Andrew Sullivan: How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics

[Barry]

Here's a real good article from the Newsweek website that takes a fairly balanced view of Obama - Barry

Andrew Sullivan: How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics
https://www.thedailybeast.com/etc/cl...aily-beast.png

Jan 16, 2012 12:00 AM EST

The right calls him a socialist, the left says he sucks up to Wall Street, and independents think he's a wimp. Andrew Sullivan on how the president may just end up outsmarting them all. Plus, join Andrew live at 3:30PM ET for a live chat about this story.


You hear it everywhere. Democrats are disappointed in the president. Independents have soured even more. Republicans have worked themselves up into an apocalyptic fervor. And, yes, this is not exactly unusual.

A president in the last year of his first term will always get attacked mercilessly by his partisan opponents, and also, often, by the feistier members of his base. And when unemployment is at remarkably high levels, and with the national debt setting records, the criticism will—and should be—even fiercer. But this time, with this president, something different has happened. It’s not that I don’t understand the critiques of Barack Obama from the enraged right and the demoralized left. It’s that I don’t even recognize their description of Obama’s first term in any way. The attacks from both the right and the left on the man and his policies aren’t out of bounds. They’re simply—empirically—wrong.

A caveat: I write this as an unabashed supporter of Obama from early 2007 on. I did so not as a liberal, but as a conservative-minded independent appalled by the Bush administration’s record of war, debt, spending, and torture. I did not expect, or want, a messiah. I have one already, thank you very much. And there have been many times when I have disagreed with decisions Obama has made—to drop the Bowles-Simpson debt commission, to ignore the war crimes of the recent past, and to launch a war in Libya without Congress’s sanction, to cite three. But given the enormity of what he inherited, and given what he explicitly promised, it remains simply a fact that Obama has delivered in a way that the unhinged right and purist left have yet to understand or absorb. Their short-term outbursts have missed Obama’s long game—and why his reelection remains, in my view, as essential for this country’s future as his original election in 2008.

The right’s core case is that Obama has governed as a radical leftist attempting a “fundamental transformation” of the American way of life. Mitt Romney accuses the president of making the recession worse, of wanting to turn America into a European welfare state, of not believing in opportunity or free enterprise, of having no understanding of the real economy, and of apologizing for America and appeasing our enemies. According to Romney, Obama is a mortal threat to “the soul” of America and an empty suit who couldn’t run a business, let alone a country.

Leave aside the internal incoherence—how could such an incompetent be a threat to anyone? None of this is even faintly connected to reality—and the record proves it. On the economy, the facts are these. When Obama took office, the United States was losing around 750,000 jobs a month. The last quarter of 2008 saw an annualized drop in growth approaching 9 percent. This was the most serious downturn since the 1930s, there was a real chance of a systemic collapse of the entire global financial system, and unemployment and debt—lagging indicators—were about to soar even further. No fair person can blame Obama for the wreckage of the next 12 months, as the financial crisis cut a swath through employment. Economies take time to shift course.

But Obama did several things at once: he continued the bank bailout begun by George W. Bush, he initiated a bailout of the auto industry, and he worked to pass a huge stimulus package of $787 billion.

All these decisions deserve scrutiny. And in retrospect, they were far more successful than anyone has yet fully given Obama the credit for. The job collapse bottomed out at the beginning of 2010, as the stimulus took effect. Since then, the U.S. has added 2.4 million jobs. That’s not enough, but it’s far better than what Romney would have you believe, and more than the net jobs created under the entire Bush administration. In 2011 alone, 1.9 million private-sector jobs were created, while a net 280,000 government jobs were lost. Overall government employment has declined 2.6 percent over the past 3 years. (That compares with a drop of 2.2 percent during the early years of the Reagan administration.) To listen to current Republican rhetoric about Obama’s big-government socialist ways, you would imagine that the reverse was true. It isn’t.

The right claims the stimulus failed because it didn’t bring unemployment down to 8 percent in its first year, as predicted by Obama’s transition economic team. Instead, it peaked at 10.2 percent. But the 8 percent prediction was made before Obama took office and was wrong solely because it relied on statistics that guessed the economy was only shrinking by around 4 percent, not 9. Remove that statistical miscalculation (made by government and private-sector economists alike) and the stimulus did exactly what it was supposed to do. It put a bottom under the free fall. It is not an exaggeration to say it prevented a spiral downward that could have led to the Second Great Depression.

You’d think, listening to the Republican debates, that Obama has raised taxes. Again, this is not true. Not only did he agree not to sunset the Bush tax cuts for his entire first term, he has aggressively lowered taxes on most Americans. A third of the stimulus was tax cuts, affecting 95 percent of taxpayers; he has cut the payroll tax, and recently had to fight to keep it cut against Republican opposition. His spending record is also far better than his predecessor’s. Under Bush, new policies on taxes and spending cost the taxpayer a total of $5.07 trillion. Under Obama’s budgets both past and projected, he will have added $1.4 trillion in two terms. Under Bush and the GOP, nondefense discretionary spending grew by twice as much as under Obama. Again: imagine Bush had been a Democrat and Obama a Republican. You could easily make the case that Obama has been far more fiscally conservative than his predecessor—except, of course, that Obama has had to govern under the worst recession since the 1930s, and Bush, after the 2001 downturn, governed in a period of moderate growth. It takes work to increase the debt in times of growth, as Bush did. It takes much more work to constrain the debt in the deep recession Bush bequeathed Obama.

