Bob Herbert in the Times:
The survey for the Economic Policy Institute was conducted in September by Hart Research Associates. Respondents said that they had more faith in President Obama’s ability to handle the economy than Congressional Republicans. The tally was 43 percent to 32 percent. But when asked who had been helped most by government stimulus efforts, substantial majorities said “large banks” and “Wall Street investment companies.”
When asked how “average working people” or “you and your family” had benefited, very small percentages, in a range of 10 percent to 13 percent, said they had fared well.
People think the Dems suck because, well, the Dems suck.
Now, the Republicans suck a bit worse, it's true -- but the whole hopey-changey bill of goods "progressives" helped sell turned out to be bullshit, and people know that.
Quelle surprise.
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[encrypted]+#b94+
Printer-friendly version
Front page
Comments
What if Hillary won?
I don't want to speculate because Hillary is a racist be-yotch, but how much more refreshing would it have been to be a liberal Dem when your president won while damning conservativism rather than preaching aisle crossing? Not that Hillary would be different necessarily, but still, it would be nice not to have been bound to "bipartisanship".
Only tyrants rig elections.
if hillary clinton won...
instead of the obama supporters, i expect it would be the clinton supporters who would now be getting pissed off at me for objecting to the continuation of our imperial wars, lack of accountability for torture and war crimes, bankster bailouts and neoliberal economic policies in general, move towards police state at home, etc.
iow, same song, different choir.
but then i hated the primary wars and saw no progressive appeal in any of the three major candidates.
it's not just obama. as the post indicates, most dems suck.
Nah, I'd Still Be Pissed About Those Things
I'm sure others might not be.
I think the differences would be minor, but not unimportant. Given that she would've owed the working class her primary win, I think in addition to the Wall Street payoff, we'd have gotten HOLC or some other aid. I think we'd probably get a slightly better regulation package. Obama has done nothing much to help people (his economic plan was always more about tax cuts than Clinton's or Edwards'). I think Clinton would've done more. Same on healthcare. I don't think she would've push single payer, but I also don't think she would've sat back and put Max Baucus in charge of developing the plan.
As for civil liberties, she voted against telecom immunity, so there's some indication she would've been slightly better. But I don't think she'd be rolling back the war on terror. And I think she's every bit as bad on empire as Obama and thought that during the primary. That is, of course, why she's his SoS.
The main benefit I think we'd get from Clinton are five things (minor, but again, not unimportant):
1) More play to the working class base;
attacks of the 1990s. She is much more impervious at this point, just because she's been through it and survived AND because she would've been elected without being the media darling. She wouldn't be trying to please David Broder.
2) Less willingness to sell out women in any compromise with the GOP;
3) Stronger criticism from the left and not the blind following we've seen with Obama;
4) Stronger legislative skills (Obama is horrible, IMO, in negotiating with the Hill; and
5) Perhaps the most important - better framing. Compare Clinton's visit to Fox, where she largely defended progressive values, to Obama's, where he gave credit to Republicans for Democratic ideas (cap and trade). This is, IMO, a generational thing (even though they are technically the same generation) and it is also the difference between Clinton having survived the VRWC
Again, not huge differences and ultimately they're speculative ones, but I do object to folks who ignored Obama's glaring flaws, like he was running to the right on domestic issues of every other candidate, now acting as if their inability to insist on policy details is irrelevant (and I'm not saying this is you selise). Doesn't matter that Obama sucks because Clinton would be just as bad. Maybe she would. But on domestic issues there's some indication that she might've been slightly better and for a lot of people right now, the slight improvement could make a big difference.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
everything you write could be true, but....
yikes! am i turning into one of the "yes, buts?"
oh well, i did not mean to imply there would be no difference (on that i agree with lambert -- not knowable). but i do think it's fair to expect (not know) that there would not be enough of a difference that i would not be complaining about the things i listed. and i do think it's fair to expect (again not know, and i'm not saying this about you BDBlue) that some clinton supporters would not take kindly to my complaints, just as some obama supporters now react to my complaints of his actions. that is all i meant to say.
Absolutely no question...
