Divided Democrats

Richard makes persuasive points (in comments on yesterdays blog) about progressives failing to provide the push to make Obama live up to his campaign promises. But I still think the argument comes down to this not very good choice: do you stick to progressive causes that you lack the clout to get through not only a divided Congress but also a divided Democratic party -- and wind up with nothing? Or do you compromise and get the best legislation that can make it through such a dysfunctional system? Obama chose the latter. Richard would have us chose the former, with the hope for better things to come.

Or perhaps he would argue that we did have the clout if only Obama had exerted leadership to get his agenda fulfilled and had not chosen the people he did (at treasury, in the Pentagon, and maybe even his chief of staff).

Here's another factor to consider that I picked up while waiting for my car to be serviced this morning, catching up on my reading of The Nation and the New York Review of Books. (No, I took them with me; Toyota hasn't added those choices to Motor Trend, People, and House Beautiful in their waiting lounge).

One reason we're having trouble getting more progressive legislation passed is that Democrats have become more divided, while Republicans have become more united as their moderates have been forced out or silenced. So it's hard to get Democrats to wield the power that we gave them (albeit razor thin in the Senate), while all it takes for Republicans to obstruct is just to say no. And compromises have to be made even to get all Democrats to agree.

Why? In part because Rahm Emanuel, in his capacity as head of the House Democratic Congressional Committee, recruited conservative Democrats to run in Republican strongholds, in order to convert seats from R to D; but then we wound up with more conservative D's who don't support progressive legislation.

I'm all for progressive legislation. I would have liked an even more progressive agenda than Obama's campaign promises. If I were going to choose another country to live in, it would definitely be one with social welfare type government. But I keep wavering about whether, in the reality of the U.S. today, it's better to hold out for the something more or take the incremental approach.

Ralph