Dave Lindorff: Clinton and Obama -- The Worst and Best Thing to Happen to the Democratic Party in Years
Bill Clinton was the worst thing to happen to the Democratic Party and to progressives since that racist warmonger Woodrow Wilson won the presidency and dragged the U.S. into the utterly pointless and incredibly bloody First World War.
Clinton, by posing as a progressive, confused and undermined, and ultimately betrayed the liberal/progressive wing of the party, shattering what was left of the New Deal coalition and leaving the American left adrift and riven by the conflict between those who thought the Democratic Party was the only viable vehicle for progressive reform and those who thought it was hopelessly in the grip of corporate interests.
Barack Obama offers the hope of bringing that era of debilitating confusion to an end.
Not because he is the Great Black Hope of progressives, but because he has taken the concept of selling out to corporate interests and compromising with Republicans to such remarkable heights that progressives hopefully can no longer be confused about the irretrievably corrupted nature of the Democratic Party.
On virtually every issue of importance, President Obama has sided with corporate interests and the wealthy.
On the issue of war and peace, he has sided with the military-industrial complex, with a policy of permanent occupation of Iraq and endless war in Afghanistan, as well as continued funding of the country's colossal armory of death, from strategic missiles and submarines to aircraft-carrier-group armadas to high-tech fighter squadrons and space weaponry.
On civil liberties, he has sided with the police state, supporting continuation of the Bush/Cheney administration's insidious National Security Agency spying program, defended military spying within the U.S., and refused to prosecute obvious abuses by the prior administration.
On torture, the Obama Administration is continuing the imprisonment and torture of captives in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world at Bagram Air Base and, probably, at other secret sites, and instead of closing Guantanamo as promised, is looking into transferring that hellhole of torture and abuse to one or several sites in the mainland U.S.
Health care reform has become a sad joke, with the emerging "reform" bill looking for all the world like the Rube Goldberg creation of the Clinton era that properly went down in flames. Instead of taking on the insurance industry, the hospital companies and the pharmaceutical industry and other parts of the profit-making medical-industrial complex, Obama cut deals with all of them behind closed doors, assuring that their profits would be left untouched, and that they could essentially write their own "reform" bill through the offices of bought-and-paid members of Congress such as Senator Max Baucus. Obama and his congressional allies carefully kept any discussion of the single-payer idea -- essentially Medicare for all, and the approach that even Obama himself admits would be cheaper and more universal -- out of sight and off the table.
Climate change action, too, has been sold out, with Obama adopting the approach favored by the energy industry -- "cap and trade." That concept is a gold mine for Wall Street trading firms, which will be doing trades next in pollution credits instead of subprime mortgages, and for energy companies that will get free credits to sell, courtesy of the taxpayer. And because it's a system so easy to game, it will do nothing or next to nothing to reduce greenhouse gases.
Finally, there's economy and banking reform. Here Obama didn't even make a pretense of taking a progressive approach. There is a stimulus program, but half of it was in the form of tax cuts -- token for the poor and middle class and significant for the rich and for businesses, and half in the form of federal grants, often for unneeded projects such as roads and road repair that go to some of the higher paid members of the working class, leaving the poor and the nonunionized with no job help. Meanwhile, bankers were the recipients of trillions of dollars in bailout assistance, while nothing was done to break up the huge mega-bank holding companies that brought on the financial and economic crisis in the first place. Instead of picking economic advisers and bank regulators from the many talented system critics such as Nobelists Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, Obama picked veterans of the Bush/Cheney administration, and Wall Street shills such as Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner.
Last fall, I and many progressives urged voters to elect Obama, not because we thought he was a progressive, but because we hoped that his background -- community organizer, raised by a single mother, experience living in a third world country (Indonesia), multi-racial -- would lead him to make at least some right decisions. We, or certainly I, hoped too that the energized young and working class electorate that came out for him in the fall would continue to press him aggressively to do the right thing on war, environment, civil liberties, and the economy.
I was wrong on the first count: Obama has been a corporatist through and through on all the major issues that matter. And I was wrong on the second. Most of the left in the U.S., from the labor movement to the environmentalist movement to the anti-war movement, has to date remained glumly quiescent as Obama has sold them out on each of their key issues.
