Presumptive Accountability, or what to do when the Nominee's move is Right and you've been Left?

I guess (3.67 / 3)

that's why I am beginning to feel like my time and energies might be best served in the near future working on issues, instead of working to elect candidates.  Though I've always been involved in Democratic politics (and I mean this literally - since I was a child), I've spent most of my volunteer time (particularly between elections) working for issues-based organizations.  

I'm incredibly disappointed in Obama for a number of reasons.  I would probably be disappointed in Clinton if she were in his position as the nominee, because I don't pretend that she would be doing anything terribly different right now.  I was disappointed in Kerry, and Gore, and my senators and member of Congress in South Dakota, and my state legislators, and most of my county commissioners...and I do feel very powerless to do anything about it through the electoral process.  Because you're right - I don't really have a choice but to vote for people who continually disappoint me, and I'm having a hard time anymore getting excited about that.  "At least (s/he's) not (John McCain/some other Republican fool)" is enough to get me to cast a ballot, but it's not really doing it for me otherwise.    

---

by: Anna @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 20:17:53 PM UTC

I'll tell you, (4.00 / 1)

that working in public interest, issue-oriented organizations is a sure panacea for what ails the electoral warrior's soul (except in Nader's case ;-) ). Having spent the last 24 years of my career working--until recently--exclusively with NGO's, I've found issue-based advocacy to be very rewarding. It gives you a great platform to work towards accountability of elected official (once they're doing something other than campaigning). And your sense of achievement isn't limited by the actions or lack thereof that a candidate takes.

So maybe for me, coming from an  issue-oriented background, that means that while working for a bit of electoral politics, that my advocacy work can be that much more enjoyable. It will be much more fulfilling to have a president who is more receptive to progressive change than the standard GOP swizzlestick. I've already gotten some positive feedback from a few nonprofits who have had good responses from Obama concerning their issues.

The thing about movement politics and issue-based advocacy, is that there is a point where they intersect. And that it is a fun and exciting place to be! And knowledge and experience in electoral politics is a valuable asset to NGO's.

---

by: JC @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 21:16:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Progressive? (4.00 / 1)

I had thought, perhaps erroneously, that the whole point of being a progressive is that we take a somewhat longer view towards issues and political action.  With that in mind,

FISA:  I understand all to well the ramifications this legislation has (and already had, since many seem to forget such) as regards the 4th Amendment.  But, a couple of things here.  1)  The overwhelming majority of those fighting against the current incarnation of the FISA re-authorization are doing so based almost exclusively on proposed telecom-immunity (and thereby immunity for BushCo.)  Let's be realistic.  That's vengeance, not policy.  If the concern were really holding Bush accountable, then we'd be screaming for Pelosi's head on a platter, and Obama would be an after-thought.  As the Presidential candidate, however, he's just the easiest guy to single out for ire.  2)  FISA is a threat to the 4th Amendment but only if it is utilized by the Executive Branch.  It strikes me as disingenuous (short-sighted) to assume that President Obama will abuse that authority simply because it's given.  There's a remarkable lack of confidence displayed in that stance.

Y'all remember just a short two years ago, when one of our most enjoyable arguments against the Republican power grab was "Do you really want President Clinton to have that power?"  Well it's time to own up to our bluff.  I for one would much rather see and respond to that power in the hands of Barack Obama than Temper McHuggyBear.  I am not going to stride forward under the assumption that it will be misused just because Bush did.

No Death Penalty for Child Rape (Alternate title:  Death To The Monsters!):  I have no idea where it became a "progressive" value that the death penalty is across the board a "bad thing".  I don't believe that, and I don't remember Obama waxing eloquent that he believed that either.  So what is the issue here?  There are parasites who, for whatever reason, are simply a cancer on society at large.  I see little reason to favor feeding a disease for the rest of it's natural life ... except that the Supreme Court said that it is Constitutional to do so.  I abide by their interpretation.  Funny thing, though Obama expressed disappointment at the ruling, he pledged to do the same.  So what the hell is the problem here?

D.C. vs. Heller.  Rosenbaum is dead fricking wrong.  Obama didn't "flip" on anything, and, in fact, Rosenbaum does a deep disservice when he claims that Obama flipped on gun-control.

