Is it impossible for President Obama to be a "progressive"?

[kentuck]

Simply due to the history of this nation?

If he shows any progressive tendencies, they will call him a "socialist". If he doesn't adhere to some preconceived conservative notions, they might accuse him of being "uppity" or not knowing his place? Or you might think we are beyond those times when people think in such terms?

For example, would it be easier for a white President to withdraw our troops from the wars than a black President? Would it be easier for a white President to spend on social programs than a black President? Would it be easier for a white President to crack down on the corruption on Wall Street and the Big Banks?

This is an extra burden on President Obama that I think may not be in the equation when his supporters ask why he doesn't do this or why he doesn't do that?

Could there be any validity to this idea?

[Sebastian Doyle]

1. They call him a socialist now

Despite the fact that his cabinet is only slightly to the left of Chimpy's.

[polichick]

2. He could be a progressive if he believed in progressive values...

...and didn't care so much about what his enemies think.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Constitutionally, presidents can't do many of the things we want him to do.

He is simply the head of the executive branch, which is a co-equal branch of government along with the judicial and legislative. His power is really pretty limited -- Bush abused his constitutional limits through the use of signing statements and a lot of secret shit. But if the Constitution is to be followed, it isn't the President who spends on social programs and cracks down on corruption; it has to be Congress. All the President can do is veto a bill he doesn't agree with. Even with respect to matters of national security and war, Congress has to appropriate funds. Of course the President can influence and persuade, but in most cases he can't just make things happen without the involvement of at least one of the other branches.

Could Obama be more progressive? Sure -- but I'm not sure he would be able to get much more done even if he were. The big problem, which is way bigger than any president, is the fact that our method of financing campaigns has completely corrupted our political system. Nobody gets elected without raising enormous amounts of money; and once they get elected they have to keep raising funds for the next election. And the big money comes from the corporations. They get what they want because they can pay for it. Progressive ideas that benefit people over corporations get shot down in a hurry because the politicians can't afford to displease their donors. And I'm afraid it's going to get even worse after the Supreme Court decides Citizens United v. FEC; we can expect that corporations will be given carte blanche to donate as much as they want directly to campaigns.

And as long as this corrupt system exists, I doubt we will ever see things change for for the benefit of ordinary people, no matter who is president.

[C_Lawyer09]

11. Very Good Point Ocelot

And to add one small caveat, corporate sponsors like Coke, mandate 15% popular vote to maintain a debate presence. That's why John Anderson, Independent was able to garner 15% of the vote in 1980, is because he got access and coverage. Plus, a lot of third party candidates, Paul, Nader etc. half to surmount almost impossbile odds to get on some state ballots.

[Cleita]

4. I think he's swimming through shark infested waters right now.

It might be impossible for him to emulate FDR because it's actually too dangerous for him to do so. I hope he has a plan and this is not the way things are going to remain. His learning from his mistakes will make him into a one term President like what happened to Jimmy Carter if this is his plan.

[phasma ex machina]

10. Lots of dangerous Goldman Sharks chumming on $$$. nt

[C_Lawyer09]

12. Iranian Hostage Crisis and Failure to Prioritize Legislation

Is what ruined Carter. Obama and team prioritize, but much more Democrats in Congress are bought and/or spineless. The terrible inflation during Carters term didn't help either.

[JoeyT]

5. They call him a socialist now

Good grief, they call him a socialist even for conservative policies. They accuse him of being uppity and not knowing his place when he puts forward policies they could have only dreamed of getting. No, we're not past those terms. He's going to get called those no matter what he does. While he may not have been elected emperor and he does have to deal with the other branches, it'd be nice if he'd kinda lead them towards progressive policies, or at least centrist ones.

"For example, would it be easier for a white President to withdraw our troops from the wars than a black President? Would it be easier for a white President to spend on social programs than a black President? Would it be easier for a white President to crack down on the corruption on Wall Street and the Big Banks?"
I don't know, none of the white ones in my 30 years have been willing to do any of those either. Mostly they encouraged corruption, war, and the "reform" of social programs.

[Warpy]

6. It isn't because he's black, it's because he's a Democrat

that he's facing such extreme opposition. Any white Democrat would be facing most of the same garbage from the military and Congress that he is.

The reaction from the great unwashed, egged on by radio jocks promoting assassination, however, is due to his color as well as his party.

Desperate events are what drag conservatives, and Obama is one, to the left if they're not hamstrung by GOP dogma. Unfortunately, I think we're headed for just such desperation, those of us who aren't already there.

Remember that even FDR diddled around for his first two years trying to support prices instead of putting people back to work so they could afford what was out there.

While I'm disappointed that it takes so long for a Democrat as intelligent as Obama is to wake up and smell the desperation, I understand why it happens that way and I'm not flipping out that he hasn't yet.

The unemployed and hungry have to get angry instead of depressed. When that happens, we'll see some changes. We get things done in our favor only when those smug old boys in Congress are afraid of us.

[Junkdrawer]

7. Political cover...

While he enacts a very corporate agenda, well organized teabaggers accuse him of socialism.

What a racket.

[lxlxlxl]

8. yes i agree 100% because of money / semantics / media...not race

are you asking if the country would allow a black progressive president to actually be progressive?

i think any given president is limited by the administration and administrations before him. in our case we gave a good president a horrible environment. this country is INCAPABLE of implementing


you cant go from a GWB to a progressive. its just not possible given the necessity of money in politics, and the social physics (?) involved in going from a zero-government to 'some' government, and of course the market crash last year.

i personally do not think race has much to do with it, but i do think the tone of his rhteoric (conciliation, decidedly not radical) is a product of the fact that a progressive black man always has a 'panther' noose around his neck when he is out publicly, and the only way to duck that brick is to bring new approaches and hope that it works.

[C_Lawyer09]

9. There may be some validity

However, in large part, I feel that the U.S. has a forty percent slice of the adult population that is only responsive to simple arguments, platitudes, and issues that are "blame easy" such as terrorists, or illegals. In other words the blame agent always needs to be tangible, and require limited critical thinking to understand. Many loggers in my native NW hated the Spotted Owl that needed old growth for habitat. Most of my friends Dads growing up either worked in the woods or mills. I had a lot of empthay for them and their diminishing way of life. That said, I never heard the outcry against automation or Canadians undercutting our exports because we refused to cut lumber to size for Japan, etc. The term liberal has been sullied. Small govt. sounds so much better and easier than big govt. and the Republican machine is so much more galvanized and in some cases vicious (Atwater, Rove)than Democrats. The Air America/Ed Schultz camp will never trump the Becks and Limbaughs and their huge access to middle Americans. Read Thomas Franks, "Whats the Matter With Kansas?"

[anonymous171]

13. Has being black damaged his moral compass? Because that's the only important thing in this scenario