The great conservative bugaboo, Obamacare, is also far more moderate than its critics have claimed. The Congressional Budget Office has projected it will reduce the deficit, not increase it dramatically, as Bush’s unfunded Medicare Prescription Drug benefit did. It is based on the individual mandate, an idea pioneered by the archconservative Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich, and, of course, Mitt Romney, in the past. It does not have a public option; it gives a huge new client base to the drug and insurance companies; its health-insurance exchanges were also pioneered by the right. It’s to the right of the Clintons’ monstrosity in 1993, and remarkably similar to Nixon’s 1974 proposal. Its passage did not preempt recovery efforts; it followed them. It needs improvement in many ways, but the administration is open to further reform and has agreed to allow states to experiment in different ways to achieve the same result. It is not, as Romney insists, a one-model, top-down prescription. Like Obama’s Race to the Top education initiative, it sets standards, grants incentives, and then allows individual states to experiment. Embedded in it are also a slew of cost-reduction pilot schemes to slow health-care spending. Yes, it crosses the Rubicon of universal access to private health care. But since federal law mandates that hospitals accept all emergency-room cases requiring treatment anyway, we already obey that socialist principle—but in the most inefficient way possible. Making 44 million current free-riders pay into the system is not fiscally reckless; it is fiscally prudent. It is, dare I say it, conservative.

On foreign policy, the right-wing critiques have been the most unhinged. Romney accuses the president of apologizing for America, and others all but accuse him of treason and appeasement. Instead, Obama reversed Bush’s policy of ignoring Osama bin Laden, immediately setting a course that eventually led to his capture and death. And when the moment for decision came, the president overruled both his secretary of state and vice president in ordering the riskiest—but most ambitious—plan on the table. He even personally ordered the extra helicopters that saved the mission. It was a triumph, not only in killing America’s primary global enemy, but in getting a massive trove of intelligence to undermine al Qaeda even further. IF GEORGE BUSH HAD TAKEN OUT BIN LADEN, WIPED OUT AL QAEDA'S LEADERSHIP, AND GATHERED A TREASURE TROVE OF REAL INTELLIGENCE BY A DARING RAID, HE'D BE ON MOUNT RUSHMORE BY NOW. But where Bush talked tough and acted counterproductively, Obama has simply, quietly, relentlessly decimated our real enemies, while winning the broader propaganda war. Since he took office, al Qaeda’s popularity in the Muslim world has plummeted.

Obama’s foreign policy, like Dwight Eisenhower’s or George H.W. Bush’s, eschews short-term political hits for long-term strategic advantage. It is forged by someone interested in advancing American interests—not asserting an ideology and enforcing it regardless of the consequences by force of arms. By hanging back a little, by “leading from behind” in Libya and elsewhere, Obama has made other countries actively seek America’s help and reappreciate our role. As an antidote to the bad feelings of the Iraq War, it has worked close to perfectly.

But the right isn’t alone in getting Obama wrong. While the left is less unhinged in its critique, it is just as likely to miss the screen for the pixels. From the start, liberals projected onto Obama absurd notions of what a president can actually do in a polarized country, where anything requires 60 Senate votes even to stand a chance of making it into law. They have described him as a hapless tool of Wall Street, a continuation of Bush in civil liberties, a cloistered elitist unable to grasp the populist moment that is his historic opportunity. They rail against his attempts to reach a Grand Bargain on entitlement reform. They decry his too-small stimulus, his too-weak financial reform, and his too-cautious approach to gay civil rights. They despair that he reacts to rabid Republican assaults with lofty appeals to unity and compromise.

They miss, it seems to me, two vital things. The first is the simple scale of what has been accomplished on issues liberals say they care about. A depression was averted. The bail-out of the auto industry was—amazingly—successful. Even the bank bailouts have been repaid to a great extent by a recovering banking sector. The Iraq War—the issue that made Obama the nominee—has been ended on time and, vitally, with no troops left behind. Defense is being cut steadily, even as Obama has moved his own party away from a Pelosi-style reflexive defense of all federal entitlements. Under Obama, support for marriage equality and marijuana legalization has crested to record levels. Under Obama, a crucial state, New York, made marriage equality for gays an irreversible fact of American life. Gays now openly serve in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act is dying in the courts, undefended by the Obama Justice Department. Vast government money has been poured into noncarbon energy investments, via the stimulus. Fuel-emission standards have been drastically increased. Torture was ended. Two moderately liberal women replaced men on the Supreme Court. Oh, yes, and the liberal holy grail that eluded Johnson and Carter and Clinton, nearly universal health care, has been set into law. Politifact recently noted that of 508 specific promises, a third had been fulfilled and only two have not had some action taken on them. To have done all this while simultaneously battling an economic hurricane makes Obama about as honest a follow-through artist as anyone can expect from a politician.

