From: Jim Devine <[email protected]>
(there are a lot of ellipses below, but they're left implicit.) On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:55 PM, c b wrote: > 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.< What I was talking about wasn't a criticism of Obama as much as an effort to understand his presidency. I don't think we should expect much out of it: as I said before the election, I expect BHO to rationalize neoliberalism more than reversing it, just as George W. Bush's father did after Reagan's reign. (For example, BHO replaces people like the famous Brownie with much more competent folks.) Because I have low expectations, I am not shocked by what BHO does. (I was _never_ expecting any kind of social democracy (even the soft social democracy of the New Deal) out of the Obama presidency.) ^^^^^ CB: Yes, as I said , I interpreted u talking as about the Presidency, not the President as a person. Brownie didn't have much to do with neo-liberalism. I don't know that the economics/finance personnel of Bush II or Clinton are that much less "rational" than Obama's. Obama changing things leftward has always depended upon movement from below (like u and he always say). There hasn't been much mobilization of the left since the election In fact, with the Tea Partiers , it has been the right that has rallied and pushed. However, surely u never expected social democracy stronger than the New Deal in this period ! From Obama , Hillary Clinton or anybody else. CB: > In the following I indicated the Supreme Court might be relevant in stopping social democratic measures ...< We should "think outside the box" and not assume that the Supreme Court will follow precedents, opposing any slight movement to the left only with weapons used in the past. Scalia thinks outside the box when it comes to thinking up new and different ways to promote his agenda, and he's been very successful at dragging a lot of the SCOTUS along. (Scalia _et al_ have defined the "new normal" in the SCOTUS, so that "liberal" and "conservative" are defined in their terms.) ^^^^^^^ CB: How can I say this ? The Warren Court was an aberration ( a good thing) in the history of the Supreme Court. It was the only time in history that the SC led a left move. It did so in civil rights ( obvious) and civil liberties ( especially on search and seizures; death penalty ), anti-male supremacy (including right to an abortion). I don't recall much it did in economic/working class rights. There really aren't too many more issues. In one recent case, even the current rightwing court rebuffed the Bush admin on rights of Guantanamo types. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I think about it, the Supreme Court doesn't address very many political questions. Starting with the Burger Court, the SC has been eroding the Warren Court achievements for more years than the Warren Court did good. The SC is not the site of much initiatives to the left. As u suggested and I agreed on this thread, it is likely to play a role of stymying "social democratic" reforms. I don't think Scalia's stuff is successful because of his superior _logic_ or _thinking_ so much as having the rightwing votes on the Court. If u have the votes u can rationalize your opinons with any kind of outside the box, off the wall bullshit. Scalia is not so much smart and creative as having the votes. If more left justices get the votes they will come up with all kinds of brilliant,creative thinking outside the box. I thought Sotomeyer's dissent on the recent case eroding Miranda warnings was brilliant - " it is counterintuitive to require someone to speak to obtain their right to remain silent." ( Sotomeyer was appointed by who ? smile) 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 know about the "division of powers" in the government. In any event, when I said "US adults know," it was short-hand for "there's no reason that I should always mention each and every external constraint that keeps Obama from being a saint or whatever CB expects him to be." ^^^^^^ CB: Low blow. I'll get u back for that (smile) ^^^^ Of course, Obama also constrains Congress, while they're both constrained and shaped by the shit-storm of campaign contributions and lobbying that dominate DC. Most adults know about that, too, though many approve. ^^^^^^^ CB: Most adults didn't understand enough to make a shit-storm from below to make the President and Congress do the right thing on what has gone down recently. ^^^^^ 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).< Sure, BHO is constrained by his political environment (including by the liberals who apologize for him rather than turning against him). But he does have a lot of power (much more than I do, for example), so his individual personality does play a role. (One working definition of an individual's "power" is the extent to which his or her personality changes the course of history rather than being changed by it.) ^^^^^^^^^ CB: Not everything he has done needs to be apologized for. ^^^^^ 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.