From: Jim Devine I hesitate to post this, since (as far as I can see) the discussion is based on a misunderstanding: I was trying to analyze the political situation, trying to understand what's going on and what to expect. CB misinterpreted this as a personal attack on Obama and so doesn't understand much of what I was saying (and seems to think that I agree with everything that another pen-pal says about Obama). If the reader isn't interested, feel free to hit "discard" now. Sorry to clutter your in-box.
^^^^^^^ CB; I interpreted your comments as political , not personal , criticism of Obama. Mine was a political comment, not a personal comment or a comment on Obama's person or personality. ^^^^^ Jim D: The Supremes knocked down a lot of the New Deal legislation. It thus seems pretty relevant, just as it's relevant that Obama is pushing someone who seems to be to the right of himself politically as his appointment to the SCOTUS. ^^^^^ CB: In the following I indicated the Supreme Court might be relevant in stopping social democratic measures: "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." During the New Deal the Supreme Court struck New Deal legislation down based on the old "Substantive Due Process" theory. That is capute. I'd say the Court would now most likely use the Takings Clause to strike down social democratic legislation, but they'd find something. So, in other words, if you read everything I said in my response , I agreed with your hypothesis on the Supreme Court not supporting social democratic legislation. ^^^^^ CB: > 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.< Jim D: I see nothing wrong with talking about what Obama wants and does, since it's clear to adults that what he asks for and gets is constrained by other political forces. Similarly, I don't have to mention gravity when I talk about something falling down. CB: I very much disagree that huge masses of US adults are clear that Obama is constrained by the rightwing in Congress, especially the Democratic rightwing. The media has allowed it to be portrayed that Obama is can force Congressional Democrats to follow his lead. Most US adults are really not clear on the role of gravity in things falling to earth, either. ^^^^^^^ It's also clear that he's a product of the environment that he grew up in and the ranks that he rose in. So he's going to appoint more people like Summers and Geithner, i.e., "experts" or "technocrats" who accept the capitalist system and even most of the neoliberal institutional overlay of more recent origin without question. As I've said, that's better than appointing Brownie's ilk. Also, from a leftist perspective, that attachment to "technocrats" is more harmful when it comes to economic issues than to, say, FEMA. ^^^^^^^ CB: I don't think that's caused so much by the environment he grew up in as by the pragmatic political realities in the US today. There is no mass base for his "doing" social democracy. As he said during the campaign, change comes from the bottom up. There is no bottom up mass movement for social democratic change .... yet (smile). ^^^^^^^ Because of his technocratic attitudes, we might see him as constraining the more "progressive" members of Congress, i.e., as an obstacle to the kinds of programs that enthusiastic Obama-fans were looking for back in 2008. In short-hand, at least for left-DP issues, it's Obama that's limiting Pelosi more than vice-versa. ^^^^^^^ CB: That should be "_some_ enthusiastic Obama-fans". Most who voted for Obama were not progessive. His mass base is not progressive. I don't agree that his attitude is technocratic ( is this neo-Galbraithian analysis ?). His political "attitude" is pragmatic. Always has been since running for President , and probably Senator. ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ BTW, while some pen-pals (who shall remain nameless) are into criticizing Obama because they hate him, my purposes are simply to help us understanding what's going on and what to expect. I don't believe in the "Great Man" theory of history, so I see no reason to either adulate or denounce him. I also see no reason why efforts to understand what's going on should be interpreted as personal attacks on Obama. ^^^^^^^ CB: U misunderstand me when you say I think your comments are personal attacks. I think they are political criticisms of him as President, which is a major political institution. You are criticizing his "Presidency" ,not his person. ^^^^^^^^^^ BTW2, he seems like a nice guy. I wouldn't mind having him live next door. A good person, but even the acts and attitudes of good people are shaped and limited by political forces. ^^^^^^^ CB: See above. I didn't think you were saying he's not a nice guy. I thought you were talking about his role as a major political institution. ^^^^^^^^^^ me: >> 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 now: > 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. < I never said that Obama would appoint social democrats. I am not stupid. (Please quote me on this issue instead of making blanket insults.) Rather, one can understand what's going on better if one looks at issues such as who BHO appoints to the SCOTUS. ^^^^^^^^^ CB; I don't think u can tell how Sotomeyer or _____ will vote if these issues come up in the future. Earl Warren was a Republican Governor who one wouldn't expect would lead the reversal of _Plessy vs Ferguson_.. If u can get Congress to pass social democratic reforms, the Obama appointees might very well uphold them. ^^^^^^^^^^ CB: > 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.