On Jul 13, 2011, at 9:16 PM, brad wrote:
> Carrol:
> ravi - "Occam?s razor says: Obama is a triangulating neo-liberal."
>
>> This seems to me the only explanation offered that does not boil down to
>> the claim to read Obama's mind. I really can't quite understand the urge
>> of so many to reject the simple hypothesis that a president's acts may
>> reflect his actual intention.
>>
>
> But doesn't this cast his actions as some sort of character flaw or
> personality and how is that better. I would posit that it has more to
> do with the structural forces of running the largest capitalist state
> during a time when the balance of class forces is completely one
> sided. It has nothing to do with personalities or this one man. It
> is a function of the particular conjuncture of US capitalism and it
> portends that we are in deep shit.
>
I was not trying to make a point about personalities or suggest that all hinges on one man. Since we were discussing one man, Barack Obama, I gave my thoughts on the politics of the man. It is a character flaw - if at all - only to us who might see neo-liberalism and triangulation as a flaw.
On Jul 13, 2011, at 6:02 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
> Joanna: "What I'm saying is this: if Obama had run based on the
> program he actually implemented, he would not have won."
>
> [WS:] But he implemented exactly what he promised in his campaign,
> for chrissake! If the star-eyed liberals heard something different,
> they were not hearing what he was saying.
>
You can’t blame it all on star-eyed liberals. Doug says this sort of thing as well - that Obama was clear on what his positions and promises were, from the start - and I think that’s a very narrow and lenient way of interpreting Obama. Obama, during his campaign, developed a very effective style of talking out both sides of his mouth. Great themes about change and hope alongside careful triangulation such as his 2006 speech in the Senate opposing the Patriot Act. The very act his administration has pushed successfully for renewal (including some of the very clauses that Senator Obama opposed). Not only did he break his promise on things like the EFCA, Guantanamo Bay, and the sunset of tax breaks for the top 2% (*), he betrayed those who saw these promises in the larger context of his rhetoric of hope/change - a promise of bringing honesty, transparency, compassion, to the White House. Speaking to the AFL-CIO during his presidential campaign, he thundered “Know this” and promised that as PotUS he would walk the picket lines should collective bargaining rights come under threat. These are not statements that give wrong ideas only to starry eyed liberals.
I do agree with you and Doug - and disagree with my friend Joanna - that Obama wouldn’t have been elected had his true nature been evident. As you or Doug wrote, the public was in a punishing mood and the GOP was found guilty. McCain helped. And Obama did a pitch-perfect job of bobbing and weaving, defending Rev. Wright, denouncing him, calling for universal healthcare, waffling on the public option, courting the big money, in particular Wall St, while bemoaning excess, etc.
On the other hand, I am not convinced that a more genuine candidate, say Wellstone or even Feingold (heck even the labour friendly version of John Edwards), would have done poorly in 2008 running against the GOP and McCain. Money bags around the nation, I suspect, issued a collective smirk of satisfaction when the Dem field narrowed to Obama and Clinton.
—ravi
(*) the weasel excuse for extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich was that without those, the GOP would not extend middle class tax cuts. Two counterpoints: (1) at a time of very high unemployment (as much as 16% when considering those no longer seeking jobs), an increase of a few percent points in the taxes of those *with* jobs is hardly the biggest worry, (2) let the GOP own the blame for raising middle class taxes. Had that happened in 2008-2009, the Tea Party (comprised of white middle class people) would not have taken shape in the way it did.