What to do about Obama?

[Thanas]

Salon

What Democrats can do about Obama

From the debt ceiling fiasco to the recent rescheduling of a jobs speech at the behest of Speaker Boehner, it has not been a good summer for President Obama. Like Chinese water torture, Gallup's daily tracking poll has shown a steady and unrelenting drip of bad news. He has been in and out of the high 30s for his approval, and in the low to mid-50s for his disapproval.

George W. Bush's approval rating didn't drop this low until Katrina hit. And on the economy, 71 percent of Americans disapprove of how Obama is doing his job. Even among reliably Democratic groups -- union households, women and young people -- he's now unpopular.

No one, not even the president's defenders, expect his coming jobs speech to mean anything. When the president spoke during a recent market swoon, the market dropped another 100 points. Democrats may soon have to confront an uncomfortable truth, and ask whether Obama is a suitable choice at the top of the ticket in 2012. They may then have to ask themselves if there's any way they can push him off the top of the ticket.

That these questions have not yet been asked in any serious way shows how weak the Democratic Party is as a political organization. Yet this political weakness is not inevitable, it can be changed through courage and collective action by a few party insiders smart and principled enough to understand the value of a public debate, and by activists who are courageous enough to face the real legacy of the Obama years.

Obama has ruined the Democratic Party. The 2010 wipeout was an electoral catastrophe so bad you'd have to go back to 1894 to find comparable losses. From 2008 to 2010, according to Gallup, the fastest growing demographic party label was former Democrat. Obama took over the party in 2008 with 36 percent of Americans considering themselves Democrats. Within just two years, that number had dropped to 31 percent, which tied a 22-year low.

Of course, there are many rationalizations for Obama to remain the nominee. He's faced difficult opposition. He's passed major legislation. His presidency is historic. The economy is hard to resuscitate. But all such rationalizations evade the party's responsibilities to actually choose the nominee best suited to win votes. If Obama looks unlikely to get enough votes to win, he should not get the nomination.

If would be one thing if Obama were failing because he was too close to party orthodoxy. Yet his failures have come precisely because Obama has not listened to Democratic Party voters. He continued idiotic wars, bailed out banks, ignored luminaries like Paul Krugman, and generally did whatever he could to repudiate the New Deal. The Democratic Party should be the party of pay raises and homes, but under Obama it has become the party of pay cuts and foreclosures. Getting rid of Obama as the head of the party is the first step in reverting to form.

So why isn't there a legitimate primary challenger to Obama to make this case? Forty years ago, primaries were instituted in the Democratic Party as a response to party insiders having too much influence over nominations. These reforms were implemented before the prevalence of money in politics was as extreme as it is now. At this point, primary challenges are so expensive that a serious 2012 campaign would ironically require support of party insiders for viability. The party, inflexible as it was in 1968, is perhaps even more rigid today. As a result, no candidate has stepped up to challenge Obama in a primary, even though 32 percent of Democratic voters want one.

This is an institutional crisis for Democrats. The groups that fund and organize the party -- an uneasy alliance of financiers, conservative technology interests, the telecommunications industry, healthcare industries, labor unions, feminists, elite foundations, African-American church networks, academic elites, liberals at groups like MoveOn, the ACLU and the blogosphere -- are frustrated, but not one of them has broken from the pack. In remaining silent, they give their assent to the right-wing policy framework that first George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama, cemented in place. It will be nearly impossible to dislodge such a framework without starting within the Democratic Party itself.

In other words, party inflexibility has a price. If the economy worsens going into the fall, and the president continues as he has to attempt to cut Social Security, Democrats might be facing a Carter-Reagan scenario. Reagan, at first considered a lightweight candidate, ended up winning a landslide victory that devastated the Democratic Party in 1980. Carter wasn't the only loss; many significant liberal senators, such as George McGovern, John Culver and Birch Bayh, fell that year.

