The Difference Between Two Parties, Part II

In an earlier post, it was made clear that the Republican and Democratic Parties have clearly-delineated differences between them that separate the two. Though there are still many aspects of the two that are more or less the same - witness President Obama's continuation of Bush-era foreign policy as a good example - there are nonetheless fundamental differences at the core of each party.

One of these core, fundamental differences lies in each party's base. A party's base is the soul of the party. They are the ones who will support the party above all else, who strive to make it the best it can be. The ones who are among the very low percentage of Americans who vote in primaries or non-Presidential election years. The ones who are the most rigidly ideological - conservative or liberal. The base pushes the party either more to the Right or more to the Left, depending on how far the party strays.

It is common knowledge that both parties are actually composed of several factions that together combine to make up a coalition of moderate-to-center-right and moderate-to-center-left organized political bodies. History has shown this to be the case for much of the last 100 years, with most policy being compromises that end up squarely in the middle of the political spectrum.

This common knowledge is, however, completely false. Two moderate, pragmatic American political machines, one center-left and one center-right, have not existed as such for at least 40 years, if not longer. Much of this is due to the increasingly right-ward drift of the Republican Party, whose conservative wing now composes the majority of members and for all intents and purposes is the party. There are barely any liberal Republicans any more, and moderate Republicans have mostly been purged.

With the Republican Revolution in the mid-1990s, when they took control of the House for the first time in over 40 years, the party's conservative wing had finally won an enormous victory (if you discount the 12 years of Presidents Reagan and Bush). This was followed up by the eight-year reign of President George W. Bush and a Republican Congress, who managed to spectacularly fail in essentially every single thing they did. Such failure was always going to happen because the Republican Party had become a party of fanatical ideologues whose only goal it was to enact their pet conservative policies, regardless of whether these policies worked.

Decades of right-wing economic policies and many socially-conservative victories in Congress have substantially shifted the country to the Right. The United States is now one of the most unequal industrialized countries in the world, while also managing to be the lowest-taxed, least-regulated, and most-dependent upon fossil fuels. It is a country in which it has become increasingly complex and difficult to get an abortion, receive already scanty unemployment benefits, but where it is spectacularly easy to purchase and carry a firearm in public.

The immense failure of the Right's policies can be seen in the explosion of the deficit, the racking up of enormous amounts of debt, engaging in two illegal, unfunded wars that have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and severely tarnished the nation's reputation abroad, the absolute financial collapse of Wall Street which nearly completely ruined the U.S. economy, and allowed health care costs to rise unaccountably high due to intense opposition to the one thing is known to bring it down - some form of universal, single-payer coverage.

That this failure of conservative ideology has resulted not only in denial of its failings, but in a doubling down of voting in even more conservative conservatives is rather astonishing. But it speaks to the power of the Republican Party's base, and how the party itself caters to it. Republican office-holders will do anything, anything, to appease their base. They will pledge to destroy the economy unless taxes are not raised. They will stand on principle to oppose a health care bill that will lower costs. They will go back on literally anything they have said in the past that might compromise them now - Orwell would be nodding his head - all in order to appease their base. They will do all this because they are absolutely terrified of their base. And they have good reason to be. Republican primary voters have shown that they will not tolerate those who they consider to be insufficiently conservative. So, Republicans constantly harangue each other as to who is the most conservative, who is the true conservative, etc. They do this not only because they have to, but because being conservative is a good thing.

In contrast to the Republican Party's base, the Democratic Party hates their base. With a passion. It should be noted that, though Democrats are usually thought of as "liberals", most Democrats are not self-identified liberals. A plurality of Democrats are liberal, with many moderates and a substantial amount of conservatives. The Democratic Party, then, still embodies the old notion of a center-left coalition. Even though most moderates share almost every single belief that liberals do, "moderate" Democratic politicians often find themselves ostracizing their liberal colleagues. This has resulted in many moderate and conservative Democrats embracing right-wing, conservative, Republican policies that have truly been terrible for the country. As a result, national policies have skewed to the Right for several decades.

Whenever there is a complaint about this rightward drift from the Democratic Party's base - that is, from liberals - the "mainstream", "moderate" Democratic politicians like to push back against them to prove how "serious" they are. Liberals are branded as "extremists" and their complaints are not accepted. And they can do this because they know that nothing will happen to them. Nothing at all. Whereas Republicans are terrified of their base, Democrats hate their base. Democrats will not vote out a politician for not being liberal enough or for doing something that the Democratic Party does not stand for.

How many Democrats lost their primaries to more liberal politicians after voting for the War in Iraq? How many Democrats lost their seats after voting for the Bush tax cuts, or for cutting welfare, or for supporting de-regulation. or for passing the PATRIOT Act, or for voting against gay marriage, or anything else that went directly against liberal principles? The Congressional Progressive Caucus did not stand as a group and vote down the Affordable Health Care Act for not providing a public option or single-payer mechanism like the Tea Party Republicans almost certainly would have done (though this may or may not have been a good thing).

While Republican presidential candidates argue about who is more conservative, you would be very hard-pressed to get a Democratic candidate to admit that they are liberals. Being liberal is a bad thing, you see. It means you aren't "serious", that you are "out of touch". Of course, being conservative means exactly the opposite. This hesitancy to embrace liberalism and the corresponding "hippie-punching" that the Democratic Party regularly engages in with its base is due to the acceptance of the status-quo by liberal party members who do not vote with their principles. By accepting the Democratic Party's embrace of illegal wars, illegal torture, deregulation, unconstitutional surveillance activities, interventionist, warmongering foreign policies, liberals are accepting the status-quo. By not voting to change policies to fit their own values, like conservatives do, liberals allow the American political spectrum to shift to the Right. Inevitably this leads to compromise between the center-right and the Right. This is a terrible choice that inevitably also leads to terrible policies.

Therein lies another major difference between the two parties. Republicans are afraid of their base, while Democrats hate theirs. This divergence among the die-hard ideologues of both parties has resulted in creating a shadow United States, one that is somehow still a superpower but that also is only a fraction of the greatness it has the potential to be. One way to shift the dialogue, shift the spectrum, shift the nature of policies, is for liberal Democrats to gain a voice, stand up, and vote their conscience. They must make the Democratic Party responsible and accountable. They must return the party to its core whence it has for several decades been fleeing.

The Liberal Seduction; or, the Abandonment of a Party's Soul

In the 2010 New York State gubernatorial election, Democratic candidate Andrew Cuomo won over 60% of the vote in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans almost 2 to 1. That this happened in an election year which saw massive gains for the Republican Party was not in itself terribly surprising; after all, New York has reliably voted for the Democrats in Presidential elections for decades and the state Assembly has been controlled by the Democratic Party for over 35 years in a row.

Governor Cuomo's father, Mario, was also a Democratic governor of New York in the 1980s and early 1990s. Mario Cuomo was an outspoken and proud liberal, and his time in office reflected that. He governed at a time when, nationally, the political atmosphere was very much in the camp of Republican, conservative values. As such, his policies and overwhelming popularity of the time could be interpreted as a liberal and Democratic rebuke to the federal policies of the Reagan administration, which would pursue policies that led to increased inequality, homelessness, and poverty. Just as in the 1980s, the election of a liberal Democrat to serve as governor of a state of 20 million people could show that there were viable, progressive alternatives to the right-wing policies en vogue at the national level.

