Obama: I worry progressives may undercut Democratic allies

[madville]

Former President Obama expressed concern about the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, saying he feared it could end up undercutting allies.

Speaking at a town hall event on Saturday for the Obama Foundation in Berlin, the former president spoke about the need for compromise in politics, citing the Affordable Care Act as something that he said signified progress even though it did not achieve all of his aspirations for U.S. health care.

"One of the things I do worry about sometimes among progressives in the United States —maybe it’s true here as well — is a certain kind of rigidity where we say, 'Uh, I’m sorry, this is how it’s going to be,' and then we start sometimes creating what’s called a 'circular firing squad,' where you start shooting at your allies because one of them has strayed from purity on the issues. And when that happens, typically the overall effort and movement weakens," he said.

"So I think whether you are speaking as a citizen or as a political leader or as an organizer … you have to recognize that the way we structure democracy requires you to take into account people who don’t agree with you, and that by definition means you’re not going to get 100 percent of what you want," he added.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/437692-obama-im-worried-progressives-may-form-a-circular-firing-squad

[Gothmog]

1. I miss having a real POTUS

President Obama is still my POTUS

I also share his concern

[murielm99]

2. You can see it happening right here on DU.

[Andy823]

3. Yes

We don't need more of the "my way or the highway" agenda. We have that now with trump, and we know just how much damage that agenda can cause.

[DownriverDem]

35. Their focus

is off. Our focus is to beat trump and the repubs. Their focus & tone is too divisive at times. They want change immediately. I've experienced compromise and inclusion with the Democratic Party in Michigan. It works and makes us stronger.

[theaocp]

36. How is this any more helpful than telling people to eat their peas?

Apparently, progressives need to be treated like disrespectful children and conservatives are the ones who need to be reached out to. What is NOT divisive about this? HAMMER REPUBLICANS. ALL OTHER CONCERNS ARE SECONDARY.

[cstanleytech]

38. No one is saying that rather the point Obama is making is that every Democratic needs to be

willing to bend a little because if you are to rigid you risk breaking in a strong storm.

[theaocp]

41. He didn't call out "every Democrat"(ic)

He called out progressives as a group. If he really wants this to be about who is more flexible, let's have that conversation, cause I'm pretty fucking inflexible when it comes to Republicans. Others, not so much. Maybe we can have a Grand Bargain.

[cstanleytech]

43. Probably because right now some are being pretty vocal but the point is that everyone

both progressive and those that are not need to be willing to bend if they want to get things done.

[theaocp]

44. An awesome point, well based in reality.

Unfortunately, it was either clunkily-delivered or with a motivation I don't agree with.

[cstanleytech]

45. Clunkily-delivered but then again English class was decades ago and I often got D's.

Surprisingly though my reading level tested rather high always.

[creeksneakers2]

61. Let's remember

Last election when Progressives were very active in the primary but a substantial portion of them were no help at all in the general election. Those who participate in primaries but then rip everybody off by not supporting the nominee deserve no respect in my book.

[bobGandolf]

83. Ditto creeksneakers2

We all know what the Democrats number one goal is....defeat Trump and Republicans. So what we need now is for all Democrats to check themselves before speaking....that means conservative, moderate, and progressive, aka liberal, Democrats need to make sure their criticisms of other Democrats are focused on specific aspects of a primary opponents campaign message. That means no generalized criticisms: too progressive/liberal, moderates are republican light, conservative Dems no better than being republican....etc

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. Wise words from a wise man.

[Wounded Bear]

5. All well and good, but...

when the "other side" refuses to compromise and is the party that states "this is how it's gonna be," what are we to do?

Compromising with RW zealots got us this far, teetering on the edge. When all the compromising is done by one side, it loses its abiltiy to moderate behavior. Our big problem now is that nobody is willing to admit how far to the right we have been driven by Supply Siders and Christian Dominionists.

Sorry, but the country needs a juge yank to the left just to get back to that mythical middle everybody likes to talk about.

I love Pres Obama and appriciate how he doesn't want to declare war on Repubs, but it sure feels like they declared war on us.

[doompatrol39]

8. "a huge yank to the left, just to get back to the middle"

Exactly. Which is what I fear about all the Joe Biden love (and to a lesser degree Beto). Yes, we need someone who can win but we also need someone who will have the stomach to undo everything that the Republicans have done (even though some of it, like the Supreme Court cannot be undone).

[DownriverDem]

49. Biden is that

someone. He has a lot of legislative experience. He represents normalcy that the country craves. The yank to the middle could very well win the presidency for the Dems. We have to appeal to the country to win the electoral college. Biden can win his home state of Pennsylvania. He can win the rust belt states. trump needs those states to win. Biden running with a progressive Dem would be a formidable ticket. These are not normal times.

