Obama recently made some encouraging remarks about what he means by “change” (finally!). These included reforming the tax code, but I think it was mostly a matter of reversing Republican tax policies. This is certainly no economic transformation. As you say, he has made it known that his foreign policy would be that of previous centrist Presidents rather than that of George W. Bush. He has also mentioned Kennedy and Reagan in this regard. What is amazing is that his most ardent supporters refuse to hear what he says. They believe that he is the progressive candidate, which seems to be a wish-fulfilling fantasy. To the extent that anyone knows his policies (which isn’t much, and yes I have studied his website), he seems to be fairly cautious and mainstream, leaning liberal. I think there is a chance that he could be progressive on some issues, but the problem is that no one has much basis for believing that, and some of his supporters admit that they really have no idea what he would actually do as President - except that it would be “something different”. It would not take much to improve over W or McCain, so I think the picture is fairly positive based on his record, but it won’t be pretty a year from now when the faux progressive blogosphere screams that he has betrayed them, when all he is doing is being the President he said he would be. Not being McGovern, maybe he can even win the election, but we’ll still be an imperialist, militarist nation with the top 1% controlling as much or more wealth than the bottom 95%. I would hope for great improvement in judicial nominations and appointments of competent people to run government agencies, and perhaps an end to the most flagrant civil liberties and human rights abuses.
Posted by DeanOR on May 25, 2008 at 12:26 PM
While the 1972 campaign had the potential (if McGovern gone on to defeat Nixon) to radically transform American society while also having significant international impact, an Obama victory in 2008 would lead to important reforms in the years ahead.
Well, yes, but back in the real world McGovern was crushed in the popular vote and in the Electoral College, meaning that the great majority of the American people rejected McGovern’s Leftist views, regardless of Brociner’s admiration for those views.
Now, stop and consider: When was the last time an overt leftist was elected to the office of President? Exactly never, of course.
The only two successful Democratic candidates for President since the Democratic Party went Marxist forty years ago were Carter and Clinton, both non-ideologues as Democrats go. There is a precise calibration in the degree of leftist tendencies in a Democratic candidate for President and the magnitude of his loss; the further left he is the worse he will do in the general election. And Obama is the leftmost candidate since McGovern, at least.
Why is this? No Communist/Socialist/ Progressive/Liberal revolution has ever been led by the workers in whose name the revolution is conducted. Lenin’s revolution was financed by Stalin, who robbed banks for the Party. The leaders of such revolutions are professional agitators and the intelligencia: journalists, professors, lawyers, and such. Real workers bail when they have the opportunity, as the voters in West Virginia and Kentucky recently did. You can’t win a presidential election in the United States when your only constituencies are UCLA, NYT, CBS, and Blacks.
Brociner may not be perfectly happy with Obama, who fails in the degree of Leftist perfection in comparison to McGovern, but the workers of the United States have BO’s number. Brociner may take consolation in that Obama’s crushing defeat at the hands of American workers will rival that of his hero, George McGovern.
Posted by scorp on May 26, 2008 at 5:17 AM
The magnitude of McGovern’s loss to Nixon in 1972 was due to a wide variety of factors - many of which had nothing to do with McGovern’s progressive politics. This is not to say that McGovern would have won had it not been for, say, the terrible damage his reputation suffered as a result of the fiasco that resulted from his choice of Thomas Eagleton as his running mate - to name only one of the non-ideological factors that contributed to his landslide defeat.
But really, scorp, if you honestly believe that “the Democratic Party went Marxist forty years ago”, I would suggest you brush up a bit on the basics of political ideologies and American history.
Posted by kenbrociner on May 26, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Reader Comments
Obama recently made some encouraging remarks about what he means by “change” (finally!). These included reforming the tax code, but I think it was mostly a matter of reversing Republican tax policies. This is certainly no economic transformation. As you say, he has made it known that his foreign policy would be that of previous centrist Presidents rather than that of George W. Bush. He has also mentioned Kennedy and Reagan in this regard. What is amazing is that his most ardent supporters refuse to hear what he says. They believe that he is the progressive candidate, which seems to be a wish-fulfilling fantasy. To the extent that anyone knows his policies (which isn’t much, and yes I have studied his website), he seems to be fairly cautious and mainstream, leaning liberal. I think there is a chance that he could be progressive on some issues, but the problem is that no one has much basis for believing that, and some of his supporters admit that they really have no idea what he would actually do as President - except that it would be “something different”. It would not take much to improve over W or McCain, so I think the picture is fairly positive based on his record, but it won’t be pretty a year from now when the faux progressive blogosphere screams that he has betrayed them, when all he is doing is being the President he said he would be. Not being McGovern, maybe he can even win the election, but we’ll still be an imperialist, militarist nation with the top 1% controlling as much or more wealth than the bottom 95%. I would hope for great improvement in judicial nominations and appointments of competent people to run government agencies, and perhaps an end to the most flagrant civil liberties and human rights abuses.
Posted by DeanOR on May 25, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Well, yes, but back in the real world McGovern was crushed in the popular vote and in the Electoral College, meaning that the great majority of the American people rejected McGovern’s Leftist views, regardless of Brociner’s admiration for those views.
Now, stop and consider: When was the last time an overt leftist was elected to the office of President? Exactly never, of course.
The only two successful Democratic candidates for President since the Democratic Party went Marxist forty years ago were Carter and Clinton, both non-ideologues as Democrats go. There is a precise calibration in the degree of leftist tendencies in a Democratic candidate for President and the magnitude of his loss; the further left he is the worse he will do in the general election. And Obama is the leftmost candidate since McGovern, at least.
Why is this? No Communist/Socialist/ Progressive/Liberal revolution has ever been led by the workers in whose name the revolution is conducted. Lenin’s revolution was financed by Stalin, who robbed banks for the Party. The leaders of such revolutions are professional agitators and the intelligencia: journalists, professors, lawyers, and such. Real workers bail when they have the opportunity, as the voters in West Virginia and Kentucky recently did. You can’t win a presidential election in the United States when your only constituencies are UCLA, NYT, CBS, and Blacks.
Brociner may not be perfectly happy with Obama, who fails in the degree of Leftist perfection in comparison to McGovern, but the workers of the United States have BO’s number. Brociner may take consolation in that Obama’s crushing defeat at the hands of American workers will rival that of his hero, George McGovern.
Posted by scorp on May 26, 2008 at 5:17 AM
The magnitude of McGovern’s loss to Nixon in 1972 was due to a wide variety of factors - many of which had nothing to do with McGovern’s progressive politics. This is not to say that McGovern would have won had it not been for, say, the terrible damage his reputation suffered as a result of the fiasco that resulted from his choice of Thomas Eagleton as his running mate - to name only one of the non-ideological factors that contributed to his landslide defeat.
But really, scorp, if you honestly believe that “the Democratic Party went Marxist forty years ago”, I would suggest you brush up a bit on the basics of political ideologies and American history.
Posted by kenbrociner on May 26, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Duplicate post withdrawn.
Posted by scorp on May 26, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Ken -
<blockquote>The magnitude of McGovern
Posted by scorp on May 26, 2008 at 5:47 PM