The only problem with this narrative is that Andrew Cuomo has not governed as a liberal; rather, he has governed as a mainstream, "serious" Democrat. This breed of the Democratic Party calls itself centrist but in reality is center-right. Generally speaking, the traditional American political spectrum for decades was that of two large, Big Tent parties, both of which were coalitions ranging from the center-left to moderate for the Democrats and center-right to moderate for the Republicans. The past 30 years has seen a shift in this paradigm, however, as the Republican Party has moved ever farther to the right, and much of the Democratic Party has shifted along with them. In doing so, they have abandoned the core, fundamental soul of their party and betrayed those whose interests they most need to represent.

Governor Cuomo exemplifies this mainstream Democratic strand. He embodies the "centrist" Democrats who have been nominated for president since Michael Dukakis in 1988 showed that true liberals had become laughingstocks, unable to be elected. President Clinton, a Southern Democrat, attempted health care reform, tried to allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military, slightly raised taxes on the rich, and presided over a period of economic expansion for the United States. All of these things were generally applauded by the liberal base of the Democratic Party. What the liberals did not care about was the fact that his economic policies were, in certain crucial areas, to the right of Nixon. Clinton campaigned on "ending welfare" as we know it, and his approval of a bill that did just that was a huge step forward in the conservative assault against the already-meager social safety net in America. His deregulation of the financial sector was a major cause of the financial calamity that would engulf the United States several years later. He did nothing much, as a Democratic president, to reduce inequality or enact any other liberal policies of substance. But he remained a popular president, especially among liberal, because of the rare treats he threw to the Left.

Governor Cuomo's policies reflect this type of Democratic politician. His single greatest achievement so far must be considered the passage of a gay marriage bill, which made New York the biggest state by far to enact such legislation and in the process effectively assured his re-election due to the importance of this issue to the liberal base of his party. To be sure, this is a significant and welcome milestone of progress in American society. His efforts in getting it through the Republican-controlled Senate are to be given the highest commendations.

This one admittedly outstanding success serves to gloss over the other conservative, right-wing policies that he has enacted. While calling himself a "progressive who is broke", Governor Cuomo was faced with a rather large budget deficit and unable to borrow money to help pay for it. He refused, however, to extend a surtax on millionaires that was favored by the Democratic-controlled Assembly and would have covered almost a quarter of the multi-billion dollar shortfall in the budget. Instead, Cuomo has presided over mass layoffs of state employees, huge cuts in funding to public education, and prolonged fights with labor unions over issues such as collective bargaining and health care. He has supported the use of fracking in Upstate New York after declaring it unsafe for New York City (if it's unsafe for one area, why would it be safe for another?). He has enacted a mandate relief bill that was originally a passionately conservative idea and has been proven to be ineffective.

When Cuomo was running for office, he did not especially seek out the help of the Democratic Party's most consistent and loyal supporters: labor unions. Of course, this did not matter - who were they going to vote for, the Republican? It remains to be seen what the final effect of his cuts to social, health care, and education spending will be - but the important point is that his draconian fiscal measures fully encapsulate the ideology of the party that the vast majority of New Yorkers did not vote for.


Now, Governor Cuomo will be able to achieve a second term as governor with ease and, if he seeks it, can be a viable candidate for president in 2016. He will be re-elected as governor because he passed a gay marriage law. That this is such an important piece of legislation to liberal supporters, as well as the fact that there are only a handful of states (all in the Northeast) that have passed such laws, means that it is a landmark piece of legislation that will effectively dominate any summary of his tenure for the next several years. There will be little discussion of his atrocious budgetary decisions or that these decisions would have been almost identical to a Republican governor's. Even if there were such a discussion, who should the millions of Democratic voters elect, then? They won't vote for a Republican who is even further to the right than Cuomo. There is in actuality, no real good choice for voters.

This is a result of the Democratic Party's abandonment of its soul. There will also not be an issue made of the governor's fiscal policies among liberals, and that is the liberal seduction.

The Democratic Party, as an alleged party of the Left, is supposed to stand for the excluded of society; racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious minorities, women, organized labor, the poor, the forgotten. Representing the Other means enacting policies that improve their condition and stand for what they stand for. This translates to social progress, but also should result in economic policies that reduce inequality, strengthen the safety net, and generally give a viable, progressive alternative to that of the Right. There are becoming fewer and fewer Democrats who embody this duality of social and economic liberalism, and fewer and fewer liberals who will make this something politically accountable to the politicians who no longer act in such a way.

Governor Cuomo can become Presidential Candidate Cuomo in 2016 (and he could win, too); for the Left, he can say "I passed a gay marriage law"; for the so-called middle, he can say "I reformed health care, worked with both parties, and made hard decisions that were necessary to New York on a path to fiscal security"; and for the Right, he can say "I passed a budget ahead of schedule, without raising taxes, in New York!" By showing favorable sides of himself to the Left, Right, and Center, Cuomo would be a formidable candidate in the Democratic primaries and the general election. His is such a good template for success that Maryland governor Martin O'Malley is now also going to attempt to pass a gay marriage law in a state where Democrats heavily outnumber Republicans.

This is the template of the modern day, mainstream, centrist, "serious" Democrat. The safety net is an entitlement program that can and should be tweaked (read: shredded). Universal health care is a pipe dream. Taxes are bad. Cutting education funding is a responsible decision. Labor unions are nice fundraisers, but let's face it, they're on the decline and they have to be realistic. Even illegal, malicious, unjust, preemptive war is acceptable (the number of prominent Democrats, many of whom were considered "liberal", who voted for the Iraq War Resolution is too many to count). It's important that the middle class is strong (but no substantial steps are taken to bolster them). Women should have the right to choose whether to have an abortion, the riff-raff should stay out of areas where decent people do their business (what have "serious" Democrats done about the prison industrial complex? What about improving the lives of the millions of impoverished and oppressed minority population?) and at the same time, we need to ensure that business, Wall Street, and the wealthiest campaign donors enjoy the good life, above everything else and even at the expense of everyone else.

The United States needs and deserves viable choices and alternatives when choosing for whom to vote. The Democratic Party's abandonment of their historic core ideals too often make this choice a false one for Americans. America needs a bold, robust, viable progressive alternative to the policies of the Right. The Democratic Party must fulfill this need, and come up with a 21st-century New Deal, a 21st-century Fair Deal, a 21st-century Great Society. The void of the past 35 years has been deafening; now is the time for the Left to roar.

Austerity is not the Answer

Since the collapse of the global economy in 2007-2008, almost every industrialized country has embarked on a series of so-called austerity measures, in an apparent attempt to either grow the economy by contraction, reduce accumulated debt, or sometimes both.

