The reaction to Matt Stoller's Salon article, which argues that Obama can and should be primaried, has started. (Our coverage is here, along with some commentary.) In the interest of a fair and healthy discussion, I want to present some of those responses.
Here's prominent Democratic strategist Ed Kilgore in response. Kilgore notices that Stoller centers his argument on Obama's (in)electibility, not just the rightness of the progressive cause. And on that ground, he disagrees:
Unfortunately, the facts aren't that friendly to Stoller's case. His main proofs for Obama's doomed political status are the 2010 midterm election results and the president's sinking job approval ratings. While there is not a lot of historical precedent for the first midterm election after the economy has melted down, 2010 was not terribly surprising or that easily avoidable for Democrats. After all, exactly two presidents since 1900 -- FDR in 1934 and George W. Bush in 2002 -- have failed to lose congressional seats in their first midterm election. In addition, Democrats in 2010 were "overexposed" in the number of vulnerable seats after two consecutive "wave" elections in their favor, and the demographics of midterm elections, which always produce an older and whiter electorate, happened to perfectly coincide with current GOP advantages.Kilgore adds that Stoller's argument is aimed at progressive "elites," especially labor, and that while there's grumbling in the labor movement, in Kilgore's analysis there's no real opposition. As evidence he cites this:
Obama's poor job approval ratings, while important, don't tell the whole story of his current standing. As explained recently by National Journal's Reid Wilson, personal favorability ratings can act as a "cushion" on job approval ratings, making a comeback much more likely, particularly in the comparative context of a general election. A new George Washington University Battleground poll released Tuesday shows positive feelings toward Obama "as a person," at 74 percent, his highest rating of the year.
Indeed, far from launching a big, dangerous foray into presidential nominating politics, many labor leaders are talking about a strategic shift into state elections where GOP governors and legislators are presenting a more visible existential threat to their constituencies and their influence.We've also commented on the union question; it could be taken as an anti-Dem establishment move, not just as a shift into states like Wisconsin where the action is:
The International Association of Fire Fighters announced today it is freezing donations to federal candidates and party committees and will shift its money to fight anti-union efforts in state legislatures around the country. ... General President Harold Schaitberger said the union faces legislative fights, ballot measures and recall elections that threaten workers' rights in at least nine states. At the same time, the union's traditional allies in Congress haven't aggressively defended firefighters, he said.There's also this:
Thirteen unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO voted to sit out because the members objected to selecting a right-to-work state as a host.The first instance shows the national Firefighters Union criticizing national Dems. The second shows conflict between union locals and, to all appearances, a seriously compromised state AFL-CIO. All is not calm on the solidarity waters.
"It's easy to understand why folks are disappointed and frustrated," acknowledged MaryBe McMillan, with the NC AFL-CIO. "But I don't think that sitting out this convention because it's in the least-unionized state is going to do anything to help the situation in North Carolina and make us a more worker-friendly state."
Kilgore also takes issue with Stoller's favorite-sons-and-daughters strategy; for him, the absence of a real national candidate, along with weak rank-and-file support for replacing Obama, dooms what Stoller is calling for.
As to what progressives can do, Kilgore's answer is to emulate the Tea Party. I'll let you read the rest of his argument for yourself — in my view Kilgore overlooks the benefit of funding by driven billionaires like the Koch Bros, plus a healthy and continual boost from billionaire media corps ranging from Fox to CNN, but he could be right.
In any case, for Kilgore 2016 is the next great opportunity, not 2012.
To which I would add only this: No president since Reagan has reversed the 1970s-conceived Movement Conservative project. Republicans have accelerated it, pedal to the metal; Democrats have touched the brakes from time to time. Neither has changed direction.
So really, it's all been a question of speed. Do you want to go to hell more slowly, avoid going quickly? If so, the Democrats are the party for you.
There is an endgame, however, and a deadline. So this time around, ask yourself: Are we close enough to the cliff's edge that even the Dems will take us over it before Kilgore's 2016 window of opportunity opens up?
That's five years of aggressive job-killing austerity. Civil unrest, anyone? And five years within which the next terror strike could occur. If so, how will the muscular national security state respond, even under Obama (or worse, especially under Obama)?
How close are either of those cliffs? How about both? Your call on whether we can wait.
GP
