Mystery Series Part 4: Make him do what?

The “Mystery Series” is my response to Palace blogger and (self-proclaimed) Loyal Subject™ SJ’s questions, posed in a comment on my post from the other day.  (I’ll let loyal readers guess the real title.)

So far in this series:  in Part 1 we looked at the Republican platform of 1956, and noted that it was more liberal—by far—than anything mainstream Democrats are proposing today.  Conservatives have a notorious predilection for romanticizing past eras as Golden Ages When Everything Was Better Until Uppity Women Queers Blacks Liberals Immigrants Other People Came Along And Ruined It All, and often posit the 1950s as one such idyllic time in American history, a conservative paradise where government—and women and minorities—knew their “place.”  Like all conservative delusions, this fantasy is (a) rooted in a supremely narcissistic sense of entitlement, and (b) evaporates in the face of facts.  For example, the top marginal tax rate in 1956 was 91%, on income above $400,000 (married filing jointly, adjusted for inflation).  In short: in 1956 the two major political parties were trying to out-liberal each other by enacting, expanding and shoring up social safety net programs; today they are in an arms race to destroy and dismantle them. (See, e.g., President Obama’s appointments of conservative Democrats and Republicans to his Catfood Commission.)  This is prima facie evidence that in the intervening decades, both parties have drifted ever more rightward.  And as we know from the Palace’s research program into CPD, the further right they march, the more keen they are to embrace destructive conservative dogma (like “austerity”) that flies in the face of reality.

In Part 2, we took a look at this piece By Ted Glick at Reader Supported News, entitled “Strategic Presidential Voting.”  Glick’s argument is that in states such as New York (or Utah) where the outcome of the presidential election is all but certain, it would be a very good strategic development if Green Party candidates were to garner a respectable portion of the Democratic party vote.  I like this idea.  A real and growing liberal voting bloc scares conservative Democrats, and that fear is a very good and necessary thing.  But unfortunately it only goes so far:  the pressure on the president or party leadership to stand firm on liberal principles is significantly lessened if nobody actually loses an election.

In Part 3, I pointed out that by the 2010 midterms Democrats had lost significant support from gay constituents after failing to deliver on their issues, such as the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (which precludes gays and lesbians from serving openly in the U.S. military) and DOMA (the “Defense Of Marriage Act,” which among other things prohibits the government from providing any federal benefits for same-sex spouses that it does for straight spouses, like Social Security survivor pay or immigration visas).  The percentage of the gay vote going to Republicans in the 2010 midterms doubled, and Democrats lost elections.  30% (!) of the gay and lesbian constituency voted for candidates that would do absolutely nothing to advance their interests and on many issues would actively work against them.  Republicans took back the House.  But in the lame duck session before the Teabaggers were sworn in, a curious thing happened: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was repealed, and the Obama administration stopped pressing its appeals in support of DOMA in federal courts.

These phenomena are not unrelated.

Which brings us to Part 4.  Let us begin with this anecdote:

After his election in 1932, Franklin Roosevelt met with Sidney Hillman and other labor leaders, many of them active Socialists with whom he had worked over the past decade or more. Hillman and his allies arrived with plans they wanted the new President to implement.  Roosevelt told them: “I agree with you. I want to do it. Now make me do it.”

I want to make Barack Obama (and Democrats) do it.

If you have to ask what I mean by “do it” you haven’t been paying attention, and as punishment I’m afraid you will now have to go back and read my entire blog, starting from the very beginning.  I’m kidding.  There’s no way I could endure that myself.  So how about I summarize?

President Obama and any Democrat who wants my support can start with:

Those are in no particular order, and that is hardly an exhaustive list.

I am not naive: I do not believe that Barack Obama (or any president) could have accomplished all or even most of these things in four years, even though Democrats controlled both the House and Senate during his first two years in office.  And yet here we have a president (and the leadership of his party) acting against almost all of it.

This is not fringe lefty stuff.  I really isn’t.  There is nothing here that is not standard, mainstream liberal fare.  None of these policies should be the slightest bit controversial among progressives.  Moreover, many of these things could have been instantly instituted via Executive Order—by the mere flick of the presidential pen.

Why is this not the template for the Democratic Party agenda?

More importantly:  How do we make him do it? 

__________

RELATED:
Mystery Series Part 1: The RNC platform.
Mystery Series Part 2: Strategic Voting, Softball Edition.
Mystery Series Part 3: Strategic Voting, Hardball Edition.

One thought on “Mystery Series Part 4: Make him do what?

  1. Superb! Questions answered and a most important question asked: “How do we make him do it?” And how do we get this published in the editorial pages of the NY Times and other leading newspapers?

    For all the decisive points you make, I still can’t forget the horror of interminable Republigoon™ control of everything lurking out there in the political and cultural Slough of Despond.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s