" Wrenched the Democratic Party out of the clammy grip of Clintonian centrism. (Although he himself often leads from the center, Obama’s center is a couple of notches to the left of the Clinton administration’s triangulation strategies);"
as it's been pointed out over and over (and Mike Davis points this out in his newest NewLeftReview piece)--so many of the key figures Obama has surrounded himself with are seasoned Clinton-ites--how can the same people somehow yield a different result than "Clintonian centrism"? and what are these "couple of notches to the left"? if this is one of the key pieces of "evidence", its painfully lacking. especially when the admin is bending over backwards trying to everythingn it can to NOT piss off the business community--sounds a lot like clinton-ism to me.
and then there's this nugget of wisdom:
"Obama did what the center would not do and what a fragmented and debilitated left could not do. He broke the death grip of the reactionary right by inspiring and mobilizing millions as agents of change. If Obama doesn’t manage to do even one more progressive thing over the course of the next four years, he has already opened up far more promising political terrain."
all i can say is "huh". so if i'm reading this right, Obama emerges not out of the center, the right or the left. again, the post-political myth of Obama. "death grip of the reactionary right?" it seems like since about 2005 (and maybe even earlier than that) the reactionary right has been steadily losing its credibility and its hold over political direction/discourse--hence the democratic win in 2006--again, not much evidence here--if anything, it's the same platitudes repeated about the Obama campaign using the same vague language that it itself excels at.
maybe it's me, but i don't see how an electoral result corresponds to practical political change--and if what this campaign has supposedly done is empower people to be "agents of change"--this article misses the mark in articulating how these agents have been/are mobilized in actually producing political/economic change--or possible avenues for exploring these routes.
but enough about this. i need to go make some soup. --ad
>
> JB: OK, I tried again and I'm still getting not much out of this.
>
> She criticizes:
> >The basic orientation is to criticize every move the administration
> makes and to remain disengaged from mainstream politics.
>
> Who, besides the PLP, is doing that?
>
> (An aside, I don't think Obama's wrenched the DP "out of the clammy grip
> of Clintonian centrism," notwithstanding that Bush made Clintonian
> centrism look like a spring day. It seems to be congealing in the
> center, a gelatinous energy-absorbing blob that shifts, so far, only due
> to internal crisis.)
>
> A lot of tautology--we have to step up and stay engaged or the potential
> of the democratic opening will not be realized or maximized. OK. Stay
> engaged. (Who is she criticizing?)
>
> Specifics:
> Defend the Democratic opening. This means joining MoveOn or the DP,
> AFAICT. Hasten the demise of the Southern strategy. OK, that's a
> really good idea. How? The first thing that occurs to me is we need
> more fucking unionization around here. But fighting for the Employee
> Free Choice Act to be a priority (when Obama isn't) that's probably
> "premature platform erection." Or is it? Could be building a
> left-progressive alliance.
>
> The electoral arena is an area of struggle. I'm in Florida so maybe
> this has just been bleeding obvious for oh, a decade. If there's
> something new or helpful here it's escaping me. The Southern strategy
> was 'defeated' by a large Black turnout, the economic situation and,
> specifically in the case of Florida, a bunch of foreclosures making
> people pay attention to the economic situation. And by 'defeated' we
> mean a swing of one percentage point. (Of course who knows what it
> would've been without lying machines, but that's *been* true.)
>
> Left-progressive alliance. This sounds good--but again, what's her
> point? We're in the middle of a fight on health care. That
> left-progressive alliance falls apart on the question of healthcare
> reform, and it falls based on a conflict with the clammy grip of
> Clintonian centrism that the DP has supposedly been wrenched from.
> Because she doesn't run any examples through her argument, there's no
> way to tell what she's suggesting. Is fighting to eliminate health
> insurance companies too dogmatic and isolating, or part of building a
> left-progressive alliance? When it's in direct opposition to Obama,
> then what?
>
> Engage with the movements that exist. (We aren't already in them? What
> left is she in?) And, there's a depression on. That'll make it messy.
> Messy? Seems like a big opening to me, but what do I know? I'm
> probably succumbing to the siren songs of dogma.
>
> Build the left. Again, specifics? More exhortation, more tautology.
> If we do it right, we'll succeed. If "opportunity is mangled or
> missed," it will be bad news. But the opportunity she chiefly sees is
> the democratic opening due to the movement that elected Obama. The
> capitalist cataclysm doesn't seem to be rating, even as a teachable
> moment.
>
> I just don't get what people are learning from this article.
>
> Jenny Brown
>
>