As Obama Administration Negotiates Away Democratic Party Principles - Time for a 2012 Primary Challenge?
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
By Karen Bernal
Progressive Caucus of the CA Democratic Party
We've had enough. The country has had enough.
As elated as we were when President Obama was elected in 2008, after a disastrous eight years under the repressive and war-mongering Bush Administration, the Obama Administration has been a major disappointment to the working class and Progressives of this country.
So much so that on July 30, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party adopted a resolution criticizing President Obama for negotiating away Democratic Party principles to extremist Republicans, and suggesting that we may explore steps to "effect necessary change, including a possible primary challenge to President Obama." The resolution, overwhelmingly adopted at a meeting of the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party July 30, did not say President Obama would not be that candidate.
The officers and members of the caucus are willing to meet with the President if he wishes to discuss our concerns. In fact, we would welcome the opportunity. Our Caucus leadership wishes HOPE BEYOND HOPE that President Obama will rework his priorities to respond to the needs of working class Americans in order to get progressive support in 2012.
Calling for a possible challenge to President Obama wasn't an easy step to take. We keenly understand, and like all Democrats and the majority of Americans, appreciate the historical significance of his presidency. That people from all walks of life worked very hard to get him into office is testament to where we have come as a nation and as a people, when we can all unify behind a candidate regardless of race.
Even now, we can say that despite the difficulties we are facing, the memory of reaching and passing the milestone of electing the first African-American President is still sweet; though, that memory becomes quickly replaced with profound unhappiness when we consider the current state of affairs.
After the President's unilateral offer in a closed door session to slash Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, thereby endangering the New Deal and War on Poverty safety nets, we could no longer remain silent. It was simply too much.
So has been the escalation of U.S. militarism, secret drone attacks, the extension of tax cuts for the wealthy, the bank bail outs - but allowing foreclosures to continue, the assault on our civil liberties through the extension of the Patriot Act, a disregard for the promises to labor, the facilitation of an increased corporatization of our public sphere, and a host of other issues that benefit big business and the wealthy, but ignore the plight of working families and the environment.
Progressives are challenged by President Obama's decisions. Our silence is a price that's too high to pay.
Some have said to me that this resolution questioning our President may weaken his chances in 2012, and possibly lead to a Republican president. But the truth is, as you analyze the Obama Administration domestic and international decisions, we already have many Republican policies.
If there is a primary challenge it is not without precedent. President Lyndon Johnson was challenged over his escalation in the Vietnam War in the 60s by Eugene McCarthy and Robert F. Kennedy.
And, as we said in the resolution, we do not want to interfere with President Obama’s ability to govern. Will this raise debate on important issues? Yes. Will this mobilize and energize the base of our Democratic Party to stop the far-right agenda to destroy the working class? Yes.
In fact, we do not see ourselves as being against President Obama as much as we see ourselves as defenders of traditional, core Democratic Party principles. And the choice, we believe, has become increasingly clear: Loyalty to founding principles we hold dear in the Democratic Party, or loyalty to a President at the expense of those principles.
In the end, we hope this resolution starts a very honest conversation about the direction of the Party, something we believe is crucial at this moment in time. Of course, the strategy for progressives pushing for a badly needed paradigm shift for our country needs to include making sure we are part of any driving force at the grassroots level with other electoral efforts, as well as actively participating in social movements designed to take on a heartless corporatocracy.
This isn't a choice of either/or; we simply do not have that luxury anymore. If we are to bring our country back from the precipice of total disaster, the pushback will have to happen on multiple fronts, from the bottom, all the way to the top.
Passed July 30, 2011
Anaheim, CA
WHEREAS, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party recognizes the challenge presented by President Obama’s negotiating away Democratic Party principles to extremist Republicans, we are challenged by President Obama in the following ways:
- His unilateral closed-door budget offer to slash Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which endangers the New Deal and War on Poverty safety nets.
- His determination to escalate U.S. militarism through illegal secret CIA drone attacks and unauthorized wars.
