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:
June 5th, 2008
I‘ve expressed early reservations about Sen. Obama as the Democratic nominee because of what I’ve interpreted as a cautious nature, and an over conciliatory tone towards republicans. I’m a partisan Democrat that prefers my candidates with strong accents of Progressive Populism, thus I preferred John Edwards over the other Democratic nominees.
However, after Edwards dropped his bid for the Democratic nomination, I turned my support for Sen. Obama, though I remained guarded over his caution and the conciliatory nature of his campaign (of course, I realized that during the general election the Democratic candidate would need to pivot and make necessary adjustments; but while the electorate was largely composed of Democratic party voters, I expected some meat — the bloodier the better, silly me).
All that said, I’ve come to appreciate the value of Sen. Obama’s approach, and I especially respect the decision making process that he has exhibited. Here, for example, is another illustration of Sen. Obama’s thinking and decision making approach:
Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday that he’s in no rush to pick a vice presidential candidate, telling CNN “everybody needs to settle down” and let the vetting process run its course.
Speaking with CNN’s Candy Crowley on Thursday in Bristow, Virginia, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said it’s not in his best interest — or in the interest of former rival Sen. Hillary Clinton — to make a hasty decision about whom his running mate will be.
“We just completed this arduous process,” Obama said. “It’s only been two days, and I think it’s not just in my interest and Sen. Clinton’s interest, but in the Democratic Party’s interest and the country’s interest to make sure I make this decision well.”
Calling his choice of running mate “the most important decision that I will make before I am president,” the senator from Illinois said he would “be deliberate and systematic about it, because this will be my final counselor when I am making decisions in the White House, and I want to make sure I get it right.”
Sure, that’s a great answer that skirts the question; however, it is an answer that is consistent with the approach to issues that Sen. Obama has exhibited thus far, and it is reassuring — considering the last seven years under Bush’s republican administration.
Now, if his approach to making tough decisions weren’t reason enough to feel reassured and confident about Sen. Obama, he’s gone and officially endorsed Howard Dean’s “50 State Strategy,” which is simply brilliant:
A slew of political factors will determine Obama’s success in turning red states blue. But the Senator, in no small measure, will be aided in his task by reforms that preceded his run for the presidency. For all of the hoopla surrounding the candidates, the 2008 presidential election will be the first truly national test of the viability and prescience of Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy.
Four years ago, when Dean was vaulted to the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee — following a failed presidential bid months earlier — he pledged to rewrite the rules concerning where and how Democrats would compete. In the subsequent months, resources and staff were invested into unconventional and even previously untouched locales. The idea was that the party simply couldn’t compete without a margin for error.
[…]
On Thursday, Obama symbolically endorsed the DNC’s efforts, declaring that Dean would remain party chairman heading into the general election.
As Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, told The Huffington Post: “I think that we are going to have a larger battlefield in 2008… I think we are going to stretch the Republicans. I don’t think they can take for granted nearly as many states as they have in the past. And I think we are going to add several to the Democratic column this year and so our coalition is going to be broader.”
This is huge, and it can easily translate into major gains for Democratic candidates down the ballot all across our country, marking the beginning of a new realignment. Yes, it’s a long shot, but it’s possible.
April 2nd, 2007
Here’s just one more example illustrating why David Sirota’s writing is the most lucid embodiment of what I think of as progressive populist:
Berating the entire concept of ideology has become something of a fad in contemporary Washington, D.C. The David Broders lead us to believe that ideology – defined by the dictionary as “a set of beliefs” – is exactly the same thing as rigid, counterproductive dogma that prevents people from compromising. Of course, the chattering class is perhaps the most rigidly dogmatic demographic in America, loyally clinging to a rather strident elitist ideology on everything from trade, to the war and to democracy itself.
Put another way, “ideology” is berated even as an ideological war is being fought by the beraters. And while the conservative movement actually believes in movement politics and rejects the idiotic attack on the concept of having “a set of beliefs,” many Democratic Party elites buy the whole frame hook, line and sinker – for clearly corrupt reasons.
[...]
We are expected to believe that the American people want candidates who stand for nothing but have good “personalities” – that, say, a gameshow host like Alex Trebek or Bob Barker is the ideal Democratic Party candidates. We are expected to believe that you can “sell leadership” without actually SHOWING any leadership. And perhaps most ridiculously of all, we are expected to believe that the way to “reclaim fleeting authenticity” is to eliminate a coherent belief system – the critical ingredient of authenticity itself.
Go read the rest at the HuffingPost.com, and see why Sirota takes Sen Obama’s campaign manager to task for being guilty of exercising "Seinfeld Politics" — that is, the politics of nothing.
