THE LEFT, OBAMA AND HIS BASE

Where do we go from here?

That's the question Paul Krugman and Robin Wells ask in the New York Review of Books, 1/13/11. That's the question that grips everyone on the left of American politics.

On many domestic issues there is a broad progressive consensus, the need to fight like hell to convince and rally people to push back against the corporate billionaires and their shameless political front men in Congress. Only greater public understanding — the will to confront those making out like bandits while masses face long-term joblessness and poverty — can turn things around and revitalize momentum for progressive change. There is no lack of serious programmatic ideas, nor is there serious disagreement on most issues.

It's a different matter when it comes to analysis of why things turned sour and of strategy going forward. Here frustration and differences are rife. Argument often divides over estimates and attitudes toward Obama and his administration.

Krugman/Wells, while acknowledging objective difficulties imposed by the severe economic crisis and the ultra-right's dominance in mis-shaping "public opinion", put the onus for the startling rightward political shift on Obama's political mistakes and leadership failures. Echoed by Jeffrey Sachs, Michael Lerner, and many others after the 2010 election debacle, Krugman/Wells essentially write off Obama and admonish Democrats to "to delink their political fate from Obama". Lerner and a few others call for a candidate to challenge Obama in the primaries before the 2012 elections.

In contrast, a minority left view is offered by Sam Webb in the People's World, 12/31/10. His criticism of Obama is muted, and he admonishes the left to recognize its own responsibilities: "For too long we have assumed that the American people are ready to wholeheartedly embrace left solutions. If we, and especially the Democrats, project them, 'the people will come.' Tell that to Russ Feingold!"

My intent in this brief commentary is not to try to pull together a direct answer to the question posed by Krugman/Wells: "where do we go from here?" As noted, prescriptions on issues and the need for resolute action are similar across the left spectrum. Emphasis does vary, and it is striking that an anti-war thrust is ignored in the Krugman/Wells projections. I just want to express a few reactions and concerns.

First, a positive note: Krugman deserves a medal to go along with his Nobel for his relentless debunking of prevailing rightwing economic nonsense and exposure of the GOP's venal assault on the interests of all but the wealthiest Americans. In tandem with Bob Herbert, who focuses on Americans living in poverty and on the human costs of war, Krugman provides an exceptional contrast to the norm in mainstream journalism.

The Krugman/Wells (Sachs, Lerner) extreme condemnation and virtual dismissal of Obama is another matter. Here things are not so simple. To accept that analysis whole and to act on it strategically could prove counter-productive. Yes, I think progressives must be independent and critical, exerting pressure to its maximum without being bound by what Obama may or may not do. In that sense, "delinking" is necessary. But that doesn't mean indifference to the political fate of Obama's presidency and what it means for the American people. It doesn't mean writing off Obama and the many who continue to support him as representing the best in the current sorry mess of American politics. That raises the question of Obama's base, often glibly assumed to be "the left" that claims credit for his election and now feels abandoned. Actually the base goes far beyond ideological boundaries, including the large majority of African-Americans, of Latinos and recent immigrants, of Gays and others who feel that Obama is on their side and resent the racist backlash against him. Those on the left who feel cavalier about closing the book on Obama, should think twice about alienating themselves from the largest part of his base.

Obama has achieved some social and legislative gains against enormous counter pressures, but his chosen course and political decisions have contributed significantly to the dramatic rightward shift in political power during 2009-10. Whether or not there was an alternative to his "deal" with the GOP in the lame duck Congress, much of what was done or not done in 2009 and 2010 made the electoral "shellacking" a foregone conclusion. His cabinet choices and policy decisions were conditioned by avoidance of conflict with the rich and powerful, the generals and the military, and even the defeated GOP. He correctly read the desire of most Americans for a different spirit of cooperation in Washington — he felt that if he offered his hand to the Republicans and they spurned it, they would pay the price in public opinion; instead, their consistent obstructionism made him the fall-guy for the ever worsening situation. Despite his elevation of massive community organizing in his victorious 2008 presidential campaign, he relied in office on personal negotiating approaches, to the virtual exclusion of mobilizing public support for the necessary scale of stimulus and jobs programs. Unlike FDR, he largely neglected to reach out directly to the people through his "bully-pulpit".