Such measures involve in most cases drastically scaling back social spending and social safety nets - pensions, welfare, unemployment benefits - while raising taxes and privatizing formerly-public institutions. These actions inevitably fall the hardest upon those who most depend upon public services: the poor, the middle-class, minorities, students, the working class. In these tough economic times, citizens are told, governments and countries must endure "shared sacrifice" and to "live within their means". This narrative has been taken up by most of Europe's governments, the majority of whom are conservative, as well as the United States - despite having a Democratic President and Senate.

Though the austerity movement is pervasive and being attempted everywhere, it is not the answer. For nowhere is austerity working the way its proponents said it would. Indeed, it appears to be causing more harm than good, and coincidentally happens to be favoring the rich, big businesses, and corporations; though calls are made for "shared sacrifice", almost nothing of substance is being asked of the rich or corporations to contribute to the effort in scaling back.

The rich don't need pensions, welfare, or social security. The rich don't care if health care is reduced, as they are already healthy and can afford quality care if they need it. Corporations are making record profits and have no desire to see things change, as firing large sections of their workforce increases their profits while not reducing efficiency. At a time when the vast majority of society needs the essential services that government social spending provides, they are being told that it can no longer be afforded, and they must make do without.

It appears that this is partly a matter of priorities, and governments everywhere have shown that their main priorities are maintaining the banking and financial systems, which have cost billions and trillions of dollars to preserve. Though it was these institutions' reckless greed and irresponsible behavior that caused this global recession, the myth persists that it was the debt that caused the crisis, rather than the other way around. Nobody seemed to care about their country's debt before the global recession - why should it matter now? It matters now because it presents a fantastic opportunity for conservatives and neoliberals to radically transform society into what they hope will be a libertarian utopia. Trillions of dollars are put aside to salvage the financial sector, but in exchange, teachers must lose their jobs, workers have to give up more for the same benefits, education budgets must be drastically cut, and millions of people must reduce their quality of life - all because of a relatively small handful of people/organizations and their insatiable appetite for making more money.

Many proponents of austerity proclaim that cutting services, cutting debt, and cutting spending is the only way to shore up business confidence, and in this way the economy will grow by contraction. Yet this business confidence is nowhere to be seen, with the cruel effects of the cutting being shown in the millions of people in the United States who are now living on food stamps, unemployment benefits, and are without jobs. It can be seen in the rioting and mass protests in the United Kingdom, Greece, and France.

It seems that, despite widespread public opposition to such cuts, conservative and even leftist parties are agreed on this course of austerity.

In the United States, the Republican Party's objectives of dismantling the New Deal and returning the country to 1900-era standards of living are nakedly obvious; they are merely using the financial crisis (a crisis they largely helped to create) as a way to savagely exterminate the feeble American safety net of unemployment insurance, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This can be seen in the vast majority of states under Republican governors and legislatures, and all with disastrous results. The undemocratic breaking of unions in Wisconsin and Ohio, the destruction of unemployment insurance in Florida - these measures were not causes of the crisis, but are nonetheless being targeted merely because of the ideological opposition of radical neo-fascist Republicans. Such drastic spending cuts are sure to harm the economy, as most economists and even financial institutions such as Goldman Sachs say. Their argument is that the U.S. is spending too much, and so-called "entitlements" need to be reformed, that is, destroyed. This argument, for cutting spending, reforming the safety net, and balancing the budget, has largely been taken up by the Democratic Obama administration, as well as most Democratic state governors - despite there being an incredibly strong case to be made for running a deficit, raising taxes on the rich, fixing the corruption inherent in Wall Street and Washington, and reversing all of the negatives the Bush administration inflicted upon the country.

Republicans say the U.S. has a spending problem, but this could not be farther from the truth. Taxes are the lowest they've been for decades, with the vast majority of the $1.4 trillion deficit coming from Bush-era policies. Though the stimulus added some to the deficit, most of the rest of that has been because of the economy's decline, as more people require unemployment insurance, food stamps, health care, and so on. Neither the U.S. deficit or national debt are serious problems at the moment, despite all the rhetoric. The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio is about average for industrialized countries, and while the $1.4 trillion deficit sounds large, the United States still has the largest economy in the world by far, at over $15 trillion. Interest rates are low and foreign governments still are more than willing to buy U.S. Treasury bonds; the deficit is not a problem. That extremely fiscally conservative Republican ideology has been largely embraced by President Obama and many other state Democratic governors and parties despite widespread popular opposition to such policies is worrying for the future of the United States.

In Great Britain, David Cameron's Conservative Party have embarked upon a radical agenda of draconian cuts to the British social safety net, despite dressing up the process in somewhat progressive terms. These cuts come amid mass demonstrations that oppose them, as well as riots against the raising of student fees and other cuts to vital social services. The opposition Labour Party has a large faction of Blairites who largely agree and accept the principle of the Conservatives agenda, thereby failing to present an alternative for the people of the United Kingdom. This comes at a time when the Labour Party should be more relevant than ever, as inequality in Britain is higher than it has been for decades - yet the party is more unfocused, diffident, and weakened that at any point in the last 20 years.

For the European countries that are requiring bailouts due to their financial situation, one can argue about the extent to which such measures are necessary, but what should not be debated is that these countries have lost their ability to democratically determine the course of action the people of those countries want to choose. The IMF, European Central Bank, and ratings agencies are a group of unelected, unaccountable private institutions whose agenda is clear. They have demanded that countries like Ireland, Greece, and Portugal embark upon severe and drastic austerity measures before they are able to give them the loans they need to help solve their distress. By applying essentially the same measures to each of those countries, regardless of the differences in their situations, these private institutions with leaders who no one elected are dictating the course of action that sovereign nations take, thereby undermining the democratic foundation of these countries' citizens' right to self-determination. Even when, for example, Greece employed such austerity measures as dictated to it by the IMF and ECB, their economy did not recover; in fact, its credit rating has continued to be downgraded while its financial situation shows little sign of improving - despite decreases in the quality of life for most citizens while also drastically and forcibly changing the Greek social landscape.

Austerity is not working. Austerity is not the answer. The best way to grow the economy and reduce debt is by putting people back to work. At a time when private-sector growth is anemic, and can no longer be relied upon to employ the same amount of people that it had before, the government must step in and directly stimulate the economy by massively spending on the employment of its citizens.

When asked what got the U.S. out of the Great Depression, most people will respond with "World War II". What was it about the war that put the economy back on its feet? Massive government spending on the military for several years, combined with much higher taxes on the rich. The United States debt-to-GDP ratio in the middle of World War II was 143%, incredibly higher than it currently is. But after robust economic growth following the end of the war, this was significantly reduced to a point where it was no longer an issue. So why are governments not treating this global economic crisis like World War II? Why not spend massively, not on tanks, rifles, and planes, but on housing, roads, bridges, and rail?

Germany is a good example of a country that has largely pursued a Keynesian economic course; the German government spent large amounts of money keeping their workforce employed, while also giving bailouts to companies on stringent conditions dictating what they could and could not use the money for. As a result, the German economy has grown far faster than any of their neighbors and employment has rebounded. The governing conservative-neoliberal coalition is planning on introducing a tax cut for middle-incomes and a tax hike for higher-incomes, due to the budget deficit being so low.

