Kevin Hollinshead, Columnist
Ideology: Progressive | Writing from: Fort Collins, CO
My previous column discussed why Republicans would be wise to refrain from characterizing victory in 2010 as a done deal. Certain prominent conservatives are hurting the GOP, to the benefit of President Obama and the ever-vilified Democrats. That said, the current administration isn’t devoid of culpability. The perception that Mr. Obama has seemingly ignored his progressive base to a degree in policy-making, and that he hasn’t done enough to push Congress to pass a more progressive agenda despite a comfortable majority, is problematic. While the Grand Obstruction Party isn’t helping itself, Democrats can’t bank on that in 2010 or 2012.
Now, progressives should be a bit more patient with Mr. Obama (the guy hasn’t even been in office for a full calendar year yet!). The President needs to make regaining and maintaining their trust his New Year’s Resolution. Their support is important not only for his sake, but for that of the country as a whole.
The first major wave of backlash came after he stopped pushing for a public option in an already watered-down health care bill. Many progressives, including myself, thought Obama was not forceful enough to begin with. Beyond health care, progressives have also taken issue with his stance on Afghanistan, the stimulus and bailouts (notably how 
companies that got us into this black hole of an economy, including AIG, got more help than the average American), and GLBT rights (notably his waffling with regard to ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell), among others.
“I will not be a perfect president,” Mr. Obama conceded days before last year’s election. “But I can promise you this: I will always tell you what I think and where I stand. I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face.” Yet a growing number of progressives don’t buy this anymore. Instead, there’s a growing population that senses Mr. Obama has shunned them, or that he is not the progressive that people think they elected, or that he is taking his base for granted.
The main source of irritation with regard to the president and the health care bill is not the end result. As flawed and watered-down as it may be, it’s still a victory for Mr. Obama and Democrats. Hopefully, history will prove his calculation to back off of a public option as correct. Despite this, the problem remains that the president was too wishy-washy from the start about exactly where he stood on the issue. He didn’t take the time to explain to progressives why the public option died, or why he decided to move forward without it. He didn’t seem to care enough to fight for it over the last couple months. Now, he’s even trying to distance himself from it, saying he “didn’t campaign on the public option.”
If Mr. Obama personally wants more progressive reforms, but he’s accepting what’s truly the best possible deal, he needs to make that clear. He needs to be more open about the compromises he makes with Congress, notably Senate Republicans, and why they’re necessary. Not doing so has made him look apathetic, incompetent, or both, to some.
If he had been more transparent about the deals he cut throughout this whole process, progressives would greet the bill more warmly. They get that there are constraints on presidential power. As long as he’s fighting for the principles he campaigned on, they won’t turn on him every time they don’t get something they want. Mr. Obama has ceded an unnecessary amount of ground to opponents thus far. His attempts to make friends with conservatives have gotten him zilch. Most blindly despise him, much like they did President Clinton, or at least his agenda as a whole, and that will not change. Progressives aren’t too thrilled with what amounts to the president continuing to extend his hand, only to have it bitten time and time again.
I believe the President’s main worry here is that he doesn’t want to be labeled as a liberal ideologue. Neo-cons have successfully given the word “liberal” a negative connotation in recent years, and now they’re trying to do the same with the word “progressive.” Yet, his presidential record thus far shows that he’s steered clear of liberal dogma, perhaps too much so.
Eight long years of right-wing policies, with some dating back to Reagan (deregulation facilitating corporate greed, mindless opposition to taxes on the wealthy, apathy toward the budget deficit, increased defense spending at the expense of almost everything else, black and white “us vs. them” foreign policy, hostility toward the GLBT and pro-choice communities, etc.) brought this country to the brink of implosion. That’s the biggest reason why Democrats made huge gains in 2006 and 2008 (not, as some conservatives hold, purely because of an “anybody but Bush” mindset).
