Yesterday, I put forward my answer to the Obama problem:
I do not believe for one second that Obama or the Democratic party will necessarily bring all the change we need. No party stands for my bedrock principles all the time, principles like the rule of law, the balance of powers, the Constitution, civil liberties, opportunity for all, security through freedom, reduced corporate power, and responsible governance. Politicians will sell me out to get elected when they can get away with it, and I will sell them out to uphold these principles when I can get away with it.As long as we don't stoop so low as to rationalize a candidate's political calculations, progressives can retain their authority while still supporting a center/center-left candidate.
But once Obama is elected, it's war. As I've said before, November is just the beginning.
So given that I want Obama to succeed, does that give me pause about Jason's plan to be tough on Obama starting the day after he's elected? Well, not really, but I do think the progressive movement needs to have a sophisticated, multi-level strategy. I think progressives should, and very likely will, break into 3 types of players during an Obama administration.1. Going on the inside. I hope that the Obama team can be convinced to place as many genuine progressives in government jobs as possible.
2. Friendly outsiders who are pushing them toward progressivism. These are the progressive organization people, bloggers, donors, and other activists who stay on the outside, and are generally friendly to, and supportive of the Obama team, who still gently push them to pick the progressive path as much as possible.
3. Outsiders who bang away. Those organization people, bloggers, donors, and other activists who decide their best role is to aggressively bang away, who work day in and day out to hold Obama accountable.I believe we are best served when we have lots of people in all 3 of these categories. A movement does not succeed without having all 3 kinds of people in place, each playing their part. The progressive things that did happen during the Clinton years came as a direct result of each of these 3 kinds of people playing a big role.
The key is that the folks in all these categories need to forge a constructive working relationship with each other. There will definitely be tensions between the three at times, but if they can respect each other in their different roles, good things will happen.
With a first-past-the-post, plurality based voting system, two party tyranny rules. An activist's only real point of pressure to push candidates towards their agenda is during primaries. During the general election, unless you genuinely don't care which of the two party representatives gets elected, you have no choice but to help the "best of the worst" of your two choices.
Of course, the Democratic primary is over, so our real leverage against Obama is gone - unless you want to help McCain win.
However, if Obama is elected, working to push him towards progressive positions while he's in power allows for a much more nuanced strategy, as Mike highlights. More importantly, none of these options are winner-take-all. Progressives can hand Obama a genuine legislative defeat and not cost him the presidency or the Democrats both houses of Congress. If played correctly, progressives can flex their power and cause worried politicians to support progressive policies without severely damaging the Democratic brand to such an extent as to cause electoral problems.
To put it another way, it's war in November, but it's not indiscriminate war. It's a smart conflict calculated to bring progressive policies while maintaining electoral control.
J Ro's opinions are his own and do not represent any other organization or individual.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 24 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
