Progressives and Populists Need to Redefine the Mythical Political "Center"
BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG
BY Mark Karlin
As Naomi Klein, whom I deeply admire for her insights on the relationship between global marketing and corporate governance, recently wrote in a UK Guardian article: "As Studs Terkel, the great oral historian, used to say: 'Hope has never trickled down. It has always sprung up.'"
There are reports today in Politico that the apparent GOP/Independent "uprising" (and idealistic progressive disillusionment) in Massachusetts is giving the White House second thoughts about cautious, process oriented, incremental change aimed at attracting "the center."
The concept of a fixed "center" in American politics is one of those myths perpetuated by a combination of the GOP, DLC Democrats such as Rahm Emanuel, and the media. America is a nation of evolutionary change. We began as a nation that allowed slavery and didn't allow women to vote, as two giant examples of epoch change that eventually occurred as a result of social movements: abolitionist and suffrage.
In reality, leadership, think tanks, the media, social evolution, and technology are among what redefines, on an evolutionary basis, "the center." America's strength is not its fixed, inadaptable structure; that is what the American Revolution broke away from. It is our ability to be innovative, and to be innovative, you have to evolve, change, grow.
If ever there were proof of how the political "center" can be created, it is how the hundreds of billions of dollars and grooming of Ronald Reagan created a perceived and indoctrinated "center" that allowed for the fleecing of the working and middle class that allowed the engorging of the already filthy rich.
It is tragically ironic that the populist uprising against the D.C. and Wall Street elites is occuring in a FOX/Dick Armey/Beck/Palin orchestrated "Tea Party" uprising of anger and frustration. It is all ugly and misguided, but it is definitely grassroots, even if it is being manipulated from higher ups in the wealthy elites.
Meanwhile, Obama won because of a progressive/populist engine that was brilliantly built and mobilized -- resulting in several "Red State" victories --because he had a message of "change," not a message of "maintain the center."
But once in office, Obama followed Emanuel's advice and his own instincts and tried to appease the mythical "center" by coddling Wall Street, ignoring Main Street, and spending a year on a well-intentioned healthcare reform bill that ended up looking like the same old government gridlock.
The idealistic populist/progressives on the Democratic side became disenchanted; meanwhile the wealthy elites on the right, primarily outside of the official GOP Party structure, saw an opportunity and ignited a populist rebellion of misinformed and deeply frustrated Americans.
Yes, Obama was elected on one word "change," but whether one is a progressive idealist or progressive pragmatist, the corporate media, the GOP, and the Tea Bag organizers were able to turn his cautious approach into something looking like "more of the same." So the right wing was able to channel a movement that "sprung up" into scapegoating the problems of America on "liberals," who had nothing to do with the devastating and destructive economic legacy of the Bush/Cheney years -- and the Reagan "Revolution's" cumulative impact.
We hope that President Obama, whether Coakley wins or loses, is indeed serious about getting angry about what the Republicans have done to harm America -- and that he puts the blame where it belongs.
Then it's time to return to "change" from the grassroots up and to recreate the "center," as has always been the case as this nation has evolved.
There are millions and millions of progressives, populists, and frustrated working Americans just waiting for the bugle to sound.
Let it blow soon.
BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version

We are a Chinese supplier,
New
This is one of the most incredible blogs Ive read in a very long time. The amount of information in here is stunning, like you practically wrote the book on the subject. Your blog is great for anyone who wants to understand this subject more. Great stuff; please keep it up!
copper clad aluminum as a
copper clad aluminum as a necessary product of industrial manufacturingscrewdriver , semi-finished products swing chain and production processes used tools. Only a small part of the daily life of hardware products that people need the tools of consumer goods iron chain .
Development of bouncy balls Industrial Classification in the National Bureau of Statistics , the manufacturing industry security tag is the third largest category in the industry . Including: seas consumer goods manufacturing, such drawing machine as : agricultural , food and beverage , tobacco, textile and garment leather, wood furniture , printing and stationery and medical manufacturing ; means of straightening machine production, manufacturing bed hooks, such as : petrochemical , chemical fiber, rubber, plastics , non-metallic products manufacturing, metal smelting and processing scaffold coupler , metal products , general equipment manufacturing drawer runner , special equipment manufacturing industry , and transportation equipment manufacturing drawer slides, electrical equipment , communications, electronics and bucket teeth so on .
