Slog
News & ArtsMonday, March 21, 2011
Politics / History "Sometimes You Are Most Disgusted with Those Who Seem to Be on Your Side"
Posted by Goldy on Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:21 AM
If Mr. Lincoln were really an Abolition President, which he is not; if he were a friend to the Abolition movement, instead of being, as he is, its most powerful enemy...
— Frederick Douglass, December, 1860
I was listening to "The Road to Civil War," Part I of Backstory's three-part series commemorating the sesquicentenary of the American Civil War, when I was kinda taken aback by the quote above from Frederick Douglass on Abraham Lincoln's election as President. This is America's most famous abolitionist describing as his movement's "most powerful enemy" the future author of the Emancipation Proclamation. It is rather startling.
But also, startlingly familiar, for Douglass's exasperation with the timidity and appeasement he saw displayed by Lincoln and the newly ascendant Republican Party is not unlike the exasperation expressed by many modern-day progressives toward President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats. Nearly everywhere you look on the left there is frustration and disappointment. Obama was touted as a friend of the LGBT community, yet he was slow to act on DADT, and has been less than forceful on DOMA. Obama enjoyed extraordinary support from organized labor, yet failed to move on some if its biggest issues. He campaigned on health care reform, yet couldn't even put his weight behind a compromise like the public option. He championed working people, yet bailed out Wall Street. He promised to close the prison at Guantanamo, but didn't.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard my fellow progressives say they couldn't possibly work to reelect a president who has been such a disappointment on so many issues. But on the Backstory podcast, Yale historian David Blight says that this is not unusual, explaining Douglass's harsh words toward Lincoln as part of "the same dilemma others have faced throughout our history..."
You advocate for something for perhaps all of your lifetime, along comes a political persuasion or a movement or a party that kinda goes partway there, and sometimes you are most disgusted with those who seem to be on your side, and yet won't act on it, versus those you know are not on your side and will never act on it.
Obama has often been described as "Lincolnesque," a comparison that apparently holds true in more ways than one.
[Oh... and if you've never listened to Backstory, I highly recommend it, even if you're not a history buff like me. Absolutely one of my favorite podcasts.]
1
The difference there is that Lincoln didn't make a 180 in his politics. Sure, there have been disappointments, and there is some truth in the notion that a person can't just get to Washington, snap their fingers, and expect everything they want to happen. But in recent months, since the Republican victory in the House, Obama has taken it to a new level by basically promoting centrism, under the banner of cooperation. There have been concrete policy changes that are more than just sour grapes on the part of Progressives.
2
There were many Republicans who believed Lincoln betrayed the party. He was elected as a moderate, yet ultimately became, in the eyes of many, a radical. He may have not "done a 180" willingly, but fate ultimately did it for him.
5
The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free anyone. Go read it. He was "freeing" people he had no jurisdiction over.
6
Obama has often been described as "Lincolnesque," a comparison that apparently holds true in more ways than one.
This is becoming increasingly true as time goes on.
I don't see how it is a good thing considering Lincoln's (*failed*) attempts at compromise led to our only (to date) Civil War. Perhaps it was unavoidable, but on the other hand, perhaps choosing a direction and *leading* the country in that direction would have cut off the balls of the southern rebel movement and avoided the whole bloody (quite literally) mess.
This is becoming increasingly true as time goes on.
I don't see how it is a good thing considering Lincoln's (*failed*) attempts at compromise led to our only (to date) Civil War. Perhaps it was unavoidable, but on the other hand, perhaps choosing a direction and *leading* the country in that direction would have cut off the balls of the southern rebel movement and avoided the whole bloody (quite literally) mess.
7
Obama is a great president. You can argue with political realities, but he can't. Not unlike Lincoln. The net result was a victory for the future in both cases.
8
It's a valid analogy.
The original Republican Party, and maybe the neo-Cons and Tea Partiers today, were concerned mostly with their own middle class ascendancy. Their gripe was things like high lease rates for land (The Rent Is Too Damned High). These early Repubs were the people who came second to the party, after the land giveaways and towns were settled. They were the professionals and workers who wanted the same opportunities based on skills that the original settlers got by the luck of the draw.
