WI Progressive Obama

[Hando]

When Barack Obama appeared on the political scene he was tabula rasa. But basically he was a mirror a political chameleon, in whom every group saw what they wanted to see.
After being elected he showed that he was a neoliberal. And after his presidency his true loyalties were displayed to all.

But what if his true colors were different.
What if he was a progressive, how would this affect his first term, and beyond...?

 

[Colonel Zoidberg]

He might have pushed harder for a public option on healthcare and perhaps floated some New Deal-style jobs programs, but unless he kicks ass in his first two years, he isn’t getting shot done beyond laying waste to bin Laden.

 

[Wendell]

Obama might have been less progressive than, say, Bernie Sanders, but he was easily the most progressive president since at least LBJ. President Obama, like every holder of his office, can only do so much.

 

[marathag]

Obama might have been less progressive than, say, Bernie Sanders, but he was easily the most progressive president since at least LBJ. President Obama, like every holder of his office, can only do so much.

BO was less progressive than Tricky Dick.

An in the US Political System, it's pretty damn hard to be more progressive than Bernie after 1980.

But can make a point that Clinton could be considered to have acted like a Conservative more than the Rs were willing to admit

 

[Expat]

Agree with Wendell, for the most part. It would be more defensible to say he was " not as progressive" as many thought he'd be. Bt then we also have to look at what the "progressive" swings he didn't take were, what really deserves to be laid at his feet.

It would also help to have a more specific definition of "progressive." It's a moving target.

But I suspect the thread was posted just to get some frustration out, and that's fair. It's a tough time out there.

 

[Wendell]

Defining progressivism can be thorny like defining conservatism; therein lurk many a fake Scot.

 

[Amadeus]

Agree with Wendell, for the most part. It would be more defensible to say he was " not as progressive" as many thought he'd be. Bt then we also have to look at what the "progressive" swings he didn't take were, what really deserves to be laid at his feet.

It would also help to have a more specific definition of "progressive." It's a moving target.

But I suspect the thread was posted just to get some frustration out, and that's fair. It's a tough time out there.

It's worth pointing out that Obama achieved what every Democratic President had tried and failed to do since FDR: he passed healthcare reform. Did the bill go as far as progressives wanted (or arguably as far as the country needed)? No. But Obama's presidency needs to be put into perspective - for decades progressive politics had largely been discredited, and in 2009 the Democratic Party was still powerfully influenced by centrist politicians who opposed single-payer and other progressive goals. Under the circumstances, it really isn't fair to dis Obama for not going far enough - he should be commended for accomplishing as much as he did.

 

[Wendell]

I would almost argue that Carter and Obama were each president in the wrong era for what their ideas and beliefs are/were.

 

[David-Shiell]

By 2020 standards, Obama would be considered somewhere between a RINO and a DINO.

By 2008 standards, he was recognized (by some) as a progressive.

Obama benefited from a perfect storm of an electorate unimpressed by establishment Republicans, soured on the incumbent, ridden by economic anxieties, and put off by the other Democratic Party contenders. In 2008, anyone the Democrats put forward would have good odds for taking the White House. When Obama took the oath of office, he had the strongest position of any recent president with his party holding super majorities in both House & Senate, and the historic nature of his election. Almost all of his political capital was committed to gaming out the economic crisis for maximum advantage and Obamacare. After the 2010 midterms, he was a lame duck with a phone and a pen.

If Obama was a 2020 progressive back in 2008, he would likely have been dismissed an a Dennis Kucinich wannabe.

 

[marathag]

Defining progressivism can be thorny like defining conservatism; therein lurk many a fake Scot.

Or 'you know it when you see it'

 

[David T]

The OP shows IMO how confusing the use of the word "neoliberal" has become https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/uses-and-abuses-neoliberalism-debate but let that pass.

What exactly would a "more progressive" Obama have been able to get through Congress? The Senate was not prepared to give up the legislative filibuster in those days, and there was only a brief period of time when the Democrats had sixty votes in the Senate and that included Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson. (It also included several Democrats to the left of Nelson and Lieberman but to the right of the Obama of OTL--let alone a "more progressive" Obama.) It was impossible to get a Medicare buy-in into the ACA, let alone a robust public option, and still less single-payer. In fact, even if the filibuster had been abolished there would probably not have been enough votes for single-payer in the Senate and probably not in the House either. In fact, the ACA itself was only able to pass because the Democrats did have a brief 60-vote window. (True, after Scott Brown's election deprived the Democrats of a filibuster-proof majority, it ultimately passed through reconciliation, which required only a majority vote. But reconciliation is only possible when you first have Senate and House bills to reconcile!)

For similar reasons, I'm dubious that he could have gotten a much larger stimulus. (Remember that Kennedy cast his last vote in April, and that Franken wasn't seated until July. Only in late September was Paul Kirk sworn in as Kennedy's replacement, finally giving the Democrats 60 seats--and that only lasted until February, when Scott Brown won the MA Senate race.)

 

[Expat]

It's worth pointing out that Obama achieved what every Democratic President had tried and failed to do since FDR: he passed healthcare reform. Did the bill go as far as progressives wanted (or arguably as far as the country needed)? No. But Obama's presidency needs to be put into perspective - for decades progressive politics had largely been discredited, and in 2009 the Democratic Party was still powerfully influenced by centrist politicians who opposed single-payer and other progressive goals. Under the circumstances, it really isn't fair to dis Obama for not going far enough - he should be commended for accomplishing as much as he did.

On healthcare, I would agree with you. But there's room for reasonable people to critique Obama's progressive cred on other issues, or over-all. We can talk about his advisers, about how much power the president really has vs what people think they can do, about how the field was particularly tilted against him, specifically. I'm all for taking that into account. And as said before, we really do need to state what "progressive" means for a given time and place.

But even with all that taken into account, I don't think it would be unreasonable to conclude he didn't exactly measure up to the progressive standards of, say, 2015 in 2015.

 

[Alexander the Average]

Not going out of his way to support the 2009 military coup in Honduras would be a good start.

 

[Disraeli2004]

I really don't think Obama was a neoliberal, but he certainly was more moderate than anticipated. I'm not sure a radical Obama presidency could get much more done. His two biggest achievements on the domestic front, the stimulus package and Obamacare, all passed with razor thin margins. Proposing a more radical healthcare reform package would have almost certainly gone the way of the 1993 attempt and failed entirely, and he couldn't have done much more on the stimulus. So there'd probably be more acrimony and less actually done.