Amid the scampering up and down the fiscal cliff that has recently dominated political life in Washington, some more important and basic questions are in danger of vanishing from view, questions about the general character and progressive potential of Barack Obama’s second term. Questions such as these. Will this administration in the end prove to have been worth fighting for? Will we by 2016 be able to say anything more than “well, at least we avoided a Romney presidency and a Republican clean sweep”? What can we do now to enhance the radical potential of a second Obama term? As we face a new Inaugural and a fresh State of the Union Address, what should progressives be pressing for, the better to differentiate the incoming administration from the outgoing one?
The basic requirements are clear, even if the chances of their delivery are not. Four things in particular now need to be done if this second term is to be, in even a limited way, a genuinely transformative one. A progressive policy agenda needs to be both clearly laid out and unambiguously pursued. The political and social forces underpinning that pursuit need to be systematically strengthened; and the whole public dialogue about the history, character and potential of America needs to be reframed in a distinctly center-left way. We need progressive policies from a redesigned Obama administration. We need administration support for the strengthening of progressive forces. We need a progressive narrative from the President himself; and we need all those things together.
Progressive Policies
We definitely need better and more progressive policies from Obama in the second term than we received from him in his first. We need rapid and effective immigration reform. We need a new “war on poverty.” We need a new and more ambitious “American Jobs Act.” We need direct action to help homeowners avoid foreclosure. We need new protections for trade unions and new rights for working women. We need a trade policy that protects American jobs by strengthening labor rights both at home and abroad. We need new rules to curb the excessive role of money in politics. We need American troops home. We need legislation to reduce America’s carbon footprint. In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, we need immediate and strong gun law reform. We need… a very large number of things.
Progressive Departments
Obama may be no FDR, but even FDR needed two terms in order to successfully implement a lasting set of New Deal initiatives. Obama now has that second chance; and that chance will not be realized without a significant change not only in policy but also in personnel; a veritable culling of the last of the centrist blockages, and a conscious re-ranking of cabinet departments. If this second Obama administration is to be a genuinely progressive one, it will need stronger spending departments than in the first Obama administration. It will also need a Treasury Secretary less wedded to Wall Street, and one more attuned to the potential of large-scale federal spending initiatives as triggers to economic growth. It could also benefit from an institutional change often hinted at by the President: the resetting of the Commerce Department as a proper Industry Department, one orchestrating excellence on the civilian side of the U.S. economy in the way the Pentagon does for the military-industrial side. Education, Energy, Labor, Commerce, and Health and Human Services will all need to be cutting edge departments if this administration is genuinely to improve America’s human capital, reduce America’s over-dependence on fossil fuels, raise the minimum wage and strengthen collective bargaining, deepen protective labor clauses in future trade agreements, and turn the promise of the Affordable Care Act into the new and permanent institutional architecture of a revamped American health care system.
Progressive Forces
None of that will be easy to implement, of course, because conservative Republicans still control the House of Representatives, and because the momentarily-shaken conservative media machine will soon be back once more in full play, disseminating its regular nonsense with its usual enthusiasm. Which is why, if the second Obama term is to be more progressive than the first, we will also need a deliberate strengthening of key progressive institutions and social forces, and a consciously adopted strategy to win back Democratic control of the House of Representatives in 2014. To strengthen progressive social forces, the second-term Obama White House will need to maintain its strong activist base, using it to advocate and agitate for progressive goals. And among those goals must be legislation to roll back the Republicans’ “right to work” crusade, and campaigns to legitimate the role and importance of public sector trade unionism. No more bashing of teachers unions in Democratic Party explanations of how to achieve real educational reform. No more White House silence as low-paid workers, in stores as ubiquitous as Walmart, struggle for the right to organize. Instead, the new White House will need to pitch strong progressive policies as the only viable solution to our current growth and unemployment impasse – pass those policies through the Senate and bring them before the House – the better to demonstrate, week upon week, that any gridlock in Washington D.C. remains the product of Republican intransigence, not of Democratic ineptitude.
Progressive Narratives
But that strategy will not work on the scale required unless Barack Obama in his second term also does one other fundamental thing. We need him to make a sharp and distinct break from the conservative narrative now dominant in Washington: the narrative that says that success in America is always the product of small government, low taxes and unregulated private enterprise. The Republicans may have lost the White House but they still command the framing of the American political mind. Basic Republican myths were inadequately challenged during the first Obama term: the myth that federal spending hurts rather than facilitates economic growth, the myth that only the private sector creates “real” jobs, the myth that excessive corporate taxation spurs outsourcing, the myth that welfare spending is too high. To this day, Ronald Reagan figures too highly and too regularly in the Washington beltway’s American pantheon. FDR, by contrast, figures there too little and too rarely. All that needs to change. American greatness needs to be tied again to a politics of equality and fairness. It needs to be tied again to the pursuit of social justice and the erosion of economic privilege. It needs to be tied again to a twenty-first century version of FDR’s New Deal. Americans need to hear – and to hear over and over again – not the old hoary Reaganite nonsense that government is part of America’s problem, but the liberal and progressive counter-assertion that intelligent governance is a core part of America’s solution!
