Progressives: caveat emptor

There is a growing sense of disappointment in many progressive minds over the failure of President Obama to stand for the reform that many believed was the basis of his campaign.

Six months into office, Obama has failed to take a principled stance on gay rights; has failed to reverse the Bush-era stance on government secrecy; has failed to stand up to big business and instead signed laws giving trillions of dollars to the very companies that produced the greatest economic crisis in one hundred years; and looks ready to discard any government-option in pushing for health care reform.

In addition, when given the opportunity to select a Supreme Court justice, Obama chose a relative moderate.  While it is a wonderful thing that the halls of power are becoming more outwardly diverse, Obama turned down a potential opportunity to select a Supreme Court justice in the vein of William Brennan or Thurgood Marshall, in favor of a “safer” choice.

While Obama’s failure to take principled progressive positions is disappointing, it was also wholly predictable.  Obama’s campaign was based on marketing his youth and racial background — his appearance, in other words — and was not based at all on any real positions.  Indeed, anyone who has borne witness to even two or three presidential elections understands that the campaigns refuse to take positions in order to attract as many voters as possible.  With Obama, dark skin and youth were branded in a way to make people assume that Obama was a bona-fide progressive.

In contrast to Obama, there were at least two politicians running for President in the last election who stated very clearly what they stood for:  Dennis Kucinich (D) and Ron Paul (R).  Both Kucinich and Paul railed against Bush-era constitutional abuses and had clear visions of their direction for America.

Kucinich was the only real progressive candidate in the race.  He was the only candidate who fully supported a single-payer health care system like the ones in place in other industrialized nations.  He called for an end to overseas wars and decried the growing division between rich and poor.  Kucinich was ignored by the media and secured only single digit support amongst Democracts.

Progressives may be angry at what they perceive to be Obama’s shifting positions; but he never really had any positions to begin with.  Obama won based on his supporters’ assumptions, and nothing else.  They saw in him what they wanted to see:  a one man solution to the decades of corruption, corporatism, and militarism that currently plague America.   The illusions of Obama as progressive are as fantastical as the illusions of a socialist which so many die-hard Republicans see in him.  Obama is little more than a mirror who reflects one’s own perceptions of the political good.

At the same time, let’s give credit where credit is due.  Obama is intelligent and an able administrator.  He is capable and competent.  Being able to effectively run a government is no small task, and half the battle of undoing the damage of the George W. Bush presidency is simply ensuring that paperwork goes where it needs to go.  Obama also pledged to change the combative tone in Washington, and to his credit he is far more a uniter than his predecessor.  He listens to the other side even if he doesn’t agree with them.  If an emergency strikes the United States, he is far more trustworthy than his predecessor, who permitted an entire city to be wiped from the map.

But Obama can only do so much — and is perhaps only willing to do so much.  His election as President is yet another reminder that the strength of American politics is ultimately derived from the people — and more specifically, from the ability of the people to make smart choices about the direction of their country.  Progressives can only blame themeslves if they wanted a progressive President, as it was clear to anyone paying attention that Obama would be a moderate leader, and not a reformer.  That does not mean that he is a bad President.  Perhaps a moderate President is what America needs right now.

Ultimately, Obama’s moderate policies should remind people interested in progressive change that progress at the national level is a difficult thing.  Progressives are seriously misguided when they push for greater federal control over America.  There is a reason that our federal republic permits governance at the local and state levels as well — people in South Carolina may not want the same laws as people in Texas or Montana or California.  The institution of the Presidency was designed to act as a unifying position for all Americans, and in many respects, Obama is ably fulfilling that position.  True progressive change is best acquired at the state level — and if a good idea really develops amongst the 50 different laboratories of the states, it can be easily shared with the sibling states.  Progressive voices would do well to remember the wisdom of the Framers in designing a system of limited government at the federal level.  A growing federal government is in fact the greatest obstacle to real progress.

This entry was posted on Saturday, August 1st, 2009 at 4:40 pm and is filed under Government Accountability, Law and Politics and tagged with america, disappointment, obama. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.