If no progressives at all are appointed to the Cabinet, can that cabinet DO anything progressive?

[Ken Burch]

It's already guaranteed to have a centrist "insider" majority (the sort of people who raised their brandy snifters in approval when Rahm said the party "has no base"). I know we need some people who've been 'round the block, but do the insiders have to have control of everything that matters?

Can we do anything progressive if the hawks totally control foreign policy?

Can we do anything pro-worker if the best we get as Labor Secretary is the guy who ran the AFT, Al Shanker's antiminority,
prowar claque?

Can anyone who's spent their whole adult life in a corporate boardroom really see things any differently than Dubya?

I'd like somebody to tell me why people who actually care about the workers, the poor and the cause of peace should be totally out in the cold at the Cabinet table?

Can you care about those who suffer if you've never known want or pain?

[saracat]

1. One wonders.

[Truth2Tell]

2. I think the answer is yes they can.

If Obama decides to move left these people will just have to move with him.

I'm willing to wait and see. This could be an Obama/Axelrod masterstroke designed to provide cover for a semi-radical agenda.

Unlikely, but we won't know until he's actually President. :)

[NMDemDist2]

3. there in lies the rub

although I never thought Obama was all that progressive from day one.

I never thought he was any better than middle of the road (at best).

:shrug:

[saracat]

6. Me too! So I am not surprised, but when he won, I hoped. Still do.

[NMDemDist2]

42. and sorry about that whole Jan Brewer thing

:sigh:

:pals:

[Occam Bandage]

4. Nope. Obama's administration will be exactly like George Bush's, in vision and in policy.

Jesus, where do you people come from? :eyes:

[Ken Burch]

5. I come from reality.

Why SHOULDN'T we be concerned about progressives so far being left totally out in the cold in the Cabinet? And the pullback on the windfall profits tax? And the announcement that the new admin. still wants us to have "the strongest military in the world"?

If things like that aren't protested, the victory of this year will be pissed down to nothing. Hawkish Centrism CAN'T be "change".

If the war budget stays high, nothing non-Republican can happen. You know this as well as I do.

You can't just keep saying "It's enough that the president's a Democrat".

[Occam Bandage]

7. Not at all, sir. Not at all.

Obama has said repeatedly throughout the campaign that his vision for the government was a pragmatic, open, non-ideologically-combative one. He was very clear in his intent to rise above the petty culture wars and focus on issues rather than ideologies. If you're looking for angry, in-your-face soundbites and bumper stickers, Obama is not your guy, nor was he ever. If you're looking for an aggressive left-wing hammerhead to match the aggressive right-wing hammerhead of Bush, Obama is not your guy, nor was he ever.

Obama's cabinet has been exactly what he promised: a group of extraordinarily intelligent, pragmatic, deliberative, widely-respected people. If you wanted a candidate who was going to appoint political hacks, Obama is not your guy, nor was he ever. If you wanted a candidate who was going to slash the military budget by 40%, Obama is not your guy, nor was he ever.

For someone who claims to "come from reality," you sound like someone who hasn't paid a lick of attention to anything Obama has said in the past two years.

[Ken Burch]

12. You make it sound like progressives are confrontation junkies.

We're not. We only speak out when we our views under attack from the administration we played an equal role in electing.

Why should we regard it as no big deal if this administration looks like it's ignoring us? It's not like we support anything that's all that unpopular, after all.

Why do you HATE progressives and activists, anyway? Do you honestly think that politics should be left to nothing but bland, passionless insiders?

[Occam Bandage]

19. "Why do you HATE progressives and activists, anyway"

I don't, but the fact that you're asking me this question is a big part of the reason why I think that your motives are more confrontation-oriented than ideas-oriented.

[Ken Burch]

20. I never wanted a confrontation with you. You were the one

Who's responded to all of my posts this evening with derision and contempt. You were the one who was being confrontational. Why can't you just respond on the merits of the issues raised?

Why is it so important to you to shut progressives up? President-elect Obama himself doesn't want us silenced.

[Occam Bandage]

21. And now, we move from accusations of "hatred," to claims of victimization, mixed in

with insinuations that you represent progressives as a group. I've read this script before.

[Ken Burch]

22. I represent myself. I think what I say is agreed with by a lot of progressives

But I've never pretended to represent anyone BUT myself.

Again, why are you so fixated with shouting me down when you know that nothing I'm saying is bad for the party or President-elect Obama?

You came into this thread with no interest in debate, only unjustified abuse. Nothing I've said warrants the responses I've received from you.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

61. Only one person sounds like they're shouting here. (nt)

[Kahuna]

38. The problem is, you want to discuss the progressive label instead

of specific progressive issues. I swear. I've been on DU for several years and hear the term "progressive" tossed around a couple of hundred times a day. I still don't know what it means. Like Obama, labels are meaningless to me. Let's talk about the issues and how they can best be addressed for a change.

[Alter Ego]

54. And therein lies the desire for confrontation.

We're not going to slay our enemies and drive them before us until we hear the lamentations of their women. That's not what Obama's Democratic Party is going to be about. It'll be about working together with Democrats of all stripes--and even Republicans who can act like adults at the bargaining table--to get things done.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

60. Are you trying to be ironic? (nt)

[Kahuna]

37. Great post, OB. I hope you saved it. You will probably need to use it

frequently. :yourock:

[amborin]

11. some statements are to be taken with a grain; the 'military' statement may have been to oppose Chamb

to oppose Chambliss, who ran in Georgia against the dem, on those and other grounds

and to allay fears of all the pro-military types

of course, (and i say this as a progressive) wanting the best military isn't a bad goal---provided it's done in a smart and rational way

missile defense systems, for example, are stupid, insane wastes of money; never will work

[DevonRex]

49. Do you think Obama's cabinet picks are as right wing as Bush's cabinet? REALLY???

Silly season continues here on DU.

[Ken Burch]

67. I didn't say that.

What I was saying that, with only(until very recently)moderate picks and moderate policy, you weren't going to get a sustainable politics that could beat the hard right, because you weren't going to get a politics that could keep the country galvanized and engaged. Centrism doesn't hold people in the long term.

[MarjorieG]

8. Really tired of these label discussions, when progress on any of our issues is key and change.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. According to President-Elect Obama

He is going to direct his cabinet to bring change and he picked his cabinet because they are technocrats who will do a good job carrying out his orders. Those weren't his exact words but that is the implication.

I'm not sure how well that will work in practice but in Obama's defense, he has been right about a lot of shit so far. You have to keep something in mind, also. When you have a brilliant and engaged person like Obama running the country, the clout of any particular advisor does not carry the weight that it would under someone like Bush or Raygun.

Obama seems like the type who is going to get advice from multiple sources in all areas of policy making. That means that the Secretary of Labor doesn't get to make Labor policy. He gets to advise the President but he may or may not have the most influence over the President. According to Obama, he picked the Labor Secretary over someone more progressive because that person served in the Clinton Administration and therefore has the experience to carry out labor policy. He did not pick the Labor Secretary because he agrees with the Labor Secretary's views on everything.

Additionally, the Bush Administration has a had a policy of rewarding failure and thus unsurprisingly has had arguably the most stable Cabinet in history. It will be very interesting to see how many of the old guard will be gone after 2-4 years and will be replaced by others being groomed to replace them. I will be very interested to see the Deputies and Undersecretaries when they are announced.

Also what will be interesting is who he fills the Executive Office of the President with. The Cabinet, while still high profile, does not have the influence over the President that it once used to. Obama made Melody Barnes head of the Domestic Policy Council aka Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy. She is not a former Clinton person and has generally been positively received (and often overlooked) by progressives. In this day in age it is conceivable that she will have more influence over Obama on matters of domestic policy than the Secretaries of Labor, HHS, HUD, Energy, etc. will.

[The_Casual_Observer]

10. In the unlikely event that Eugene Debs, Dennis Kucinich & Woody Guthrie

were in Obama's cabinet there would be just as much "progressive" pissing & moaning about god knows what.

[Ken Burch]

14. Wrong. We'd be fine with things if they were there.

Are you saying we have no right to ask ANYTHING from the president we're equally responsible for electing?

Our views have popular support.

[The_Casual_Observer]

16. You can't fool me, I've been a Pacifica listener for years. Right away

it would be all about Mumia or worse.

[Alexander]

52. Who is this "we" you keep referring to?

Most of us here are quite progressive and most don't have severe problems with Obama's Cabinet picks.

Did progressives nationwide elect you as their leader or something?

:eyes:

[rvablue]

15. Oh god........

this is so funny and so, so, so true.........

:banghead:

[Ken Burch]

18. It's funny to people like you, who don't want the Obama administration

to be different than the Bush Administration, and who refuse to accept that the only way it can be is to clearly be more progressive than Bill Clinton as well.

The Nineties proved that non-progressive Democratic presidents don't even get to be "moderate". We can't reduce ourselves to that political dead zone again. Yes, things were blandly ok in an Eisenhower sense, but it stopped being a Democratic administration after 1994.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

62. Friggin hell, that might be the best post ever.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[sohndrsmith]

13. What if the President is progressive...? n/t

[MrSlayer]

17. Sure, when the President directs them to.

President sets the policy, Cabinet carries it out.

