"You will enjoy a certain moral security"---Check your privilege.

[msanthrope]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/obamas-howard-commencement-transcript-222931

Democracy requires compromise, even when you are 100% right. This is hard to explain sometimes. You can be completely right and you still have to engage folks who disagree with you. If you think that the only way forward is to be as uncompromising as possible, you will feel good about yourself, you will enjoy a certain moral security, but you will not get what you want.

I wonder if the President reads this forum. The moral certainty born of privilege on daily display here certainly deserves censure.

[Blue_Adept]

1. That bolded piece is why things have gone so wrong

Republicans went hardcore in being uncompromising toward the end of the 90's and it's a huge part of why things are as partisan as they are these days. With all the shutdowns, threats, and intransigence, it's crazy.

Seeing a growing segment of the left acting the same way is utterly disheartening. Politics is about compromise.

[Adrahil]

41. Load. Of. crap.

The reason they have disppoprotionate power is that their voters show up to very election. The idea that two parties refusing to comomise would lead to progressive change is insane.

We need people to show and vote, and put on their gorwn-up pants and realize that change is a generational process.

[Blue_Adept]

59. Thanks for disagreeing so respectfully!

[msanthrope]

5. Thanks for making the President's point about votes, not hashtags.

Read the transcript.

[betsuni]

3. K&R

[Trust Buster]

4. The Big "O" is cautioning a particular segment of the Left against using the uncompromising

strategy of the Tea Party. The fact is, we have divided government. The Republicans currently control the Senate and the House. The Democrats will get nothing through Congress without compromise. Sanders has misled his flock on this point. Their "moral security" which I like to refer to as "self righteous narcissism" is an utterly valueless currency right now.

[Trust Buster]

7. That attitude will only lead to more years of paralysis in Washington.

Last edited Sun May 8, 2016, 10:14 AM - Edit history (1)

That attitude places you in the same category as the Tea Party. Congratulations, but please move aside.

[DrDan]

15. "the sane category as the Tea Party" - I don't believe "sane" applies to the TP in any context

[Chan790]

9. True, but...

I think it's as true of intra-party issues as it is of the GE. I see a lot of Clinton supporters (including, I believe, the OP...I'm on my way out the door to work and don't have time to check past posts) saying "Hillary won the primary and should make no concessions and no outreach to try to recapture Sanders supporters...they're going to vote for her anyways to stop Trump."

If the Clinton campaign acts and thinks the same way...let's just say I think the President is correct about more than he's being credited with. Politics is the art of the possible and it requires compromises all around. Clinton can't win the GE without making major compromises from what she wants to what Sanders ran on. (If the result had been reversed...the same would be true of Sanders, except that I think he'd be more amenable to those compromises as long as they weren't economic. Clinton doesn't really have that choice...her compromises to recapture Sanders support probably has to be economic.) If it doesn't bite her this time...it does put her in a bad spot in 4 years when Americans are still pissed about these things and the GOP isn't running a narcissistic psychopath.

[msanthrope]

10. What, precisely, do you think HRC needs to compromise on to win

Sander's voters. A specific policy issue, please.

[Armstead]

38. Yup

[Buns_of_Fire]

57. You convinced me, you sweet talker, you.

This dumb, stupid, duped, strident ideologue will now slink to the basement to reflect upon my transgressions and no doubt flog myself mercilessly for not realizing the awesome wonderfulness that is all things Hillary.

Hallelujah! I have seen the light!

[Schema Thing]

18. I want her to be explicit that she rejects Oligarchy and Trickle Down

and wants to end both.

btw, if you hadn't noticed, it's a great year to reject those things, because the G.O.P is in total disarray, so a candidate who believes the Oligarchic system is wrong can actually win, and completely de-legitimize trickle-down economic theory in America once and for all.


I'm not even asking for much. That's what Democrats are supposed to stand for.

[msanthrope]

22. Okay.. .these are slogans, not policies. Talk actually policies. nt

[Schema Thing]

25. wtf? Those ARE NOT SLOGANS

Oligarchy is THE system we live with, and Hillary Clinton has lived her political life thru Oligarchy. That would be somewhat acceptable, if she'd give any indication... no, strike that, if she would explicitly reject Oligarchy and Trickle-down for the future going forward. There will never be a better time.