... we'd be dealing with what Arthur (and VL) call tribalism in the alternative history where Clinton was elected. Surely this is totally uncontroversial. So yes, I agree with you here, Selise.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
I Agree, Too
It's just - and I admit you hit a nerve selise even if it wasn't a nerve that you exposed - I'm tired of after living through the nightmare that was the 2008 primary season, having to now listen to people who abused me claim that Obama and Clinton are exactly alike (not you). Funny, that's not what I heard then when he was supposed to be the progressive messiah even though he ran to Clinton's right on domestic policy issues. And I think that's the part that really galls me, that so many people failed to notice that Obama ran to the very awful Hillary Clinton's right on domestic issues in a Democratic Primary. And even to this fucking day, many won't admit it.
And in many ways, it's all water under the bridge, all in the past, etc., etc. Except I can't help but notice that that same tendency to ignore Obama's right-wing framing and his tax cut focused economic policies seems to be replicated in the willingness of some "progressives" to ignore the fact that he's essentially sold out healthcare reform, he screwed us all with TARP, etc.
I think I've said this before, but it would be much easier to move beyond the primary if I didn't feel like I was reliving it every damned day in the healthcare debate.
And, yes, I do believe that, while I think Clinton would've done a few more things that I would've liked than Obama, I would still have a very long list of complaints because of the constraints on the party and the fact that so very much of its leadership sucks.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
so sorry about the nerve thing...
bull in a china shop. that's me.
would it help if i told you i got called a concern troll at fdl for pointing out in detail (before nov) how obama's economic speech was focused excessively on tax cuts (true fact and the mods let it stay -- as they did when paul called me misogynist. oops, that was probably more of the bull/china shop thingy again).
also i completely agree re clinton ran slightly to obama's left on domestic policy (and will add obama ran v slightly to clinton's left on foreign policy until choice of biden which was a major slap in the face to anti-iraq-war supporters).
i did not vote in primary (MA) because i couldn't get off the fence and couldn't work myself up to care enough to give it serious study. does not mean i was not involved in politics at that time, just in other ways.
on only one point will i disagree. it appears obamaco did worse than sell out on healthcare. if you haven't already, see my comment re sara robinson:
http://www.correntewire.com/who_kidnappe...
... anyway. seriously sorry about hitting the nerve thing. really don't want to add to your frustration. solidarity and mutual support is far more interesting and useful. even though i don't care about either obama or clinton, i DO care about their supporters.
peace.
I Did See That
disappointing, but not surprising. And an excellent catch by you.
I had so little hope for Obama and yet time and again he's managed to be so much worse than even I anticipated. The good things he's done has been much, much smaller. And the bad, much, much bigger.
And I do agree Obama ran slightly to Clinton's left on foreign policy, although that was primarily on the old issue of Iraq. On the other things where he sounded to her left, more often than not, I found that he quickly retracted and backtracked (as with his Cuba policy). So often I've found with Obama - and this I think is an ongoing lesson as we go forward, which is why I'm bringing it up - you have to look at everything he says because he often takes back in the second paragraph what he gave you in the first. I find it's much better to read his speeches than listen to them. The other thing I found and this might also be useful going forward is that whatever he accused his opponents of doing was almost assuredly the thing he was doing. Something to look for, I think, as we try to figure out how to push him and other Dems to the left. Patterns help in figuring out responses.
And I totally believe you about the FDL comments. I've seen it over there myself. One of the reasons I rarely go to the blog unless a specific article is linked.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
+100 because...
not alternative histories but lessons learned.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Not knowable
Take, for example, TARP. If Hillary had been the nominee, no doubt, at some point, she too would have had the interview with the real powers that be, and had the constraints under which she was to operate explained to her. (There's a vivid phrase running around for this moment, but it's not the "No shit" moment, and I can't bring the phrase to mind.)
We might have gotten a better TARP and HOLC, for example. We wouldn't have lost precious time sucking up to the VRWC
. But the parameters would still be very limited. Because the Dems do suck.
We have to deal with where we are. The primariez are useful because of lessons learned, but alternative histories don't fall into that category.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
What Lambert Said
so much shorter than my reply. :-)
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
Feh
Your comment is just fine and raises points I didn't.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
not knowable...
i agree. of course none of that is knowable (she could also have been worse). but see my reply to BDBlue. none of the possible differences you cite would have made a material impact on the complaints i would now be making.
not knowable but not entirely
speculative. We know how Clinton has acted in the past. We know how Obama has acted in the past. In general on domestic issues she pushes left although she does stays fairly well within bounds of politically feasible. But at least she points herself in the right direction. She pushes. And, she does always accompany whatever she's pushing for with education on the 'why'. Obama doesn't push left at all. He's happy to glide right (entirely predictable as he ran to the right of the other serious contenders), and considers his continual lecture series a substitute for governance. The only time we've seen him push for anything: TARP, "entitlement reform", and a huge windfall for health insurance companies.