[smalll]

23. There's a certain carb-based psuedo-Italian comfort food I see in your future, my friend.

:shrug:

[Ken Burch]

24. So they're tombstoning here now for simple expressions of political dissent?

I haven't slandered anybody and I haven't abused anybody. Nor have I threatened anybody.

[cali]

25. I hope not. I wouldn't want DU to lose you.

And I'm sure you won't be tombstoned, but Ken, honestly tell me what it you'd like to see Obama's administration do. And restrict it to the things he's said he'd do. What is it you're afraid he will do? Please be specific.

I can tell you exactly what I expect from him:

More equitable taxation and that means higher taxes on the wealthy and closing corporate loopholes.

Getting combat troops out of Iraq in 16 months.

Help for inner city schools.

A radical restructuring of NCLB

The reinstitution of FOCA

Judges and Justices in the vein of Ginsberg and Breyer

Increased diplomacy and talking to our "enemies"

A Justice Dept that doesn't treat Americans as the enemy.

A stop to ideological litmus tests in the departments

A serious approach to climate change.

Healthcare reform

[Ken Burch]

28. I'm with you on all that. My fear is that the centrists and the "insiders" in the Cabinet

will press him into giving all that up.

In addition to the above agenda, I'd like to see

-Troops out of Iraq earlier than 16 months if possible(I'm concerned that somebody will try to trap Obama into keeping the troops there the longer they remain)

-A commitment not to bomb Pakistan or Iran(nothing good can come of doing either, and in both case only innocent civilians would be killed).

-Swift passage of the Employee Free Choice Act.

-Electoral reform(end the EC, P/R for legislative races, public funding of all election campaigns(

-Restoration of the Fairness Doctrine

-A real commitment to revitalize public transporation and the national railroad system.

-Closing Gitmo and the School Of The Americas.

-I realize some of these are stretch goals, but they're what I'm working for.

[Uzybone]

46. I agree with most of what you are asking apart from:

-A commitment not to bomb Pakistan or Iran(nothing good can come of doing either, and in both case only innocent civilians would be killed).

That will never happen. No president will voluntary tie the US hands behind its back like that. It doesn't mean he is a war monger, it just means we have all options on the table.


-Electoral reform(end the EC, P/R for legislative races, public funding of all election campaigns(

Will never happen either. It'll take constitutional amendments. I wish we could do away with the EC, but realistically its a dream not worth dreaming about right now.

-Restoration of the Fairness Doctrine

Fairness Doctrine is anti free speech in my book.

[Alter Ego]

55. You sound as if you think Obama is so weak-willed

that he'll cave in to anything anyone tells him.

Obama's got advisors from every corner of the Democratic Party--and their opinions all need to be heard. But Obama's the man sitting behind the Resolute desk--and the final decision rests with him.

Leo McGarry and Jed Bartlet didn't agree on everything. Leo was a war veteran and a relative foreign policy hawk compared to Bartlet--but he was one hell of an effective chief of staff and oh my God did I just make a "West Wing" reference?

[Ken Burch]

64. You did. It's ok though.

I heard that Obama was based on the Matt Santos character, or something like that.

:sarcasm:

Well, I'm just trying to join other people in also being an advisor.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

63. Just a correction

Obama will not radically restructure NCLB. He has always said he believes in the core principles of the law, but that the accountability portion needs to be adjusted such that we're actually measuring student achievement, which it's very arguable that we're doing right now. Which is pretty in line with what every non-union, non-Bush official education policy person says needs to happen, more or less.

[Freddie Stubbs]

41. He's been on DU for a heck of a lot longer than you

[Forkboy]

47. If you can survive I see no reason for the OP to fear.

[H2O Man]

51. not

[Radical Activist]

26. Since there are progressive in the cabinet and will likely be more

that's a pretty pointless rhetorical question.

[Ken Burch]

29. Self-delete

on further info from the poster below.

[Radical Activist]

30. Suan Rice. Labor, Energy and EPA Director

have not been named as far as I know. Those are three of the most important to me.

[Ken Burch]

31. Hopefully, they'll be happy surprises.

Rice is good, but how much influence at Cabinet level does the UN ambassador have?

I hope she doesn't have to veto all the same resolutions all the other US UN ambassadors have had to.

[Radical Activist]

32. I would suggest that you can push Obama to the left

without exaggerating a supposed move to the middle. You don't have to make Obama out to be the bad guy.

Obama is not Bush or Clinton. You don't have to frame your arguments the same way that you would with Bush or Clinton.