So, slavery to Lincoln who was fighting for his own "people" was a distraction from the interests of his constituents. Slavery was problem for the people in power...not for people aspiring to power. And LGBT rights, to Obama, who is still working on getting equality at the upper eschalons for blacks, Hispanics, other disenfranchised, is also a secondary concern for his supporters.
The original Republican Party, and maybe the neo-Cons and Tea Partiers today, were concerned mostly with their own middle class ascendancy. Their gripe was things like high lease rates for land (The Rent Is Too Damned High). These early Repubs were the people who came second to the party, after the land giveaways and towns were settled. They were the professionals and workers who wanted the same opportunities based on skills that the original settlers got by the luck of the draw.
So, slavery to Lincoln who was fighting for his own "people" was a distraction from the interests of his constituents. Slavery was problem for the people in power...not for people aspiring to power. And LGBT rights, to Obama, who is still working on getting equality at the upper eschalons for blacks, Hispanics, other disenfranchised, is also a secondary concern for his supporters.
10
@5; That's what makes it so goddamn brilliant. It was a gambit whose outcome was predicated on the Union prevailing in the Civil War. Talk about fierce advocacy.
12
I never saw Obama as a great liberal - or even the sort of liberal I'd be happy with - but I support him, because he is a foot in the door against all the crazies that the GOP was/is sprouting.
It will literally take decades of hard, dedicated, focused work to bring this country back from the insane policies that are still being promoted by the right-wing (Their latest idea: Let's have "In God We Trust" put on every public building!). It will take a lot of holding your nose and voting for the least worst candidate. It will take compromise between all of the factions that make up the not-right-wing in this country.
Do we have it in us, or will we continue to act like children, and just refuse to participate when politicians like Obama don't do exactly what we want, when we want them to do it?
The corporate powers who back the right-wing crazies are banking that we won't. So far, it's been a pretty safe bet for them.
It will literally take decades of hard, dedicated, focused work to bring this country back from the insane policies that are still being promoted by the right-wing (Their latest idea: Let's have "In God We Trust" put on every public building!). It will take a lot of holding your nose and voting for the least worst candidate. It will take compromise between all of the factions that make up the not-right-wing in this country.
Do we have it in us, or will we continue to act like children, and just refuse to participate when politicians like Obama don't do exactly what we want, when we want them to do it?
The corporate powers who back the right-wing crazies are banking that we won't. So far, it's been a pretty safe bet for them.
13
It is a totally false analogy.
Lincoln was politically brilliant and had great personal strenghths.
He was willing to endure mockery and scorn along the way to achieving his ends.
Obama is painfully inept politically (it is painful even to his worst enemy to see the extent to which he flounders...).
Obama is prickly and cold. Jefferson Davis would be a better comparison.
Lincoln at his core and early on hated slavery. When presented with the chance he destroyed it.
Obama at his core is not sympathetic to homosexuality. He may find it politically expedient to grant some GLTB political favors but he does not burn in his bosom to Free the Faggot.
Lincoln was great beyond words.
Obama is inept and shallow.
Lincoln was politically brilliant and had great personal strenghths.
He was willing to endure mockery and scorn along the way to achieving his ends.
Obama is painfully inept politically (it is painful even to his worst enemy to see the extent to which he flounders...).
Obama is prickly and cold. Jefferson Davis would be a better comparison.
Lincoln at his core and early on hated slavery. When presented with the chance he destroyed it.
Obama at his core is not sympathetic to homosexuality. He may find it politically expedient to grant some GLTB political favors but he does not burn in his bosom to Free the Faggot.
Lincoln was great beyond words.
Obama is inept and shallow.
15
@7's right on. Y'all should listen to him, and stop whining 'cause Obama's had to compromise in order to get things done (What has he gotten done? Only the largest expansion in the social safety net since LBJ, plus a landmark civil rights accomplishment).
@13--Jefferson Davis? Really?
@13--Jefferson Davis? Really?
16
The Democrats in the Governor's mansion and controlling the Washington State Legislature aren't on even on the same side of the grave as you and your human interests. Coverage as always is here: http://www.undeadolympia.com/
17
Every day, I feel proud that my grandfather is buried amongst Robert E. Lee's captured orchards and fields known as Arlington National Cemetery.
The South can suck it.
The South can suck it.
18
Did David Blight actually misuse "verses" for "versus"? Shame.
Oh, and...
#13--In August 1862, Lincoln stated: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
Oh, and...