The money that was used to save the financial sector can also be used to save the middle-class. The beneficiaries of the bailouts need to give back to society what they took through their own negligence, corruption, and criminality. This is a time when public service and government social spending should be higher than ever, when the safety net is strengthened and enhanced, not destroyed. This is a time when people need their government to provide for them because no one else can. This is a time when the excesses of right-wing economic policy should be reversed and destroyed, not the opposite.

Austerity is not the answer. Democracy, citizens, and government are the answer.

The Democratic Party is Not Enough

In his State of the Union Address of 1944, the great Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt put forth what he termed an "economic Bill of Rights" for the American people. Proclaiming that it these rights had become economically "self-evident", President Roosevelt boldly and unabashedly asserted that every American, regardless of race, gender, skin color, or any other divisor, had the inalienable right to:

-a good job with a living wage
-a good education
-adequate health care
-adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment through Social Security
-freedom from unfair competition and monopolies of business



This Second Bill of Rights was never able to implemented, as the President died suddenly only a year later, while the Second World War still raged. Though his speech and its outline for making the United States more prosperous and equal are now almost 70 years in the past, many supporters of the Democratic Party still vote for the party in the hope that these cherished ideals may become reality.

It is a noble dream. Were that simply voting for the Democratic Party could achieve such goals. But it has become increasingly clear over the past several years, decades even, that the Democratic Party by itself is not enough to accomplish what FDR set out for the country.

For each of those inalienable rights that President Roosevelt envisioned should be enshrined in law now lie in tatters, or are dangerously close to becoming so. In the midst of the most dire economic crisis since the Great Depression, the situation appears bleak, with the Democrats mostly underwhelming in any of their attempts to rectify the general situation of millions of Americans.

Millions of Americans live in poverty or just barely out of it. The federal minimum wage remains scandalously low, and does not even approach what would be required to be considered a living wage.

The American education system remains one of the worst among industrialized nations, in terms of high-quality education being available to the most amount of citizens. This has been and remains so despite decades of policy efforts from the Democratic Party that have ultimately proven fruitless.

The national shame that is the morally bankrupt American health care system remains entrenched in place, with millions of Americans uninsured and unable to afford decent care. The United States is the only industrialized country in the world where thousands and thousands of citizens become destitute every year because they cannot afford to pay their hospital bills. The Democratic Party has been unable and even sometimes unwilling to unify around a core stance of universal, national health care for the United States. Indeed, though the Democrats controlled both Congress and the Presidency for several years, the only health care bill that passed was largely a boon to the private insurance industry and still leaves millions without adequate care.

FDR's desire to restrain the innate vices of monopoly and exploitation of markets that accompany business interests has fallen by the wayside, as the Democratic Party has for over 35 years increasingly embraced the fiscally conservative positions of low taxes, minimal regulation, free trade, social spending restraint, and privatization as a means to sway the important business lobby. Such a transition represents an abandonment of the core principles of the Democratic Party of social and economic justice, as their rightward shift in economic policy played a large role in the collapse of the financial industry and the gross rise in inequality in the United States.

Today, many Democrats are about as far removed from being an FDR-style politician as can be. Though not all have abandoned the ideals of the party that created Social Security, helped massively reduce inequality and poverty, and ended segregation, an alarming amount of Democratic politicians support and buy into the reactionary conservative narrative of repealing the New Deal in its entirety. They protest and complain about the severity of cuts in social spending demanded by Republicans, yet they do not make the argument that lowering taxes and dismantling the welfare state are unnecessary and unjust - they simply advocate less severe cuts to social spending as a way of being the lesser of two evils. This desertion of an important liberal economic and social paradigm has left the difference and breadth between the two parties in socio-economic terms remarkably thin. The ones who suffer, however, are those who have no choice or say in the cuts in services that they need, as almost no one is arguing for them.

In this way, the Democratic Party has largely followed the trend of other center-left social-democratic parties of Europe, who have lurched rightward on socio-economic matters. Parties like Germany's SPD or Britain's Labour Party have embraced much of the neoliberal fiscally conservative economic platform, and in many of the same areas have failed as the Democrats have failed.

No party can be perfect. Nor is it necessarily a good thing for a two-party political system to have two ideologically rigid parties inflexibly trying to run the country. But liberals and Democratic supporters must take a hard look at the party and ask what it has done or is able to do for them and for the country.

Certainly, the Democratic Party has been unable to eliminate or even massively reduce poverty. Nor have they seemed able or even that willing to enact universal health care, a living wage, or the robust regulation of Wall Street, Big Business, corporations, and the financing and banking sectors that the country requires for the vast majority of its citizens to benefit from a strong economy.

The party of Roosevelt dreamed of achieving full employment - that is, 3% unemployment or less - and acted strongly in an attempt to do so. Decades have passed and this is no longer seen nearly as desired or plausible by "mainstream" Democrats today.

Democrats ended segregation, enacted the Voting Rights Act, and gave women the right to vote. But what have they accomplished since 1965 in terms of reducing the massive economic and social inequality and injustice that is rampant among the large minority populations of African- and Latino-Americans? Public schools are now more segregated by race than they were under President Johnson. The current Democratic administration of President Obama has taken up the conservative stance of "securing borders", indirectly helping aid the demonization of immigrants - all while a record number of deportations have been made.

The Democratic Party has been unable to coherently run a narrative against the Republican war on women's reproductive rights, which has seen a drastic increase in a very short time in the number of anti-abortion laws enacted in many states.

The Democratic Party has stood by and been unable or unwilling to stem or reverse the decline of labor unions in the United States. As Chris Hedges has described in detail, the Democratic Party used to be a robust part of the strong American labor movement - the movement that achieved Social Security, the 40-hour work week, weekends off, paid vacation, and pay for overtime. Sometime in the 1960s, however, the Democrats began to abandon labor. The result has been a slow, inexorable decline in the political power and membership of unions across the nation, with poor results for a majority of blue-collar workers. The failure of the Democratic Party to represent at least in some way the interests of labor unions has resulted in the stagnation of working class Americans, with inequality sky-rocketing while wages plateau.

Democrats voted to go to war in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Democrats voted to first pass and then extend the PATRIOT Act, shredding basic civil liberties in the process. Democrats voted to deregulate the financial sector. Democratic majorities at the federal and the state level have enacted brutal cuts - just look at California's or New York's recent budgets, which saw massive tuition increases paired with devastating reductions in social spending that millions of people depend upon. Many Democrats, such as those that make of the majority of the New Jersey state legislature, have embraced the radical agenda of right-wing governors that will further damage the vast majority of Americans, including the core supporters of the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party has been unable to enact any meaningful climate change legislation, and has barely been able to fend off the destruction of the Environmental Protection Agency. After the financial and environmental disaster that was the BP Oil Spill, the Democratic Congress apparently enacted no meaningful legislation to ensure that such a catastrophe could never occur again.

The Democratic Party has proven unable and unwilling to enact any of the meaningful reforms that the country desperately needs. This stems partly from their cooperation and involvement in the incestuous two-party political system that dominates the country; no doubt many Democrats would like to see reform of some kind, none of them are truly willing or able to do so because true reformers would stand small chances of being elected without the support of the business community whose interests they must please and once elected, would be unable to enact any reform without the support of the vast majority of the rest of the party (which is not going to happen).

