Greenwald: Barack Obama is Gutting the Core Principles of the Democratic Party

[Karmadillo]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/21-6

Published on Thursday, July 21, 2011 by The Guardian/UK
Barack Obama is Gutting the Core Principles of the Democratic Party
The president's attacks on America's social safety net are destroying the soul of the Democratic party's platform
by Glenn Greenwald

<edit>

And now he is devoting all of his presidential power to cutting the entitlement programmes that have been the defining hallmark of the Democratic party since Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. The silence from progressive partisans is defeaning – and depressing, though sadly predictable.

The nature of American politics is that once a policy is removed from the partisan wars – once it is adopted by the leadership of both parties – it is removed from mainstream debate and fortified as bipartisan consensus. That is why false claims in the run-up to the Iraq war, endorsed by both parties, received so little mainstream journalistic scrutiny. And it's why the former Bush lawyer and right-wing ideologue Jack Goldsmith – back in May 2009 – celebrated in The New Republic the fact that Obama was doing more to strengthen Bush/Cheney terrorism policies than his former bosses could have ever achieved: by embracing the very terrorism approach he once denounced, Obama was converting it from rightwing radicalism into into the official dogma of both parties, and forcing his supporters to defend what were, until 2009, the symbols of rightwing evil.

Identically, Obama is now on the verge of injecting what until recently was the politically toxic and unattainable dream of Wall Street and the American right – attacks on the nation's social safety net – into the heart and soul of the Democratic party's platform. Those progressives who are guided more by party loyalty than actual belief will seamlessly transform from virulent opponents of such cuts into their primary defenders.

And thus will Obama succeed – yet again – in gutting not only core Democratic policies, but also the identity and power of the American Left.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ljm2002]

26. Repeat after me:

"Truth is truth".

Now repeat it 100 times, until it sinks in.

Party politics is one thing. Most of us will continue to vote Democratic. That does not absolve us from seeing the truth and speaking about it, and expecting the leader of our party to adhere to the party's core principles. The position of the Democratic party on these programs has been quite clear historically, and was one of the few ways we could differentiate ourselves from the Republicans. Now, we must either fight this erosion of our core ideals among our own party's leaders, or simply acknowledge that when the right accuses liberals and leftists of having no principles, they are correct.

I don't like their principles, but hell, at least they stand for them.

Our side doesn't seem to stand for a damned thing these days.

And I don't want to hear "But we can't get it passed! We must be pragmatic! We can't get support!" Poll after poll shows that Americans support more taxes on the rich, keeping hands off the very successful Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs, and ending the wars. So the fact that our own president won't even try for any of the above, tells us all we need to know: our country has been taken over by the corporatists lock, stock and barrel, and it is time to do something about that. This is not the time for just going along to get along -- we've tried that, and the situation for working Americans has gone from bad to worse.

Poor, poor Obama. He got the job and now he can't take the heat. At least to hear some DUers tell it. Well I got new for ya: Anyone who can't take the heat, ought not to run for the job. Having run for it and won it, he can damned well hear what we have to say.

[kctim]

28. Well, since

there are no plans to dismantle social security, you must be talking about undermining it. Exactly how do you believe it is being undermined?

[ljm2002]

34. Nice rhetorical device there...

..."there are no plans to dismantle social security"...

I don't recall anyone claiming there were plans to dismantle it, except of course by Republicans, but then we expect it of Republicans.

There are, however, plans afoot to weaken it. Our President has stated he wants to help "strengthen" the program, which in DC doublespeak means cutting benefits. Yes, yes, I know: there are no plans that directly cut benefits. That's because politicians, while sleazy, are not stupid. They know people will howl at direct cuts. So they plan ways to make cuts without calling it that: raise the retirement age, change the cost of living formula, anything that will allow the government to pay less without directly cutting benefits, and they can claim they did not make any cuts. Well, at least not any "slashes".

This double speak is par for the course these days, and our side dishes it out with the worst of them and I for one am sick to death of it.

Stand for something, damn it! Tell the Republicans to stuff it where the sun don't shine! Keep our benefits! Align yourself with a clear majority of the American people, and -tax the rich, -leave Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid alone, and -unwind the super expensive and unwinnable wars. Do that, and voila! Deficit-B-Gone!