What liberals have never understood about Obama is that he practices a show-don’t-tell, long-game form of domestic politics. What matters to him is what he can get done, not what he can immediately take credit for. And so I railed against him for the better part of two years for dragging his feet on gay issues. But what he was doing was getting his Republican defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to move before he did. The man who made the case for repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” was, in the end, Adm. Mike Mullen. This took time—as did his painstaking change in the rule barring HIV-positive immigrants and tourists—but the slow and deliberate and unprovocative manner in which it was accomplished made the changes more durable. Not for the first time, I realized that to understand Obama, you have to take the long view. Because he does.

Or take the issue of the banks. Liberals have derided him as a captive of Wall Street, of being railroaded by Larry Summers and Tim Geithner into a too-passive response to the recklessness of the major U.S. banks. But it’s worth recalling that at the start of 2009, any responsible president’s priority would have been stabilization of the financial system, not the exacting of revenge. Obama was not elected, despite liberal fantasies, to be a left-wing crusader. He was elected as a pragmatic, unifying reformist who would be more responsible than Bush.

And what have we seen? A recurring pattern. To use the terms Obama first employed in his inaugural address: the president begins by extending a hand to his opponents; when they respond by raising a fist, he demonstrates that they are the source of the problem; then, finally, he moves to his preferred position of moderate liberalism and fights for it without being effectively tarred as an ideologue or a divider. This kind of strategy takes time. And it means there are long stretches when Obama seems incapable of defending himself, or willing to let others to define him, or simply weak. I remember those stretches during the campaign against Hillary Clinton. I also remember whose strategy won out in the end.

This is where the left is truly deluded. By misunderstanding Obama’s strategy and temperament and persistence, by grandstanding on one issue after another, by projecting unrealistic fantasies onto a candidate who never pledged a liberal revolution, they have failed to notice that from the very beginning, Obama was playing a long game. He did this with his own party over health-care reform. He has done it with the Republicans over the debt. He has done it with the Israeli government over stopping the settlements on the West Bank—and with the Iranian regime, by not playing into their hands during the Green Revolution, even as they gunned innocents down in the streets. Nothing in his first term—including the complicated multiyear rollout of universal health care—can be understood if you do not realize that Obama was always planning for eight years, not four. And if he is reelected, he will have won a battle more important than 2008: for it will be a mandate for an eight-year shift away from the excesses of inequality, overreach abroad, and reckless deficit spending of the last three decades. It will recapitalize him to entrench what he has done already and make it irreversible.

Yes, Obama has waged a war based on a reading of executive power that many civil libertarians, including myself, oppose. And he has signed into law the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (even as he pledged never to invoke this tyrannical power himself). But he has done the most important thing of all: excising the cancer of torture from military detention and military justice. If he is not reelected, that cancer may well return. Indeed, many on the right appear eager for it to return.

Sure, Obama cannot regain the extraordinary promise of 2008. We’ve already elected the nation’s first black president and replaced a tongue-tied dauphin with a man of peerless eloquence. And he has certainly failed to end Washington’s brutal ideological polarization, as he pledged to do. But most Americans in polls rightly see him as less culpable for this impasse than the GOP. Obama has steadfastly refrained from waging the culture war, while the right has accused him of a “war against religion.” He has offered to cut entitlements (and has already cut Medicare), while the Republicans have refused to raise a single dollar of net revenue from anyone. Even the most austerity-driven government in Europe, the British Tories, are to the left of that. And it is this Republican intransigence—from the 2009 declaration by Rush Limbaugh that he wants Obama “to fail” to the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s admission that his primary objective is denying Obama a second term—that has been truly responsible for the deadlock. And the only way out of that deadlock is an electoral rout of the GOP, since the language of victory and defeat seems to be the only thing it understands.

If I sound biased, that’s because I am. Biased toward the actual record, not the spin; biased toward a president who has conducted himself with grace and calm under incredible pressure, who has had to manage crises not seen since the Second World War and the Depression, and who as yet has not had a single significant scandal to his name. “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle,” George Orwell once wrote. What I see in front of my nose is a president whose character, record, and promise remain as grotesquely underappreciated now as they were absurdly hyped in 2008. And I feel confident that sooner rather than later, the American people will come to see his first term from the same calm, sane perspective. And decide to finish what they started.

