Obama: Better Than the Alternative

Liberals, of late, seem to have gotten on some kind of self-sabotage bandwagon where it seems to have become the "thing" to do to bash Obama for not living up to his campaign promises. Are progressives really so naive and gullible that they really thought that Obama was going to live up to all of his campaign promises? Even the fiscal ones?! Is it not startlingly clear that Democrats only differ from Republicans in the respect that they pretend to oppose Wall Street, whereas the Republicans outspokenly do so? How else might one explain why Democrats procrastinated and willfully obstructed passing a budget just long enough for the Republican congress to get voted into office. Or why Obama instantly extended the Bush tax cuts, as though he'd been holding his breath.

The fact of the matter is that Democrats only vote liberally on social issues, never when it comes to Wall Street. If we're talking about abortion, gay marriage, or some other issue that does not affect corporate America, they are more than happy to push liberal agendas. That is until one these issues conflicts with corporate interests, i.e. climate change. Additionally, it's quite possible that Democrats intentionally cherry pick those issues that provide the right-wing with the greatest sounding boards for their right-wing propaganda, essentially enabling the right-wing voting block.

With all of that being said, however, progressive voters are still either hopelessly idealistic or negligibly ignorant of political process if they are actually considering throwing away an incumbent presidency. Nothing would make the Republicans happier than for Democrats to turn their back on a sitting president, effectively giving Republicans a fifty percent shot at a White House they shouldn't have had a chance in hell of capturing. Moreover, every time a Democrat talks about an alternative Democratic contender, they are playing into the hands of the right, every bit as manipulated as those "useful idiots," the Tea Party.

And ultimately, as far as Democratic presidencies are concerned, Obama's not "that" bad. A look at Politifact.org shows that most of his campaign promises have either been kept or are in the works. After all, Bill Clinton was not a perfect progressive either.

More importantly, however, liberals need to consider the alternatives to Obama on the other side. Would anyone with good mental health care to consider the ramifications of a Perry, Bachmann, or Palin presidency? Think of George W. with consequences magnified exponentially. Can the economy, our reputation, or the environment take another four to eight years of some Wall Street, Republican goon running us into the ground fort the profits of a few wealthy oilmen or defense contractors?

The bottom line is that it's no secret that the Democrats are really Republicans in sheep's clothing, but in today's political environment they're the lesser of the two evils. A party that has to at least pretend to be liberal, even if only on a superficial level, is still superior to a party that has no progressive image-constraints with which to contend. The best a true progressive can hope for in this day and age is that the Republicans continue down their path of extremism, further alienating the independent and moderate voters until they are unelectable. At that point, progressives will be able to reframe the Democrats as the new Republicans, and then maybe a truly progressive party can rise up and fill the vacuum.