Today, it's clear that certain Democratic constituency groups -- unions especially -- are on their deathbed. A reinvigoration of debate over the nature of the American workplace is desperately needed, yet labor leaders seem to prefer supplicating quietly to politicians who betray them. This is not inevitable. People can show dignity.

So what can party leaders do? History offers one model. In 1892, the Democratic Party nominated Grover Cleveland, and with sweeping majorities in both houses, Democrats had control of the federal government for the first time since before the Civil War. Then a financial crisis, plus Cleveland's stubborn allegiance to banking interests, turned his presidency into a catastrophe for Democrats.

When taking state candidates into account, the 1894 midterm elections were comparable to the 2010 wipeout; Cleveland was disliked so ardently that party leaders pushed him out of running for reelection. Instead the Democrats nominated William Jennings Bryan, who introduced many populist themes into the party and began the ideological transformation that would culminate with the election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932.

History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. If a few of the key constituency groups in the Democratic Party publicly wondered whether Obama should run for reelection, rumblings would start. Some organized constituency groups -- say some components of the AFL-CIO -- would need to announce that their support is up for grabs, based on a clear set of criteria. Given the Obama administration's rampant anti-labor policies, this wouldn't be an unreasonable posture. And then a senior politician, like, say, a Tom Harkin, would need to decide that he would want to encourage robust intra-party debate about the party's future.

Harkin could run as a "favorite son" of Iowa, and encourage people in the caucuses to send a message to the party and to Obama by choosing him. Other candidates could then emerge in early primary and caucus states, as a way of repudiating Obama's leadership. Candidates wouldn't have to pretend to be running for president or be presidential quality; they could simply stand in as favorite sons or daughters of their own geographic area. This would immediately fire up a highly aggressive and needed debate about the direction of the Democratic Party and the country at large. It would build a new set of leaders, and elevate others who would like to distance themselves from the Obama policy agenda.

In a few months, we'll know better if Obama still looks like a loser next year. If he does, that does not mean the Democratic Party must follow him down the path to oblivion.

For Obama, the die is cast. He has put forward his economic program, and it will work to return jobs and income, and get the votes, or it won't. Knocking on doors won't change that, nor will a donation in a $6 billion election season. What can change the reality of 2012 is if Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO, begins to take his job of representing workers seriously, and one or two establishment Democrats who remember liberalism decide to model courage for the younger generation. Then a robust debate can happen. Only by shaking up the current political order will solutions emerge.

Such debates tend to create institutional reforms -- the vibrant antiwar blogosphere of 2002-2006, and eventually the Obama campaign itself, emerged out of such a series of debates. Such a debate would also force the Obama campaign to come up with some answers to questions it would prefer to defer until after the election: Where are the jobs, and what is the plan to stop foreclosures? It would allow millions of Americans who have been hurt -- and who have benefited -- from administration policies, to have their say.

I wish I could say I was optimistic that party leaders will step forward and start the debate Democratic voters need. As for many, the last few years have shattered my faith in the political process. Obama has basically endorsed every major plank of George Bush's administration, yet Democrats still grant their approval. What we're finding out is that Obama's pathologically pro-establishment and conflict-averse DNA was funded by party insiders and embraced by liberal constituency groups in 2008 for a reason.

Political parties need to be flexible enough to allow for new ideas to come into the process, or else third parties or civil disorder are inevitable. All it would take to provide this flexibility are well-known Democratic elders who understand that rank and file Democrats deserve a choice, and a few political insiders who realize that they can increase their own power by encouraging a robust debate. I don't think this will happen. But just imagine if it did.

An interesting article. However, I am not sure the paralells apply, with Bryan being able to capitalize on his rhetoric powers and unique campaign strategies, both which do not count so much these days.

[Cecelia5578]

More like emo progressives who were disappointed that Obama didn't give them their magic unicorn stayed home and delivered the 2010 election to the Republicans. Pray tell, what was Obama supposed to do in the face of Blue Dogs and the filibuster. But by all means, primary him, that'll pretty much guarantee that a Republican is elected in 2012.