But where were the Democrats as millions of homes were being foreclosed? What have the Democrats done to ensure that the financial collapse of 2007-2008 will never occur again, as President Roosevelt did in the 1930s? Where are the Democrats who have zealously gone after the parasitic financial criminals that extorted trillions of the public's money for their own selfish greed? Where are the Democrats who treat the education budget like Republicans treat the military budget? Where are the Democrats who rage against the moral injustice of the PATRIOT Act and the shambles of America's health care, education, infrastructure, environmental record, or massive inequality? Those who do embody these are too few, too quiet, and increasingly becoming too late. The party as a whole has abandoned itself.

Democratic President Bill Clinton campaigned on, then signed into law, the destruction of welfare as an entitlement program - something that should have been the antithesis of a Democrat. President Clinton also helped implement financial deregulation and increased the effects of globalization and free trade upon the U.S. - decisions that cost many workers their jobs, increased inequality, and helped lead to the financial collapse.

This is a party that needs the support of progressives, liberals, and other leftists but takes their votes and funding for granted because they know that they have no choice but to vote for them, no matter how miserable their record is in actually promoting progress. This is a party that has not nominated a true liberal for president since 1988, that lashed out at its liberal base for holding the Obama campaign true to its word to not do "politics as usual".

Why did the Democratic Party, when it had majorities in Congress and the Presidency, not repeal the disastrous Bush-era tax cuts? Why did they not pass any meaningful raise in the minimum wage, or enact any environmental bills that assertively move the U.S. away from foreign oil and towards renewable energy? Why did they not treat the economic disaster like a third World War? Why do special interests, corporations, and Big Business maintain their vastly disproportional influence upon American politics and elections?

True, some state Democratic Parties have enacted progressive social legislation, such as gay marriage. But these are almost entirely in traditionally liberal states. If gay marriage is a civil right, why is the national party not coming out in favor of ending the oppression of homosexuals as they did in 1965?

The Democratic Party is too broad of a coalition of liberals, moderates, and conservatives to ever be truly unified, as the Republican Party is. In some ways, this is a strength. But it is also a handicap for those Americans who desire to see true, meaningful change in a progressive manner for the country. Too often today does the Democratic Party stand for the status quo rather than progress. The Republican Party enthusiastically advocated for the destruction of Medicare, whereas the Democratic response was to say "we won't touch it", not "we will make it better" or "the low-cost, universal health care that the elderly receive is an inalienable right that every American deserves and requires". Too many Democratic candidates simply stand in the way of the insanity that would occur were a Republican to be elected - but this is only a means of making American elections a farce. The lesser of two evils is still evil, after all.

When Al Gore lost the presidency because of blatant voter fraud and an unprecedented Supreme Court decision, there was barely a murmur from the Democratic Party about abolishing the electoral college and moving to a national popular election for president, as France does, for example. There is massive support for the opinion that corporations, lobbyists, Wall Street, and special interests have too much say in politics, yet true, meaningful campaign finance reform is not a cause that most Democrats champion. Nor are their proposals enough to truly be the change in the system that the country needs.

Much of the time, the Democratic Party has the country's best interests at heart. But they are not enough. There was a time when the majority of the Democratic Party's coalition stood for those ideals that Franklin Delano Roosevelt proudly announced in his Second Bill of Rights. That time is no more.

For those who wish to see a more egalitarian, just, integrated, progressive America, it is not enough to vote for the Democratic Party. Outside organizations, such as the Center for American Progress, MoveOn.org, or Fairvote.org can attempt to elucidate issues for the public while also providing funding and support for Democrats, in the hopes that it will lead them to enact certain progressively-minded laws. In the end, though, the best this can hope to achieve is elect more Democrats, who have shown themselves incapable of enacting much of a progressive agenda.

It may be that the corrupt influence of the dirty American political system has been an invisible hand that has played a much larger role in the failure to achieve the Economic Bill of Rights. But until a majority of Democratic politicians unflinchingly and unabashedly espouse the ideals of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, nothing much will change for the better for the country.

One should not and cannot place all of one's faith in the Democratic Party, despite their best intentions. It is up to the people to remake government and the country what it once was and should be: for the people, by the people, and of the people.

The Difference Between Two Parties

American politics is rather unique. One of the major differences between the United States and other countries is the entrenched position of the two major parties, something which has lasted for decades and likely will continue to do so. Being a country that essentially only has two parties, one would expect there to be pretty big gulfs in ideology, policies, etc., so as to give voters a clear choice. Though there are some pretty big differences to be found among the average Republican and Democrat, many things are actually quite similar.

In his 1948 book, titled The American Political Tradition, historian Richard Hofstadter argued that the American presidency had always maintained two major themes, no matter the ideology or party affiliation of the president. Those two currents of American politics were capitalism and nationalism - something which Hofstadter saw in every administration up to his time, and which can still be seen in many instances through to the present day.

Democrats and Republicans often have narrow debates, not really arguing about the proverbial where so much as the how. For example, the current big issue enveloping the American political world is how to reduce the deficit and how deep spending cuts should go, instead of whether the deficit is something to be concerned with right now or whether spending should be cut at all.

It is obvious, therefore, that the American two-party system tends to narrow the political debate in ways that are not really seen in other multi-party democracies. Nonetheless, there do remain certain important ways that can be seen separating the two parties.

The biggest difference between the Democratic and Republican party is their approach to governing. Democrats tend to try to at least seriously tackle important issues of the day in an attempt to responsibly govern, whereas Republicans maintain an ideological chain that renders them invariably lusting after political power when in the minority and chasing unrealistic far-right policies when in the majority.

Take a look at the recent 4-year period when the Democrats controlled Congress and the 2-year period when they also had Presidency. If one looks at the wish-list of the liberal base that Democrats are alleged to represent with the actual policy outcomes, the two are not even close.

The Democrats were unable to pass any significant environmental or climate-change legislation. They did not pass a gay-marriage bill, and only managed to repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell during the lame-duck session of Congress when no one had to care about being reelected. The District of Columbia remains a district and not a state, though by doing so it would have tremendously helped their own party. Capital punishment is still legal, the PATRIOT Act was renewed, more soldiers were sent to Afghanistan, universal health care remains a pipe dream, the minimum wage is still insufficient, the richest Americans remain taxed at the same percent they were under President Bush, Wall Street remains largely unregulated, no substantial immigration bill was passed, and on and on.

For liberal and left-leaning Americans, the period of Democratic control can only be seen as mostly glass half-full, if not worse. Part of the reason why such liberal desires went unfulfilled was because of the opposition of Republicans, but also because there were more pressing matters to attend to, like trying to save the economy. A lot of bills were also watered-down by compromises with Republicans, who abused their Senatorial privilege of the filibuster. But the least that can be said about the Democratic Congress was that they sincerely tried to govern in the best interests of most of the American people most of the time.

Compare that to the 6-year period when Republicans controlled every level of government and with the recently-elected Republican majorities and governorships in many states.

