Katrina on Obama embrace of SuperPACs -not hypocritical to play by a set of rules you want to change

[jefferson_dem]

A make-or-break moment for democracy
By Katrina vanden Heuvel, Updated: Tuesday, February 14, 9:49 AM

President Obama’s decision to endorse super-PAC money as part of his reelection effort exposed the enduring divisions within the progressive community between pragmatism and idealism. Robert Reich, for example, put his disappointment bluntly: “Good ends don’t justify corrupt means.” Jonathan Chait disagreed, writing that “if you want to change the system, unilateral disarmament seems like a pretty bad way to go about it.”

The ambivalence is palpable — and understandable. I’ve felt it myself. On the one hand, we are seeing our worst fears realized. When the Supreme Court handed down its Citizens United decision, the concern was not just that one party would take advantage of it, but that both parties would decide they had to adapt to it. The president has never held high moral ground on campaign finance (he withdrew from public financing in the 2008 campaign) but his willful, if reluctant, decision to submerge himself further in a system that actively stains our democracy is troubling.

And yet, I understand his decision. I even reluctantly agree with it. I remember how massively George W. Bush outspent Al Gore in 2000, both during the campaign and the recount. I remember the price that John Kerry paid for staying within the campaign finance system in 2004, leaving him exposed to the Swift Boat attacks in August as he tried to stretch his public allotment over three months instead of just two.

There are times when you cannot win with one hand tied behind your back, when you cannot fight fire only with a philosophical opposition to fire. This is surely one of those times. There are baseball fans who despise the designated-hitter rule in the American League, but would any of them fault the Yankees for abiding by it?

<SNIP>

I don’t mean to suggest that the ends justify the means. But I don’t think that it’s hypocritical to play by a set of rules you want to change. Still, the president shouldn’t assume that those accepting his decision are embracing it. And those accepting the decision shouldn’t let him off the hook. If he is going to endorse the use of super PACs, then he should endorse, as a central plank of his campaign, the fight to end them forever. If he doesn’t, the alternative to unilateral disarmament won’t be mutual disarmament; it will be mutually assured destruction.

<SNIP>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-make-or-break-moment-for-democracy/2012/02/13/gIQAVsCLDR_story.html

[FSogol]

1. K & R. n/t

[Enrique]

2. Cenk makes the same points

accepts the decision, but demands that Obama take action in his second term. The difference might be that Cenk's idea of taking action turns out to be different than Katrina's. She might consider "favoring a constitutional amendment" to be action, I don't think "favoring" it will be enough for Cenk

[jefferson_dem]

6. Fair enough.

He should fight for it in his second term...and I expect he will.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. And he will be laughed at for it.

Whether or not it's hypocritical is debateable but in practical terms campaign finance reform is dead for the duration of living memory.

[Redstate Bluegirl]

3. Hurricanes are political pundits now?

[LaydeeBug]

4. A-MEN!!! It's like saying, "We'll show up and play fair, and they'll show up with oozies"

We have to MATCH AND OVERCOME their weaponry.

[jefferson_dem]

5. Those who say Obama should not play by the electoral rules as they are...want him to lose.

Simple as that.

[Enrique]

7. Russ Feingold wants Obama to lose?

simple as that?

[jefferson_dem]

8. So be it.

Russ Feingold, who saddled up with the Repubs in opposing financial reform...would rather Obama lose than actually play by the rules so that we can fight another day.

[SidDithers]

13. Yup...nt

Sid

[Tarheel_Dem]

9. K&R

[Bezukhov]

11. Yay. Bi-partisan corruption. Both parties put out the "For Sale" signs.

[SidDithers]

12. DU rec...

and the baseball analogy is a great one.

Sid

[Aerows]

14. If he wants to be elected

He's going to have to use the SuperPAC funds because the other side is. After he gets re-elected, hopefully he can work to change the law, and encourage those in Congress to do so.

I might want to ban guns, but if the other side has them, then I'm going to keep one until they've been disarmed.

[TheKentuckian]

15. and so will the next one, and the one after that and the end the only democracy there will be

is that of the highest bidder.

If we continue down this path then there will be no "winning" for us "small people".

What other things are ended by universial adoption? By what engine do we gain escape velocity from political singularity of wealth? One might be able to put a little faith in Obama no longer needing to run for election but everyone in Congress will as will his successors and with each cycle we "play by these rules" this less likely we are to be able to part from them, eventually opposition will be forgotten, and those the represent the interests of those with money will be the definition of viable. This is not a war that anything reconizable as Democratic can win over the long term. It is impossible NOT to bring a knife to a gunfight, look at the resource allocation. Look at who has the money in this country.

Obama may win (I think he wins either way and has plenty of resources) but us "small people" have no fucking shot, and I mean none in this system.

All of these hand to mouth choices will fucking kill us.

[KamaAina]

16. Oh, that Katrina!

I lived in New Orleans years ago. The name has quite a different meaning to myself and so many others.