- His willingness to extend the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and bail out big banks without ending the foreclosure crisis that displaces American working families.
- His insistence on pushing a health insurance bill which enriches private insurance companies while ignoring growing support for single-payer health care or robust public options.
- His continuance of President Bush’s assault on civil liberties with an extension of the repressive Patriot Act.
- His failure to restore due process, including the protection of whistleblowers and habeas corpus.
- His numerous failures to adhere to international law.
- The continuing practice of nationwide FBI raids of anti-war progressive protestors.
- His decision to increase the arrests and deportations of undocumented workers.
- His facilitation of the privatizing of the public sphere, which includes education and housing, among others.
- His disregard of his promises to the Labor movement.
- His failure to adequately protect the environment and adequately address climate change.
WHEREAS, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party recognizes the historical significance of the Eugene McCarthy/Robert F. Kennedy anti-war challenge to President Lyndon Johnson. The challenge followed President Johnson’s decision to escalate U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, betraying his campaign promise to end a war that polarized America. Similarly, we recognize the danger and betrayal that the current “Grand Bargain” represents to the legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s signature gift to all Americans, Social Security and the New Deal, a point of pride for all Democrats.
WHEREAS, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party is committed to the understanding that an interest in a 2012 Democratic presidential primary challenge will not interfere with President Obama’s ability to govern and not limit his ability to do so in ways that include invoking Constitutional options, we recognize that this will, in fact, raise debate on important issues without risking the ability to mobilize and energize the base of the Democratic Party to elect a triumphant leader to counter the far-right agenda.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, to make our views heard, the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party will begin the process of contacting other Democratic organizations, Democratic Party members and public organizations that share our views on the issues and which seek to alter the course of history by exploring other steps to effect a necessary change, including a possible primary challenge to President Obama.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karen Bernal is the two term Chair of the Progressive Caucus of the California State Democratic Party, as well as a member of the Party's Executive Board. She is also an elected member of the Sacramento County Democratic Party, and Co-founder of the Wellstone Progressive Democrats of Sacramento County.
- megan's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send by email
I agree with the progressive caucus on this...for all the reasons enumerated in the resolution and many, many more.
I realize that a primary challenger COULD end up hurting him...and in turn, it could help elect one of the truly frightening GOP Clown Car candidates. But, at some point, the Democratic base has to show that we are through being ignored and even ridiculed by this Administration for simply demanding he stand up for core democratic principles...like all those he ran on. The shift rightward of both parties, due to ever increasing corporate influence and power combined with the deterioration of union power and influence (among other reasons), must be stopped (at least on the Democratic side) before its too late.
Unlike the GOP, who seem to bend over backwards to appease their base (corporate interests, teabaggers, christian fundamentalists) Democrats like Obama openly disdain and reject theirs. Why? Aside from the fact that he's shown himself to be a corporate, right of center appeaser, and has reneged on a laundry list of promises and claimed stances made during the campaign, this administration, and Clinton before him, also know that the GOP has become so extreme, and so corrupt and immoral, that we on the left feel we must not, in any way, contribute to a GOP victory...and thus, in the end, we'll vote for Democratic leaders no matter how much they sell out anything remotely resembling a progressive agenda (an agenda that polls very high by the way...and has the added benefit of being good policy).
So I understand the dilemma we face as progressives...but I have come to the difficult conclusion that if the right person was found (Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold etc.) I would feel compelled to support both the challenge and that candidate, because simply beating Republicans isn't enough if Democrats keep selling out, or failing to fight for, core progressive principles. This has been the trend for 30 years now...and we're starting to resemble a kleptocracy/corprotacracy more than a democracy.
Running a real progressive challenger will bring focus back to the issues that matter...energize the base...send a message to Obama that we are not satisfied with his retreat, capitulate and triangulate agenda, and perhaps even persuade him to focus more on what those that voted for him in the first place really care about...like unemployment, jobs, foreclosures, wage stagnation, income/wealth disparity, climate change, poverty, war spending and making, the need for new revenues that target the wealthy elite and big business, and so on...
Glenn Greenwald wrote a great piece recently on just how much damage the President has done to democratic party principles and the left.
He writes, "In 2005, American liberals achieved one of their most significant political victories of the last decade. It occurred with the resounding rejection of George W Bush's campaign to privatise social security. Barack Obama. The President, in many crucial areas, has done more to subvert and weaken the left's political agenda than a GOP president could have dreamed of achieving. So potent, so overarching, are tribal loyalties in American politics that partisans will support, or at least tolerate, any and all policies their party's leader endorses – even if those policies are ones they long claimed to loathe."
Bush's scheme would have gutted the crux of that entitlement programme by converting it from what it has been since the 1940s – a universal guarantor of minimally decent living conditions for America's elderly – into a Wall Street casino and bonanza.
Progressive activists and bloggers relentlessly attacked both the plan and underlying premises (the myth that social security faces a "crisis"), spawning nationwide opposition. Only a few months after he unveiled his scheme to great fanfare, Bush was forced to sheepishly withdraw it, a defeat he described as his biggest failure. That victory established an important political fact. While there are very few unifying principles for the Democratic party, one (arguably the primary one) is a steadfast defense of basic entitlement programs for the poor and elderly – social security, Medicare and Medicaid – from the wealthy, corporatised factions that have long targeted them for cuts.
.....
This dynamic has repeatedly emerged in numerous contexts. Obama has continued Bush/Cheney terrorism policies – once viciously denounced by Democrats – of indefinite detention, renditions, secret prisons by proxy, and sweeping secrecy doctrines.
He has gone further than his predecessor by waging an unprecedented war on whistleblowers, seizing the power to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process far from any battlefield, massively escalating drone attacks in multiple nations, and asserting the authority to unilaterally prosecute a war (in Libya) even in defiance of a Congressional vote against authorizing the war.
And now he is devoting all of his presidential power to cutting the entitlement programs that have been the defining hallmark of the Democratic party since Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. The silence from progressive partisans is deafening – and depressing, though sadly predictable.
Read more: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/21-6
If we Democrats do not put up at least one (but hopefully more) primary challengers for Obama, our party will lose not only the White House, but also Congress and various State governments.
We need to realize that if Obama runs the party loses.
I just wish we had an executive and legislators who would F-I-G-H-T for us! No more spineless compromisers.
What a recipe for total disaster for the US: re-elect Republicans to do terminal damage this time.
If you all hadn't voted for Nader in 2000 do you think we would still have massive influence by the Koch brothers of oil and coal revenue?
Do you think we would have Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is the stupidest thing I've heard in years. Not to mention that most Democrats polled APPROVE of the debt ceiling deal: they wanted to see the country move forward, not backwards due to GOP/Tea Party stupidity.
What did we progressives lose in the deal? Well, the deal puts a 'trigger' to the GOP's head, the same as they did to ours, with the threat of massive defense cuts if they don't deal.
Seriously. When Obama 'gave in' on the continuing resolution, I understand the great and glorious GOP victory actually resulted in MORE spending than cuts.
When Obama 'gave in' on this debt ceiling farce, the cuts this year are $21 billion. Everything is backloaded in the cuts and you know IF YOU IDIOTS WOULD ONLY ELECT DEMOCRATIC MAJORITIES IN THE CONGRESS this whole tea party insanity would go away.
I second the previous reply, somewhat less bluntly.
If we want a progressive agenda we have to agree to DO things. We have to agree to stop wars that destroy American lives and fortunes and worsen our security by portraying us as imperialists (wow, what an old term. But it is appropriate). We have to raise taxes on those who can afford to pay them to help those who cannot. And so on.while the right wing does not currently have the power to make the government DO something that continues their unabashed attempt to turn America into a two-class society, they still have enough power to STOP government from doing something. Hence the use of the debt ceiling as a club. They can't cut, but they can stop us from borrowing.