The Republican mantra of low taxes and high military spending led the country to two ill-led wars of questionable legality, both decisions of which are the major reasons why the national debt was increased by several trillion dollars under a so-called fiscally responsible party. Republican distaste of alleged "Big Government" led to the appointments to the heads of federal departments people who were incompetent or had a direct, monetary stake in not regulating what they were supposed to regulate. See the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina to see how that turned out.

Now that Republicans control several state legislatures in addition to those states' governorships, the Republican party's hatred of abortion is resulting in the most severe attacks on women's rights in recent memory. Republicans' populist dislike of immigrants and people of color has seen neo-fascist immigration laws springing up in places like Utah and Arizona. In the name of fiscal responsibility, Republicans have nakedly attempted to destroy cherished liberal and Democratic-supported institutions by enacting massive spending cuts of programs they don't like - regardless of their usefulness - and stripping public unions - who tend to get Democrats elected - of their basic function as a societal institution. Though many of the policies are unpopular and idiotic -see the fraudulent Paul Ryan budget plan laughingly called the "Path to Prosperity" that privatizes Medicare while enacting even more huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans - Republicans remain steadfast in their wishes, no matter how far away in fantasy-land such proposals may be.

That is the difference between two parties.

One may make mistakes and anger their core supporters through compromise in an attempt to responsibly govern while the other maintains a rigid ideology at all times, no matter what the circumstances may call for, in an everlasting attempt to seize or maintain political power. See, for example, the time at any point in which the Republican party has been okay with current tax levels, the EPA, corporate taxes, regulation, etc. This mindset, in which a certain set of policies are favored no matter the circumstances, is what MIT economist David Autor calls "now-more-than-everism", and its pervasive, often deleterious effects can clearly be seen at all times within the right-wing gong show that incorporates one of the two major American parties.

At a time when approval ratings of either party are scandalously low, and with those of Congress even lower, the presence of such a puerile, impractical, and irresponsible party threatening to take the reins of governing makes a slanderous mark on American democracy. Americans deserve to make a choice upon whom to vote for, and they deserve all of the choices to be responsible, with the nation's best interests at heart.

Though Republicans no doubt believe they have America's best interests at heart, they are not a responsible choice. The party is, in fact, delinquent, irresponsible, incompetent, and untrustworthy. There are of course certain members of the party who can act as mediators, moderate voices of conscience or dissent, but they are too few and are consistently drowned out by the boorish drone of the neo-fascist, neoconservative, neoliberal wing of the party that is now the heart and soul of what was once, many moons ago, a pragmatic, responsible American political institution.

Why Do Republicans Hate President Obama?

As this blog has pointed out on several occasions, Republicans and conservatives have been throwing an unending tide of slander at President Obama since before he even was elected. Most of this has been vile, despicable, and even so outlandish as to be hilarious.

But the question remains: why exactly do Republicans hate the President so much? Granted, he is a member of the Democratic party, so the right-wing can't be expected to be happy about everything that goes on under the Obama administration.


There are, however, multiple aspects and policy decisions taken by the President that are in fact much more conservative than liberal - things which seem right up the Republican party's alley, but which they unilaterally and quixotically dislike. Ezra Klein, among others, has posited that the President is actually more like a moderate Republican than anything near the left-wing closet-socialist that conservatives make Obama out to be. Consider the following:

- the President favors civil unions for homosexual couples instead of full marriage equality

- the Obama administration has not raised taxes; indeed, the President has extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy while also reducing tax rates for 95% of the rest of the population. Taxes are now at their lowest level since Eisenhower was in office.

- President Obama is almost as pro-business as staunch conservatives: he has surrounded himself with people like Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner, who were part of the Clinton-era deregulation craze that played a large role in dismantling the nation's economy; he has appointed such business and financial-sector luminaries from companies like GE and Goldman Sachs to high positions of economic importance in the White House

- contrary to claims of Obama's economic policies strangling business, American corporations are currently recording their highest profits ever, currently sitting on some $2 trillion

- the PATRIOT Act, something the liberal base of the Democratic party fervently wants to repeal, has been extended repeatedly

- gun rights have been expanded, now allowing firearms to be carried into National Parks

- financial regulatory reform is in many respects right-wing, leaving "Too-Big-to-Fail" alive and well, as well as keeping derivatives from being monitored publicly - something which also played a large role in devastating the American economy

- the much-balleyhooed Economic Stimulus Bill was only about half as large as many liberals wanted, as well as consisting more of tax cuts and credits than actual spending; despite this, it has saved or created millions of jobs

- Guantanamo Bay has remained open, and suspects will be tried by military tribunals instead of civilian court

- under the President's orders, American SEAL forces assassinated Osama Bin Laden

- the President has sent thousands of additional troops to fight the war in Afghanistan

- under Obama, unmanned drone attacks in Pakistan have substantially increased, resulting in civilian deaths

- the crown jewel of Obama's presidency thus far, health care reform, resulted in the most right-wing reform of the health care sector possible; no single-payer, no public option, but a lot of new customers for the private insurance industry and some other aspects (such as banning preexisting conditions and allowing kids to stay on their parents' insurance until 26) make this bill better than nothing, but at the end of the day it is essentially the same bill as the one produced by Republican former-Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney.

- the Obama administration has overseen a record level of deportations of illegal immigrants

Much of the preceding points would almost certainly be being praised by Republicans right now were Obama not the president. After all, President Obama has cut taxes, is against gay marriage, sent troops to Afghanistan, escalated drone attacks on Pakistan, killed Osama, extended the PATRIOT Act, expanded gun rights, and has reformed health care and the financial sector in a generally-speaking center-right manner.

What's not to like about all that, if you're conservative? What is it about this president that Republicans refuse to like, if he has governed in much the same way one of their own party would? Why, exactly, do Republicans hate President Obama?

No doubt some dislike him because of his skin color and strange-sounding name; this is a minority of people, though not as small as could be hoped in this day and age. Establishment Republicans hate him for being articulate, sophisticated, and appearing "cool". The media hoopla that surrounded Senator Obama during the presidential campaign, both nationally and internationally, was something that hadn't been seen around a candidate for president in decades - let alone a Republican candidate.

Republicans hate the President because he won the election. They hate him because their side lost, and they lost because almost everyone agreed that they had run the country in a horrifically terrible and incompetent manner in literally every way possible.

The only reason they are opposing him now in so vicious a manner is to gain political power. By denying, rejecting, slandering, and twisting Obama and the Democrats' agenda and message, the Republicans were able to paint the President as a failure - directly leading to the right-wing's massive gains in the 2010 midterm election.

They continue to hate the President -including the not-so-subtle attacks on his background, ethnicity, race, and religion - because it is politically expedient for them to do so, and they deserve the country's condemnation because of it. The United States stands at a point of staggeringly weak economic status, and the Republican party's number one stated goal is to make President Obama a one-term president. Such positioning of the party above the country is despicable and craven.

The Republican party, in their current state and with their current actions, are a stain upon the face of American democracy, and the country is undeniably worse off for it. Americans want and deserve better. Unfortunately, this type of leadership from one of the two main parties looks set to continue for the foreseeable future, a tactic that will negatively impact the country.

