It’s odd how a theme is emeging from the various progressive centrist speakers in the blogger’s tent. It wasn’t consciously coordinated, I’m sure; they didn’t plan to be “on message”. No, it’s just that a number of them have separately arrived at the conclusion that Obama isn’t reliably progressive but that the progressives in his party are going to pressure him to move in that direction.
Robert Kuttner, founder and editor of The American Prospect, says that a year ago he decided to temporarily give Obama a pass on the issues because he felt that Obama had the potential to be a great president. He pointed out that Lincoln, FDR, and Lyndon Johnson all became more radical in office, in each case because radical activists pressured them in that direction and because the crucial issues of the day demanded the change.
A couple of the speakers who focused on green jobs expressed the idea that it’s up to us to move Obama in the right direction once he’s elected and that progressives control half to two thirds of the party now, so that applying such pressure successfully is possible.
But the most extended comment on this idea came from Jonathan Alter, a writer for Newsweek who has just finished a biography of Franklin Roosevelt. He drew some striking parallels between the 1932 election and this year. First, both were times of economic crisis. In 1932, three fourths of the banks were closed. People wondered whether the demise of democracy and capitalism in this country were at hand. Indeed, so many Americans were desperately hoping for a Big Daddy to lead them that the word “dictator” took on positive connotations. There was even a popular car model that year called “The Dictator.”
I’ll spare you a recounting of the fiscal ills we face now.
Alter said that we know in hindsight that Roosevelt was a progressive, but that it would have been difficult to say so for sure during the campaign. Alter held out hope to a room full of progressives/centrists that Obama’s flip flops on FISA and offshore drilling don’t necessarily portend a wishy washy presidency. After all, FDR had some illiberal warts on display in 1932.
He had, for example, supported The League of Nations during the twenties, but in that campaign year, he felt he needed the help of William Randolph Hearst, so he withdrew his support for The League. Eleanor was so angry with him for kissing up to Hearst that she didn’t speak to him for a week.
On the issue of prohibition also FDR did not take a firm stand. In fact, he was so wishy washy that he wasn’t even a flip flopper. He was worse because he took both sides at once. He was neither wet nor dry, but … damp.
I’d feel more comfortable, though, with the notion that the times themselves and pressure from activists would move Obama in the necessary direction if he weren’t surrounding himself with so many Wall Street types. Matt Taibbi recently did an extensive analysis in Rolling Stone of both McCain’s and Obama’s ties to the bankers. Here’s some of what he said about Obama:
Obama’s decision to embrace Clinton’s moneymen coincided with his decision to attend a public forum on economic policy with an A list of Clinton-era economic advisors, including Rubin and Corzine. “The message is that he’s going to be a friend to Wall Street, just as Bill Clinton was a friend to Wall Street,” says Pollin. “Wall Street will want to be at the head of the table.”
I’d like to believe that Kuttner and Alter will turn out to be prescient in comparing Obama to FDR, but Obama himself doesn’t make that easy to do when he brings Jason Furman of the Hamilton Project aboard as a key advisor. Our presidential nominee is being courted by Jimmy Stewart and Jack Palance. It remains to be seen who will take him home from the dance.
This era is much too dangerous for our man to be flirting with Jack Palance.