Obama wants us to run the 2016 play again in 2020

Obama warns Democrats of moving too far left in the presidential race and alienating voters, Associated Press, Nov. 16, 2019 “The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it. And I think it’s important for us not to lose sight of that,” Obama said [...] Immigration and health care are two issues he cited as cases where Democratic candidates are out of sync with public sentiment. “Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision, we also have to be rooted in reality and the fact that voters, including the Democratic voters and certainly persuadable independents or even moderate Republicans, are not driven by the same views that are reflected on certain, you know, left-leaning Twitter feeds,” Obama said.

That’s literally one-dimensional thinking: the idea that the potential voters are arrayed along a single axis from far left to far right, that “independents” of significance can only be positioned between those two “extremes” on all matters of concern. It’s also an idea that is factually incorrect. So much for 3-D (never mind 11-D) chess. Besides, it does not follow from the idea that many moderates are non-ideological that they would necessarily be reluctant to vote for a more ideological candidate; that factor just may not matter much to them. And never mind the imperative to inspire the Democratic base with openly progressive policy, regardless of the personal appeal of a particular candidate, and beyond mere opposition to a loathed Republican president. Personally, I don’t think Obama’s position comes out of lack of understanding of political dynamics (as if!). If there is any 3-D chess going on, it is that leading Democrats do understand but that they don’t want to see the existing political-economic power structure upended. That they don’t want to build expectations for democratic socialist policies, expectations that could, out of populist appeal, become uncontainable. People might get ideas, y’know. Some context for what’s going on here:

Obama delivered his remarks at a gathering of the Democracy Alliance, a group of wealthy Democrats who raise large sums for the party.

Ah. “Nothing would fundamentally change,” amirite? We must not anger our corporate ownership overlords, for they fund the party’s operations and campaigns. Without them, we’d be reduced to relying donations from the commoners, like some lowly soup kitchen bake sale or local Pacifica radio affiliate pledge drive. Never mind that some of those wealthy contributors play both sides, and that, among that group, those who foremost prioritize their personal wealth actually align with the other side’s priorities, when push comes to shove. Never mind that, especially now that Internet access is nearly ubiquitous, prominent candidates have proven grassroots funding models feasible. Never mind that it would literally be more democratic. It would also literally be revolutionary, in that those few with the most wealth and power would lose control and that the populace currently without would gain it. For many big-dollar contributors, that cannot stand. From that assessment, for example, it follows that while Democrats passed a massive expansion of health care for Americans in the form of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and while they did so without a single Republican vote (and amidst conservative Democrats’ acts to undermine it), it was a fundamentally neoliberal policy that enriched and empowered private companies, with the public option purposefully ruled off the table. (Oddly, or perhaps tellingly: a particular aspect of the policy that people would have more freedom to leave a job they don’t want and go off their prior company’s health insurance, yet still be able to afford coverage on the exchanges, wasn’t something that Democrats made a major selling point.) And still, after all that opposition and difficulty, the lesson that Obama “learns” is to reef the sails of Democratic ambitions, to keep moderating? No, it is not a matter of learning or not learning. Methinks it is a matter of ideology and priorities. In a similar vein, note how, before Donald came along, Obama was known among immigration advocacy circles as the “deporter-in-chief,” as he ostensibly attempted to appease Republicans with oppressive enforcement in order to gain their favor for comprehensive immigration reform. How did that work out? Wouldn’t there be an alternative lesson to learn, that of openly championing and, wherever possible, enacting the policies that progressives actually want, of encouraging popular demand and building it up into an unstoppable force, of making it politically impossible for reactionary Republicans to maintain their zombie-Scrooge-like positions, of running them out of office? Rather than tempering progressive expectations into pre-compromise? No, if one actually wants to utilize that kind of politics, one doesn’t come into office with a grassroots operation as significant as Organizing for America and allow it to go fallow. One doesn’t ask the likes of Tom Perez, who wasn’t running at first, to step into the race for Democratic National Committee Chair and block a progressive like Keith Ellison from winning the job of organizing the party. Granted, while reading this news report on Obama’s recent remarks, we should note that the AP has a history of trolling the left. Granted, Obama accomplished substantial policy gains in the face of intractable opposition from Republicans as well as from more conservative Democrats (and even took some difficult positions like in his attempt to close the lawless military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba). Granted, Obama wasn’t saying to abandon all progressive policies. But to champion incrementalism in the face having lost a thousand Democratic state and federal legislative seats during Obama’s tenure, of having lost 2016 to a complete buffoon (regardless that it was unfair), of exhaustive Republican state and federal attacks on the democratic process, of Republican dismissal of the political legitimacy of the right of any Democrat to use official power or to participate politically at all (and of the legitimacy of President Obama personally with the “birther” absurdity, as championed by Donald himself), of the rapid rise of fascism abroad and at home, (relatedly) of concentration of wealth and power not seen since the 1920s-1930s, of accelerating human-caused global warming that is already starting to destroy eons-old ecologies around the world and could potentially end modern civilization… To insist upon incrementalism, amidst all that? On top of the apparent anti-democratic socialist ideology, it is Maginot Line politics.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move toward higher levels.

Or when it comes to present circumstances, at a minimum an old type of thinking would suffice: that practiced by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. That of the New Deal, now adding the essential element of environmentalism. That of strident anti-fascism. It is pretty clear that the Democratic Party leadership of the past two score years would’ve voted down the New Deal. Indeed in real effect they have, between Bill Clinton enacting policies like repealing Glass-Steagall, Barack Obama declining to prosecute robber barons and prioritizing their financial well-being over that of mortgage holders, and Hillary Clinton declaring that single-payer health care will “never, ever come to pass.” The USA prosecuted waterboarding after World War II; after the George W. Bush administration, the Democratic president accepted the excuse of “I was just following orders.” Even now, Speaker Nancy Pelosi says (0:24:20) that the illegal and unconstitutional deprivation of due process for immigrants, torture of immigrants, and live orphaning of immigrant children is a mere policy dispute, to be settled in the next election. After four decades holding the reins of the party, by 2016 neoliberals had overplayed their hand. (There’s a case to be made that they were already beyond their “best by” date in 2000.) Democrats lost not only because we don’t actually have a democracy in structure or in practice, not only because of the corporate press, not only because of the antics of FBI Director James Comey, and not only because Donald turned out racists to vote, but also because of those millions who the Democrats didn’t turn out to vote. Notably, it wasn’t only Hillary Clinton who lost in 2016. And while some blame does go to the nonvoters themselves, to then deflect blame that should also rightfully go to the Democratic leadership—those “don’t worry, we got this” professionals—vis-à-vis their decisions during and before 2016, and therefore to merely tweak and not fundamentally overhaul Democratic politics for 2020, would mean a gross avoidance of accountability and a willful courting of disaster. It would demonstrate that stopping democratic socialism matters more to Democratic leaders than the severe risk of fascism and of permanent ecological ruin. Where the left leaves a vacuum, fascists step in. Either we choose bold, progressive political leaders like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren and build a progressive mass movement, or else the world is sure to burn. Those really are the stakes.