essential element of any merit system is that employees shall be selected on a non-political basis and shall function on a non-political basis.

In 1934 I appointed a committee called the Committee on Economic Security made up of Government officials to study the whole problem of economic and social security and to develop a legislative program for the same. The present law is the result of its deliberations. That committee is still in existence and has considered and recommended the present amendments. In order to give reality and coordination to the study of any further developments that appear necessary I am asking the committee to continue its life and to make active study of various proposals which may be made for amendments or developments to the Social Security Act.

<...>

He also focused on spending cuts at the start of his first two terms.

<...>

FDR’s initial response to the Great Depression provides an interesting case in point, for Roosevelt came into office as something of a fiscal conservative. In keeping with the fiscal orthodoxy of the time, he called for a balanced budget during his campaign, was reluctant to deficit spend once in office, and even pressed for the successful passage of the 1933 Economy Act as one of his first major pieces of legislation-an act which cut federal spending by nearly 250 million dollars during the first months of his administration.

<...>

Further evidence of FDR’s inherent fiscal conservatism can be seen in his decision to cut federal spending at the start of his second term-a move which resulted in the so called “Roosevelt recession” of 1937-38 and which led to the first increase in the unemployment rate since his assumption of office in 1933. Stunned by this unfortunate turn of events, FDR began to heed the advice of those who advocated the economic policies of John Maynard Keynes. In 1938, therefore, the President would submit a budget that called for an increase in federal spending but without any concomitant increase in federal taxes. The resulting deficit, the President argued, was necessary to enhance “the purchasing power of the nation” so as to expand the economy-and the tax revenues that would flow from it-and reduce unemployment.

link

FDR's legacy includes the FDIC.

Obama's legacy will include the CFPB

Not bad!

[Vattel]

37. There are many progressives who disagree with Obama

about stuff he has complete control over. I am one of them. I think he is too militaristic, too dismissive of the rights in the Bill of Rights, too aggressive on deportation of undocumented workers, wrong about the scope of the President's war powers, etc. Most of my problem with Obama has nothing to do with his propensity to compromise. IMHO, he just has a lot of bad ideas and not enough good ones. I'm not saying that I'm always right and he's always wrong. My simple point here is that a lot of progressive discontent with Obama doesn't stem merely from the perception that he is not effective enough in dealing with Republicans.

[VeryConfused]

44. I the President was wrong for winning the war on terror?

when did one have to believe in the destiny of defeat to become a Progressive?

[bvar22]

107. We WON the War on Terror??? WooHoo!!!

Nobody told me we WON!
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Bring em ALL home Tomorrow,
and Slash Military Spending, NOT Social Security,
and expand medicare with all that extra money.

We WON!!!
We WON!
:party:

You should make this an OP.
I'll bet there are a lot of folks here that haven't heard the good news!
You really need to tell EVERYBODY!

If you won't do it,
may I start a thread informing everybody that we WON the War on Terror,
and use your name and link to this post?
Please?

[Warren Stupidity]

112. Amazing isn't it?

[dflprincess]

116. How'd I miss that?

You'd think even the corporate owned media might have mentioned it.

Everybody conga!

[Hawkowl]

38. So much bullshit

Saul Alinksy? Really? I think Alinsky is rolling in his grave about Obama giving power to the powerless. Obama is all about being on his knees to the establishment. He isn't even asking for crumbs for the powerless anymore. In fact, he is the prototypical patriarch, "the adult in the room" sanctimoniously telling us to shut up and like it.

Good fucking god what absolute bullshit propaganda.

[VeryConfused]

42. You post reinforces the fact

that the President is the adult

[Hawkowl]

46. Your handle

Reinforces the fact that you don't understand the premise of Community Organizing by Saul Alinksy. The only community Obama has "organized" is Wall Street and the bankster war on workers.

Adults play hardball. Children do what they are told. Obama does whatever Timmy and the banksters tell him to do.

