Sick of seeing meaningless epithets "corporatist" and "neoliberal" hurled at progressives like Obama

[DanTex]

Let's be very clear. Obama was a progressive. Just a few of his major accomplishments:
Prevented a second great depression.
Dodd-Frank, strongest financial regulations since WW2.
Expanding healthcare to millions of people while reducing cost growth.
Saving the auto industry with large state intervention.
Embracing stimulus and rejecting austerity, resulting in a much stronger and faster recovery than Europe.
Deal with Iran.
Paris agreement on Climate Change, and significant progress domestically through executive orders.
Raised taxes on the wealthy.
Etc.


Then there's the long list of things that he was for but got blocked by the GOP:
Public option
Minimum wage hike
Large infrastructure/green energy investments
Employee free choice
Student loan reform
Immigration reform with path to citizenship
Etc.


Nobody in their right mind can look at this and say it's not progressive. Which makes the whole "Dems lost because they aren't progressive" argument utterly absurd.

To be fair, Obama's tenure was not flawless. Some people didn't like TARP (necessary, but should have done more for homeowners). Some people don't like TPP (I'm neutral). Some people think we should have let Gadafi mass murder his own people like we did in Rwanda instead of join the Europe-led humanitarian intervention. Some people blame the Syrian civil war on Obama for reasons that are totally bewildering because Obama didn't hardly do anything in Syria. And so on.

Fine, there will always be mistakes, nits to pick, but that doesn't change the fact that overall he was great progressive leader. If you are determined to to paint someone in a bad light and focus exclusively on a few shortcomings, then none of the supposed progressive Democratic heros of the past will survive. Just briefly:
FDR interred the Japanese.
Truman dropped nukes.
JFK invaded Cuba unprovoked during peacetime.
LBJ oversaw the Vietnam escalation.

Oh, and all those presidents were pro-trade. But for some reason, when it comes to Obama, the far-left insists on ignoring his entire record and just scream "neoliberal corporatist" because of a few areas of policy disagreement.

[JHan]

1. I also think Obama is more keenly aware of pros and cons of the TPP than many give him credit for..

yet there's no end of ridiculous theories as to why he supports it: he was "threatened" , and in league with "them" (those people who want to oppress people) and he's now a "corporatist hack". I haven't agreed with everything Obama has done, but the shallow arguments are tiresome.

[charlyvi]

2. This times 1000

[killbotfactory]

3. Neoliberal is not meaningless.

And the public option wasn't blocked by the GOP, it was blocked by other Democrats in the pocket of major insurers. The GOP wanted nothing to do with healthcare reform.

[DanTex]

4. It has become meaningless based on how it's used.

You're right about the public option, it was blocked by a few conservative Dems. Still can't be blamed on Obama.

[Exilednight]

5. I do blame Obama for not using it

As his starting point of negotiating.

[DanTex]

8. The public option? He did use that as his starting point.

[Exilednight]

12. No he didn't. KO did a whole segment and dedicated a

complete diatribe admonishing Obama for not using it as a starting point.

[NCTraveler]

14. You just rewrote history. Well done.

Made the ops point.

[Exilednight]

20. You obviously did not pay attention during the debate.

Keith Olbermann did a whole segment on this during the start of negotiations.

[NCTraveler]

22. Obviously.

[JCanete]

6. The problem is that our party needs the consent of rich institutions too much.

They do successfully manage to make deals with these institutions, sure...but these institutions don't put the same kind of backing behind them that is put behind republicans because they do just as well, and for the most part probably far better, under a Republican regime.

There is no disputing that Democrats are better than Republicans but they can't try to operate in the middle and get either A) enough corporate support to overwhelm their opponents, or B) enough populist support to counter the influence of the corporate media.

It would be very hard for me to look at Obama and think that he were cynically selling out the country. I don't believe he, nor Bill, nor Hillary intended to do that. That doesn't mean I think they see the world the way I do either though. And it doesn't mean that even if they do, I agree with whether or not their strategy has been a winning one for progressive ideals.

That said, I think Obama is an amazing human being, and from the get-go I thought his strategy of being so accommodating to the GOP might shame them into being reasonable, but I was forgetting the mechanisms of power, and just how little the GOP had to answer to public opinion, due to gerrymandered districts, and a media that didn't bother to pique the public's ire.

Yes though. I'm in agreement that we don't have to call them names or assume the worst in them and I won't. That said, I find it worth listening to those who see it differently from both sides of me, whether from the likes of Cenk in the throws his least generous tirades or you here.