The problem is the U.S. Congress. The president does not decide spending and taxing policy; he only approves it. Obama is president. That implies that he can only play the cards the Congress hands to him.
And so on; I'm sure everyone reading this understands the situation. So I am surprised at the California State Democratic Party's suggestion of a cure. Perhaps a more liberal President would be a better choice, but it does risk splintering the vote. And there is an alternative fix.
We need to get people to return to the polls in the next election, retake the House and potentially retake a super-majority in the Senate. Then, we need to rouse ourselves from complacency and let our voice be heard to the officials we have elected. The fear mongering and factual distortions of our debt risk and our commitment to our society's weakest members has distorted the debate. We do not argue the issues with real facts, but with the self serving representations and distortions of the duplicitous right. And I am sure that if we moved the national debate to a sane discussion of our real problems, President Obama would go along with that negotiation in a way that would gladden our hearts and save our country.
Karen, with respect, I believe that what your group advocates will put more pressure on our President in adverse circumstances. At best this would polarize a divided government and at worst might enable the election of a Right Wing president. But I totally agree that this is the time to stand up and fight.
But we need to fight together.
I've been a faithful reader of this site since my internship as a reporter in 2008. By far, this is the most exciting article.
What I would look for from a Progressive candidate is easily described as "guts". I don't want another Democratic candidate who's going to campaign on a platform of bipartisanship. Obama tried that. There isn't an olive branch long enough to reach out to Republicans, who insist on insulating themselves (especially now with their volitile Tea Party layer). Republicans simply will not budge, and they have their talking points and they stick to them. All Democrats do is play defense, they never go on the offense, and they end up arguing with each other until it's time for them to cave into Republicans. There is simply no courage left in the Democratic party, no fight, no ambition.
I want a Progressive candidate with guts. I want a candidate who can look a Republican in the face and tell him/her how wrong they are in their policy, I want this candidate to start using the term "Regressive Politics" to describe Republican efforts. I want a candidate who can look at the average American and say, "I understand you have religious qualms with the concept of homosexuality, but there's a freedom of religion, and a freedom FROM reliigion, and this Democracy cannot accomodate your animosity for homosexuals because as a policy it is unfair and unconsitutional." I want clear, honest, straight to the point articulation of Democratic ideals...not in-caucus fighting, tolerating bs Democrats that refuse the party line vote when we need it the most, and certainly not a candidate that's going to compromise a reformed, progressive frame that puts Democrats back in the offense.
Finally, my ideal Progressive candidate has John Stewart's charm and candor, Bill Maher's guts, and George Cloonie's smile.
Where are all the big liberals (e.g, Pelosi, etc) to stand up to the president and telling him to stop the wars? Congress has the power of the purse and could cut off funding for the wars today. We Democrats not only need a new president, but new people in Congress who will stand up for what is correct. A few like Boxer Boxer, Pete Stark and Barbara Lee have stood up to be counted against the wars,but where are all their colleagues?
The Tea Party is the Republican's Progressive wing. They organized and seized control of large enough minority to make their demands heard and implemented. The Republican's who do did not vote for the debt deal were the most ardent Tea Partiers. The Republican establishment would like nothing more then for them to go away. Just like the Democratic establishment would like to operated with the Progressives throwing principles in their face every time they sell out. You may hate what the Tea Party stands for but at least they got off their asses and did something and achieved electoral power. That is democracy. It seems to me, what is upsetting Progressives is the people they elected don't have the backbone to stand up the way the Tea Party does. The number one way to shrink the deficit is to cut defense spending and the easiest way to do that is to bring the troops home from abroad. The Tea Party leaders such as Ron Paul endorse this fully, much to the distaste of the Neo-con leaders of the Republican Party. Perhaps someone should have the foresight to seek an alliance of left and right to end the foreign wars.
You are right about the Tea party. The tea party leans more to libertarianism than anything else. Sure, you can find the occasional nut, but most tea party members are against the wars and want the size and scope of government reduced. They want no increase in taxes and a drastic cut in spending.
I do not find them evil. Rather, they have a different view of America. Where I give them credit is that they are organized and work for their beliefs. Trust me, most republicans wish they weren't there, but they respect their power.
Great first step. You are to be congratulated. However, don't stop now. A new progressive party is needed. To be honest, you should not just go out and put a new party on the ballot because you would meet the same fate as American Independent, Green, Libertarian, and Peace and Freedom parties. All started with promise but soon fell victims to our rigged political system. Progressives need to do pre-party organizing so that when the decision is made to form a new party, Progressives will start off winning seats in the state legislature and U.S. Congress. Start educating people about Proportional Representation. Qualify it for the ballot and pass it into legislation. Just think about it, if the Democrats get 50% of the vote they get 50% of the seats. Likewise if Progressives get 10% of the vote they get 10% of the seats. This way majorities are protected and minorities get a voice and representation. That is a win-win situation. No longer will third parties be accused unjustly of costing Democrats the election. Organize and build a new party.
Just do it.
Yes yes yes to all of you. Keep up the good work. I wholeheartedly agree.
George W. Bush was the worst president ever until the ultimate disappointment, Barack Obama, fraudulently campaigned for our votes and won on a smile, nice speeches, and a pack of outright lies. Barack Obama has now surpassed "W" for the ignominious title of worst president ever because after two stolen elections and eight years of the worst leadership this nation has ever known, Obama knowingly and purposely failed us all.
I voted for Obama but I will NEVER vote for this fraud again. I had very high expectations as did our nation and, indeed, the entire world. We had the White House and both houses of Congress. We were in position to roll back the myriad disasters visited upon us by the Bush administration. But Barack Obama failed not just occasionally but at each and every turn.
I do not delight in saying any of this. I am in mourning for our nation. Instead of regaining the ground we lost to eight years of Bush we wound up with four more years of the same and often worse.
I'm writing in Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in 2012. Barack Obushma can retire to the ranch with his partner in crime for all I care, where they can share in the spoils of their criminal activities and revel in their one-two spots at the bottom of the U.S. presidential heap.
Let's be honest about how long President Obama had both houses...only a few months and then Democrats lost Ted Kennedy's seat to a Republican. During those few months, Obama was in a dead run to save the economy from the total train wreck caused by George W Bush's tax cuts for the rich and profligate spending on wars, running up the national debt wildly (after being handed a surplus by Clinton). Even during those weeks when Barack had the majority in both the Senate and House, the Blue Dog Democrats were making it difficult, if not impossible, to move forward on the agenda Barack intended.
There is no doubt that if every citizen of this country voted, Democrats would have the Presidency, the Senate and the House. We can all sit around and complain, but we know that the real work is getting everyone registered and everyone out to vote. When we do that, Barack will have the Congress he needs to help the poor and middle class. Barack wants to help those who need help the most, he just doesn't have the votes. So register everyone you know to vote.
I greatly appreciate the California Democratic Party Progressives for standing up and fighting for the principles stated in Karen Bernal's article. Now we have to get to work.
Let's be honest about how long President Obama had both houses...only a few months and then Democrats lost Ted Kennedy's seat to a Republican. During those few months, Obama was in a dead run to save the economy from the total train wreck caused by George W Bush's tax cuts for the rich and profligate spending on wars, running up the national debt wildly (after being handed a surplus by Clinton). Even during those weeks when Barack had the majority in both the Senate and House, the Blue Dog Democrats were making it difficult, if not impossible, to move forward on the agenda Barack intended.
There is no doubt that if every citizen of this country voted, Democrats would have the Presidency, the Senate and the House. We can all sit around and complain, but we know that the real work is getting everyone registered and everyone out to vote. When we do that, Barack will have the Congress he needs to help the poor and middle class. Barack wants to help those who need help the most, he just doesn't have the votes. So register everyone you know to vote.
I greatly appreciate the California Democratic Party Progressives for standing up and fighting for the principles stated in Karen Bernal's article. Now we have to get to work.