[doompatrol39]

60. Maybe Biden can win, but there is no way..

...he'll be a hard yank. We've allowed the "center" to be moved so far right that it's become meaningless.

[zentrum]

50. +++++

[dogman]

11. Merrick Garland

We need to push as hard and far left as we can. They have driven the Judiciary so far right for so many decades to come. Their feelings and desires are already protected. We need to stand for ours.

[DownriverDem]

51. Yes but

I'm against infighting. My focus is beating the crap out of the repubs and trump. We don't have time for purity fights. We aren't a purity party and never have been.

[dogman]

57. Where is the infighting?

Who is denouncing purity while calling out a faction? So why does he go there now? Our fight is for our future and we don't have time for half-steps.

[zentrum]

52. Exactly.

[stopdiggin]

19. Compromise

Compromise is a dirty word only in the minds of zealots (and the woefully naive).

Walking back the damage that has been done is going to be a LONG, and POLITICAL, struggle. The Democratic party is going to have to discipline itself toward a smart and strategic campaign that might well have to run for several generations. And, yes, there will be compromises made along the way. That's the way politics are played.

I don't mean to be discouraging. I love the fact that the rank and file are marching in the streets. We CAN win. We will win. The Democratic message is vastly more popular with the general public than the Republican one (which, in fact, has become borderline toxic to many). The "tax cuts" fooled no one. The border separations stink like rancid meat. Our foreign policy has become Manchurian (and scary as hell to many "conservatives&quot .

But also keep in mind that gerrymandering has lots of statehouses (and lots of house districts) firmly in Republican hands .. sometime into the foreseeable future. WHOMEVER is elected in 2020 (and 24) will of necessity be dealing with lots of Rs. Now, and most likely into the future.

In CA they're debating whether Kamala is really a "progressive" In Iowa they're wondering if (please God!) they might have a chance of taking out Steve King with the garbage! We have to listen, and respond. to both. Right?

Point is, we have to be smart. And we have to be ready to play the long game.
(And I, for one, would welcome Obama .. and his level head .. back in a second!)

[Bernardo de La Paz]

47. I think Obama was talking in a broader way: including those within D Party & independent allies.

Obama was not just talking about "the other side". He was talking about our side; Democrats.

I think he would not want to transfer the Republicon-Democrat polarization from the outside into the inside of our party! To not demonize any part of the Party. To not polarize against any part of the Party. To not require purity tests. To work together with all parts of the Party.

With regard to Healthcare, for example, it is important that people who are Single-Payer supporters not be rigid and totally refuse compromise if the plan is not pure and if any Republicons want to join in if they can trade a couple of issues. Likewise, centrists (purple-tinged) in the party should compromise so they can work with the most liberal people in the party.

The reference to "purity tests" is deliberate. There are those who want purity tests for Franken and Biden for example so that they can exclude one or the other if they don't happen to align perfectly with their positions in political space.

[pandr32]

6. He is right about this

It is happening.

The whole purpose of our two party system was to temper progress so that momentum had stability. Now we have the two extreme ends not working for the good of the nation at all, but for the interests of a select few/group. It has become about all about power and self-interest. This is not good for us or the world.

[pangaia]

13. We do NOT have "two extreme ends not working for the good of the nation at all, but for the

interests of a select few."

There is ONE extreme end doing that.

[Susan Calvin]

24. Yep.

[LiberalLovinLug]

46. I can understand there is one "extreme end not working for the good of the nation"

But what are you defining as the other "extreme end"? The end that simply wants what all other western democracies enjoy? Even those with Conservative governments? Maternity leave, decent min wage, limited gun control, environmental protection?

So sick of having to define simple modern day standards that every other gd nations have, as the Democratic EXTREME LEFTIST PURIST RAINBOWS AND UNICORNS!!! Why not shut up, and start normalizing those ideals instead of normalizing NOT having those things?

I honestly think that if the Democrats came out with one voice FOR these things, and used all the power of the gab they had, they could help move the needle even more towards support of those. But hanging back, biting your nails about raising issues that actually make you stand out very differently from Republicans, is deemed too risky.

[area51]

56. +1 n/t

[doompatrol39]

7. The problem is.....

....that approach (especially when you add in his love of compromising at the outset), results in 10 steps backward under every Republican administration, and only 5 steps forward under a Democratic one.

Which means that with each passing decade plus, we find ourselves regressing as a country, which is where we've found ourselves right now.

[Susan Calvin]

25. Bingo. nt

[Autumn]

32. Funny how that works isn't it? Start out compromising from the Republican position

has worked out great for middle of the road politicians but not the little guy who votes for them. That's why we shoulder the burden while corporations and the wealthy get the breaks.

[Raine]

81. EXACTLY nt

[4now]

9. We should try to be smart this time

[theaocp]

10. Here's something to learn

You don't get what you want by starting the negotiations with what you think they other side will take. That is stupid negotiating, but it's ALL we here from TPTB. Stop it already. Also, I fucking worry REPUBLICANS will undercut DEMOCRATS. For all those crying about AOC not going after Republicans, talk to actual influential leaders, too. Republicans are rigid and inflexible. Fight them, AND ONLY THEM.

[peggysue2]

12. First we have to win

Nothing gets done or accomplished without winning the WH. In fact, everything gets exponentially worse if Trump and his Republican enablers continue. So, IMHO, electability is EVERYTHING because the fight is existential in nature. For the country and for all our people. Even the loose-cannons.

If there's one thing we should be able to unite around is the drumbeat another poster presented:

JUST. BEAT. TRUMP.

A complete, total repudiation of Trumpism at the ballot box is the first order of business. Everything else is secondary at this point because we're bleeding every day.

The Democratic candidate who proves he/she can take Trump to the woodshed for a full knockdown is the individual I'll support in the end.

Nothing else matters! Because as hideous as Trump is? He could still win. Then all bets are off.

[Ferrets are Cool]

14. As long as he is not suggesting that we compromise with

REPUGS, I'm all for it.
I will deny any attempts to have me compromise with a fucking repug.

And since when has being PROGRESSIVE been a bad word?

[AlexSFCA]

23. since BS equated it with socialism

doing GOP’s work much easier.

[theaocp]

37. Yea, they would have left the language alone if it wasn't for that meddling Senator.

HAMMER AND DESTROY REPUBLICANS. Progressives and Democrats are on the same side.

[pangaia]

15. I do not agree with Obama that we need a middle of the road candidate..

And you certainly don;t get even 50% of what you want (which in the present case is WAY too little) by starting at 50%.

[Susan Calvin]

26. Yep. Not the way to buy a car. nt

[Buckeyeblue]

29. I don't think that is what he is saying

What he is saying is that if you have a purity test you might very well end up with a candidate who cannot win. Getting most of what you want is better than getting nothing. Or less than nothing which is what happens when Republicans win.

He's right.

[happybird]

33. +1

[pangaia]

39. I understand that.

So, if a progressive wants to stick to his or her ideas, it is a purity test.
But, if a .. what.... moderate.... wants to stick to his or her ideas it is ........ well,really, it is also a purity test.

I think a progressive can win.

[Buckeyeblue]

58. But if a pure progressive doesn't get the nomination do progressives still vote for her/him?

That's the key. If progressives stay home or vote third party because the nominee isn't a pure progressive, then we are all fucked. That's what Obama is saying.

[pangaia]

62. I see. That would be a problem again.

So, do you think 'moderates' would stay home if, say, Sanders were the nominee ?

[Buckeyeblue]

65. I hope not. Bernie is not my choice but I will vote for him if he is the nominee.

[leftynyc]

88. I'll vote for him with

a clothespin on my nose knowing he's going to lose spectacularly. I mean a 48 state romp.

[Buckeyeblue]

89. I don't think he can win either

[LanternWaste]

92. I do not agree with your inference he implied a "middle of the road" candidate.

It's not at all supported by his words.

[yaesu]

16. When It comes to Democratic candidates I would like to follow this simple rule on DU

& everywhere else during this election process, If You Don't Have Anything Nice To Say, Don't Say Anything At All. Thanks mom.

[DirtEdonE]

17. We're over-thinking this again

Election Day is one day. We either win or lose. We have to do whatever we need to do - lie, cheat, steal - to win, because that's what they do.

Every repubican president since Eisnehower has cheated to win. nixon dealt with the enemy to scuttle the Paris peace talks. reagan dealt with the enemy to scuttle the Iranian hostage negotiations. Bush just flat-out stole two fucking elections.

trump sold out our entire nation to the fucking pootin crime syndicate.

We need to do whatever it takes to win even if we have to introduce our own computer virus into the bullshit electronic voting system.

Losing is no longer an option.

[theaocp]

18. Sorry, but we don't advocate hacking the election process.

We are not Republicans. Try harder.

[DirtEdonE]

66. Try harder?

When your opponent cheats and the referees are on their side then it's time to retaliate in kind.

Losing is no longer an option. It's win this one time or lose for good.