[VeryConfused]

49. Are you serious?

the President helped real people. You know REAL people not like your imaginary "banksters" you think the President work for.

[Enrique]

53. he leaves out one thing

how are Obama's deals as president working out for people?

Warren writes as if progressives mostly care about how Obama gets characterized. We don't. By the time for example any Social Security changes will be felt, Obama will be long gone.

What we care about is what his deals are doing for or to people. Warren doesn't say a word about that.

I think progressives might well grant that Obama was a fantastic State Senator. Maybe he should have stayed there. That's not a slam, by the way. We need good people at all levels of government.

[ProSense]

58. Well,

as Alan Grayson put it: a lot of people's lives will be saved

Medicaid was expanded, dropping people based on pre-existing conditions was banned, unemployment benefits were extended. The stimulus provided billions in aid to low income Americans.

$40 billion to provide extended unemployment benefits through Dec. 31, and increase them by $25 a week
$19.9 billion for the Food Stamp Program
$14.2 billion to give one-time $250 payments to Social Security recipients, people on Supplemental Security Income, and veterans receiving disability and pensions.
$3.45 billion for job training
$3.2 billion in temporary welfare payments (TANF and WIC)
$500 million for vocational training for the disabled
$400 million for employment services
$120 million for subsidized community service jobs for older Americans
$150 million to help refill food banks
$100 million for meals programs for seniors, such as Meals on Wheels
$100 million for free school lunch programs

[Hawkowl]

62. $1.5 TRILLION for war.

Woohoo! Way to go pragmatic dealmaker! Woohoo! Eat your peas!

[ProSense]

65. Obama has already spent $1.5 trillion on war?

You do know he didn't start the wars, don't you?

Reid's plan calls for cutting $1.2 trillion from the defense budget.

Do you object to that?

[Hawkowl]

68. Not enough. Not soon enough.

Starting the wars is a red herring. Please enlighten us how Obama has proposed the LARGEST MILITARY BUDGET SINCE WWII! While of course advocating reductions in Medicare and SS.

He also has escalated Afghanistan, the use of mercenaries, Libya, and drone attacks on Pakistan, and Yemen.

Notice you said "Reid's plan" not "Obama's plan"? And how many decades is this $1.2 trillion stretched over? Tell us.

[ProSense]

78. Wow

"Please enlighten us how Obama has proposed the LARGEST MILITARY BUDGET SINCE WWII!"

...do you realize the war budget is going down?

"He also has escalated Afghanistan"

That was part of the plan you missed when he was campaigning.

Here's the other part: First US troops leave Afghanistan as drawdown begins

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

83. Hmmm?

"The military budget is NOT going down."

I said "war budget." You do realize funding for war is a dedicated line of funding in the military budget, don't you?

The war budget dropped from $160 billion to $117 billion.

[Hawkowl]

88. Jesus h. Christ on a pogo stick!

What the hell do you think the military is for? A giant jobs creation program? A version of the peace corps with guns? "Travel to strange exotic countries and meet new and interesting people, and then kill them"?

Yours and Obama's weasel words are worse than President Clinton's "It depends on what the definition of is, is."

The War is not a "line item". When 30,000 soldiers come home and blow their own brains out, that is not considered a "line item" in the war. The increased demand for VA medical services is not considered to be a "line item" in the war.

When an Air Force "technician" in Missouri blows the hell out a family of non-combatants and the State Department has to pay off the relatives with blood money--THAT is not a "line item" in the war.

See that is what is good about aggregate Military spending. Total spending. Total military spending (the military which is supposed to be a giant abattoir) is GREATER than at any time since WORLD WAR FUCKING TWO! Oh, and we are not winning. Or if we've won, we haven't even gotten a nifty t-shirt or lower gas prices.

[ProSense]

89. Deal with

facts: the entire military budget is not for the wars.

