(theGrio) President Obama — or Reverend President — has captured America’s attention on racial inequality. He must make the issue his central theme for his remaining time in office.
At the eulogy for Rev. Clementa Pinckney — the state senator who was among the nine killed by Dylann Roof at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C. — the president bore the weight of black folks on his shoulders when he articulated the history of slavery and the problem of racism we face in everyday life. His words were a call to action, as he seemed to realize that removing the Confederate flag from the South Carolina statehouse — without addressing the systemic racism that remains once the flag is gone — risked becoming a squandered opportunity.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
July 3, 2015
Reverend president? Obama, grace and legacy come together in Charleston
(theGrio) Was the President’s eulogy at Rev. Clementa Pinckney’s homegoing service an example of a truly liberated Obama who is now nearing the end of his term? Or did his performance reflect the events unfolding in this country and Obama stepping up?
Ultimately, it was a little bit of both, not to mention a man who is certainly thinking about his place in the world and what his legacy will mean to the nation.
On Friday afternoon at the TD Arena in Charleston, South Carolina, President Obama paid tribute to Rev. Pinckney, a state senator and one of nine black people gunned down by white supremacist Dylann Roof at Emanuel AME Church.
With victories for Obamacare, the Fair Housing Act and marriage equality in the U.S. Supreme Court, it was a tremendous week for the commander in chief. And yet, in the midst of tragedy and soul searching — forced to grapple with its centuries’ old curse of slavery and a virulent symbol of racial oppression in the form of the Confederate flag — South Carolina may have had its finest hour when President Obama honored the fallen Rev. Pinckney.
Ultimately, it was a little bit of both, not to mention a man who is certainly thinking about his place in the world and what his legacy will mean to the nation.
On Friday afternoon at the TD Arena in Charleston, South Carolina, President Obama paid tribute to Rev. Pinckney, a state senator and one of nine black people gunned down by white supremacist Dylann Roof at Emanuel AME Church.
With victories for Obamacare, the Fair Housing Act and marriage equality in the U.S. Supreme Court, it was a tremendous week for the commander in chief. And yet, in the midst of tragedy and soul searching — forced to grapple with its centuries’ old curse of slavery and a virulent symbol of racial oppression in the form of the Confederate flag — South Carolina may have had its finest hour when President Obama honored the fallen Rev. Pinckney.
May 22, 2015
Google Maps’ cyber-racism hack locates White House after ‘N***a house’ search
(theGrio) Cyber racism is nothing new, and the purveyors of online hate are at it again. If you don’t believe it, just go to Google Maps on your smartphone or computer and type in the words “ni**a house Washington” or “ni**er king” or even “ni**er house.” And what do you get? Google takes you to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That’s right, the White House, where the black folks live.
To its credit, Google apologized for the mishap, without explaining why this is all happening in the first place. “Some inappropriate results are surfacing in Google Maps that should not be, and we apologize for any offense this may have caused. Our teams are working to fix this issue quickly,” said a Google spokesperson, as reported in The Guardian.
This is not the first time Google has found itself in such a predicament. The company has had issues in the past, and they have to be more diligent.
To its credit, Google apologized for the mishap, without explaining why this is all happening in the first place. “Some inappropriate results are surfacing in Google Maps that should not be, and we apologize for any offense this may have caused. Our teams are working to fix this issue quickly,” said a Google spokesperson, as reported in The Guardian.
This is not the first time Google has found itself in such a predicament. The company has had issues in the past, and they have to be more diligent.
May 11, 2015
America Trails the Developed World on Paid Leave For Working People
(The Huffington Post) For all of the talk of American exceptionalism, the U.S. is exceptionally bad in the treatment of its workers.
America--the world's largest economy--is one of the few advanced nations without a national policy guaranteeing paid sick leave for workers. And the nation and its working families pay the price when they cannot take off the time they need to care for themselves or their children.
As part of a national tour to bring attention to the need for greater workplace flexibility for families, Valerie Jarrett--Senior Advisor to President Obama and Chair of the White House Council on Women & Girls--participated at a town hall discussion at Philadelphia's City Hall on April 21. The event was called "Lead on Leave: Empowering Working Families Across America." Jarrett was joined by Deputy Labor Secretary Chris Lu and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter.
April 15, 2015
If Hillary wants our vote, she has to start being more vocal on our issues
(theGrio) Hillary can run, but she can’t hide from the issues that concern us.
On Sunday, Hillary Clinton — the former Secretary of State and First Lady — announced her candidacy for the White House.
This time around, it is reported that the idea is for voters to meet the “real Hillary,” the warm and fuzzy candidate who will meet in virtual one-on-one, small group settings and address the problems of the middle class.
On Sunday, Hillary Clinton — the former Secretary of State and First Lady — announced her candidacy for the White House.
This time around, it is reported that the idea is for voters to meet the “real Hillary,” the warm and fuzzy candidate who will meet in virtual one-on-one, small group settings and address the problems of the middle class.
April 14, 2015
Would Hillary Clinton inherit Obama's black voter enthusiasm?
(CNN) Hillary Clinton held a closed door meeting with President Barack Obama at the White House on Monday. Although the former secretary of state, senator and first lady has not declared, it is treated as a foregone conclusion that Clinton is running for president.
Likely to launch her campaign in April, Clinton is regarded as the front-runner — if not the only Democratic candidate — and the inevitable Democratic nominee.
There is an assumption that since Clinton supported Obama, the black community will now embrace her. But there are more than a few who didn't get that memo. At this stage of the game, many African-Americans may not be excited about a candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016. And after two terms of the nation's first black president, she should proceed with caution.
Likely to launch her campaign in April, Clinton is regarded as the front-runner — if not the only Democratic candidate — and the inevitable Democratic nominee.
There is an assumption that since Clinton supported Obama, the black community will now embrace her. But there are more than a few who didn't get that memo. At this stage of the game, many African-Americans may not be excited about a candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016. And after two terms of the nation's first black president, she should proceed with caution.
Obama’s SOTU address reminds us why he won ‘both’ times
(theGrio) On Tuesday evening, the confident, populist Barack Obama of 2008 — if not 2004 — showed up for his sixth State of the Union address and reminded people why they voted for him in the first place.
Obama began his seventh year in office by turning the page on harder times, although many are still hurting, and providing an upbeat vision for America in his twilight years in office and beyond. He addressed the nation with a focus on inequality and opportunity, the role of government in helping people, and establishing his legislative agenda.
In the process, the president set the stage for a future showdown with a Republican-controlled Congress and fired the opening salvos in the 2016 elections.
Obama began his seventh year in office by turning the page on harder times, although many are still hurting, and providing an upbeat vision for America in his twilight years in office and beyond. He addressed the nation with a focus on inequality and opportunity, the role of government in helping people, and establishing his legislative agenda.
In the process, the president set the stage for a future showdown with a Republican-controlled Congress and fired the opening salvos in the 2016 elections.
November 7, 2013
In theGrio: The GOP’s unprecedented blocking of Mel Watt
Senate Republicans are looking for a fight with the
president.
This much was clear when they used the power of the
filibuster to block the nomination of Rep. Melvin Watt (D-North Carolina) to lead the
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which oversees mortgage giants Freddie
Mac and Fannie Mae.
The blocking of Rep. Watt is significant because it speaks
volumes about Republican opposition to President Obama. This just does not happen to
sitting members of Congress. Although the FHFA is not a cabinet-level
position, no lawmaker has been blocked for nomination to a cabinet post since
1843—that’s 170 years ago.
In 1843, the enslavement of black people was still the law
of the land, and Sojourner Truth began her career as an abolitionist.
Roger B. Taney—the jurist who wrote the opinion in the Dred Scott decision—was
Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. And 1843 witnessed the
introduction of the first blackface minstrel show.
Click HERE for more.
October 5, 2012
The Denver Presidential Debate: Obama vs. the Empty Corporate Suit Who Would Kill Big Bird
Let me start off by saying that the Obama-Romney matchup in Denver was the worst presidential debate I’ve ever seen. I started off believing that we have to save the popcorn for Biden v. Ryan next week, and I’ll stick with that assertion.
In order to assess the debate, it is necessary to separate the style from the substance of the event. With regard to style, the moderator, Jim Lehrer, did a poor job providing structure, and added little to the debate. Better to have no moderator at all than a poor one.
Governor Mitt Romney was more assertive and hyper than his opponent, perhaps even overdone - reflecting a candidate who has been killed in the polls due to a number of factors, including his lack of personal appeal and the unacceptability of Republican policies. Romney was more animated than Obama, but not unlike a slick used car salesman trying to sell you a lemon, or in this case trickle-down Reaganomics.
Meanwhile, the president was more subdued, passive and professorial, perhaps too distant, and did not challenge Romney as he could have. Perhaps this was because Obama did not want to be seen as the “angry black man,” or maybe because his handlers told him to stay cool and ride the wave of high favorability and not rock the boat.
And with that said, now on to substance. Romney gave a better performance because he was acting - he lied through the whole thing, and otherwise he provided few specifics, as Obama pointed out. I suspect that if the media are worth their salt, they will make Romney account for the stories he concocted. The governor dealt with criticism of his economic policy - particularly the $5 trillion price tag of tax cuts and military spending increases - by changing his policy.
Meanwhile, Romney rewrote history by ignoring GOP obstructionism, and characterizing Obama as someone who refused to work in a bipartisan fashion on healthcare reform. The president did not challenge Romney on this point too much, or much of anything for that matter. And he certainly did not pin down his opponent on his videotaped remarks to donors, where Romney essentially wrote off 47 percent of the electorate.
Ultimately, the candidates provided substantive differences in philosophy regarding the role of government in the lives of people. Obama made a strong case for an active government role, citing the Transcontinental Railroad, the land grant colleges and the National Academy of Sciences. He embraced the Obamacare label as his own, defended Social Security, talked about how he eliminated the middleman in federal student loans, and railed against corporate welfare. Moreover, he shared a vision of economic patriotism.
In sharp contrast, Romney shared a future for the nation in which federal responsibility for caring for the poor is left to the states, under the assumption that the states do a better job of those things. Regulation is an encumbrance, and investment in green jobs is a folly in Romney’s opinion. The elderly are given coupons for healthcare they will be unable to afford, kids borrow from their parents to pay for college, and Obamacare and PBS are eliminated.
For a debate on domestic issues, the evening is more notable for what was NOT discussed - for example, fighting the scourge of poverty, women’s reproductive rights, labor rights, a jobs program and dealing with the nation’s crumbling infrastructure. Obama chose not to challenge his rival on key issues that implicate Republican extremism.
There was no word from the president on the GOP platform, their racist views on immigration, their plans to gut the social welfare state, the Jim Crow stance towards voter ID. No mention of the homophobia coming from the Republicans, or the push to ban abortion, including in cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the mother is in danger. Not a word about Romney’s offshore tax havens. No effort to debunk the governor’s self-proclaimed reputation as a job creator, when the facts point to his propensity for picking at the carcasses of companies, like the vulture capitalist he is.
Next week is bound to be far more entertaining, when Vice President Biden will presumably take Paul Ryan to the woodshed, where he will proceed to open a can of whoopass on him, and deservedly so. Plus, the next presidential debate will assume a town hall format, which is bound to favor Obama and remind the public that they don’t like Romney.
So America’s first black president went toe to toe with the whitest man in America. In the end, there isn’t much to see here, and I call it a draw. Romney had an edge on style, but will have to explain himself
for manufacturing his own set of facts. This debate did nothing to alter his image as an empty suit who will say and do anything to get elected, and a corporate tool who believes in nothing in particular
except winning and being rich, and making the rich richer.
Just to be safe, Obama must beware of low information voters who don’t know any better, and have been in a coma throughout this election season. He must come back the next time around caffeinated, hungry and ready with his A game. And he needs to attack Romney like one of his campaign ads. Obama had to play Jackie Robinson in 2008, but this is 2012 and he has a term under his belt. Sometimes black men have to get angry, especially if they’re fighting for something they believe in, like their job.
September 10, 2011
Should blacks be satisfied with Obama's jobs speech?
This week in theGrio I provided an analysis of President Obama's speech on jobs:
In his speech, Obama unveiled his $447 billion American Jobs Act, which offers a mix of tax cuts, jobs and infrastructure funding. Digging deep into the details and analyzing both the policy implications and the rhetorical symbolism of his speech, the president addressed issues that directly impact the black community and the rest of the Democratic base, and speak to their concerns. In other words, it is a good start, if nothing else.