But that presumes any of them are really concerned about the deficit, rather than agendas that benefit the wealthy elites. I no longer make that presumption.

[kctim]

42. Actually, you stated

"That does not absolve us from seeing the truth and speaking about it, and expecting the leader of our party to adhere to the party's core principles"

And since myself and Democrats.org believe the party's core principle on social security is to keep it from being dismantled and undermined, I was just curious where you got a different core principle. And now that I know that you have no faith in our Democratic President and that you question his integrity, I can say thank you for answering my question.

[ljm2002]

43. Obama created a deficit commission...

...and appointed two leaders whose anti-social security stances were well known. They promptly included recommendations like raising the retirement age, even though they and Obama were well aware that social security had never contributed one thin dime to the federal deficit, not ever. And now, even though the commission failed to produce a report that its members could agree on (and therefore technically never produced a report at all), he is trying to implement their recommendations as part of a deficit reduction package.

And your response is to accuse me of questioning his integrity.

I can see what is happening, that's all. I don't know his motives and I don't much care. I do care about his actions, and his actions are those of an appeaser who is allowing the Republicans to own the terms of the debate, while he continues to make strategic errors like prolonging the Bush tax cuts while not requiring a vote on the debt ceiling back then -- laying the groundwork for the present fiasco. He is trying to call our hard-fought social programs "sacred cows", in the same way that the Republicans' no-tax mantra is a sacred cow. For which all I can say is Shame on you, President Obama!

Your attempt to extrapolate my phrase "expecting the leader of our party to adhere to the party's core principles" into an accusation of dismantling social security, is disingenuous at best. I never used the phrase and see no reason to do so -- at least not yet. Please in the future try to address the points made, not the points you wish had been made so you could knock them down more easily. It's called the "straw man" argument and you just provided a textbook example. Oh, and when called out, you might try acknowledging what is plainly true rather than playing more word games. Just a suggestion.

[kctim]

48. There was no accusation made

You said you expected the leader of our party to adhere to the party's core principles and the core principles concerning social security are to protect it from being dismantled or undermined. It is not my fault that you wrongly assign your own personal opinions as being the core principles of the party. That is not playing word games, that is dealing with the facts.

[ljm2002]

49. Yes Social Security is being undermined...

...among other things by appointing the Deficit Commission, which promptly made recommendations about Social Security such as raising the retirement age, even though it has never contributed to the deficit. Such as offering to change the cost of living formula in ways that will reduce benefits from what they otherwise would have been.

Even putting it on the table undermines it, since it has N.O.T.H.I.N.G. to do with the deficit. N.O.T.H.I.N.G.

No one made him create the deficit commission and pack it with people who were salivating to attack social security. He chose to do that.

No one made him decide that we need to make cuts in social security, medicare and medicaid. He did that all on his own, calling them "sacred cows" and unilaterally presenting them as a bargaining chip to the GOP, while they held the full faith and credit of the USA hostage.

But I have yet to see you address any of those points. Just more word games.

[kctim]

67. Not word games in the least

In order to understand and address your points, I must use fact, not opinion.

I apologize, but I have not read the final bill so I was unaware that the COLA had been changed. Do you know if it was across the board? Or if other 'credits' or something were placed in there to help those who need it the most?

I think you make some very valid points and I believe President Obama will address them when he owns up to whatever deal he signs. I am sure he will make a compelling case explaining how he believes the bill will strenghten and some will explain their case that it weakens.
Hmmmm? I wonder if Democrats should believe and trust the leader of the Democratic Party, President Obama, or should they trust the OPINIONS Joe Blow blogger?

[SammyWinstonJack]

30. It's crystal clear now that all he wanted was the JOB. Worked out well for him.

For most of the rest of us...not so well. x(

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

65. It's Not "Democratic"!

I know this seems a trivial point. But we will vote Democrat, the party is the Democrat Party.

Saying democratic in the context you used, sounds like every tea party member I have come in contact with.
I live in Oakland county in Michigan, a TP and Repub strong hold.
Heard it way too often.