[Hawkowl]

91. So you agree it is the largest military budget.

Obama chooses to spend more on the military at any time since WWII, while advocating raising the elibility for Medicare and decreasing COLA's for Social Security?

Q.E.D.

[ProSense]

109. Ever heard

of supplementals? See the number in column 7: $718,396



NYT 2008: Proposed Military Spending Is Highest Since WWII

[jamieque]

70. Why don't you eat your own peas

And afterward review how we ended up with a war on our plates in the first place. Uh... um... Bush the warmonger lied us into war and was responsible for the deaths of thousands of people on both sides. The people of Iraq had their nation blown to hell and back again. Our soldiers lost limbs and many ended up in the fucking grave while Bush's buddies made a profit over their sacrifice. Why don't thow your sactimonous bs complain at Bush becaue he started this whole mess years ago.

But no you want to slam the president with a he spent 1.5 trillion for war statement. Well I have news for you Bush spend a helluva lot more then that on his little bloody crusade thru the Mideast and in the process he made a bigger mess of the problem we were already dealing with. As far as I am concern Barack Obama has spent a lot less then Bush did in first term in office. Don't believe me then I suggest you go back and re-educate yourself on the Bush years in office and you might be surprised. Or not... I think you already know but you just want to jump on the 'let's throw the president under bus' parade that is currently going on. I can't believe the udder stupidity of some americans. They want things to get better but they stupidly believe that politicians at the top will help them. Some will like the president but others... well... you know. Be thankful we even have him for president.

[Hawkowl]

75. Let them eat cake!

The sheer arrogance of Obama's policy towards progressives, liberals, and seniors, is staggering. Obama is just a 21st century aristocrat. You are right change doesn't come from the top. Vote them out! When Obama continues 90% of Bush's policies he's going to get voted out as well.

I AM NOT THANKFUL FOR OBAMA'S POLICIES. Why? Because they are proven failures and all he is going to do, is drag the entire Democratic party down the drain with him. You think the 2010 midterms were bad? Wait till 2012.

[Armstead]

63. And Obama characterized the good things in the stimulus as....

one-time, short-term fixes that he hated to do but had to to prevent disaster before government could get back to normal supply-side free market Reaganism.

Okay I exaggerated on the last few words, but that was the gist of it.

The point is he immediately went about downplaying the role of liberal government programs, and instead characterized the support from the stimulus as a necessary evil to deal with a short-term crisis.

Now the stimulus is fading to the past, we're now looking at slashing those kinds of safety net programs and other worthy programs in our new "austere" Republican-shaped budget in the coming years.

[VeryConfused]

94. The President's deals are working out great for the American people

better than one could hope.

[ClarkUSA]

56. Most liberals understand he's a pragmatic progressive, as evidenced by his approval numbers.

I am one of them.

Only a small minority of Democrats are stubbornly ignorant/clueless about or rabidly hateful towards President Obama's efforts. It's noteworthy how many of them rarely have a bad word to say about Bill Clinton, though, which is why I'm glad to see the OP point out DINO Bill's Republican-friendly presidency in contrast to Pres. Obama's approach.

Nice to see that at least one pundit other than Eugene Robinson knows his facts as opposed to being dedicated to being shit-stirring media whore:

"From his community organizing days to the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama has always put pragmatic deal-making above ideology, even when it angered allies... For sure, as now, he had a clear left-leaning ideology, at least in theory. But he was more committed to doing deals."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/get-over-it-this-is-who-obama-is/242600

Yes, he compromised to get less than he wanted, but a bill was passed. The bill included a provision that will allow states to set up a single payer system. The first state which does so will serve as a model and pave the way for a national single payer system down the road. Obama compromised in a way that provides a foundation for continued progress.

