Yeah, better this person who a large % of our citizens believe isn't an American and hates America would have just gotten into office and OVERTHROWN all the past practices of hundreds of years!!!That would have worked well. Perhaps it's time for the complainers and carpers to actually DO SOMETHING themselves to "change" things...like voting out some of the oldies in Congress...working for term limits...OR maybe just inform themselves beyond watching cable/network TV news opinions...

On the other, liberals want the president to re-write the establishment's rules and raze the existing power structure.
And conservatives are lying and then complaining, saying Obama *really is* doing that! They can't have it both ways, but I wish Obama was more like conservatives falsely accuse him of being. If we don't raze much of the existing power structure, it will raze us. Raise us, Obama; don't raze us.

If Obama is not going to raze the power structure, then progressives are just going to have to roll up their sleeves and raze it for him.

Was there widespread talk that Democrats would suffer in the 1936 midterms because liberals were unsatisfied the compromises FDR accepted?
Small point, but 1936 was not a midterm election--it was the year FDR ran for (and won overwhelmingly) his 2nd term as president.

I don't know how FDR changed the direction of Washington politics. But I remember how Reagan changed things. He came into the presidency and immediately started changing the paradigm. He told Americans that government was the problem, that private enterprise was the only source for solutions, that the wealthy were the source of all innovation and that labor was nothing more than an impediment to progress.

There was resistance from the mainstream media. But Reagan was able to weave a skillful blend of Hollywood-style nationalism -- about how "It's morning in American" and how America was a special, blessed country -- to capture the imagination of voters. By the end of Reagan's presidency, his new paradigm had become conventional wisdom, a condition that continues to this day.

If Obama really wants change, then he has to start tearing down the existing conventional wisdom. And he needs to replace Hollywood history with real history.

The West wasn't settled by rugged individualists who packed their family into a wagon and headed out alone. Settlers arrived in wagon trains that carried dozens of families, and those families worked together to create new communities. The settlers didn't turn their backs on Washington, they depended on the federal government to supply soldiers (many of whom were black) to keep the peace. Free enterprise built the transcontinental railways, but they did it by cruelly exploiting their minority workers.

We, as a country, need to tear existing institutions down to their foundations and rebuild them. We need to end our fossil fuel economy. We need to replace an education system that is based on a 19th century agricultural society. And we need to re-establish FDRs regulations on Wall Street -- the ones that brought the country out of the Great Depression, that helped us win WW II and that aided the post-war boom years.

You don't change a horse-drawn wagon into an automobile by adding power windows and bucket seats to the wagon.

Dancer

You have hit the nail on the head. Lots of self righteous complainers out there. Thanks for speaking up. Obama is doing a great job on many difficult issues.

I don't think comparisons to Reagan are apt. Reagan was a known quantity, he ran on essentially the same platform for decades, and he finally won because the country moved to him. Obama was an unknown, he ran once -- yes, on "change," as all nominees of the party out of power do, especially when the incumbent is unpopular -- but never as a strong populist or leftist. He ran as a problem-solver, with a reputation (such as he had) of being a relatively moderate insider, and that is how he's governed.

I would add that, IMHO, attempting any kind of strongly ideologically motivated agenda of any time in the situation in which he found himself -- including a near depression and two unpopular wars -- would have been a catastrophe. The Right is already trying to split the country apart at a time when it desperately needs common action to address serious problems, and any assistance from the White House would have assisted them with their agenda, to the ruin of pretty much everybody.

Put another way, it's always dangerous to re-make the airplane when you're in flight, but it's just stupid to do so when you're in the middle of a storm.

And as for Lieberman, "revenge is a dish best served cold."

Mr. Benen, regarding this quote:

"I do, however, have a related question, especially for historians in the audience. When FDR got Social Security through Congress, the benefits were negligible, and the program excluded agricultural workers, domestic workers, the self-employed, railroad employees, government employees, clergy, and those who worked for non-profits. The original Social Security bill offered no benefits for dependents or survivors, and included no cost-of-living increases. Women and minorities were, for lack of a better word, screwed."

I believe you are on the right track (pardon the expression). It is far too early to either praise or condemn the health reform bill. Thus far, the reform seems far more inclusive than SS did in the beginning. But keep in mind your idea of comparison and consider what we have a "work in progress".

It is easy to get lost in a forest full of trees. The opposition has made a mess of any ability of the populace to concentrate on the issue at hand by continuing to reforest the argument. Thus, both sides, conservative and socialist, believe they have been cheated as they continue to stumble over fallen branches.

But Mr. Obama may have the last laugh. This bill has only SS to which to be subservient in the annals of the Republic. This health reform may be superior to Civil Rights and Medicare. And once again, the Rs didn't do it!

(We should keep in mind that under FDR many of his "progressives" came from the Republican ranks. Granted, that party has been taken over by a radical element whose only platform is ideology. Perhaps that should be a lesson to the basic faction of the current Democratic party?)

Raze the existing structure, right. Because that shock-and-awe style works so well.

FDR was navigating a very different political landscape than what Pres. Obama finds himself facing. Fresh in the memories of Americans were the Great War, the Bonus marchers, and Hoovervilles! Palmer's raids in the early 20s set the tone for fear of communism, and old Uncle Joe wasn't disappointing in his menacing ways. Authoritarianism did have a receptive audience in our American aviating hero Lindbergh and Father Coughlin was poking the soft white underbelly of our know-nothingism. FDR seemed to most Americans the saner choice given so much dispair and uncertainty.

I think Pres. Obama is very much the policy pragmatist he is for the simple reason he is fighting institutional entrenchment. Play out the hands dealt, and work a winnings into real tangible capital. Now that's what I'm seeing from our current Administration. To attempt an overhaul in too fast a time is to not be effective for the generations yet to come.

I just wish my friends on the left can see the wisdom of such political strategy! -Kevo

I think some of the left is burdened with unreleastic expectations. Did they really think that he'd get into office and change everything in a year? Seriously? Obama is working within a very entrenched broken system, making progress where he can, and trying to keep the lids on about a dozen boiling pots.

I personally think Obama is doing fine-- no surprises really-- and some days I even think he's doing really well considering everything he's up against. I continue to respect and admire him, I don't think there is probably anyone who could be doing as well (or better) as he is at the moment.

Count me in as a pragmatic, patient progressive who knowingly voted for a center-left moderate man with a reasonable, thoughtful temperament.

Hey, if you think Obama is so awful imagine what McCain would be doing right now and what the impact of that might be. Not pretty.

To answer Steve's question: Social Security was enacted more than two years into FDR's first term, in 1935, and wasn't originally an FDR initiative, anyway. So using it as your analogy to Obama's legislative agenda in 2009 is misconceived.

And since FDR's first reelection in 1936 remains the biggest landslide in American history, that's probably not the right benchmark for 2012, either. FDR started in a different place than Obama -- and Obama will surely wind up someplace else, as well.

Between FDR's election in November 1932 and when he took office in March 1933, the Great Depression (which was already pretty deep) had taken a disastrous downturn. Unemployment reached record highs (25%, not counting millions more, like women, who weren't considered part of the workforce). It was likely that the following winter would see widespread starvation in the American heartland -- literal, not figurative famine.

That set up the political situation in 1933, which was nothing like this year.

In 1932, Democrats defeated 9 incumbents and picked up 12 seats in the Senate; Republicans lost 101 seats (and Democrats gained 97 of 'em) in the House -- the Democratic majority in the House was 50 seats greater than it is now, while their Senate majority was not unlike it is today (60-35).

But look at the results:

Never mind the first 100 Days -- in the first two weeks of FDR's Presidency, Congress didn't even bother to vote on several of his key initiatives, which were enacted unanimously, e.g., the Emergency Banking Act. Republicans who still held national office either supported 'em, or kept their mouths shut. FDR's initiatives during his first two years included extraordinarily efficient make-work programs to give unemployed men something, anything to do in order to earn the money FDR printed to give them something to spend, and FDR managed to get food out so they had something to buy. The first two years of FDR's presidency were an astonishing achievement, and it was all his improvision.

By contrast, FDR was essentially pushed -- more or less willingly, but pushed nevertheless -- by the Townsend Plan to invent Social Security after his first mid-term election in 1934.

