Originally published in Campus Progress
Legislation that would allow private student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy, could provide distressed borrowers with a fresh start and bring a major victory to those dedicated to student loan justice.
By Michael Corcoran
Originally published at Campus Progress
It appears I must have missed the portions of President Barack Obama's inaugural speech where he announced he would emancipate the workers from their ruthless capitalist overlords.
Lucky for us, many conservative commentators have been able to warn us against Obama's plan to make a rapid transformation to a Stalinist-style planned economy. Jason Mattera, the recently hired editor of Human Events, adds another book, Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed my Generation, which warns of Obama sinister plans to destroy America.
Mattera's offering differs from other books from conservatives since Obama's election, as it takes a specific look at young voters and activists—dubbed the "Obama Zombies"—who, he argues, have become unknowing minions in Obama's socialist army, having been lobotomized by the media and Obama's aggressive youth outreach efforts during the 2008 campaign.
For those who are not familiar with Mattera, he is a rising star among young conservatives who worked as communications director for the Young America's Foundation, a conservative youth organization, for several years before landing his latest gig as the editor of Human Events, a long-running far-right magazine. He is often seen on cable news or YouTube aggressively confronting progressives and Democratic politicians on film. He is a sharp-tongued commentator and satirist who loves to use exclamation points. And in case there was ever any doubt, he doesn't like progressives or liberalism orCampus Progress very much.
Read the rest at Campus Progress.
1) It threw a huge bone to private insurance companies by providing a mandate, forcing uninsured people to buy policies, thus guaranteeing tens of millions of new customers to buy thier products or face tax penalties. Insurance companies love this idea, and having donated large piles of money to both political parties, this position has the support of both sides of the isle in Washington. Small wonder Business Week recently declared that the "Health Insurers have Already Won."
2) His plan drew a line on the sand on the deficit, in an effort to appeal to budget hawks. Obama declared he will not sign a bill that adds even "one dime" to the deficit, showing no flexibility on the matter.
3) The President, for all practical purposes, killed prospects for a public option, by saying it was only a "means" to an end, and unessential. There will be no veto threats or legislative arm-twisting on this issue. Instead the left gets lectured for using the public option as a "handy excuse" to have the "usual Washington ideological battles" (as if standing up for something the public wants and voted for is some kind of egregious sin).
The third point is critical. Going into the speech, many liberals, most notably among House Democrats, were demanding a public option. Some of them, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, were insisting that the legislation include a public healthcare plan that uninsured Americans could buy into (most constructs of the plan would not allow someone currently enrolled in an employer-based plan to buy in -- already a huge concession from the left), lest they vote against the bill.
Obama could have used his speech to fight for such a reform, if he so chose. A whopping 72 percent of the public support a public option of some sort, while 59 percent support a sweeping national healthcare plan (ie, Medicare for All, or single-payer healthcare.) Further, due to progressive domination of the last two elections, Obama is blessed with mammoth majorities in both chambers of Congress. While it is true the GOP will not support a public option, it is a moot point -- the GOP, save perhaps one lone Senator, won't support a bill without a public option either. And the Democrats have the ability to pass through a bill with only 51 votes, as Republicans did with the Bush tax cuts in 2001.
But while Obama drew a line in the sand on the deficit, refusing to budge with one dime, he wavered on the public option -- saying that while he likes the idea, he is not married to it. The end result: the insurance companies get what they want -- no public competition and a mandate; Republicans, though irrelevant in practice, manage to help kill such a plan with their militant opposition to government-funded healthcare; and progressives, despite having the public behind them, get nothing except brilliantly worded and passionate oratory. Obama may not be able to (or truly want to) deliver a public option, but no one can doubt his ability to deliver a damn good speech.
But special interests often win battles in Washington, that is no surprise. What is so startling about Obama's repudiation of the major progressive aspect of the bill (single-payer, the choice of progressives, was ceded at the start), was the progressive reaction to the speech. Rather than show disgust and dismay at being slighted, progressives declared the speech a victory. At the Huffington Post, a popular liberal political blog, at least six glowing responses to the speech were posted within hour of its conclusion.
Paul Begala explained "Why I Loved Obama's Health Care Speech," in one post. Jacob Heilbrun claimed Obama "came out swinging" and made the "single most persuasive case for government intervention in decades," in another. From Bill Cunningham: "Tonight, we saw a leader, unafraid to stand and deliver...not a political document, but a platform that all who care about real reform, can support and amend and work for."
This jubilant tone stretched further into the liberal stratosphere. Katrina vanden Huevel, an unabashed supporter of single-payer healthcare and editor of the Nation -- often described as the flagship of the American left -- said Obama showed his "progressive spine" with his speech.
On MSNBC, Steve Hilderberg, a former Obama campaign staffer who has been organizing with others former staffers to demand a public option, seemed unperturbed that Obama, for all practical purposes, caved to the conservative Democratic Blue Dog Caucus, who oppose the idea, and not the progressives who elected him.
When asked by Kieth Olberman if Obama's speech was strong enough, he said "For sure. I never had any doubt, his favor is on the side of the American people and not in bed with special interests ... he hit it out of the ballpark."
But progressives have got to get past the glowing rhetoric, and notice something very important: Obama is going to pass a weak bill. And worse, the slight improvements, in most instances, will not occur for four years.
Surely there is an understandable desire to defend Obama, given that he has been subject to absurd lies and distortions from a right-wing base that has become more delusional and vitriolic by the day. And no doubt, Obama was right to call out the "death panel" fanatics for their pathetic "games" and often racist tirades. Moreover, Obama did articulate a liberal vision of sorts with his soaring explanation of the need for the government to step in when times warrant; and his channeling of the recent passing of Sen. Ted Kennedy, who viewed healthcare reform as the great unfinished business of his life, was emotional and effective.
But the rhetoric was window dressing; the plan itself is a gift to the powerful, sold as a gift to the masses. Paul Street, writing in Znet, wisely quoted the left-wing version of Christopher Hitchens, who in 1999 said the "the essence of American politics" is the "the manipulation of populism by elitism." Obama has proven to more effective at this manipulation than even Bill Clinton, who Hitchens was referring to with that astute comment.
Sure enough, as the week went on, key congressional supporters of a public option, including Speaker Pelosi, began to, in the words of a New York Times reporter, "drop their insistence," on it. By Sunday, the New York Times -- which, more than any publication in the world sets the news agenda -- ran a front-page story, The Fading Public Option, highlighting this trend. Obama's staff surely must have marveled at how easily they were able to kill the plan, while at the exact same time touting its value. If lives were not at stake -- and if was not such a grotesque reminder of the flawed nature of the US political system -- one could almost take joy in the political spectacle that was Obama's speech and the week that followed.
It should be noted that not everybody on the left drank Obama's brew. Matt Rothschild, editor of the Progressive, rightly chastised the weak direction Obama had taken the bill ("ingenious and disingenuous, naïve and nobody's fool"), as did John Nichols at the Nation ("Obama Speaks Loudly But Carries a Small Stick"). Wendell Potter, a former CIGNA executive, called a spade a spade, saying if the legislation coming out of the Senate Finance Committee (which does not include a public option) becomes law, it should be renamed the Insurance Industry Profit Protection Act. Rep. Weiner called it a "gift to corporations." Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films, also continued to make the case, with the help of President Clinton's former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, in a persuasive short film that has been widely circulated online.
But as single-payer supporter, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, noted at Dailykos, the dreary path of healthcare reform seems pretty well laid out.
He writes:
"Let me share with you some insight about health care legislation which may not be good for your health:
- House will make a big deal about keeping/putting a public option in HR3200 because it competes with insurance companies and will keep insurance rates low.
- The White House will refer to the President's speech last week where he spoke favorably of the public option.
- The Senate will kill the competitive public option in favor of non-competitive "co-ops". Senate leaders like Kent Conrad have said the votes to pass a public option were never there in the Senate.
- The bill will come to a House-Senate Conference Committee without the public option.
- House Democrats will be told to support the conference report on the legislation to support the President.
- The bill will pass, not with a "public option" but with a private mandate requiring 30 million uninsured to buy private health insurance (if one doesn't already have it). If you are broke, you may get a subsidy. If you are not broke, you will get a fine if you do not purchase insurance.
This legislative sausage will be celebrated as a new breakthrough and will be packaged as health insurance reform."
Only time will tell if Kucinich's projections are accurate, but it is hard to envision a different script, is it not?
The consequences of Obama's attitude towards his progressive base go beyond on healthcare reform. If progressives continue to cave in the name of supporting their beloved new president, Emperor Hope, they will continued to be viewed as a non-entity in Washington D.C. on all matters of importance. The mindset of Democratic leaders, and their willingness to walk all over progressives in Congress was described well by blogger Jed Lewison, in a post titled, "Why the Public Option Matters."
"So you sacrifice the progressives, and you don't think twice about it. It's nothing personal. You might not even think it's the best policy," he wrote. "But it's just the way it works, and you've got to get something done. So do you it, knowing that it will work. And whether or not you like it, you know that as long as progressives let themselves get steamrolled, that's always the way it will work."
Liberal columnist Paul Krugman also put it succinctly. "And sooner or later Democrats have to take a stand against Reaganism — against the presumption that if the government does it, it's bad."
Obama has already shunned his base many times: on cabinet appointments, on Afghanistan, on detention policy, on repealing Bush's tax cuts, on gay rights and so on. Now he is allowing private insurance companies to dictate healthcare policy. This needs to stop. Because at this rate, progressives insistence on supporting Obama at all costs has become a liability to our democracy and our health.
Michael Corcoran is a journalist who focuses on business, media, and public affairs. He has written for The Nation, The Boston Globe, Extra!, Alternet, Campus Progress, and other publications. His work can be read at: michaelcorcoran.blogspot.com
Boston - President Obama delivered a stirring address to Congress last night, but the federal government's inability to truly overhaul our broken healthcare system – which now leaves more than 46 million uninsured – is becoming all the more apparent.
Speaking before a joint session of Congress, Obama declared that a public option to compete with private insurers, considered vital by many liberals, was merely a "means to an end," and not essential to healthcare reform. Earlier this summer, a New York Times/CBS poll showed that 72 percent of Americans support a government-run healthcare plan. But Obama's speech last night indicates that while a bill will probably pass, prospects for comprehensive reform – the kind millions of Americans voted for – have dimmed rapidly. Insurance companies, which have given large donations to both political parties, are winning the fight in Washington.
The inability of a popular president with substantial majorities in Congress to pass a progressive health bill is immensely frustrating to healthcare activists, and to all who gave Obama a mandate for change.
But their cause is not lost – they just need a new strategy.
Read the rest here:
Not everyone who opposes single payer healthcare is simply an
ideologue. There are a lot of legitimate concerns about a single payer system
and what it would do to real access to a doctor as opposed to just having a card
that says you’re insured, the actual cost of care, progress in research and
development of both drugs and medical equipment, and making certain types of
care unobtainable for patients when the government doesn’t feel like paying for
them.
The ‘rest of the developed world’ which you vaguely refer to
has had plenty of problems with their single payer systems. In one survey of
citizens 80% of Americans said that the current system needs to be reformed or
rebuilt, with only %20 saying they liked it the way it is. But when the same
question was asked of citizens of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand,
which all have single payer national healthcare, the distribution of answers was
the same. Even with national coverage, patients still want massive overhaul of
their healthcare systems.
To say that a single payer option is the only that makes
sense, or that ‘not for profit’ automatically means that waste will be
eliminated is just silly, especially when no evidence is provided. Anyone who’s
ever paid any attention to how the government spends money knows
this.
For anyone interested in hearing real researched arguments
against single payer healthcare, a good place to start is: http://www.cato.org/subtopic_display_new.php?topic_id=80&ra_id=6
My reference to the 80/20 survey comes from their podcast
about the Massachusetts healthcare model.
Please read and consider the information there and
elsewhere before simply writing off anyone who doesn’t agree with you as an
ideologue.
The ‘rest of the developed world’ which you vaguely refer to has had plenty of problems with their single payer systems. In one survey of citizens 80% of Americans said that the current system needs to be reformed or rebuilt, with only %20 saying they liked it the way it is. But when the same question was asked of citizens of the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, which all have single payer national healthcare, the distribution of answers was the same. Even with national coverage, patients still want massive overhaul of their healthcare systems."
"To say that a single payer option is the only that makes sense, or that ‘not for profit’ automatically means that waste will be eliminated is just silly, especially when no evidence is provided. Anyone who’s ever paid any attention to how the government spends money knows this.
Unsurprisingly, the tiny state of Vermont (population 600,000) was called for Barack Obama first. The votes have not all been counted but pundits are already calling it a mammoth blowout.
It should come as no suprise that Vermont went this direction. The state. arguably the most tolerant and liberal in the nation, has a self-identified socialist in the Senate, a vibrant third party with seats in the State House, and openly supports the impeachment of Bush.
The state is known for it independent streak. 80 years ago, President Calvin Coolidge, said of the Green Mountain State, “If the spirit of liberty should vanish in other parts of the Union and support of our institutions should languish, it could all be replenished from the generous store held by the people of this brave little state of Vermont.”
There is also a curious gubernatorial race going on in the state. Incumbent Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, is going to beat out a Democratic challenger, Gaye Symington (speaker of the Vermont House) and progressive Anthony Pollina, who is tied for Symington in second place, with about 24 percent of the vote, according to recent polls.
Interestingly, Douglas will win, but may not be re-elected right away. If he wins with less than 50 percent of the vote, the Legislature (which is dominated by Democrats) gets to choose the governor by secret ballot. I think they would likely choose Douglas, who will win with a double-digit lead, but I imagine the Douglas campaign is hoping they never have to find out.
Part of live election 2008 coverage for Blast Magazine
The world is indeed watching today.
Despite the United States recent economic woes, there is no doubt amongst serious observers that the country is still, by far the most powerful nation in the world. The United States military budget – which, I think it is fair to say, gets quite a bit of use – is astronomical. The U.S. accounts almost half of the world’s military spending, with the FY 2009 budget allocating more than $650 billion. To put this in perspective, the next highest spender is the United Kingdom with just over $50 billion. And the U.S. figures do not count the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan which are paid for with supplemental bills and have cost the nation hundreds of billions more over the last five years.
Further, the world economy, for better or worse (worse is the popular answer in 2008), is directly dependent on the U.S economy. Even though China, for example, continues to grow, they are only able to do so by sending 80 percent of their exports to the U.S. Now, as American consumers are becoming thrifty, or broke (or both), Chinese growth is in trouble.
Russia – China’s partner in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which many see as a blossoming counter to the US and NATO – is now losing out on all the revenues that they were getting from $147 barrels of oil. And this drop in oil occurred, at least in part, due to the massive deflation that has occurred since the US economy really hit the skids in September. Venezuela and Iran, two other oil-rich nations with hostile relations with the U.S, are facing the same problems as oil prices go down.
So why is this relevant to the 2008 election? It is a reminder of how important this election, and American policy in general, is to other parts of the world.
In Israel, for example, the right has expressed fears over an Obama presidency. While Obama has said all of the right things, and spoke in front of AIPAC when he finally won the primary, some in Israel are not sure he will be 1) as aggressive on Iran as a McCain or Bush Administration or 2) as willing to continue America’s unconditional (and totally unique) package in aid, which is at $3 billion, the most in the world. This is why the right started singing the “Obama-is-anti-Israel” tune when McCain fell sharply behind (as did Hillary Clinton when she was gasping for anything at the tail end of the divisive primary, which gives you a sense of how predictably low politicians can go when in trouble).
It is a fairly empty tale. Obama has toed the Party line with Israel, pledging continued and increased aid, and insisting that Iran poses a grave threat, despite the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said the opposite.
Nonetheless, this election is watched with great interest from the Israeli right. To follow the coverage in Israel, I recommend, Haaretz, which is widely viewed as the “New York Times of Israel.”
Another country that must be watching with watchful eyes in Pakistan, especially given Obama’s expressed a willingness to bomb the country (which President Bush actually did recently).
Interestingly, Iraqis and U.S. soldiers may have less at stake that one might think. While Obama ran in the primary with anti-war rhetoric , his staff has acknowledged to the Wall Street Journal that he will leave around 35 – 45 thousands troops in the country. Given that a similar draw down is likely under a McCain Administration (though the exact timeline could vary), it appears that the War in Iraq will continue in a lesser fashion, no matter who wins. Still, if anyone wants to read an English language Iraqi newspaper, visit Azzaman in English.
Iranians, too, must be watching with great interest. While both McCain and Obama are willing to talk tough on Iran, Obama has a far more moderate (supported by many Republicans from the Bush I days, such as James Baker and Collin Powell) and reasonable stance on engaging in diplomacy. To read Iranian media visit Press TV and the Islamic Republic News Agency (both state-owned, for what its worth).
And of course, every country has a stake in the U.S. economy. As I listed above, the ramifications of the economic crisis are indeed global, and countries have been scrambling with bailout and stimulus packages, request for aid from the (US controlled) International Monetary Fund and the nationalizing of some banks.
Here, world public opinion is clear: Obama is the favorite for most of the world, which has grown deeply skeptical of U.S. economic policies, and gives most of the blame to Republicans.
Some other foreign news outlets:
The Independent (United Kingdom)
Dar al Hayet (Saudi Arabia )
An article in Friday's Wall Street Journal, notes that the Democratic nominees will not have a a full withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
Despite the rhetoric of the Democratic presidential candidates, significant numbers of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq regardless who wins in November .... senior adviser said that Mr. Obama was comfortable with a long-term U.S. troop presence of around five brigades, which -- depending on the numbers of support troops and other personnel -- would likely leave around 35,000 troops in Iraq. Sen. Clinton takes a similar approach
It is, I think, worth the effort in reminding readers that of the reality of this situation as the democrats (and much of the media) often portray the race in a way that might give people the false impression that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will end the war while in office. The reality, however, is they will just scale back on troop levels and sell it as an end to the war. This is obviously preferable to John McCain's position on the war who calls the war a success and says he would be willing to keep US forces there upwards of "1000 years". He also made the absurd claim that a US withdrawal would result in al Qaeda taking over the country. This shows that McCain is either a liar or a complete idiot. I suspect it is the former, but in either case, it does not reflect well on the Arizona lawmaker (Juan Cole has more on this, here).
"there will certainly be a long-term US presence in Iraq. The money that was poured into the war in the interest of securing permanent military basing in the heart of the world's remaining energy reserves will not have been spent in vain. What will happen, however, is a gradual troop reduction over the course of the next administration amid much fanfare from the media and academia.
It was somewhat amusing to watch Hillary Clinton as her campaign, once widely thought to be invincible, began to fall apart. Facing the increasing likelihood of losing the nomination to Mr. Hope himself, Clinton took to outright mockery in describing the junior senator from Illinois and his seductive narrative of hope, unity and change.
“I could just stand up here and say ’Let’s just get everybody together, let’s get unified,’” she told supporters at a rally in Providence, Rhode Island. “The sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.”
At this stage of Clinton’s flailing campaign, the move comes off as desperate. With polls showing a likely Obama triumph, the Clinton camp has had to pull out all the stops – including accusing Obama of disloyalty to Israel in the latest Newsweek cover story. Still, we have to admit: she has a point. While Obama’s stump speeches speak glowingly of dramatic change, his policies fail to match up; in fact, his policy positions are, in many cases, barely distinguishable from those of Clinton. And on some crucial domestic issues, he is actually outflanking her from the right.
Of course, there are some positives about the Obama phenomenon. First, he is clearly preferable to Clinton, whose record (in the senate and as first lady) on trade, welfare, gay marriage, the War in Iraq, and media regulation has been horrendous. Obama, a one-term Senator with a background as a community organizer, is far less entrenched in the Washington establishment than Clinton. Further, he opposed the invasion of Iraq and supports some level of diplomacy with Iran, Venezuela and other countries that have typically poor relations with the US.
More important, I think, is the mass outpouring of grassroots support that Obama has received. While I doubt very much that Obama is the vehicle for change his supporters think he is, the fact that millions of Americans have donated time, money and sweat into trying to make this country a little more humane, speaks volumes about the American peoples’ desire for change. This shows the very real potential for more significant social movements to succeed in the not-so-distant future.
And, this happens at a time when the conservative movement, once monolithic in its control of all three branches of government, is collapsing due to poor leadership and a sharp disconnect with the American public on foreign and domestic policy.
These are all positive things. But we lose out by romanticizing Obama’s platform –which is still well to the right of the majority of the public on virtually all of the crucial issues.
Obama and foreign policy
Since the executive branch has far more influence over foreign affairs than it does over domestic issues, it makes sense to begin there. As I noted, Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq from the beginning, But Obama’s record since that vote has been pretty dismal.
For starters, Obama has voted repeatedly to fund the war he opposed. As Dennis Kucinich noted last year,
“[Obama's] voted to fund the war at least ten times, each time, it's like reauthorizing it all over again. If they keep voting to fund the war, it's not credible to say they are for peace.”
In fact, just when members of the newly-elected 110th congress were beginning to square off against Bush over Iraq legislation lst March, Obama made a point to cave into the president, asserting that he does not want “to play chicken with our troops,” by threatening to cut of funding for the war.
And even now that Obama is trying to run as the anti-war candidate, he still refused to say he would have the troops out by 2013.
Obama defended his record to reporters. "I have been very clear even as a candidate that, once we were in (Iraq), that we were going to have some responsibility to make it work as best we could,” he said.
On foreign issues other than Iraq, Obama offers even less substantive change. For starters Obama is an unambiguous interventionist. When Obama gave a speech at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs outlining his foreign policy views, Robert Kagan, one of the world’s foremost hawks, who along with Bill Kristol co-founded PNAC, wrote glowingly about it.
“America must ‘lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good.’ With those words, Barack Obama put an end to the idea that the alleged overexuberant idealism and America-centric hubris of the past six years is about to give way to a new realism, a more limited and modest view of American interests, capabilities and responsibilities.”
One can only imagine Kagen, a staunch unilateralist, also enjoyed Obama’s expressed willingness to “attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government.” Obama’s piece in Foreign Affairs should likewise put to rest any idea that he is seeks to lessen the United States’ interventionist ways. In this piece he praises Roosevelt and Kennedy for building strong militaries and asserting US dominance around the world.
In terms of the Middle East, it comes as no surprise that Obama has taken a very assertive pro-Israel stance: all Democrats take a pro-Israel stance, especially ones that hope to become president.
But when Obama gave a speech in front of AIPAC, he was so egregious in his pandering that he drew jubilant praise from some of the most hawkish supporters of Israel in the media today. Samuel Rosner, arguably the most pro-Israel voice at Haaretz, said Obama was “as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Guliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.”
Marty Peretz, the editor-at-large of the New Republic, and a chronic apologist for Israeli war crimes, was also impressed. He said of the speech:
“I believe he must have satisfied (nearly) all of those who had been skeptical of his grasp of the Israeli conundrum. Very much satisfied them. Me, included. (His was an extremely sophisticated analysis.) And he must also have disillusioned all of those who'd hoped--like the lefty blogosphere--that he'd be oh-so-sympathetic to the self-inflicted Palestinians.”
Indeed, Obama was no such thing. He said that Israel was "our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy," He added, "we must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs" which would "deter missile attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza."
“As if the starved, besieged and traumatized population of Gaza are about to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles,” noted Ali Abunimah in Electronic Intifada.
Further, David Sirota has noted Obama’s connection to at least one big-wig in the defense industry.
“Buried at the very bottom of a New York Times story marveling at Barack Obama’s ability to shakedown wealthy Chicago scions for big cash, we find out that one of the Illinois senator’s biggest donors is the family that owns one of the largest defense contractors in the world, General Dynamics. What a shock, then, that Obama hasn’t discussed our bloated military budget even though polls show the public wants that budget reeled in.”
And this is just scratching the surface of Obama’s non-progressive ways. As Paul Street observes, Obama voted to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT ACT, gave his valuable support to neoconservative Sen. Joe Lieberman (I- CONN) as he faced off against his anti-war challenger Ned Lamont, voted to approve Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state and opposed Sen. Feingold’s move to censure Bush for his illegal wiretapping of US citizens.
Obama and Domestic Policy
As bad as his foreign policy positions are, they are still unambiguously to the left of Hillary Clinton and John McCain. The same can not be said of his domestic platform, where Obama has been especially disappointing. His policy positions, in some cases are to the right of Clinton’s.
For starters, as Robert Kuttner observed in an excellent article for the American Prospect, Obama has strong ties to Richard Rubin, former chairman of Goldman Sachs and the chief economic strategist for Democrats throughout the Clinton years. Rubin represents the old neoliberal thinking that dominated the 90s; he is also a key player in the Hamilton Project, which as Kuttner notes, is dedicated to promoting “free capital movements.” They also flirt with privatizing social security.
That Obama has solicited the help of Rubin is a sure sign that, despite the countries growing antipathy for neoliberalism, he will not be endorsing any kind of substantively different economic word view. Kuttner writes:
“If the Rubin doctrine again dominates the Democrats' pocketbook program, it will once again blunt the Democrats' (now resurgent) appeal as the party of the common American.”
And indeed the extent of Obama’s Rubinization is evident in his campaign. On health care, he favors a plan that, while similar to Clinton’s, is slightly less ambitious. This is mainly because Obama concedes his plan, which unlike Clinton’s (and Edward’s) plans do not require one buy insurance, will leave a few million without insurance; Clinton claims her plan cover everyone, which, as Harvard’s Steffie Woolhandler notes, “is pure fantasy.”
