[Peace-discuss] Obama and the Death of the Democratic Party

[C. G. Estabrook]

Published on Friday, July 8, 2011 by FireDogLake
Breaking Point: Obama and the Death of the Democratic Party
by Jane Hamsher

According to both the Washington Post and the New York Times, Obama is proposing 
cuts to Social Security in exchange for GOP support for tax hikes. Lori 
Montgomery in the Post:

"At a meeting with top House and Senate leaders set for Thursday morning, Obama 
plans to argue that a rare consensus has emerged about the size and scope of the 
nation’s budget problems and that policymakers should seize the moment to take 
dramatic action. As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions 
in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising 
cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of 
the proposal."

And Jay Carney’s carefully chosen weasel-words today do not contradict this:

“There is no news here – the President has always said that while social 
security is not a major driver of the deficit, we do need to strengthen the 
program and the President said in the State of the Union Address that he wanted 
to work with both parties to do so in a balanced way that preserves the promise 
of the program and doesn’t slash benefits.”

Nobody ever says they want to “cut” Social Security or Medicare. They want to 
“save” it. Just ask Pete Peterson, he wants to “save” it. Likewise AARP. They 
don’t want reduced benefits for senior citizens, they want to “preserve” it for 
future generations. If they have an enormous customer base they can market 
private “add-on” accounts and other retirement products to when Social Security 
goes bye-bye, I guess that’s just a happy coincidence.

Now if you think that this is something the President is doing because it’s the 
only way to get Republican cooperation you can stop reading here, because we’re 
going to disagree. From the moment he took the White House, the President has 
wanted to cut Social Security benefits. David Brooks reported that three 
administration officials called him to say Obama “is extremely committed to 
entitlement reform and is plotting politically feasible ways to reduce Social 
Security as well as health spending” in March of 2009. You can only live in 
denial for so long and still lay claim to being tethered to reality.

And if you think it’s only the President, and the progressives in Congress will 
oppose him, we’ll have to disagree about that too. Nancy Pelosi can always come 
up with the votes she needs to pass whatever the White House wants, and she’ll 
do it again this time. It’s her only chance to ever be Speaker again. If the 
Democrats somehow manage to retake control of the House, she needs Obama’s 
support. She’ll shake her fist and say things like any health care bill “without 
a strong public option will not pass the House” — and then turn around and force 
her caucus to walk the plank.

Progressive Democratic “leaders” like Raul Grijalva will fold once again like a 
house of cards if need be — and they know it. Today, the Huffington Post reports:

"Progressives Won’t Criticize Obama For Proposed Social Security Cuts

"Grijalva and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), a vice chair of the caucus, 
defended the president for signaling he would be willing to take a look at 
changes to the programs, arguing there are ways to restructure entitlement 
spending to save money without hurting beneficiaries."

Translation: They’ll wait for the whip count to see if their votes are needed, 
and if not, they can let somebody else be the “rotating villain” this time. But 
just in case, they’re leaving the back door open for themselves.

What we’re watching is the death of the Democratic Party. Or, at least the 
Democratic Party as most of us have known it. The one that has taken its 
identity in the modern era from FDR and the New Deal, from Keynesianism and the 
social safety net. Despite any of its other shortcomings (and they are myriad), 
the Democratic Party has stood as a symbol for commitment to these principles. 
As recently as 2006, Democrats retook the House in a surprise wave election 
because the public feared that George Bush would destroy Social Security, and 
they trusted the Democrats over Republicans to secure it. Just like George Bush, 
Obama now wants to “save” Social Security….by giving those who want to burn it 
to the ground the the very thing they’ve wanted for decades.

Any member of any party who participates in this effort does not deserve, and 
should not get, the support of anyone who values Social Security and cares about 
its preservation. The amount of damage that the Democrats under Obama have been 
able to do has been immeasurable, by virtue of the fact that they are less awful 
that George Bush. But where George Bush failed, Obama will probably succeed.

Which means we’re watching another casualty here: Democracy. Or at least, the 
illusion that we live in a democratic society. The public, regardless of party, 
overwhelmingly opposes cuts to Social Security and Medicare. But elected 
officials of both parties are hell-bent on conspiring to bring the programs to 
an end. They seem to have come to grips with a fact that the public has not: 
their tenure in office depends on carrying out the wishes of oligarchical elites.

There is only one thing you can reasonably conclude as you watch the political 
theater that is transpiring: what the voting public thinks really isn’t all that 
important. And to the extent that it does matter, it can easily be channeled by 
those with sufficient money to pay the tab. Samuel Johnson said that patriotism 
was the last refuge of scoundrels, but in our modern era, that honor goes to 
tribalism. The list of horrors that people found intolerable when George Bush 
was in office, but are now blithely accepting because “Sarah Palin would be 
worse,” grows longer every day.

We’ll fight this, because it’s the right thing to do. We will probably lose. But 
we will make it as painful as possible for any politician from any party to 
participate in this wholesale looting of the public sphere, this “shock 
doctrine” for America. And maybe along the way we’ll get a vision of what comes 
next. Because what we believe in as Americans, and what we stand for, is not 
something the Democratic party represents any more.

© 2011 FireDogLake.com

Jane Hamsher is the founder of firedoglake.com. Her work has also appeared on 
The Daily Beat, Common Dreams, AlterNet, The Nation and The American Prospect.