On 2010-10-29, at 5:32 PM, c b wrote:
> CB: I think you should elaborate your "bully pulpit" theory of the
> Presidency. It is a quaint expression, but I'm not sure the President,
> particularly Obama, has any such ability to bully rightwing Democrats
> into deserting their ruling class constituents. Clinton didn't.
My comments to Somebody elaborates.
> Overall, Obama's "timid" conduct was in the same vein as the way he
> conducted his campaign , if you recall. He was so non-confrontational
> it was amazing.
He was vague in the kind of "change" he was promoting, but those who voted for him thought they were voting for a new New Deal, such as his campaign was subtly invoking, and certainly not for a new Hoover or a continuation of the personnel and policies of the Bush administration. Do you watch the "c'mon man" segment on Sunday NFL football, Charles?
> I'm sure the O admin's calculation was why change
> from their campaign approach that worked. And rationally, the Tea
> Party should have been relegated to the fringe. But the media
> completely reversed itself from the campaign and turned on Obama,
> legitimized the Tea Party's pretense of not being Republicans, who
> prevented Obama from being more left. This is evidence of a focused
> ruling class decision to undermine what they had supported in the
> campaign. Couldn't have a new Obama generation created.
The media and ruling class didn't create the tea party. Widespread financial insecurity and resentment about the prospect of higher taxes to support poor minorities did. The Republicans have happily welcomed these new foot soldiers, with a view to taming, not encouraging, their wilder impulses.
> With hindsight Obama may have acted differently. At this point, that
> concrete situation is passed. Only political Peter Pans conclude that
> this means don't support Obama or Democrats.
I'm not a political Peter Pan. I've spelled out in great detail the different class character of the Democrats and Republicans, and how this is reflected in their respective platforms. I support trade unionists and their allies in their political struggles with the conservative parties to their right, even if the more politically conscious workers are now congregated in the DP and social democratic parties following the disappearance of the mass socialist parties to their left. But I'm not impelled, as you seem to be, to defend the policies of their leaders where these are in conflict with the interests amd aspirations of the masses.
>
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> It's not only Obama's liberal and left-wing critics who have indicted
> the administration for its Hoover-like timidity in the wake of the
> biggest crisis since the Depression. A host of commentators from
> across the political spectrum writing in both the financial and
> mainstream media have offered up the same criticisms all year long.
> It's plain wrong for both Obama and yourself to suggest the verdict
> about to be delivered next week against his administration by the
> American people is mostly owing to their obtuseness. That may be true
> of the tea party milieu, but the larger part of the disgruntled
> population has legitimate cause to believe bolder measures on jobs,
> housing, healthcare, and financial regulation were necessary and
> within reach, and to hold Obama responsible for falling short.
>
> ^^^^^^^
> CB: Well, no I'm correct that it is "obtuse" and infantile for a
> liberal or leftist to not vote for Obama because he tried to
> compromise with the center just as he campaigned. Why wouldn't he
> continue his winning campaign strategy ? That's my central point.
I think the "wise guys" around Obama (and including Obama) originally calculated they could safely take the liberals and independent Obama voters for granted following the campaign, and that they could now change course and go on to court and win over the "moderate" Republicans who were concerned by the growing influence of the right in that party. They reasoned they would split the shaky and discredited Republicans and ensure a Democratic ascendency for generations. An arguably reasonable calculation at the time from a partisan, electoral POV, but clearly a bad, bad, bad miscalculation in retrospect, and one that has redounded to the detriment of the DP and the country.
> You and most of the list here
> continue to underestimate the centrality of racism in the American
> body/mind politic and in this sudden sea change from just two years
> ago. It is a fundamental shortcoming of the political analysis here.
Can't speak for the rest of the list, but you won't find a single post of mine where I haven't noted racism as one of the three main factors in the rise of the TPM (economic insecurity and the perception of US imperial decline being the two others). The thinly veiled racism was evident to my wife and I on our extended road trip to the US earlier this year, which included conversations with tea partiers. You know me better than that, Charles.
> Overall, the more disturbing problem is that significant masses of the
> American working class seem to have very fucked up political thinking.
> "Below" , the "bottom" don't seem to be enough potential or conscious
> to make progressive change . In fact there's a lot of rotten
> consciousness.
I can understand where you, Doug, Somebody, Woj, and other of my American friends whom I greatly respect are coming from. It's hard to be optimistic. But I still think y'all tend to extrapolate too much from the conservative political culture of rural and suburban America and ignore the more liberal and cosmopolitan cities and the demographic changes which are altering the political landscape.