From: Jim Devine <[email protected]>
> CB: ?Note that Congress is necessary to do social democracy. The idea > that Obama can just "do" social democracy is a left anti-Obama > exaggeration. The fact that CB didn't mention the role of the Supreme Court above says that he opposes rule by law.... No, that's not true. But it's equally ridiculous to say that I'm engaging in "left anti-Obama exaggeration." ^^^^^ CB: I thought about mentioning the Supreme Court, but I couldn't think of how the the Supreme Court would have as big a role as Congress, really first, and the President in "doing" social democracy. The issue of taking private property without just compensation might arise. But , I don't think the (any) Supreme Court would support the taking. There'd have to be a Constitutional Amendment ( See my "For a Constitutional Amendment for a Right to a Job"), which involves Congress and the state legislatures or conventions. I don't think what I said is ridiculous given the approximately 8 months of national rhetorical style of _only_ mentioning Obama for everything going messy. Obama is directly responsible for escalting the war in Afghanistan, but on that u have the military , which has its ways. Obama is solely responsible for his anti-teacher pro-charter school position. He doesn't need Congress not to have that position. ^^^^^ what I said was: >>I agree that Obama isn't going to do anything like social democracy unless he's forced to do so by popular pressure. << Congress is obviously part of this, since it wouldn't allow any kind of New Dealism (soft social democracy) without popular pressure on them, most likely from outside "normal channels." The Supreme Court would then try to gut any New Dealism that was passed. The people who Obama has appointed the the Supes don't change this conclusion. ^^^^ CB: The idea that Obama would appoint some social democrat/socialist as a Supreme Court Justice is a form of left-anti-Obamaism. It's takes the form of posing some radical idea that is not at all part of the current US political reality and banging Obama for not doing it, for not being a socialist, basically. It ignores the heavy duty rightwing attack of the last 8 months accusing O of being "socialist" for proposing mildly liberal reforms. These rightwing attacks , Tea Party and all that, have had the political field to themselves almost, and have gotten promotion by the media. There has been no "social democratic" or even liberal mass counter-attack. Basically, it is a demand that Obama commit political suicide for the socialist ideas of the tiny, tiny, I mean really tiny US left. By tiny , I mean they have no visible means of support in any mass of Americans. ^^^^^ BTW, I wouldn't expect Obama to even try to institute New Deal-type policies (unless pushed by the people), even though he currently has a majority in both houses of Congress. ^^^^^ CB: This is like you haven't been paying attention to the accurate characterization of the US Democratic Party and members of Congress given by just about everybody on these lists for he last ten years as a capitalist party, two faced, self-sabateurs, scoundrels Or not noticing how many socalled Blue Dog Democrats there are. Obama "the socialist" (ha) doesn't "have" the Congress. A large minority of the Democrats in Congress opposed the public option and better proposals. Obama has to get "the votes" to do anything. He doesn't control the members of Congress. Jacob Heilbrunn's review of Jonathan Alter's THE PROMISE in Sunday's NY TIMES Book Review says that Obama's perspective is one of Ivy League meritocracy, not populism or New Dealism. That fits all the evidence I've seen. Of course, he's just the POTUS and needs the consent of Congress and the SCOTUS. But he doesn't seem to be the type who would mobilize the citizens to oppose his opponents. ^^^^^ CB: He ran as a 2010 era liberal Democrat. That's basically a Clintonian, or slightly more liberal than Clinton, which is to say significantly removed from a New Deal liberal especially by the last thirty years of Reagnite dominance of US politics. This is characteristic of left anti-O'ism too. Ignore what he actually said during the campaign, which was CENTRIST-left, and then accuse him of not carrying out a social democratic program, which program was not what he campaigned on. There was mobilizing of citizens to support the Stimulus and the Healthcare. His perspective seems to be that of a pragmatist, trying to get majorities in the current US political reality and culture, which has no mass support for social democracy. ^^^^^^^^ Heilbrunn: "Obama himself had two sides -- Chicago community organizer and Ivy League meritocrat. The meritocrat won out... the contrast with Franklin Roosevelt, who heartily reciprocate the enmity of the privileged class from which he emerged, is striking." ^^^^^^^ CB: How snarky. One wonders ( ad hominem) what Heilbrunn's background is. Roosevelt had a completely opposite situation of mass political consciousness, mobilization etc. , although at the beginning of his term he was not that left. He _was_ from the elite and the mass situation forced him left. The fact that Obama went to Harvard law school does not get him into the elite on the level that Roosevelt was, as from a capitalist family. The simplemindedness of the analysis of O as a "meritocrat" is what's striking. Obama is a little American boy with his thumb in the US political oil pipe rupture, a kind of variation of the Sorcerer's apprentice , who can't control the forces he has taken on to control. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