How about we win an election first then worry about remaining Democrats later while we still can?

[theaocp]

69. You literally just advocated we not be Democrats.

On this site. After pushing for election fraud. Wow.

[DirtEdonE]

70. No, I advocate winning

Losing is no longer an option. If they cheat to win then we have to cheat to stop them.

Then we can make America DEMOCRATIC instead of a repubican dictatorship - which is what it will be if we lose in 2020.

[DirtEdonE]

76. Cheating

repubicans have cheated in every election since Eisenhower. How do you win against them without cheating in return?

I advocate the anything to win strategy because we can no longer afford to lose. I can't believe that anyone on this site would advocate losing again like we did in 2016 because this purity trip we're on is leading us right down that road again.

They cheat. They win. We lose. But we're as pure as Ivory soap. Whoopee.

"In any social system, there are three main reasons why cheaters win. First, mechanisms for detecting and punishing cheaters are often weak or gameable. Few checks exist to prevent scientists from manipulating data, and some athletes consistently outfox drug testing regimes. Second, although cheaters can harm the honest and cause long-term social decline, cheating can also be extremely beneficial, for both cheaters and those who support them. Major League Baseball began profiting greatly in the late 1990s from an unprecedented explosion of power-hitting, and was thus incentivized to delay confronting the fact that the explosion was fuelled by steroids. Third, trying to catch cheaters is often costly, unrewarding and risky. Most people would rather be trying to succeed in their own jobs, instead of spending energy policing colleagues. Evidence of fraud can be hard to obtain, and flimsily-backed accusations can damage the accuser’s reputation. And cheaters have a great interest in defending themselves, so if you’re going to go after them, brace yourself for a counterattack.

But there’s an even more fundamental reason, one that’s more subtle than the three just discussed, for why cheating prevails: it is inherently and uniquely empowering to individuals, and therefore uniquely corrupting to organizations. People cheat in the first place only because they believe it will afford a more efficient and certain path to success than they would obtain by playing fair, and they’re often right. Cheating can be marvellously advantageous, and once cheaters gain a foothold, they can quickly take over an organization, rising to prominence and dominance just as Armstrong did in cycling. And when cheaters gain more power, the reasons described above for why cheaters win become of greater concern. More powerful cheaters are more threatening to would-be whistleblowers, and better able to discourage the creation of effective sanctioning systems (lest they be caught themselves); and because their high status allows them to benefit colleagues so much, their colleagues gain strong incentives to support their regime.

To solve a cheating problem in any organization, a key question should be: have the cheaters already become powerful enough to render the organization incapable of summoning the will to police itself?"

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/darwin-eternity/201211/why-cheaters-win

[scardycat]

20. Yea we cant treat this like a generic election...

This asshat in office needs to go before he start ww3 and we are worrying about purity tests in the dem party...come on!

[DirtEdonE]

72. Come on is right!

I was in my doctor's office the other day. There are young women working there. They're all for trump! YAY!

They don't even know why they're for him. Something about hating Democrats. But we should definitely try to win their votes by purifying ourselves.

[GemDigger]

21. "lie, cheat, steal - to win"

would make us no better than the lying, cheating, stealing republicans. I don't want to be that person or that party.

[DirtEdonE]

71. Would you rather be a loser?

Do you want to be that person and that party? Because that's what we are now and it's now working out too well, in case no one has noticed.

[GemDigger]

79. I would rather not use the republicans way of winning.

It makes us no better than them. I strongly dislike and have NO respect for liars, cheaters and thieves so why on earth would I want to be one of them.

[nolabear]

31. Oh HELL no.

[WillowTree]

75. Well......yeah. Of course. Because two wrongs make a right.............right?

Screw that!

[DirtEdonE]

77. If 2 wrongs don't make a right then what does 2 trump terms make?

A dictatorship. But hey, your conscience will be clear when the re-education camps start filling up.

[WillowTree]

80. Such drama!

[DirtEdonE]

85. You call it drama?

Wait until 2024 and see what you call it.

[DirtEdonE]

90. This drama is a redux

"Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow."

...

"...in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’"

"And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have."

...

"...one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head."

https://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

[AlexSFCA]

22. pure gold

Makes perfect sense as always. I suggest we all start to focus on just one thing: beating trump. Forget about policies, issues for now - they will only matter if we win so they are largely irrelvant right now. We must support a candidate who is most likely to beat trump even if it means not supporting our first choice. If there is empirical evidence that Biden is most likely to beat trump then we all should support him even in the primary, not just general. Unity is of extreme importance right now. If Biden wins the nomination, he must select VP based on empirical evidence who is most likely help him beat trump even if it turns out to be not a woman.