However, consisting of two-thirds tax cuts, to some degree the president's jobs plan resembles a conservative Republican proposal. Further, he did not specifically discuss the high rate of black joblessness -- a unique situation, to be sure -- and therefore failed to adequately allay the concerns of some of his prominent African-American critics.
For more, go to "The Heart of the Matter with David A. Love" at theGrio.
June 10, 2011
This Jobs Crisis Is Obama's Kryptonite
Many commentators and observers, including this writer, argued for a far more aggressive and comprehensive strategy from the White House for getting America out of its economic morass. Obama's team chose a half-hearted, half-assed stimulus package, and the result is what we see today. Don't get me wrong, the stimulus helped. But it is running out, and you can see the effects that the empty well is having on state and local governments as they proceed to cut education and essential social services and programs.
Unemployment is high, twice as high for blacks, and the jobs aren't coming. 80 percent of recent college graduates are moving back home. And there is talk of a double-dip recession on the way, as housing prices are falling, with a faltering real estate market threatening to pull us back down in the hole. The President's abysmal failure of a foreclosure relief plan is blamed, in part, for the economic woes.
A new Washington Post-ABC poll reveals that President Obama has lost his post-Bin Laden bump in popularity. And more importantly, by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans believe the country is seriously on the wrong track. Nine in 10 rate the economy negatively, and six in 10 say the economy is not on the road to recovery. About six in 10 give Obama negative marks on the economy and the deficit. This comes on the heels of the departure of Austan Goolsbee -- one of Obama's progressive-leaning economic advisors -- who was frustrated that the President abandoned more stimulus investment to spur the economy, opting instead to pursue the folly of attacking deficits.
Polls at this early stage in the game don't mean a whole lot, but it is worth noting that Obama leads 5 of 6 Republican contenders, and is in a dead heat with Mitt Romney. I believe that Obama could handily beat any empty suit the GOP throws his way. Given the proclivities of the Republican primary electorate, I'll bet that Romney's status as frontrunner will be short lived. I will bet on Sarah Palin or someone of her ilk. Howard Dean said himself that Sarah Palin could defeat Obama in the general election, particularly with unemployment as it is.
Now, do I really think that Palin is presidential material? Not for a moment. Her latest gaffe -- actually a botchery of the historical account of Paul Revere's ride, in which she claimed Revere warned the British -- shows how ignorant and flighty the woman truly is. That is precisely why she could win. I don't trust the American electorate, especially when times are tough. Too many Americans drink the stupid juice when the economy is in the tank, and pull the lever against their own economic interests. Or, demoralized and disenchanted, they just stay home and don't vote at all. The results of the 2010 midterm elections provide all the evidence you need of that proposition. Voters cast their ballots for some of the most regressive governors, state legislators and members of Congress one can imagine.
The country is hurting, but instead we get voter ID legislation, decimation of labor rights, criminalization of abortion, Vouchercare, and laws banning sagging pants. We knew they would do something like this, even though they didn't explicitly say they would. The Republican track record on overreach speaks for itself. And the lackluster Democrats did their best to bring a GOP victory last year, eager as they are to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Although Palin and the other Republican hopefuls hardly seem viable candidates at first glance, consider Ronald Reagan. People laughed at the prospect of an actor becoming president. His opponent, the incumbent, was smart and capable, and didn't drag the country into war. But Jimmy Carter was done in by stagflation and the Iran hostage crisis, not to mention an intra-party challenge from Ted Kennedy, and two opponents in the general election.
If the economy continues to suffer enough, as it appears it will, Obama should take heed. Americans will elect the factually challenged, knowledge deficient and intellectually starved if given half a chance, which is why Obama needs to get serious about jobs, jobs, jobs. Regardless of how much he can accomplish on that front between now and Election Day 2012, he needs to get started yesterday. And it is time for him to ignore the Republicans. They have two goals in mind: First, to wreck the economy for 2012, and second, to establish a nation fully owned and operated by religious fanatics, the greedy and the unstable. They are making good on both of these promises.
That's the short term situation. Obama must find some jobs or he'll be out of one. Now, here's the long term problem, which leads us back to the short term: America is a feudal capitalist state with the highest inequality in the industrialized world. The inequality has widened over three decades, and is now at chronic proportions -- the highest since the Great Depression. The elites have decided to ride this one out, not through economic growth, because all they have to do, they've decided, is to squeeze as much as they can from the rest of us sharecroppers. And they're doing a superb job of it. Favorable tax policies and deregulation ensure that they get more and more, and the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision allowed them to buy the political system outright. So, a bribery-based political system -- concerned only with the next election cycle -- serves the interests of a crony capitalist system that cares only about the next quarterly profit statement.
Say what you will about China, but at least they never pretended to operate under any pretense of democracy. However, China does look one hundred years into the future, when America can barely look past the latest episode of Celebrity Apprentice. And as China silently colonizes Africa and wrests the leadership in renewable energy, the U.S. has no industrial policy other than military contractors. We can't even build a national high-speed rail system because the superstitious among us brand it as socialist big government welfare spending.
These are the problems that President Obama must face, because hell, world leaders are paid to do that. He can solve this whole thing tomorrow is he just calls for a new New Deal program already. But will he have the courage? Time will tell, but the President, like this sad nation, is short on time.
Unemployment is high, twice as high for blacks, and the jobs aren't coming. 80 percent of recent college graduates are moving back home. And there is talk of a double-dip recession on the way, as housing prices are falling, with a faltering real estate market threatening to pull us back down in the hole. The President's abysmal failure of a foreclosure relief plan is blamed, in part, for the economic woes.
A new Washington Post-ABC poll reveals that President Obama has lost his post-Bin Laden bump in popularity. And more importantly, by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans believe the country is seriously on the wrong track. Nine in 10 rate the economy negatively, and six in 10 say the economy is not on the road to recovery. About six in 10 give Obama negative marks on the economy and the deficit. This comes on the heels of the departure of Austan Goolsbee -- one of Obama's progressive-leaning economic advisors -- who was frustrated that the President abandoned more stimulus investment to spur the economy, opting instead to pursue the folly of attacking deficits.
Polls at this early stage in the game don't mean a whole lot, but it is worth noting that Obama leads 5 of 6 Republican contenders, and is in a dead heat with Mitt Romney. I believe that Obama could handily beat any empty suit the GOP throws his way. Given the proclivities of the Republican primary electorate, I'll bet that Romney's status as frontrunner will be short lived. I will bet on Sarah Palin or someone of her ilk. Howard Dean said himself that Sarah Palin could defeat Obama in the general election, particularly with unemployment as it is.
Now, do I really think that Palin is presidential material? Not for a moment. Her latest gaffe -- actually a botchery of the historical account of Paul Revere's ride, in which she claimed Revere warned the British -- shows how ignorant and flighty the woman truly is. That is precisely why she could win. I don't trust the American electorate, especially when times are tough. Too many Americans drink the stupid juice when the economy is in the tank, and pull the lever against their own economic interests. Or, demoralized and disenchanted, they just stay home and don't vote at all. The results of the 2010 midterm elections provide all the evidence you need of that proposition. Voters cast their ballots for some of the most regressive governors, state legislators and members of Congress one can imagine.
The country is hurting, but instead we get voter ID legislation, decimation of labor rights, criminalization of abortion, Vouchercare, and laws banning sagging pants. We knew they would do something like this, even though they didn't explicitly say they would. The Republican track record on overreach speaks for itself. And the lackluster Democrats did their best to bring a GOP victory last year, eager as they are to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Although Palin and the other Republican hopefuls hardly seem viable candidates at first glance, consider Ronald Reagan. People laughed at the prospect of an actor becoming president. His opponent, the incumbent, was smart and capable, and didn't drag the country into war. But Jimmy Carter was done in by stagflation and the Iran hostage crisis, not to mention an intra-party challenge from Ted Kennedy, and two opponents in the general election.
If the economy continues to suffer enough, as it appears it will, Obama should take heed. Americans will elect the factually challenged, knowledge deficient and intellectually starved if given half a chance, which is why Obama needs to get serious about jobs, jobs, jobs. Regardless of how much he can accomplish on that front between now and Election Day 2012, he needs to get started yesterday. And it is time for him to ignore the Republicans. They have two goals in mind: First, to wreck the economy for 2012, and second, to establish a nation fully owned and operated by religious fanatics, the greedy and the unstable. They are making good on both of these promises.
That's the short term situation. Obama must find some jobs or he'll be out of one. Now, here's the long term problem, which leads us back to the short term: America is a feudal capitalist state with the highest inequality in the industrialized world. The inequality has widened over three decades, and is now at chronic proportions -- the highest since the Great Depression. The elites have decided to ride this one out, not through economic growth, because all they have to do, they've decided, is to squeeze as much as they can from the rest of us sharecroppers. And they're doing a superb job of it. Favorable tax policies and deregulation ensure that they get more and more, and the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision allowed them to buy the political system outright. So, a bribery-based political system -- concerned only with the next election cycle -- serves the interests of a crony capitalist system that cares only about the next quarterly profit statement.
Say what you will about China, but at least they never pretended to operate under any pretense of democracy. However, China does look one hundred years into the future, when America can barely look past the latest episode of Celebrity Apprentice. And as China silently colonizes Africa and wrests the leadership in renewable energy, the U.S. has no industrial policy other than military contractors. We can't even build a national high-speed rail system because the superstitious among us brand it as socialist big government welfare spending.
These are the problems that President Obama must face, because hell, world leaders are paid to do that. He can solve this whole thing tomorrow is he just calls for a new New Deal program already. But will he have the courage? Time will tell, but the President, like this sad nation, is short on time.
May 5, 2011
What Will It Take to Bring Obama Home? Making Him Realize There's No Other Choice
The following is part of the ongoing "Moving Left" series in BlackCommentator.com:
When it comes to the 2008 election of Barack Obama, the mistake people made was mistaking voting for activism. I believe that before we have any discussion on whether and how we can bring Obama home to progressive values, we must first come to terms with this reality.
It's not as if you can blame them. After eight years of a disaster that was the Bush administration, voters wanted and needed a major change in the direction of the country. We needed to wipe the slate clean and set a new tone for America. A new man for the times came on the scene. He was a person of color, clean and articulate, and with lofty rhetoric. And he provided hurting, hungry people with hope and promises of change. In fact, he was the embodiment of change.
Now, in 2011, things are a little different. Main Street is hurting, and unemployment is high and seemingly intractable. Meanwhile, as poor and working people struggle and fail to keep their necks above water, Wall Street and the corporate elites never had it so good. Profits are at a record high, and the gap between the richest of Americans and the rest of us is higher than at any time since the first Great Depression.
In the midst of this, the current administration has lacked the backbone, the heart and the intestinal fortitude to fight for ordinary folks. There have been some successes for progressives over the past few years, to be sure, but sprinkled among a larger host of disappointments and missed opportunities. The President made no attempts at a public option or single payer health insurance system, opting instead for a watered-down compromise plan that has proven itself as a giveaway to corporate interests. He extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this nation, and embraces budget cuts that support the fraudulent Republican narrative of austerity and trickle-down economics. The Bush military policies continue, as does the practice of rendition and detaining terror suspects at Guantanamo. And when the President goes to the bargaining table to negotiate with the Republicans, he gives away the store right away and asks for nothing in return. Democrats, progressives and other Obama supporters are shaking their heads in disbelief. Where is the fighting spirit, the will to work hard for our values?
Part of the problem is that Obama took the Goldman Sachs money in the presidential campaign, and has to play their tune. He stacked his inner circle with Wall Street water carriers and Clinton-era neoliberals with a deregulation fetish. These are the people who helped create the country's economic mess, in which the plenty greedy were allowed to plunder America's resources by gambling it all away at the casino.