And yes, thank you for telling me, an American, what is best for my country. *You* don't have to live with the consequences of a Republican nutjob winning in 2012.

[Thanas]

And yes, thank you for telling me, an American, what is best for my country.

I am not sure what your point is here. Only Americans are allowed to comment on American politics now?

*You* don't have to live with the consequences of a Republican nutjob winning in 2012.

Due to the USA being Number 1 in the world and this not changing for the foreseeable future, I do. It is not going to impact me as much as you, but it is going to impact me.

[Simon_Jester]

Thanas, If we're looking at general patterns, exactly what Bryan did is irrelevant. What mattered was his ability to innovate- to do what his political rival would not in the election campaign, in ways that gave him an advantage.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were more effective ways to campaign in the Internet Age than we've seen so far. There's only been two or three presidential elections since the Internet became a major social force, after all. Even Obama himself pioneered some development along those lines in 2008; he just didn't follow through.
____________

Cecelia, there's a definite point there. I think that Obama deserves a primary challenge, to keep him on his toes, if nothing else. My impression of the man is that he's very reluctant to stick his neck out or fight hard unless someone is prodding him from behind. He's very conservative* about the way he uses political capital, and when given the full toolbox of the presidency, he usually reaches for a few specific items that really aren't working well in this situation.

The man needs to be jolted outside of his box, forced to be the man he was during the campaign or something more like it. Otherwise, his presidency is all too likely to become an utter failure even if he wins the 2012 election.

Obama should lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way, and I don't think it's unreasonable for the Democratic base to wonder which of those he's planning to do.

*In the old sense, not the neo-con-fundie-anarcho-corporatist sense of American politics.

[Uraniun235]

More like emo progressives who were disappointed that Obama didn't give them their magic unicorn stayed home and delivered the 2010 election to the Republicans. Pray tell, what was Obama supposed to do in the face of Blue Dogs and the filibuster. But by all means, primary him, that'll pretty much guarantee that a Republican is elected in 2012.

And yes, thank you for telling me, an American, what is best for my country. *You* don't have to live with the consequences of a Republican nutjob winning in 2012.

So if I pipe up, ~*as an American*~, and say that I agree with Europeans who think that Obama is not a good president and ought to be primaried out, does that make it any more legit? Or are you just grasping at shit to fling at an opinion you don't like?

When you vote to re-elect Obama you are seriously saying "yeah i know he reversed himself on big campaign promises, protected financial executives from criminal investigation, failed to enact serious financial reregulation, cut the FICA tax and effectively laid the groundwork for a future dismantlement of Social Security, extended the Bush tax cuts like he said he wouldn't, embraced and expanded Bush-era policies on torture and assassination, put more troops into Afghanistan, literally put American citizens on lists of people to be assassinated, and officially shielded from investigation (let alone prosecution) nearly every single person involved in the murder by torture of hundreds of human beings... but i'm still going to vote for him! "

You should be disgusted with yourself. I'm not joking. Even if you think you're doing some 'necessary' thing to somehow prevent the country from sliding into the shitter - which is pretty irrational since both parties are pretty much going to guarantee that ending anyway - you should feel shame and self-loathing for signaling your support for such a grotesquely abusive regime.

[Bluewolf]

Uranium nailed it. The fact of the matter is, you can cry about the Republicans but when the sitting Democrat president caves in constantly to them, enacts policies they would, engage in acts of torture, support corporations like they would and many other things that people here despise the Republicans for, then really how much better are the Democrats on a national level? The Tea Party problem is a potential spanner in a works but who knows where that will really go. There is no strong gaurentee they will even get to a position to take on Obama as president.