< One thing that's happened is that Presidents have "wised up." No GOPster would appoint an Earl Warren today. (Likely, no Dem would do it either, since the DP has shifted so far right over the decades.) ^^^^^^^ CB: The country has moved to the right, and the Presidents reflect that. The point was that Warren was unexpectedly left even for when he was appointed. By the way, I think both of Obama's appointments are unmarried women. ^^^^^^^ In any event, it's a bad idea to rely on the mistake of our rulers (e.g., the appointment of Warren to the Supremes) to produce "progressive" results. ^^^^ CB: My point was not relying on a mistake . It is that claims that Obama's appointments "move the court to the right" are anti-O biased guesses. ^^^^^^ We should also remember that (despite what they teach in Civics) what the Supes do is partly a matter of political pressure from outside the official system. In Brown vs. the Board of Education, they were responding to the Civil Rights movement (which at that point was still mostly outside of the established political system) in an atmosphere when the US elite thought that "all problems can be solved" (it was still the "American Century" after all). ^^^^^^^ CB: Now u are talking. Even the SC is moved from below. ^^^^^ It's a far cry from (say) the mid-1970s, when business was crying because profitability had fallen (while they tried to deal with the problem by imposing stagflation) and grass-roots conservatives were mobilizing against "acid, amnesty, and abortion" (and busing). It's also distant from currently, when the vastly-empowered financial interests are striving to preserve their privileges (if not to consolidate and extend their power) and grass-roots conservatives have built on their successes to move in the direction of banning abortion completely. ^^^^^ CB: I don't quite follow the second sentence above. Is it distant or close to vastly empowered fianancial interests . I'd say Obama's SC appointees are likely to defend the right to abortion ( I'll make that prediction) ^^^^^^^ As I said, I don't expect any kind of social-democratic legislation from BHO or Congress -- and I don't expect BHO's appointees to uphold it -- without massive political pressure, counteracting the power of big money (i.e., capital). ^^^^^^^ CB: Correct. Movement from below. ^^^^^^^ BTW, from a left position, BHO's main contribution to the SCOTUS has not been a matter of appointing "progressives" to the Court (since he's not doing so). Instead, it's his refraining from appointing someone like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, etc. BHO is better than Dubya, but that's not saying much. ^^^^^ CB: I substantially agree, except I think his appointments are probably progressive on right to abortion, one of the main ( and few) issues that the Court has today. CB had written: >>> 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 wrote: >> I wasn't "demanding" anything. ...<< CB now writes: > Advocating it, then. Suggesting it.< That's your reading. Please don't presume to be able to read my mind. ^^^^^ CB: I love u Jim, but _sometimes_ u are ..huffy...stuffy. Just say what u _were_ doing. If u read your comments on what I say u will find plenty of stuff I could say is "presuming to read my mind". ^^^^^ CB: > ?I'm defending him [BHO] 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.< So the "current US political situation" determines your political position? as the US shifts to the right, do you become more right-wing? ^^^^^^^^ CB: The current US political situation determines what I think can be accomplished in moving left. U have to deal with people where they are , not where u want them to be. ^^^^^^^ Earlier, CB had written: >>> 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.<<< I'd see BHO instead as a guy sitting on a cork floating in the eddies and undertows formed by the conflicting forces within the capitalist class and the rest of US society. He's trying to use "reason" (in the technocratic sense of the word) to steer the cork, but he's not succeeding. It's not his fault as much as the fact that there's no serious opposition to capitalism -- or even to the currency-existing version of capitalism -- that would push his cork to the left. I don't see any evidence that he's trying to promote that opposition at all. If anything, he's doing the opposite, trying to channel discontent to serve his political goals (getting reelected, rewarding his friends, punishing his enemies, etc.) ^^^^^^^^ CB: Let me think about that. I'll get back to u. ^^^^ (The currently over-hyped "teabagger" movement seems to be doing nothing but trying to make the currently-existing version of capitalism more more extreme, i.e., even more ruled by "free markets" (give businesses what they want) and finance capital.) -- _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