Given how thing have turned out so far, it's comfortable for some on the left to pass off the Obama phenomenon as all myth and illusion from the very beginning. The "neo-liberal" label is pinned on him, he's 'always been a conservative', 'he's really pro Wall Street'. Such stereotyping and assignment of an individual to a closed political box runs counter to much historical experience. Movements and the flow of events can change how individuals see things and how they act. All things considered, there can be little doubt that Obama views himself as on the side of struggling Americans — nor is there any doubt that defeating him and "taking back the country" is the prime objective of the neo-fascist mob.

As Krugman/Wells remind us: "American politics have proved astonishingly mutable, with not one but two supposedly permanent majorities quickly collapsing in 2006 and 2010. Things may turn again, as long as progressives fight on."

AFTER THE VOTE

My email batch today included angry condemnation by some of my fellow leftists of the new Health Reform Act and everyone who supported Sunday’s historic vote. Laura Bonham of Progressive Democrats of America (PDA), of which I’m a member, called it “A Kafka Moment” and bitterly attacked MoveOn for congratulating the Democrats who voted for it. Ralph Nader and Chris Hedges scorned “craven Democrats”, especially attacking Howard Dean. This was an echo of the attacks on Dennis Kucinich for “folding” when he announced he would vote “yes”.

That’s certainly not the way I see things. The times call for militancy and resolve, but not for a nasty war against anyone who sees today’s momentous challenges from a broader perspective than do Bonham, Nader and Hedges. I can’t support PDA in an assault on MoveOn. Nor can I conceive of a significant American left if Dennis Kucinich, Al Franken, Barbara Lee, Barney Frank, John Lewis and Bernie Sanders just sold us out by favoring a “yes” vote on the final bill.

Is it possible to see two realities at once? Is it possible to be highly critical of limitations and compromises in the new legislation and yet to see it as an advance? Is it possible to recognize a flawed process, with serious shortcomings, and still acknowledge that in its final stage Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi did a praiseworthy job of advancing health care as a basic right and beating back the violent ultra-right counter-attack against the results of the 2008 elections?

It had better be possible to see the whole contradictory reality as we go on from here. It’s never been more necessary to fight hard on a host of vital issues, yet never more necessary to bridge gaps and hold a progressive majority together. Whatever the Administration does or doesn’t do, holding back on critical struggles is not an option for leftists and progressives — not on ending the wars, fighting for immigration reform, universal health care and jobs programs, or fighting cuts in education and social welfare. While pushing vigorously for the President and Congress to live up to the promise of change that swept the 2008 elections, we have the responsibility to do everything we can to defend and extend what’s positive and hopeful. We cannot dismiss for a single moment that a rightist and racist cabal has targeted the Obama presidency, trying desperately to reverse the historic opportunity to change America for the better. This vigilante crusade aims not just at a return to something like a Bush/Cheney regime, but something far further to the right that’s closer to fascism.

I’m glad the Health Reform bill became law and not Obama’s “Waterloo” as the GOP projected. The majority can do a lot better and the door is open. It might have been slammed shut not just on health care, but on any possibility for progressive headway in the next several years.

ABOUT LESTER RODNEY

I met Lester at the end of WWII. By then he was already one of my personal heroes, and had been ever since he began his crusade against Jim Crow in baseball in 1936. I was one of thousands of young people who rallied with great enthusiasm to the cause he spearheaded. We collected petitions, protested at ballparks and spread the word from Lester’s groundbreaking interviews and initiatives. In my home state of Connecticut, we demanded without success a try-out in AA baseball for a talented young pitcher, Billy Taylor. And Lester’s example galvanized us to challenge Jim Crow at other recreational facilities. I remember our group, which included a high school student who eventually became the first African-American woman to be appointed as a federal judge, militantly protesting the shameful color bar at a community swimming pool in New Haven. I mention this because to appreciate what Lester meant to us, it’s important to remember that in those days baseball reflected the widespread poison of Jim Crow that permeated every aspect of life, North as well as South.

