Being the lesser of two evils can never earn whole hearted support from honest people.
Stanley and Anna Greenberg ask if Obama was "Bad for Democrats". Their column points to how the party lost seats in the off-year elections and failed to win a majority large enough to offset the vagaries of the Electoral College in the context of strategic FBI and Russian meddling.
The Greenbergs never acknowledge structures of white supremacy and attitudes of racism that certainly "colored" every interpretation of Obama's actions and demeanor. This obviously wore heavily on the man, and enabled his (our) enemies to largely keep him in check.
But the Greenbergs' most deleterious omission was any direct reference to the negative power of concentrated wealth. FDR was the only modern presidential politician who could call out "the malefactors of great wealth" and publicly mock them, defy them, attack them, and "welcome their hate". But FDR, of course, was not only "white", he was a born and bred member of the opulent classes.
Obama played a careful game in the constraints of a shattered and still fragile economy. Yes, he "failed" to venture into the risky territory of naked class warfare. That means he was more calculating than bold. But the story of ObamaCare puts all that into its correct perspective.
The Affordable Care Act was barely passed despite a Democratic Congressional majority. Not a single Republican offered any support despite the fact that the bill's provisions had been largely cooked up in Conservative and Republican circles. And his reward? A devastating setback in the next off-year election.
Obama may have been bad for Democrats. But the Democrats (as currently constituted with their dependence on corporate$) are bad for themselves - and bad for the country. Being the lesser of two evils can never earn wholehearted support from honest people.
The Greenbergs never acknowledge structures of white supremacy and attitudes of racism that certainly "colored" every interpretation of Obama's actions and demeanor. This obviously wore heavily on the man, and enabled his (our) enemies to largely keep him in check.
But the Greenbergs' most deleterious omission was any direct reference to the negative power of concentrated wealth. FDR was the only modern presidential politician who could call out "the malefactors of great wealth" and publicly mock them, defy them, attack them, and "welcome their hate". But FDR, of course, was not only "white", he was a born and bred member of the opulent classes.
Obama played a careful game in the constraints of a shattered and still fragile economy. Yes, he "failed" to venture into the risky territory of naked class warfare. That means he was more calculating than bold. But the story of ObamaCare puts all that into its correct perspective.
The Affordable Care Act was barely passed despite a Democratic Congressional majority. Not a single Republican offered any support despite the fact that the bill's provisions had been largely cooked up in Conservative and Republican circles. And his reward? A devastating setback in the next off-year election.
Obama may have been bad for Democrats. But the Democrats (as currently constituted with their dependence on corporate$) are bad for themselves - and bad for the country. Being the lesser of two evils can never earn wholehearted support from honest people.
No comments:
Post a Comment