The other part of the problem is Obama's quixotic journey to the political center. There is nothing in the middle of the road but yellow lines and road kill, and you'd better believe it. Although his campaign rhetoric was progressive, this president chooses to govern from the middle. That decision in itself is questionable for a number of fundamental reasons:
If the disgruntled Obama supporters thought they would get everything they wanted from this White House - without lifting a finger other than to cast their ballot in the voting booth - they were sorely mistaken. Elections are important, but are no substitute for the hard work of building movements, coalitions and institutions. At the same time, diehard Obama supporters and apologists who say he is just one man and cannot do it alone must realize that he is not doing it alone. He has an administration filled with intelligent, capable individuals. Yet, Democrats have not put enough pressure on Obama, which is why we are here today. But Democratic leaders--including progressive lawmakers and members of the Congressional Black Caucus-- and groups such as MoveOn.org and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee(PCCC) are pushing back, challenging the President to reject the Republican budget agenda, and not to cut programs for low income people.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked civil rights leader A. Phillip Randolph to "go out and make me do it," that is, make him use his power and the bully pulpit to right the wrongs and do the things they both agreed should be addressed. That is precisely what today's progressives must do with Obama. They must build the infrastructure of an independent movement that supports the President when he deserves it, and pressures him out of love, like a wayward family member, when necessary. Most of all, this movement must look toward the future, with the goal of surviving beyond an Obama administration or any other presidency.
Progressives must also craft a media narrative that places their ideals squarely in the political center, with the President having no choice but to embrace them. Justice for union workers, a living wage and benefits, a clean environment, social safety net and fighting against wealth inequality are mainstream policies. Triangulation is both unnecessary and counterproductive for a president who already enjoys support among moderates, who have fled the GOP in droves. The once mainstream Republican Party is now dominated by conspiracy theorists, crackpot Birthers in the mold of Donald Trump, self-righteous religious zealots and morality police, and Neo-Confederates. They want to turn extremism into the mainstream, and make ignorant the new smart. It is hard to imagine finding common ground with a party whose core constituencies include hate groups.
Further, the base must remind President Obama that the Republican goal is to run the economy into the ground -- and his presidency with it -- all for political gain. Therefore, he has no choice but to come home. And progressives should make it clear that if he wants a second term, he most certainly must come home in order for his supporters to come out next Election Day. That is not to say the Obama voters will flock to a viable challenger from within or outside the Democratic Party. Rather, many of them, demoralized and lacking in enthusiasm, simply will stay home and, by default, bestow victory upon the Republicans. That's what happened in the 2010 midterms, and the rest is history.
When it comes to the 2008 election of Barack Obama, the mistake people made was mistaking voting for activism. I believe that before we have any discussion on whether and how we can bring Obama home to progressive values, we must first come to terms with this reality.
It's not as if you can blame them. After eight years of a disaster that was the Bush administration, voters wanted and needed a major change in the direction of the country. We needed to wipe the slate clean and set a new tone for America. A new man for the times came on the scene. He was a person of color, clean and articulate, and with lofty rhetoric. And he provided hurting, hungry people with hope and promises of change. In fact, he was the embodiment of change.
Now, in 2011, things are a little different. Main Street is hurting, and unemployment is high and seemingly intractable. Meanwhile, as poor and working people struggle and fail to keep their necks above water, Wall Street and the corporate elites never had it so good. Profits are at a record high, and the gap between the richest of Americans and the rest of us is higher than at any time since the first Great Depression.
In the midst of this, the current administration has lacked the backbone, the heart and the intestinal fortitude to fight for ordinary folks. There have been some successes for progressives over the past few years, to be sure, but sprinkled among a larger host of disappointments and missed opportunities. The President made no attempts at a public option or single payer health insurance system, opting instead for a watered-down compromise plan that has proven itself as a giveaway to corporate interests. He extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this nation, and embraces budget cuts that support the fraudulent Republican narrative of austerity and trickle-down economics. The Bush military policies continue, as does the practice of rendition and detaining terror suspects at Guantanamo. And when the President goes to the bargaining table to negotiate with the Republicans, he gives away the store right away and asks for nothing in return. Democrats, progressives and other Obama supporters are shaking their heads in disbelief. Where is the fighting spirit, the will to work hard for our values?
Part of the problem is that Obama took the Goldman Sachs money in the presidential campaign, and has to play their tune. He stacked his inner circle with Wall Street water carriers and Clinton-era neoliberals with a deregulation fetish. These are the people who helped create the country's economic mess, in which the plenty greedy were allowed to plunder America's resources by gambling it all away at the casino.
The other part of the problem is Obama's quixotic journey to the political center. There is nothing in the middle of the road but yellow lines and road kill, and you'd better believe it. Although his campaign rhetoric was progressive, this president chooses to govern from the middle. That decision in itself is questionable for a number of fundamental reasons:
- First, the people who elected Barack Obama did not want a centrist who stands for nothing, sees how the wind is blowing and splits the difference. They wanted bold, decisive leadership, not a referee-in-chief.
- Second, such a strategy hopes to garner support from undecided independent voters who want Democrats and Republicans to play nice together, while ignoring the base. Sometimes, compromise is not a prudent step, particularly if your opponent has an unacceptable point of view. These voters live solely in the minds of inside-the-Beltway prognosticators and pundits.
- Third, governing from the center is a tough proposition when you fail to define what the center actually is. Ultra-rightwing Christian fundamentalism is driving the center in its traditional sense rightward. So, if your desire is to be Republican-light, be forewarned that when a fake Republican runs against a real Republican, the Republican always wins.
- Fourth, President Clinton was able to get away with triangulation, but that was Clinton's style. Plus, Bill had the benefit of a booming economy. So, although the base was angry when he sided with the Republicans to end welfare as we know it, he remained popular. But there is a sense today that voters are done with the foolishness. And the protests in Wisconsin and elsewhere point to a pushback against a conservative onslaught that would dismantle the New Deal-Great Society legacy.
If the disgruntled Obama supporters thought they would get everything they wanted from this White House - without lifting a finger other than to cast their ballot in the voting booth - they were sorely mistaken. Elections are important, but are no substitute for the hard work of building movements, coalitions and institutions. At the same time, diehard Obama supporters and apologists who say he is just one man and cannot do it alone must realize that he is not doing it alone. He has an administration filled with intelligent, capable individuals. Yet, Democrats have not put enough pressure on Obama, which is why we are here today. But Democratic leaders--including progressive lawmakers and members of the Congressional Black Caucus-- and groups such as MoveOn.org and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee(PCCC) are pushing back, challenging the President to reject the Republican budget agenda, and not to cut programs for low income people.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked civil rights leader A. Phillip Randolph to "go out and make me do it," that is, make him use his power and the bully pulpit to right the wrongs and do the things they both agreed should be addressed. That is precisely what today's progressives must do with Obama. They must build the infrastructure of an independent movement that supports the President when he deserves it, and pressures him out of love, like a wayward family member, when necessary. Most of all, this movement must look toward the future, with the goal of surviving beyond an Obama administration or any other presidency.
Progressives must also craft a media narrative that places their ideals squarely in the political center, with the President having no choice but to embrace them. Justice for union workers, a living wage and benefits, a clean environment, social safety net and fighting against wealth inequality are mainstream policies. Triangulation is both unnecessary and counterproductive for a president who already enjoys support among moderates, who have fled the GOP in droves. The once mainstream Republican Party is now dominated by conspiracy theorists, crackpot Birthers in the mold of Donald Trump, self-righteous religious zealots and morality police, and Neo-Confederates. They want to turn extremism into the mainstream, and make ignorant the new smart. It is hard to imagine finding common ground with a party whose core constituencies include hate groups.
Further, the base must remind President Obama that the Republican goal is to run the economy into the ground -- and his presidency with it -- all for political gain. Therefore, he has no choice but to come home. And progressives should make it clear that if he wants a second term, he most certainly must come home in order for his supporters to come out next Election Day. That is not to say the Obama voters will flock to a viable challenger from within or outside the Democratic Party. Rather, many of them, demoralized and lacking in enthusiasm, simply will stay home and, by default, bestow victory upon the Republicans. That's what happened in the 2010 midterms, and the rest is history.
December 27, 2010
Americans, Our Work Is Cut Out For Us In 2011
2010. What was that all about?
It is the end of another year, and quite a year it was. This time of year, this time of reflection, can bring joy, sorrow and pain all in one big dosage.
These days, I feel acutely aware of the tremendous suffering people are experiencing in this country today. And I'm astounded by the callousness and indifference of politicians who have the power to change things, yet pretend everything is just fine, that it is business as usual. Those of you who follow my writings know that I'm always trying to make sense of the political world. I follow trends in society, interpret my findings and attempt to give solutions. But now I'm just stumped. Stumped, because the problem seems so simple and straightforward, yet the prescription remains elusive. And while optimism usually tempers my stinging critique of the world's injustice, I don't know how optimistic I can be, or should be, about the future of this country.
The problem is that the United States is falling apart. It has become a Third World country. Record numbers of people are unemployed. About 44 million are in poverty in America--14.3 percent of the population--and one in three working families is near poverty. Food stamp usage has increased to 42.2 million this Thanksgiving, up 15 million from the start of the recession in December 2007. Millions have lost their homes, with 2.8 million foreclosures in 2009 alone, and an estimated 7.4 million between 2010 and 2012. Those who have lots never had so much of it, and those who have little never had it so bad. Most of all, there is no sense that things will improve, or that there is the political will to change it. And while we can talk about recessions and economic downturns, there is a sense that things are different this time around, that there will be no recovery in the traditional sense.
Nothing short of a massive mobilization of government will bring jobs to the millions of unemployed and underemployed, at wages that will enable them to support themselves and their families. After all, capitalism is being propped up now, and it cannot and will not supply the jobs. The fortunes of Wall Street and corporate America are not tied to Main Street, except to the extent that their prosperity seems to depend on everyone else's misery.
And yet, where is the will among our so-called public servants? U.S. democracy has been thoroughly bought out by wealthy interests, and the federal legislature is broken, that is, unless you're getting what you paid for. The Republicans are 100 percent owned by corporations, an unsavory amalgam of wingnuts, the greedy, segregationists, and Christian nationalists. Along with fear of their own shadow, Democrats' allegiances to moneyed interests often prevent them from doing the right thing, and compel them to water down the good into the mediocre.
In the White House today sits perhaps one of the most brilliant individuals to ever grace the office, if only he appreciated his power. His accomplishments already are greater than many of his predecessors. But then again, the wave of populism that swept him in power came with it great expectations, however unrealistic. This president has failed to harness that populist energy to its full potential. He keeps his progressive base at arm's length. He is non-confrontational, caves in too early on, capitulates, and doesn't put up a fight. There's not enough passion there, and too many status-quo, banker types at the table. And he prefers incrementalism when the times demand the bold change the people said they wanted.
Martin Luther King, a great leader often invoked by the president, dismissed those who urged him to not take direct action, and who counseled him against moving too fast: "The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter," King said in Letter from Birmingham Jail. Today, other nations, developing and advanced alike, are investing heavily in new technologies, high-speed rail and green energy. The U.S. wastes its money on wars it cannot afford, more army than the rest of the planet combined, and tax cuts for the wealthy it really, really cannot afford. This, as most of its people suffer and its infrastructure crumbles into dust.
But at least, as a friend jokingly reminded me recently, "we have guns and extra value meals and thousands of channels."
It is unrealistic to assume that one person, even the most powerful leader in the world, can solve the nation's problems in two years. Years of bad policy from Bush and neoliberal Dems brought us to where we are today. What concerns me is the lack of a sense of urgency from this White House-- that is, unless the administration is setting a trap for their adversaries, engaged in some multi-layered chess game that goes above my head and beyond my pay scale.
Called the negotiator-in-chief, the mediator-in-chief, even the half-stepper-in-chief, he apparently would compromise with people who would have his head, and they've told him as much. President Obama's quixotic search for bipartisanship paid off for him at a rather steep price: a tax cut bill that represents the worst of politics and policy, a GOP utopia. How unconscionable to give millionaires and billionaires a holiday present when a multitude cannot afford to put food on the table! Americans need help now, yesterday even, and they have little time to wait and see how this apparent Clinton 2.0 triangulation strategy works out for the 2012 presidential campaign.
Looking ahead to 2011, the Democratic base needs to help President Obama out. They need to "make him" do certain things. They need to provide the cover that F.D.R.'s base provided him 70 years ago to enact the New Deal. Most of all, this administration needs a narrative, a communications strategy with clearly defined enemies. It has to be about the Wall Street vs. Main Street, corporate excess vs. the franks and beans of everyday hardworking people. "I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made," Roosevelt proclaimed. He said this of capitalistic greed and excess:
Now that's what I'm talking about! But more importantly, this is not about President Obama, whose fate will be sealed in the ballot box, depending on how much or little his team will deliver. This is about a sustainable progressive movement that speaks to bread and butter issues, and will carry on regardless of who is president. 2011 must be about institution building--not an infrastructure for a presidential campaign, but a game plan for how we want this country to be, irrespective of party affiliation.
"A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men purchases its own spiritual death on the installment plan," King said. Let's not die, let's harden our minds, make it right, and get it done.
It is the end of another year, and quite a year it was. This time of year, this time of reflection, can bring joy, sorrow and pain all in one big dosage.
These days, I feel acutely aware of the tremendous suffering people are experiencing in this country today. And I'm astounded by the callousness and indifference of politicians who have the power to change things, yet pretend everything is just fine, that it is business as usual. Those of you who follow my writings know that I'm always trying to make sense of the political world. I follow trends in society, interpret my findings and attempt to give solutions. But now I'm just stumped. Stumped, because the problem seems so simple and straightforward, yet the prescription remains elusive. And while optimism usually tempers my stinging critique of the world's injustice, I don't know how optimistic I can be, or should be, about the future of this country.
The problem is that the United States is falling apart. It has become a Third World country. Record numbers of people are unemployed. About 44 million are in poverty in America--14.3 percent of the population--and one in three working families is near poverty. Food stamp usage has increased to 42.2 million this Thanksgiving, up 15 million from the start of the recession in December 2007. Millions have lost their homes, with 2.8 million foreclosures in 2009 alone, and an estimated 7.4 million between 2010 and 2012. Those who have lots never had so much of it, and those who have little never had it so bad. Most of all, there is no sense that things will improve, or that there is the political will to change it. And while we can talk about recessions and economic downturns, there is a sense that things are different this time around, that there will be no recovery in the traditional sense.
Nothing short of a massive mobilization of government will bring jobs to the millions of unemployed and underemployed, at wages that will enable them to support themselves and their families. After all, capitalism is being propped up now, and it cannot and will not supply the jobs. The fortunes of Wall Street and corporate America are not tied to Main Street, except to the extent that their prosperity seems to depend on everyone else's misery.
And yet, where is the will among our so-called public servants? U.S. democracy has been thoroughly bought out by wealthy interests, and the federal legislature is broken, that is, unless you're getting what you paid for. The Republicans are 100 percent owned by corporations, an unsavory amalgam of wingnuts, the greedy, segregationists, and Christian nationalists. Along with fear of their own shadow, Democrats' allegiances to moneyed interests often prevent them from doing the right thing, and compel them to water down the good into the mediocre.
In the White House today sits perhaps one of the most brilliant individuals to ever grace the office, if only he appreciated his power. His accomplishments already are greater than many of his predecessors. But then again, the wave of populism that swept him in power came with it great expectations, however unrealistic. This president has failed to harness that populist energy to its full potential. He keeps his progressive base at arm's length. He is non-confrontational, caves in too early on, capitulates, and doesn't put up a fight. There's not enough passion there, and too many status-quo, banker types at the table. And he prefers incrementalism when the times demand the bold change the people said they wanted.
Martin Luther King, a great leader often invoked by the president, dismissed those who urged him to not take direct action, and who counseled him against moving too fast: "The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter," King said in Letter from Birmingham Jail. Today, other nations, developing and advanced alike, are investing heavily in new technologies, high-speed rail and green energy. The U.S. wastes its money on wars it cannot afford, more army than the rest of the planet combined, and tax cuts for the wealthy it really, really cannot afford. This, as most of its people suffer and its infrastructure crumbles into dust.
But at least, as a friend jokingly reminded me recently, "we have guns and extra value meals and thousands of channels."
It is unrealistic to assume that one person, even the most powerful leader in the world, can solve the nation's problems in two years. Years of bad policy from Bush and neoliberal Dems brought us to where we are today. What concerns me is the lack of a sense of urgency from this White House-- that is, unless the administration is setting a trap for their adversaries, engaged in some multi-layered chess game that goes above my head and beyond my pay scale.
Called the negotiator-in-chief, the mediator-in-chief, even the half-stepper-in-chief, he apparently would compromise with people who would have his head, and they've told him as much. President Obama's quixotic search for bipartisanship paid off for him at a rather steep price: a tax cut bill that represents the worst of politics and policy, a GOP utopia. How unconscionable to give millionaires and billionaires a holiday present when a multitude cannot afford to put food on the table! Americans need help now, yesterday even, and they have little time to wait and see how this apparent Clinton 2.0 triangulation strategy works out for the 2012 presidential campaign.
Looking ahead to 2011, the Democratic base needs to help President Obama out. They need to "make him" do certain things. They need to provide the cover that F.D.R.'s base provided him 70 years ago to enact the New Deal. Most of all, this administration needs a narrative, a communications strategy with clearly defined enemies. It has to be about the Wall Street vs. Main Street, corporate excess vs. the franks and beans of everyday hardworking people. "I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made," Roosevelt proclaimed. He said this of capitalistic greed and excess:
Primarily this is because rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men. True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence....The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.
Now that's what I'm talking about! But more importantly, this is not about President Obama, whose fate will be sealed in the ballot box, depending on how much or little his team will deliver. This is about a sustainable progressive movement that speaks to bread and butter issues, and will carry on regardless of who is president. 2011 must be about institution building--not an infrastructure for a presidential campaign, but a game plan for how we want this country to be, irrespective of party affiliation.
"A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men purchases its own spiritual death on the installment plan," King said. Let's not die, let's harden our minds, make it right, and get it done.
November 5, 2010
Americans, Your Country Isn't So Great
This is a commentary I was bound to write regardless of the outcome of the midterm election. I start by saying that your country is not so great, Americans. Any discussion of "what went wrong" must be prefaced with that statement. Harsh words, perhaps, but I do not utter them in haste. And we need to say it over and over again until we change it.
The United States is at the bottom of the barrel. We don't live well. Since the 1970s, the bottom 90 percent has experienced income stagnation, while the top 1 percent has seen its wealth skyrocket. In America, two-thirds of income gains in recent years went to the top 1 percent. The gap between rich and poor hasn't been so great since 1928, right before the first Great Depression, with the top 20 percent controlling 84 percent of the wealth. In Sweden, the top 20 percent owns 36 percent. Canada and Western Europe all have greater social mobility than the so-called "land of opportunity," and with far more generous benefits, over a month of vacation, real universal health care -- you get the picture. If the citizens of all of these advanced nations are living better than Americans, then what is so special about America?
And yet, this recent election is a testament to this country's proclivity -- with help from the bottom 90 percent -- to keep things the way they are, if not worsen them. Some people vote with the oligarchy against their own interests because they simply lack the proper information. There's lots of blame to go around.
Turnout from the base. Young voters and African-Americans, a key part of the Democratic base, refused to show up in the numbers they should have to turn this thing around. And 29 million people who voted in 2008 stayed home this year. If you don't use democracy you lose it. But then again, perhaps many felt as if they had no reason to vote. And their silence is as deafening as the noise made in the voting booth. There is no question that the president lost touch with his soldiers, far more than a hundred interviews on hip-hop radio stations could ever make up. This is not to excuse those who sat out of the race, but it's trickier than that. The reality is that the White House appeared arrogant and distant, even dismissive and impatient towards its progressive supporters-turned-critics. Obama must answer to the voters, not scold them, but he got it twisted somewhere along the way.
Anti-Wall Street sentiment. Clearly, the voters who went against the Democrats were mad at Wall Street. One would conclude that an anti-Wall Street fervor should favor the Democrats. But the Democrats are as much a party of corporate enablers as are the Republicans. Obama decided to cozy up to the bankers and prop them up rather than tear them down for the havoc they engineered. Plus, he surrounded himself with dead weight -- Wall Street shills and neoliberal Clinton insiders among his closest advisors. These individuals have utter contempt for unions, "the professional left" and other components of the base. This was not the change the Obama supporters thought they were getting in November 2008. Meanwhile, average Americans observed that as they struggled through hard times, with mounting bills, chronic unemployment and foreclosures, the banks were not left wanting.
Compromise. "We were in such a hurry to get things done that we didn't change how things got done," President Obama said. And he is right. Cutting deals with lobbyists and watering down health care reform for the sake of putting another notch in your belt is the old way of doing things. Compromising with the other side from a position of weakness and giving away the store before the negotiations even start -- well that's just plain naïve.
Also naïve was the administration's belief that it could compromise with Republicans, the extremists who awake every morning wishing and hoping for his downfall. Perhaps it would have been possible decades ago, but not now. Wasting too much time on this quixotic dream of compromise as an end, rather than one of various possible means to an end, gave the Republicans their opening. Now, the GOP is even more extreme, racist and uncompromising after its Teabilly infusion of white supremacists, Christian Taliban, conspiracy theorists and certified kooks.
A weak, fraidy cat administration. Obama failed to exert his power and authority in many ways, often appearing weak and equivocating. His heart just wasn't in it. The stimulus was a half measure that was not bold enough, and contained tax cuts designed to attract Republican support that never came. The plan failed to restore the 11.5 million jobs needed to get America back to pre-recession levels. And Obama continued Bush's trillion dollar folly in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bigger than the rest of the world's armies combined, the U.S. war machine sucks up nearly half of the discretionary dollars in the federal budget, crippling our ability to compete with China.
Obama did not take the jobs problem seriously enough soon enough, and the lunatic right gave him a beat down with it, dismissing his entire agenda as ineffective and creating a top-down faux populist movement to mess him up. The Citizens United decision all but guaranteed a conservative multi-billion dollar buyout of the election by the Koch brothers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Fox and an array of sketchy, shady interests, anonymous and unaccountable.
The Economy and F.D.R. It's the economy stupid, but it's what you do and say as a leader in tough economic times that matters. Oddly, candidate Obama's effective communication strategy has not translated into President Obama the great communicator. The use of the narrative is important, particularly in bad times, and Reagan knew it. President Obama could have traveled the F.D.R. route and crafted a message of economic populism, with Wall Street greed and predatory capitalism as the clear enemy, and himself as the national hero who has come to make things right. If the narrative resonates with an approving public, who cares which party controls Congress?
President Roosevelt betrayed his class, saying "I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made." In his inauguration speech, he said the "Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.... The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit." Not having sought enemies--though the enemies found him-- Obama chose not to follow F.D.R., and is paying a price. Yet he must do this very thing if he wants a second term.
A New Movement. A sustainable movement for social and economic justice must help this president to place him on the path of greatness that these crisis times demand, that his campaign promised. Nothing less than America's future is at stake. Whether it is an internal effort to wrest control from the corporatist neoliberals smothering the Democratic Party, or an independent movement, or both, it must be done. I refer to this genuinely organic, bottom-up antithesis of the Tea Party as the "Hot Chocolate" Party, to coin a term from my father-in-law. Hot chocolate is a sweet mix of diverse ingredients that brings comfort on cold days. Minimally caffeinated compared to tea, it can ease fatigue and positively affect health.
Despite their immediate victory, it is almost certain that the GOP Hate Caucus is running on borrowed time. It is expected they will disappoint immensely. Devoid of ideas, they will die from a combination of infighting, overreaching, and insurmountable demographic shifts in the nation. But in the meantime, progressives must sustain a movement to provide cover and apply pressure to Obama and any subsequent presidents.
Roosevelt asked civil rights leader A. Phillip Randolph to "go out and make me do it," that is, make him use his power and the bully pulpit to right the wrongs and do the things they both agreed should be addressed. We, too, must make Obama do it, for him and for ourselves.
The United States is at the bottom of the barrel. We don't live well. Since the 1970s, the bottom 90 percent has experienced income stagnation, while the top 1 percent has seen its wealth skyrocket. In America, two-thirds of income gains in recent years went to the top 1 percent. The gap between rich and poor hasn't been so great since 1928, right before the first Great Depression, with the top 20 percent controlling 84 percent of the wealth. In Sweden, the top 20 percent owns 36 percent. Canada and Western Europe all have greater social mobility than the so-called "land of opportunity," and with far more generous benefits, over a month of vacation, real universal health care -- you get the picture. If the citizens of all of these advanced nations are living better than Americans, then what is so special about America?
And yet, this recent election is a testament to this country's proclivity -- with help from the bottom 90 percent -- to keep things the way they are, if not worsen them. Some people vote with the oligarchy against their own interests because they simply lack the proper information. There's lots of blame to go around.