What actually happened with FDR and the politics surrounding him was this: from 1932-1937, he utterly dominated Congress, but actually solving the Depression wasn't done with political popularity. It took time, which cut into his political popularity. Yet in 1934 (which is the proper analogy to the 2010 elections, after all) the mid-term election when historically the party that won the White House loses ground in Congress, 9 more Republican Senators lost to Democrats. In the House Democrats actually picked up another 9 seats in 1934, where losing that many would have been a significant achievement.

In 1936, Democrats continued to gain Senate and House seats (while Republicans actually managed to lose 'em even faster): the Democratic majority was 76-17 in the Senate and 334 to 88 in the House.

That's when FDR over-stepped, and the New Deal essentially ground to a halt: in the 1938 elections, he targetted 10 opponents -- including Democrats, notably House Rules Chair John O'Connor, who came from his home state of NY and who was brother to FDR's best friend and law partner, Basil (later the head of FDR's favorite charity, the March of Dimes).

Of all FDR's targetted opponents, ONLY O'Connor was defeated in 1938 -- and him, in a Democratic primary: no Republican FDR wanted to defeat lost in 1938, nor in 1940.

So, no: there were no liberals who went after FDR the way Dean or Kos have gone after Obama over health care.

The one you might be thinking about is Huey Long (assassinated in 1935): he opposed the National Recovery Act cuz it didn't go far enough, as well as Glass-Steagall (which separated commercial lending from home loans).

But of the many things Dean and Kos are like, Huey Long ain't one of 'em.

Without question, start your background reading with Arthur Schlesinger's three volume, Age of Roosevelt. Written in the 1950s, this is the received wisdom of his generation about the cause and course of the Great Depression. Use modern bibilographies about the Great Depression with caution. On the web, they tend to be dominate by revisionists anxious to covert the gullible. Anything by Austrian School economists, Ludwig Von Mises Institute are suspect. Be especially wary of anything by Murray Rothbard, an old Roosevelt hater, who, like today's Republican Conservatives. Tries to blame the Depression on liberalism instead of the failure of capitalism.
Rothbard is the inspiration for neo-revisionist Amity Shales' nonsense.

But you are right to want to go back to contemporary accounts. That's the way they perceived it was, which is the closest our generation can get to "the Truth," because we weren't there!

About the reaction to FDR and the SS Act, etc., check out http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/fdr-couldnt-do-it/

As usual, voters project on candidates what they want. This was never more true than with Barack Obama. If you look at his record as a state senator (I'm from Illinois, and I followed it), you can see that his success there was due to working within the power structure. He forged bipartisan agreements to get some significant legislation passed.

True, there was "Yes, we can" and "Change you can believe in." But a lot of that was banning lobbyist influence and working in a bipartisan manner with the opposition. In a push-and-pull kind of way, with some setbacks, the Obama White House has opened up the processes. And it was Republicans who shut down bipartisanship.

Re the Reagan comparison: It wasn't "Morning in America" until the 1984 election, when Mondale effectively lost the election during his acceptance speech at the convention by pledging to raise taxes. Reagan was elected in a close contest in 1980. Carter was seen as a failure in many ways because of the Iranian hostage crisis; the failed rescue attempt that left the American would-be rescuers killed in the desert; the state of the economy; inflation; etc. etc. Americans didn't warm up to Jimmy Carter until he became an ex-president.

Reagan connected to many Americans (not me, certainly) by saying government was the problem. While that still resonates with some Americans (the teabagging set), enough Americans today realize that we need government help in so many ways.

But there was never an attempt -- really not until this year -- to totally vilify the president. However many rotten things liberals said and wrote about George W. Bush, it never rose to the vitriolic level of what Obama has faced.

Yes, I know American history is filled with examples of extreme, angry hate-filled speech and writing against political candidates, but this is unparalleled. One reason is that Democrats have not stood up for Obama. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid wrote a piece saying these actions by teabaggers are un-American, and the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks have a field day, claiming they're trying to "shut down free speech." And the media just play along, afraid of being labeled "liberal," even though we know that's a farce.

I don't know who is more chicken -- the media establishment or Washington Democrats.

I have disagreed with the president on the same grounds as Dean, and FDL and Kos. I feel he compromises when he doesn't need to. However, compared to what we've had the last 30 years (and I include the Clinton administration)the Obama administration, so far, is a tall, cool, drink of water on a hot humid day. He is honoring liberal values.

I'm fully prepared to give Obama every benefit of the doubt, just like so-called conservatives did for W when he was violating all of the tenents of conservatism.

Don't forget Bush openly claimed the "haves" and "have-mores" as his base; shredded the constitution; raided the treasury for Wall Street bankers; and undermined multiple institutions with the enthusiastic support of the same people who now claim he wasn't really a conservative. The same people who are now marching and protesting Obama as he tries to fix the problems.

To answer your questions Steve, yes, there were liberals who believed Social Security was insufficient. In particular, Dr. Francis Townsend and his followers had been pushing an old age pension plan that they envisioned would guarantee �a $200 a month pension to all citizens over the age of 60 on condition that they renounce gainful employment and agree to spend all the pension within the country in thirty days.� (Schlesinger, The Politics of Upheaval, 35) Congressman John McGroarty introduced such a bill in January 1935 in fact.

The Roosevelt administration had a far less radical bill that would leave millions of old people uncovered and payments would not begin until 1942. As Schlesinger writes, �As for the old-age provisions of the Social Security bill, the Townsend Weekly denounced them as �outrageous�. (Schlesinger, The Politics of Upheaval, 37)

But the worst offense of the Roosevelt administration was its dismissal of the Townsend Plan.

�When Harry Hopkins and Frances Perkins expressed skepticism about the Townsend Plan, the Townsend Weekly lost all hope in Roosevelt and thereafter scathingly attacked all aspects of the New Deal.� (Schlesinger, The Politics of Upheaval, 37)

In addition, although a liberal revolt had not emerged in time to effect the 1934 midterms (which contrary to the popular narrative, were less an expression of approval of the Democratic Party than a call for more radical action. Historian Robert McElvaine writes,

�A closer look at some results from that year indicates that the electorate may have been giving its blessings more to economic morality than to the New Deal per se. In those states and localities where the electorate was presented with a realistic alternative to the left of Roosevelt, the response pointed to a growing desire to see the New Deal move further toward a more equitable distribution of wealth and income.� (McElvaine, The Great Depression, 1929-1941, 229)

Or as McElvaine also writes

�When Wisconsin workers were given the option of voting for a �major� party to the left of the New Deal, they supported it rather than Roosevelt�s Democrats.� (McElvaine, 231)

Lastly, the liberals did begin to revolt against Roosevelt beginning in late 1934 to early 1935. Huey Long expressed this view best.

"(Long) disliked the conservative measures of the first month, such as the Economy Act, and in May denounced the administration on the ground that it was dominated by the same old clique of bankers who had controlled Hoover. 'Parker Gilbert from Morgan & Company, Leffingwell, (Arthur) Ballantine, Eugene Meyer, every one of them are here � what is the use of hemming and hawing? We know who is running the thing.'" (Schlesinger, The Politics of Upheaval, 54)

And this disgruntlement on the left was not something to be taken lightly. When DNC chairman Jim Farley commissioned a poll in early 1935

"The results surprised and dismayed Farley. The poll indicated that Huey Long, running for the presidency on a third-party ticket, could attract as many as four million votes. 'It was easy to conceive a situation,' Farley concluded, 'whereby Long by polling more than 3 million votes might have the balance of power in the 1936 election.'" (Kennedy, 240-241)

Facing a revolt on his left, FDR, the consummate politician, veered leftward in his policies and rhetoric, and I believe this brought about the best policies of his administration - Social Security and the WPA. By 1936, FDR had regained his liberal base, Huey Long was dead by an assassin's bullet (thereby eliminating the possibility of a serious third party challenge), and re-election was assured.

FYI, I wrote a diary on DailyKos somewhat related to the less liberal aspects of FDR's policies. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/24/816461/-How-FDR-Sold-Out-America

The Bush Administration, in trying to establish a unitary executive branch superior to the legislative and judiciary branches, attempted to make "basic changes" to the institutional system. The basic change it wanted was to make the President an elected autocrat and diminish the roles of the other two branches. Liberals correctly saw that as a threat to the Constitution.

So now liberals want Pres. Obama to, what, order Congress to do whatever he wants under, what, threat of dissolution or suspension? Maybe liberals would be happier with Mr. Obama if instead of conciliatory approaches he threatened people who disagree with him -- they loved it when Mr. Bush did it, didn't they!?

Our Constitution establishes the three branches as equal, with assigned roles, to balance each other as a guard against tyranny. The President of the United States does not have the authority to dissolve Congress and call a new election. We do not have a parliamentary system.

The President administers the executive branch of our government. He does not head "the government." The government has three branches that belong to the people.

FDR and the New Deal congress enacted legislation that pushed constitutional questions severely, partly because too much power was transferred to the executive. The Supreme Court upheld some of these laws and overturned others. FDR's famous attempt to increase the size of the Court so he could guarantee himself a majority was rebuffed by public opinion.

One of the changes Pres. Obama is trying to accomplish, I believe, is re-balancing the separate branches of our government. He is specifically encouraging the legislative branch to re-assert itself as independent from the executive, to let the legislature be a legislature. That is a worthy goal and consistent, I think, with the intent of the Founders.

Improving the quality of the members of the legislature is the responsibility of the people.

Steve, there *were* some opponents who thought Soc Sec should have been more liberal than it was. Take a look at the fourth column of this NYT article:

http://pencil-roving.blogspot.com/2009/12/back-to-future-ahead-to-past.html

Well, I see views this way and that about how much Obama could or should have done by now (and is planning too.) On the one hand, he did have an almost uniquely horrible Senatorial circumstance, OTOH we wonder if he could have pressed more here, made better appointments there, etc. It seems then to me, some of Obama's shortcomings are real and others are what hardly anyone could overcome under the conditions. Many say getting rid of Rahm, Summers, Geither and maybe more would help.

In any case, the Democrats must turn more and more away from attachment to Wall Street (see articles about how it corrupts mostly liberal folks like Schumer and B. Frank.) and other Republican-style players. If they're worried about money, at least pitch populism to voters such as how they're getting ripped off by the lower capital gains tax rate, propose taxing stock and commodity trades directly (both measures would reduce bubble pressure), etc. Propose even little things, like requiring banks and funds etc. to pay the same interest rate on all size accounts, instead of the current snub of paying a higher rate on the bigger ones.

And, about that lobbyist influence: how successful was Obama's advertise plan to ban it? I know, don't confuse and blame him for other, conventional lobbying to Legislators - just per the plan he stated.

I wouldn't suggest you start with Schlesinger. Better to try Jean Smith's one-volume biography of FDR http://www.amazon.com/FDR-Jean-Edward-Smith/dp/1400061210.

But if you can swing a trip up the Hudson, actually go SEE Hyde Park -- I had thought Mount Vernon had the best view in America, but I was wrong. Do NOT go to FDR's home without walking out the back door. Trust me on this.

There is a statue of FDR as a young man in the house which really catches a piece of his personality: by all the rules of breeding and nurture, he should have been a world-class snob -- and a prick.

For one thing, how many 15 year old boys have life-size bronze statues?

For another, his half-brother (the same age as his father's trophy wife, FDR's mom) was drinking himself to death just a hundred yards away.

But -- man! if there was a more idyllic boyhood than Franklin Roosevelt's, I've never heard of it: home-schooled by his father and mother, living in what was essentially a small (and rich!) country, he got to shoot anything he wanted -- but his dad (an Roosevelt, after all) insisted that the kid couldn't shoot nesting pairs, and had to mount and catalog each bird.

He learned young how to hand, reef and steer -- which were still working man skills in those days, and are not easier for rich people.

As everybody knows, it was polio that made FDR -- but something else made FDR the guy who transcended polio.

Go see Hyde Park.

Unless the filibuster in he Senate can be broken, very little reform of anything is going to happen. The filibuster is a parliamentary maneuver requiring at present 60 votes for cloture to be able to vote on a bill, nominee, whatever. However, it is no big secret that the filibuster can be broken (probably for good)by a 50 votes plus the VP. The nuclear option is perhaps the best known philibuster-breaking parliamentary maneuver (Google it, if you don't know that).

You think the Republicans would not have used the nuclear option in 2005 if what they wanted wasn't handed to them by a "Gang of 14?? [ They wanted a set of right-wing judges approved for Federal bench positions -- and they got most of what they wanted by threatening the nuclear option.] You think they wouldn't use it again to pass whatever once they again become a majority? Get Real.

If 50 Democratic Senators and the current VP don't have the spine/ cajones to do so, then in all likelihood forget fairy tales with happy endings for this Senate and Chief Executive -- and Democratic control of US Government. I

If there are not 50 votes to end a filibuster, bills or amendments in 2010 to really improve health care reform, climate change, whatever, are essentially exercises in "pass inadequate bills and pronounce those bills as ground-breaking". And hope the American voters don’t notice. Voters on average may be generally uninformed, but their not THAT dumb.

In health care and other issues, Obama and Senate Democrats and many Broderesque bloggers constantly reinforce a meme that liberal or progressive Democrats are easily rolled by those making intransigent demands. This reinforces a long-standing meme that they are wimps, wusses, chumps-- pick your term. McCain, Coker, deMint and most Republicans may be batshit bonkers pushing insane ideologically-based solutions, but they appear much more willing to take a lot of flack to push their agenda. To coin a phrase, politics ain't beanbags. Voters consistently reject candidates they view as weak wimps, no matter what their ideology or personal heroism (Google McGovern, Carter, Kerry, Dukakis, etc).

Frankly, being out of power creates unrealistic notions about the efficacy of being in power. For all the paradigm-shifting done by Reagan, it took until Bush 43 to bring the top income tax rate down to 36%. Certainly the country moved a certain way, but it didn't move that way overnight.

The only way to actually break GOP intransigence is for the Democrats to do well in the 2010 midterms. I hope most progressives can find a way to get on board.

"The president butted heads with an entrenched special interest on health care (insurance companies)"

And he crumpled like a paper cup.

Looking to FDR and Social Security and considering how it was incrementally changed into a worthy program is looking in the wrong direction.

Over the past 30-40 years hoping for incremental improvements of the regulatory state has been wishing for ponies; hoping for incremental improvements to reach a critical mass that would amount to a complete overhaul capable of turning an ineffective program into a cornerstone of the welfare state has been wishing for fire-breathing nuclear-powered space ponies.

Until current institutions are reformed, the comparison to FDR and social Security is appallingly misguided. Health care "reform" that doesn't, from the start, contain strong measures to entrench it as publicly popular, to institute strong regulation, and to narrowly constrain the discretion of regulators is only going to be weakened by regulatory capture and Republican tinkering. That's why the public option was so important; it had the potential to effectively perform all three of those tasks. It was the best choice in the current climate in which we have a government that's far better at providing services than at regulating private providers.

Everyone got a painful lesson in how resistent to change Washington is in the very first weeks of the administration when Republicans -- with the assistance of the media -- were easily able to redefine the meaning and success of "bi-partisanship" from being Obama's good faith effort to involve Republicans and listen seriously to their concerns to Obama's ability to get Republican votes.

So long as the measure of bi-partisanship lay entirely in GOP hands, Republicans were able to accuse Obama of welching on his promise when Republicans (for their own partisan reasons) refused to give him their vote. Thus, Republicans were able to convert their own narrow ideological obstructionism into a larger narrative that it was Obama who was the radical and extremist, based entirely on the fact that he was unacceptable to the radical right faction now controlling the GOP.

It is going to be awfully hard to change that governing dynamic when the neither the public nor the press seem able to identify who the real extremists are.

"When FDR got Social Security through Congress, the benefits were negligible, and the program excluded agricultural workers, domestic workers, the self-employed, railroad employees, government employees, clergy, and those who worked for non-profits. The original Social Security bill offered no benefits for dependents or survivors, and included no cost-of-living increases. Women and minorities were, for lack of a better word, screwed."

But it was a very efficient non-profit government program. The equivalent to today would be if FDR had settled for a for-profit private-sector Social Security program offered by Wall Street, which they could make massive profits on and rake huge commissions from.

FDR would not have accepted that.

In re all of the above (so far):

If more Beltway Brahmans would trade their daily WaPo for the WaMo- and read their daily Political Animal with religiosity- we would be a better nation.

Steve -- your open ended question on this thread has prompted some of the most thoughtful, erudite comments I've seen on this blog in many, many months. It's been quite a history lesson. Please try this technique again on other issues and see of we can get the same results. Somehow I had an idea these kinds of folks were out there!

Can't imagine why anyone would have thought Obama might intend to harness a populist message to shake up the established structures of power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsV2O4fCgjk

Mike,

"Frankly, being out of power creates unrealistic notions about the efficacy of being in power. For all the paradigm-shifting done by Reagan, it took until Bush 43 to bring the top income tax rate down to 36%."

Actually, the 'Tax Reform Act' of 1986 lowered the top federal income tax rate down to 28%.

Disastrous consequences ensued.

"The only way to actually break GOP intransigence is for the Democrats to do well in the 2010 midterms."

Not running on their "Wait Until 2014" platform.

An attempt to make an analogy out of some superficial narrative of insufficiency is just silly b.s., intended to disguise the horror before us.

Obama cannot "solve problems" and leave the existing power structures in place, because, fundamentally, the existing power structures are THE problem. A financial policy that grows the biggest banks is not effective problem-solving. A health insurance reform that ends with health insurance company stocks at a 52 year high, is not effective problem-solving.

FDR was very aggressive in confronting the power structures of the Republican Ascendancy, which had ruled the country from 1894-1930, (with only the brief interregnum of the Wilson years, during which FDR served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, in deliberate imitation of his cousin, Teddy). FDR had prosecuted the iconic Republican oligarch, Andrew Mellon, for tax evasion. He sent Richard Whitney, head of the New York Stock Exchange, to prison. And, with the help of conservative Democrats, like Carter Glass, who largely opposed the New Deal, he was in the process of re-making the institutional foundations of banking and finance, just as he was re-making the foundations of American Agriculture with the Agricultural Assistance Administration.

Everywhere FDR was building institutions, symbolized by the alphabet soup of new agencies, charged with various tasks.

Social Security was significantly no exception. There was a Social Security Administration, and Social Security numbers, and Social Security "accounts". The institutional window-dressing of those accounts would shape the political and social narratives surrounding the program, defeating the conservative charge that it was a "dole".

Obama is doing nothing to dis-establish the established power structures, which, in their greed and incompetence, are eroding the foundations of the country. Nor is he doing anything to build new institutions. His health care reform boasts new rules and regulations, but no means to enforce them, and promises generous subsidies to the politically powerless lower middle class, but provides no means to fund or deliver them.

It is hard to be optimistic, hard to believe that his time is wasted, that all he will accomplish is that he will make himself into a Hoover of the Left, destroying any hope in progressive promises or the continued ability of our democratic institutions to shake off corruption and plutocratic domination, to serve the People.

The progressives are understandably disappointed and frustrated by Obama, probably equally by those Obama supporters who continually give him a pass for his triangulation.

Is been noted before but FDR's famous quote to the progressives of his era was:

"I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

But FDR was unafraid to keep up the rhetorical heat. See the Madison Square Garden speech of 1936. He became more progressive as the Depression wore on, but those tendencies were muted as the coming War gained precedence.

I would also suggest a read of Lincoln's Cooper Union speech. The main theme is not one of bipartisanship and compromise, but rather that the only compromise that the opposition will accept is that they are right, that they have always been right, and that their position is morally right. As Lincoln noted, that is not compromise but capitulation.

That's where the progressives find themselves today. The opposition is so monolithicly opposed, that each concession is essentially negotiating against oneself.

HCR has exposed the true debate: is Obama a reformer in the classical sense, or is he a middle of the road navigator who believes what has occurred in this country over the past 30 years is generally OK, but with some modest course correction required?

Regardless of whether one agrees with their positions or not, the progressives for their own political relevance have to continue to bring pressure to bear otherwise they've lost by default.

At this point I would just echo the sentiments expressed by Dancer above. "Remaking" American democracy is a lot easier for voters to support when the man doing it is a white patrician, himself closely related to a former president. Can you imagine the mayhem that would ensue if Obama overtly tried to upend the bureaucracy?

Mike from Detroit said:
Frankly, being out of power creates unrealistic notions about the efficacy of being in power. For all the paradigm-shifting done by Reagan, it took until Bush 43 to bring the top income tax rate down to 36%. Certainly the country moved a certain way, but it didn't move that way overnight.

This reminds me of a story:

A woman had always wanted to go to college. When her husband died, so considered going but decided she was too old. She explained to her friend that when she graduated in four years she would be 66 years old. Her friend asked her, "And how old will you be if you don't go to college?"

The point is that Obama is one of the best orators of this generation. If he can't start laying the groundwork for change now by mapping a route into a new future, then who can?

By pretending to be (or by actually being) satisfied with tinkering around the edges of our major problems, Obama is re-enforcing the belief among conservatives that things don't need to change, and making liberals believe that Obama doesn't really want things to change.

Reagan changed "conventional wisdom", which allowed Bush Jr. and Bill Clinton to make the changes that fulfilled Reagan's dream. If Obama starts now, he can put us on the road to solve our major problems in a decade or two. If he doesn't, we're sunk.

I just got to say ...the people that post to this site do so in a manner that for the most part is a breath of fresh air. Even those with whom I do not agree always seem to post erudite reasoned arguments backed by factual history. Invariably I learn something or sometimes change my outlook as new facts or considerations are posted. Why we like this place!

Expecting Obama to support a rewrite of Senate rules is foolish unless there are, in fact, 51 Democratic senators sufficiently committed on health care reform (or pick your issue) to take that action. I doubt that they are there. Obama does know how to count votes.

Were there progressive activists at the time who denounced Social Security as inadequate?

Um, the Communists?

"The only way to actually break GOP intransigence is for the Democrats to do well in the 2010 midterms."

Then they probably shouldn't have pissed all over their base, huh?

The problem with Bennen's analysis here is it assumes progressives and Obama have the same goal but different means. on the contrary it's extremely obvious our goals are wildly divergent.

On the other, liberals want the president to re-write the establishment's rules and raze the existing power structure.

And while he's at it, I want him to slap GWBush and Dick Cheney in leg irons.

I'm not about to pretend that razing the existing power structure is not part of my personal agenda just because Barack is having a hard day.

@SteveT

I'd like to respond at length to your post because I think it's typical of what people on the left wing expects of Obama. We hope for him to be the progressive Ronald Reagan. And funny thing, I think that's exactly what Obama wants to be as well. Actually he said as much in his line about it not being the matter of "more or less government, but about better government". I think he sees the goal of his presidency to role back the Reagan revolution and to make it irrelevant as it were.

I don't know how FDR changed the direction of Washington politics. But I remember how Reagan changed things. He came into the presidency and immediately started changing the paradigm. He told Americans that government was the problem, that private enterprise was the only source for solutions, that the wealthy were the source of all innovation and that labor was nothing more than an impediment to progress.

And here is the crux of the matter. Because this is a way of looking at it that just wipes out all history pre-1980.

In reality, the "Reagan revolution" started with Barry Goldwaters 1964 campaign against Lyndon Johnson - tellingly the last zenith precidency of progressivism.

Goldwaters spectacularly losing platform was for most practical purposes identical to the one that Reagan won on 16 years later. Reagan was one of Goldwaters most outspoken and visible fans and that is in reality how Reagan made his name as a politician. This is more or less common knowledge.

Reagan then got a good platform as the governor of California where he spent a lot of time as:

1) The governor of a large state, wielding execute power even though he was regarded as a looney and extremist by many.
2) Using his platform to push his extreme right wing agenda.

All this time, other intellectual and grassroots movements on the right worked ceaselessly for years in advocating their agenda, and making the american people more comfortable with it, pushing the Overton window as it were:

- Buckley and the National Review.
- Birch Society.
- The NRA.
- The christian right, the moral majority etc..

Then when the supreme opportunity - an unpopular, unpopulistic president, a singular economic crisis - appeared, then the foundation had been laid.

And that's the point. Sure, the president can move the center of discourse. But it has costs. For the movement, and the ideology it's preferable if those costs and risks are taken by people with less eposure - by a governer, by a grassroots organization. That's how it happened for the conservatives. America weren't a liberal country, then they elected Reagan out of the blue - and presto!

That's an analysis that's turns a blind eye on history.

There was resistance from the mainstream media. But Reagan was able to weave a skillful blend of Hollywood-style nationalism -- about how "It's morning in American" and how America was a special, blessed country -- to capture the imagination of voters. By the end of Reagan's presidency, his new paradigm had become conventional wisdom, a condition that continues to this day.

If Obama really wants change, then he has to start tearing down the existing conventional wisdom. And he needs to replace Hollywood history with real history.

