The Obama Presidency is on Shaky Footing
Going into the close of his third year in office, Barack Obama's approval ratings (around 41%) are the lowest for a President at this stage in his presidency since the hapless Jimmy Carter who was barely above 30% approval at this point in his first (and only) term back in 1979. With unemployment remaining stubbornly high, the President has little room for optimism about his political future, although the underwhelming Republican field at least gives him some cause for hope.
While it is perhaps no surprise that Republicans and conservatives are disenchanted with the Obama White House, independents have lost confidence in him also. Furthermore, many progressives on the political left have abandoned the President over policy differences as well.
The Progressive Case Against The President
Although Obama did not campaign in 2008 as a progressive candidate, many progressive Democrats supported him over Hilary Clinton. His early opposition to the Iraq War, which Clinton voted for in the US Senate, was probably the primary reason he garnered progressive support. John Edwards used the most progressive populist rhetoric on the campaign trail, though his actual voting record was more conservative than either Clinton's or Obama's. In light of recent revelations, however, scant few Democrats probably regret not voting for Mr. Edwards.
Obama's "hope" and "change we can believe in" rhetoric probably inspired many progressives who later became disillusioned with Obama. Instead of changing the culture in Washington, it seemed to them President Obama chose a lot of old Bill Clinton appointees to fill key positions. His economic team was lead by pro-Wall Street Democrats like Lawrence Summers and tax cheat Timothy Geitner. When he pushed through an economic stimulus it was modest in scope instead of ambitious, and he helped bailout big banks while their consumers still suffered. Foreclosures continued unabated and unemployment remained high.
To the further consternation of progressives, Obama's health care reform became an overly compromised piece of legislation that quickly scuttled the idea of a public option and single-payer universal health care in favor of a watered down "insurance reform" package. In negotiations with Republicans, he then caved to extending the Bush tax cuts. During debt ceiling negotiations he seemed all too willing to embrace austerity measures and to carve into Medicare and social security for possible budget balancing spending cuts.
Compounding progressive disillusionment, the President increased troop levels in Afghanistan even as he was drawing down troops in Iraq. In addition he increased America's military role in other nations like Libya and just recently he sent another small force into Uganda.
Pragmatic and Strategic Voting Versus Voting as an Exercise in Personal Identity Politics
The progressive critique of the Obama White House is not without substance, but while criticism may be merited, indeed even necessary, progressives who hope for President Obama to become a one-term President may regret that hope should it ever come to pass. For those who see electoral politics as the art of expressing a personal identity, it is easy to find fault with one or more of President Obama's decisions during his first term. However, for those who view electoral politics as an imperfect system where one casts a vote hoping to achieve the best possible strategic outcome within the realm of the actual possibilities, re-electing President Obama remains a progressive imperative.
While some progressives have called for a primary challenge for someone to run to Obama's left and others have suggested a third party campaign, neither of these strategies is likely to be effective in 2012. No candidate has stepped forward to face Obama in the primaries and there is no candidate who is likely to be able to raise the funds to seriously challenge the President. A primary challenge therefore is not a viable alternative. Even if it were, it is not clear it would be a good strategy, unless one believes that by historical analogy, Ted Kennedy's 1980 run against Jimmy Carter effectively moved the country to the left. Its hard to view the twelve years of Reagan-Bush as a progressive outcome.
A third party challenge to Obama's left would be as likely to help the country lurch leftward as Ralph Nader's 2000 campaign did, which is to say it would make it easier for a right-wing President to win one if not two terms as a result of a split vote on the center-left. We all remember how much of Ralph Nader's platform was incorporated into the Bush White House. Hint for those with short memories: Not one bit.
Even if Progressives Disagree with Obama, he is Still Better than the Alternative Choices
The bottom line is that in 2012, the nation will either re-elect President Obama or they will choose from among the announced Republican field with the most likely candidates being Mitt Romney, Rick Perry or Herman Cain. Barack Obama will not be running against a hypothetical "ideal candidate", he will be in all likelihood running against one of these three men.
So while progressives may lament Obama's close ties to Wall Street, they can hardly argue that Mitt Romney, RIck Perry or Heman Cain will offer a more progressive economic vision. One or more of these candidates has called for eliminating Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, repealing the minimum wage, curtailing unemployment compensation, and implementing regressive tax polices.
The same Republican candidates who attack programs like food stamps, safety regulations and environmental protections as big government interference, would use the government instead to restrict women's reproductive choices, reverse gains made by lesbians and gays, and put lethal electric fences and alligator moats on the US border.
Furthermore, with the prospects of the GOP holding a House and a Senate majority in 2013, a Democratic president will stand as the lone check and balance against the radical tea party agenda. Of course, there are some on the philosophical left who may be masochistic enough to reason that if we abandon the corporate Democrats and let the far right Republicans win, things will get so bad that it will turn the people into a revolutionary force and overthrow the imperial, capitalistic system altogether.
Of course, that argument was why Nixon was preferable to Humphrey in 1968, Reagan better than Carter in 1980 and Bush superior to Gore in 2000. Yet, as working people suffered and women, children, gays and minorities bore the brunt of right-wing policies, no such revolution materialized. Revolutionary fantasies make for poor electoral politics and while affluent progressive professionals and academics may be able to survive four or eight years of Republican leadership, many of the jobless, underemployed and disadvantaged are in no position to entertain such fantasies. they have already suffered enough. We owe it to them to keep the center of political gravity from drifting further to the right.
Keith Darling-Brekhus - Keith Darling-Brekhus is a political and social analyst. He has an MA in Sociology from the University of Missouri-Columbia.