America is a Liberal Nation

It seems to be common knowledge that the United States is a pretty conservative country, relative to other industrialized countries like Germany, France, or Canada. The recent electoral triumph for the Republican Party would back this up, as they have never seen an expansion of government they approved of or a tax increase they liked (unless proposed by a Republican administration).

Polling numbers seem to bear this out as well, with more Americans reporting that they are "conservative" over "liberal" or "moderate" (in fact, the Republican Party has a super-majority of members who say they are conservative, compared to the Democrats who are split mostly between "moderates" and "liberals"). This is actually an increase from previous years, and since moderate voters tended to go for the Republicans in the midterms, it would make sense to claim that America is a conservative country.

Except it's not.



The extension of the Bush tax cuts, as vehemently advocated by the Republican party, would seem to confirm that Americans favor the right-wing economic view of "trickle-down" economics. Except they don't. The vast majority of Americans want taxes raised on the rich, with even a majority of self-identified Republicans expressing disapproval of the GOP tax plan.

Over 70% want abortion to remain legal.

65% wants the government to protect them from terrorism, but not at the expense of their civil liberties.

50% compared to 43% want the protection of the environment given precedence over economic priorities, even in the middle of a monumental financial crisis.

Majorities and Super-majorities support a variety of LGBT rights' issues.

59% support stem-cell research.

Most Americans want the wealthy to help fund Social Security - a cherished support system for the majority of Americans.

A majority of Americans oppose cuts to education, social security, and other social spending to help reduce the deficit.

A super-majority of Americans want less corporate influence.

Most Americans support the new Health Care Law, either approving of it as it currently is or wanting it to be more expansive (diametrically opposed to the GOP call to repeal the law).

In stark contrast to the Republicans, Americans overwhelmingly favor extending unemployment benefits during the economic crisis.

Contrary to what the Tea Party and the Republican Party says, Americans don't want smaller government, necessarily, but rather more efficient government. This means most support social programs like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and welfare but have a decidedly unfavorable view of how well Congress functions.

How is it that on almost every issue, majorities of Americans favor what would be called the center-left or liberal position, yet only 20% or so call themselves liberals? Why does the political landscape not reflect this in Congress?

Much of the failure of the U.S. government to do its job in a more efficient manner is because of the increasingly-polarized nature of politics. The presidency of Barack Obama has seen an unthinkable amount of resistance from Republicans, even though they agree with some of what he's done and much of his policies have widespread support. The Tea Party movement has arisen, calling for a farther turn to the right. It's hard to take a center or center-left position when one party has a significant amount of moderates and the other is unapologetically on the far-right, with very few moderates. Such an unwillingness to compromise and deal in a responsible fashion with the other party has led to a pushing of the political spectrum to the Right, even though ordinary people's views for the most part have become more liberal.

There are, of course, the plutocratic reasons - huge corporations paying millions and billions of dollars, funding a vast network of right-wing think tanks and spending on propaganda campaigns to get right-wing Republicans elected - which steer political discourse far to the right (and have the added benefit of enacting policies that directly affect how much money the plutocrats make/are allowed to keep).

An effect of this plutocracy has been to make "liberal" an ugly word, so people don't call themselves that even if they hold liberal views. The center-right has become increasingly uncompromising and deranged, as evinced by the apoplectic raging of Rush Limbaugh, the insane conspiratorial ramblings of Glenn Beck, or the incomprehensible raving of Sarah Palin. The hegemony of the two major parties is reinforced, creating a system in which they must take part rather than reform.

The result is that the government has increasingly become more for the plutocrats than for the people, and only a monumental grassroots campaign to change things will be able to solve America's coming economic, political, and social crises. Publicly-financed elections, a switch to proportional representation and a multi-party system, and the abolishment of the electoral college are needed, necessary steps to help make up the democracy deficit in America. The country needs and deserves a well-functioning government that reflects the true will and desires of the American people.

Without some kind of mass grassroots social movement, it appears that Lincoln's impassioned declaration that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" will go unfulfilled.

Disillusionment and the Two Obamas

Several months ago, this blog advised the Democrats to grow a pair. They did not, and they paid for it in the midterms. Now, two months into the presidency of Barack Obama, what is the country's stance on the President and his policies? Those on the Right are unsurprisingly against almost everything he has ever said or done (though it must be said that this level of vehement rhetoric goes above and beyond that which was applied to Bill Clinton). The Left are equally as annoyed and disappointed in Obama, just for radically different reasons than the Right is. How has the President managed to dismay and anger just about everybody?

The Right's critiques of Obama range from outrageous, hilarious, to hysterical, vague, and shallow. The right-wing media's over-the-top propaganda machine and big-spending sugar daddies, along with their Tea Party allies, have undoubtedly had an impact on convincing people that the President and his policies are ruining the nation, spending the country into a debt that they will never be able to come out of.

Conservative critics point out that the Obama administration spent hundreds of billions of dollars that would reduce unemployment to under 8%; when this number stayed relatively high, they could then claim that the stimulus was a waste of money, government spending was out of control, and the size of the government had substantially increased. As Paul Krugman has pointed out on several different occasions in several different ways, this critique is almost completely false: while it was naive to claim the stimulus would reduce unemployment to under 8%, it was largely composed of tax cuts/credits and only a fraction as large as it needed to be to spur economic growth; the supposed "huge increase in government spending" is almost entirely related to increased unemployment benefits, health care spending, etc., as a result of the financial crisis.

While small-government conservatives were bound to be aggrieved at any perceived government interaction in the economy, the Left is equally up in arms over the Obama presidency. Their disillusionment with the course of the administration had a huge effect on allowing the Republicans to sweep back into power in the House. This disillusionment springs from the perceived disparity in "campaign Obama" and President Obama. Now, anyone who had read his books or looked into his political views during the 2008 primaries would not be surprised by how his presidency has gone; he has largely stuck with a cautious, well-thought out approach that clings to the center and attempts to gain bipartisan consensus on important issues. But voters by and large didn't want a centrist, get-'er-done president. They wanted true "change to believe in", like Obama himself talked about whilst campaigning:



Conservatives might take his "fundamentally transforming the United States" quote in a decidedly darker direction, but many of those rapturous faces on November 4, 2008 hoped and believed in this fundamental transformation. This perception of who they wanted Obama to be and who he has governed as has led to the classic situation of glass half-full/glass half-empty.

The half-full view has a pretty favorable view of the president: he's actually been the most progressive president the country has seen for decades (which says a lot about the political spectrum in the U.S.); Congress has been more productive in 2 years than many other sessions were in entire terms; the stimulus bill and other financial measures halted what could have been a Great Depression-like meltdown; he's been hampered not only by vociferous Republican dissent, but also members of his own party (other liberal presidents like FDR and LBJ had well over 60 Democrats in the Senate to pass legislation, a luxury Obama could have only dreamt of); the Affordable Care Act is a giant step closer to providing if not single-payer then more affordable health care to as many Americans as possible; the financial reform bill will help to prevent future Wall Street excesses from getting out of hand and damaging the economy; Obama is after all, not a wizard, but rather just one part of the three branches of government - he cannot force his will upon the rest of the government to do what he wants.