But here is the silver lining: The sellout this time is so much more blatant, and so much more serious, than it was with Clinton, and for all the talk about Obama's ability to string words together, he is so much less of a charismatic figure than the gregarious Bill Clinton, that he is unlikely to hang on to the ardent support that propelled him to his victory last November. The disappointment and sense of betrayal among progressives this time is palpable, especially because, while Clinton, by 1994, had the excuse that he was working with a Republican, or partially Republican Congress, Obama has solid control of both houses, but refuses to use it. If, as I expect, the recession continues to deepen, with more and more people losing jobs and homes, if, as I predict, health care continues to be unaffordable and inaccessible, if, as I know will happen, evidence of deadly climate change continues to pile up, and if, as I am equally certain, Iraq explodes and the war in Afghanistan continue to worsen, the left is going to see Obama and the Democrats in Congress as the failures and corrupt frauds they are, and will abandon them.
That leaves the question of what to do, and where those frustrated progressives will turn.
I don't claim to have the answer to that. Clearly the labor movement needs to recognize that hitching its fortunes to the Democratic Party has been and will continue to be a dismal failure. It needs to pull all its political money back and only support those who are 100% allies in the struggle for the rights of workers. No money for the party as a whole. It should also go back to the pioneering work of people such as the late Tony Mazzocchi of the Oil and Chemical and Atomic Workers Union, who before his death was tirelessly working to establish an American labor party.
Other third parties on the left need to drop their individual agendas and work towards unity, especially with the labor movement, in order to create a broad-based left party that doesn't have litmus tests for inclusion -- just broad principles such as steeply progressive taxation, an end to NAFTA and the WTO, democratization of the Federal Reserve Bank, national health care, a wholesale slashing of the military budget, by perhaps two-thirds or more, free education through four years of college for all, and a crisis plan to attack climate change.
If the ever fractious U.S. left, and the somnolent labor movement, cannot come together as one, there is little hope of political change in America. At that point, the alternative would be an increasing militancy over these critical issues, outside of the electoral arena -- something that has to happen anyhow, regardless of whether a real third party force can be put together. We know that simply organizing occasional polite marches in Washington, or in key cities, accomplishes nothing. We have learned that e-mail campaigns to deluge members of Congress with canned opinions don't work. What has worked, and will always work, is massive campaigns of civil disobedience, tent cities in Washington, organized disruption of war preparations, and door-to-door organizing. The corrupt hacks who inhabit the halls of Congress and the White House will not do the right thing just because it is the right thing, or because we ask them nicely. They may, if we make them fear that they will actually lose our votes in the next election. For the most part, incumbent Democrats know that the people who peacefully march down Connecticut Avenue are still likely to vote for them come the next election. They're not going to be so sure about people who are being hit by tear gas and water cannons and who are being hauled off en masse to jail at protests.
We may need to start sending that stronger message.
DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net




Technorati Tags:
Another self-defeating column from the narcissistic left..
One More thing...
et tu ???
When the going gets tough..
Give it another six months
In what alternate reality ....
The only ones "confused and betrayed" are the perennially puritanical and peurile (true) progressives, who convince themselves that the candidate they like is finally "The One" who will deliver all their dreams. They ignore the candidate's records, contradictory words and ideological flaws, focusing only on those perfectly ambiguous words and campaign slogans ("Hope" and "Change", anyone?) that, in their minds, mean that the candidate is sending signals that clearly demonstrate (again, only in their minds) that their shiny, new candidate is one of them. Sound familiar, Dave? (BTW - Because he spent some time as a community organizer and had a single mother?!? Seriously
To be fair, I doubt that Mr. Lindorff falls squarely into this group. He's one of a subset of Clinton-haters who did not truly believe that Obama was a progressive - he just felt betrayed by Bill Clinton and deemed Hillary guilty by association - plus, she voted for the AUMF. He's an ABC (Anybody But Clinton) who spent the primary season demonizing her, while pushing Obama, mainly because Obama's last name wasn't Clinton, and trying to convince others that Obama was (in his heart) a progressive who would someday see the light.