[Ken Burch]

33. It's never been my INTENT to make President-elect Obama the bad guy

My focus has always been on the forces in the party and in D.C. that will try and have already tried to push him away from the party and the people.

I take the man at his word when he says he wants to hear from us. People here need to trust that those who've spoken up in dissent are not the enemy and are not just in it for our own ego.

[Radical Activist]

34. Claiming that nothing progressive has happened

and that Obama may exclude progressives from his cabinet sets him up as the bad guy. It suggests that Obama is a Clintonian figure who will betray liberals. I think there are more effective ways of framing it.

[DCBob]

27. Are you attempting to overrun this board with your twisted "progressive" rants?

You are not convincing anyone and in fact you are doing the "progressive" movement more harm than good. You sound like a nut.

[Behind the Aegis]

35. Absurd "logic."

Your post has so many laughable items it is difficult to take it seriously. It sounds more like a cry of a self-made 'victim.'

[pnwmom]

36. Obama tells the Cabinet what to do, not the other way around.

They'll be as progressive as he wants them to be.

Obama's no puppet President, like the current occupant. He's firmly in charge.

[Vinca]

39. Obama is picking people who are most likely to be able to execute

his vision. As one of the talking heads said, in the Obama administration policy is starting at the top and working down, not from the bottom up like the Bush years.

[bunnies]

40. "If you've never known want or pain"

Geezus. Who are YOU to pretend to know the details of every Obama cabinet members past and present feelings?

Is that you God? Its me, bunnies...

[Ken Burch]

65. Well, we can assume the millionaires in the mix were always living in comfort

and absolute complacency. I hope I'm wrong and that it is possible for those in the more conservative factions in the Cabinet to grow. I'm always glad to be proved wrong about that. Hasn't happened with any rich people since Bobby, though. And, while I love Bobby, it wouldn't have happened with him if his brother hadn't been shot. Without that, he'd have stayed just as rigid as he ever was.

And no, I don't want anybody's relatives to be shot just so they can achieve personal growth. I'm not a psycho, just an observer of what happens to people.

I supposed I'd have felt better if there'd been a significant chunk of people in those early appointments who'd walked a picket line, attended at least one demonstration, or even set foot within ten miles of a slum. But it was largely the bland, cynical gated community crowd for a while there.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

43. Hillary Is A Progressive. So Is Obama. So Is Richardson. So Are Others.

[opihimoimoi]

44. Obama is the Path toward his goals...his Team will carry out the mission

in a cohesive way with each member having their own strengths and resources as background.

Obama musta read Sun Tzu's Art of War....if not...someone in his team did....classic moves toward victory lies in study and analysis.

Obama has not yet bloomed...he will grow on to become an ICON....He has an op to become the Prince of HOPE, the Man who saved the Planet....we will name Oceans after him, entire mountain ranges after him, already a school is renamed after him.....there will be more as he succeeds where others failed

This is why the GOP is Fuming...they want the attention, the glory, they are envious...

[ShortnFiery]

58. IMO "his team" will serve the large corporations and figuratively PISS on the rest of us.

:( I hope that I'm wrong. But I'm not.

[opihimoimoi]

68. I am willing to be Generous and give him the Benefit of the Doubt...

Hopefully, I am right to do this....its a gamble of sorts...

[Celeborn Skywalker]

45. We will

move back to the Clinton era in terms of foreign policy, I think. And that is much better than the last eight years. I would prefer that we end our imperialistic ways, but I don't see any president short of a Dennis Kucinich doing that. So we are going to have to be satisfied with a return to 90's foreign policy.

[Forkboy]

48. They can, but the odds of them doing so get a lot longer.

[Lilith Velkor]

50. Yes, if the President is progressive

The one we have is only mildly so, by my standard.

Answers to your other questions, in order: Mostly, sure we can, yes, yes, because it makes the ruling class (who wants to be a permanent caste) nervous, and yes.

[PM7nj]

53. Orer the past few weeks I have come to despise the word "progressive."

At least when it is used as a noun.

[wyldwolf]

56. hey! You have something in common with Harry Truman!

[Ken Burch]

66. Actually, I think you mean when it's used as an adjective.

I don't think it's grammatically possible to use it as a noun.

[ShortnFiery]

57. Nope. Welcome to the CORPORATE States of America. The new boss is at least likable

and not the warmonger that the last proved to be. However, when it comes to MONEY, corporations and the upper 1% of wealth are *more equal* than the rest of us peons. Nothing but less war. We will be serving the Corporations. They are now our MASTERs. :puke:

[treestar]

59. Of course they can

And merely being on a corporate board does not in and of itself mean anything.

Overbroad brush here.