Charles writes:
[...]
MG: The issue on the left and even beyond was whether to prop up failing
> banks, insurers, and auto companies in the interests of investors at
> taxpayer expense, or to wind these down while a) cushioning the
> effects of joblessness through improved severance, unemployment, and
> retraining benefits and b) offsetting the job losses in these sectors
> by a massive program of public investment in infrastructure, social
> services, and alternative energy and other promising new industries.
> The administration opted to keep the zombie banks and corporations
> afloat and to heavily subsidize the entire financial industry, much to
> the dismay of it's supporters.
> CB: This seems to be a bit wishful...I'd say you have an inaccurate
> assessment of what was possible. We
> have just been through 30 years of Reaganism, 8 years of an extreme
> rightward swing. The campaign gave no indicaton to think that the US
> population which in its majority had supported all that Reaganism and
> rightwing shit was ready to make a giganitc lurch to the left as you
> describe ;or that , what can I call him, a President under suspicion
> for a lot of things including being a "socialist" by a whole lot of
> people, could win a majority of Congress, conservative ( or even
> liberal) Dems and Republicans for a radical social democratic program.
=======================================
Obama certainly wasn't going to win the Republicans - that was and is his
illusion - but he had the goodwill and support of his party and the
non-aligned to build on. Political opinion was changing, as the
congressional and presidential elections and polls confirmed, in reaction to
the financial and housing crises, growing inequality, and unpopular wars
abroad, all of which were identified with the Bush administration and,
increasingly, the legacy of Reaganism.
I simply outlined above what Obama had promised during the campaign - improved unemployment and other benefits for the working class, including card check, as well as major public investments in infrastructure, social services, and alternative energy. It was not "wishful thinking...an "inaccurate assessment of what was possible" by Obama and his advisors if they genuinely wished to fight for it. Bourgeois democracy in crisis is capable of deeper than usual reform as the New Deal, which served as a model for the incoming administration, demonstrated. Was this not also your view at the time?
On the other hand, Obama never indicated that he would continue the Bush-Paulson program of bank bailouts. Summers had, in fact, written op-ed pieces strongly critical of that approach. When the administration continued the policy, it was not only a large part of the left which opposed it but a bevy of economists, former regulators, and financial journalists who had immpecable mainstream credentials.