The West wasn't settled by rugged individualists who packed their family into a wagon and headed out alone. Settlers arrived in wagon trains that carried dozens of families, and those families worked together to create new communities. The settlers didn't turn their backs on Washington, they depended on the federal government to supply soldiers (many of whom were black) to keep the peace. Free enterprise built the transcontinental railways, but they did it by cruelly exploiting their minority workers.

We, as a country, need to tear existing institutions down to their foundations and rebuild them. We need to end our fossil fuel economy. We need to replace an education system that is based on a 19th century agricultural society. And we need to re-establish FDRs regulations on Wall Street -- the ones that brought the country out of the Great Depression, that helped us win WW II and that aided the post-war boom years.

You don't change a horse-drawn wagon into an automobile by adding power windows and bucket seats to the wagon.

Oops, I bungled up quoting and formatting.

Those last 5 paragraphs are from the post I responded to...

I'll just repost it - my appologies

@SteveT

I'd like to respond at length to your post because I think it's typical of what people on the left wing expects of Obama. We hope for him to be the progressive Ronald Reagan. And funny thing, I think that's exactly what Obama wants to be as well. Actually he said as much in his line about it not being the matter of "more or less government, but about better government". I think he sees the goal of his presidency to role back the Reagan revolution and to make it irrelevant as it were.

I don't know how FDR changed the direction of Washington politics. But I remember how Reagan changed things. He came into the presidency and immediately started changing the paradigm. He told Americans that government was the problem, that private enterprise was the only source for solutions, that the wealthy were the source of all innovation and that labor was nothing more than an impediment to progress.

And here is the crux of the matter. Because this is a way of looking at it that just wipes out all history pre-1980.

In reality, the "Reagan revolution" started with Barry Goldwaters 1964 campaign against Lyndon Johnson - tellingly the last zenith precidency of progressivism.

Goldwaters spectacularly losing platform was for most practical purposes identical to the one that Reagan won on 16 years later. Reagan was one of Goldwaters most outspoken and visible fans and that is in reality how Reagan made his name as a politician. This is more or less common knowledge.

Reagan then got a good platform as the governor of California where he spent a lot of time as:

1) The governor of a large state, wielding execute power even though he was regarded as a looney and extremist by many.
2) Using his platform to push his extreme right wing agenda.

All this time, other intellectual and grassroots movements on the right worked ceaselessly for years in advocating their agenda, and making the american people more comfortable with it, pushing the Overton window as it were:

- Buckley and the National Review.
- Birch Society.
- The NRA.
- The christian right, the moral majority etc..

Then when the supreme opportunity - an unpopular, unpopulistic president, a singular economic crisis - appeared, then the foundation had been laid.

And that's the point. Sure, the president can move the center of discourse. But it has costs. For the movement, and the ideology it's preferable if those costs and risks are taken by people with less eposure - by a governer, by a grassroots organization. That's how it happened for the conservatives. America weren't a liberal country, then they elected Reagan out of the blue - and presto!

That's an analysis that's turns a blind eye on history.

So that's the basic point. The foundation has not been laid. Are we willing to take a spectacular defeat now, for a more substantial success in 16 years from now? Because that's what Goldwater and the conservatives did back in 1964.

The democrats with Clinton as the starting point choose another path, one of cautiously tilting the scale back. Obama I think recognize that there is opportunity for somewhat more audasciousness just not extremely much, and not at the start anyway...

What does Adam Nagourney know about liberals?

I know one thing about AdNags - he ought to be ignored.

I'm wondering, however, whether FDR was decried at the time by liberals as a sell-out unwilling to fight for a stronger Social Security bill against entrenched special interests.

Well, I didn't realize this thread had gotten so long when I meant ot add a comment. So I'll just say what I was going to say: FDR had lots of momentum, and lots of calls for action in the '33 and acted. Which gained him tons of credibility. He got himself in a trouble a bit and got out of it by being more liberal.

Obama's MO has been to take very little action and let calls for inaction on the right guide him. And the results show. He didn't get control of the banks, he wasn't able to stand up to the military, he rolled over on the police state and so on. If that had been the tradeoff for single-payer, I could make sense of that, but it's the tradeoff for creating the biggest corporate monopoly I've ever seen.

Perhaps you should try comparing Obama to Wilson and see how that fits. (Although I think he compares best to Clinton, since that's the playbook the WH is running. And if this was 1993, the stuff about rhetoric about healthcare would be appropriate. But it's not 1993, and we have worse problems now.)

max
['Old sailors want wooden ships, old generals want iron men.']

I do think he's doing a good job overall, I still support him as much as before, and I think he's accomplishing a lot...but...but...why do I have this constant feeling that no one in this country is willing or able to stand up to the wingnuts? On *anything?*

Obama promised a lot of razing when he was campaigning. And he failed to follow through. Everything he does rewards the people who caused the problem.

The last president who seriously tried to change anything in Washington got a bullet in his head. Ever since then, they've learned to play along with TPTB.

You look lovingly behind, I'll look cynically forward...

So what's next?

Immigration reform?
Global warming?
Re-regulation of the financial industry?
A jobs bill?

All of these enter the realm of possibility precisely because HCR has passed into reality. If the republican war machine (and the liberal foot-shooters) had successful killed the bill, Obama would be dog-paddling like a lame duck, in shark-infested media waters, towards a midterm waterfall.
Blub... blub... blub...

Instead, I sense a breath of relief, and a tiny shift of momentum that needs to be cultivated very carefully.

My best cynical advice: Force republicans to create something rather than oppose everything. If I'm Barack, I bring them to the table big time in regards to financial regulation. Give these bastards something serious to do. That's where I make my major compromises going forward; all, of course, for the purpose of winning the center for the midterms. It also had the added bonus of getting republicans to actually write their reputations into some future legislation.

My cutthroat geopolitics above are of course informed by my belief that America has been made ungovernable by twenty years of culture wars. The country is basically intellectually dead, at war with itself, and full of hate. So any legislation that passes will be a kludge. And that for as far as the eye can see...

I've come to the conclusion that only one thing that matters going forward: Science. The scientific endeavor has improved more lives in the last 100 years than has all politics. Politics for me now is a means to that end. In a broken country such as this, everything becomes just geopolitics to create room for Science to work its magic. That's why it is so important for me that Barack win in 2012. We've got a president that believes in the efficacy of Science as opposed to a Republican lackey that believes in prayer.

Enough said?
Almost...

To conclude: The empire is in decay. The south is nearly in open revolt over the health care Obamanation and its Death Panels. China will be crisscrossed with bullet trains before we will have a single line. The ice caps are melting. Forty percent of Americans will be obese in a few years. In short we don't have a prayer at winning a better future for ourselves except through Science. Yeah, its a Hail Mary pass for sure... but its all we got left...

Who knows: Maybe some bright child at MIT will discover a smart pill. Because short of benign aliens arriving like Dudely Do-Right in the nick of time to save Nell...
Our future ain't what it used to be...

No doubt a discussion about the President and what our expectations are for policy can shed some light on how we arrived at this situation, but we're dodging the real question going forward:

Are we really on the road to economic recovery (I will argue that HCR is a significant component of America's economic recovery) or are we still just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?

The existing power structure has just maneuvered through what is viewed by all as the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression, and we are now all being re-assured by the same people that caused the disaster that everything is "fixed" whereas experts across the political/economic spectrum are arguing that at best we've kicked the can down the road a year or two, and we've enlarged the can (magnified the problem).

This is not so much a discussion about where the President really stands, or if the policy is progressive enough, it's a discussion about the larger picture - have the systemic economic reforms (which include HCR) kept us from another Great Depression? I would argue that at this point, the chnages proposed in the Senate HCR and the so far almost non-existent financial reform say no, we have not done nearly enough, and not by a little bit, but by a long shot.

Soon, the situation may slip beyond the Democrat's ability to control (i.e. 2010 voter backlash or an economic implosion which we cannot print money to paper over.) At that point, the discussion switches from what is politically possible, to a draconian survival mode. Have we done enough to avoid this possibility?

I've often wished that the economy melted down in '07 rather than '08. Bush and his admin basically got to walk away from the wreckage. I really wish the public would have gotten to watch how the Republicans would have dealt with over a year's worth of a significant recession, then the public may have seen that this was no ordinary recession. If that had happened, I think Obama would have had more a mandate for change than he did. As progressives, I think what we need to watch for is if each time, Obama gets a little more radical, building on his previous accomplishments. If so, alot can be done over eight years. But if his caution remain the same with each challenge, not nearly as much will happen.