#13--In August 1862, Lincoln stated: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
20
& Obama has even suspended habeas corpus too! Too bad instead of a team of rivals, he has Team Wallstreet.
@12 I take great issue with your characterization of lefties, Catalina. The lefies who are really disappointed with Obama ARE the ones who participate, who march, who rally, who get off their ass. The childish ones are those who accept the false choice of having to pick betwixt the lesser of two evils, who are blind to the realization that the corporate powers already control the democratic party as well.
@12 I take great issue with your characterization of lefties, Catalina. The lefies who are really disappointed with Obama ARE the ones who participate, who march, who rally, who get off their ass. The childish ones are those who accept the false choice of having to pick betwixt the lesser of two evils, who are blind to the realization that the corporate powers already control the democratic party as well.
21
@20 Stopy your whining OuterCow! Obama is going to rise up boldly in time of crisis and lead us in the direction of our best selves! Just like Lincoln. Boldly!
22
Outer Cow, Please re-read what I said. I didn't say anything about "lefties". I refered to the "the not-right-wing" of this country, which is the vast majority of the nation. Granted, that includes "lefties", but is a lot more than that.
With that said, we can be as proudly left as we want, but we need to recognize where we have common ground with other groups, and take advantage of that, or else it's just an exercise in ideology. The left does itself no favors by engaging in litmus tests, particularly since it has been professionally villanized for thirty years.
After all, poll after poll show that the amount of people out there who hold essentially liberal views, but who would recoil from being labeled a "liberal" is immense. That's a challenge. So far, all we've seen is an effort at rebranding to "progressive".
In my opinion, we're in an age where we need to back away from the edge, and that means bringing lots of strange bedfellows together. And it means compromising sometimes. After all, a Senator Patty Murray is a lot better than a Senator Dino Rossi - or a Governor Dino Rossi. And a Barak Obama is better than a John McCain (Particularly since Sarah Palin would have gone all Lady Macbeth on him at the first opportunity).
With that said, we can be as proudly left as we want, but we need to recognize where we have common ground with other groups, and take advantage of that, or else it's just an exercise in ideology. The left does itself no favors by engaging in litmus tests, particularly since it has been professionally villanized for thirty years.
After all, poll after poll show that the amount of people out there who hold essentially liberal views, but who would recoil from being labeled a "liberal" is immense. That's a challenge. So far, all we've seen is an effort at rebranding to "progressive".
In my opinion, we're in an age where we need to back away from the edge, and that means bringing lots of strange bedfellows together. And it means compromising sometimes. After all, a Senator Patty Murray is a lot better than a Senator Dino Rossi - or a Governor Dino Rossi. And a Barak Obama is better than a John McCain (Particularly since Sarah Palin would have gone all Lady Macbeth on him at the first opportunity).
23
I'm actually pretty happy with Obama and won't hesitate to vote for him again next year (given that nothing drastic will happen from now and then, like we find out he eats babies). The left may be on the right side of history on a lot of things, but the country isn't majority left. In order to get things done, he has to go slowly and work his way through a dangerous minefield where one wrong step can blow off one of his (political) legs. But seriously, he got some sort of health care reform passed (something even a lot of members of his own party were working against), DADT was repealed, and I think DOMA will be a memory by the end of his presidency. We don't have a parliamentary system where the executive can implement their party platform without input from the other side, and despite that, I think he's doing a pretty good job.
24
Lincoln, when faced with the South's obstinacy, threw up his hands and said: "You know what, you're right, people who have lied about me, blocked up the Senate so nothing could pass, and regularly threaten to kill me and my family. Let's build up the slave trade, it will be win-win for American business. From now on I'll take every opportunity to promote slavery, it's the business of the future. Every time I hear a member of my administration speak out against slavery, I'll force them to resign. At every public event I'll put down those whiny abolitionists. Frederick Douglas? Christ what an asshole, always reminding people I ran against slavery. The Slaves? Fuck 'em! they aren't going to be big donors in 1864... How about a war against the Barbary Coast pirates?"
25
@22 Yes most Americans don't know that they agree with us.
Our country is on a well-worn path to complete social and economic collapse. We need a President that will actually fight against the people working to cause that collapse.
Incremental change and compromise with those people might be all that's possible realistically. Most likely though our democracy will be dismantled before the Democratic strategy of politely compromising can fix anything. Incrementalism might be our only option, but it will probably be too late.