Progressives have proven that they’re far from mindless proxies for Mr. Obama, and that they’ll continue to fight for their principles. At the end of the day, most will still likely vote for the incumbent, but assumptions don’t win elections. Mr. Obama needs to be a bit more concerned about his base’s perception of him than he seems. If his base doesn’t trust him, how can he expect the ever-important moderates and independents to do so? Contrary to what some on the left claim right now, progressives can indeed be won back, but only if he actually practices more of what he will no doubt preach to his base in the future.
You had me until I read the phrase “corporate greed.”
First of all, the deregulation to which to allude began under Clinton, not Bush. It was everyone’s dream to flood the market with the cash of home buyers. They got their wish until the banks realized that they’d never pay it back.
And secondly, corporations are not persons, despite what the Supreme Court might have convinced you. They don’t have feelings, emotions, nor the personal, emotion-driven behaviors of persons. Corporations cannot be “greedy.” They are supposed to be competitive. If you call that “greedy,” I suggest that you learn how a capitalist economy functions at the most basic of levels (even barter or two children in the sandbox deciding which toy to play with demonstrates this point).
I also think you’re absolutely incorrect about an already extreme president gaining political capital from taking even more extreme views. If anything, legitimate bipartisan effort is his last possible option, not burning the remainder of his political capital on “progressive” agendas that the majority of Americans do not want and will not tolerate at the ballot box next November.
It’s about time that Obama, you, and your cronies wake up. Obama’s nonsensical and meaningless catch phrases are over. Reliving the worst of Bush’s policies, sidestepping legitimate government things that are essential (like, perhaps, filling his cabinet), and figuring out what to do with millions of unemployed better become his top priority. Americans are angry, and for good reason. Obama pretended to be a fresh voice, but he has shown himself to be nothing less than a partisan hack no more worthy of compromise than his enemies.
I also have issues with you suggesting that Obama’s “base” is “progressives.” No matter how you define the political spectrum, progressives are an extreme fringe of American politics located far from Obama’s base. He’s going to find out just how true that is next November, which will stick us with a bunch of worthless Republican duds, because the democratic party has nothing to rally around except a president with no plan, extreme views, and no sense of compromise.
Sorry for taking so long to respond, hectic last couple of weeks to say the least.
1.) I said that deregulation policies began under Reagan, and I won’t dispute the fact that Clinton had some pretty dumb deregulation policies as well.
2.) Corporations may not be people in a legal sense, but they’re made up of, yep, people. Thus, human emotion (in this case, greed) does play a huge role. There’s a difference between companies being “competitive,” and manipulating the market by colluding in some areas, and ceding ground in others to maximize profits.
3.) To say that Obama’s been extreme as president is silly, to keep this friendly. With the exception of advancing stem cell research, he hasn’t been terribly successful in passing what’s truly a progressive cause. The fact that Republicans were allowed to gut the healthcare bill left and right shows that, or that 60 votes, not 51, was portrayed as a majority (the civil rights act was passed after a long filibuster ran its course, they all come to an end at some point) showed that Obama was definitely going for bipartisanship where there was none to be found. Republicans have no right to bitch and moan about “Democrats pushing through legislation” when they refuse to accept any compromises that they don’t come up with. At this point, Obama’s best move would be to call their bluff and say “you don’t want to truly compromise? ok, see ya.”
4.) If Americans didn’t want an at least somewhat progressive agenda, they wouldn’t have voted him into office. That simple. Much of our frustration is that he ran as a progressive, but now would seem to rather make Republican friends than reward us.
5.) Cronies? Dude. Seriously. Come on.
6.) The appointed positions you’re referring to that weren’t/aren’t filled because Republicans were/are blocking them out of spite for Obama.
7.) I agree 100% on the unemployment thing, I’ll be unleashing a column on that some time soon.
8.) I guess we don’t share the same definition of “progressive.” I would assume that my definition has a wider reach than yours?
Overall, I think that a progressive agenda would be embraced by far more people than one would think, we just need a president who’s willing to take that leap. Obama has definitely been very moderate in his policies to the point where some are questioning his competency. If he’s wondering if he needs to try even harder to be bipartisan, I hope someone asks him, did trying earlier do jack for you?