Turnout from the base. Young voters and African-Americans, a key part of the Democratic base, refused to show up in the numbers they should have to turn this thing around. And 29 million people who voted in 2008 stayed home this year. If you don't use democracy you lose it. But then again, perhaps many felt as if they had no reason to vote. And their silence is as deafening as the noise made in the voting booth. There is no question that the president lost touch with his soldiers, far more than a hundred interviews on hip-hop radio stations could ever make up. This is not to excuse those who sat out of the race, but it's trickier than that. The reality is that the White House appeared arrogant and distant, even dismissive and impatient towards its progressive supporters-turned-critics. Obama must answer to the voters, not scold them, but he got it twisted somewhere along the way.
Anti-Wall Street sentiment. Clearly, the voters who went against the Democrats were mad at Wall Street. One would conclude that an anti-Wall Street fervor should favor the Democrats. But the Democrats are as much a party of corporate enablers as are the Republicans. Obama decided to cozy up to the bankers and prop them up rather than tear them down for the havoc they engineered. Plus, he surrounded himself with dead weight -- Wall Street shills and neoliberal Clinton insiders among his closest advisors. These individuals have utter contempt for unions, "the professional left" and other components of the base. This was not the change the Obama supporters thought they were getting in November 2008. Meanwhile, average Americans observed that as they struggled through hard times, with mounting bills, chronic unemployment and foreclosures, the banks were not left wanting.
Compromise. "We were in such a hurry to get things done that we didn't change how things got done," President Obama said. And he is right. Cutting deals with lobbyists and watering down health care reform for the sake of putting another notch in your belt is the old way of doing things. Compromising with the other side from a position of weakness and giving away the store before the negotiations even start -- well that's just plain naïve.
Also naïve was the administration's belief that it could compromise with Republicans, the extremists who awake every morning wishing and hoping for his downfall. Perhaps it would have been possible decades ago, but not now. Wasting too much time on this quixotic dream of compromise as an end, rather than one of various possible means to an end, gave the Republicans their opening. Now, the GOP is even more extreme, racist and uncompromising after its Teabilly infusion of white supremacists, Christian Taliban, conspiracy theorists and certified kooks.
A weak, fraidy cat administration. Obama failed to exert his power and authority in many ways, often appearing weak and equivocating. His heart just wasn't in it. The stimulus was a half measure that was not bold enough, and contained tax cuts designed to attract Republican support that never came. The plan failed to restore the 11.5 million jobs needed to get America back to pre-recession levels. And Obama continued Bush's trillion dollar folly in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bigger than the rest of the world's armies combined, the U.S. war machine sucks up nearly half of the discretionary dollars in the federal budget, crippling our ability to compete with China.
Obama did not take the jobs problem seriously enough soon enough, and the lunatic right gave him a beat down with it, dismissing his entire agenda as ineffective and creating a top-down faux populist movement to mess him up. The Citizens United decision all but guaranteed a conservative multi-billion dollar buyout of the election by the Koch brothers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Fox and an array of sketchy, shady interests, anonymous and unaccountable.
The Economy and F.D.R. It's the economy stupid, but it's what you do and say as a leader in tough economic times that matters. Oddly, candidate Obama's effective communication strategy has not translated into President Obama the great communicator. The use of the narrative is important, particularly in bad times, and Reagan knew it. President Obama could have traveled the F.D.R. route and crafted a message of economic populism, with Wall Street greed and predatory capitalism as the clear enemy, and himself as the national hero who has come to make things right. If the narrative resonates with an approving public, who cares which party controls Congress?
President Roosevelt betrayed his class, saying "I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made." In his inauguration speech, he said the "Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.... The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit." Not having sought enemies--though the enemies found him-- Obama chose not to follow F.D.R., and is paying a price. Yet he must do this very thing if he wants a second term.
A New Movement. A sustainable movement for social and economic justice must help this president to place him on the path of greatness that these crisis times demand, that his campaign promised. Nothing less than America's future is at stake. Whether it is an internal effort to wrest control from the corporatist neoliberals smothering the Democratic Party, or an independent movement, or both, it must be done. I refer to this genuinely organic, bottom-up antithesis of the Tea Party as the "Hot Chocolate" Party, to coin a term from my father-in-law. Hot chocolate is a sweet mix of diverse ingredients that brings comfort on cold days. Minimally caffeinated compared to tea, it can ease fatigue and positively affect health.
Despite their immediate victory, it is almost certain that the GOP Hate Caucus is running on borrowed time. It is expected they will disappoint immensely. Devoid of ideas, they will die from a combination of infighting, overreaching, and insurmountable demographic shifts in the nation. But in the meantime, progressives must sustain a movement to provide cover and apply pressure to Obama and any subsequent presidents.
Roosevelt asked civil rights leader A. Phillip Randolph to "go out and make me do it," that is, make him use his power and the bully pulpit to right the wrongs and do the things they both agreed should be addressed. We, too, must make Obama do it, for him and for ourselves.
October 16, 2010
When the Poor Conspire to Keep Themselves Poor
Sometimes we are our own worst enemies.
So the poor are conspiring with the wealthy, against their own self-interests, to keep themselves in poverty. How is it that economic inequality makes the poor more conservative and in opposition to government programs that are designed to fight inequality?
A new study by Nathan J. Kelly and Peter K. Enns suggests that income inequality is a self-perpetuating phenomenon. Based on responses to survey questions from 1952 to 2006, the authors concluded that as the gap between the haves and the have nots widens, public opinion moves towards a conservative mindset of smaller government. Meanwhile, as the wealth gap narrows, there is a more liberal attitude among rich and poor alike.
Oddly, according to the authors, despite all of this, poorer people are more acutely aware of increases in inequality. Kelly and Enns suggest that the elites are controlling actors in the distribution game, and can play a role in shaping public opinion by distracting and manipulating the masses. They also speculate that media and the nature of media coverage play a role. For example, during economic boom times the press covers stories emphasizing individualism, which will boost public antipathy towards welfare. And in hard times the media tend to report on the problems people are facing, and the role of government in solving these problems. I think there is some validity to this theory, given the popularity of welfare reform and dismantling the social safety net during the economic expansion of the Clinton years, and widespread support for health care reform and unemployment insurance under today's Great Recession.
This study is a good starting point in helping us understand the obstacles to forming a progressive-led movement for economic justice in America -- a fight against the cancer of neoliberal privatization of the public sphere, and a move towards social democracy, if you will.
Many people placed their hopes on the Obama presidency to bring about this new era of economic redistribution. Although the history still has yet to be written on the Obama presidency, it looks as if the second coming of F.D.R. ain't gonna happen just yet. There are very good intentions in this administration, mixed with conflicting allegiances and amateurism. Its flawed notion of bipartisanship was doomed to failure under the current troubling political landscape, one in which the opposing team is an unsavory assortment of neo-Nazis, the Klan, Christian Taliban and swamp-running hillbilly lynch mobs on their best days.
The ever-looming presence of Wall Street in the politics of this country -- and in this administration in particular -- has put the proverbial cold water on attempts to fundamentally change America's economic pie. Not only do we need to reassess the way the slices are doled out and the sizes of the slices, but we also need to change the recipe itself. When the president placed key neoliberal Clintonistas and Goldman Sachs enablers in his inner circle -- you know, the people who paved the way for the Great Recession -- he signaled he had no intention of rocking the boat. He decided against the "radical revolution of values" demanded by Martin Luther King, the man he so admired.
Job creation was not taken seriously, and stimulus funding was half-hearted. And health care reform was Rahm Emanuel's opportunity to cut deals with lobbyists and give away the store. Boldness of ideas was eschewed in favor of technocratic aloofness, and scolding the base for not beholding with awe this White House's missteps, triangulations and policy dilutions. Granted, inheriting a dysfunctional economy explains many of Obama's challenges, but does not explain away the self-inflicted wounds of this administration.
Crises demand far more than tweaking and nibbling at the edges. Obama squandered a unique opportunity, not realizing that you don't bring a spatula to a gunfight. He refused to do the class warfare thing and place blame where blame rests -- Wall Street elites that have hollowed out working class and poor Americans (there is only a token vestige of a middle class left). In the process, he gave a football stadium-sized opening for Republican gangsterism to thrive. The teabagged GOP has crafted a narrative of hate and anger, built on an infrastructure of corporate-sponsored, ersatz populism. Some white working-class and poor Americans are drawn to this phony movement the way they have acted against their interests time and again. But they need to be shown another way out.
With that said, President Obama is the best hope for progressives right now, and will continue to be until he isn't. Hope is not all lost, though. After all, President Obama is dismantling his privileged white-male roundtable and bringing in Elizabeth Warren. But at the same time, he still seems to want to protect the vested moneyed interests by lifting the ban on deep water oil drilling, and falling short of halting all foreclosures, opting to study the issue instead. And this president has accomplished more than many -- but then again, the expectations were high, and rarely have the stakes been higher.
To its credit, this White House is railing against the buying of democracy, which we have seen recently with Rupert Murdoch purchasing the Republican Party, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce apparently using foreign funding to buy the 2010 elections. The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allows unlimited money to influence politics on the grounds that corporations are people too, and deserving of free speech protection. But as Justice Stevens warned in his dissent:
It is this type of corruption of democracy that twists the system and causes the poor to act against their own interests. And this is one of the myriad issues that a progressive movement must tackle, whether or not the president chooses to. It is said there are no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests. Well, there are permanent values, and it takes a movement to articulate and sustain those values. Progressives can demand that Obama adhere to certain principles if he wants their support.
But a president does not a movement make, and we're learning that now. That's the job of the people.
So the poor are conspiring with the wealthy, against their own self-interests, to keep themselves in poverty. How is it that economic inequality makes the poor more conservative and in opposition to government programs that are designed to fight inequality?
A new study by Nathan J. Kelly and Peter K. Enns suggests that income inequality is a self-perpetuating phenomenon. Based on responses to survey questions from 1952 to 2006, the authors concluded that as the gap between the haves and the have nots widens, public opinion moves towards a conservative mindset of smaller government. Meanwhile, as the wealth gap narrows, there is a more liberal attitude among rich and poor alike.
Oddly, according to the authors, despite all of this, poorer people are more acutely aware of increases in inequality. Kelly and Enns suggest that the elites are controlling actors in the distribution game, and can play a role in shaping public opinion by distracting and manipulating the masses. They also speculate that media and the nature of media coverage play a role. For example, during economic boom times the press covers stories emphasizing individualism, which will boost public antipathy towards welfare. And in hard times the media tend to report on the problems people are facing, and the role of government in solving these problems. I think there is some validity to this theory, given the popularity of welfare reform and dismantling the social safety net during the economic expansion of the Clinton years, and widespread support for health care reform and unemployment insurance under today's Great Recession.
This study is a good starting point in helping us understand the obstacles to forming a progressive-led movement for economic justice in America -- a fight against the cancer of neoliberal privatization of the public sphere, and a move towards social democracy, if you will.
Many people placed their hopes on the Obama presidency to bring about this new era of economic redistribution. Although the history still has yet to be written on the Obama presidency, it looks as if the second coming of F.D.R. ain't gonna happen just yet. There are very good intentions in this administration, mixed with conflicting allegiances and amateurism. Its flawed notion of bipartisanship was doomed to failure under the current troubling political landscape, one in which the opposing team is an unsavory assortment of neo-Nazis, the Klan, Christian Taliban and swamp-running hillbilly lynch mobs on their best days.
The ever-looming presence of Wall Street in the politics of this country -- and in this administration in particular -- has put the proverbial cold water on attempts to fundamentally change America's economic pie. Not only do we need to reassess the way the slices are doled out and the sizes of the slices, but we also need to change the recipe itself. When the president placed key neoliberal Clintonistas and Goldman Sachs enablers in his inner circle -- you know, the people who paved the way for the Great Recession -- he signaled he had no intention of rocking the boat. He decided against the "radical revolution of values" demanded by Martin Luther King, the man he so admired.
Job creation was not taken seriously, and stimulus funding was half-hearted. And health care reform was Rahm Emanuel's opportunity to cut deals with lobbyists and give away the store. Boldness of ideas was eschewed in favor of technocratic aloofness, and scolding the base for not beholding with awe this White House's missteps, triangulations and policy dilutions. Granted, inheriting a dysfunctional economy explains many of Obama's challenges, but does not explain away the self-inflicted wounds of this administration.