[phloem]

Here's another perspective, from John Pilger, on Obama and the U. S. (and British) track record on foreign affairs.

https://www.truth-out.org/world-war-...acy/1326986241

In my humble opinion, defending Obama and his record is akin to treason, a betrayal of the American ideal of democracy, and a symptom of sociopathy. I have no idea how anyone can defend this monster, who functions to perpetuate the totalitarian corporate and military violence that is bludgeoning the entire world. Voting (supporting, apologizing, deifying, etc.) for Obama -- any consideration of the equally debased alternative from the other side of the ball of sewage that is American presidential politics aside -- is lunacy, and I take support for Obama as a personal affront. If you care about people and the state of this planet, you cannot -- short of mental incapacity and delusion -- lend any support whatsoever to this lying, mocking war criminal. I'm personally fed up with seeing justifications for this inhumane corporate killer on Wacco!

[geomancer]

Wow! That's some major smack talk. This kind of over-the-top raging is entertaining in its own twisted way, so let me see if I can stir up some more.

Last month I gave Obama $50.00 - so please do feel affronted, be my guest, rock out, spew invective, gnash your teeth, misuse language, rant, insult me again in private, whatever your angry heart desires. It's not that I have any great love for many of Obama's policies, far from it, but the alternative is far, far worse. Have you noticed what is going on in Hungary right now?

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/w...pagewanted=all

This kind of descent into full on authoritarianism could happen here if we give the Republicans complete control. Get a grip - there is more to politics than foreign affairs.

Also: vitriol breeds snark!

Here's another perspective, from John Pilger, on Obama and the U. S. (and British) track record on foreign affairs.

https://www.truth-out.org/world-war-...acy/1326986241

In my humble opinion, defending Obama and his record is akin to treason, a betrayal of the American ideal of democracy, and a symptom of sociopathy. I have no idea how anyone can defend this monster, who functions to perpetuate the totalitarian corporate and military violence that is bludgeoning the entire world. Voting (supporting, apologizing, deifying, etc.) for Obama -- any consideration of the equally debased alternative from the other side of the ball of sewage that is American presidential politics aside -- is lunacy, and I take support for Obama as a personal affront. If you care about people and the state of this planet, you cannot -- short of mental incapacity and delusion -- lend any support whatsoever to this lying, mocking war criminal. I'm personally fed up with seeing justifications for this inhumane corporate killer on Wacco!

[phloem]

Of course you have every right to support a war criminal, a corporate-beholden collaborator in authoritarianism and repression. You can continue deluding yourself that Obama's crimes are permissible, because in your denialism he's better than any alternative, although that's a capitulation to defeatism in itself. As for foreign and domestic policy, one drives the other, and if this nation weren't out killing and destroying the rest of the world, we could provide homes, jobs, education, and public health care, and provide for an environment not sacrificed on the altar of corporate profits. What has Obama done to promote any of the values any sane person would support?

The rest of the world is watching, and I'm far from alone in my assertion that Obama is part of the problem with a world that doesn't work for the vast majority.

Snark invites ridicule, and your reasoning is empty and vacuous!

[theindependenteye]

>>>Of course you have every right to support a war criminal, a corporate-beholden collaborator in authoritarianism and repression.

Thanks. Will do.

>>>You can continue deluding yourself that Obama's crimes are permissible, because in your denialism he's better than any alternative, although that's a capitulation to defeatism in itself.

As far as I can see, Defeatism isn't running for President, nor is the Son of God. People run for President who make an infinitude of compromises if they have the remotest chance of being elected — in part because of big money; in part because the President isn't yet the all-powerful dictator or the Big Daddy that both the far Left and the far Right seem to crave; in part because truly radical change requires either decades of slow chipping away at the granite or else decades of violent revolutionary chaos that invariably results in something far worse.

I'm critical of Obama on any number of policy points — and some of those "policy points" mean the death of human beings — but the Titanic doesn't turn on a dime, especially when half the crew are doing their best to scuttle the ship.

The language here seems to be identical with Gingrich, who's called Obama the most dangerous President in history, or something like that. So perhaps there is a candidate who would pass muster with true progressives. I'm trying to think of one President, ever, who wouldn't be subject to the same fascist-war-criminal charges. I'm quite sure you could make a good college try even with Carter — whose supreme crime, perhaps, was losing to Reagan.

>>>As for foreign and domestic policy, one drives the other, and if this nation weren't out killing and destroying the rest of the world, we could provide homes, jobs, education, and public health care, and provide for an environment not sacrificed on the altar of corporate profits. What has Obama done to promote any of the values any sane person would support?

I know it's pointless to enumerate, as that invariably opens the floodgates to 10 pp of rebuttal, and I don't have time to keep up my end of the pissing match. But since the question was asked: A stimulus package that was less than adequate, full of holes, and that nevertheless (most economists believe) helped to prevent catastrophic economic collapse (granted that paints me as one of those deluded Quislings that don't want catastrophic economic collapse). Support of an inadequate but nevertheless beneficial health care bill. Minor actions regarding gay rights. Overall, a less Lone Ranger stance in foreign policy. Some progressive actions in environmental policies. Small dents in the wars. An attempt to close Guantanamo despite being blocked at every turn. Appointing relatively liberal Supreme Court justices. ... That should offer enough targets for a while.