In his book with Irwin Silber, “Press Box Red”, Lester’s landing a job as the Daily Worker’s first real sports editor is depicted accurately as a strange and somewhat awkward marriage. Embracing a genuine lover of America’s pastime was certainly new ground for the Communists of that day, but the fight against Jim Crow and lynching had been a core cause for many years that joined Communists to the struggle of African-Americans for full equality. What Lester and his comrades did was to add a new dimension, one that reached into the daily lives of millions of Americans and that ultimately reached beyond Sports. Like all civil rights progress, the victory over discrimination in sports resulted mainly from long years of determined effort in the African-American community, often with no apparent white support. Lester recognized that and put a priority on direct solidarity with Black athletes and publications such as the Pittsburgh Courier that were leading the fight.

I met Lester through his wife, Clare. Clare and I were organizers in the same youth movements during WWII and for quite a few years after. Clare and Lester, and Roz and I, were bringing up new families as the cold war unfolded and McCarthyism gained sway. It wasn’t an easy time for those of us on the left, progressives and liberals included, as blacklists, and attorney general’s lists, and subpoenas and arrests multiplied. One of the things that amazed me most about Lester was his boldness, in and out of the press box, his unwillingness to be intimidated by the “red” label, his absolute refusal to be cut off from the main stream of American life. It took guts, more than most of us have, to take his rightful place as a journalist, to connect with famous ball players, to go face to face with the powerful in the pursuit of social justice.

Life changed pretty dramatically for each of us during the mid-to-late 1950s. Some ideas and organizational allegiances were left behind, while fundamental values and commitment to social change remained central. Clare and Lester forged new and very worthwhile careers in California, despite periodic political harassment. It’s in these latter years that my own relationship with Lester became close and flourished, until the last few years when Roz's illness made visits too difficult.

Lester and I shared two passions that never left us even as we got to old age. The first page I open in the morning is the sports section; then I get to the serious stuff about the state of the world. As we walked around the Lafayette Reservoir, we went back and forth between both passions. We were more likely to disagree as fans (I’m a Giants fan) than on politics or the human condition. Talk was particularly intense during the time that Gorbachev was seeking to transform the USSR into a democratic socialist society. We both rooted passionately for that process to succeed, and the world would be better off today if it had. Of course the change we most wanted to see was in our own America, with so much to offer to our people and to the world, but so badly afflicted by the injustices of an uncontrolled and destructive capitalist system.

Lester was optimistic about America. I think that came of his own experience, his faith in accomplishing in the sports world what most people once considered impossible. It took a long time, too long, for Lester Rodney to be recognized as one of America’s greats. To me he was always that, and a dear friend as well.

War Mind Set

The Nobel speech was Obama’s worst by far. It was an unqualified representation of the United States as forever saving the world from evil with the blood of its citizens.

Is that the full legacy and ongoing record from Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iraq and Afghanistan? In contrast to his Cairo speech, even token “self-criticism” of the US record was totally absent. World War II was used as the prototype to label all our wars as “just”. Why cloud the message with any hint of selfish motivation, of interests of empire and super-power domination, or of intervention to sustain allied oppressive regimes?

Worst was the argument that wars are inevitable as far into the future as anyone can foresee. King and Gandhi were acknowledged, then condescendingly relegated to irrelevance. This was an exposition of war mentality from the man who was going to change the "mind set" of war. No wonder Gingrich, Palin, and Rove embrace this speech.

I try to focus on keeping hope alive, but this was an unqualified downer.

My “wrong course” blog got some contrasting responses. One respondent who has bashed Obama almost from the beginning said “right on”. But I have not changed my mind about the promise and possibilities brought about by the historic election of Barack Obama. Another respondent, “D”, was disappointed in my strong criticism of Obama. Here is D’s comment and my reply:

D wrote:

Dear Leon,

I'm sorry I haven't written sooner. I have read your blogs and I have been in agreement with your ideas and sentiments. In fact I was happy that you were still an optimist, until this last blog: “the wrong course”. I think Obama needs this next year for us to see the results of all his efforts. I'm going to remain an optimist until then.