The Democrats will not win back the House of Representatives in 2014 unless new and sizeable chunks of the American electorate have by then already been persuaded of the need for progressive rather than conservative or libertarian solutions to our dominant economic and social ills. And they will not have been so persuaded unless the Obama White House uses its newly-acquired electoral legitimacy to argue strongly and regularly the case for regulated markets, the case for strategic public spending, the case for a green route to long-term economic competitiveness, the case for positive as well as negative freedom, and the case for a return to a foreign policy of multilateral alliances and limited foreign military engagement. This President is a gifted speaker. He now needs to become a progressive and a hegemonic one; and the question that remains unanswered, as his second term begins is whether he is on board for that hegemonic task.
These arguments are more fully developed in David Coates, Pursuing the Progressive Case? Observing Obama in Real Time
Jeez, David, have you been asleep for the last four years? What about Obama — either during the last four years or his previously unremarkable record as either a US Senator or IL state senator — gave you the impression that he is “progressive”? A friend of mine from IL who had Obama as a law school prof probably described him best before Obama took office in 2008, when he saw an Obama admin will be characterized by “ruthless pragmatism.” Just so. Yes, the man can give a great speech. But that’s about as long as his “progressivism” lasts, isn’t that perfectly obvious by now?
Back in 2011, I wrote an article for the US publication In These Times directed at people such as yourself who are letting your hopes and desires blind you to reality about this president. I pass it on to you now, because nothing has changed:
“Was Rahm Right? If progressive don’t realize how much they’ve been had by President Obama, they are “f—ing retarded.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/7080/was_rahm_right/
You are having a fantasy man — again! — good god wake up!!
Steven Hill
Dear Steven
How good to hear from you, and in such measured tones! Since you ask have I been asleep, I suggest you read Pursuing the Progressive Case? Observing Obama in Real Time. You will find out that I have not; and that the question mark in the title is not there by chance.
Dear Steven, let’s try this again – with the full response this time!
Dear Steven
How good to hear from you, and in such measured tones! Since you ask have I been asleep, I suggest you read Pursuing the Progressive Case? Observing Obama in Real Time. You will find out that I have not; and that the question mark in the title is not there by chance.
In the specifics of this posting, you will notice too that it is numbered “1’. There is a second piece already posted on The Huffington Post and to follow here. You might find in that a slightly more nuanced view of Obama as a potential progressive than you ascribe to me here. Too nuanced still for you, I’m sure, but a better basis for a full public exchange, if that is truly what you want.
To open that exchange, let me say this to you (and to anyone following us)
l. The thing we have to wake up too more than anything else is the particularly reactionary character of the American Right. The fact that Obama won saved us from the full privatization of Medicare, the replacement of Social Security by Individual Savings Accounts, and so on. There is therefore a strong progressive argument for supporting Obama on defensive grounds, which quoting Rohm Emanuel’s expletives doesn’t quite capture. Obama is not the perfect progressive candidate – that I readily concede – but even if his progressive glass is half empty (or just even a quarter full) that to my mind is light years better than the policy (domestic and foreign) that would have been our fate had Romney won.
2. So is there any progressive liquid in the Obama glass? He may be just a ruthless pragmatist as you say, but it is striking that he chose in his first term to be ruthlessly pragmatic about, among other things, extending health cover to 30 million more Americans – including as it happens to members of my own family. The Affordable Care Act does not meet all my ideal requirements any more than I guess it meets yours, but it is a significant improvement on what was there before. It may not be sufficiently progressive, but from where my family stands it represents genuine progress. To think (as some on the left do) that Obama should have taken a principled stand on a single-payer system seems to be a good example of fantasy thinking – the very thing of which you accuse me. A single-payer system would not pass in the 112th Congress. The Affordable Care Act did – and did so in no small measure because of progressive pressure.
3. In the next four years some further progressive reform may well be possible; but it certainly won’t happen unless we push for it – particularly by focusing immense efforts on winning back Democratic Party control of the House of Representatives. So who is fantasizing here and who is not? Your political reform program is ideal, but is it realizable now: and if it isn’t, where is the harm in pushing Obama on specific policies while he occupies the White House while simultaneously campaigning for more fundamental reform? I don’t see a contradiction there. Do you?
3. Finally this. I know feelings run high, but tone is important. Rahm Emanuel is not a good role model for debates on the Left. There are more subtle ways of insulting each other – and I guess we should try and avoid them all. I certainly intend to.
I am awake. I am sure you are. Why don’t we just calmly talk to each other?
Best wishes
David