Congressional Progressives Still Waiting For Their Turn at the White House
My colleague Eric noted this story in the Morning Roundup, but it's worth noting that the Congressional Progressive Caucus still doesn't appear to be waking up to its potential to influence the Obama administration's agenda.
As Roll Call notes, the president has given White House face time to all manner of Democratic klatsches, from the business-friendly Blue Dogs and New Democrats to the Congressional Hispanic and Black Caucuses. But the Progressives' request for a meeting with Obama -- which TPMDC noted a long while back, right here as well as here -- has fallen on deaf ears.
Anyone who thinks progressives don't need to assert themselves, that they can best help Obama advance his priorities by being supportive and avoiding the appearance of nitpicking or spotlight-chasing, should read the call-to-arms that TNR's John Judis delivered to the left last month.
By allowing Republicans to define Obama's goals (his budget in particular) as the most liberal option on the table, Judis explains, progressives risk standing pat while the president gets pigeonholed as a debt-hungry lefty. Unfortunately, the Congressional Progressives have yet to speak with the unified, assertive voice that Ble Dogs and New Dems use. From Roll Call's report:
Progressive Caucus members are bolstered by the support of senior House Democrats -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) was a member and her top deputies remain in their ranks, as do Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (Mass.), Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (N.Y.) and Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (Calif.)....
But moderates [such as the Blue Dogs and New Democrats] have commanded attention by proving they will bring down measures that don't accommodate their views --a tack Progressives, despite their numbers, have had a harder time pulling off.
"They're generally not as organized and effective as some of the other caucuses," one senior Democratic aide said. "You need to make sure you're organized and effective, and then you have a place to complain."
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
I agree with the aide. They need to make their presence felt, and only then will they be heard. Get your shit together, folks. Talk is cheap.
March 26, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
March 26, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cue the "oh those silly squabbling Democrats, they're not fit to lead har har har" stories from the MSM.
March 26, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
And lest we forget, cue the "who cares what the MSM nitwits are babbling about today" response from every sane person in the country.
March 26, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just saying its going to happen. Not saying it should affect anything anyone does, unless its to pop up some popcorn and watch the ensuing predictability ensue entertainment.
But having said that, I have no doubt we'd probably totally disagree on the wisdom, or lack thereof, of the Judis essay and I just don't have the energy for it today so I'm not going there.
March 26, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I suspect we can definitely agree on is that the Congressional Progressive Caucus is a pretty feckless bunch. Nobody's going to hand them influence- they have to reach out and take it by throwing their weight around the way the Blue Dogs do. You and I may well disagree on the desirability of their doing that but I imagine you fully understand the point from a purely tactical point of view.
March 26, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fundamental problem is that the progressives are promoting an agenda that doesn't have constituency that can hit politicians where it hurts, in the pocketbook. The only arrow in their quiver is appeal to the better angels of the American conscience.
As long as American politics is dependent on huge amounts of cash to get your message heard and your priorities advanced, the best progressives can do is act as nooges and shame the DC politicians into not screwing them over.
March 26, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Not screwing them over. Even more."
March 26, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sad and true. As progressives, we tend to attach to particular things, and that only helps those who oppose us.
What the Progressive Caucus really needs is someone who can (a) synthesize things into a crisp, coherent whole that is readily understood outside the progressive camp, and (b) communicate that effectively both to the White House and the public. (The "press" is becoming increasingly irrelevant.)
March 26, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Blue Dogs" will never again be Blue Dogs to me, after Boehner's "Lap dog" comment yesterday.
Boehner's a joke, but that "Lap Dog" comment pretty much nailed it.
Progressives? You're getting outhustled by the Lap Dogs.
March 26, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
WORD!
March 26, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The folks from OpenLeft have been pushing plenty hard - Mike Lux was on Obama's transition team, Matt Stoller headed of to head a congressman's progressive push, David Sirota's been all over the TV. And then elsewhere Glenn Greenwald's been holding conferences on drug decriminalization, while giving some rather pointed notes on Gitmo/Bagram torture and rendition, bailout funding, etc. Digby and Firedog/EmptyWheel ditto. Dean? Out. Michael Moore? Out. Wes Clark? Out.