[Demsrule86]

9. I guess maybe we should have voted for Gore instead of protest voting with Saradan and electing

George Bush...which lead to United... if you don't support your party and your candidate this is what happens.

[JCanete]

10. The media always makes the race close. If we had a bigger edge they would have still made it

close enough to steal. We need to fight the fucking corporate media, and that means fighting the corporations that own it.


Granted, Obama clobbered his opponents. I will say there is the rare candidate that can weather every media generated storm, but it is a very rare one.

[Jakes Progress]

24. And gullible, easily distracted people

will fall for the media hype and shit every time.

[mcar]

7. It's easier for folks to toss out these catchphrases

than to actually do a little research and see what Obama, HRC and Democrats actually stand for.

[betsuni]

11. Yes. When I see those words I know the person doesn't know what they're talking about.

Something about "FDR progressives" battling heroically against meanie neoliberal third-way corporatist Democrats. It's like when I tried to read "The Hobbit" -- too much fantasy and I couldn't keep track of what was going on.

[SharonClark]

25. You made my day :)

[baldguy]

13. And the progressive candidate Clinton would have followed on & expanded upon all of these.

[otohara]

15. The Alt-Lefty Media

loves trashing our outgoing president and Democrats.

Never pure enough for them...

[killbotfactory]

16. The government is in the hands of the gop

If now is not the time for criticism, when is?

[Adrahil]

33. I'll happily criticize those on our left wing....

... who would throw the baby out with the bath water.

Frankly, I've just about had it with the "more progressive than thou" contingent.

[R B Garr]

17. Agreed. It's all just contrived and divisive name calling. So phony. n/t

[BlueMTexpat]

18. I am also sick of seeing

these epithets hurled at Hillary Clinton.

Those who do so do not know what they are talking about. They apparently believe that they sound intelligent.

[AngryAmish]

19. If Obama was a corporatist or neoliberal then why would he support TPP?

It makes no sense.

[oasis]

21. Time to give credit when credit is due.

Michelle Obama was an added bonus for America.

[Jakes Progress]

23. A lot of people are feeling guilty

for not voting or voting third party or voting for Hillary after spending months convincing others not to.

So they need these lies to assuage their conscience for what they know they have done.

[Lil Missy]

26. But, .... but .... no pony!

[Cha]

27. Obama is a Progressive President.. we're lucky to have him..

He knew what he could get with ACA.. they didn't have the votes for single payer.. everyone knows that. They barely got ACA.

He's earned my trust over the years.. I'll take his strategy over anonymous posters on the internet. Too many cheap shots thrown at Obama on this board over the years.

And, now millions are going to be without the help they need if the goputz' get their way.

[zipplewrath]

28. You realize Obama disagrees with you

He has defined himself as a "moderate" on more than one occasion and attempted to distance himself from liberals and progressives, even going so far as to call them to task for their positions.

Doesn't mean he hasn't cooperated with them on many occasions, but he often intentionally took far more "moderate" or "centrist" positions because that is where he preferred to be.

A differentiation probably needs to be made between ones "beliefs" and ones "intentions". He may agree with progressives "in principal" but his intention is to govern from a more centrist or moderate position.

[DanTex]

29. I don't think I've ever heard Obama use the terms "neoliberal" or "corporatist".

Must have missed that.

[zipplewrath]

30. Neither have I

But I have also heard him avoid being labeled a progressive or a liberal as you have attempted to do.

[DanTex]

31. He has called himself both a moderate and a progressive at different points.

His policies were progressive. If someone wants to call him "center-left", that's fine with me, because I believe you can be both progressive and center-left.

The OP is about people calling him "neoliberal" and "corporatist" which is just stupid.

[zipplewrath]

32. Well, he is

He is far more than that. And those are labels which describe his policies, not any that he would choose to assign to himself. More over, anyone can create an identity based upon various policy positions, and then point out which politician fits within the description. It doesn't really mean much since of course it leaves out as much as it defines. (What's the "corporatists" position of the two state solution?). So people have come up with definitions of neoliberal and corporatist such that they fit their point. No, Obama wouldn't agree with either the label, or the description of his positions, but the people that define these terms would.

So are you arguing the semantics or the policy positions?

[DanTex]

34. I'm arguing policy positions.

Obama's policy positions are neither "neoliberal" nor "corporatist". As I showed in the OP, by listing his policy positions.