If people keep peddling myths about 'wasted votes' or 'protest votes' then they are fulfilling those myths themselves by constantly spreading them. If no one actually tries to make a third party viable then it wont be. I guess most here would like to be locked in as the political version of battered wives though. In the meantime the country will keep veering to the right, away from their treasured ideologies because their party knows they wont dare vote anything other than Democrat.

Not to say the Democrats are all bad. I heard a lot better things on a local and state level which is good. Their actions in Wisconsin iirc were commendable, but higher up it seems to get far more rotten by the sounds of it.

[aerius]

You should be disgusted with yourself. I'm not joking. Even if you think you're doing some 'necessary' thing to somehow prevent the country from sliding into the shitter - which is pretty irrational since both parties are pretty much going to guarantee that ending anyway - you should feel shame and self-loathing for signaling your support for such a grotesquely abusive regime.

Seriously. Let's be honest here, whether you vote for Obama or whoever the GOP candidate happens to be next year, you and the country will be ass-raped with no lube. The only difference is whether you get a reach-around to make your ass-raping go down a bit easier.

[Omega18]

More like emo progressives who were disappointed that Obama didn't give them their magic unicorn stayed home and delivered the 2010 election to the Republicans. Pray tell, what was Obama supposed to do in the face of Blue Dogs and the filibuster. But by all means, primary him, that'll pretty much guarantee that a Republican is elected in 2012.

And yes, thank you for telling me, an American, what is best for my country. *You* don't have to live with the consequences of a Republican nutjob winning in 2012.

So if I pipe up, ~*as an American*~, and say that I agree with Europeans who think that Obama is not a good president and ought to be primaried out, does that make it any more legit? Or are you just grasping at shit to fling at an opinion you don't like?

When you vote to re-elect Obama you are seriously saying "yeah i know he reversed himself on big campaign promises, protected financial executives from criminal investigation, failed to enact serious financial reregulation, cut the FICA tax and effectively laid the groundwork for a future dismantlement of Social Security, extended the Bush tax cuts like he said he wouldn't, embraced and expanded Bush-era policies on torture and assassination, put more troops into Afghanistan, literally put American citizens on lists of people to be assassinated, and officially shielded from investigation (let alone prosecution) nearly every single person involved in the murder by torture of hundreds of human beings... but i'm still going to vote for him! "

You should be disgusted with yourself. I'm not joking. Even if you think you're doing some 'necessary' thing to somehow prevent the country from sliding into the shitter - which is pretty irrational since both parties are pretty much going to guarantee that ending anyway - you should feel shame and self-loathing for signaling your support for such a grotesquely abusive regime.

You might try for remotely realistic expectations on what an American President is actually going to do given political realities. I.E. going after financial executives criminally is actually going to be extremely difficult in most cases given how the laws were written at the time the financial collapse, and no elected US President was possibly going to serious pursue torture charges in general given the practical and political issues when it was endorsed by the executive. (There are at least specific cases of extreme abuses where individuals have faced criminal charges.)

Cutting the FICA tax temporarily was actually a way to significantly help the regular instead of the really wealthy Americans which could actually get through a Republican Congress. (It in no way actually impaired Social Security financially since the money specifically came out of the general fund.) As long as people like you are not crazy enough to vote in a manner which puts Republicans in complete control, the temporary FICA tax in no way actually genuinely risks Social Security.

Obama is indisputably representing practically a utopian Presidential regime in comparison to what you would actually be looking at with any of the plausible Republican nominees and not voting for Obama in at least the general election (at least if you're in a state where the vote will matter and is not symbolic) is what should be viewed as contemptible.

[Steven Snyder]

Having first-hand experience on how Rick Perry governs, Obama may be bad but Perry is so much worse.

While Obama may lay the groundwork for the dismantlement of entitlements and social programs, hold off on environment reform, and maintain the tax breaks for the wealthy. Perry will do his best to destroy entitlements, shut down the EPA, repeal the Clean Air/Water acts, and give additional tax breaks to the wealthy at a expense of the middle class. I cannot express in words just how terrible Perry is as a political force, the man taints and defiles everything like a love child of Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney.