First, gun control isn't a Progressive issue.  It's a pet liberal issue that Democrats have been getting their asses handed to them over for decades, even though a whole lot of Democrats don't even agree with it.  Did any of the rest of you hear that enormous 'squick' type sound, yesterday morning?  That was the sound of millions of Republican sphincters clenching at once, when they realized that they had just lost their most effective wedge issue.

Second, Obama didn't "flip" on anything.  He did exactly what I (and any Progressive worth the name) would choose to do.  He accepted the rule of law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.  Obama may still believe that gun control is a good idea.  He still wishes to give local areas legal rights.  But the SCOTUS ruled and he accepted.  How in the hell is that not "progressive"?

Finally, I'm certain a lot of those Republican sphincters snapped shut so hard that they need to be pried open.  Can we just not, you know, supply the crowbar and the leverage, please?  

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 21:05:16 PM UTC

I guess that we can add the debate over (4.00 / 1)

what a progressive is, and how their/our issues are defined to the list of controversies around accountability.

To that, I might just add: "What is a Dry Land Democrat?" And what is it to be "Left" in the West?

---

by: JC @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 21:26:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just one thing (4.00 / 1)

you've said a lot here, but this jumped out:

No Death Penalty for Child Rape (Alternate title:  Death To The Monsters!):  I have no idea where it became a "progressive" value that the death penalty is across the board a "bad thing".  I don't believe that, and I don't remember Obama waxing eloquent that he believed that either.  So what is the issue here?  There are parasites who, for whatever reason, are simply a cancer on society at large.  I see little reason to favor feeding a disease for the rest of it's natural life ... except that the Supreme Court said that it is Constitutional to do so.  I abide by their interpretation.  Funny thing, though Obama expressed disappointment at the ruling, he pledged to do the same.  So what the hell is the problem here?

Regardless of what Obama's stand on the issue was or is now, I think this was a good decision on the part of the court and I'm happy about it.  In my view, beyond the understandable desire for vengeance, handing down a death sentence to child rapists suggests that being a victim of rape/molestation as a child makes the victim completely irredeemable as a human being, and that's a point of view that I reject.  Obama's reaction to this wasn't surprising to me either - I also was aware that he supported the death penalty in certain instances.      

---

by: Anna @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 21:45:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I hope that you will not be surprised to find that ... (4.00 / 1)

We could not agree more.

I don't believe in sin-eaters, I don't believe in demonic possession, and I don't believe in monsters.  I believe in disease, both societal and personal. I believe in eradicating that thing.  I support the SCOTUS decision because they acknowledged that the 'monsters' who commit these crimes of child rape are not ... monsters.  They don't spoil their prey and possess the 'victim'.  They are humans doing bad things to humans, and they need to go away from humans.  My view is that that child rapists have an incurable disease that lends itself well to the only purpose one can ascribe to the death penalty.  They need to be 'removed'.  If, as the SCOTUS observed, that the incarceration of these individuals is the proper modus for a moral state, then so be it.  Either way, the victim of crime should not face more victimization (which often happens in capital punishment scenarios.)    

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 22:45:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

progressivism (0.00 / 0)

There's been quite a bit of talk about this in the MT 'sphere in the past, and it's stirred some passions. (From Wulfgar! of all people, esp. Sirota's definition of such...)

Here's my quickie idea of what "progressivism" means: a pragmatic populist movement dedicted to ensure that our systems of society and government and just and equitable, in order to create a more perfect egalitarian republic.

Take the death penalty. Whether it's right or wrong isn't a progressive issue, it's a moral issue. But, if it the death pentalty is legal, its application is a progressive issue. E.g., ensuring that the accused's rights are respected and that the accused gets good, quality defense, ensuring that race or class or wealth or status doesn't mar the decisions, that the death penalty doesn't involve undue pain or suffering, those are progressive positions. Opposing the death penalty if those conditions aren't being, or can't be, met, is a progressive stance.