And far left idiots don't get to simply redefine terms. The term "corporatist" is particularly amusing because the people on the far left that use it have no idea what it actually means. At least "neoliberal" has a definition that somewhat resembles what the Naderites use it to mean, but it has nothing to do with Obama's policies. Sure, if you define "neoliberal" and "corporatist" to mean what the rest of the world thinks of as "progressive", then in a twisted way, they would apply to Obama. But that's stupid.

[zipplewrath]

35. Well, I'm not sure even Obama would agree with you

There are versions of corporatism that Obama would espouse to a great extent, especially neo-corporatism. One could argue that the general concept underlying the various kinds are very close to his positions. The accusation of corporatism comes from his announced belief in the benefits of corporations (and their profits) to society in general. It is the underlying reason for his support of bank rescues and protecting the bonuses of the bankers.

But really, more importantly, did you understand the original authors point or did you just object to the semantics he used to make it?

[DanTex]

36. "Corporatism" and "corporate profits" have nothing to do with each other.

The root "corporate" of the term "corporatism" doesn't refer to a private, for-profit company (e.g. a limited liability corporation in US law), it refers to an interest group in society, closer to a guild than a private company. Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

If you want to redefine "corporatism" to mean the belief that private for-profit companies provide benefits to society, that would make everyone who is not an outright communist a "corporatist".

And the reason for the bank rescues had nothing to do with protecting bonuses. The reason was that if the banks collapsed, we would be facing a second great depression.

[zipplewrath]

37. I think you need to read Timmy's book

He explained why he felt he had no choice but to protect the bonuses of the bankers.

The "corporate" part is more related to the neo-liberal version, where the government is seen as the balancer or broker between labor and the corporate interests. He asserted as much in his TPP negotiations in his explanations why he ultimately excluded union (and environmental) groups from the last year or so of the negotiations, asserting that he (his administration) was managing their interests.

By the by, the "corporate" includes just about any group of shared interest populations, under which a corporation obviously falls.

[DanTex]

38. So you are insisting on the incorrect definition of the term "corporatist". OK then...

About TARP, the choices were to either bail out the banks or have a second depression. You'd have to be pretty deranged to hate capitalism so much that you would actually allow so many people to go through that much suffering just to see Wall Street collapse. Personally I'm glad that Obama wasn't a communist, which is the only ideology that I can imagine would have supported that decision.

[zipplewrath]

39. False dichotomy

There were more choices under TARP than "Save the bonuses" and "Collapse the economy". He could have paid less for the "toxic assets" to ensure that the profits weren't earned. That would have prevented the bonuses. Timmy was afraid if he didn't let them "earn" their bonus, that they'd quit.

And yes, their use of the term corporatist is less than perfect, but not completely wrong. Furthermore, language evolves. As long as you understand their point and position, argue the point, not the semantics. There's far too much concern around here about HOW things are said instead of WHAT is being said.

[DanTex]

40. There was no "save the bonuses" plan. That's pure fiction.

The plan was to save the economy. And it worked, the economy was saved. Paying less for TARP assets wouldn't have blocked the bonuses, which were a very small fraction of the TARP money, and anyway the valuation wasn't done by Obama it was done by bureaucrats using some combination of valuation models and auctions (I don't know the details, but I'm sure they're on the internet).

Haven't read Geithner's book but I'm pretty sure what he was referring there is the AIG bonuses, which where tricky because AIG had a pre-existing contractual obligation. At best you are talking about one specific instance where Geithner thought it was necessary to honor legally binding bonus contracts totalling about $200M (which is nothing in the scheme of things), and as you said his purpose was not to reward or enrich bankers, his purpose was to ensure that the people who would be able to unwind the trades would stay around rather than quit and sue AIG for contract violations. Maybe he was right in that, maybe he was wrong, who knows. Who cares.

Nobody, including Obama, thinks its a good thing that bankers paid themselves bonuses with TARP money. In fact Obama imposed rules to prevent that. Yeah, maybe he could have put in more effective rules, but your description of "save the bonuses" as being the objective of TARP as opposed to an unfortunate side effect is patently absurd.

As far as language evolving, sure, that happens. But the definition of "corporatist" has not evolved. It's just that the far left has decided to redefine the term for its own purposes. And even that might be OK if they actually gave some kind of definition of the word, but they don't. They just use it as an empty attack on Democrats, insinuating that people like Obama care more about businesses than people, which is ridiculous.

[Scurrilous]

41. K & R