I'm completely in agreement with the "don't kill the rest of the world" part, and I'd vote for a candidate who combined the analytic powers of Marx, the consensus spirit of the Quakers, and the good intentions of Jesus of Nazareth, if he/she also had the sleazy political skills of Lyndon Johnson. Till then, it's a matter of the best of the lot.

Peace & joy—
Conrad

["Mad" Miles]

I just want to say I love this thread! I see valid points on both sides of this binary oppositional divide. And it reminds of the "good 'ol days" of "The Store Wars" in The Open University of The Left in Chicago, 1987-1993, before the momentum burnt out, and I was purged from the New World Resource Center collective at a packed meeting during the fall "Advance".

(The bookstore collective didn't have a "Retreat", it had an "Advance", since militant Leftists of all stripes never retreat!!!)

Rock On Guys! This is great entertainment!

(Minimum of snark intended or consciously implied. I can't speak for my unconscious.)

[phloem]

As strongly as I feel about the injustice and unacceptable crimes perpetrated by the U. S. government, including Obama (not discounting the roles of Congress, past presidents, lobbyists, the military, et al. across 235 years of American history and thousands of years of human inhumanity to humans), at the expense of most of the world's multitude of inhabitants, I'm not going to prolong it beyond this parting rant (sorry, Miles!). I don't have the power to alter the thinking, or lack thereof, of others. I also simply don't understand the self-dealing that one must apparently engage to justify wanton and reckless decisions -- by oneself or by others -- that result in avoidable human suffering. I also have grown weary of typing one-handed (no pity, perhaps other than for my own resolute and inflexible political opinions!) in futile attempts to provoke reasoned responses to my assertions. I haven't seen one yet -- and won't continue with a pissing match or in beating my head against the essentially impregnable wall of apologies and excuses for war crimes and American imperialism and brutality. Tangentially, changing the subject to what's happening in Hungary is irrelevant to the topic of Obama's record and policies.

As for my earlier statement about being "fed up" with Obama cheerleading, on Waccobb.net and elsewhere, I would add that I find the acceptance of any candidate who prolongs illegal wars, increases the use of drones, entertains the expansion of the nuclear power industry, assassinates American citizens (or anyone else for that matter) . . . well, I suppose going on is pointless, it's all there to read to anyone who cares to stay informed . . . I find that vestiges of that type of tolerance for the truly obscene repulsive. Sometimes I think I'm reading CNN or the New York Times, that bastion of corporate sensibility and mouthpiece to propaganda. Well, looks like I am!

I will admit to being an idealist, even inspired by the quaint notion of utopianism. I guess this is an opportunity for education for myself, in that even a more-or-less self-proclaimed "progressive" discussion site like Wacco still includes a preponderance of attitudes of entitlement, exceptionalism, smugness, denial, tolerance of the rapacious status-quo western corporatism, ecological ignorance, and lack of compassion for those who die and unnecessarily suffer so we can sit in comfort to debate the merits of the leader of the machinery of repression and injustice. I pay my taxes (at least to date), and in doing so, do my ugly part in sustaining the injustice and inhumanity. And my soul is tattered and despondent, and pray in my own way that the universe will find the mercy for me and others that we ourselves seem to lack for our fellow beings.

In the meantime, I find "settling" for political and social backsliding into the depths of human depravity, in the person of Obama or any other presumptuous excuse for a human being, a sad and sorry concession to "practicality," when practicality looks bleaker for most of the world's people every day passing.

Now, does any other knee-jerk apologist for Obama want to tell me I sound like Newt Gingrich?

[geomancer]

I have fond memories of my days as a member of the Cornell Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (ban-the-bomb !) in 1960-62. The group was an odd mixture of Old Left types, Quakers (me), Unitarians and the Jewish children of refugees from WWII. One meeting fell apart over a vicious dispute over weather we should advocate "de jure" or "de facto" recognition of East Germany (why? who knows). I think "de facto" won after an endless argument, and the losers stormed out in a rage. After I graduated our chapter was disbanded by Norman Cousins and the national SANE office once they got wind of the large number of Marxists in the group. The Left eats its own.

I just want to say I love this thread! I see valid points on both sides of this binary oppositional divide. And it reminds of the "good 'ol days" of "The Store Wars" in The Open University of The Left in Chicago, 1987-1993, before the momentum burnt out, and I was purged from the New World Resource Center collective at a packed meeting during the fall "Advance".

(The bookstore collective didn't have a "Retreat", it had an "Advance", since militant Leftists of all stripes never retreat!!!)

Rock On Guys! This is great entertainment!

(Minimum of snark intended or consciously implied. I can't speak for my unconscious.)

["Mad" Miles]

Phloem,

In great part I'm on the same page as you. Appearances to the contrary I don't spend a lot of time and energy discussing or debating politics here on waccobb.net. I do more of my advocacy and organizing (when I used to organize actions and campaigns) on Facebook and long before that via political email lists (and meetings in Meat World).

