Comments on: Obama’s Progressive Street Cred

By: A Progressive Health Care Solution | Demockracy

A Progressive Health Care Solution | Demockracy — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:31:26 +0000

[...] one of my earlier posts, I said that I hoped President Obama would be progressive. I further tried to offer a definition of progressive, to be contrasted with liberal and [...]

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:41:57 +0000

The double-standard is thus: a far-left liberal like Dennis Kucinich cannot get elected in this country because he’s crazy progressive. And yet, a far-right conservative like George W. Bush can get elected? It all goes back to the myth of America as a center-right country. Some very mainstream people — including Nobel laureate Paul Krugman — have said that Obama should not make the mistake of doing too little with his political capital. He has the mandate, the opportunity, and the resources to shake things up and possibly make America not merely an okay kind of place, but make America look the way a lot of us would like it to look. And yet, Obama will not, it seems, shake up the system too much.

And, of course, this all goes back to the Reagan ’80s, when Democrats were put permanently on the defensive. Ever since then, Republicans have been assumed to be correct whenever they make a statement, but when a Democrat puts forward an idea, he must defend it as not outlandish and crazy, no matter how reasonable it actually is. The election results show that the American people no longer think that way; why, then, do our politicians still think that way?

By: James Mutti, Contributing Writer

James Mutti, Contributing Writer — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:06:50 +0000

A good piece Mark, though like Kevin, I disagree with a number of your points. Interestingly, leftist progressives and right-wing conservatives were both convinced Obama would be the same president – a very liberal, maybe even socialist, leader who would immediately and fundamentally change the way the US government operates domestically and abroad. As you point out, I believe that a lot of Obama supporters made him the candidate they wanted him to be, without considering who he actually was. Let’s face it – a Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader will never be elected president. Progressives need to think realistically about US elections. I’m still optimistic that despite Obama’s making choices I don’t personally agree with – Rick Warren and various cabinet and foriegn policy choices – things in Washington will change for the better. (And while the choice of Rick Warren is symbolic and controversial, I’m not convinced that it’s really very substantive). Obama has a background and upbringing unlike any previous US president and is obviously an intelligent person with solid liberal – if not radically progressive – credentials. In the end, I voted for Obama, not because he agrees with everything I believe, but because he appears to be able to – on the whole – make thoughtful and intelligent choices that will improve our country and bring leftist ideas back into the political mainstream. I hope I’m proven right. We’re about to find out, aren’t we?.

By: Kevin Van Dyke, Editor

Kevin Van Dyke, Editor — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 09:21:44 +0000

Mark, although I disagree with some of your conclusions, this is a very well thought out article. Your overall logic is very sound. However, I must raise one point of contention:

In the last paragraph of this piece you talk about the false dichotomy that conservatism posits. I understand that this is mainly related to framing, which is an important point that I agree with 100%, but it also seems to hint at the general conservative psychological mindset of seeing the world in black and white rather than in shades of gray. However, this is in contrast to earlier in the piece where you say the following:

“Yes, it is entirely possible that Obama clothed himself in the cloak of progressivism while still wearing the mainstream Democrat’s clothes underneath. He has suggested massive new spending on entitlement programs, but he wants to increase the size of the military. He wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire, but he voted in favor of retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that assisted the administration in warrantless wiretapping. His foreign policy goals consist of using real diplomacy instead of threats, but he voted in favor of NAFTA…”

Here you seem to be looking at Obama’s “progressive cred” strictly in a black and white spectrum. I tend to agree with those who see politics in a circle and/or sphere rather than a straight line. As such, I think it is perfectly possible to be “liberal” on certain issues and be “conservative” on other issues and not be some sort of wishy washer. For instance, many people (including myself) are very socially liberal but more moderate when it comes to economic issues. As such, it is completely logically consistent for Obama to be to be against something like warantless wiretapping and for something like NAFTA. These are two separate issues that should not be compared as if they are both apples. One is an orange and the other is an apple in my opinion. Such you’re either with us 100% or against us types of litmus tests are things that we as liberals should be against. As you say in your article, these tests are proudly owned by conservatives!

In an earlier piece of yours, I believe you came out against the card check legislation that many union supporters are in favor of. Such an opinion would marginalize other liberal positions of yours (such as same sex marriage) in the eyes of many on the far left. I, on the other hand, think these are perfectly discrete issues and should not influence your progressive street cred.