From this point of view, the Obama presidency has been pretty productive so far, despite some setbacks and downers that are inevitable for any presidency. This perspective on the president is, unfortunately for Obama, in a constant fight for supremacy against the glass half-empty critics on the Left; the half-empties apparently were winning the fight enough for the midterms to be a "shellacking" for Obama and the Democrats.


Those on the Left who truly wanted fundamental change wanted a president who would fight for them, not the plutocrats. They wanted the banks nationalized, a bigger stimulus, single-payer healthcare, gay marriage, end to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, an end to the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay closed, etc. Instead of breaking up the banks or nationalizing them, Obama's "socialist" policies supported those of George Bush, who essentially threw money at the Big Banks without asking them what they were going to do with it (by comparison, Germany's government - composed of conservatives and neoliberals - enacted a financial rescue package to the left of Obama and the Democrats).

The banks, big business, and Wall Street not only got off with just a slap on the wrist from Obama but he praised their obscenely large salaries and has surrounded himself with the very Wall Street insiders that so many in the public want to see taken down. The Left wanted to see the Democrats and Obama actually take a stand; instead they saw Obama cave in and compromise with Republicans with little or nothing liberal to show for it. Such perceived cave-ins and compromises inflamed resentment and negative sentiment on the Left.

The stimulus was decently-sized, but needed to be much larger; Obama could have fought for a bigger piece of the pie, but instead paraded around the insufficient stimulus as if it would truly cure the country's financial woes. After almost ruining health care reform, the Democrats had to settle for leaving the industry in private hands, thereby ensuring a morally and fiscally irresponsible system could continue. Not even the weak-sauce public-option was that important to the President, apparently.

The financial reform bill did not go nearly far enough in making sure Wall Street's influence on the overall economy would be reduced, letting them off the hook once again. At a time when corporate profits and hedge funds are raking in the dough more than ever, Obama's response was to ensure they keep making millions and billions of dollars while middle-class and poor Americans remain homeless and jobless.

On the civil liberties front, Obama's track record is downright deplorable: Guantanamo Bay remains open, the Patriot Act and its flagrant violations of basic rights, including torture, was continued. Such continuations of Bush-era policies were not what people had in mind when they voted for "Change we can believe in". Obama's lukewarm support for gay rights has become increasingly irritating to those who no longer wish to wait for progress. Many wonder why he does not simply issue an executive order to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell - much like Truman did when he desegregated the Army in 1948.

While it is true that Obama has reduced troop levels in Iraq, 50,000 soldiers still remain as occupiers in a foreign country while 30,000 additional troops were sent to continue the occupation of another foreign country - costing precious lives and dollars in the process.

To top off the right-wing health care reform, right-wing stimulus, right-wing violations of civil liberties, and right-wing financial reform, Obama basically told the Left "shut up and take what we give you". No wonder many liberals were unmotivated to vote in the midterms - Obama had turned out to be much more like Mitt Romney than Dennis Kucinich.

Where does the truth lie among all these views, opinions, and condemnations of President Obama? Things are certainly not so black, white, and gray like the Left, the Right, and the middle seem to think.

Republican obstructionism cannot be overstated - the filibuster has been used by Republicans more in the last 2 years than in the entire nineteenth century -, meaning that a simple majority is no longer enough to pass legislation. And the president can only sign the bills that come before him; while the House has passed an array of progressive legislation, this has often been watered-down or rejected by the Senate. Clearly, the president would prefer to have passed a more comprehensive climate-change bill, a bigger stimulus, or let tax cuts for the rich expire. In his opinion, the votes weren't there and these were the best options he could come up with. Unfortunately for Obama, the Democrats' failure to break Senate filibusters is frustrating to many voters who view them as being more weak-kneed than they might actually be. This in turn reflects badly upon the president, who must shoulder much of this criticism. Not to mention the vitriol being spewed about the President from the Right - it's quite breathtaking in its hysterics and predictions of doom. Perhaps the reason the Right's criticism has been so vicious is because of Obama's success - conservatives would absolutely love it if one of their candidates had been a media darling like Obama was in 2008.

The president seems to think that a lot of the criticism coming his way is because he hasn't enacted enough change in a quick enough fashion. But partisan supporters aren't idiots or overly optimistic. They realize that politics is politics and they won't get everything they want right away and in exactly the way they want it to. No doubt conservatives were annoyed with Bush for not being able to make abortions illegal or privatize social security. No, the problem many disappointed Obama supporters have with the president is not that he hasn't enacted change fast enough, but that he hasn't even really attempted to be the president he persuaded people he would be.

The President showed an embrace of the kind of leftist-populism motivating progressives when running in 2008, but has since showed a sort of apprehension or even disdain for actually governing from the center-left. Perhaps afraid of the political/social ramifications of enacting truly progressive legislation too rapidly, Obama has often said that he is looking farther down the road with his policies than many are seeing. This trepidation for more leftist policies seems to be borne from a desire to win over moderates and gain some support from the Right, which is slightly naive in that he has stuck with trying to be bipartisan after it had become abundantly clear to everyone that there was no interest on the other side of the aisle. There are, however, examples of politicians steering to the left and achieving success, which gives credence to the notion of a different tack for the administration.

Obama's enthusiasm gap stems from the changed perception of him as bringing change to being a "business-as-usual" guy. If voters had wanted someone who could be a good politician, beat the Republicans at their own game, and knuckle-down to get things done, surely they would have voted for Hillary Clinton. But voters wanted radical transformation, not business as usual.

To think that one man could change an entire faulty, broken system is ridiculous - the problem lies rather in that Obama hasn't looked like he wants to change the system. If the president had railed against Big Banks and Wall Street, advocated for a much larger stimulus and outlined a comprehensive plan, clearly calling for single-payer health care but had then been stymied in Congress, he could rightfully say to voters "I'm trying my best here to get the things done that this country truly needs, to truly help change our nation for the better. But these other guys don't want that; they want business as usual. If you want to see true change, vote against them and vote for change in 2010." In such a scenario, even if Obama loses, he wins. Instead, he began bargaining in the middle, hoping for bipartisanship and then paraded around such little victories as though they were V-E Day, while also castigating the Left for wanting a bit more than standard Democratic politicos. Such a maneuver has clearly failed to motivate or inspire those who voted en masse for Obama.

Motivation was always going to be difficult to maintain after the euphoria that greeted Barack Obama's presidential election. The disillusionment that has gradually increased from Obama supporters is perhaps slightly unfair, as the president is simply being the kind of politician he's always been. It is, however, his fault for embracing progressive rhetoric to get elected and then dropping the brand when he entered the White House.

While some of his policies aren't as strong or effective as they could be - the Bush-era continuation of civil liberties violations is scandalous - much good has come from his presidency. Though one step forward instead of three or five is a small step, it is a step nonetheless. The alternative is and will remain unthinkable and unforgivable. Much of politics is about perception. Obama needs to persuade those who most want to believe in him that it is worth doing so.