I voted for Barack Obama, with reservations, in 2008. I knew he wasn’t a progressive, but I’d hoped that, in the face of a near-economic depression, he might follow Franklin Roosevelt’s path and become more progressive when he entered office.
I knew it was a long shot and I had no illusions.
But I’m a minority among progressives, with too many still making excuses for what has proven to be a failed presidency. Obama has, to date, done little to create jobs, little to reverse the nation’s economic decline and has, instead, opted to make Wall Street whole.
And while he blames Republicans for blocking more progressive reforms, it has been the president himself who has turned his nose to his left flank. He removed single-payer from the table before the health-care debate began, offered a stimulus plan that was too small by half even before it was watered down by Senate Democrats and moved to address deficit concerns well before it was economically logical.
But we still get defenders from the left and in the media of both his economic and national security policies. And we still hear the tired argument — if not Obama, then who? The argument is the flip-side of the Anybody But Bush movement that began percolating — unsuccessfully – in 2003 and 2004. it is based on the notion that the left must give its unconditional support to the president or someone like Michele Bachman or Mitt Romney will win the White House and things will really get bad.
That is a fear-based argument that let’s the president off the hook for his own failings and marginalizes the left at a time when the country needs to hear legitimate and detailed critiques from the president’s left flank.
We’re now two and a half years into the Obama presidency. We remain mired in the recession he inherited from his predecessor, with unemployment hovering at between 9 percent and 10 percent and the ranks of the long-term unemployed and underemployed being much higher. Foreclosures continue to rise, the health-care industry remain in charge and our infrastructure is crumbling. We’re engaged in three wars in four countries (or is it four wars in five countries?) and have a growing national security state and expanding imperial presidency.
At some point, the president needs to take responsibility for this.
I’m not advocating that the left not vote for Obama in 2012. But the left’s votes should not come cheaply. And it should not remain silent as the president drifts farther to the right. Enough is enough.
- Send me an e-mail.
- Read poetry at The Subterranean.
- Certainties and Uncertainties a chapbook by Hank Kalet, will be published in November by Finishing Line Press. It can be ordered here.
- Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.
Hank Kalet 
I'd assert that the biggest problem we face is the perfidy of politicians. The next is an out of control foreign policy. War is diplomacy by another name. If the Left, as you are truly upset by the war, then why not support Ron Paul. You know he's going to end the wars, the Fed, the drug war, and cut Gooferment down to size. Surly that appeals to the Left. Maybe you can find solace in that the Right's Neocon wing doesn't like him either?
I'm going to disagree a little here. I would assert that the real problem is that Obama can count, perhaps too well. Sure he's turned his nose to his left flank (he's not a progressive, remember?), partly because he knows those people aren't going anywhere. (They may stay home, but I'd bet against that given the wingnuttery that's presenting itself as the Republican primary field.) It's the people in the middle he needs, and they are not necessarily enamored of a progressive agenda.He removed single-payer from the table and he put forward a too-small stimulus plan precisely because he can count. He didn't have the votes, pure and simple. Why would he try to take a hill he didn't have the juju to conquer? He does want to be re-elected, after all. It's possible that after 2012 he'll move to the left, depending on what happens to the makeup of Congress. We can only hope. (Look for his views on marriage equality to \”evolve\” all the way to full support for gay marriage after 2012, for example.)I too wish he were more like FDR. But I wish the Republicans were more like rational earthlings too. Until they are, no one can be FDR and expect to get anywhere.For more on why Obama's not getting anywhere with Republicans, see this very interesting 2006 interview with John Dean (no bleeding-heart liberal himself) and this column from David Brooks of the New York Times. These are not people you can reason with. Our only hope is that enough independents realize these people are also not the solution to our problems.
I agree with Hank this time around. Four months ago I was still holding out hope and thought that Obama was playing rope a dope or three dimensional chess. Now, after being hit on the head repeatedly, I am totally disgusted and disillusioned with Obama. He hasn't really gotten us out of Iraq or Afghanistan, quite the opposite in Afghanistan. He has involved us in several other military adventures. He has surrounded himself with corporate shills and hacks, some were leftovers from the Clinton era. He created a so called deficit commission heavily stacked with corporate shills, actual corporate CEOs and Social Security and Medicare haters. Obama is set to make more cuts to these same programs; he has already dug a hole (about $112 billion) in SS with his wage tax holiday (which he wants to extend). He extended the Bush tax cuts. His educational policies are horrible and his Race To The Top is an absolute abomination. Obamacare was too weak and too beholden to the insurance companies and the drug companies. Single payer was off the table, the public option was dumped but corporate GREED was on the table, as always. Why should I reward his behavior with my vote? I will never ever vote GOP, they have morphed into a far right wing radical party. I would not vote for Ron Paul, a GOP libertarian, who is against abortion, SS, Medicare, Medicaid and most social programs. In any case, libertarianism is an evil ideology spawned by millionaires for millionaires. If you are a billionaire or millionaire, libertarianism is a great deal because it would gut government so that the rich and the corporations could enrich and aggrandize themselves even more than they are now which is very, very bad. Wasn't it George Carlin who described David Brooks as a \”blank\”wad? Whether he did or not, I would agree with that assessment. The only one I now read from the NYT op-ed web site is Paul Krugman, in no small part due to their graduated pay wall. Krugman is the real deal. I used to read Rich and Herbert until they left. If I go to the public library, then I will read most of the paper.
I'd point out that Ron Paul has said that many issues are not Federal concerns. Most notably, abortion. And, he is the ONLY truly anti-war candidate anywhere on the scene. That alone should make him unique. As far as being against stuff, he's for ending the Fed. But even he admits it has to be unwound. What greater insult to the poor and those on fixed income than inflation. And, he alone has the political courage to stand alone. He's voted \”everybody to 1\” so many times , he's \”Doctor No\”. I'd humbly suggest you reconsider. Even the Huffington Post thinks that there such a thing as a \”Ron Paul Democrat\”. How much to you really want to end these wars?
Mr. Reinke, I complement you for being a civil and polite commenter but I respectfully disagree. Yes, Ron Paul is great about getting out of our wars but his other baggage is just unacceptable to me. He may very well get some D votes from the folks fed up with all the horrible wars. What's up with his son who is off the cliff and in a very extreme form of libertarianism? I think he's even more extreme than the father by a wide margin.
@anonymous Thanks. I recognize that I'm not going to win you over by arguing with you. Or, disparaging your opinions. Everyone's opinion is \”right\”; unless your crazy and think one thing but say another.OK, what that says is that war is acceptable when measure against \”other baggage\”. Too bad. Other than the FED, I can't think of another \”pivot issue\”. Unfortunately, candidates are \”bought\” lock, stock, and \”other baggage\”. I'd like to find out what is the pivot issue. That's issue that you can't accept in a candidate.In considering Ron Paul, his opposition to fiat currency is, for me, a pivot issue because the FED and its funny money allows the politicians to spend without raising taxes. When Americans used to have to pay for wars (i.e., guns or butter), it was a much more peaceful country. The wars are a direct result of the funny money. Imagine if any President had to say: \”We're going to attack Lower Upper Slob-ovia and everyone will have a 10% surcharge on their last tax bill due in 30 days to pay for it.\” I can \”hear\” the howls now. So, I'd suggest that you think about Ron Paul's \”other baggage\” and you might decide to \”hold your nose\”. Imagine what a powerful message that would be to the D's and the R's.Best wishes, however you decide.