Why Obama Must be Defeated

[Guido]

Not Ralph Nader. Not Amy Goodman. Not Noam Chomsky. Not Chris Hedges. Not Cornel West. Not Alexander Cockburn. Not one of the great left critics in the United States have dared say what Harvard Law School Professor Roberto Unger said last week. “President Obama must be defeated in the coming election.”

In 1976, at age 29, Roberto Unger became the youngest tenured professor at Harvard Law School. Obama took two classes from Unger – Jurisprudence and Reinventing Democracy. During the 2008 campaign, Unger was reportedly in frequent contact with candidate Barack Obama via email and Blackberry.

But here he is today saying that “President Obama must be defeated in the coming election.”

Why?

“He has failed to advance the progressive cause in the United States,” Unger said in a heavily edited video posted on YouTube last month. “He has spent trillions of dollars to rescue the moneyed interests and left workers and homeowners to their own devices. He has subordinated the broadening of economic and educational opportunities to the important but secondary issue of access to health care in the mistaken belief that he would be spared a fight.”

“He has disguised his surrender with an empty appeal to tax justice. He has delivered the politics of democracy to the rule of money. He has reduced justice to charity.”

“His policy is financial confidence and food stamps. He has evoked a politics of hand holding. But no one changes the world without a struggle.”

“Unless he is defeated, there cannot be a contest for the re-orientation of the Democratic Party as the vehicle of a progressive alternative in the country,” Under said. “There will be a cost for his defeat in judicial and administrative appointments.”

“The risk of military adventurism, however, under the rule of his opponents, will be no greater than it would be under him.”

“Only a political reversal can allow the voice of democratic prophesy to speak once again in American life. It’s speech is always dangerous. It’s silence is always fatal.”

[Cyclone Ranger]

One, Obama will not be defeated, since his electoral lead is simply too sizable.

Two, despite being forced to focus on economic issues, he managed to pass progressive legislation like the healthcare bill, and still found time to reverse the ban on stem cell research, which is more than pretty much any POTUS since Johnson has done to support the cause of progressivism, in his first term alone.

Three, the other choice, another Republican administration, will not do anything whatsover to further progressive interests.

[BooRadley]

He has delivered the politics of democracy to the rule of money.

Isn't that simply acknowledging the reality that, without major reforms, no one will be elected unless he's willing to play ball? Without election reform, no liberal will be allowed to hold office unless he first accepts the rules. So, without those reforms in place, removing a pragmatist from office is only going to mean that the office is vacant. A realignment in the DNC would be useless, because it would either realign to yet more sell-outs, or it would realign to inconsequential.

Remove Obama and you get either another Obama, or you get someone who won't ever hold office outside of the San Francisco city council.

So, after removing Obama from leadership in the Democratic Party . . . then what? What's step 2? It's either going to be reelect Obama, but under a different name and with a different face, or it's going to be to switch to a one party system with the GOP being the one party.

Or is there some third option I don't know about?

[antiquity]

One, Obama will not be defeated, since his electoral lead is simply too sizable.

I would suggest you start watching the polls.

Two, despite being forced to focus on economic issues, he managed to pass progressive legislation like the healthcare bill, and still found time to reverse the ban on stem cell research, which is more than pretty much any POTUS since Johnson has done to support the cause of progressivism, in his first term alone.

The majority of the America voters oppose Obamacare, pay attention. Stem cell research has shown little or no progress. Supporting a progressive agenda is one reason Obama will lose and the facts show most Americans don't support it any longer because it hasn't worked.

Three, the other choice, another Republican administration, will not do anything whatsover to further progressive interests.

Thank god......

[antiquity]

Isn't that simply acknowledging the reality that, without major reforms, no one will be elected unless he's willing to play ball? Without election reform, no liberal will be allowed to hold office unless he first accepts the rules. So, without those reforms in place, removing a pragmatist from office is only going to mean that the office is vacant. A realignment in the DNC would be useless, because it would either realign to yet more sell-outs, or it would realign to inconsequential.

Remove Obama and you get either another Obama, or you get someone who won't ever hold office outside of the San Francisco city council.