The manufacturing of glass bottle metal products and general-purpose equipment manufacturing parts , etc. in the general classification of the related products were formed in the usual sense of " hardware . " This optical fiber Cable shows that the ' hardware ' is not an existing industry sectors , but the several metal products - Metal products, cross- portfolio .
chanel bags
If you appetence to go big time and achieve big money fast and easy, afresh you should get abounding Miu Miu bags. Rather than get 18-carat online autograph that would be abounding at an absonant price, Miu Miu Handbags online will crop bigger address margins and achieve academy profits. But afore you exhausted into the abounding Miu Miu bag sale supplier.
Replica Handbags are precise copies of the original brand Handbags, eg:LV Handbags of creativity is endless, LV 2010 is bound to make your mood, enjoying to spend a vacation.It is expected that by 2015 the growing middle class and the balenciaga handbags sale rich will make China the largest consumer.Penelope accessorized a beautiful outfit by Prada bags and Prada handbag Wyeth Designs with a coordinating beige chanel Classic flap handbag with gold hardware and chanel bags are all very unique and luxury .one of the world's most famous design handbags brand and more at the cheapest prices is the Marc Jacobs Medium.Gucci is the leading name in luxury and style. With its outstanding quality, exceptional beauty, and the finest Italian craftsmanship, Gucci bags offers you only the best of the best. ... so even connoisseurs can't make the differences between replicas and real ones.they are recognized as masterpieces of art all over the world. Our Replica Handbags can give you the same quality for better price.
Mulberry Handbags ia a famous UK-based design for its creative and quality leather products.Mulberry Roxanne is famous for its uniting style and sophistication,stand out of greatest detailing. Also Mulberry Elgin have set new trend and become much desired objects to possess. So what are you waiting for?!
Would love to see more designs. vey cool! Good work, thank you
Moncler Moncler | Moncler Jackets Moncler Jackets | Moncler Vest Moncler Vest | Christian Louboutin Christian Louboutin | Christian Louboutin Shoes Christian Louboutin Shoes | GHD Straighteners GHD Straighteners | GHD Hair Straighteners GHD Hair Straighteners | GHD Straightener Cheap GHD Straightener Cheap | Jammer Phone Jammer Phone | Bose Headphones Bose Headphones | Abercrombie Clothing Abercrombie Clothing | Abercrombie and Fitch Abercrombie and Fitch | Abercrombie Shirt Abercrombie Shirt | Abercrombie Jeans Abercrombie Jeans | Herve Leger Dress Herve Leger Dress |
Amazing Post
What an amazing post that I have ever come through. It gives the information that I was really searching for the past week and I am really satisfied with this post. Need more like this. Thank you.
Wholesale Foods
i think obama won cause he
i think obama won cause he so nice guys and all american people like him.. luggage scales | luggage scales
123
123
123
123
123
Thanks for sharing this
Thanks for sharing this useful info. how to complain
be popular is what people
be popular is what people dreaming right?? digital voice recorder
Thanks for sharing this
Thanks for sharing this useful info. Manfrotto Monopods
I thing progressives and
I thing progressives and Populists is all human dream.. Englischkurs
I agree with youIce cream
I agree with you
Ice cream home made
Good Article
Its very good post.I like it. Online Casino
thanks
thanks you
liseli porno
This is just confusing.
This is just confusing. Here at our office - Drug Rehab Program, my colleagues and I are currently having the same debate about this issue. LOLS, the reason why I googled for it and found this post.
The loss in Massachusetts
Now the news media in its wisdom will tell us that this means progressives should roll over and play dead about health insurance and other issues. We've been through this before-in 1994 with the Republican win, we were told this means a permanent rightward shift in our politics. The same in 2004, this "proved" that "moral" and "family" issues concerned people more than economic issues. After the 2006 congressional elections, the media talked about the new Democratic congressmembers being to the right of the party. But all that didn't stop us, neither will this. Social change is a process, not an event, a marathon, not a sprint.
