IMO, Charles, Woj, and Carrol - each in their own way and from differing perspectives - have come close in this thread to to suggesting that the mass of the salary- and wage-earning population is objectively incapable of recognizing its own interests, raising the question: If not in 2008, then when? The 2008 election occured in the midst of the greatest financial crisis in history, widely seen as the harbinger of another Great Depression; when real estate prices were plunging and homes were being lost; when health care costs were soaring; when polls showed the country was disgusted by the invasion of Iraq and shamed by the revelations of US torture tactics, and other surveys showed them concerned about global warming and the environment.
In the midst of these multiple domestic and foreign policy crises, we are being told that the American people allowed themselves to be duped by candidate Obama. That they were not conscious of, and not communicating, their need for jobs and job security, for mortgage relief, for access to affordable health care, for a tough line against the bankers who had caused the crisis, and, to a lesser extent, for an end to US overseas military intervention and the development of alternative energy sources. We're being told that Obama was not signalling at rally after rally that he was the "change candidate" who would respond to their needs, that McCain and the Republicans were tied to the special interests who caused the crisis and represented the "failed policies" of George Bush, and that his adminstration would break decisively with both. Whatever the formulations Obama may or may not have used to disguise his intentions, this is how they were communicated and understood by his audience of every political stripe.
My three online friends are practicing revisionist history in the service of demonstrating that Obama did not raise expectations, that his campaign did not produce an angry and hopeful constituency which could have been mobilized in the service of far-reaching and necessary reforms to the system in the manner of the New Deal, that the Republicans and Wall Street were not back on their heels, and that it was only "starry eyed liberals" (read: the many millions of Democratic and independent voters) who had such "illusions". It is revisionist history which suggests that the 2010 revival of the Republicans was not the result of dashed expectations and deep disappointment with the Obama administration, now itself firmly associated with an intolerable status quo, but owing to the stupidity of the American people. For Charles, this was a bout of temporary "insanity" which has shifted the US political centre of gravity to the right, justifying Obama's further adaptation in this direction. For Woj, who disparagingly refers to "da people", it confirms a deep-seated belief that the common people do not have the capacity to think and act in their own interest. For Carrol, who is equally pessimistic despite his revolutionary ardour, that section of the masses which supports the DP does so only because they have conned into doing so, not because they have independently concluded that, of the only two parties on offer, it is the one which has historically, if only to a degree, advanced their interests and defended their gains against the other.
On 2011-07-13, at 1:27 PM, c b wrote:
> But the initial political context for this administration was
> huge/unprecedented grass-roots support that elected a Obama despite
> his race and inexperience. That support was based on certain promises
> O made during the campaign. They included transparency,
> accountability, support for states, jobs program, end to the wars,
> single payer, etc. He did none of those things. He had the mandate to
> create his own political context. He could have gotten on TV and
> eloquently, passionately called for universal pressure on the
> legislature to push forward with support for the working class. He did
> none of this. He moved to the right as fast as he could.
>
> Joanna
>
>
>
> ^^^^
>
> CB: Stimulus was not an issue during the 2008 campaign. It cannot be
> said that there was a huge grassroots support for a stimulus.
> Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of grassroots voters have no
> idea of what a "stimulus" is. A whole lot of them thought and think
> (stupidly yeah, but stubbornly such that they aren't going to think
> otherwise if Obama said it on television)that cutting the federal
> deficit is important for "helping" the economy. The Republicans were
> feverishly agitating this ignorance. it was a main plank in the Tea
> Party platform.
>
> Also, the Blue Dog Democrats, who were the reason the Democratic
> Congressional majority was not identical with Obama's majority, could
> easily say that they were elected on their own, and were not obligated
> to support the stimulus or public option in health care, etc. Obama
> could not pass a bigger stimulus without Congress. Period. Speaking
> as if Obama could have passed a larger stimulus is to ignore a
> fundamental rule of the checks and balances system.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk