Was Rahm Right (about Progressives)?

rahm emanuelIn 2009, then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel infamously said that progressives are “fucking retarded.” Lately I’ve begun to think he was correct–though not for the same reasons as Emanuel, who thought that progressives held unrealistic expectations for his boss, President Barack Obama. Progressives are chumps because they had those expectations for Obama to begin with, and poured so many of their hopes and aspirations–not to mention dollars–into electing him.

Sure, Obama was way better than his opponent John McCain, though it was always questionable–and still is–whether Obama was going to be better than Hillary Clinton. But the course of progressives’ “relationship” with Obama–from infatuation to letdown to spurned–shows a bewildering level of “drink the Kool Aid” naiveté on the part of some otherwise sharp people. How could this have happened? Are there lessons to be learned for the future?

During the presidential campaign, while Obama deployed the lofty rhetoric and vision in his speeches that became his stock in trade, some of us were pointing out that there was nothing in this former state senator and then-U.S. Senator’s unremarkable record that indicated he was a strong or reliable progressive. Sometimes he had progressive tendencies, other times not. A friend of mine from Chicago who had Obama as a law professor presciently predicted that an Obama administration would be characterized by “ruthless pragmatism,” not progressive idealism.

But many progressives believed, quite fervently, that in the course of finding that ruthless pragmatism, Obama would cleverly figure out how to lean strongly progressive. There was always a nod and a wink coming from the Obama movement that seemed to say, “Don’t worry, he’s more progressive than he’s revealing. That’s what you have to do to get elected president in the United States.” When some of us continued to express doubts, these Panglosses got upset. Very upset. “It’s time to get on board,” they said. And I felt like Bongo, the one-eared rabbit in Matt Groening‘s Life in Hell cartoon, shut up and gagged in a detention room.

How can so many brilliant people have fallen for so much hokum? That question is not an easy one to answer. Perhaps at some point Arianna Huffington, Robert Kuttner, Michael Moore and other left-ish pundits will engage in a bit of self-criticism and enlighten us as to how they were hoodwinked so easily. Because here’s my fear: Progressives don’t seem to be learning from their mistakes. Right before Obama’s inauguration, Huffington wrote, “Now, more than ever, we must mine the most underutilized resource available to us: ourselves… It is not just the Bush Years that should be over on January 20, but also the expectation that a knight in shining armor will ride into town and save us while we cheer from the sidelines. Even if the knight is brilliant, charismatic and inspiring. It’s up to us–We the People.”

Yet that’s exactly what so many did–they invested their hopes and aspirations, their passion, activism and money, in a shining knight for whom there was scant evidence of his progressivism or legislative accomplishments. Was it their desperation to see the GOP run out of town and the Bush legacy overturned? And the Clintons too? Was it their desire to see an African American elected president? Kuttner, author of Obama’s Challenge: America’s Economic Crisis and the Power of a Transformative PresidencyEconomic Conditions Books) and co-founder of The American Prospect, wrote about a friend who said, “I so wanted to be supportive of a great progressive president this time instead of being back in opposition.”

So does the despondency of the struggle explain progressives’ massive miscalculation? How do they account for the stunning failure of their leadership? It is time for some major self-criticism within the progressive movement, especially among its leadership. At the very least, we should note how the “netroots” failure to keep its knight galloping in the right direction shows the stark limitations of a movement that does not have a strong enough ground component.

New rules
Yet a progressive future is not only contingent on a genuine grassroots movement. Structural political reforms are needed for that movement to transmit change through government at all levels. We would never have had this latest meltdown of our economic system if our political system had not melted down first. The two-party system is sclerotic. As Obama’s presidency shows, more than ever, there is no room for progressives at the table of highest political power. The reason for this is that the rules of the game that elect our representatives actually hurt progressives.

A truly democratic electoral (and thus political) system would include:

  • Public financing of campaigns.
  • Free media time for campaigns.
  • Universal/automatic voter registration.
  • Direct election of the president (abolition of the electoral college).
  • Instant runoff voting to allow voters to express their true preferences and prevent spoilers.
  • Proportional representation (allowing more than two parties).

Together these measures would serve to both expand the electorate and broaden representation in our legislatures. cont’d on Page 2

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Comments

  1. Cain S. Latrans says

    Rahm NEVER said Progressives were stupid, he said primarying Dems in CONSERVATIVE DISTRICTS was stupid. This is completely false just like the meme that Al Gore said he invented the internet. Please look it up and make the correction.

    BTW it is F*cking STUPID.

    And BTW, Hillary Clinton belongs to The Family. She threatened Iran, voted FOR the Iraq War, advocated for Free Trade, over FAIR Trade, and was to the RIGHT of Obama.

    Look it up.

  2. Sharon Toji says

    I agree with everything in this article. I did not expect much, either. I do think that Hillary Clinton would have been somewhat more progressive. I always said that Hillary was a progressive, masquerading as a moderate to prove that women were strong and not “ditzy,” and also in support of the record of Bill Clinton, and that Obama was a centrist masquerading as a progressive (or wearing a mask that progressives insisted on putting on him), to excite the masses of young people, and perhaps even that group of men who loved to bash Hillary about her thighs and “cankles” to prove their masculinity. He was very much the locker room hero, with his basketball pick-up games on the trail and cool-guy manner, along with the lofty “change” and “hope” repetitions that were easy to perceive as cheer-leading.

    I don’t know if Hillary would have done better, but after the election, she did go back to the Senate and vote against FISA, while the President-elect, who could have also done so, and not endangered anything, voted for it. The first clue.

    Sharon Toji

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *