Would You Like the Democrats to be More Progressive? Listen Up!

Democrats need to be more progressive, dear Preston? 

Somewhere, somehow I got involved in an online discussion with someone named Preston.  Unfortunately, the origin of this is lost in the depths of the World Wide Web, but this was my answer when "Preston" (or anyone) complains about the Democrats not being "Progressive" enough:

"Preston, look, you and I would like the government to be more progressive.  We would like the Democrats to pursue more progressive policies, right?  I'm with you on that, yet I completely support.. and I will to the end of the Earth... Obama and the Democrats.  I grew up in a staunchly conservative town.  I know how these right-leaning people thought.. and still think. 

I have actually supported Republicans at various times for various races.  At other times in my life, I have have considered myself a middle-of-the-road independent.  Now I consider myself a PRAGMATIC Progressive Liberal Democrat.  Notice that I capitalized the word PRAGMATIC.  I'm from Illinois and I followed Obama's political career from the first time I heard his name and wondered who he was.  I was not a big Obama supporter and I'm not sure I voted for him in 2004.  I may have left that race blank when I voted.  I did see Obama as more of a liberal than he has shown himself to be while President. 

BUT after the Republican fiasco of 2000 through 2008, I KNOW that the only way that we can get this country back on track is to knock the Republicans out of contention as leaders of Congress, as leaders of the country, and as leaders of most of the states.

We have to somehow reclaim the public debate that right now has been overwhelmingly taken over by the right-leaning people and groups.  Racism, distrust of government, free speech being equal to being rich, hatred of the poor and the unemployed, being convinced that anyone who needs government services is a  "slacker" or a "fraud" who is stealing "my" tax dollars", on and on... A HUGE segment of the population follows right wing dogma.  That's a big reason why Obama seems to have taken a "right turn".  That, plus the realities of getting bills through Congress and into law.  That's the reason that we can't get any more progressive policies into government, not that Obama and the Dems aren't progressive "enough". 

Until we somehow WIN OVER a bigger chunk of the population of this country to understand and support more progressive policies, and until that is reflected in the Congress, we won't get solidly Progressive policies from Democrats.   Progressives have often been marginalized NOT by mainstream Democrats, but by the overwhelming right wing rhetoric that is so strong in so many places that it seems to have taken over this country. 

Preston, our mutal and real "enemies" are the racist and hateful conservative forces that are in control of the House of Representatives and much of the media.  All of this anti-Democratic rhetoric from people that like Sanders and Warren (but don't like Obama and Clinton) plays right into the hands of these conservatives.  Remember that Warren is a Democrat who votes with the Democrats almost ALL OF THE TIME. Remember that Sanders is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats and votes with the Democrats almost ALL OF THE TIME.  They understand how politics works in this country, and they KNOW that they have more in common with mainstream Democrats than with the Republicans who are desperate to push this country back to the hateful policies of the 1800's.   

Meanwhile, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

Barack Obama a Conservative? Are You Kidding Me?

Are You Kidding Me?

Here's the accusation posted on Facebook:

Obama is conservative. He is, by his own admission, a Blue Dog Democrat, i.e., pretty much a Republican. His support for liberal policies is completely verbal.

Related to this, one I've heard over and over:

"Obama is a corporate stooge, just a suit".  Or:   "Just another president married to wall st."

From WhiteHouse.gov

A man named Kevin replied with this list of SOME of Obama's liberal accomplishments:

• Enacted Health Care reform for the first time in US history
• Supports more Green Energy than any other POTUS in history...
• supports gay, women's and minority rights...
• Within his first week, he signed an Executive Order ordering an audit of government contracts, and combating waste and abuse...
• He created the Making Home Affordable home refinancing plan...
• Along with Democrats, and almost no Republicans, implemented an auto industry rescue plan, and saved as many as 1 million jobs...
• Signed the Democratic-sponsored Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act giving the federal government more tools to investigate and prosecute fraud in every corner of the financial system, and create a bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to investigate the financial fraud that led to the economic meltdown...
• Signed the Democratic-sponsored and passed Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, expanding on the Making Home Affordable Program to help millions of Americans avoid preventable foreclosures. The bill also provided $2.2 billion to help combat homelessness, and to stabilize the housing market...
• Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, saved at least 300,000 education jobs, such as teachers, principals, librarians, and counselors that would have otherwise been lost...
• Along with Congressional Democrats, provided funding to states and the Department of Homeland Security to save thousands of police and firefighter jobs from being cut during the recession...
• Signed the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act, which closed many of the loopholes that allowed companies to send jobs overseas, and avoid paying US taxes by moving money offshore...
• and a TON more...

"His support for liberal policies is completely verbal" my ass.

What he has TRIED to do is be a Liberal who meets in the middle, but the asshole GOP will have NONE of it. NOT his fault, and it certainly does NOT make him a 'Republican' (if he was one, he would have accomplished NOTHING...that's what they DO any more)...

Thanks, Kevin!

No, both parties are NOT the same.. And anybody who thinks they are just isn't paying attention!

Do You Hate Your Government Yet?

How Government becomes the enemy: 

They also work to underfund needed government agencies.  Then, when things don't work right due to underfunding, they can say:  "See?  We told you government can't do anything right!  We need to privatize this service!"

Thanks to OWSposters.tumblr.com!

The Republican strategy is to get people to hate their government.  They want you to care less, to be disenfranchised enough to not care what happens.  So when they do things like cut unemployment benefits (or underfund Ebola or other medical research), you just sit back and blame it on collective "politicians" instead of where the blame actually belongs:  On the Republicans.  No, people!!  Both parties are NOT the same!

Sanders: Good & Bad Billionaires?

"Both Parties Have Billionaire Donors."  

(March 14, 2016 update:  The following article was written in the runup to the 2014 Congressional midterm elections, before Bernie Sanders had announced any intention to run for President in 2016.  I'm reposting it due to all of the rhetoric about "billionaires".  Bernie Sanders himself made a distinction between good and bad billionaires a few years back. )     

OK, true..  But does that mean that "both parties are the same"?  Senator  Bernie Sanders (VT-I) doesn't seem to think so.


Sanders doesn't think the Democrats are doing enough (or are mad enough) at the way things are.. but it's clear from reading his comments in the article referenced below that he also knows the Democrats are quite different from Republicans, even when addressing such issues as "They both get a lot of money from Billionaires."

From Al JazeeraAmerica

In this excerpt from an inteview published October 6, 2014, at Vice.com, Senator Sanders was asked about "good" vs. "bad" billionaires (emphasis mine):

Q - "Democrats have also been able to get plenty of billionaires donating on their side. Does that present similar issues? Or is it a case of Good Billionaires vs. Bad Billionaires? 

A - Let me respond in two ways. I think the media has said, “Both sides are getting money from the very rich.” The answer is yes and no. The truth is that the Republicans are receiving a lot more money from the very wealthy, from the Koch brothers alone—who I understand will put $400 million into this campaign—not to mention many other people. So it is not a question of equivalence. One side is getting far, far more from the very rich than the other side is.

On the other hand, I personally, very strongly, believe that we have to overturn citizens united. I don’t think that any billionaire, regardless of his or her politics, should be able to play a significant role in a campaign. It’s not what democracy is about.

The third point that I would make is that when people say, “The Democrats are getting money from very rich people,” is that it’s true, though the Republicans are getting a lot more. Then you have to ask yourself, “What are the rich people donating to the Democrats concerned about?” You have some billionaire out there who’s legitimately concerned about global warming. You know what? Global warming is one of the great planetary crises that we face and it must be addressed. What are the Koch brothers concerned about? Their concern is that we should use more and more fossil fuels, that we should build the Keystone Pipeline, that we should significantly weaken the Environmental Protection Agency, and, by the way, that we should cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and education. It’s not enough to say that there are billionaires on both sides. You’ve got to ask what they want.

At the end of the day, I personally want to see all billionaires unable to heavily influence campaigns. I want to see Citizens United overturned, and I want to see public funding of elections."

The Democrats are not perfect. 

Now Sanders is an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats.  It's interesting to read his thoughts about the Republicans vs. the Democrats.  He mentions several times that the Republicans are a far-right extremist party. 

His complaint about the Democrats?

"...the Democratic Party has not been as clear as it should be in making the American people aware of the fundamental economic issues facing this country and their willingness to fight on behalf of working families and take on Wall Street and corporate America."

Are the Democrats perfect?  I agree with Sanders:  They need to spend more time and money on message. But that's a minor complaint when compared to the Republicans.  The future of our democracy (and we are a democratic republic, no matter what the righties want to call us) is imperilled by the current philosophy, leadership, and financing of the GOP. 

If Obama Has Accomplished So Much, Why Are His Approval Ratings Low?

Obama's Popularity:  Can a Good President Have Low Approval Ratings?  (Three reasons below.)

If Obama Has Accomplished So Much, why are his approval ratings low?

Someone asked this question in a comment to this column on Fourteen Things About the Obama Presidency That Most People Don't Know.  Here's my attempt to answer that question with a few reasons why President Obama has lower ratings than he should, considering his significant list of accomplishments:

1. We have suffered from 30 years of Republican dominated policies that have really made things difficult for the middle class. The kind of anti-worker/anti-middle class policies that were enacted in the 1980's often take years, even decades, to reach their full effect. I believe that some of the misery of the recent recession was the result of those 30 years of anti-worker/anti-middle class policies.  But I'm going to stick to the recent recession in these comments:  

The job market in the 2000's never reached the strength of the job market of the 1990's before everything came crashing down in late 2007/2008. The 2008 recession was the worst that any of us under 80 years of age have ever faced. We were really staring down the rabbit hole of another Great Depression. The banks were on the verge of failing, the US car manufacturers were on the verge of closing down; it was horrible; it was frightening. I don't understand why people don't remember how frightening things were in late 2008/early 2009.

As with any recession due to serious economic problems, it took a while for it to turn around. Yes, we started adding jobs in early 2010 and we've added over 2 million jobs a year since then, but things were bad, and some areas are still not what they were... and may never be. So people say, "I'm not doing as well as I was 5 -10- 15- 20 years ago, and it must be Obama's fault." They don't remember how bad things were.. or how bad they might be if Democrats hadn't taken over in 2009 and started us back on the road to recovery with a strong stimulus.

Economics is very complex, and many people want simplicity. So it's easier to believe the b.s. and decide that Obama is the problem.

2. Pure propaganda. If you keep telling people enough bad things often enough and loudly enough.. and you keep piling it on, people will start to believe those bad things. That's one of the first rules of propaganda.. keep it up. Make it louder and more horrible. Facebook and the blogosphere were not as influential during the early part of the 2000's and they have amplified the ugliness and the oversimplification.  Facebook photo memes are often ugly, inflammatory, often full of lies and misrepresentations. People don't want to read and analyze issues; they want quick info and they want to REACT. It's not just conservatives/righties that spit out the misleading, divisive memes, but the ones I've seen from the right (Yes, I do have rightie friends and family members) tend to be more inflammatory and more misleading on the whole than those from liberal sources.

3. Racism. No two ways about it; racism is a big part of the negativity towards Obama. Any time anyone claims that Obama is "lazy" (incredible... just look at his schedule on the White House site; I can't imagine anyone can work that hard), it is dogwhistle for "he's a lazy Nword".. no matter how much the person denies it.

In terms of the midterms, many of the most heated Senate races are in red or purple states in which Obama is less popular than in others. So he's not going to help those races by going to those states.

I continue to think that Obama will be considered a great President, considering the challenges he had to deal with when he took office, and considering the constant and undeserved obstruction and opposition. 

Obama Worse Than Bush? Hogwash!

Obama: Worst President in Modern Times! proclaims an NBC article citing a recent Quinnipiac University poll.

In fact, the headline of that poll at the Quinnipiac University site states:

Obama Is First As Worst President Since WWII, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; More Voters Say Romney Would Have Been Better

From NBC News/Reuters:  "President Obama loosens his tie in the heat before delivering remarks on the economy at the Georgetown Waterfront Park in Washington."

The righties are, of course, gleeful, for they were intent on destroying this man and his Presidency from Day 1.  Of course, Presidents usually poll worse when they are in office and better as people forget the misery they blame on that particular President.  Thus, Obama's legacy is far from decided, despite what the righties want us to believe. 

The Ignorant and Brainwashed Americans

I see this poll (and others that show similar results) this way:  This is another example of the dumbing down of the American people and the brainwashed ignorance of that population.  How could anyone consider "Obama worse than Bush", a man who pulled us into a trillion dollar war that cost tens of thousands of lives (both American and Iraqi lives) on lies? And Reagan the best?  What's wrong with this country?

"I don't believe in polls."

Now many people who lean left/Progressive/Democratic are quick to express skepticism of this poll and mention that it is only "one poll" or say that they "don't believe in polls."   Sigh.  Many of those same people do definitely believe in climate change and decry those who don't believe in climate change as being "not scientific" or "flat earthers".  Yet they don't believe in the statistics that underlie polls.  Sigh again.      

I think it is always important to know what the "other side" is thinking and what kind of effect they are having on this country. When we don't look at polls, we wind up with a 2010 election. I remember people saying that they "didn't believe in the polls" before the 2010 election, when the polls started to swing strongly to the Republicans. The polls were right. The Republicans took the House by a storm and the Dems were routed. (The polls also changed dramatically from summer to fall as rightie money poured into the races.)

Outrageous.

I think it is outrageous that a large chunk of the American population are unhappy with Obama, despite Obama pulling us back from the brink of total financial collapse, saving the automakers, presiding over the addition of 9 million jobs, moving us towards equality for LGBT people, limiting our entanglements in foreign wars, reducing the deficit, etc. etc, DESPITE constant Congressional obstruction, despite Republicans that were insistent on destroying his Presidency from Day 1, even if it meant keeping the American people miserable.

The poll mentions that Obama's approval rate is now somewhere around 40%. Even if you quibble about a few percent in terms of "not believing a poll", that's still a very poor approval rating for a man who has accomplished so much with so much opposition. It doesn't say much for the intelligence or knowledge of the brainwashed American people.

 
If this was just one poll, we could easily ignore it. But it isn't. Obama is getting hit in poll after poll this spring. Saying that we shouldn't pay any attention to polls is to me, someone who has spent some time studying statistics and polling, akin to saying that, because we've had a cold winter, "I don't believe in global warming." 

The issue isn't the polls; the issue is the brainwashed ignorance of the American people.

Racist Dog Whistle: What Happened America?

Don't let the righties get away with racist dog whistle such as the photo below!

The photo above was found on a Facebook page called Human Events.  Whoever put this together obviously wanted to emphasize a difference between Michelle Obama, the current First Lady and the wife of President Barack Obama, and Jackie Kennedy, who served as First Lady from 1961 to 1963 when her husband, John F. Kennedy, was President.

And the difference is obviously supposed to be negative, as Michelle Obama apparently does not look as "together" as Jackie Kennedy in this pair of pictures.  The racists will deny that the difference of skin color between the two women means anything.. but never allow yourself to be deceived.  Their biggest complaint about the Obamas really IS race.  But arguing with racists is really a waste of time.

As the added text, posted on my Facebook page, states:

Jackie and Michelle are both fashionable, intelligent women who speak/spoke for their generations. Perhaps Jackie didn't feel that she could show the joy that Michelle is expressing in the photo at the right. If so, how sad! And how far we have come as a people! Not only do we have a black family in the White House, but the First Lady can feel comfortable expressing herself! As my FB friend Sue writes: "How refreshing to have a First Lady with a desire to make changes for American families and not just be an ornament on the President's arm. Michelle Obama is LOVED around the country; her approval ratings are HIGH; she's a decent and honorable woman who loves her family and her country! We are so lucky to have her!""

Yes, Sue, we are lucky to have Michelle Obama in the White House.  But there's a significant part of the population that will NEVER accept her legitimacy as First Lady.  The picture above is one of the most mild in terms of criticism of Michelle Obama.  But it is SO mild that the racists can more easily deny any racist intent in posting. 

So sad.  But don't ignore racist dog whistle!  And know that it exists in this the land of "All (white men) are created equal."