Sorry if I have offended you, but we cannot get caught up in their wordspeak.
Just gets my shackles up! I am a Democrat, we should ALL be democratic.

I do agree strongly with all the rest of your comment.

Edit: changed the last sentence from OP to comment.

[ljm2002]

68. Sorry but you seem to have it backwards...

...ours is the Democratic Party, please go to any official party web site and you will see that the name of the party is the Democratic Party. Therefore it is correct to say that I vote Democratic, as it would be correct for me to say that I vote for the Democrat.

Tea Partiers and ugly partisan Republicans are very fond of calling it the Democrat Party. That is wrong, wrong, wrong and that is what should get your shackles up. Here are a couple of references for your interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_%28phrase%29

the first sentence of which reads:

"Democrat Party" is a political epithet used in the United States instead of "Democratic Party" when talking about the Democratic Party. The term has been used in negative or hostile fashion by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms, partisan speeches and press releases since 1940.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/08/03/233098/-Democrat-vs-Democratic;A-quick-history-lesson-from-the-Propoganda-Machine

the last sentence of which reads:

The point remains that only Right wingers and those that listen to right wingers are comfortable with the term "Democrat Party," right?

[Tesha]

2. Precisely! (NT)

[Tesha]

4. Do you have any actual, factual rebuttal or...

...are you just annoyed the people worldwide are
starting to notice this?

Tesha

[MineralMan]

6. You're asking yourself questions?

To whom did you intend to reply?

[tridim]

8. LOL

[Tesha]

39. (My reply was intended to be attached to your reply #3)

If you'd like, I can put a copy there or you may simply
"take it as written".

Tesha

[MineralMan]

3. And yet another Greenwald editorial attacking the President.

How strange we'd find it here. Twice. :sarcasm:

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. k & r

[jtown1123]

7. K& R Needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

[jberryhill]

10. Well, go on up there and shout

You'll get a good view of the people who decided to "take to the streets" from up on your rooftop

[jtown1123]

15. I've been shouting this since January but have been "poo-poohed"

[jberryhill]

17. Well the folks elsewhere on about "Obama is gutting the Constitution"

...will, I'm sure, appreciate your contribution to the choir.

When you hold an opinion, you are not going to get universal agreement to it.

So have a blast up there on the roof. Take some water, though, since it is probably hot up there.

[AgainsttheCrown]

22. So do you approve of...

Or dispute his handling of the "War on Terror?"

Do you deny that he has normalized the radical Bush administration's Anti-terror policies?

I'll admit that his domestic success is arguable.

But Obama's record on the National Security State is the one thing that the apologists seem to gloss over rather than defend.

I challenge you or anyone of the staunch supporters to defend his administration's continuation of Bush terror policies.

[SammyWinstonJack]

32. Don't hold your breath...

:evilgrin:

[AgainsttheCrown]

35. Eh...

Just throwing it out there. Didn't expect a response.

[jberryhill]

37. I am not on DU every minute of the day, and have responded, thank you.

[jberryhill]

36. He pledged to reduce operations in Iraq and increase them in Afghanistan

Both of which he has done.

Additionally, he took out Bin Laden, of which I approve.

Otherwise, you'll have to be more specific about which "terror policies" you have in mind, since that is a broad subject.

[jtown1123]

40. I recognize there are people here that support the President no matter what

I am not one of those and am ready and willing to take whatever "heat" one throws at me.

[jtown1123]

41. Oh and the whole gutting the Constitution thing? That's ridiculous

I think Obama is making a grave mistake offering cuts to SS, Medicare and Medicaid.

[Oilwellian]

9. Greenwald speaks for me

"Third Way" Democrats have destroyed the soul of the party. K&R

[Vinnie From Indy]

11. k&r

I refuse to be willfully ignorant. Obama is doing exactly as Greenwald describes. I look forward to some defender to actually refute Greenwald's column with something of substance and not snark. I hope all Du'ers note the complete lack of substantive rebuttal by the defenders of Obama's policies. It hangs around their necks like a millstone of shame.

[otohara]

12. What Silence From Progressives

is he talking about?