Aside from BDBlue's list, which I agree with, we can't know how effective Clinton would have been, in the sense of how much she may have succeeded. But there's pretty decent evidence which of them would have been leaning in which direction.
As for the false equivalence on supporters -- yes, certainly some Clinton supporters would be all over her critics had she won. But if the behavior of the primaries are anything to go by, the numbers just don't balance. Every politician has some supporters who go overboard; but it's false logic to claim that the groups are equal when on one side some really means 'most'. Cannon has written quite clearly on this topic and while I don't always agree with him, I'm grateful for his unrelenting clarity on this topic.
The constant refrain that 'Hillary wouldn't have been any better' which accompanies almost every acknowledgement of disappointment by the OFB
of Obama has become an excuse and guilt-repellant just by it's virulence. But it's no less truthy for all that.
Reasonable men adapt themselves to their environment; unreasonable men try to adapt their environment to themselves. Thus all progress is the result of the efforts of unreasonable men. -- George Bernard Shaw
And here we are, looking backward to the primariez...
... instead of forward.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
my bad.
will quit now.
No, don't quit!
Look forward! What can be done to take advantage of the information in the post?!
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
possible lessons learned
don't really know. will think on it.
but social movement politics, decoupled from party influence, is looking good to me right now.
(which i think includes building bridges, so i'm gonna try with BDBlue)
No Need for a Bridge to Me
Because I don't think there's much of a divide between us. I think we agree more than you may realize once you take out my primary PTSD reaction (thanks Card Carrying Buddhist!). I object to all the same Obama policies you do and would object if Clinton did them. Which leads me to your point here, one that I've come to agree with - decoupling social movements (for lack of a better term) from political parties. How to do that and do it effectively, is another matter.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
thanks! nt
you type fast!
moi aussi
I've watched selise's work elsewhere with great interest.
NOTE Er, one really obvious reason to eschew all violence is that, well, er, the first person to advocate it is always.... Not making a personal remark, here, just saying it's a well-known heuristic.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Irresponsible Hillary speculating
Two things. First, I asked what it would be like to be a liberal and not bound by "bipartisanship", not what Hillary would do differently. Here are my exact words again, just to make explicit the distinction I was making (not, particularly, the last sentence):
Its interesting where people's minds jumped to right away, isn't it?
Second, a question: if its irresponsible to speculate how "good" Hillary would have been, why is it mostly OK to speculate how bad she would have been?
I interact with 20-30 crowd most of the day, every day and get to hear what they are talking about (me, just marginally outside that group). The post-partisan nonsense is permeating and taking hold in that group. Unions, not bankers, are increasingly becoming the problem. Stuff like that. Additionally, while us on the left are being all post-partisan, folks like Glen Beck who were falling out of favor get new shows and are influencing the discourse more than they probably would if conservativism were criticizable.
Really, isn't it mostly the cheating husband (or wife) who want us to forget the past? I actually think the way to best map the future is to take note of where you've been and how you've got where you are. Otherwise, you'd end up going in circles (e.g. the health care debate, same as the STFU
primaries) and not knowing. The same fuck-ups who brought us the primary are still the same fuck-ups on the a-list driving most of the discourse and criticizing complaints and objections as pie fights. But we must "look forward"...
Only tyrants rig elections.
"Unions, not bankers, are increasingly becoming the problem."
Sweet jeebus. How is that perception taking hold? That's horrible. Detail, please.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Well, in my not union friendly area
It's the unions fault, because they had the temerity to ask for and recieve those high wages and good benefits.
Don't you know that Toyota is doing better than Ford?
Since Ford was union(now they outsource everything to contractors who don't get union protection, and oddly, that hasn't "saved" them) and Toyota's not, that tells them everything they feel they need to know. This is especially obvious here, where all of the Ford workers are on layoff right now, and the Toyota workers are still working. Now the Toyota workers only make 1/2 what the Ford worker makes, but that's not what people are paying attention to.