Being a little better than a Republican is fine, and it's a reason why I'll continue to support Obama. I just don't think he's going to do anything beyond delay the Republican agenda of a third-world USA.
Our country is on a well-worn path to complete social and economic collapse. We need a President that will actually fight against the people working to cause that collapse.
Incremental change and compromise with those people might be all that's possible realistically. Most likely though our democracy will be dismantled before the Democratic strategy of politely compromising can fix anything. Incrementalism might be our only option, but it will probably be too late.
Being a little better than a Republican is fine, and it's a reason why I'll continue to support Obama. I just don't think he's going to do anything beyond delay the Republican agenda of a third-world USA.
26
22 Re-read complete, and point taken, my bad. But I'm with FWA on this one (except for the "I'll continue to support Obama" part, the guy ok’s the continued torture of Bradley Manning, endorses permanent detention without trial, and is willing to further legitimize that fact that Presidents are above the law by refusing to investigate Bush & his cronies for torture. Obama is a spineless shell of articulate intelligence wrapped around an utterly corrupt and craven core). The left has gotten to where it is today directly because of its consistent compromising. While the right has been on the offensive, resulting in us constantly ceding ground. Now is the time for champions, standard-bearers, not capitulators. Remember, Obama was at his most popular when he was at his most populist.
@24 That was beautiful.
@24 That was beautiful.
27
I can't understand why anyone thought Obama wasn't a centrist when they elected him. Did any of you even READ The Audacity of Hope? It's all in there! I remember caucusing for Hillary and I had two reasons I didn't want Obama: his open support for nuclear power (oops), and the "health care but without the mandate" thing. Unfortunately, it was clear the other Hillary supporters were there to say "Obama doesn't have enough experience" (translation: I am a somewhat racist older white woman who just really wants a woman president because it would be cool) and the Obama supporters were just there to say "Hillary can't beat the Republicans because they hate her so much...so hope and change!" (translation: we are younger white couples who don't know any black people but really want a light-skinned black president because it would be so cool). Nobody had any issues to discuss, just feelings. Seeing Obama's clear path to victory written on the wall, I went home and read his damn book, got to know him better, and HAPPILY voted for him.
I'm happy overall with the job he's done. It's 5 million times better than a McCain presidency. It sucks that we keep losing to Republicans because they know how to support each other better than we progressives do.
And @25, that is all you can reasonably expect. That's a lot!
I'm happy overall with the job he's done. It's 5 million times better than a McCain presidency. It sucks that we keep losing to Republicans because they know how to support each other better than we progressives do.
And @25, that is all you can reasonably expect. That's a lot!
28
Outercow, you'll get no argument from me with what you said. I'll just point you back to my original post: Obama is a foot in the door. It's up to everyone who is not crazy to push that door open further, and get the champions & standard-bearers into positions of leadership. (I've not seen one in years, however. Maybe Bernie Sanders, but he's not interested. Maybe Kucinich. Surely not Nader or anyone else of that generation.)
I'll ask again: Are we up to that? If you think the left can get there without bringing others along, the answer is surely no. We've got the right ideas, but we fail at articulating them.
I'll ask again: Are we up to that? If you think the left can get there without bringing others along, the answer is surely no. We've got the right ideas, but we fail at articulating them.
30
@28 I wish I knew positively that we were up to it Catalina, I wish I knew the fight would be easier than we've all allowed ourselves to be convinced that it will be (forget about Egypt, forget about Wisconsin, people are powerless! etc). But it doesn't matter. You don't just fight for social justice when it looks like you can win, you fight for social justice even when you know you'll lose, because you're fighting for social justice, and that’s what you have to do.
*quietly steps off soap box* But also there's a definite "build it and they will come" aspect to all of this. Many people respect the espoused (though vacuous) principles of the hard line Republicans. Obama was riding a vast progressive, reform minded wave before he kept reminding everyone that he was too chickenshit to expend any political capital on reform. We like populists, they bring others along better than anyone else. And if you’re looking for signs of hope, look at the US Uncut movement. It's exciting, it's growing, it's actually grassroots, it's fucking awesome. It’s like the Tea Party if they had consistent values and could do math.
(And I'm rooting for Elizabeth Warren to primary the fuck out of Obama, myself.)