< And I've never minimized the right-wing attacks (and I don't know where the impression that I did so came from). As should be clear from what I write, I care more about the social forces behind politics than the personalities (such as Obama's). It's true that the pro-Obama forces (or those establishmentarian forces that want Obama to lean to the left) have been pretty anemic of late, partly because of their marriage to the DP. ^^^^^^^^^ CB: I haven't discussed personalities or Obama's personalties It should also be clear that I , too, am discussing the social and poltical forces involved. Not discussing the right wing attacks is "minimizing" them in the context of this thread. ^^^^^^^^^ The needed "counterattack" that I would see is the "popular pressure ... most likely from outside 'normal channels'" that I mentioned above. (On this point, I am Jimmy-One-Note.) This is clearly pretty weak, partly (but not solely) because so many "progressives" think that the Democratic Party is the be-all and end-all of politics, so that we should waste time defending Obama. ^^^^^^^^ CB: Counter attack or "popular pressure" outside electoral politics isn't going to cause social democratic moves in the Congress. ^^^^^^^^^ > 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.< I wasn't "demanding" anything. Please look at the signature line so you know who you are replying to. ^^^^^^^^ CB; Advocating it, then. Suggesting it. ^^^^^^^^^ me: >> 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.<< Here, this is one place where I made it very clear that I "never said that Obama would appoint social democrats." ^^^^^^^^ CB: How are u saying he would do social democracy or make social democratic moves ? ^^^^^^ 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.< He has more power than anyone else concerning what Congress does. ^^^^ CB: But that more power doesn't amount to control; ^^^^^ In addition, at least according to a lot of pundits, he could have been doing more to mobilize Congress for his programs than he has been doing. ^^^^^ CB: I don't know that these pundits are correct ^^^^ He also seems to forget that if you want something from the political process, you have to ask for more than you expect to get: if he had asked for single-payer for example, it would have likely evoked exactly the same kind of opposition but he would have gotten a better health-care reform than he actually got. ^^^^^^^^^ CB: I don't know if this is true. Might be. This is a lawyer negotiating theory, but I don't know if it applies to this dynamic. I'd say he is basically not Lyndon Johnson, and there probably is even less respect for him by Congress than any past President. He's a junior , new Senator , and Black (smile) ^^^^ In any event, it is a total distortion to say that I "haven't been paying attention," etc. One of the _reasons_ that >> I wouldn't expect Obama to even try to institute New Deal-type policies<< is the capitalist nature of the DP. Also, it's important to remember that Obama is also part of that capitalist party. >> 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 [and neither Heilbrunn nor Alter would > disagree with this statement, as far as I can tell]. 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.< That's true. But then why are you defending him so vehemently, including misinterpreting or misrepresenting what I said, etc.? ^^^^^ CB: I'm defending him for the same reason I supported him in the election. His political location is the best we can hope to get in the current US political situation. When did u stop beating ur dog ? and why are u mistinterpreting and misrepresenting what I said (smile) ^^^^^^^^^^ > 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.< I never said he was a social democrat or anything like that. See above. ^^^^^^^^ CB: What did u say about Obama doing social democracy ? Clarify. ^^^^^^^^^^ >> 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.< It's not snarky. It's a summary of a longer analysis of Obama's personality. ^^^^^ CB: Being a summary of a longer analysis doesn't make it not snarky. ^^^^^^^^ CB: > 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. ?< As I said before, Roosevelt was subject to >> popular pressure on them, most likely from outside "normal channels" << CB: I'm responding here to what Heilbrunn said, not what u said. ^^^^^^^ > 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.< You haven't read the book under review or the review itself, have you? ^^^^ CB: I'm responding to what u posted, not the book. Post the book and I'll respond to it. ^^^^ In any event, all the evidence I've seen fits the hypothesis that BHO is wedded to meritocracy. As noted, that's better than Dubyaism. ^^^^ CB: I'd say his wedded to pragmatism. ^^^^^ > 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.< That's why we need popular pressure on him most likely from outside "normal channels." But I wouldn't trust his intentions. ^^^^^^^^ CB: He's like someone who has a Tiger by the tail. Popular pressure outsideside electoral channels won't be effective. Not trusting his intentions is a personal, not political, criticism. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