Compare that to Bill Clinton, who adopted Republican agenda items (like welfare reform and telecom consolidation) and pushed House Democrats to the right. Obama has continued to make strong arguments for progressive principles and keeps pushing for more even after being forced to compromise with Congress. That's the difference between Clinton's third-way politics and Obama's pragmatic progressivism.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/28/999869/-Finally,-a-pundit-with-a-clue-explains-Obama-to-progressives

[EFerrari]

69. WAPO/ABC: Obama's approval rating on jobs among liberals down from 53%

to 31%

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/26/obama-losing-liberal-blac_n_910070.html

[ClarkUSA]

72. lol! Cherrypicking categories now? What's his overall approval rating among liberals? Hmm?

Higher than Reagan or Clinton at the same time period, despite dealing with a much worse economy and political climate, that's what.

BTW, are you even a Democrat, much less a liberal one?

[EFerrari]

74. That seems to be how the White House also views both the jobs situation

AND his Democratic base. The tone is set at the top, all right. :)

[ClarkUSA]

77. Do you have any proof of your ridiculous opinion, which ignores the efforts of the GOP Congress?

Your tone is set at 24/7 demonization of this President, despite knowing his budget plan, which set aside at least $50 billion for job creation, has been stonewalled since it came out by the Teabagger House. Or are you ignorant of this fact?

BTW, you didn't answer my questions:

1. What's his overall approval rating among liberals?

2. Are you even a Democrat, much less a liberal one?

Hmm?

[EFerrari]

81. Sure, in his speech this week, Obama claimed that cutting spending

would help out of work Americans, much as he claimed that tax cuts would produce jobs. Clearly he has no interest in job creation because neither of those propositions are true.

And in the speech before that one, he actually bragged about how much heat he was willing to take from his own side.

The tone is set from the top.

And as far as his overall approval ratings, I'd print out and frame your favorite poll, because he's never going to get those numbers again.

[CBHagman]

59. I seem to recall the Washington Monthly published an article...

...with a similar theme. I'll have to find the link.

[ClarkUSA]

64. "That's the difference between Clinton's third-way politics and Obama's pragmatic progressivism."

Yes, he compromised to get less than he wanted, but a bill was passed. The bill included a provision that will allow states to set up a single payer system. The first state which does so will serve as a model and pave the way for a national single payer system down the road. Obama compromised in a way that provides a foundation for continued progress.

Compare that to Bill Clinton, who adopted Republican agenda items (like welfare reform and telecom consolidation) and pushed House Democrats to the right. Obama has continued to make strong arguments for progressive principles and keeps pushing for more even after being forced to compromise with Congress. That's the difference between Clinton's third-way politics and Obama's pragmatic progressivism.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/28/999869/-Finally,-a-pundit-with-a-clue-explains-Obama-to-progressives

[CakeGrrl]

82. Apparently a do-nothing firebreather is preferable to a pragmatic do-er.

I'll take the latter.

I'd just like to know who the gold standard is for the former so we can compare their record.

[Armstead]

86. I misread this little exchange, so am removing this post

[grasswire]

97. I think it's demeaning to call Jim Warren a "pundit"

He is a solid, credentialed news man. A reporter, an editor, a bureau chief who has paid his dues. Yes, he may give an opinion at times, but that is rooted in journalism, not punditry.

[zipplewrath]

113. I was cruicified for suggesting this last year

I made a comment about how Obama was showing his community organizer background. I suggested it was why he preferred compromise over strong leadership. I came close to getting kicked off the board altogether.

Now, apparently, I should have been credited with "having a clue".

[FrenchieCat]

114. It would be one thing if Obama had a community that wanted to be organized.....

Instead, right after the election, that community that was organized for the elections, turned into a whine-but-do-nothing-else-but-sit-back-and-nitpick-him-to-death community. Community organizing is not a solitary venture....

We could have made a difference, but instead we just argued with each other like 5th graders,
and acted like there was nothing for us to do but laugh at Teabaggers, when there was a whole lot that could have been done! Most wanted only what they wanted and didn't want anything less, and so while some sat in the corner pissed off, the teabaggers with the help of the media got their brethens to the polls....while we argued over the "enthusiasm Gap" and how Obama was sooo terrible, and how much smarter than him some believe themselves to be. Problem is, most aren't as smart as they'd like to think.....and were in reality looking for a big Mac daddy that would give them whatever they wished.