*quietly steps off soap box* But also there's a definite "build it and they will come" aspect to all of this. Many people respect the espoused (though vacuous) principles of the hard line Republicans. Obama was riding a vast progressive, reform minded wave before he kept reminding everyone that he was too chickenshit to expend any political capital on reform. We like populists, they bring others along better than anyone else. And if you’re looking for signs of hope, look at the US Uncut movement. It's exciting, it's growing, it's actually grassroots, it's fucking awesome. It’s like the Tea Party if they had consistent values and could do math.
(And I'm rooting for Elizabeth Warren to primary the fuck out of Obama, myself.)
31
I'm hoping the ridiculous over-reaching by Republicans due to their perceived mandate (in which they couldn't even get the Senate) backfires on them, big time. I can't imagine any union member in 2012 voting Republican, or even staying home. How many progressive women will stay home in 2012? Fewer.
I understand Outercow's frustration, but come on - McCain would have been the other choice. Imagine the mandate to do absolutely ANYTHING the Republicans will say they have if they get the presidency in 2012. When they kill federal tax credits for the poor and elderly and hand the proceeds out to big business (like Republican governors are doing at the state level now), those who stayed home or voted for a no-chance candidate just to make a statement may regret their decisions.
I understand Outercow's frustration, but come on - McCain would have been the other choice. Imagine the mandate to do absolutely ANYTHING the Republicans will say they have if they get the presidency in 2012. When they kill federal tax credits for the poor and elderly and hand the proceeds out to big business (like Republican governors are doing at the state level now), those who stayed home or voted for a no-chance candidate just to make a statement may regret their decisions.
32
@31 And I understand your thinking, Free Lunch. Hell, I voted for Obama in '08 (even though I already had lost faith in him after he voted to give retro-active immunity to the telecoms for illegally giving private user data over to the NSA). I realized that it was my duty to the species to keep Palin as far away from the football as possible.
But look what happens when we DO put Democrats in the driver seat. They win back Congress in '06 and the antiwar movement is effectively dead, while the wars are not. Then once they have the White House and Congress we get continued bailouts, no moritorium on foreclosures, insurance idustry approved health reform, Wall Street approved banking reform, they approved the extension of the massively costly and unpayed for Bush Tax cuts, and now they're playing us off the Republicans on how much we have to cut from social programs to be fiscally responsible. If you're counting, that's the Democrats siding with the military-industrial complex, the health insurance lobby, Wall Street and just the blatantly rich over the middle class every fucking time there's real money on the table in the last 5 years. What is it gonna take to convince you that the Democrats have been completely corporately-captured? What's it gonna take to make people realize the Democrats aren't on their side anymore?
But look what happens when we DO put Democrats in the driver seat. They win back Congress in '06 and the antiwar movement is effectively dead, while the wars are not. Then once they have the White House and Congress we get continued bailouts, no moritorium on foreclosures, insurance idustry approved health reform, Wall Street approved banking reform, they approved the extension of the massively costly and unpayed for Bush Tax cuts, and now they're playing us off the Republicans on how much we have to cut from social programs to be fiscally responsible. If you're counting, that's the Democrats siding with the military-industrial complex, the health insurance lobby, Wall Street and just the blatantly rich over the middle class every fucking time there's real money on the table in the last 5 years. What is it gonna take to convince you that the Democrats have been completely corporately-captured? What's it gonna take to make people realize the Democrats aren't on their side anymore?
34
@18
Then he went out and saved the Union AND freed ALL the slaves -
like we said- political genius.....
Then he went out and saved the Union AND freed ALL the slaves -
like we said- political genius.....
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Outside the Gay Bar by Dan Savage
-
Lunchtime Quickie: Cyclist vs Car by Kelly O
-
SL Letter of the Day: Infantile-ism by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Lying Liars by Dan Savage
-
What Did an ESPN Blogger call the Asian American Baller Lin? by Charles Mudede
-
Walmart Tries to Pay Workers in Walmart Vouchers by Paul Constant
-
Why I'm Suing Attorney James Egan by Pete Holmes
-
Pharmacy Can Refuse Women Emergency Contraceptives, Judge Rules by Cienna Madrid
-
What Do You Think of Microsoft Office for the iPad? by Paul Constant
-
Have You Gayed Your Dead Mormon Today? by Anthony Hecht
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (34) RSS