It's Too Late Now, Barry
"We hope that President Obama, whether Coakley wins or loses, is indeed serious about getting angry about what the Republicans have done to harm America -- and that he puts the blame where it belongs."
It's too late for that. For a year now, the American people who either voted for Obama or wanted to believe that he was serious about the meaning and intent of his campaign slogans have been waiting for him to deliver. Obama failed them. They watched as Wall Street got the gold while Main Street was left out in the cold. They watched as their GM neighbors were led to the wall while all but one of the executives were protected from the fall. Anything the banks wanted they got right away, but the banks' customers are still waiting for their rescue from vicious credit card abuse they are expected to pay. And too many more things they expected from the Audacity that failed to appear.
I don't know how long the administration expected the American people to wait. I don't know how much crap the administration expected the people to take. But when it became clear that the wants and needs of the American people were expendable to the goals intended to establish an extended period of Democratic Party dominance of corporate campaign contributions, it was no longer possible for the people to support them, even if it meant giving the Republicans more power to rape and pillage.
As much as it pains me to see the opportunity for change obliterated by short-sighted foolishness and partisanship out of the White House, I have to say that the stated goal of this post to redefine the center has just been accomplished by the people of Massachusetts. They dragged it in the direction of FOX "News" and corporatism. They got tired of waiting for the promised alternative.
You say Obama was elected on
You say Obama was elected on one word, "Change". You are wrong; he was elected on two words, "Change" and "Hope". Do you not find it curious that Bill Clinton was elected on those same exact words?
You want us to look over there at the Tea Partiers, while we have our own populist rabble in our midst. The trolls here these days claim to be left-wing. They call PM Carpenter names and shout for his metaphorical decapitation.
I predicted in 2007 that Barack Obama’s election would lead to mass disillusionment. I don’t think he understood what he was doing, so that he could then mitigate the effects. The way I am phrasing it today is: Barack Obama got people addicted to Hopium and then when he took office he cut them off, cold turkey. Obama thought he was giving people ‘hope’, the feeling that things will work out; that’s why, when confronted about things he has not yet done, he has said ‘Don’t worry, you’ll be pleased with what I do.’ But he was giving them not that calming hope, but Hopium, a product designed to flood the body with feel-good hormones; then he stopped supplying, completely.
Now, I wish I knew how Obama could have gotten elected without selling Hopium; I don’t. Probably the same people who bought it from Clinton and then Obama will buy it again from some other Democratic candidate. If Gore and Kerry had peddled it, maybe we would be in a different place altogether. But Obama did not have to cut people off, cold turkey. He could, for instance, hold regular press conferences, so that he did not seemingly disappear off the face of the earth. Now that he is president he could start instilling actual hope -- the lack of fear of fear itself -- instead of pushing Hopium, which produces a feeling of well-being and invincibility at first, but gradually becomes necessary just to feel normal. We are at that stage.
Not curious at all
All non-incumbents run on "Hope" and "Change" .... so what? You keep trying to rationalize Obama's actions/inactions by pointing to the fact that Clinton also campaigned on "Hope" and "Change", but you fail to point out some of the heeee-YOOOOOGE differences:
1. Clinton was a moderate Democrat with liberal tendencies on some issues, and he ran as such. Obama eschewed the "liberal" label, but made vague/contradictory promises on most issues and allowed his campaign and supporters to sell him as a progressive based on his vague (and often contradictory) campaign promises. He's also backtracked on many of the specific campaign promises he made.
2. Clinton could reach across the aisle on some issues, but he also wasn't afraid to lead/fight. Two of the earliest and most difficult issues he dealt with were issues where he was unsuccessful, but they illustrate the biggest difference between them - the military ban on homosexuals and HCR. On the military ban, Clinton paid a huge political price early in his first term trying to fulfill a campaign promise and right a basic social injustice, at a time when public opinion, Congress and the DOD were all aligned against him. Obama has all of those on his side now, and he still says it'll have to wait. On HCR, Clinton fought the insurance/pharma lobbies, rather than making backroom deals with them and cheering for Congress from the sidelines while trying to avoid any political hits.
