Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
From Lenin's Tomb:
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-two-constituencies.html
Obama's Two Constituencies
At its simplest, Obama's electoral coalition can be expressed as comprising Wall Street dough on the one hand, and most oppressed social groups on the other, including African Americans, Latinos, women, and the poorer working class white voters (those earning less than $50,000 a year). As Socialist Worker put it last week:Obama won huge support from the African-American population – some 95 percent of black voters backed him.
He also won two thirds of the Latino vote. This was a significant win – the Latino population favoured George Bush in 2004, and during the primaries they rallied behind Hillary Clinton.
One factor was crucial in breaking support for the Republicans among Latinos – the immigrant rights demonstrations of May 2006.
More than two million Latinos and their supporters came onto the streets to protest against a vicious anti-immigrant bill being pushed by the Republicans.
The vital question is, what are the majority of Obama's supporters going to do? For example, if those immigrant workers who marched in such vast numbers in 2006 recognise that they have not so much a friend in the White House as a brief window of opportunity opened up by a slightly more humane policy, they may well be the cutting edge of popular movements of the future. Immigrant groups are already protesting the escalation of ICE raids under Bush, and are pressuring Obama to scale them back. Any reforms they can win will enhance their ability to organise, and all indications are that they are the most militant and effective organisers when given the chance. They will drive up wages and conditions for other workers too. Similarly, if the antiwar movement has learned from its huge setback in 2004, when it subordinated its campaigns to help the pro-war Kerry to victory, then it can limit Obama's scope for widening America's brutal engagements in south Asia and Africa, and for any subversion in Latin America. Obama is already hinting through subordinates that he may be 'flexible' on withdrawal from Iraq, which means he may back off his already vague electoral promises. Given that the Sadrists are about to toss out the gradualist 'withdrawal' plan with its 'status of forces agreement', it would be an ideal point for the antiwar movement to apply pressure for rapid withdrawal with no further delays. The momentum that went into securing Obama's victory shouldn't be dropped for a second. Larry Summers, another Clinton-era revamp in the Obama administration (and former Reaganaut), is warning Wall Street backers that the administration won't be able to diminish the government's involvement in healthcare, and therefore any cost reductions will have to come from efficiency savings. The intriguing thing about this is that the emphasis for the corporate audience is miles away from the promise of increased government involvement to support universal healthcare that Obama has been touting. So, again, this is an issue on which organised labour in particular will have to be actively campaigning about right away. This is becoming a critical issue as state and city budgets plummet due to the economic crisis - so, if Obama can support a bail-out for investment banks, he ought to be able to bail out city treasuries to support existing public services, at a minimum. As it stands, threats of cuts to education and health budgets are already current.
The one advantage that the Left has now is that Obama needs his active constituents. He could not have won 'blue-collar' Pennsylvania as well as Jesse Helms' old state of North Carolina without them, and he can't necessarily repeat his success in 2012 without giving them something. So, there is an opportunity now to decisively shape the agenda of the new administration, precisely because their aim is to contain social movements and stabilise American capitalism. Silence and passivity at this point will simply be rewarded with condescending lectures, put-downs, attacks, and the occasional bit of flattery.
First they ignore you (check); then they laugh at you (check); then they fight you, then you win.
Our political system is afflicted by many, many problems. A lack of bipartisanship hasn't been one of them.
There are systemic problems in the country and in the world that will require good faith efforts to work together with those whom we may disagree. So long as we live in a two-party political culture, those two parties must work together with a measure of civility to solve those problems. As currently practiced in the U.S., partisanship precludes civic discourse.
The problem with our current political structure is that political partisanship in the U.S. is an industry. The two major political parties have become little more than Coke and Pepsi battling over customers with marketing campaigns, spokespeople, and jingles designed solely to sell the product. Perhaps more aptly, partisanship is like a professional sports league with just two teams in it; you root for your team and despise the other. Partisanship is the reason for FOX-News' existence, and the reason for MSNBC's rise; it is the animating purpose behind much of the professional political blogosphere. It is, in short, BIG BIG business. It is also one of the primary reasons the U.S. has been essentially dysfunctional for 40 years. I hope Obama can help change this.
Before when he kept the dems in their slim majority, Lieberman held the dems hostage with "do as I say or I am out." Now Obama can say "Do as I say or you are out."
He spent the whole year accusing Obama of being a subversive, surrender-happy, anti-Israel, troop-abandoning Marxist and hailing every right-wing policy he could find. He's repeatedly accused war opponents of weakening the U.S. When he ran for re-election, his top supporters were Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, and he only won because most Republicans voted for him. And now he's being rewarded for all of that with a top Chairmanship.
I'm sure he's absolutely petrified by the oh-so-credible threat that he will be punished if he misbehaves -- and this time they really mean it!!
Keeping Lieberman won't do anything except stall investigations into the Bush 'legacy' and prove a stinging embarrassment to the moderate republican party.
Actually on second thought, being moderate republicans, this makes perfect sense...
I am however disgusted in the inept and cowardice in this countries opposition party. Just what the hell do they oppose now?
Christ, they back torture (well most of it) they back 'disappearing' people in the dark of night, they back the government being in our lives like a cancer, they back giving industries that ruined their own corporations through either malice or ineptitude, they back crappy education, they back little or no economic regulations on Wall Street... What the hell DO they stand for?
There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again.
I'm done with the republican party. Is there any way that I can get my contributions back? I feel like such a fool...
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