Of course I didn't want him to send more troops to Afghanistan, nor I'm sure did he, but he did announce he has "benchmarks" for Karzai and he did announce to the people over there that we are not there to "win" or to "bring democracy" to their land. Only to help them get trained to fight the Taliban and hopefully the Al Qaeda bordering Pakistan.... This is the part you are not happy about, but I'm still on the fence thinking it may be the smart thing for now.

I agree that he must get jobs for people to improve the economy at home; then more Americans will rally around Obama again. Poor man, he inherited this cesspool of trouble and we all want him to fix it in his first year as President. It would be easy if only we had a united Congress. The ultra-right is truly troublesome.

D

Dear D,

As you can tell from my earlier blogs, it was hard for me to write the latest one. I have not given up on Obama, but I am worried about the way things are going. I'm sure he knows that he has to re-inspire his supporters, who can't be expected to remain enthusiastic as their hopes give way to disappointments on domestic issues and dismay over another war escalation. He may lose the wavering Senate in 2010 and his presidency will be at great risk in 2012 if unemployment is high and a serious drawdown of the wars is not in progress. Given the ongoing crusade of the ultra-right, what a disaster that would be! I hate to think of Patraeus or McCrystal as Obama's successor. I would like to share your optimism, but I can't support the war and imperial aspects of US policy that remain dominant. I still have optimism that Obama's supporters can encourage his generally progressive aims and reignite hopes for real change. This is such a complicated and tough time. I respect your attitude as we both (along with many others) struggle to figure things out.

Leon

ON THE WRONG COURSE

It’s taken me a while, longer than most of my friends, to face up to Barack Obama’s accommodation to the powers that be. He is the most powerful individual in the world — only within terms imposed by a system stronger than any president. So far, when his promises and proposals require confronting entrenched power, he bows to a pragmatic perception of “reality”. That means retreating and weakening chances for meaningful change on almost every critical issue. It now means being the standard bearer for escalating the disastrous war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I don’t question Obama’s desire for significant reform. Nor, as difficult as the struggles are, do I doubt the capacity of the people to achieve changes that a majority voted for with enthusiasm a year ago. The “Obama coalition” showed what was and is possible. On the other hand, the ultra-right is far more dangerous than ever and is counting on Obama’s failure. Preventing that failure and its consequences calls for a fight to change the Obama Administration’s self-defeating course of weakness toward Wall Street and compliance with the military-industrial complex.

The biggest problem for Obama, and for the country, clearly is the economy. That has compounded every difficulty in moving a progressive program forward. The great need is for a serious investment in putting people to work. There is no longer room for hesitation and timidity.

No one can know where things would stand if Obama risked being bolder on the stimulus and universal health care, or in defying rather than appeasing the war hawks. What we do know is that the course we're on is not headed to the promised land embraced by so many at the beginning of the "Obama era".

GUESSING ABOUT OBAMA AND AFGHANISTAN

Why all these meetings and deliberations about Afghanistan? I can't believe they are simply a charade that will end up with Obama giving McCrystal what the hawks demand.

I think Obama wants desperately to avoid being locked into a military escalation that spells quagmire for many years ahead. I think he hopes to open a window to a change of course that will provide more room for political and diplomatic maneuver and a possible escape route from commitment to endless war.

Of course the pressures are enormous, and he'll probably end up adding some troops and still trapped in a hopeless war. Nevertheless, the war in Afghanistan has finally come into question, with a majority of the public now opposed. The Obama Administration's own uncertainty, it's insistence on deliberation in defiance of demands from top generals and Republican hawks, underscores the growing anxiety and public counter-pressure for an end to the war.

As in the past, popular anger over the toll that a winless war exacts is what will prove decisive — sooner, let's hope, rather than disastrously later.