Reasonable people can disagree over which nominee’s flawed plan is less bad.None of these candidates are anywhere close to the public on health care. 56 percent of the country said they would support a single-payer plan “like Medicare” to our current program. Further, the country is willing to pay higher taxes to see such a plan implemented. What’s more, there is a bill, HR676, which would provide Medicare for all. It has more than 80 cosponsors in the House of Representatives, but Obama, like a lot of Democrats, will not go near it.
But what is especially unsettling about Obama on this issue, is the angle he has taken in critiquing the other’s health care plan. As Paul Krugman observed in the New York Times:
“[L]ately Mr. Obama has been stressing his differences with his rivals by attacking their plans from the right — which means that he has been giving credence to false talking points that will be used against any Democratic health care plan a couple of years from now …. by echoing the talking points of those who oppose any form of universal health care, he’s making the task of any future president who tries to deliver universal care considerably more difficult.
Obama has used the same approach on Social Security. He continues to perpetuate the right-wing myth that Social Security is in some kind of fiscal crises. These talking points are designed by conservatives to dismantle one of the lasting relics from the New Deal, and Obama, by repeating them, only helps this myth gain traction. “Everyone knows Social Security, as it’s constructed, is not going to be in the same place it’s going to be for the next generation, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives,” Obama told Tim Russert on Meet the Press.
Krugman, again, takes issue with this assessment.
“But the ‘everyone’ who knows that Social Security is doomed doesn’t include anyone who actually understands the numbers. In fact, the whole Beltway obsession with the fiscal burden of an aging population is misguided. As Peter Orszag, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, put it in a recent article co-authored with senior analyst Philip Ellis: “The long-term fiscal condition of the United States has been largely misdiagnosed. Despite all the attention paid to demographic challenges, such as the coming retirement of the baby-boom generation, our country’s financial health will in fact be determined primarily by the growth rate of per capita health care costs.”
Indeed, Obama has literally taken to praising the vision of Ronald Reagan who he views as a man of bold ideas.
“I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
Matt Stoller, a blogger from MYDD observed that Obama “agrees with Reagan's basic frame that the 1960s and 1970s were full of 'excesses' and that government had grown large and unaccountable. Those excesses, of course, were feminism, the consumer rights movement, the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, and the antiwar movement. The libertarian anti-government ideology of an unaccountable large liberal government was designed by ideological conservative to take advantage of the backlash against these 'excesses.'”
All in all, I think David Sirota may have put it best. Obama, he observes, is only
“interested in fighting only for those changes that fit within the existing boundaries of what’s considered mainstream in Washington, instead of using his platform to redefine those boundaries. This posture, comes even as polls consistently show that Washington’s definition of mainstream is divorced from the rest of the country’s (for example, politicians’ refusal to debate the war even as polls show that Americans want the troops home).”
Voting for Obama?
Steven Maher recently told me that he was surprised that consumer-advocate Ralph Nader decided to run for president. He thought Nader might endorse Obama this year.
I was less surprised. As I noted earlier, there is in fact much to be excited about in regards to the Obama campaign: he would be the first black president, he has a decent background, he has energetic well-meaning grassroots supporters and so forth. But, when you really look at what Obama is offering, it represents a lot more of the same.
This is not to say one should not vote for Obama; in most states voting for Obama makes a lot of sense. The differences between Obama and McCain are not as big as many of us would like to see, but they are different enough to affect thousands of lives. But I do not think it is credible to say that Obama has taken enough bold steps to bypass a third-party challenge from the left. His weakness on health care and the military budget alone, are reason enough to expect such efforts, no matter how futile.
Indeed, Obama’s rhetoric, if not his policies, have moved to the left. This is true of Edwards and Clinton as well. The candidates understand that the public is outraged about the economy, our failing health care system and our endless wars. And so, unlike previous elections, they feel compelled to address these issues.
This is the true lesson of the Obama phenomenon. Politicians do not bring change, people do. And the best way to facilitate change is not to get behind a candidate, but to force them to take better stands on issues.
As Howard Zinn recently wrote:
Yes, there are candidates who are somewhat better than others, and at certain times of national crisis (the Thirties, for instance, or right now) where even a slight difference between the two parties may be a matter of life and death ... Would I support one candidate against another? Yes, for two minutes-the amount of time it takes to pull the lever down in the voting booth.
But before and after those two minutes, our time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice.
“Obama’s candidacy in this sense is a potentially transformational one. Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us.”
