March 2nd, 2009
For quite a while I’ve been hoping to see a time when an American president would come along to echo FDR’s struggle against the forces of greed and “selfishness,” that brought our nation to its knees in the 1930s, and which have done so again.
Unexpectedly, at least to me, though I enthusiastically voted for him, it seems that the American president that I’ve been waiting for has, alas, come along, in the form of Barak Obama. I will put aside president Obama’s budget, which has been described as finally treating us as adults, and focus on his recent FDResque style.
On his recent Saturday address, president Obama sounded a populist message that, I believe, will give him some leverage when taking on the “selfish” interests that are so entrenched in Washington, DC. Of course, just like FDR, president Obama recognizes and reminds us that any move against these entrenched forces will be met with deeply rooted resistance, and that the fight will be arduous.
Here’s the passage from the president’s Saturday morning address, on his proposed budget, that has given me such hope:
I realize that passing this budget won’t be easy. Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington. I know that the insurance industry won’t like the idea that they’ll have to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that’s how we’ll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs for American families. I know that banks and big student lenders won’t like the idea that we’re ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that’s how we’ll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won’t like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that’s how we’ll help fund a renewable energy economy that will create new jobs and new industries. In other words, I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this:
So am I.
The system we have now might work for the powerful and well-connected interests that have run Washington for far too long, but I don’t. I work for the American people.
What I love about this passage is the strength that it reflects, and, also, president Obama’s acknowledgement that he works for US, the American people.
Moreover, I also hear echoes of one of my favorite FDR quotes in president Obama’s statement, which is something I’ve been wanting to hear from a Democratic president for a long time now.
We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace–business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me–and I welcome their hatred.
I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.
Franklin Roosevelt’s Address Announcing the Second New Deal
October 31, 1936
In my lifetime, president Obama is the closest I’ve come to hearing echoes of FDR, and his commitment to economic security for all.
Here’s president Obama’s address, it’s well worth watching:
August 2nd, 2008
One of the biggest challenges for progressives aligned with the Democratic party is figuring out how to keep the party honest and accountable. And, as we’ve observed since 2006, this is no easy task.
After the mid-term elections of that year, many progressives hoped that elected Democrats would aggressively push back against Bush-republicans and their conservative allies. However, elected Democrats in Congress proved themselves to be largely ineffective on the big policy issues of the day (see: Iraq war, FISA, Guantanamo prison, republican corruption – i.e., Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, et al.).
To be fair, many elected Democrats did put up a fight, and pushed back against Bush and his conservative allies. Unfortunately, since 2006, some of Bush’s conservative allies have included so-called Blue Dog Democrats, which have allowed Bush & Co. to continue the Iraq war, to perpetuate the republican culture of corruption, and to infringe on civil liberties.
So, what’s a progressive to do against these so-called Blue Dog Democrats? Fight back, of course!
Which is where blogger, activist and lawyer Glenn Greenwald comes in, he writes:
If simply voting for more Democrats will achieve nothing in the way of meaningful change, what, if anything, will? At minimum, two steps are required to begin to influence Democratic leaders to change course: 1) Impose a real political price that they must pay when they capitulate to — or actively embrace — the right’s agenda and ignore the political values of their base, and 2) decrease the power and influence of the conservative “Blue Dog” contingent within the Democratic caucus, who have proved excessively willing to accommodate the excesses of the Bush administration, by selecting their members for defeat and removing them from office. And that means running progressive challengers against them in primaries, or targeting them with critical ads, even if doing so, in isolated cases, risks the loss of a Democratic seat in Congress.
Those goals are the basis of the recent campaign that I helped launch — along with progressive bloggers such as Jane Hamsher and the Blue America PAC — to target selected Democratic members of Congress who have been responsible for some of the worst acts of complicity and capitulation. The campaign we launched, which raised over $350,000 in a very short time largely from dissatisfied progressives, has run multimedia ads criticizing the likes of Blue Dog Rep. Chris Carney and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, despite the fact that neither has a primary challenger and despite the fact that Carney is quite vulnerable in his reelection effort this year.
Some of you may be thinking, but won’t this jeopardize Democratic control of Congress? The short answer is, No!
If you’re interested in a more elaborate answer, you’ll need to see Glenn Greenwald’s explanation:
Many progressives and other Democratic supporters are reflexively opposed to any conduct that might result in the defeat of even a single, relatively inconsequential Democratic member of Congress or the transfer of even a single district to GOP control. No matter how dissatisfied such individuals might be with the Democratic Congress, they are unwilling to do anything different to change what they claim to find so unsatisfactory. Even though uncritically cheering on any and every candidate with a “D” after his or her name has resulted in virtually nothing positive — and much that is negative — many progressives continue, rather bafflingly and stubbornly, to insist that if they just keep doing the same thing (cheering for the election of more and more Democrats), then somehow, someday, something different might occur. But, as the cliché teaches, repeatedly engaging in the same conduct and expecting different results is the very definition of foolishness.
As foolish as it is, this intense aversion to jeopardizing any Democratic incumbents might be considered rational if doing so carried the risk of restoring Republican control of Congress. But there is no such risk, and there will be none for the foreseeable future. No matter what happens, the Democrats, by all accounts, are going to control both houses of Congress after the 2008 election. Their margin in the House, which is currently 31 seats, will, by even the most conservative estimates, increase to at least 50 seats. No advertising campaign or activist group could possibly swing control of Congress to the Republicans this year, and — given the Brezhnev-era-like reelection rates for incumbents in America — it is extremely unlikely that the House will be controlled by anyone other than Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi for years to come.
The critical question, then, is not who will control Congress. The Democrats will. That is a given. The vital question is what they will do with that control — specifically, will they continue to maintain and increase their own power by accommodating the right, or will they be more responsive, accountable and attentive to the political values of their base?
If yo agree that the Democratic party should be more “accountable and attentive” to you, than accommodating to Bush & Co., then please donate $15 or more to Glenn Greenwald’s Blue America campaign.