So, after removing Obama from leadership in the Democratic Party . . . then what? What's step 2? It's either going to be reelect Obama, but under a different name and with a different face, or it's going to be to switch to a one party system with the GOP being the one party.

Or is there some third option I don't know about?

Sounds like you are now running scared. I will tell you the difference, the influence of the Tea Party members will force a leaner, meaner government on Romney and the country. You better get used to it.

[Cyclone Ranger]

One, the polls are irrelevant, because presidential elections aren't determined by the popular vote. The highly reliable electoral vote projections indicate Romney can't win.

Two, whether the entire country supports healthcare reform or not, progressives do.

Three, you have no idea how much stem cell research has progressed.

Four, even if it hasn't, it's only had a few years to do so after eight years of a federal ban, at the conclusion of which, a massive global economic crisis ensued.

[Chachma v'Oz]

One, the polls are irrelevant, because presidential elections aren't determined by the popular vote. The highly reliable electoral vote projections indicate Romney can't win.

On that note, I read a study a while back that said that if Romney received every vote from non-Hispanic Republicans and the votes of 2/3 of non-Hispanic independents, unless he received at least 31% of the Hispanic vote it was mathematically impossible for him to win the election. He was getting favorable ratings from only 28% of Hispanics before Obama dropped his exquisite bombshell last week regarding the children of illegal immigrants, so Romney's going to have a lot of trouble even hanging onto what Hispanic support he once enjoyed.

George Will apparently read this study as well, and said the same thing on last Sunday's This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

It's not looking good in the Romney camp once you start breaking down voter demographics.

[Guido]

Isn't that simply acknowledging the reality that, without major reforms, no one will be elected unless he's willing to play ball? Without election reform, no liberal will be allowed to hold office unless he first accepts the rules. So, without those reforms in place, removing a pragmatist from office is only going to mean that the office is vacant. A realignment in the DNC would be useless, because it would either realign to yet more sell-outs, or it would realign to inconsequential.

Remove Obama and you get either another Obama, or you get someone who won't ever hold office outside of the San Francisco city council.

So, after removing Obama from leadership in the Democratic Party . . . then what? What's step 2? It's either going to be reelect Obama, but under a different name and with a different face, or it's going to be to switch to a one party system with the GOP being the one party.

Or is there some third option I don't know about?

Unger's opinion is that the Democrat Party under Obama has reached a dead end. The dead end is characterized by the lack of any significant difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Under Obama, we get Republican policies but without any meaningful opposition. That's the dead end.

So he's saying that an Obama loss would force the Democrat Party to reassess its priorities and re-discover its roots in progressivism.

“Unless he is defeated, there cannot be a contest for the re-orientation of the Democratic Party as the vehicle of a progressive alternative in the country,” Under said.

“Only a political reversal can allow the voice of democratic prophesy to speak once again in American life. It’s speech is always dangerous. It’s silence is always fatal.”

[Cyclone Ranger]

The OA policies are not Republican in any way, shape, or form. You don't like him because he refuses to take the scorched earth approach on Israel you desire.

That's all.

[Malcolm Wright]

The OA policies are not Republican in any way, shape, or form. You don't like him because he refuses to take the scorched earth approach on Israel you desire.

That's all.

I disagree. On military adventurism, the signs are there - there isn't a huge difference between him and what we'd expect from a Republican candidate.
Although I am impressed by the OP and agree with a number of statements in it, my primary perspective is always the environment, and it is one that can ill afford a Republican candidate. Although Obama's track record has not been stellar on that front, it is still appreciably better than what we could expect from the GOP.

There is another factor the OP ignores - there is a fair chance Obama will learn from some of his mistakes: the most blatant being that he was tied up on the health care issue for so long that it impeded his ability to make progress on a lot of other important fronts. I don't entire blame him for this: the GOP was very two-faced in its complete antagonism and lack of constructive attitude. But I do think a second term may well lead him to do better by focusing on other areas.

Two more arguments in his favor: better the devil you know, and all other things being equal, a second term allows consistency without which visions are only ever half realized.