[pnorman]

13. There's Not A Dime's Worth Of Difference Between......

n/t

[EFerrari]

24. "Maybe we were all fooled and Obama is just the best Republican president

we've had in the last forty or fifty years." Thom Hartmann, today.

[hifiguy]

14. Greenwald speaks the hard cold truth.

Failure to recognize this fact is nothing but willful denial.

[ProSense]

16. Here's proof:

Health Reform Expands Medicaid Coverage For People with Disabilities

How Obama is shoring up federal authority over Medicaid

New ad campaign touts preventive care benefits of health reform law

Glenn Greenwald: “Still more work, but gay equality is increasingly becoming an administration bright spot.” (Greenwald is a truthteller)

[_ed_]

62. Didn't get past the first bullshit link

where they admit that it doesn't kick in until 2014.

If you think you're fooling anyone by vomiting up these endless links to nothing, you're sorely mistaken.

[mochajava666]

63. +1

[Poll_Blind]

18. And from Rolling Stone: Matt Taibbi - Obama Doesn't Want a Progressive Deficit Deal

Matt Taibbi - Obama Doesn't Want a Progressive Deficit Deal

PB

[ClarkUSA]

19. Oh yawnety-yawn. Not that old chestnut again. Do change the record please.

:nopity:

[dionysus]

20. little lord greenwald strikes again!11!

:hide:

[whatchamacallit]

21. All the typical blind, defensive, thrashing in this thread, proves him right

Before cuts it's "Quit making up stuff Obama's not going to do...", after cuts it'll be "Well he HAD to do something about the debt!"

[progressoid]

31. Sad but true.

Worse yet, the public will see him portrayed by the media as a socialist when he's barely a centrist.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Yes. But he's gutting it with great panache and convinced some that it's beneficial to the party.

As a salesman he's terrific.

[unblock]

25. keep in mind that today's democratic party looks a LOT like the republican party of the '70s.

remember way back then, republicans even had a liberal wing.

today's republican party, of course, looks a lot like the john birch society of the '70s.

and where is the democratic party of the '70s, today? hmm, maybe somewhere in europe....

[progressoid]

29. +1

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

66. Please read comment 65 in response to 26

It will refer to your comment also.

[krabigirl]

27. K & r

[ThomWV]

33. K&R

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kath]

44. Watch what you say - posts using the phrase "Trojan horse" are getting deleted right and left today.

WTF?

[jberryhill]

54. Isn't that a model of condom?

[FiveGoodMen]

56. And it's very telling that there are so many posts like that to be deleted, no?

[Scurrilous]

45. Kick

:kick:

[leftstreet]

46. K&R

[ProSense]

47. Here's

my response to Greenwald.

[rug]

50. He's post-partisan. No need for a Democratic Party.

[Raine]

51. "Silence from progressives" ... progressives have been told to

shut the fuck up. It's hard to be heard when no one is lisening to you yelling from under that bus the insiders threw you under. :mad:

edit: typo

[alsame]

52. Many culprits, not the least of which are the DLC and Third Way

types that have taken over the Democratic Party. Gutting the party has been happening over time, real changes started in the 80s. What we have now are people who are very 'balanced' and 'bi-partisan', which means they agree with the GOP on most issues.

[swilton]

53. No Principles

No Party

[SidDithers]

55. Greenwald. LOL...nt

Sid

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidDithers]

59. Don't you have a march to plan, or something?...nt

Sid

[BlueIris]

58. Ask me again why I don't believe he'll be renominated. nt

[treestar]

60. Why is he not blaming the Republicans?

He must be a Republican. That's the only way to explain the blind ignoring of their horrible existence. He's trying to take the heat off them.

Why isn't he blaming Boehner and Cantor?

[Denver Progressive]

61. Yep he needs to call them out repeatedly.

:kick:

[Smilo]

64. I am a

Progressive Democrat at heart, but I understand the need to step out of my world occasionally and do what is right for everyone.

What President Obama is doing is NOT right for everyone, only the very few who are protected by the GOPT. When elected he said there would be transparency in government - I am still waiting, especially now for his reasoning.

If there was anyone else, President Obama would be a one-term president.