Those may be overarching concepts, but they ARE FUCKING WELL NOT SLOGANS.

[NewImproved Deal]

30. Sadly, the Clinton Machine's apologists...

Are quite happy with Oligarchy--as long as it's thinly veneered by "Diversity".

[link:|

[msanthrope]

43. Down with Oligarchy is a slogan. Kindly show which part of her economic

plan supports Laffer. Gx

[Schema Thing]

53. I won't raise taxes even a little on anyone making 250k is not a slogan though, is it?

Trickle down is simply what happens when you coddle the extremely wealthy through tax policy and thru de/non-regulation. It's what happens when you promote the military industrial complex.


Giving private speeches to Goldman Sachs is not saying "Down with Oligarchy" is it? She didn't give them any indication she doesn't believe in Oligarchy and Trickle-down, now did she? Don't say "she may have" because you'll be a liar.

She could have you know. You do know that, don't you? And she still could. You know that don't you?

[Adrahil]

42. She has said many times that trickle economics doesn't work...

... And is bad economics. The fact that you don't know that leads me to question that you would ever support her.

[Lucinda]

11. Representative Government. We have it, some don't seem to know what it is.

It was designed FOR compromise, to best represent EVERYONE, and to protect us from going through huge, unsettling shifts, as one party or the other momentarily has the reigns.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. And Obama formerly claimed that denial of LGBT marriage rights in favor of 'civil unions' was

the paradigm of glorious compromise we must seek. He and his boosters were pretty self certain that LGBT wanting simple equality were 'refusing to compromise' and not being 'pragmatic'. He and his bootsers were straight people who had all their rights 'You people should give up your rights so I can get something from my Republican friends' is what they suggested. They wanted to use us as their trading chit, call that compromise and end they day with long sessions of self congratulations.

There are moments for compromise and also moments where any compromise is capitulation. That's how life really is. It's not always possible to meet in the middle. Slavery. Should we make co? What's the compromise on reproductive choice? What's the compromise on 'My religion says you can't pee in the men's room'?

Compromise is a nice thing but to claim it is always possible is to toss all ethics to the wind.

[Doctor_J]

17. And that those who oppose torture are "sanctimonious". Thanks, but I'll look elsewhere for

moral and ethical guidance. The biggest mistake I see at du is the blind worship of people who are supposed to represent them.

[99Forever]

13. Hooray for capitulation!

It's worked out SO fucking well.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. People parading their amorality as if it were a virtue is a relatively new thing.

And 1%-ers criticizing me for my privilege? Bite me.



http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/ma/dem

[msanthrope]

21. You see....using the extreme term "amorality" to describe thinking different from yours

is precisely the problem that the President highlighted.....it's the kind of rhetoric used by the teaparty to describe liberals and liberal thinking and I suggest to you that perhaps it is not useful for you to use it to describe fellow Democrats.

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. He was talking to the next generation of very serious people.

Harvard: the place where very serious people learn how to talk to the privileged masses.

What exactly has the President's "working with people who disagree" gotten us?

The last 40 years of american history has been written by ideologues. What we need is better ideology than "well, maybe we can slow conservatives and oligarchy down a bit"

[msanthrope]

44. Dude. He was at Howard. Kinda puts a pin in your outrage balloon, no? nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. Thanks for the correction. nt

[baldguy]

19. But Sanders fans think Obama is part of "the problem".

[msanthrope]

20. Thus, the South was lost to Bernie. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. It's lost to Clinton too.

So much for the benefits of incrementalism.

[brush]

35. How so? She'll win the nomination because of those southern delegates . . .

and Sanders will lose it because his campaign discounted the southern primaries.

[bettyellen]

55. It is always the process that seems to be a mystery to some here....

It is what it is, not what they imagined. And it takes years of work to change that.

[Mnpaul]

52. He is

He doesn't understand compromise. Compromise requires both sides to give something up.

[aikoaiko]

26. Obama has always been excellent at the strawman premise.

"If you think that the only way forward is to be as uncompromising as possible...."

No one in politics thinks this - certainly not Bernie Sanders.

[baldguy]

28. Oh, stop it! "Comprimise" is just as much a dirty word to Sanders fans as it is the Tea Baggers.

The whole campaign against Clinton and the Democrats from Trump and Sanders is based on it.

[Skwmom]

31. It is a dirty word when you use it to try to justify an agenda that is for the big money backers

rather than the people. It is the same way they use bi-bartisanship to justify reaching across the aisle to the Republican Corporatists and doing the bidding of the 1%.

It is all just part of the Big Con.

[aikoaiko]

36. Not really. You're confounding uncompromising principles with not being able to negotiate

And Bernie will negotiate, but he won't stop talking about what needs to be done.

[Armstead]

27. I agree with what he said 100 percent -- And I support Sanders

Compromise is not a bad thing. It's necessity. BUT....

1)Compromise is not the same as moving in the wrong direction. TPP is an example of moving in the wrong direction.

2)In negotiations you start with what you really want....and then move toward some point in the middle with the opposition. It does not mean starting by accepting GOP propositions....and/or starting by asking for 50 percent of what you want.

3) Compromise ios not padding your own wallet with loot from the corporations and handing power power to the interests you are supposed to be controlling and regulating.

3)There is no compromise with crooks who tanked the economy for personal and corporate benefit. You don't "compromise" with pirates who want to gut the middle class and repress the poor simply to add a few more points to their corporate bottom line, goose their investment capital, or gain a few million more to their personal wealth by shafting consumers and their employees.

[Kittycat]

34. ^^^ and as long as Obama is pushing bad trade deals

That will hurt the American Middle Class and working poor, I don't see why I need to compromise my ethics with my vote. It might be easy for politicians to forgo ethics in the name of their current or further foundations, their campaign funds, or future jobs as advisors or lobbyists, but the average American, like myself/my family is none of these. My vote actually means something to me.

[BootinUp]

37. The primary decides if a position is ours or the pukes, not ideological opinions.

Sanders and his strong supporters propose remedies that some see as having an overall negative effect on the economy (and in a way that will effect everyone) in the long term. Simple as that. One of the strengths of this country is that we don't make radical shifts in policy. That is a form of security. Yes there are downsides to that, especially when you have a puke party that lied us into the hole we are in over the last 30+ years.

[Armstead]

40. That's a large box to unpack...

So let me be simple.

The dominant approach to the economy and how policies and business behavior affects society has been GOP TRickle Down Supply Side Economics. It has been giving Big Corporations and Wall St. unrestrained power to siphon money from the lower and middle classes and put it in the pockets of the upper class.

The GOp has relentlessly and openly pushed that since 1980.

Unfortunately too often the Democrats have gone along with it, either from cowardice, or their desire to grab a slice of the booty. They have contributed to that problem, rather than actively opposing it and fighting for the people.

Whether or not any of Sanders specific plans in the primary are the answer is not the issue. the issue is whether the Democratic Party will continue to ignore and sweep the real problems under the carpet, or will actively change enough to truly fight for the majority in terms of distribution of wealth and power.

[Nay]

50. Thank you. Too many people get all balled up in the idea that "Sanders can't do

anything! Sanders this! Sanders that!" etc., etc. It isn't about what Sanders can or cannot do. It isn't about whether he can compromise -- hell, the Republicans have gotten as far as they have by NOT compromising -- it's about whether someone, anyone, can articulate the true problems this country is facing, not the fakey, made-up problems (bathrooms, fer Christ's sake). Can we even talk about them? Can we act like adults for once? It seems not, but Sanders is the only one who is not angling for a piece of the pie for himself.

[BootinUp]

60. I am trying to debate about the big picture here

which to me and Obama comes down to playing a role in government by having a seats in elected office or being relegated to shouting in frustation from the outside to get any attention.

Lets remove policy from the debate and just look at strategy. Is a pragmatic candidate more often going to win vs. one running from a more ideologial perspective? Absolutely. In other words for an ideologial stance to have the advantage requires some unusal imbalance in the country to be able to capture the majority. That imbalance will happen (must happen) but hopefully only infrequently and hopefully the severity will be limited. If you disagree with that hopefully part then that is where we differ.