The best news I heard recently was that the AFL-CIO was well, "The AFL-CIO's president, Richard Trumka, says it's part of a new strategy for labor to build an independent voice separate from the Democratic Party.".

But to be completely honest I am pessimistic about the entire thing, I don't think the US Congress is a functional establishment anymore because the US itself has become so polarized that we act like a dysfunctional family that just wants a divorce.

[The Romulan Republic]

More like emo progressives who were disappointed that Obama didn't give them their magic unicorn stayed home and delivered the 2010 election to the Republicans. Pray tell, what was Obama supposed to do in the face of Blue Dogs and the filibuster. But by all means, primary him, that'll pretty much guarantee that a Republican is elected in 2012.

And yes, thank you for telling me, an American, what is best for my country. *You* don't have to live with the consequences of a Republican nutjob winning in 2012.

So if I pipe up, ~*as an American*~, and say that I agree with Europeans who think that Obama is not a good president and ought to be primaried out, does that make it any more legit? Or are you just grasping at shit to fling at an opinion you don't like?

When you vote to re-elect Obama you are seriously saying "yeah i know he reversed himself on big campaign promises, protected financial executives from criminal investigation, failed to enact serious financial reregulation, cut the FICA tax and effectively laid the groundwork for a future dismantlement of Social Security, extended the Bush tax cuts like he said he wouldn't, embraced and expanded Bush-era policies on torture and assassination, put more troops into Afghanistan, literally put American citizens on lists of people to be assassinated, and officially shielded from investigation (let alone prosecution) nearly every single person involved in the murder by torture of hundreds of human beings... but i'm still going to vote for him! "

You should be disgusted with yourself. I'm not joking. Even if you think you're doing some 'necessary' thing to somehow prevent the country from sliding into the shitter - which is pretty irrational since both parties are pretty much going to guarantee that ending anyway - you should feel shame and self-loathing for signaling your support for such a grotesquely abusive regime.

Their are degrees in terms of how bad things can get.

Vote for someone else if you wish, but don't delude yourself into believing that there is not a huge difference between Obama and the GOP.

[Omega18]

Uranium nailed it. The fact of the matter is, you can cry about the Republicans but when the sitting Democrat president caves in constantly to them, enacts policies they would, engage in acts of torture, support corporations like they would and many other things that people here despise the Republicans for, then really how much better are the Democrats on a national level? The Tea Party problem is a potential spanner in a works but who knows where that will really go. There is no strong gaurentee they will even get to a position to take on Obama as president.

You could clarify what you're talking about by "acts of torture" but it frankly sounds like you're not being careful and are claiming that not going after all the acts committed under the Bush regime with their endorsement and were not all prosecuted are the exact same thing as the Obama Presidency supporting them, even if Obama has made it clear those methods are not allowed.

It also sounds like you're not paying enough attention to all the things that the serious Republican Presidential nominee candidates have actually said and advocated. For the record, selective primary challenges to legislators who do seem to be taking excessively conservative positions, especially in a area which leans liberal, is a way to help deal with some of the general concerns you have.

[Bakustra]

So what are the major policy differences between the Congressional Republican leadership and the Obama administration? Examples of substantive differences in most of these five areas:

The Economy

Defense

Social Welfare

Fiscal Policy

Social Policy

would be necessary to convince me that there are "large" differences between the Republican and Democratic leaderships.

[Alyrium Denryle]

More like emo progressives who were disappointed that Obama didn't give them their magic unicorn stayed home and delivered the 2010 election to the Republicans. Pray tell, what was Obama supposed to do in the face of Blue Dogs and the filibuster. But by all means, primary him, that'll pretty much guarantee that a Republican is elected in 2012.

And yes, thank you for telling me, an American, what is best for my country. *You* don't have to live with the consequences of a Republican nutjob winning in 2012.