Obama doesn't want to meet these people. He's treating them as the fringe, and his money base will be on the conservative side of the Democratic party. He assumes enough of them will vote for him next time, and right now his energy's on his bailout. But sure, blame it more on progressives. They just campaigned for him for 2 long years and and raised lots of money. But it's March, what have they done for him lately. Now it's time to give in on health care, women's issues, labor issues, whatever. He's elected, the playing field has shifted. Enjoy the chilly breeze.
March 26, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Best comment in the liberal blog-o-sphere.
March 26, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are being pretty dramatic. Howard Dean is a great guy but his beliefs are exactly the same as Obamas. Why is he considered super liberal?
Michael Moore has a purpose but I don't want our President meeting with him, throwing him parties, or taking cues from his positions on the issues of the day. He is a documentary filmmaker and not the best representative for progressives.
If you look at his budget and think he is giving in on women's issues, health and labor, and energy there is not much I can say. Obama is doing far more than he has to -- thus the media pushback on him having too much on his plate.
He has hosted labor leaders in the WH many times. Should he meet with the progressive caucus? Sure. But Obama is reacting to pressure from the left. He has pretty much dropped any language about reforming Social Security because of complaints on the left. Now he is focusing solely on health care. He is also becoming far more modest in his goals in Afghanistan, thanks to pressure on the left. He also came out in support of passing the EFCA, as has Joe Biden.
I think his weakest part so far has been his DOJ, but I think it is a little too early to judge because they are still managing the Bush mess. A lot of the lawyers he hired were very strong critics of Bush so I have some hope that we will see changes there.
March 26, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero says progressives campaigned for Obama!
I love Desidero, but too much weed has temporarily baffled his wits, again!
Progressives believe in single-payer universal healthcare. They could not have campaigned for Obama with his joke of a no-mandates kiss-every-ass-in-the-room "plan."
Progressive opposed the war in Iraq. They could not have campaigned for Obama, who voted to fund the war in Iraq every single time Bush sent a Supplemental to Congress.
Progressives hate NAFTA, and they could not have campaigned for Obama, who supported NAFTA-Peru.
Progressives believe in gun control, and they could not have campaigned for Obama, who believes in an individual right to bear arms.
So no progressives campaigned for Obama, who had already sold them out in the primaries, and sold them out some more in the general election, and then sold the last pot any of us had to piss in with trillion-dollar bailouts one, two, and three, and a "stimulus" that was also the biggest single tax cut in the history of the United States.
March 26, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're such a purist, RR.
Thank god. ;-)
March 26, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't piss in your pot, it makes it hard to smoke afterwards and then it tastes like skunkweed.
Of course if W can be a conservative Obama can be a progressive. It's America, we hate accurate labels, we hate being pinned down. My art belongs to dada.
March 26, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"My art belongs to dada."
Good one!
Harharharhar!!!
BTW does that "Report Abuse" button mean "drug abuse?"
March 26, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am having a love/hate relationship with politics. As most of you know, I'm new to the Democratic Party, and even as a Republican didn't pay much (if any) attention. I'm reading voraciously trying to get caught up on who is who, who is doing what to who, and how this process actually works. And the more I learn, the more frustrated I get.
I naively thought that you elect a President and then you get to do what your party wants to do. I mean, after all, that's who won, right? What a joke! In reality, you elect a President and then for the next four years the opposing party spends all their time making sure that nothing happens. Frankly, it's a wonder our Nation survives.
I don't fall neatly into any particular label. I have beliefs that fall into different categories, and logic tells me that the ability to get anything positive done in this country lies in meeting somewhere in the middle. I've heard the claim that this is a center-right country, and I would definitely say I'd prefer it to be center-left. I don't know that it can be accomplished in one election cycle, but I'd sure like to see some movement in that direction.
The problem, as I see it, is that the right has no problem pushing their agenda from the extreme side of the party, while the left is less willing to push from their extreme. That process keeps us leaning further to the right.
March 26, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny how Snowbama goes out of his way to reach out to his right with an open hand only to be greeted with a clenched fist, yet he offers a clenched fist to his left who would greet him with an open hand.
To think I had the audacity to hope that Snobama would practice what Obama preached.
March 26, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Obama promise to reach out to those on the other side of the political spectrum from himself? It's about time he kept that promise, as things stand now it's just the same old insiders.
March 26, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Que bummer!
Come on, President Obama! Don't stiff your friends! We were there for ya, man!
March 26, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink