On 2010-10-08, at 3:20 PM, Eric Beck wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 1:41 PM, c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> CB: Wishy-washy , conciliatory reforms. like the Pay Equity Act or
>> permitting stem cell research ? Defending Roe vs Wade with Supreme
>> Court appointments ? ending the war in Iraq ? health care reform ?
>> Saving GM and Chrysler ( and the UAW) ?
>
> I'm actually starting to side with Charles on this: Nationalizing AIG
> and GM, increasing demand (through training, tax breaks, etc.), taking
> more of a lead in industrial policy (e.g., $50 billion investment in
> green energy and modernization), longer unemployment benefits,
> reregulating finance. A lot of this stuff is that socialists said
> should have been done. It might be quantitatively less than they
> wanted, but it's not qualitatively different.
It depends on the yardstick one chooses to use.
Measured against the Republicans, there's no question that a Democratic administration is always better for workers, blacks, hispanics, working women, environmentalists, civil libertarians, etc. - if for no other reason than the appointments Democrats make to the courts, regulatory agencies, and bureaucracy. That's why the organizations representing these constituences consistently support the party against the Republicans. I'm not among those on the list who draw an equal sign between the conservative and the liberal/social democratic parties in Western electoral democracies, except insofar, of course, as neither is prepared to replace the capitalist system with one based on public ownership.
Measured against the the New Deal, however, there is equally no question that the Obama administration has been a great disappointment to its liberal base. Obama used his first 100 days to temper rather than to steer popular anger against Wall Street. The administration chose to bail out rather than restructure and regulate the financial industry. It required American workers to pay for the crisis rather than bank executives and bondholders. His healthcare legislation fell far short of the social initiatives introduced by the New Deal. He declined to undertake large-scale job creation programs to bring down unemployment or to change the bankruptcy laws to stem the rising tide of foreclosures. He hasn't delivered card check to the unions nor meaningful emissions reductions to the environmental movement. He has continued the slow withdrawal from combat in Iraq begun by the Bush administration but has sharply escalated the US war against the Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It seems to me Charles and Eric don't have a beef with the people on this list, certainly not with those who would not support the Democrats against the Republicans in any circumstances. Their real beef is with the liberal bloggers and periodicals who did expect more progress in all of these areas and who have consistently berated Obama for not emulating the bold rhetoric and reforms of the New Deal. For an example, see http://www.newdeal20.org.
Unfortunately, these criticisms by liberal intellectuals and Democratic activists and supporters have only been translated into action in a very sporadic and often confused way. This is where the absence of the socialist organizers of the 30's is most keenly felt. But there is a dialectic between leaders and their supporters, and Obama could not have appointed different advisors and used the bully pulpit of the presidency to the same effect as Roosevelt did to mobilize his base. In so doing, I think he could well have drawn in large numbers of disaffected Americans who have in their muddled state instead found their way to the tea party as the only vehicle to express their anger.
But, as we know, Obama chose to listen to the counsel of the "realists" at the DLC and in the White House who are closely tied to Wall Street and who badly misread the mood of the country. We know the effect their wise counsel has had in bringing relief to the country. Now their shrewd realism, from the narrower perspective of the Democratic party's own political fortunes, is about to be put on display in the forthcoming mid term elections.