So if I pipe up, ~*as an American*~, and say that I agree with Europeans who think that Obama is not a good president and ought to be primaried out, does that make it any more legit? Or are you just grasping at shit to fling at an opinion you don't like?

When you vote to re-elect Obama you are seriously saying "yeah i know he reversed himself on big campaign promises, protected financial executives from criminal investigation, failed to enact serious financial reregulation, cut the FICA tax and effectively laid the groundwork for a future dismantlement of Social Security, extended the Bush tax cuts like he said he wouldn't, embraced and expanded Bush-era policies on torture and assassination, put more troops into Afghanistan, literally put American citizens on lists of people to be assassinated, and officially shielded from investigation (let alone prosecution) nearly every single person involved in the murder by torture of hundreds of human beings... but i'm still going to vote for him! "

You should be disgusted with yourself. I'm not joking. Even if you think you're doing some 'necessary' thing to somehow prevent the country from sliding into the shitter - which is pretty irrational since both parties are pretty much going to guarantee that ending anyway - you should feel shame and self-loathing for signaling your support for such a grotesquely abusive regime.

I am with Uranium here. My thoughts exactly.

You might try for remotely realistic expectations on what an American President is actually going to do given political realities.

Oh this should be rich.

I.E. going after financial executives criminally is actually going to be extremely difficult in most cases given how the laws were written at the time the financial collapse

Yes, complex derivatives were unregulated. But guess what was not? Mortgage fraud.

and no elected US President was possibly going to serious pursue torture charges in general given the practical and political issues when it was endorsed by the executive.

If the rule of law is to mean anything at all, the law has to apply to EVERYONE. There are plenty of countries which prosecute their former executives once they leave office. France did it recently.

(There are at least specific cases of extreme abuses where individuals have faced criminal charges.)

And plenty of times that Obama has shielded the CIA from INTERPOL.

Seriously. Let's be honest here, whether you vote for Obama or whoever the GOP candidate happens to be next year, you and the country will be ass-raped with no lube. The only difference is whether you get a reach-around to make your ass-raping go down a bit easier.

Not accurate. There will be no reach-around. The democrats might use some spit. The only practical difference is that if I vote third party, I get to keep some of my dignity by refusing to be broken by my rapist.

You could clarify what you're talking about by "acts of torture" but it frankly sounds like you're not being careful and are claiming that not going after all the acts committed under the Bush regime with their endorsement and were not all prosecuted are the exact same thing as the Obama Presidency supporting them, even if Obama has made it clear those methods are not allowed.

Bullshit. Bradley Manning was tortured. There have also been US citizens tortured at the behest of our government in the third world under the Obama administration.

[open_sketchbook]

Don't bother voting. Just leave the US as soon as you can. The place is sliding continuously backward as corporate interests, insane anarcho-capitalists and fundamentalists take over. There is no long any hope of improvement, just get out before they seize power entirely. This might be your last chance.

[Uraniun235]

Obama is indisputably representing practically a utopian Presidential regime in comparison to what you would actually be looking at with any of the plausible Republican nominees and not voting for Obama in at least the general election (at least if you're in a state where the vote will matter and is not symbolic) is what should be viewed as contemptible.

You'll have to convince me that there is any likelihood that the Democratic party will at some point represent a force for net positive change and not merely a slower slide into collapse than the Republican party. If the choice is between a slow slide and a fast implosion, I refuse to endorse either with my vote.

[The Romulan Republic]

Don't bother voting. Just leave the US as soon as you can. The place is sliding continuously backward as corporate interests, insane anarcho-capitalists and fundamentalists take over. There is no long any hope of improvement, just get out before they seize power entirely. This might be your last chance.

The US is still not only a far better place than most of the world throughout history, and a far better place than most of the world today, but a far better place than it has been through most of its history. Get some fucking perspective.