Over the years I've found this site to not be a good venue for political effort (with the sole exception of information sharing, if that) to the extent one can know it. You list many of the reasons why. Most of the people here are either not interested in radical left political organizing and campaigns, or are advocates of regressive or conventional political schemes.

One has only so much time to spend, and throwing it away on futile efforts, in spite of my minority views and interests, seems wasteful. I'll chime in with relevant information, for those interested, but debating True Believers of any political or spiritual persuasion? Futile for the most part. Perhaps silent observers are given alternative perspectives, but one never knows. When I do engage, it is mostly for my own amusement and congenital need to express myself, not with any expectation it will make a whit of difference.

Now, for communicating about LOCAL politics, waccobb is unbeatable. But for national and international issues, there are more fruitful fields to plow. You will find many who agree with you at the Peace & Justice Center of Sonoma County, in The Green Party, in the Copwatch/Free Mind Media/Food Not Bombs scene in Santa Rosa. If you're not already hip, contact me privately and I'll give you the relevant info.

Geomancer,

You're right, the Left does eat our own! But every year a new crop of naifs comes along so there's plenty to chew on! And some of them make it through, and stick it out for the long haul. Just a few.

I always have to laugh when alarmists on the Right paint the Left with a broad brush as if we're all of one mind and intent. What a joke. If they only knew! Course, they don't want to know, they just want an Other to scare children with.

Too many Marxists? Which kind? Given the variety of competing and incompatible positions, it's hard to figure out what the problem is... Other than resigned boredom once one is familiar with the territory.

For me the Zen Marxists are the serious threat. They tend to be very quiet, unassuming and are therefore hard to spot when they're coming. They make Marxist-Leninists look like pikers!

[theindependenteye]

So to move this into possibly less explosive territory, I wonder if those who equate Obama with Hitler and who have total contempt for anyone presuming to vote for him could say what you're actually doing to change the policies of the government. AND whether you regard the results of the forthcoming election irrelevant.

-Conrad

[Bobcat]

Thank you everyone! so refreshing to see vibrant alive people discussing with intensity and with a broader view than lefty or righty or "middly" knee jerking. Almost every post is well reasoned with caveats and some humilty. None of us know all the answers. I think most people in this county basically agree that this government is being run by lobbyists and that noone can get elected anymore unless they play the big money game, and that is the real problem: American democray gets bought out by massive capitalism every day now.Its always nice to read that our country is being well run by a man with deep principles. ...and then we are given the argument of voting for the least of two evils. BUT ISNT THAT HOW WE GOT INTO THIS HORRIBLE MESS?We have seen under Obama:torture IS STILL happening, Patrick Manning's unconcionable treatment and Obama proclaims him guilty even before his "trial" - and our combined silence assures no more Patrick Mannings will ever dare come forward... ...drones now kill anyone worldwide (including here in the US ?) The Patriot Act has been reinstated without a single word, or even a single revision, from Obama Homeland Security has just admitted to reading anyones emails for no reason of suspicion whatsoever, and Obama says nothing...and now its "legal" for the US Govt to "disappear" anyone who does not agree with The State...(whoever is a suspected potential terrorist, a sympathizer or an imagined threat..and Obama said nothing against this and now its a law...)Obama is a Constitutional scholar yet he DID NOT speak out against any of these blatantly Unconstitutional transgressions. Fear is a control mechanism used to justify anything now.Maybe its too much to ask a President to stop the madness.just look at the House and Senate... We could ask:Why is it OK for the State to become a total control freak? Maybe its good for the economy, or at least some peoples paychecks...

[ubaru]

Excuse me, but the Emperor wears no clothes.

Liz

[NathanSW]

The only thing I want to add to this very lively discussion is that we live in a representative democracy, which means that our leaders represent more than any one person, group, or ideology. I remember when Bush was president and John Bolton insisted on The Daily Show that Bush's job was to represent only those who voted for him -- not all American citizens. I was repulsed, for obvious reasons. By the same token, I do not expect Obama to represent only the interests of myself and the 64 million people who elected him; I also expect him to do his best to serve the interests of the other 240 million citizens of our nation, including those who voted for McCain.

The truth of the matter is that we get the government that we deserve, and as much as I wish they would stop, Right-wingers vote. A lot. I can look at this country and come up with literally hundreds of ideas to make this a far more fair, equitable, sustainable, peaceful, and prosperous nation. But I believe in democracy, because I believe it is better to give people the power to make mistakes than it is to disenfranchise them, and in this democracy there are millions of people who just don't understand how destructive their desired policies are. Do I want our president to kow-tow to these destructive elements in our society? No. But do I blame him for the fact that the "line of best fit" often includes a lot of the BS that human beings have perpetuated for millennia? Also, no.

There is a lot not to like about Obama's first term, but as Andrew Sullivan rightly points out, if you take a step back from your emotional reactivity and actually look at his record AS A WHOLE, there is a LOT of good that he's done, at a time of unprecedented, multi-dimensional crises. If you can look at his record and hate him for it, you are either an extreme Right-winger, or just plain unrealistic in your idealism.