Crises demand far more than tweaking and nibbling at the edges. Obama squandered a unique opportunity, not realizing that you don't bring a spatula to a gunfight. He refused to do the class warfare thing and place blame where blame rests -- Wall Street elites that have hollowed out working class and poor Americans (there is only a token vestige of a middle class left). In the process, he gave a football stadium-sized opening for Republican gangsterism to thrive. The teabagged GOP has crafted a narrative of hate and anger, built on an infrastructure of corporate-sponsored, ersatz populism. Some white working-class and poor Americans are drawn to this phony movement the way they have acted against their interests time and again. But they need to be shown another way out.
With that said, President Obama is the best hope for progressives right now, and will continue to be until he isn't. Hope is not all lost, though. After all, President Obama is dismantling his privileged white-male roundtable and bringing in Elizabeth Warren. But at the same time, he still seems to want to protect the vested moneyed interests by lifting the ban on deep water oil drilling, and falling short of halting all foreclosures, opting to study the issue instead. And this president has accomplished more than many -- but then again, the expectations were high, and rarely have the stakes been higher.
To its credit, this White House is railing against the buying of democracy, which we have seen recently with Rupert Murdoch purchasing the Republican Party, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce apparently using foreign funding to buy the 2010 elections. The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allows unlimited money to influence politics on the grounds that corporations are people too, and deserving of free speech protection. But as Justice Stevens warned in his dissent:
In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.
It is this type of corruption of democracy that twists the system and causes the poor to act against their own interests. And this is one of the myriad issues that a progressive movement must tackle, whether or not the president chooses to. It is said there are no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests. Well, there are permanent values, and it takes a movement to articulate and sustain those values. Progressives can demand that Obama adhere to certain principles if he wants their support.
But a president does not a movement make, and we're learning that now. That's the job of the people.
August 28, 2010
5 years after Katrina, does Obama care about black people?
From theGrio:
It is hard to believe that five years have passed since Hurricane Katrina swept over the Gulf Coast, devastating the region, killing over 1,800, displacing thousands and leaving $80 billion in property damage. But five years it has been nonetheless. And of course, we all remember the breaking of the levees in New Orleans, which led to the flooding of that great city and the deaths of hundreds, many of whom were poor and people of color with nowhere to hide.
Those levees--seemingly constructed of little more than lego, silly puddy and tape, not exactly a marvel of American engineering--stood and fell as a symbol of years of government neglect. The Bush administration's lack of a response to the plight of the mostly chocolate city of New Orleans following Katrina of was a potent example of America's callousness towards poverty and black and brown people.
Speaking of then-President Bush's bungling of the Katrina aftermath, Kanye West said that "George Bush doesn't care about black people." Well, now we have an African-American president named Barack Obama. And while much has changed in the Gulf Coast region since 2005, many things have remained the same as far as black people are concerned. And while the president has taken steps to improve the quality of life in the region, he has been criticized for not doing enough to help African-Americans who are being left out of the recovery efforts. Plus, the recent BP oil disaster in the Gulf Coast hasn't exactly helped things. Now is a good time to ask the question, does President Obama really care about black people?
Despite a $10.5 billion relief aid package under the previous president, the Bush legacy in the Gulf is one of incompetence, with some racism and classism mixed in. Public perceptions combined with a healthy dose of reality made it appear that the fix was in for the disproportionately black victims of the region. It speaks to a conservative hatred of government and claims that government does not work. So, when politicians who subscribe to that ideology get into office, they find the worst people to run the agencies they don't like, in order to blow it all up and create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE
It is hard to believe that five years have passed since Hurricane Katrina swept over the Gulf Coast, devastating the region, killing over 1,800, displacing thousands and leaving $80 billion in property damage. But five years it has been nonetheless. And of course, we all remember the breaking of the levees in New Orleans, which led to the flooding of that great city and the deaths of hundreds, many of whom were poor and people of color with nowhere to hide.
Those levees--seemingly constructed of little more than lego, silly puddy and tape, not exactly a marvel of American engineering--stood and fell as a symbol of years of government neglect. The Bush administration's lack of a response to the plight of the mostly chocolate city of New Orleans following Katrina of was a potent example of America's callousness towards poverty and black and brown people.
Speaking of then-President Bush's bungling of the Katrina aftermath, Kanye West said that "George Bush doesn't care about black people." Well, now we have an African-American president named Barack Obama. And while much has changed in the Gulf Coast region since 2005, many things have remained the same as far as black people are concerned. And while the president has taken steps to improve the quality of life in the region, he has been criticized for not doing enough to help African-Americans who are being left out of the recovery efforts. Plus, the recent BP oil disaster in the Gulf Coast hasn't exactly helped things. Now is a good time to ask the question, does President Obama really care about black people?
Despite a $10.5 billion relief aid package under the previous president, the Bush legacy in the Gulf is one of incompetence, with some racism and classism mixed in. Public perceptions combined with a healthy dose of reality made it appear that the fix was in for the disproportionately black victims of the region. It speaks to a conservative hatred of government and claims that government does not work. So, when politicians who subscribe to that ideology get into office, they find the worst people to run the agencies they don't like, in order to blow it all up and create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE
August 13, 2010
The Professional Left Wants Its F.D.R. Now
From Huffington Post and Daily Kos:
Although inadvertently perhaps, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs performed a great public service when he complained about the "professional left" that will not give this administration proper credit for its legislative accomplishments. And he insulted a wide swath of the Democratic base in the process. He apologized and later stood by his statement, but it's the type of thing you just can't take back. Not unlike that proverbial tube of toothpaste, you just can't put it back in.
This was a showdown in the making, and should be welcomed. On the one hand there's the base that worked hard to get Obama into office, and now pushes this president to do more. On the other hand, there's a White House that is simply dumbfounded. The Obama administration apparently cannot understand why its supporters are not in awe over its ability to politick, compromise, and water down great legislation into mediocre laws, without getting anything for it in return. There seems to be a sense of arrogance emanating from the White House, this attitude that the base should just be happy and stop complaining. After all, Obama is much better than Bush, and look at what he has achieved in only a little over a year and a half -- health care reform, student loan reform, a recovery act that prevented the nation from sliding into a depression, and so on.
To be sure, the accomplishments to date are considerable, and we should not ignore them. But at the same time, the base always expected, even demanded great things from this president who campaigned as a change agent. And the dire problems America is facing require some urgent, forceful, audacious leadership.
But far too often this administration appears to want to play it safe, hedge its bets. For example, the economic stimulus, however well intentioned, should have been much larger. Other times the Obama White House negotiates with itself and gives away far too much, as was the case with the public option. Or the White House will try to bargain with rabid conservatives who have no intention of working together, and would like nothing more than to bring down this presidency. And one gets the impression some of these Republicans would bring down the entire nation just to win an election.
This leads us to the issue of jobs. Part of the problem is the White House is entertaining the foolish proposition of cutting the deficit during a time of recession. At this rate, we might as well put another nail in the coffin that contains what is left of the U.S. middle class.
You know how bad it's getting here in Third World America because the mobs are coming out with the pitchforks. Now, don't get me wrong, people right now have every right to be angry. This recession is unlike any other in recent memory, certainly since the Great Depression. There is no rebound this time, no jobs magically coming back with an upturn of the business cycle, much as the tides faithfully ebb and flow each day. There is no relationship between the fortunes of Wall Street and the plight of the common folk, so it seems. And those who are at the top don't need the rest of us, except when it comes to gaining at our expense.
The handiwork of Democrats and Republicans alike, years of regressive policies have amounted to highway robbery of working people. Deregulation wrecked and plundered the economy, and eviscerated Americans' life savings and home equity. Unemployment is the highest it has been in years, and long-term employment is at disturbing levels, with nearly half of the unemployed out of work for at least six months. College graduates begin their careers in a mountain of debt but with no jobs. Moreover, a trickle-down policy has resulted in the greatest gap between rich and poor in modern history, and a nation that ranks among the least upwardly mobile of the advanced nations.
So now, what is supposedly the world's greatest nation cannot afford to keep its schools open. State and local governments are out of cash, and some localities are grounding up the streets into gravel because they can no longer afford to maintain the roads. State austerity measures--including layoffs of government workers and cutting of important programs--will only exacerbate this economic death spiral.
These are the times when hate groups and unscrupulous politicians suit up for the ugly days ahead, preying on the fears of low information Americans. Bereft of solutions, the ultra-right is doing what the ultra-right does, which is to tear apart the country with an "M-G-M." strategy: blame the Mexicans, Gays and Muslims for all your problems, with the actual or perceived threat of violence thrown in. Of course, blaming that poor undocumented worker for your plight will not help you, but isn't that what scapegoats are for? And the Fourteenth Amendment be damned, they say.
Surely, we can and should assign much blame for our woes on George W. Bush, who bankrupted the nation with two wars and a massive tax cut for the wealthy. However, Bush is no longer running for office. President Obama must realize that he will be judged if he cannot deliver on jobs, and rightly so. Progressives are trying to do him a favor by ensuring that he is not a one-term president, but he refuses to take the hint. A fighting spirit is lacking. At this rate, President Obama is well on his way down that road, despite the phalanx of incompetent empty suits found in abundance on the other side. To this extent, the base is doing what a good base should do.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt came into power after a failing Herbert Hoover who meant well, but either had the wrong ideas, or his good ideas were too little, too late. Roosevelt enacted a massive New Deal program based on relief to the unemployed, economic reform, and recovery through federal spending. The measures were sweeping, and helped cement a Democratic coalition for decades.
But as F.D.R. once told labor and civil rights leader A. Phillip Randolph during a discussion on the future of the country and the plight of African-Americans,
Once again, the base is making a president "do it," so to speak, for his own good and ours. The party faithful did not vote for good speeches alone, or milquetoast policies and lukewarm, half-hearted solutions to a crisis situation. Nor did they vote for "drill baby drill," or the escalation of a senseless war in Afghanistan, or Wall Street lackeys controlling the till. Certainly, they did not vote for a U.S. that spends as much on military as the rest of the world combined, as other nations beat us in expenditures for science, technology and infrastructure. But they did vote for the active role of government in making things right, as only government can do.
The "professional left" simply wants its F.D.R. in the form of Barack Obama, because that's what 2008 was all about, after all.
Although inadvertently perhaps, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs performed a great public service when he complained about the "professional left" that will not give this administration proper credit for its legislative accomplishments. And he insulted a wide swath of the Democratic base in the process. He apologized and later stood by his statement, but it's the type of thing you just can't take back. Not unlike that proverbial tube of toothpaste, you just can't put it back in.
This was a showdown in the making, and should be welcomed. On the one hand there's the base that worked hard to get Obama into office, and now pushes this president to do more. On the other hand, there's a White House that is simply dumbfounded. The Obama administration apparently cannot understand why its supporters are not in awe over its ability to politick, compromise, and water down great legislation into mediocre laws, without getting anything for it in return. There seems to be a sense of arrogance emanating from the White House, this attitude that the base should just be happy and stop complaining. After all, Obama is much better than Bush, and look at what he has achieved in only a little over a year and a half -- health care reform, student loan reform, a recovery act that prevented the nation from sliding into a depression, and so on.
To be sure, the accomplishments to date are considerable, and we should not ignore them. But at the same time, the base always expected, even demanded great things from this president who campaigned as a change agent. And the dire problems America is facing require some urgent, forceful, audacious leadership.
But far too often this administration appears to want to play it safe, hedge its bets. For example, the economic stimulus, however well intentioned, should have been much larger. Other times the Obama White House negotiates with itself and gives away far too much, as was the case with the public option. Or the White House will try to bargain with rabid conservatives who have no intention of working together, and would like nothing more than to bring down this presidency. And one gets the impression some of these Republicans would bring down the entire nation just to win an election.
This leads us to the issue of jobs. Part of the problem is the White House is entertaining the foolish proposition of cutting the deficit during a time of recession. At this rate, we might as well put another nail in the coffin that contains what is left of the U.S. middle class.
You know how bad it's getting here in Third World America because the mobs are coming out with the pitchforks. Now, don't get me wrong, people right now have every right to be angry. This recession is unlike any other in recent memory, certainly since the Great Depression. There is no rebound this time, no jobs magically coming back with an upturn of the business cycle, much as the tides faithfully ebb and flow each day. There is no relationship between the fortunes of Wall Street and the plight of the common folk, so it seems. And those who are at the top don't need the rest of us, except when it comes to gaining at our expense.