It is far too early to either praise or condemn the health reform bill. Thus far, the reform seems far more inclusive than SS did in the beginning. But keep in mind your idea of comparison and consider what we have a "work in progress". - Shadou

Oh, and so you think this bill includes thousands of women who need to make reproductive healthcare decisions, that should include the option of abortion, but under both the House and the Senate versions will make it so onerous to insurance companies that they will no longer offer abortion coverage, even as a privately paid-for RIDER? Is that how you would describe this "inclusive" bill?

Why is it that none of the “It’s-better-than-nothing” commentators seem to mention the fact that both the Senate version and the House version have essentially guaranteed that no insurance company in the United States will offer coverage for abortions? Could it be because they’re all men?? And abortion rights just doesn’t register for them??

I am really tired of being patronized by these “there-there-we-know-better-than-you-about-these complex-social-policy-matters; perfect-the-enemy-of-the-good” guys who are apparently oblivious to the realities of women’s lives and “perfectly” willing to abandon a major piece of social healthcare policy affecting more than half the country’s population (oh, about 159 million with double-X chromosomes) in the name of so-called social progress which will bring help in four years to, say, 30 million people. Yeah, good trade off. Let’s not even mention it.

I've often wished that the economy melted down in '07 rather than '08. Bush and his admin basically got to walk away from the wreckage. I really wish the public would have gotten to watch how the Republicans would have dealt with over a year's worth of a significant recession, then the public may have seen that this was no ordinary recession.

I'd actually make the argument that they knew the economy was imploding LONG BEFORE 2008 or even 2007 and were doing exactly that - nothing but hiding it. Pulling Paulson and Bernanke into the Treasury and the Fed in 2006 was the Bush team switching course as much as possible to keep the whole freaked-up mess from imploding before Bush left office.

The real question is if Obama thinks he can pull off the same stunt for the next eight years. Most of the experts that predicted the 2007/2008 implosion say no.

@Pat

Folks here are having a very reasonable, thoughtful discussion and you barge in and behave like a total and complete ass. Disagree and make your point without resorting to nasty sexual, sexist comments, OK?

As a progressive/leftist I'd like to see us all aspire to conduct ourselves in a way that is respectful and thoughtful, towards one another and espcially towards our host (Steve Benen) who does so year-in and year-out without fail.

Well it's an interesting Underpants Gnome theory of political change: 1. Obama 2. ??? 3. Political Establishment is overthrown and replaced by a tangible improvement. Liberals need to get working on Step 2, which probably involves winning more elections and defeating lots more incumbent Republicans.

zoe kentucky, there is nothing "sexist" about fellatio. The rest of your comments, however, are accurate.
Returning to the theme of the article; I think that what is most upsetting to many liberals/progressives, myself included, is that we were hoping we were getting an FDR and apparently are stuck with a Wilson or a Clinton. Both of the latter have many good things to be said for them, but they aren't in the same class as the former (politcally and socially).
I do have to agree that FDR had a particular set of circumstances, horrible as they were, that worked in his favor. Many historians rank the Great Depression as the second major crisis of this country, the War of Southern Treason being the first. There were possible outcomes, most of them ranging from bad to disastrous, that COULD have occurred but didn't, because the President was FDR and not, say, Al Smith.
My greatest worry is that the "tinkering" simply will not be enough to roll back the corporate takeover of the Federal government. Without that, there simply is NO possible way for actual reforms to be made; there will always be too much resistance.
The final result will either be a corporate oligarchy under a faux "democracy" or some form of explosion when the next economic meltdown occurs. Maybe even a twofer...

Butted heads with the insurance industry? I'm pretty sure they don't feel like it.

The military contractors? Even the military didn't want the stupid F-22 so that was going to die one way or the other.

Don't know about tabacckey.

Private lenders? They're making a killing but throwing us a bone is the result of Obama butting heads with them? Ok I guess.

Someone above said it well: "One of the changes Pres. Obama is trying to accomplish, I believe, is re-balancing the separate branches of our government. He is specifically encouraging the legislative branch to re-assert itself as independent from the executive, to let the legislature be a legislature. That is a worthy goal and consistent, I think, with the intent of the Founders."

The single best legacy Obama can leave future generations is a reinvigoration of Congress. The trick is to get Americans to take what Congress does seriously and get involved in Congressional politics. The decline of American democracy over the past 50 years tracks neatly with the ascendency of the Executive Branch of government.

obama's working "within the power structure" is why both obama's and progressive policy ratings are down. You can't progress new ideas within a structure that is inherently against new ideas - its fundamentally in conflict that has no constituency except Washington DC gasbags.

obama's choice has doomed us to the same old crap: mediocrity is the highest mark achievable, but the most likely outcome to the obama presidency is yet more wind fall for the plutocracy.

"One of the changes Pres. Obama is trying to accomplish, I believe, is re-balancing the separate branches of our government.

oh right. that's why he's out bushed bush on state secrets.

Pluege - you're probably right about the power structure and the difficulty of changing things, but what could Obama actually do? Aside from inspirational things, he basically can tell the legislative team what he wants and sign or reject bills. I wonder if he should see what progressive goals can be accomplished with Signing Statements and the like. Make people like Yoo have to choose between defending the same principle now, or exposing hypocrisy by making a partisan choice.

> But the larger point is nevertheless true --
> Obama has not changed the political structure,
> he's working within it. Accusations about
> "politics as usual" are not unfounded -- the
> agenda and direction of the country changed
> considerably on Inauguration Day, but the rules
> of the game haven't. President Obama's m.o., for
> the most part, seems to be built around choosing
> the issue, getting the best deal he thinks he can
> get, and then moving onto the next issue.

The problem being that since 1996 the "existing power structure" has been force-shifted deeply to the right (getting pretty close to radical territory in fact) by a very organized, big-dollar effort undertaken by both prominent and behind-the-scenes Republicans. And the already-conservative Washington DC media has been both played like a fiddle and moved farther to the right itself during this process. So if Obama simply plays the inside game than he is playing directly into the hard right's phantom "center".

Cranky

Pluege - you're probably right about the power structure and the difficulty of changing things, but what could Obama actually do?

Well, one glaring example of what Obama cab do WITHOUT Congress was just tiptoed through on Christmas eve. Fanny and Freddy have been declared bottomless pits through 2012:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/12/will-continued-stealth-bailout-of-housing-produce-unwanted-side-effects.html

Obama has been bypassing Congress for the Wall St bailout realizing that going back to Congress for another BAILOUT IS POLITICAL SUICIDE IN 2010/2012.

You want to see MASSIVE change Obama can effect right away? Quit bailing out Wall St - let broke, failed companies go to bankruptcy. Let the OTC derivatives market actually fail. This is a MASSIVE transfer of wealth to the very same people that wrecked the world's economy:

http://www.nomiprins.com/bailout.html

And remember, when we hear that the banks paid back TARP - read the report - they just used OTHER taxpayer dollars to pay back TARP. Last count has the banks getting $12.2 trillion.

Pluege - you're probably right about the power structure and the difficulty of changing things, but what could Obama actually do?

I firmly believe obama had a once in 75 year opportunity to shock the system. After the election, the people were with him, they were sick of the republican deadend policies, and they were frightened of the economic collapse. The people were desperate for leadership. In short, I think obama could have accomplished anything, including substantial and real progressive change.

instead of taking the opportunity to make real change, obama chose to re-enforce the status quo. As a result, he disappointed and alienated everyone: the left, the center, and even the not insignificant number of republicans that supported him. He squandered it all to be an accepted Washington DC insider. Now, he has no base other then the hardcore obamafans that have nothing but to keep yelling: clap louder, CLAP LOUDER. Its really a tragedy for humanity.

I firmly believe that obama had greatness in him, but he was not ready for it in 2008, he was 8 years removed from it. Now, he'll never achieve it.

Look back in the 1930s the leftmost mass movement in the USA didn't call itself liberalism, it called itself communism. It was definitely asserted, in The New Republic, that when Roosevelt discovered that his totally inadequate efforts to fight the depression had failed, then he would turn to fascism. There were less clearly insane people who argued that, in practice, there were only two possibilities in the 20th century -- Fascism and Socialism. Oh and that the only model of socialism was the USSR.

The communist party was not a tiny fringe grouplet in the 30s. Relations between the CIO and the Roosevelt administration were often tense, as in illegal strikes and declaring strikes to be illegal (which might show how extremely disrespectful of the rights of organized labor FDR was -- at least during WWII).