To review what I think are the facts:
The Democratic party lost the debate over economic policy in 1980. The GOP took advantage of that rather masterfully. They funded think tanks, lobbyists, and media and affected public opinion and votes. And they poured it on year after year, distorting the facts and muddying up the debate and distracting people from the real issues. They used wedge issues to divide the country. Maybe this list can be added to?

As a result the Democratic party determined through our normal process what strategy to use to win elections. To win votes. Prior to 1992 we had lost 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections. Since then we have had the advantage winning 4 of the last 6. And we could further look at the two houses of congress which I am sure would paint a similar picture.

How to describe that new strategy in the fewest words? I think it can be described as less ideological and more pragmatic. It simply looked at public opinion and crafted a winning strategy. It was heavy in positive messaging and not angry rhetoric.

We now see what it took for the laissez-faire believers and champions to be truly stymied. It took a lot more than words. It took more than predictions by experts. It took more than principled candidates from the left like Kucinich, and many others. It basically took a financial collapse and 8 years of solid leadership to turn enough public opinion around on trickle down to remove that as strong position to take in an election for the pukes. Polls show the Democratic Party is more liberal now than 8 years ago. I am thrilled that we can finally take more liberal positions and have a high probability to win elections as I am sure that vast majority of Democrats are.

Our primary this year pitted the pragmatic view vs. a more ideological view. In actual policy positions, not a huuuuuge divide. More divide on strategy and rhetoric. With the greatest dislocation of the financial crisis behind us it appears the Democrats are going again with the pragmatist.

Ok enough facts
What were the consequences other than winning elections? We often hear or see arguments that it resulted in a poorer chance to turn back public opinion and to make real change. But in order to make real change you must win elections. This is a chicken or the egg argument, it is really just a waste of time.

The other lesson I think is that in our rather stable system of government it takes time and major imbalance for people to forget what they think they know about complex things like the economy. This predicts that if we move forward with some measure of carefulness this could be the beginning of a long period of more and more liberal policy.

[Skwmom]

29. Maybe Pres Obama is struggling to come to grips with his own actions. Then again, maybe not. I've

learned you should never think others have the same moral compass that you do.

Plus, as they say the mind has the infinite capacity to rationalize...

[whatchamacallit]

32. I should care because he's president?

So was George Bush.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice. Thomas Paine

[baldguy]

47. This is the guy that ended up a self-exiled, penniless drunkard, right?

Good thing he didn't "compromise his principles.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

49. And?

[baldguy]

51. And what? Isn't that enough?

As humans, nobody is 100% correct about everything, everywhere, all the time. Anyone that claims they are (like Trump and Sanders do, along with their supporters) are either delusional fools or con artists.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. There are no facts, only interpretations. Friedrich Nietzsche

[mmonk]

39. Go tell it to the marginalized and the poor.

Then go back to those that marginalize and rob them with more largess and service.

[beedle]

45. WOW, Says the supporters of HRH Queen Hillary

The lack of self-awareness is astounding.

But I guess it's acceptable if your privilege comes out of a 'legitimate birthright'

[TimPlo]

46. That speech was just a Job interview.

Obama is about to leave the White House and have to suck up to the %1. Best way to do that is talk about how poor are just selfish and think they are entitled to rich's money that they fairly got from using a small part of it to get polices enacted that benefit them.
Does no Hillary supporter find it odd that all compromises we have giving to GOP is to help out the rich?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121606200.html <<-for example.

[islandmkl]

54. is this a variation of: "take baby steps..." even if you have been walking and running for years?

among PBO's great accomplishments...negotiating/compromising does not appear to be his strong suit...forget all the 'three-dimensional-chess versus checkers' bs...starting 'compromises' at half of what you want to begin with is either being more than naive about your opposition...or an intentional gambit...

look at who got what they wanted after all the 'deals' and maybe the answer will become slightly more apparent...

corporatists compromising with corporatists...and you expected to not get screwed?

[Dems to Win]

61. Yes, Hillary voters should check their privilege

Their disregard of the despair of young people drowning in student debt, and people of all ages economically hurting from obscenely low wages and criminal banks stealing millions of homes, certainly deserves censure.