In any case, people have a moral responsibility to try to improve things. Even if you are living outside the country you can and should vote. If you can't even be bothered to get off your ass to do that much to try to improve the lot of your fellow citizens, fuck you. And simply writing off a country of 300 million people as a lost cause is contemptible.

[open_sketchbook]

The US is only better if you belong to the increasingly shrinking and marginalized middle class. How long is that going to last? How long until the bottom falls out? I wouldn't want to stick around to find out.

Voters don't really have any power to affect the course of the country anymore. The only thing they can do is decide how far they want the accelerator pushed down as they head towards the wall. The actual direction of politics has become disconnected from public interest, run as it is by corporations and the corrupt politicians waiting on their every demand.

[The Romulan Republic]

The US is only better if you belong to the increasingly shrinking and marginalized middle class. How long is that going to last? How long until the bottom falls out? I wouldn't want to stick around to find out.

Voters don't really have any power to affect the course of the country anymore. The only thing they can do is decide how far they want the accelerator pushed down as they head towards the wall. The actual direction of politics has become disconnected from public interest, run as it is by corporations and the corrupt politicians waiting on their every demand.

Even if you're poor, you're not very likely to be the victim of a suicide bombing or a government death squad.

Yes, their are problems. Is the answer to write off the entire nation? No. The answer is to keep working to make it better.

[Thanas]

Even if you're poor, you're not very likely to be the victim of a suicide bombing or a government death squad.

Yes, their are problems. Is the answer to write off the entire nation? No. The answer is to keep working to make it better.

I agree that wile there are problems, the US is not going to become a third world country overnight.

However, why isn't a primary challenge not a tool or "working to make it better"? If it leads to change, then why isn't it worth it?

[open_sketchbook]

The US is only better if you belong to the increasingly shrinking and marginalized middle class. How long is that going to last? How long until the bottom falls out? I wouldn't want to stick around to find out.

Voters don't really have any power to affect the course of the country anymore. The only thing they can do is decide how far they want the accelerator pushed down as they head towards the wall. The actual direction of politics has become disconnected from public interest, run as it is by corporations and the corrupt politicians waiting on their every demand.

Even if you're poor, you're not very likely to be the victim of a suicide bombing or a government death squad.

Yes, their are problems. Is the answer to write off the entire nation? No. The answer is to keep working to make it better.

I'd love to know what sort of magical process you propose regular people use in order to get their opinions heard over the billions of dollars corporations are dropping into the pockets of politicians for permission to more freely wreck the place for short-term profit. Look at how many people were pissed off about the debt ceiling bullshit, then compare it to what actually happened. That's the future of the US, right there.

[The Romulan Republic]

Thanas: If a superior candidate challenged Obama in the Primary, and they were someone who had a real chance of winning the general election, I'd probably support them. I have no problem whatsoever with Primary challenges. I just don't see that as being likely to work this time around.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

The US is only better if you belong to the increasingly shrinking and marginalized middle class. How long is that going to last? How long until the bottom falls out? I wouldn't want to stick around to find out.

Even a disenfranchised poor person in the United States has it better than the average citizen of a poor sub-Saharan African nation. A poor, disenfranchised, person in the United States has more political freedom than a Chinese citizen. A poor, unwilling, teenaged mother-to-be is unlikely to be murdered to preserve the 'honor' of her family in the United States.

And, besides, as a citizen of a nation that shares a long common border with the US, it is in your best interest to push Americans to affect change on their country. Urging the sane people to get out while they can will make for fewer distractions when the Generic Evil Corporation of Murikkka starts looking for ways to stave off its final collapse. Not, of course, that it would come to that . . . but it's also unlikely that the US will become The Puritanical Christian Republic of Syriran Inc.

[Thanas]

Thanas: If a superior candidate challenged Obama in the Primary, and they were someone who had a real chance of winning the general election, I'd probably support them. I have no problem whatsoever with Primary challenges. I just don't see that as being likely to work this time around.

Me neither, but I still think it should happen. Obama has done nothing to deserve reelection or just coasting to the nomination.