The handiwork of Democrats and Republicans alike, years of regressive policies have amounted to highway robbery of working people. Deregulation wrecked and plundered the economy, and eviscerated Americans' life savings and home equity. Unemployment is the highest it has been in years, and long-term employment is at disturbing levels, with nearly half of the unemployed out of work for at least six months. College graduates begin their careers in a mountain of debt but with no jobs. Moreover, a trickle-down policy has resulted in the greatest gap between rich and poor in modern history, and a nation that ranks among the least upwardly mobile of the advanced nations.
So now, what is supposedly the world's greatest nation cannot afford to keep its schools open. State and local governments are out of cash, and some localities are grounding up the streets into gravel because they can no longer afford to maintain the roads. State austerity measures--including layoffs of government workers and cutting of important programs--will only exacerbate this economic death spiral.
These are the times when hate groups and unscrupulous politicians suit up for the ugly days ahead, preying on the fears of low information Americans. Bereft of solutions, the ultra-right is doing what the ultra-right does, which is to tear apart the country with an "M-G-M." strategy: blame the Mexicans, Gays and Muslims for all your problems, with the actual or perceived threat of violence thrown in. Of course, blaming that poor undocumented worker for your plight will not help you, but isn't that what scapegoats are for? And the Fourteenth Amendment be damned, they say.
Surely, we can and should assign much blame for our woes on George W. Bush, who bankrupted the nation with two wars and a massive tax cut for the wealthy. However, Bush is no longer running for office. President Obama must realize that he will be judged if he cannot deliver on jobs, and rightly so. Progressives are trying to do him a favor by ensuring that he is not a one-term president, but he refuses to take the hint. A fighting spirit is lacking. At this rate, President Obama is well on his way down that road, despite the phalanx of incompetent empty suits found in abundance on the other side. To this extent, the base is doing what a good base should do.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt came into power after a failing Herbert Hoover who meant well, but either had the wrong ideas, or his good ideas were too little, too late. Roosevelt enacted a massive New Deal program based on relief to the unemployed, economic reform, and recovery through federal spending. The measures were sweeping, and helped cement a Democratic coalition for decades.
But as F.D.R. once told labor and civil rights leader A. Phillip Randolph during a discussion on the future of the country and the plight of African-Americans,
"You know, Mr. Randolph, I've heard everything you've said tonight, and I couldn't agree with you more. I agree with everything that you've said, including my capacity to be able to right many of these wrongs and to use my power and the bully pulpit. ... But I would ask one thing of you, Mr. Randolph, and that is go out and make me do it."
Once again, the base is making a president "do it," so to speak, for his own good and ours. The party faithful did not vote for good speeches alone, or milquetoast policies and lukewarm, half-hearted solutions to a crisis situation. Nor did they vote for "drill baby drill," or the escalation of a senseless war in Afghanistan, or Wall Street lackeys controlling the till. Certainly, they did not vote for a U.S. that spends as much on military as the rest of the world combined, as other nations beat us in expenditures for science, technology and infrastructure. But they did vote for the active role of government in making things right, as only government can do.
The "professional left" simply wants its F.D.R. in the form of Barack Obama, because that's what 2008 was all about, after all.
June 17, 2010
Obama refocusing failed war on drugs
From McClatchy-Tribune:
U.S. President Barack Obama is moving in the right direction in the war on drugs, saying it should be a health issue, not a crime.
After 40 years and $1 trillion wasted, the war on drugs has been a resounding failure. It has had ruinous consequences in the United States and in Latin America and the Caribbean.
The drug war has given America the world's largest prison population, at nearly 2.5 million people, or roughly one in 100 Americans.
The United States has five per cent of the world's population, but almost 25 per cent of the world's prisoners.
Many nonviolent drug offenders, who shouldn't have been locked up in the first place, are languishing behind bars.
Moreover, this war on drugs also has been a war on black and brown people, who are 70 per cent of the American prison population. Unfair drug sentencing for crack cocaine versus powder cocaine targeted communities of colour for years.
Drug criminalization separates parents from their children with prison bars and destroys urban neighbourhoods by shipping their adult population to prisons in white rural areas, often hundreds of miles away from home.
People who could be productive members of society, good citizens, taxpayers and community leaders are rotting in jail because of the war on drugs. And when they return to society, they cannot find a job because of a felony record.
Our drug policies have also helped spark violence in many countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Drug mafias have taken over the region because drugs in the United States are illegal and the demand for them is still high.
Look at Mexico, where almost 23,000 people have been murdered in the last three and a half years, as drug-related gang violence has exploded.
Or take Jamaica, which declared a state of emergency after supporters of an alleged drug kingpin wanted in the United States torched two police stations and barricaded the slums of Kingston, the capital.
The Obama administration has taken a step forward with its new National Drug Control Strategy.
President Obama says he plans to treat illegal drug use as more of a public health issue than a criminal justice problem.
And Obama's strategy claims to take a balanced approach by focusing on prevention, treatment and law enforcement.
For example, there is an emphasis on community-based prevention focusing on young people.
The president also calls for early intervention and addiction treatment in substance-abuse cases, curbing subscription drug abuse and breaking the cycle of drug use, criminality and incarceration.
Nevertheless, it is uncertain the Obama White House will put its money where its mouth is.
Nearly two-thirds of the $15.6-billion federal drug control budget request is devoted to law enforcement and interdiction, which is just more of the same old same old.
The strategy's success depends on whether the administration stays true to its own words and devotes the resources necessary to deal with drug abuse as a public health issue.
Treating it as a criminal justice issue doesn't work.
April 25, 2010
Obama's New Path To Mideast Peace?
Sometimes, desperate and difficult circumstances require that we change the game a little bit, shake things up, if you will. If recent reports are true, then President Obama plans to mint his own Mideast peace plan in an attempt to loosen up the gridlock the parties are experiencing in that troubled region of the world.
And this is precisely the type of leadership for which people voted in the 2008 election. Tired of being hated when they traveled abroad -- due to the misguided cowboy diplomacy practiced by George W. Bush for eight long years -- Americans wanted a president that would once again make their country a place that was respected among the community of nations. And with his historic Mideast speech, Obama clearly laid out a new vision for Israel, the Palestinians and the greater Arab world.
"The truth is, in some of these conflicts, the United States can't impose solutions unless the participants in these conflicts are willing to break out of the old patterns of antagonism," the President said last week. A U.S. led plan would address Iran, a big concern of Israel, and involve Arab neighbors as well. "We want to get the debate away from settlements and East Jerusalem and take it to a 30,000-feet level that can involve Jordan, Syria and other countries in the region," in addition to the Palestinians and Israelis. The President knows that incrementalism hasn't worked.
All parties involved in a solution to the problem can afford to look at things in a different way. Israel is led by a right-wing government that has been a thorn in the side of the Obama administration. And realpolitik dictates that empires cannot allow their satellite nations to chump them out. Allowing the construction of additional housing units in East Jerusalem, the presumptive capital of a Palestinian state, Prime Minister Netanyahu does not come to the negotiating table as an honest partner. Self-determination and nationhood are a must for the Palestinians, and actions which show contempt for this reality certainly will not bring anyone peace and security, most of all Israel. True leadership comes when so-called leaders do the unpopular, though it is best for their people. Cowardice is doing the expedient, that which may yield short-term votes, yet fails to address the long-term crisis and only exacerbates it. So, for the purposes of this analysis, Netanyahu is a coward.
For Palestinians, suicide bombers will not bring peace, and a culture of violence will not build a nation. Although Israel has erred in characterizing what is primarily a liberation struggle as terrorism, the Palestinians have been mistaken in believing that killing innocent people will accomplish anything other than continuing the cycle of violence. The people in the occupied territories are suffering plenty, to be sure. The blockade of Gaza is a human rights violation and a humanitarian crisis, part of the greater outrage that is the occupation itself, with its apartheid system of checkpoints, passes and Bantustans. People of all faiths and backgrounds -- including progressive Jews -- choose to protest an unjust Gaza policy by fasting and other peaceful means.
As if to learn a lesson from the civil rights movement in the Jim Crow South, many Palestinians are realizing that nonviolent resistance is the path to freedom. They are staging peaceful protests and boycotting goods made in the settlements. The Palestinian prime minister traveled to the West Bank to plant trees and declared that land, not presently under his authority, as part of a future Palestinian state. Gandhi and King surely would be proud.
As far as the U.S. is concerned, a laissez-faire policy of shoulder shrugging has not worked in the Mideast, and neither has the appearance of siding with one party over another. Obama realizes that if there is any hope for stability in the region, he must deal with the Israel-Palestine conflict. Hotheads and peddlers of extremism have a vested interest in the status quo, and would like nothing more than to derail any attempts to transform today's sad state of affairs.
As an aside, somehow, the legendary African-American poet Gil Scott-Heron is caught in the crosshairs of the Mideast conflict. He was involved in the anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s. And now he is being criticized for his plans to perform in Tel Aviv, which, critics say, would violate the unified call among Palestinian civil society for boycotts, divestments, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel, a call which is "directed particularly towards international activists, artists, and academics of conscience."
Whether Gil Scott-Heron is compromising his ideals by performing in Israel is a question that goes far beyond the scope of this commentary. However, I am reminded of the title of one of his songs, "Home Is Where the Hatred Is." And for people living in Israel and the occupied territories, home definitely is where the hatred is. It is what South African Justice Richard Goldstone called "a situation where young people grow up in a culture of hatred and violence, with little hope for change in the future. Finally, the teaching of hate and dehumanization by each side against the other contributes to the destabilization of the whole region."
And this is precisely the type of leadership for which people voted in the 2008 election. Tired of being hated when they traveled abroad -- due to the misguided cowboy diplomacy practiced by George W. Bush for eight long years -- Americans wanted a president that would once again make their country a place that was respected among the community of nations. And with his historic Mideast speech, Obama clearly laid out a new vision for Israel, the Palestinians and the greater Arab world.
"The truth is, in some of these conflicts, the United States can't impose solutions unless the participants in these conflicts are willing to break out of the old patterns of antagonism," the President said last week. A U.S. led plan would address Iran, a big concern of Israel, and involve Arab neighbors as well. "We want to get the debate away from settlements and East Jerusalem and take it to a 30,000-feet level that can involve Jordan, Syria and other countries in the region," in addition to the Palestinians and Israelis. The President knows that incrementalism hasn't worked.
All parties involved in a solution to the problem can afford to look at things in a different way. Israel is led by a right-wing government that has been a thorn in the side of the Obama administration. And realpolitik dictates that empires cannot allow their satellite nations to chump them out. Allowing the construction of additional housing units in East Jerusalem, the presumptive capital of a Palestinian state, Prime Minister Netanyahu does not come to the negotiating table as an honest partner. Self-determination and nationhood are a must for the Palestinians, and actions which show contempt for this reality certainly will not bring anyone peace and security, most of all Israel. True leadership comes when so-called leaders do the unpopular, though it is best for their people. Cowardice is doing the expedient, that which may yield short-term votes, yet fails to address the long-term crisis and only exacerbates it. So, for the purposes of this analysis, Netanyahu is a coward.
For Palestinians, suicide bombers will not bring peace, and a culture of violence will not build a nation. Although Israel has erred in characterizing what is primarily a liberation struggle as terrorism, the Palestinians have been mistaken in believing that killing innocent people will accomplish anything other than continuing the cycle of violence. The people in the occupied territories are suffering plenty, to be sure. The blockade of Gaza is a human rights violation and a humanitarian crisis, part of the greater outrage that is the occupation itself, with its apartheid system of checkpoints, passes and Bantustans. People of all faiths and backgrounds -- including progressive Jews -- choose to protest an unjust Gaza policy by fasting and other peaceful means.
As if to learn a lesson from the civil rights movement in the Jim Crow South, many Palestinians are realizing that nonviolent resistance is the path to freedom. They are staging peaceful protests and boycotting goods made in the settlements. The Palestinian prime minister traveled to the West Bank to plant trees and declared that land, not presently under his authority, as part of a future Palestinian state. Gandhi and King surely would be proud.
As far as the U.S. is concerned, a laissez-faire policy of shoulder shrugging has not worked in the Mideast, and neither has the appearance of siding with one party over another. Obama realizes that if there is any hope for stability in the region, he must deal with the Israel-Palestine conflict. Hotheads and peddlers of extremism have a vested interest in the status quo, and would like nothing more than to derail any attempts to transform today's sad state of affairs.