Now, the perennially duped true progs have no one to blame but themselves. Obama was their candidate - well, for this past year anyway. They'll try to blame others to make themselves feel better, but in their hearts, they just feel angry and betrayed ........ yet again. Plus, it's really hard to admit you were wrong, despite the fact that Mr. Lindorff and his fellow true progs have had enough practice to turn pro. In all seriousness, if we didn't have to live with all the ramifications of their dupitude, it would be fun to watch. Well, ......
... more fun. :)
...they ran as populists, & rule as Rethugs....
Of course the (slightly) positive flip-side of this coin, is Dem candidates who don't really know how to run as Populists - like stick-in-mud Kerry & Gore - can't even win elections at all.
Yes, yes, Gore "won" the election of 2000 - but ONLY because Black & minority voters came out in (unexpected) DROVES to try to keep cheney & bush (and thus the John Birch society) from stealing the presidency, and all the awful power associated with it.
A HUGE portion of Gore BEING ROBBED of his 2000 election win, was his ABJECT FAILURE to INSPIRE populist, minority, & Democratic (much less independent) voters
(who dutifully, if not enthuthusiastically, voted for him, but weren't about to spend even more of their own money to protest the Rethuglican election-stealing crew from the hapless, couldn't-fight-their-way out of a wet-paper-bag Kerry or Gore.)
as a language lover
So how come we're not talking about President Kucinich?
Gee-zus, Lindorff, your ignorance of how our political system works, if it can really be called a system at all, is amazing.
Do you know that the real "change" in political parties happens in caucuses, primaries and party platform committees? I mean, if all you ideologically pure leftists had gotten off your butts in 2004 or 2008 during the Democratic caucus and primary season maybe we'd be talking about President Kucinich.
I live in a working class neighborhood, about a mile from a large Bridgestone/Firestone tire plant. A lot of union members live in my neighborhood. And in '04 my precinct during the Democratic caucus split in a three-way tie for John Kerry, John Edwards and Howard Dean. In '08 my precinct went for Barack Obama by a narrow margin.
Both times I supported Dennis Kucinich, but did anyone, even after I emailed the Kucincich campaign Web site, get in contact with me? NO.
In '04, somehow the Dean campaign tracked me down and talked my into being a precinct captain. In '08 again no one from Kucinich's campaign even showed his or her face in my working class neighborhood. I caucused in '08 for Edwards.
I know Kucinich had almost zero financial--hey, I threw him 25 bucks out of my disability pension--support but I hear out of the ideologically pure left how "people power" can defeat money. So why weren't all the earnest little coordinator class, ideologically pure leftist boys and girls out there busting their asses for Kucinich?
Oh, I'm sorry they were busy helping Ralph Nader ramp up another quixotic presidential run.
Kucinich's message resonated with the folks in my working class neighborhood but he was written off by almost everybody as a long-shot and something of a flake. But they liked what they heard.
Look, Lindroff, you can preach to the choir on the college campuses all you want but that ain't going to get those kids off their lily-white butts to do want is needed. I'm going to challenge you and the boys and girls over at ZNet and CounterPunch to go out and preach your gospel to the people who need to hear it, the working men and woman of this country.
You want a new party? You want single payer health care system? Then stop mincing around the quadrangle, walk into the nearest redneck waterhole, you know the one with the NASCAR posters and a Confederate flag on the wall, and talk to those people.
They just might surprise you.
ET SpoonBuzzflash has disgraced
Lindorff talks about selling out, and telling anyone crazy enough to listen, to go out and support the Conservative Authoritarians with their mob-efforts, what are you doing? Selling out? Yes. For what reason? Because you oppose the Public Option? Its bad enough Lindorff that you oppose the public option, but since you are advocating the same Conservative tactics in opposing it, you earned the wrath of Good Americans who need help and who want this public option. The very policy that we want to make sure Obama doesnt sell out on, you oppose!!! And Lindorff you said you want people to join the town hall mob in opposition to the public option. Buzzflash is disgraced, Buzzflash sucks, down with Buzzflash.
Funny you should mention sailing
As a sailor, do you deliberately miss the point?
Lindorff, you oppose the
I do oppose the public option
That is why it is a farce
Mr. Lindorf - your Magical, Fantasy notion of the Presidency?
M
Lindorff the