["Mad" Miles]

"The truth of the matter is that we get the government that we deserve..."

I am so sick of that platitude that when I see it I want to puke. There is no "truth" or "matter" there. Only one who thinks that elections are what determine the way our lives are shaped and how government operates, can even think that.

I've got news for you if you're one such person. The government is shaped by social and economic forces, inherited attitudes and habits, things which have little to do with the conscious decisions of the vast majority of people in this country, and in many ways not even by the powerful elites.

The government we get is only "chosen" in the most superficial sense of that word. And who's "we" kimosabay?!

I deserve a government that respects human rights, walks its own talk and a lot of other things, many of them outlined in the Constitution, particularly but not solely in those first ten amendments.

We all deserve such a government, whatever that may look like if it ever really comes into existence. Having spent a significant part of my life so far making an effort to get that, with little substantial result, please don't insult me or my intelligence by saying this is what I "deserve".

It's an excuse for the status quo. Which I've never particularly liked.

What exactly does it mean to even say, "a government we deserve"? Empty rhetoric. A pacifier. I, for one, am not a baby. And I'm certainly not pacified.

[NathanSW]

"The truth of the matter is that we get the government that we deserve..."

I am so sick of that platitude that when I see it I want to puke. There is no "truth" or "matter" there. Only one who thinks that elections are what determine the way our lives are shaped and how government operates, can even think that.

Not true, or at least not true of me. I believe that it is the aggregate of ALL choices made by a nation of citizens that determines the way our lives are shaped and how government operates. This includes -- but is by no means limited to -- voting. The French Revolution wasn't a vote at the ballot box, it was an armed overthrow of the aristocracy. It was also bloodthirsty, and the French nation suffered for all the scholars they killed along with the tyrants, and later got themselves a Napoleon or two. All governments they deserved at the time.

The government we get is only "chosen" in the most superficial sense of that word.

Hmmmm... Seems to me that government can't exist unless there are at least a few humans around to create and maintain it, and such actions flow exclusively from human choices (including the decision not to "rock the boat"). Unless the government somehow chooses itself, separate from human input; or maybe aliens are making all the choices, but choices lead to consequences, and government is just one consequence of all those collective choices.

And who's "we" kimosabay?!

All of us.

please don't insult me or my intelligence by saying this is what I "deserve".

I wouldn't dream of it. And in fact, I never actually said that this government is what *you* deserve, I said it is what *we* deserve. I don't deserve this government any more than you do, but I don't see myself as fundamentally separate from the rest of the world, and it is this sense of interconnectedness that informs my politics, so I accept that I am a part of what we have -- good, bad, or indifferent. This is the point of everything else I wrote, that our government represents ALL of us, not just one person -- not you or anyone else. If you don't like the fact that millions of Americans want something completely different from what you want, tough. Suck it up. Do your best to move things in the right direction, but never lose sight of the fact that you are just one small part of a larger collective process. If you do, you'll only end up angry and resentful, ready to puke on anyone who suggests that human choices are the cause of human consequences.

It's an excuse for the status quo.

Quite the contrary. Accepting reality for what it is makes it far more likely that you can actually change it, so for me, accepting the fact that I play some role in the way things play out -- whether it be large or small, through action or inaction -- helps me to stay focused on what I can and should do to make things very un-status-quo-like.

If instead you see yourself as a victim of these larger forces, it will be a lot easier to overlook the ways in which you are contributing to the problem, if only subtly. Since I am absolutely serious about making a positive change to the world, even subtle contributions to the status quo are unacceptable to me. Therefore, believing that we get the government we deserve doesn't paralyze me, it galvanizes me.

Anyway, what did you think about the rest of what I wrote?

["Mad" Miles]

All good responses to my screed NathanSW. At a certain level of abstraction I agree with you. The macro level I prefer to operate at gives more weight to the ways cultural and economic systems operate over the long run, and how individual and group consciousness (social theory consciousness, not Woo consciousness. They're not the same thing.) are both consequences and causes in the way societies evolve and change. So I see a different set of understandings with regard to Social Theory between us. I've been debating popular music, Tibetan politics and history and a few other things political online for the last thirteen hours so I'm too knackered to give a full response here and now.

As for your remarks about The Obamanator. Your's is the popular Liberal view. I'm not a Liberal, I'm a radical democrat (system/process, not party). Your and Sullivan's thoughts are one way to look at his term so far. But it leaves out too much relevant and salient information for my taste. And what any of us thinks, is irrelevant to his reelection at this point. It's in the bag, barring a complete global economic meltdown. (Not outside the bounds of possibility. I hope it doesn't happen. I fear it quite likely will in the near to mid-term, 1-10 years. Hope for the best, or at least something endurable, prepare for the worst.)

Maybe later today I'll explain myself better. Although I've been quite vocal on these matters here, for years. Check out my stuff. Thread titles are fairly good guides for the content therein, but not exhaustive.