As an aside, somehow, the legendary African-American poet Gil Scott-Heron is caught in the crosshairs of the Mideast conflict. He was involved in the anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s. And now he is being criticized for his plans to perform in Tel Aviv, which, critics say, would violate the unified call among Palestinian civil society for boycotts, divestments, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel, a call which is "directed particularly towards international activists, artists, and academics of conscience."
Whether Gil Scott-Heron is compromising his ideals by performing in Israel is a question that goes far beyond the scope of this commentary. However, I am reminded of the title of one of his songs, "Home Is Where the Hatred Is." And for people living in Israel and the occupied territories, home definitely is where the hatred is. It is what South African Justice Richard Goldstone called "a situation where young people grow up in a culture of hatred and violence, with little hope for change in the future. Finally, the teaching of hate and dehumanization by each side against the other contributes to the destabilization of the whole region."
February 27, 2010
Obama's last stand on health care reform
From theGrio:
For good or for bad, and hopefully for good, this is a big week for the future of health care reform. On Thursday, President Obama will hold his bipartisan health care summit, during which he will certainly seek his ever-elusive goal of bipartisanship. The president will also have an opportunity to further isolate his Republican obstructionist opponents--provided he takes the opportunity, and the GOP takes the bait. And just days before, the president unveiled his own health care plan, signaling his willingness to provide some direction and leadership on his signature campaign issue.
If health care reform legislation eventually passes, this week may well have been the reason. Either way, the Obama administration's strategy up to this point, or lack thereof, provides a valuable lesson in how not to promote a health care plan.
The president unveiled his own 11-page health care plan, which is available online. The plan would extend coverage to 31 million people, ramp up regulations on the health insurance companies, and replace the Senate's proposed tax on high-cost insurance plans with a tax on the wealthy. Other highlights of the Obama plan include the following:
-An end to discrimination based on pre-existing conditions
-Extension of Medicaid, but the elimination of Sen. Ben Nelson's $100 million Medicaid funding deal for Nebraska
-State-based exchanges, as opposed to national, would allow consumers to purchase and compare insurance plans
-A national insurance authority would help states fight unreasonable insurance rate hikes
-The plan would close the "donut hole" gap in the Medicare prescription drug plan
-Penalties if people do not buy insurance, with income-based subsidies if they cannot afford coverage
-An end to anti-competitive practices by drug companies that keep cheaper generic drugs off the market
-A voluntary, long-term insurance option for people with disabilities
-Scholarships, loan repayment and other incentives to promote the expansion of the health care workforce
-Reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act will improve health care for 1.9 million Native Americans
In addition to the plan, the President supports legislation removing antitrust exemption for the insurance industry.
For the first time in a while, Obama is taking the lead and seizing the reins in the health care debate. But it took a long time to get here. The administration has been criticized for over-learning the lessons from the failed Clinton health care plan. President Clinton's attempt at universal health care failed because they kept Congress out of the loop. Obama, on the other hand, took a step back while a dysfunctional, lobbyist-loving Congress shaped the legislation on its own, with no guidance from the White House. The congressional sausage-making process turned people off, and Obama lost popularity with his base for not acting like the agent of change he was in the 2008 campaign.
Conspicuously absent from the Obama plan is the much beloved and ever-popular public option. The president chose to pitch his proposal as a foundation that legislators can amend and build upon. However, the administration has risked alienating its base of Democrats and Independents by announcing it ditched the public option because of a concern the votes are not there in the Senate. This comes despite 23 senators signing onto Sen. Michael Bennett's (D-Colorado) letter to Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), calling for a public option through reconciliation.
Critics charge that the President has made too many concessions in order to attract Republican support he will never win over. Progressive Change Campaig co-founder Adam Green said in response that "The White House obviously has a loser mentality -- but America rallies around winners. Polls show that in state after state, voters hate the Senate bill and overwhelmingly want a public option, even if passed with zero Republican votes."
Green's group is targeting seven lawmakers who have not yet signed on to the Bennett letter, as insurance giant Wellpoint is poised to hike rates by double digits in at least 11 states, including the lawmakers' respective states. Susan Bayh, Sen. Evan Bayh's (D-Indiana) wife is a Wellpoint board member, and has made millions of dollars in that capacity.
Republicans will likely use the summit to brand the President's plan as expensive and more government expansion, and push for a private-sector alternative to reduce costs and increase coverage--as if the private sector has served Americans so well when it comes to health insurance.
GOP reactions to the Obama plan were predictable. House minority leader John Boehner, who criticized the House health bill as too long to read, criticized the President's plan for being too short. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor rejected the President's proposal, calling the bill a "non-starter" and expressing little hope for a bipartisan agreement. "The president insists on bringing back a bill that the American people have resoundingly rejected," he said. The White House challenged the Republicans to offer their own proposal.
Conservative radio entertainer Rush Limbaugh provided the most controversial reactions to health care reform, characterizing the reform effort as "a civil rights bill" and "reparations." "The rich are going to stop getting all the good stuff, we're gonna take -- this is income redistribution, this is returning the nation's wealth to its quote-unquote rightful owners," Limbaugh said. "This is a civil rights bill. This is reparations, whatever you want to call it."
Limbaugh's opposition to health reform on racial grounds mirrors both the racially-charged, anti-health care tea party movement, not to mention the traditional conservative resistance to taxes and social programs. Through the use of the race card and a Southern Strategy, Republicans won over white voters by opposing social programs on the grounds that they would benefit African-Americans. It was a strategy perfected by the late GOP strategist Lee Atwater.
Accounting for one-sixth of the U.S. economy, health care is an important issue. Prohibitive medical costs literally cripple struggling families that cannot afford to get sick. A Harvard Medical School study found that 45,000 people die each year because they lack health insurance. "I'm most concerned about the 47 million people in the nation who are uninsured," Roslyn Brock, the new NAACP chair, recently said. "I would hope that our Congress, working with the [Obama] administration, would recommit themselves to ensure comprehensive and affordable health care for all Americans."
In 2008, 7.3 million African-Americans were uninsured. Patients of color are less likely to receive the same quality medical care as whites, and blacks die of cancer at a higher rate than whites, even with equal care. Further, black doctors are underrepresented, accounting for under 8 percent of first-year medical students, although African-Americans are 15 percent of the population.
At the same time, the health care debate has sucked all of the air out of the political room, and the Congressional Black Caucus has expressed frustration of late that high unemployment in black and low-income communities received little attention in the latest jobs legislation.
Hopefully the time spent on health care reform will translate into rewards for the American public, and a second political wind for the Obama White House. We should find out soon. What happens next will be a crucial test as to whether the President can get the job done, and successfully promote big legislation on other pressing issues in the future.
For good or for bad, and hopefully for good, this is a big week for the future of health care reform. On Thursday, President Obama will hold his bipartisan health care summit, during which he will certainly seek his ever-elusive goal of bipartisanship. The president will also have an opportunity to further isolate his Republican obstructionist opponents--provided he takes the opportunity, and the GOP takes the bait. And just days before, the president unveiled his own health care plan, signaling his willingness to provide some direction and leadership on his signature campaign issue.
If health care reform legislation eventually passes, this week may well have been the reason. Either way, the Obama administration's strategy up to this point, or lack thereof, provides a valuable lesson in how not to promote a health care plan.
The president unveiled his own 11-page health care plan, which is available online. The plan would extend coverage to 31 million people, ramp up regulations on the health insurance companies, and replace the Senate's proposed tax on high-cost insurance plans with a tax on the wealthy. Other highlights of the Obama plan include the following:
-An end to discrimination based on pre-existing conditions
-Extension of Medicaid, but the elimination of Sen. Ben Nelson's $100 million Medicaid funding deal for Nebraska
-State-based exchanges, as opposed to national, would allow consumers to purchase and compare insurance plans
-A national insurance authority would help states fight unreasonable insurance rate hikes
-The plan would close the "donut hole" gap in the Medicare prescription drug plan
-Penalties if people do not buy insurance, with income-based subsidies if they cannot afford coverage
-An end to anti-competitive practices by drug companies that keep cheaper generic drugs off the market
-A voluntary, long-term insurance option for people with disabilities
-Scholarships, loan repayment and other incentives to promote the expansion of the health care workforce
-Reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act will improve health care for 1.9 million Native Americans
In addition to the plan, the President supports legislation removing antitrust exemption for the insurance industry.
For the first time in a while, Obama is taking the lead and seizing the reins in the health care debate. But it took a long time to get here. The administration has been criticized for over-learning the lessons from the failed Clinton health care plan. President Clinton's attempt at universal health care failed because they kept Congress out of the loop. Obama, on the other hand, took a step back while a dysfunctional, lobbyist-loving Congress shaped the legislation on its own, with no guidance from the White House. The congressional sausage-making process turned people off, and Obama lost popularity with his base for not acting like the agent of change he was in the 2008 campaign.
Conspicuously absent from the Obama plan is the much beloved and ever-popular public option. The president chose to pitch his proposal as a foundation that legislators can amend and build upon. However, the administration has risked alienating its base of Democrats and Independents by announcing it ditched the public option because of a concern the votes are not there in the Senate. This comes despite 23 senators signing onto Sen. Michael Bennett's (D-Colorado) letter to Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), calling for a public option through reconciliation.
Critics charge that the President has made too many concessions in order to attract Republican support he will never win over. Progressive Change Campaig co-founder Adam Green said in response that "The White House obviously has a loser mentality -- but America rallies around winners. Polls show that in state after state, voters hate the Senate bill and overwhelmingly want a public option, even if passed with zero Republican votes."
Green's group is targeting seven lawmakers who have not yet signed on to the Bennett letter, as insurance giant Wellpoint is poised to hike rates by double digits in at least 11 states, including the lawmakers' respective states. Susan Bayh, Sen. Evan Bayh's (D-Indiana) wife is a Wellpoint board member, and has made millions of dollars in that capacity.
Republicans will likely use the summit to brand the President's plan as expensive and more government expansion, and push for a private-sector alternative to reduce costs and increase coverage--as if the private sector has served Americans so well when it comes to health insurance.
GOP reactions to the Obama plan were predictable. House minority leader John Boehner, who criticized the House health bill as too long to read, criticized the President's plan for being too short. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor rejected the President's proposal, calling the bill a "non-starter" and expressing little hope for a bipartisan agreement. "The president insists on bringing back a bill that the American people have resoundingly rejected," he said. The White House challenged the Republicans to offer their own proposal.
Conservative radio entertainer Rush Limbaugh provided the most controversial reactions to health care reform, characterizing the reform effort as "a civil rights bill" and "reparations." "The rich are going to stop getting all the good stuff, we're gonna take -- this is income redistribution, this is returning the nation's wealth to its quote-unquote rightful owners," Limbaugh said. "This is a civil rights bill. This is reparations, whatever you want to call it."
Limbaugh's opposition to health reform on racial grounds mirrors both the racially-charged, anti-health care tea party movement, not to mention the traditional conservative resistance to taxes and social programs. Through the use of the race card and a Southern Strategy, Republicans won over white voters by opposing social programs on the grounds that they would benefit African-Americans. It was a strategy perfected by the late GOP strategist Lee Atwater.
Accounting for one-sixth of the U.S. economy, health care is an important issue. Prohibitive medical costs literally cripple struggling families that cannot afford to get sick. A Harvard Medical School study found that 45,000 people die each year because they lack health insurance. "I'm most concerned about the 47 million people in the nation who are uninsured," Roslyn Brock, the new NAACP chair, recently said. "I would hope that our Congress, working with the [Obama] administration, would recommit themselves to ensure comprehensive and affordable health care for all Americans."
In 2008, 7.3 million African-Americans were uninsured. Patients of color are less likely to receive the same quality medical care as whites, and blacks die of cancer at a higher rate than whites, even with equal care. Further, black doctors are underrepresented, accounting for under 8 percent of first-year medical students, although African-Americans are 15 percent of the population.
At the same time, the health care debate has sucked all of the air out of the political room, and the Congressional Black Caucus has expressed frustration of late that high unemployment in black and low-income communities received little attention in the latest jobs legislation.
Hopefully the time spent on health care reform will translate into rewards for the American public, and a second political wind for the Obama White House. We should find out soon. What happens next will be a crucial test as to whether the President can get the job done, and successfully promote big legislation on other pressing issues in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)