Criticism of Obama from the left is nothing, nothing at all, compared to criticism of Roosevelt from the left.

I'm sure Steve Benen's questions are answered better up thread by actual historians. Sorry for commenting without reading

The problem with Bennen's analysis here is it assumes progressives and Obama have the same goal but different means. on the contrary it's extremely obvious our goals are wildly divergent.
Posted by: Tlaloc

It's Benen, not Bennen, and since when do you speak for all, or even most progressives?

"It's Benen, not Bennen,"

Name noted.

"and since when do you speak for all, or even most progressives?"

I speak for those capable of noticing Obama has no interest whatsoever in progressive goals. I have no interest in trying to speak for those who are too blinded to see notice.

The American political process is constipated, or log-jammed by status quo. Is the HC bill in it's current form what I want? Not by any measure. Does it break up the log jam that has paralyzed reform for decades? I think it just might. In other words, it's an opening that has been accomplished - and a vital one. From here, the work begins.

Steve asks about changing the game in DC. I do not think that is a separate issue. The game in DC is most certainly log jammed in it's own ways. But the constant in DC is survival. Same as it ever was... If Obama succeeds in rewriting how health care is managed in this country, it will indeed change the game. For all of human invention and achievement, we're still mostly monkey see, monkey do.
In short, if he succeeds, he will be copied for decades. Thus he'll have changed the culture in DC. If he falls short, not so much.

I speak for those capable of noticing Obama has no interest whatsoever in progressive goals. I have no interest in trying to speak for those who are too blinded to see notice.
Posted by: Tlaloc

in other words, you set the progressive agenda ... if anyone disagrees with you then they're not progressive? am i understanding you correctly?

Talking with my partner about this very issue. She was a Clinton supporter, I was with Obama all along.

Like other liberals I had high hopes, however, it was always *very* clear to me that he is a pragmatic politician. While disappointed his presidency thus far is almost exactly as I expected it to be. Save for the embrace of Lieberman and Pharma. I was really expecting him to loosen the Pharma noose around Washington.

Outside of that this is what I expected. Assuming a 2nd term, that is the one that I'm really interested in. He and that prick Rahm have their eye on 2012 all the freaking time... so much so that i think it will hurt his re-election chances. Time will tell.

I'm content but not happy with the HCR bill. I see it as a great platform to work on and tweak. That first giant step that always seemed insurmountable is done.

Credit to Reid more than Obama.

See Social Security Under the New Deal http://www.thenation.com/doc/19350904/epstein. The author is Abraham Epstein who was a prominent activist in the movement for social security, a term he coined, but an unhappy partisan (and an outsider) with the New Deal's implementation. The currency of the writing reflects the uncertainties of the times and the final shape of the bill. His observation "The Senate bill not only differed much from the original proposal but destroyed every improvement made in the House" speaks for itself in terms of the current Healthcare debate. Other observations concerning inadequacies in funding and in coverage are a couple of strikes that remain on the books and fair warning to the pragmatists who believe the woes of the current healthcare reform bill will get taken care of in the future.

FWIW Roosevelt flip flopped about just what he would cover in his Social Security program when he announced the need for a complete (unemployment, old-age and health insurance) program in June 1934 and a downsized concept in November 1934. His about face was noted in the NY Times by Arthur Krock in an article entitled "The Mystery of the President's Speech or Does the English Language Mean Anything". Similarly, his November speech was characterized as "the cautious conservatism of Franklin Roosevelt" by historian Kenneth Davis. Fortunately, for all of us, the political headwinds were already past what Roosevelt could rein in.

I really never liked "morning" or Reagan. He was nothing outstanding to me and he met a lot of resistance just like Obama has. In fact, Pollster had a graph of Obama's and Reagan's poll numbers and they are virtually identical. His numbers tanked also at first.
Like it or not, Obama will have to be less controversial because he is black. I was listening to c-span this morning while an older lady explained that, "Due to his nationality--black--he should be careful about what he changes." The man has to work with the country of people he has now and they are not all "progressive."

"Obama has not changed the political structure, he's working within it."

Obama is bent on preserving American institutions, even those no longer worth preserving. His conservative critics do not see his essential conservatism.

The establishment forces that Obama contends with are safe and secure . Any frontal engagement is met with , as you see , full throated roars from the galleries of extremest thought . These folks are easily manipulated by the icons of American personality to perform their patriotic duty to defend those same manipulative icons . They have repeatedly demonstrated that their minds are blank and their hearts are raging . The dumb reflex action should continue in most cases as a terminal condition .
It seems to me that the manners in which to wrestle with these powerful and nimble icons is to face them in conventional way exposing their flank which is mild to raging insanity , as well as co-opting the populism which apparently is very persuasive to large numbers of people . Conventional methods of this sort of tactical stalemate usually means long periods of testing strength , looking for a purchase with which to incrementally find advantage in position .
I am a dull plodder with an incendiary temper ill suited for staring contests with hollow arguments posing as virtue and innocence . Obama on the other hand has an inscrutable face much more suited for dealing with single minded ideology .
Thanks to all the contributors who have given me so much to think about . Reading "Nixonland" was good for contextually framing the present struggle . I am enthusiastic now to read one of the Roosevelt biographies , perhaps one suggested here . I suspect the media bias that Bob Somerby is at pains to sniff out , is now at its polar position to what Rick Perelstein documented in "Nixonland" .

obama has chosen mediocrity. Its a shame, a damn shame

There are two forms that problems emanating from Washington can take. The first, who holds office, changes occasionally for senators and representatives and every four to eight years for presidents. The second is how business is conducted. Obama was elected to change the second, otherwise, no matter how effective he proves to be while in office, as soon as he leaves, things will revert to the same old dysfunction that prevailed prior to his taking office.

It turns out that Obama had no intention of changing the way business is conducted. After he won the election, one of the first things he did was embrace Joe Lieberman and Harry Reid. The continuance of Reid as majority leader ensured that Democrats would be guided by a spineless buffoon, when they desperately needed someone bold and charismatic to rally, encourage, push, and even coerce the troops. Rewarding Lieberman for his abhorrent behavior ensured that he would neither respect nor fear either the president or the majority leader. So, the new president passed on his first opportunities to try to change things. Of course, we all know now that this is a president who can't stand disagreement or conflict and when faced with either he responds by bending and caving.

Now, after a year, Obama has shown his true colors. He isn't a transformational president and can't be one as long as business-as-usual is his preferred brand of business. What that means is that when he leaves office, all he will leave behind are individual accomplishments and the government will be just as dysfunctional as it was the day he took office.

It is obvious that lots of Democrats are no more willing to criticize Obama (e.g., when he lies and says he didn't campaign on the public option) than most Republicans were willing initially to criticize Bush. The lengths to which they will go to rationalize, excuse, defend, and minimize Obama's failures (on little things like human rights, say) would be funny if they weren't so pathetic. The point is not to enshrine Obama or tear him down -- it's to get a better government creating a better product.

Obama's failure to convincingly support the public option and his subsequent disowning of it should disgust everyone who wanted the best possible health care reform legislation. Many apologists dismiss Obama's lack of support by claiming that it was never possible to get the public option anyway. But they don't know that anymore than I can claim that if only he'd worked tirelessly to get it included in the legislation, he would have been successful. Failure to get the public option would have reflected a lack of votes; failure to try to get it reflects a lack of conviction and character.

My gripe with Obama is that he claimed he would be different and that we should hold him to a higher standard. I'm sorry, but claiming to favor policy options in order to garner approval from voters, while having no intention of working to have those options included in the legislation is not being different. It's disingenuous at best. Then, having the gall to claim that he never campaigned on the public option qualifies as sickening. It was reasonably clear to me quite some time ago that Obama had no interest in the best bill he could get. He didn't need a good bill. He just needed a bill passed that he could hold up in 2012 as his epic achievement. Since we won't have much of an idea before the next election whether the bill is any good or not, he won't be judged on the quality of the legislation, only its existence. Given that, it wasn't in his political interest to fight for anything, because it didn't really matter what passed -- just so long as it did pass.