Plus, Unions are corrupt, donchaknow?
Armchair psychologizing here, but I think a lot of the anger at unions doesn't really come from the fact that people think our problems are their fault, they're angry that they don't get that treatment. My fiance is a prime example of this, even though he is as liberal as the day is long, he will still bitch about "those union bastards at Ford who make $28 an hour to do nothing". He's not mad that they get those wages, he's mad he doesn't get those wages. I continue to tell him that the solution is more unions, not less.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
The OFB have no credibility on hypothetical Clinton presidency
They couldn't see Obama for what he was no matter how many times he made himself clear. In fact, when we pointed him out, they basically smeared us. So how can anyone trust them now on such matters? That's all I'll say about judging any hypothetical Hillary Clinton presidency.
As for the twentysomething crowd, which I'm barely still part of: I agree. They're like the DNC or Whole Foods version of "Democrats." Whenever I start talking about the need to go all FDR, they come back with some "Theory of Change" bullshit.
What do they think "Theory of Change" means?
This seems to be an early link; is this what they mean? And who is "they," here? What demographic?
Is "theory of change" the phrase they actually use? Data!!!
UPDATE This paragraph is pretty ironic (the article was published in December, 2007 (heh)):
Well, except for the racists and fat poor people, of course. And single payer unpersons.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Theory of Change, from the Prospect article.
"They" refer to the twentysomethings I come in regular contact with, all highly educated, young urban professional types. Just anecdotal stuff. A few of them do actually call it "theory of change," but, regardless, what they keep believing in, facts be damned, is what Schmitt also clings to. If I asked them what does "theory of change" mean, I doubt most would know, but it is their faith.
But it's not possible to do that in good faith...
... unless one buys into the, er, leadership principle. Yes?
I'm fascinated that some of them actually do call it "theory of change." That's a powerful meme. Of course, the "creative class" is big on theories....
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
"theory of change"
I dunno about that "powerful meme" thing. I mean it might be that but here's the way Schmitt describes it:
If you're theorizing about social change, calling that a "theory of change" doesn't seem that weird to me or especially powerfully. I mean, that's what the theorizing is about. (And it might not even be that bogus in substance: even this site has a "theory of change," with different underlying assumptions—say, if the progressive bloggers had unified and held the ground on single-payer, for example, that is different from that of, say, Open Left, I'd guess.) But maybe I'm being a bit too simple here (or everywhere).
Every apathetic citizen is a silent enlistee in the cause of inverted totalitarianism.—Sidney Wolin
Powerful in the sense that it's actually propagated...
... in the population that Davidson's talking about. They seem to treat it seriously. Rather like "public option," in a way.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Yes, they do take it seriously
Mind you, it's just a few of them who call it that. The only reason why they do call it that is because a core group of us used to read the same political blogs and TAPPED was one of them. From there, two of them put it on their Facebook and people started reading it, spreading it, talking about it. I missed it initially but one of my friends told me about it, knowing I was an Obama skeptic. He thought it would "explain" Obama to me because he was tired of telling me "You just don't get it."
It does have a similar feel to the "public option" issue.
Got it - propagation/power
OK, I agree with that.
Obama's supposed theory of change is in that paragraph you quoted, lambert:
That's what's happened to an exceedingly small degree—for example, with the Republicans on health care—they've got nuthin' and everyone knows it (but what did anyone expect?). But in most instances Obama isn't using some crafty, 36-Stratagems-type change tactic in inverting the usual bad faith of his GOP opponents—he seems to actually believe conservatism has something to offer.
The problem is with that specific Theory of Change is that it's just false—or, more precisely, false in negating Obama's essential conservatism*. It could have been true (although the chances of that were vanishingly small)—and, at the time it was written, one might have hoped it were true—but it's not true if one looks at the policies Obama is pursuing.
OK, so, yeah, it is "powerful" if it continues to be propagated when it's so plainly false. I can't believe one of your friends told you about that, Davidson, as a way of "explaining" Obama? Does he believe everything he reads? And other people believe that "explains" something, too? Damn.
*It might be true that Obama is using that tactic in order show that Republicans as a group have nothing but he's still conservative.
Every apathetic citizen is a silent enlistee in the cause of inverted totalitarianism.—Sidney Wolin