3. Clinton knew that the success or failure of his agenda depended first and foremost on the economy and jobs, and much of his time was spent reassuring the public that he was taking steps to fix the Bush I recession. Obama still hasn't figured out that basic principle of politics. He will soon ..... likely too late.
Democratic Leadership?
From Obama on down, I do so love watching idiots at work! This has been almost as good as watching a Three Stooges movie.
What's the difference between the Democratic Party and the Boy Scouts? The Boy Scouts have adult supervision!
Obama now is the problem
Barry has squandered so much of his 'political capital' it will take some pretty dramatic course changes to get back some of it.
We hope he can, but the cowardly one ain't got in him ......... a tragic character flaw in times that require presidential heroism.
Buzzflash Needs Money?
Perhaps you sould spend some on an editor and get rid of Carpy. "technoligy" ? Really? Your spellcheck miss that one?
Upset. Uproar. Uprise. The system is yours, take it back.
Corporate media creating the storyline
As usual, the corporate media is doing all it can to create the storyline regarding Obama's loss in popularity and Coakley's problems in Massachusetts. According to the corporate media, Obama and the Dems have been attempting to enact legislation that is too progressive, meaning too anti-corporate, and are now facing the music from an angry electorate that prefers politicians closer to the "center." Just one year after the electorate resoundingly rejected the pure 100 percent corporatist Republicans, the corporate media is telling us that the almost pure, say 90 percent, corporatist Democrats have gone too far in the other direction. Those who control such media apparently assume that the optimal position is somewhere between 90 percent and 100 percent corporatist, and winning elections is just a matter of finding that perfect spot (maybe at 95 percent?). If that assumption is valid, I wonder why opinion polls regarding the issues consistently find that the public supports far more progressive solutions than those being proposed by the Democrats?
Not just Corporate Media
Let's be clear; yes, the corporate media does attempt to create storylines that may not have a basis in reality but Obama's loss of support and Coakley's probable defeat (and I am writing from Massachusetts) are not examples of it. And yes, as the editorial suggests the Teabaggers initially started out as 'astroturf' but they have morphed into grassroots movements. Obama's fall and Coakley's eventual defeat today are a result of a Democratic party that will not represent the people that elect it. The Democratic party of today is the moderate wing of the Republican party of yesterday. There are voices still in the Democratic party who do stand up for the people; Russ Feingold in the Senate and Dennis Kucinich in the House come to mind. And of course there's Bernie Sanders, an independent socialist who caucuses with Democrats; but their voices are largely silenced by the wimps in leadership positions. (Think of those two old women; Nancy 'impeachment is off the table' Pelosi and Harry '60 votes are needed' Reid.) Jon Stewart put it the best last night: "..if Coakley loses, Democrats will only then have an 18 vote majority in the Senate; which is more than George W. Bush ever had in the Senate when he did whatever the f#@k he wanted to do." That unwillingness to fight for what the progressives WHO PUT THEM IN OFFICE want is the reason more than anything the corporate media spins. The Democrats, Obama included, refuse to trust the people and in so doing they refuse to fight the Republicans. That is why Obama has lost support and that is why Coakley will have her hat handed to her in today's election.
Do not disagree
I do not disagree. The Democrats have followed the Republicans so far to the right, always staying one step behind to maintain their "lesser evil" status, that the Republican presidential nominee of 1952 and 1956, Eisenhower, would probably today be barred from serious Democratic primary debates because he would be deemed a far-out leftist who could not be considered as a serious candidate. However, I just want to be clear that I was claiming the corporate media is framing Coakley's and Obama's problems as a rejection of Obama's and the Democrats' "progressivism" (which exists only in the imagination), when it appears much more likely that the loss will be the result of losing left-of-center voters because of the Democrats' refusal to propose and fight for progressive legislation (which is consistent with your argument). One would not expect Coakley, or Obama, to try to pick up more voters to the right as much as one would expect them to try to hold onto the voters Obama won with one year ago.