[Simon_Jester]

So what are the major policy differences between the Congressional Republican leadership and the Obama administration? Examples of substantive differences in most of these five areas:

The Economy
Disastrously large.

The official Republican party line is, de facto, that all regulation of business is bad, all taxation of business is bad, all public organizations devoted to protecting consumers from corporations are bad, and so forth. The Bush administration was content to allow these things to exist and settled for removing a few pieces of the network. The Obama administration and 2008-10 congressional Democrats removed a few pieces and added some pieces. The congressional Republicans of 2010 and on would happily destroy the system, egged on into doing it by the Tea Party. Just ask Eric Cantor.

The official Republican party line is opposed to any serious expenditure of government money to stimulate the economy in any way, or to maintain infrastructure such as schools and highways in a time of fiscal crisis. Unchecked, this leads to further economic decay.

Defense
Relatively minor.

The Republicans would continue the war in Iraq and Afghanistan on roughly the same level as Obama, adopt similar policies on detention of terrorist suspects and assassinations, and so on. Do you want to know why? Because ultimately, ever since the recession of 2008, the 'War on Terror' has not been anywhere near the front of most Americans' minds. Everyone has domestic policy issues that come first. Thus, there is no incentive for either party to stand out by taking a different policy on foreign wars, because it doesn't gain you anything.

No one gives a shit if the Republicans talk about bombing Iran, because Americans care more about the recession than about bombing Iran. No one gives a shit if the Democrats talk about not bombing Iran, for the same reason.

Social Welfare
Disastrously large. See above.

There is a large bloc of Republicans who want to eliminate the programs that hold the poorer parts of the country together at a time like this. Just ask them if you don't believe me. Democrats may not be doing much to improve social welfare, but if you can't see the difference between "does nothing much for" and "actively calls for the destruction of," you need to get your eyes examined.

Fiscal Policy
Disastrously large. See above.

Republicans want to balance the budget, or say they do. The Tea Republicans have shown many signs of being willing to crash the national economy to do that (see the default crisis last month; you were watching that, right?). This balancing of the budget would predictably come by cutting the entitlement programs. The consequences of that, under these economic conditions, are bluntly obvious.

This is the worst possible time to try to balance the budget- the recession artificially depresses tax income, while a larger fraction of government spending than normal is needed to keep people alive. While many Democrats talk about balancing the budget, they have shown far more willingness to do this by raising taxes on the rich (which causes less harm), or to defer final balancing until the economy comes back.

Only the Republicans are adamant on the idea of trying to fix the recession with government austerity measures, which laughs in the face of all economic sense- you cannot starve your way out of a crop failure.

Social Policy
Here, too, the differences are actually relatively minor. Taking one social issue that's been a big deal lately, the economy matters more to most Americans right now than gay marriage does. While the Republican leadership are Neanderthals on a lot of these issues, the experience of the Bush administration does suggest they'll place those issues on the back burner while pursuing their economic agenda- it's easier that way.

And I suspect this makes it easier to avoid uniting the Democratic base by forcing disaffected minority groups back into the Democratic camp. If gays are ceasing to vote Democrat because of disgust, why interfere with that by engaging in serious persecution of gays when there are other items on the agenda to pursue? Republican candidates may talk about federal gay marriage bans, but that's a measure to rally homophobic support, and probably no more to be taken seriously than Obama's promises to hold Wall Street accountable should be.

Social policy as distinct from economic policy is probably not going to change much, because it evolves more slowly and no one is actively bribing the Republicans to do anything on the issue. However, economic policy affects social outcomes: if the poor are fucked by unfunded schools and the end of the social safety net, and black people are disproportionately poor, then black people are disproportionately fucked.

[Soontir C'boath]

So, what do you all think will truly happen if a Republican President is in 2013 with a Senate that still has a Democratic majority? Will the Senate just roll over to Republican policies and if so how far will they go?