[LiberalLovinLug]

27. Throwing the term "purity" around can be done by both sides.

Its used more here by those that use it as Barack does, against the social progressives that have been pushed off to the side for decades, that are the purists for daring to want to make as bold a moves back from the right as the Republicans have pushed the country so far to the right.

But it could also be applied to the party purists that are cripplingly loyal to the status quo, to the Third Way corporatist first crowd. They have their donors in place they've taken years to establish. They accuse progressives of muddying up the pure waters of doing things the same way over and expecting different results. Or that it would boo scarey to push for things like Medicare For All, maternity leave, higher minimum wage, limited gun control,.....EVEN THOUGH MOST AMERICANS POLL IN FAVOR OF THOSE!

Then there's the third version which is customized to apply to only one of our candidates. Bernie Sanders. He would be defined too much a purist (to progressive principles) by the DLC Dems ....and at the same time, is accused by the very same crowd, if you can believe it, as NOT being pure enough because he is not a full time Democrat. He's an "unpure purist"!

[theaocp]

40. That's why we need to HAMMER AND DESTROY REPUBLICANS

instead of pointing the purity label at each other. As an unabashed fucking LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE, I'm happy to work with my side to accomplish the destruction of the Republican party. I hope more will join this movement. Thanks for your post. It was awesome.

[LiberalLovinLug]

42. +1000

[redstatebluegirl]

28. This is my fear as well.

[Pepsidog]

30. I don't recall Republicans compromising on the ACA. In fact wasn't it passed by reconciliation?

[KG]

34. I lulz'd

[dogman]

48. What was the compromise on Card Check?

Justice was compromised and we see warmongers back leading the charge to war while the Iran Agreement is thrown out.We need to put the gop before that firing squad.

[scuciti]

53. Another " Grand Bargain"

How about just progress, just real solutions to problems everyday Americans face? Imagining a grand bargain or golden compromise with rebugs is ludicrous and never worked for Obama. He and Hillary and moderate democrats lost to Trump. So let's take a new tack. Call it pragmatic or "solutionists". or whatever. But don't worry its going to be labeled as far left no matter what.

[SidDithers]

54. DU rec...nt

Sid

[Anders8]

55. Using the ACA as an example, really? How many GOP votes did he manage after all the concessions?

It was Edward Kennedy, from his deathbed, being intransigent?

The House passed a good Bill - thank you Nancy Pelosi! Who was it really, that caused the ACA to be less than what it could have been?

Yeah, I'm really worried that demanding Progressives are the problem.

[OilemFirchen]

67. Obama had to compromise with DEMOCRATS.

Do you understand his point now?

[0rganism]

59. welcome back Middle Man

we missed you very much.


now tell us, oh wise and respected Middle Man, what would be the optimal way for us to compromise with President Donald J. Trump?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

63. Yup. 'Cause that shit worked wonders last time. nt

[mountain grammy]

68. Yep.

[riverine]

73. But Middle Man has more Democratic accomplishments than anyone

with the exceptions of FDR and LBJ - who both had more favorable Congressional situations.

Far Left Man has been a dismal failure.

[Apple Fritter]

64. Trump is a symptom of stagnation

Obama's win on change and better progressive ideas really was something but the actual amount of change disillusioned lots of people. He made changes and fought an uphill battle, but I think what's worse is the snail pace of change that was happening. I guess that's why there was a split in the party in 2016 and on. It's been clear that going even more left is an attempt to catch up to the issues the country urgently needs to address.

[gulliver]

74. Purism is just misguided opposition to true progressivism and liberalism.

I think maybe we are all starting to realize that. I'm glad Obama is making the point. I'm glad AOC supports Pelosi. Sense. Hope for sense is in the air.

[Kurt V.]

78. pres obama fails to see that *steps* is what got us here. we're simply running out time for steps.

[Raine]

82. Seems it's always progressives that are expected to compromise. nt

[treestar]

84. Everyone is

Especially considering that we have to get nonvoters to vote.

[Trumpocalypse]

91. Some progressives refused to compromise in 2016

and either stayed home or voted for Jill Stein.

So how has them sitting on their ideological high horse and refusing to compromise work out.

[leftynyc]

86. He's 100% correct

We are clamoring over reparations, socialism and a whole host of crap that the average American has no concept of while the average person only wants to make sure they'll be able to feed their kids, pay for their mortgage, send their kids to college. The easy to understand concept of 2 different justice systems for the rich/poor, white/brown gets drowned out with BULLSHIT.

[Autumn]

87. I don't think it's the progressives that he should be worrying about. nt