Where Have All The Progressives Gone?

Progressive, some disillusioned by the remaining candidates, came out in droves on election day and pushed the button casting their vote for Obama, the lesser of the two evils. For myself, I had no illusions that I would be writing this post, asking the Obama administration where are the progressives, I just didn’t expect to have to write it this early on. I did expect at least a “token” progressive to be part of the Obama administration, but, apparently progressives aren’t going to be given eve that small bone to chew on.

President-elect Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination with the enthusiastic support of the left wing of his party, fueled by his vehement opposition to the decision to invade Iraq and by one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate.* (ed. as I have pointed out before in the past, the “most liberal voting record” mantra is a baseless lie — in fact, when the primary was between Hilary Clinton and Obama, I pointed out, via political punch, Hilary was slightly more liberal than Obama, and there were still senators that are MORE liberal than the two.)

Now, his reported selections for two of the major positions in his cabinet — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state and Timothy F. Geithner as secretary of the Treasury — suggest that Mr. Obama is planning to govern from the center-right of his party, surrounding himself with pragmatists rather than ideologues.

The choices are as revealing of the new president as they are of his appointees — and suggest that, from its first days, an Obama White House will brim with big personalities and far more spirited debate than occurred among the largely like-minded advisers who populated President Bush’s first term.

Now, I realize Sanger uses the clarifyer “center-right of his party”. But, in my mind, that is also very telling. Look at the politicians that occupy the center-right of the democratic party. These are typically the Blue Dog dems, that supported Bush and the GOP policies. They were rightly characterized as Democrats in Name Only (DINO’s). They are not only center-right of the party, their ideals fall solidly on the right. There is no need to use the clarifyer center-right of his party, the proper characterization is center-right.

As for the reason for a lack of progressives in an Obama cabinet:

The reason, several of Mr. Obama’s transition team members say, is that they believe that the new administration will have no time for a learning curve. With the country facing a deep recession or worse, global market turmoil, chaos in Pakistan and a worsening war in Afghanistan, “there’s going to be no time for experimentation,” a member of the Obama foreign policy team said.

As Christopher Hayes writes, it is the progressives that were right about Iraq, they were right about health care, they were right about the housing/financial crisis. And, not one progressive is seen in the transition team. This isn’t about not being given a chance to have a learning curve, it’s about more of the same. Jeremy Scahill goes through 20 of the top people being tapped by Obama just for foreign policy, to show us just how much of the same this administration is shaping up to be, and in quoting Sam Husseini, wonders why the very experienced people that were against the war in Iraq in the first place are not being tapped for these positions.

“Twenty-three senators and 133 House members who voted against the war — and countless other notable individuals who spoke out against it and the dubious claims leading to war — are apparently not even being considered for these crucial positions,” observes Sam Husseini of the Institute for Public Accuracy. This includes dozens of former military and intelligence officials who spoke out forcefully against the war and continue to oppose militaristic policy, as well as credible national security experts who have articulated their visions for a foreign policy based on justice.

And to everyone that asks which progressives should/could be tapped by Obama, Matthew Rothchild named a few:

Look, there are a lot of talented progressives who could be in an Obama cabinet.

Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel Prize-winner in economics and a critic of corporate globalization. He should be Treasury Secretary.

Senator Russ Feingold is a champion of civil liberties. He should be Attorney General.

Robert Greenstein is head of Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He would make a much better OMB director.

Arlene Holt Baker, executive vice president of the AFL-CIO, would be a tremendous Secretary of Labor.

The thing is, foreign policy in general and the Iraq war specifically, as well as the economy, were main reasons Obama was elected by a growing progressive country. We did not want more of the same, with a lame excuse of no time for a learning curve.