Obama, the great "Progressive" hope

[Cain]

I hate that word "Progressive" -- it's so stupid and self-absorbed. Oh, you're the forward thinking people. I agree with much of that agenda, I suppose, and their embrace is not necessarily a free choice but safe-haven from the slimed and maligned label of "liberal," which is only two steps above child molester.


I haven't been reading the papers much the last couple of months. Burned out after the election, work, projects, other nonsense.

So here's my question: What "progressive" items are on Obama's agenda?

-That whole gag rule on abortion that Republicans Presidents impose and Democrats lift.
-I'm guessing he's going to something on stem cell funding, if he hasn't already.
-He's shutting down Guantanamo...
-SCHIP -- But what about health insurance in general? I seem to recall Hilllary was better on the issue than Obama.

Now these four items seem so bloody ****ing obvious it's crazy we even waste time debating them. Family planning for poor countries? Stem cell research? Shutting down a symbol of secrecy and dishonor, a place responsible for human rights violations and bad press (which frustrates the "global struggle against terror")? Then my-oh-my expanding health insurance for children.


-He's supposed to repeal Bush's more egregious executive orders, but I guess extraordinary rendition isn't one of them. I recall his pick for one of the intelligence agencies hemmed and hawed when it came to taking a position on torture and waterboarding.

-Obama ran on amping up the war in Afghanistan, a graveyard of empires.
-Iraq: What's he doing that's progressive, or different? Bush is the one who had a timeline horizon for surrender withdrawal.

I know it's interminable debate, on par with teaching creationism in school, but we should be slashing military spending. The money we spend on "Defense" is insane. Is he going to cut "Star Wars"? Yeah, right.

-Stimulus bill. Krugman and others say it's too small, and gives far too many concessions to "tax-cuts-always-work" Republicans. His treasury pick, the guy who can't manage his own taxes, made a not-too-impressive debut recalling Paul O'Neill.

-Faith-based initiatives. I remember seeing a thread on here some time ago criticizing Obama here.

-It doesn't seem like the rich are going to get their taxes raised, which is fine for the moment, I suppose.

Naturally, Obama gets a pass his first 100 days in office, and he is following one of the worst presidencies in history, but the outlook isn't good. He's shaping up to be the Clintonian myself and others predicted, not the "most socialist president in history."

 

[Puppycow]

-He's supposed to repeal Bush's more egregious executive orders, but I guess extraordinary rendition isn't one of them.

Obama signs executive order concerning extreme rendition

The task force will also study and evaluate the transfer of prisoners to other nations, a process known as "extreme rendition." The task force is given six months to finish its work, with a possibility of extension.

See, a task force is studying the issue.

I recall his pick for one of the intelligence agencies hemmed and hawed when it came to taking a position on torture and waterboarding.

Not sure which one, but Leon Panetta had made very unambiguous public statements about it.

Certainly anyone hoping for a leftist as opposed to a centrist Administration will probably be disappointed. That includes the loony right who were hoping for a radical Saul Alinsky disciple, as well as "progressives" who were hoping for a new champion.

 

[tomwaits]

The term "progressive" does seem pretty self-absorbed. But then again, conservatives seem to wear their label proudly.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Shutting down a symbol of secrecy and dishonor, a place responsible for human rights violations and bad press (which frustrates the "global struggle against terror")?

Of course in the process we're also releasing terrorists who rather than reform go right back to what they were doing in the first place... I'm against illegitimate torture, but I have major problems with a government that immediately signs an executive order without affording an alternate plan for the detainees that are already there and pose legitimate threats if they are to be released as a result of closing the base. His plan to close the base within a year is already facing problems in light of reports that former detainees have returned to killing people.

Then my-oh-my expanding health insurance for children.

Covered by a raise in the cigarette tax no less... very poor decision on his part and it's nearly identical to the 2007 version that was vetoed. The tax foundation discusses this in more detail

-It doesn't seem like the rich are going to get their taxes raised, which is fine for the moment, I suppose.

Of course looking at a couple of examples already, the opposite appears to be taking place, the CHI (Childrens health insurance) expansion for one, raises taxes on a group that is often poor as group. More over we enact programs to persuade people to stay away from these drugs, yet now we are planning to rely on the same? I can't wait to see how the funding works if that industry crashes (or more accurately people are rendered too far into debt to sufficiently fund the program through such a tax... I must say that the "crashing" is a hyperbole). I'm not so optimistic about the stimulus plan either, that's more debt in our pockets with little gained. I am willing to hold off on my total criticism of the plan until I see the results but I'm not optimistic at the moment.

Naturally, Obama gets a pass his first 100 days in office, and he is following one of the worst presidencies in history, but the outlook isn't good. He's shaping up to be the Clintonian myself and others predicted, not the "most socialist president in history."

I think the accuracy of the "most socialist in the USA" ideal won't be determined until much later, although I must say his policies aren't looking particularly bipartisan from where I'm standing. They are very firmly to the left in the political spectrum, and I don't see the partisanship along party lines coming together any time soon.

 

[corplinx]

He's soooo progressive Cain. Instead of waiting for the normal budget cycle to sign Bush-like taxcut+spend bills, he's doing it in February and calling it stimulus.

That's change you can believe in.

 

[Cain]

I'm against illegitimate torture

Well, let's just say you and I disagree on most of the items you raise. For the stimulus I think it's something almost any President would do just because s/he has to be seen doing something. Bush gave away 700 million dollars Wall Street. Obama, the winner of the election, a man with high popularity ratings (and they won't last), the backing of Congress, still largely caved to the philosophy of Republican tax cuts, which have been working oh-so-well for oh-so-long.

-------
Most of the press reports the Obama administration is "delaying" the investigation of the millions of missing Whitehouse e-mails during Bush's term.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/02/21-4

This AP article begins: "The Obama administration, siding with former President George W. Bush, is trying to kill a lawsuit that seeks to recover what could be millions of missing White House e-mails."

-------
Obama is supposed to now make moves on health care, and I'm sure the result will be disappointing even if we can expect him to implement some version faithful to the unspired plan he discussed on the campaign trail.

Finally, let's talk about Obama-the-socialist on bank nationalization. Doug Henwood has a must-read blog-entry from Feb. 12th: http://doughenwood.wordpress.com/

Now it’s admittedly refreshing to have a president who can talk like this after one who couldn’t. But how much of a departure from Bush’s political philosphy is this really? He admits that the Swedish approach worked better, but then explains that we just can’t do it that way here. It’s un-American, you see. And to make that argument, he mobilizes a lot of nonsense.

Yes, Sweden “had like five banks,” but our major, system-threatening problems come from not that many more institutions. The little guys can be taken care of the usual way, like forced mergers with aid from the FDIC or outright takeovers by the same. Which, by the way, is a kind of nationalization, and something entirely routine, even here in the super-special USA.

He really gets to the heart of it, though, when he gets to the “different cultures” claim. Sweden is a social democracy, and the U.S. isn’t. And so we just have to do things the American way. But our way of doing things is the problem. Several decades of letting financiers do their thing and then bailing them out when they got in trouble have finally put us in a serious crisis. Obama simply cannot get his mind around the fact that our whole economic model is in trouble. So the only way he can imagine getting out of that trouble is by applying the same medicine that got us into trouble. There’s something oddly Hegelian about this: “the hand which inflicts the wound is also the hand that heals it.” But Obama isn’t talking about moving to a higher level of consciousness. Quite the contrary: it looks more like he just wants to go back to the old way of doing things.

Yes, yes, yes, the Swedish model is so un-American... even if the technocrats there were directly inspired by -- oh, I dunno -- FDR!