[NathanSW]

Thanks Mad Miles for your considered response and willingness to engage positively. I'm not exactly sure where I really stand on the spectrum of Left-Right politics. Generally I believe that any system can work, as long as the people involved are honest and truly want everyone to be prosperous; and by the same token, all systems will eventually fail so long as human greed and violence rot the human heart. On OKCupid, my political test score comes out "Socialist," but I don't think that's radical enough for where I would really take things if circumstances permitted. I do think of myself as a pragmatist though, which tends to pull me to the center, just so I can have a conversation with the other side and maybe find some common ground. Still, I appreciate those who push for more, because we should have totally awesome government, and the push from the far Left is vital to creating that.

I look forward to our future discussions. :)

Cheers,
Nathan

["Mad" Miles]

"Generally I believe that any system can work, as long as the people involved are honest and truly want everyone to be prosperous; and by the same token, all systems will eventually fail so long as human greed and violence rot the human heart."

Nathan, that is the crux of where I suspect you and I disagree. Because, as limited as it is and things are always more complicated, I fall into the, "system defines the limits of possibility, it shapes the choices available to us.", school of thought. And that's why I've focused my efforts as an activist, when I exert such efforts which isn't all the time, on explaining and pushing for systemic change. The broad choices being regression, conservation, reform, revolution or evolution. I tend to focus on the last two with gestures towards reform. Everything is complicated.

I spent twelve years, from 1975-1987 reading Social and Political Philosophy/Theory. Then I stopped because things were getting repetitive, it's hard stuff to focus on and understand, until you see the same patterns coming back around and it wasn't going to become my profession.

I've kept my hand in, in the broad strokes, ever since. So, I suggest you do some reading! It's really interesting. It will change your perspective, for the better. Or at least for the more nuanced, interesting and flexible.

I didn't exclusively read Neo/Post-Marxist, Frankfurt School, Post-Structuralist, Deconstructionist, Heideggerian and Situationist authors and ideas, but I read a lot of that. I also read critiques from the right and from the hard old left. I still, as I said, follow developments loosely.

I also strongly recommend this macro-economic lecture by Richard Wolff. He lays out the basic tragectory of our economy since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution up to two years ago. And gives his very informed opinion on where, if anywhere, we have to go from here.

As for individuals power and control over systems, systemic outcomes, etc.. Huge topic, one that without a background in the areas of opinion I've listed, one really doesn't know much. I know that sounds elitist and arrogant, but if you knew what I knew, it would just be a statement of fact.

The stuff, while difficult and abstruse sometimes, is actually fun, once you get used to how the language works.

https://blip.tv/zgraphix/capitalism-...ltdown-5834895


P.S. As to where anyone "stands" politically (I mostly sit these days!?) I've found The Political Compass to work pretty well. Although I would add a third axis for Social Conservative to Social Revolutionary to make it even more complete, and three dimensional. I'll "get right on it"!

https://www.politicalcompass.org/index

[NathanSW]

Thanks for the info, and no I don't think you're elitist or arrogant for knowing what you know. I have done more than your average amount of research on these topics, and I'm really good at extrapolating relevant ideas and theories from limited information, but I'm sure I cannot hold a candle to the amount of information that you've processed on these matters. Anti-intellectual, I am not.

I also have to backtrack/qualify the statement of mine that you quoted, because I agree that every system has an upper limit to the potential for shared prosperity. An "enlightened" feudal system will never outperform even an "unenlightened" capitalist system, much less an "enlightened" capitalist system. Setting people up for success will always work better than intentionally limiting or suppressing them.

However, I don't care how great any system is, if enough people within it are looking to use/corrupt it for their own personal gain, the system will eventually collapse. I think that's pretty obvious, but if I'm still missing something, let me know.

["Mad" Miles]

It comes down to the debate about human "nature" vs. social context. A big, perennial topic of discussion.

Late for a meet-up with family and a Ron Paul supporter who's friends with my niece. I intend to ask questions before he gets an earful. Gotta run!

[geomancer]

I just finished listening to the Richard Wolff lecture - lucid, succinct, highly recommended, he is a master.

Thanks.

What else have you got?

Richard

this macro-economic lecture by Richard Wolff[/URL]. He lays out the basic tragectory of our economy since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution up to two years ago. And gives his very informed opinion on where, if anywhere, we have to go from here.

As for individuals power and control over systems, systemic outcomes, etc.. Huge topic, one that without a background in the areas of opinion I've listed, one really doesn't know much. I know that sounds elitist and arrogant, but if you knew what I knew, it would just be a statement of fact.

The stuff, while difficult and abstruse sometimes, is actually fun, once you get used to how the language works.

https://blip.tv/zgraphix/capitalism-...ltdown-5834895


P.S. As to where anyone "stands" politically (I mostly sit these days!?) I've found The Political Compass to work pretty well. Although I would add a third axis for Social Conservative to Social Revolutionary to make it even more complete, and three dimensional. I'll "get right on it"!

https://www.politicalcompass.org/index


[/FONT][/SIZE]