The two big issues for me in this recent tack to the "center" by Obama are NAFTA and FISA. Those are systemic problems of economic inequality and rampant authoritarianism that are inherently anti-progressive. That Obama would backtrack on these issues boggles the mind: it's not like he's moving to the right, ideologically, on these issues, in the efforts to scoop up independents and moderate Republicans. He's moving closer to monied, establishment power, almost as if signally, "hey, wink wink, I'm not really going to do much change."

Gun control, public financing, death penalty, not so much, IMHO.

And there's a good question. Where do we draw the line?

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 22:44:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Obama has always been centrist. (0.00 / 0)

Anyone who doesn't know that wasn't paying attention.

---

by: Jim Lang @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 15:37:59 PM UTC

In defense of Obama, (0.00 / 0)

I think he and his campaign realize that it's impossible to get elected as a down-the-line progressive.  It's necessary to pander.  I don't like his move to the center much, but it's necessary if he wants to get elected.

After he's elected, we can let Obama be Obama.  Especially if the Senate and House become more Democratic, I think we can expect a number of policies most people would recognize as progressive to emerge in the next four years.

Based on what I think I see of Obama's character and intellect, I have little fear that he will be just another politician.  He will get us out of Iraq.  He will reinstate our civil liberties.  If he has the chance to make one or more Supreme Court appointments, he will change the Court's political balance for the better.    

 

---

by: Turner @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 16:46:01 PM UTC

A few things. Matt Stoller has an interesting piece on Daschle's telecom clients (0.00 / 0)

that he's been working for to get immunity, http://openleft.com/showDiary....

and has anybody seen the Obama group over at myobama.com (the Obama website) called "Senator Obama - Please, No Telecom Immunity and Get FISA Right" ?
at http://my.barackobama.com/page...

It's becoming one of the largest groups at myobama.com with over 1700 members since it formed Thurs. night. The groups over there that are larger have been around for the last 6 months and with the exception of one, have less than 4000 members each. The "Please No Telecom Immunity and Get FISA Right" group may easily surpass those numbers into second place by sometime next week.

I will be attending my local Unite for Change meeting in MSLA tonight and I will be bringing petitions for Obama supporters to sign if they are inclined asking Obama to reconsider his position on the current FISA bill. While it will be pretty tame and innocuous stuff the point isn't to hold Obama accountable as much as to educate him on the widespread sentiment among his supporters and to educate his supporters on the issues around the current FISA Bill.

And thirdly, did anyone catch the revolving editorial last night on KUFM (at the end of the local news) about Obama's shift to the right? The two issues mentioned were Obamas economic advisers and FISA. Another supporter feeling less than thrilled and saying, 'well i will vote for him but without much enthusiasm if this keeps up.'

Personally I could care less if Obama commented on every supreme court decision and it went against my personal feelings. His opinions don't matter too much more than mine do. We all have opinions. However stuff like legislation gutting the 4th amendment have real ramifications. Besides the obvious ones of spying and intrusion on innocent citizens, trashing the rule of law (telecom and bush culpability,) Roe v Wade was decided in large part on the inferred right to privacy  from the 4th amendment, for example. Kicking the legs out under of the 4th won't strengthen the arguments for Roe v Wade.

All in all, I believe that the Obama campaign may be moved to tread a little more carefully on issues that adversely effect his grassroots electorate. He went from nowhere to the top, rather quickly, largely on the work of the grassroots. Can he afford to piss us off too long and too often? While we may vote for him, many may decide they'd rather not knock on a strangers door and say, "Well, I think he's better than Mccain, even though both of them want to gut the constitution."

That's not as easy to do as some people might think. In fact, it's a lot easier just not to canvass.

---

by: Steve W. @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 20:14:01 PM UTC

Obama Progressive, Not (0.00 / 0)

 Anyone who thought that Obama is a Progressive is clearly unknowledgeable about what is and who is a Progressive.
 I'm not deluded. This political nuance is totally predictable. If you were anticipating something else then i suggest you see what a Progressive is and does. See www.pdamerica.org.
 I'm Not expecting him to take up the nefarious and heinous Democratic Leadership Council DLC mantle - That we have purged with Hillary Clinton for ever i hope.
  William Crain
  Billings, MT

---

by: Darwin26 @ Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 19:42:42 PM UTC