The OP makes the same mistake the GOP makes in forgetting what Obama had to contend with during his first term, in the form of an abysmal economy. It does not sit well with me that he should be replaced and be considered the patsy who got us through the dark days but was only ever thought of as not doing it to the satisfaction of people's irrational expectations. That alone would be more damaging to the Democratic party than Obama's poor progressive performance in his first term. The American people have in modern times followed a pattern of voting GOP except during some sort of crisis, in which case they vote for the other guy. A second term for Obama could finally help balance that lopsidedness by affording him the chance to give us longer lasting legacies than the thankless task of having held the watch during the recession.

M.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Bullshit, Malcolm. Going after active AQ members is not 'military adventurism' a la the Bush neo-cons' imperialist wars designed simply to spread democratic ideology.

[Guido]

The OA policies are not Republican in any way, shape, or form. You don't like him because he refuses to take the scorched earth approach on Israel you desire.

That's all.

That's all?

Did you somehow fail to notice that it's Roberto Unger in the video and not me?


Or when using the word "you" when addressing me, were you really referring to Roberto Unger?

Perhaps you think that Guido is in fact Roberto Unger?

It seems to me that you are deeply confused.

[Archaix]

He has evoked a politics of hand holding. But no one changes the world without a struggle.”

My chief problem with the Obama administration summarised exactly.

[Guido]

Here's someone else making the same points:


Obama Does Populist Pantomime, Empowers GOP

by John R. MacArthur

Scott Walker’s easy victory in Wisconsin’s gubernatorial recall election once again raises the question I’ve been posing for nearly four years: What will it take for liberals to recognize Barack Obama’s lack of conviction about anything remotely resembling a reform agenda?


Obama’s principal objective these days is not to offend the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or his Wall Street campaign contributors. He doesn’t want the Democratic Party to be a popular party; he much prefers doing a populist pantomime and blaming the Republicans for intransigence. The last thing he wants is a revived Democratic base that might start demanding action on other fronts, such as regulating banks by restoring the Glass-Steagall Act, something Obama has steadfastly opposed.

Obama didn’t intervene in Wisconsin because Scott Walker is what the late essayist Walter Karp called the “indispensable enemy” to whom all evil can be ascribed. The president won’t fight for a higher minimum wage for much the same reason.

In Massachusetts, we see a similar pattern: Democratic Senate candidate, and pro-Glass-Steagall, Elizabeth Warren has been unable to secure the support of the Boston Democratic organization led by Mayor Thomas Menino in her neck-and-neck battle with Republican Scott Brown.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama can’t seem to make time for a campaign appearance with Ms. Warren.

Sound familiar?
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/06/20-11

[BooRadley]

the influence of the Tea Party members will force a leaner, meaner government on Romney and the country. You better get used to it.

Yeah, just like you did with the Bush Administration. They rolled right over conservatives, expanded the government more than any other administration, and every one of you cheer-led all the way through it, and a Romney Administration would do the same thing.

[EpicRandom]

Why is a black man not a new president? Don't be raccist!

[86Dùde]

One, Obama will not be defeated, since his electoral lead is simply too sizable.

Two, despite being forced to focus on economic issues, he managed to pass progressive legislation like the healthcare bill, and still found time to reverse the ban on stem cell research, which is more than pretty much any POTUS since Johnson has done to support the cause of progressivism, in his first term alone.

Three, the other choice, another Republican administration, will not do anything whatsover to further progressive interests.

Four, you're a douche bag.

[antiquity]

Why is a black man not a new president? Don't be raccist!

What the fuck does that mean?

[antiquity]

Yeah, just like you did with the Bush Administration. They rolled right over conservatives, expanded the government more than any other administration, and every one of you cheer-led all the way through it, and a Romney Administration would do the same thing.

I didn't vote for Bush either time, sorry to burst your bubble. However explain how Romney would/could do the 'same thing'? You are mistakenly forgetting the Tea Party influence to whoever gets voted into office.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Four, you're a douche bag.

Ouch, that hurts coming from you, Bubba.