Now, Obama says he's going to be in the trenches during reconciliation. Now, he's going to suddenly be involved, he'll twist arms, he'll do whatever is necessary to get the bill passed. Of course he will, because if he doesn't, this could all fall apart and he won't have his gold star for the 2012 campaign. But I'm quite sure that none of his involvement will be designed to strengthen the bill. When and wherever necessary he will fight to weaken the bill if that makes final passage more likely. If Ego Joe returns with a new set of demands, Obama will be fighting on Joe's side to alter the bill to his specifications rather than trying to twist Joe's arm to go along. He has no credibility with Joe, who has already rolled Obama several times and won't stop now.

It's time for the "complainers" to tell the apologists to STFU or, better, BQP. They aren't helping change the political system in this country, they're guaranteeing it won't change, by demonstrating consistently that they have no line in the sand that can't be crossed.

I desperately want Obama to be successful, but I don't define success as re-election in 2012. Obama can do his part to solve the first problem I identified (who holds office) by behaving differently in office. So far, he hasn't. Sure, he's smarter than Bush and more articulate and it's nice to have someone in the Oval Office who isn't a complete idiot. But what Obama doesn't seem to have is a new sense of integrity. This is where we were supposed to hold him to a higher standard and so far he isn't measuring up. Dismissing this "complaint" reveals misguided loyalty. Of course Obama is not going to fulfill all of his campaign promises. But there is a difference between a policy promise (that will generally require congressional approval) and personal/professional behavior, which is entirely up to Obama. When he chooses to lie about campaigning the public option, it isn't a minor transgression. It damages the core of what he could guarantee to deliver. The response to Obama saying that shouldn't have been "Oh, every politician lies." On the contrary, it should have been fifty million emails from lefties, calling him a liar and demanding that he shape up. When a president knows he won't be held accountable, it's not that difficult to predict what his behavior will be.

Those Democrats who are complaining about the whiners (or whining about the complainers) should ask themselves if they really want Obama to squander the opportunity he has to change those things he can change without having to rely on anyone else. If not, then they should call on Obama to act like the transformational figure he promised to be. He can't promise that a public option will be in any final bill, but he can promise to genuinely fight for one or explain why he won't. And regardless of the policy outcome, he can avoid telling the kind of sell-serving lies that have helped earn politicians their reputations as scumbags and sleaze balls.

I posted this comment right after Obama's election:

I didn't vote for Obamba expecting him to usher in a new era of liberalism. I voted for him mostly because he exudes a sense of competence that this country is starving for after 8 years of the Bush administration, and because we seem to share similar worldviews, which is really why most people vote the way they do, as opposed to individual issues or platforms. I fully expect to agree with some of his decisions and disagree with others, but hope to be outraged by very few.

So far he's right on track with my expectation.

I'm wondering, however, whether FDR was decried at the time by liberals as a sell-out unwilling to fight for a stronger Social Security bill against entrenched special interests. Were there progressive activists at the time who denounced Social Security as inadequate? Were there liberal lawmakers who voted with Republicans to kill it because it didn't go far enough? Was there widespread talk that Democrats would suffer in the 1936 midterms because liberals were unsatisfied the compromises FDR accepted?

Summarizing many of the points made above, I would say this:

1. "Liberals" were not the left wing of the party, Communists were. Roosevelt consciously steered away from the left wing of the party with the intention of preventing any chance of a revolution. One should remember that at the time, in some circles, democracy was seen as "quaint" and the only sensible choice was between Fascism and Communism - this was seen as an inevitable result of the industrial revolution and the modern Capitalism. The Great Depression was their proof that modern industrial capitalism inevitably created catastrophic economic conditions. As observed, no one could doubt who was to blame for the Depression: the Republicans who represented big money. (However, I'm dismayed by people who wish the Great Recession had begun in 2007 as I'm not at all convinced that the Bush Administration would have avoided another depression - and that level of misery is not something any of us should wish to live through.)

2. Those people on the left of the party who were not Communists, were clearly stron supporters of State intervention. While Huey Long has already been mentioned, one should also remember that in 1934 Upton Sinclair ran for Governor of California and garnered 890,000 votes running on a platform based on the Social Credit system of wealth redistribution and the End Poverty In California (EPIC) movement. Thus Roosevelt had a much more left leaning Democratic Party than we do today.

3. Roosevelt was a consummate politician known for his slipperiness. Republicans called him a consummate liar, but in truth he tended to let people say what they wanted to believe he was going to do before doing what he had planned all along. Given his patrician background, and his family's wealth and political pedigree, he had access to the upper class in society and used these connections to great effect.

Taken together, these points created a very different situation than we have today: The weight of the Democratic Party is farther to the right; there is not the same eagerness for social intervention in an era of pirate capitalism; he does not have Roosevelt's "blue blood" connections with the financial power structure; and he does not (yet) have Roosevelt's political facility.

However, Paul Krugman has several times pointed out the danger of pulling back from fiscal policies too quickly in order to appease people who are frightened of government intervention in the economy. This mistake, committed by a Roosevelt who believe in fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget, extended the Depression for several years. Let's hope that the Obama administration does not make this fiscal mistake.

Robert Waldmann,

"Look back in the 1930s the leftmost mass movement in the USA didn't call itself liberalism, it called itself communism."

"The communist party was not a tiny fringe grouplet in the 30s."

+

MichMan,

"'Liberals' were not the left wing of the party, Communists were."

What in the world are the two of you smokin' ?

No. The Communists were NEITHER a "mass movement" or the "left wing of the party".

In the 1932 presidential election, the Communist Party garnered about one quarter of one percent of the popular vote. The 'other' vote total was double that.

Get real.

This entry reminded me why I keep coming back here. I used to be most impressed by Steve's prolificacy, but insights like these are the most enjoyable.

Nanuq:

"Oh, and so you think this bill includes thousands of women who need to make reproductive healthcare decisions, that should include the option of abortion, but under both the House and the Senate versions will make it so onerous to insurance companies that they will no longer offer abortion coverage, even as a privately paid-for RIDER? Is that how you would describe this "inclusive" bill?

Why is it that none of the “It’s-better-than-nothing” commentators seem to mention the fact that both the Senate version and the House version have essentially guaranteed that no insurance company in the United States will offer coverage for abortions? Could it be because they’re all men?? And abortion rights just doesn’t register for them??

I am really tired of being patronized by these “there-there-we-know-better-than-you-about-these complex-social-policy-matters; perfect-the-enemy-of-the-good” guys who are apparently oblivious to the realities of women’s lives and “perfectly” willing to abandon a major piece of social healthcare policy affecting more than half the country’s population (oh, about 159 million with double-X chromosomes) in the name of so-called social progress which will bring help in four years to, say, 30 million people. Yeah, good trade off. Let’s not even mention it."

I'm sorry if what I wrote sounded offensive to you. I did not intend that. And I did not mean to imply that the HRC was by any stretch of the imagination satisfactory. My point was to have been that none of the landmark legislation from the Emancipatiuon Proclamation to HRC was very effective at first.

Given the god-awful, stupid opposition in this case, what has succeeded thus far in the course of the bill is a bit breathtaking. The media, the opposition party, even the southern faction of the party supposedly in power, all have posed formidable hurdles. Some pretty tough cookies have tried to get a lot less further than this and have failed. This is at least a start and myriad changes need to be made, I agree. But at least there is a starting point, one which hasn't existed before.

I certainly agree with your point about abortions. And the only women it affects are the poor ones. The rich can always pay for it on their own anyway, here or in the foreign marketplace.

Sorry if you believe I blew that one. But I still contend that this bill is better than none and that it is a starting point, better even than the originations of SS and Medicare, and it damned well wasn't done with any help from the Rs!

@shadou

I can only speak for myself, and for me the reason is that I have (falsely or rightly) gotten the impression that only the house bill with the Stupak language would have that effect. I'm definitely willing to reconsider, but I'd have to see a serious, unbiased analysis first.

Then, I think it's an issue of directing the outrage at the right target. Which is the bluedogs and the ridiculously tilted discourse in their home states.

What we have done this year is to send a solid progressive to the supreme court - one that will not vote to take away a womans right to choose. If McCain had won last year, and the republicans had the congress, we'd have another Scalia or Roberts.

That's the most concrete way I can put how perfect can never be allowed to be the enemy of good, in 2010 and going forward, w/r to a womans right.

Excuse me. Deeds, not words shall speak me. Help me! Can not find sites on the: Distorted wall clock. I found only this - branded wall clock. Then i become to you that the order home in this number could have substantially here next been the transit software, wall clock. Wall clock, distinctive strands find hotels to include down from a effective to medication of elements to a problem of similarities that they expect commuting. With respect :eek:, Abia from Swaziland.