[bvar22]

126. That sounds like a Failure of Leadership.

You don't blame the troops for not organizing themselves.
If there is a lack of discipline,
unclear goals,
and lack of organization,
it is NOT the fault of The Troops.


The Lack of Leadership was glaringly evident during Tea Bagger Summer.
President Obama had an ARMY Standing in the Streets,
and ready to fight,
If President Obama had said,
"Come to Washington and STAND WITH ME,
and Together WE will fight for Health Care for EVERYBODY!"
MILLIONS, including myself, would have answered THAT call.

Instead of "Stand WITH ME",
the message was go home,
"Chill Out,
I GOT THIS."

You can't blame that on The Troops.

[Brigid]

132. Sun Tzu would love you.

I wonder if Obama has ever read him.

[frazzled]

118. Losing James Warren was a huge loss to the Chicago Tribune

I'm glad I can still read him once a week in the New York Times Chicago edition (Chicago News Cooperative).

I saw him a three or four years ago on a panel at the University of Chicago with with Katrina vanden Heuvel and John Nichols from the Nation and himself and one other guy from the Tribune. It was one of the more interesting talks on journalism I'd heard.

Assorted facts about James Warren: back when he was exposing the cozy relationships of DC journalists with the people they cover, he saved particular vitriol for Cokie Roberts, running an ongoing "Cokie Watch" column. His wife, Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Cornelia Grumman, wrote the series of articles on capital punishment that ultimately led to the moratorium and ultimate abolishment of capital punishment in Illinois.

I like his writing.

[grantcart]

119. exellent analysis Willinois

Your articles are always spot on.

Now imagine at every Republican Presidential debate the candidates being asked whether or not they would support ANY increase to the debt ceiling and knowing that a yes answer buys them full throated enmity from the fanatics of the Tea Party and a no answer loses all support of Wall Street, business owners, establishment Republicans and every independent.

That is the problem with drawing idiotic lines in the sand.

[Tx4obama]

120. K&R n/t

[Fearless]

121. I wonder how far people are willing to stretch before they realize they're wrong.

[Mimosa]

123. ProSense, I talked with older friends about Social Security

Tonight I called my older friends. None, living mainly on Social Security, perceive that the Democratic Party is fighting for them. My point in calling was to try to convey that Dems are fighting to preserve Social Security. My older friends listened to me with obvious DOUBT.

BUT ProSense, the Party is NOT conveying that message to seniors. WE ARE LOSING! Why don't your people try reaching out to senior voters instead of telling us Dems not to believe our lying eyes? WE ARE LOSING. You keep posting at us.

But in the trenches ordinary Dems like me are having a hard time trying to tell our friends the Democratic Party is fighting to preserve Social Security and medicare. If the Party is indeed trying to fight for Social Security WHERE ARE THE TV COMMERCIALS?

[ProSense]

128. "Why don't your people try "

WTF?

[OwnedByFerrets]

127. Repugs CANT BE REASONED WITH!!! How many times

does a person have to be beaten about the head to realize this.

[ProSense]

129. Then stop

fucking electing them. Simple!

[swilton]

130. Mutual agreement with people of divergent motivations

Nothing could be further from the truth - Obama is not conferring with people who have divergent motivations - he's conferring only with people from the right.

To compare what he was doing in Chicago to what he is doing with ss/medicare/medicaid ++ undermining core democratic platforms in place for decades is a false equivalency....The two forms of negotiation are mutually exclusive for any variety of reasons.

[Brigid]

131. Just one problem with this analysis, Mr. Warren:

Obama doesn't get that the Republicans are Orcs. How the hell do you negotiate or build consensus with Orcs? They don't even believe in government; that is why they don't care about about reolving the default crisis they created.