WI: popular movement stays active after electing Obama?

In OTL, most of the people who had been active just sat on their butts expecting President Obama to do everything. But let's supposed most of them had stayed active.

What policies and implentations would they, say, have a 2/3's chance of pulling off?

And what might they only have a 1/3 chance of pulling off?
 
Part of the reason this movement collapsed was that Obama stopped driving it. I am writing a whole chapter on this in my upcoming book Trickle Down Poverty.

The Obama Movement was so linked to Obama as a person. It had few actual surrogates and was based solely on momentum. The few members of it that were true activists did remain active but found themselves totally out massed without the Zerglings behind them. The LGBTQ community and Pot people didn't continue on which is why both of them have made tremendous headway.

The main reason for this was that Obama decided to govern like well a I big city mayor and not a change candidate. To keep things going he needed to do 3 things and not push for Healthcare in the first 2 years.

1) Focus on Change Issues: Early on Obama focused on issues only Democratic partisans would care about like Card Check. He needed to fight a crusade against lobbysists, berak up the banks, try Dick Fuld for treason and so forth.

2) Rule with an Iron Fist: Obama has always had a problem of floating up an idea then running back on it when anyone opposes it. What he needed to do is hone in on issues and ball hard until he got them.

3) Maintain the Mass Rallies: These were so key. They capture the imagination and allowed people to organize locally. When he was elected I said that if he continued them with all of the power of the Presidency that Obama could probably do anything he wanted. He didn't but that desire was still present as seen with Occupy Wallstreet and the Rally to Restore Sanity.

If he had done these things the movement could have held together and survived 2010. If that had happened we probably would have: a Single Payer Option, higher minimum wage, broken up banks, etc, etc
 
Okay, we're probably going to disagree more than we agree, but perhaps we can have a good conversation, perhaps even because of that.

(1) Obama wanted to lead for all Americans. He just did, whether or not that was a mistake.

(2) Needed a movement on his left pushing for progressive goals and methods.

(3) Infrastructure projects were very popular politically early '09 (maybe sooner), even though per economist Paul Krugman you can't ramp these up quickly enough in macro terms, regarding GDP, employment, etc.

(4) You got to bail out the same banks which got us in this mess in the first place. Both Pres. Bush and Pres. Obama did this.

(5) But once the situation is stabilized, you've got to use Sherman antitrust or similar to break up the big boy banks in a lawful, organized manner.

(6) De-centralized community groups which address local issues, and also talk about the decline of middle-class jobs. Huge issue.

(7) and along the way, almost casually, talk about local infrastructure projects, compare their costs to similar projects elsewhere, and in this way, provide real oversight.

(8) still being very honest, worthwhile projects in their own right, but not going to provide near enough jobs.

(9) maybe, maybe hit upon the idea that what people really object to with the Affordable Care Act is that you're overlaying one more layer of complexity to an already complex system!

(10) maybe a straight up or down vote on extending Medicare to young citizens and permanent residents from 0 - 25 years of age. With emergency care plus for other persons in the country.

(11) maybe, maybe hitting upon the idea that what you need in economics is clearer feedback and rapid-cycle feedback, with the approach of medium step, feedback, medium step, feedback.
 
Last edited:
1. Ignore GITMO, let Petraeus deal with the wars don't micromanage them, don't play footsie regarding charging CIA agents with torture, don't focus on health care.

2. It's the economy stupid to quote a certain former President. All Americans were thinking about 1st, 2nd and 3rd in 2009 and 2010 was the economy and punishing the corrupt bankers and revitalizing the U.S. jobs market.

Run a populist economic message and hammer it like no tomorrow.
 
And the anti-war movement could have stayed more active, might have had some successes in a better rebuilding of Afghanistan, as well as toning down drone strikes, especially an earlier end to 'signature strikes.'

As an American citizen, I exercised my democratic rights and participated in the anti-war movement against the first Persian Gulf war in 1991. And believe me, I'm quite aware it was a popular war. I was expecting the beginnings of great friendships, long, involved discussions, almost the equivalent of singing kumbaya. Whereas actually, a peace group can be just as hierarchical as any other group. And people in the groups are not so much in a new idea phase, more of an implementation phase. And I think this is probably true of people in general, for a person trying to do something active which is difficult often has neither the energy nor the luxury of being all that open to new ideas.

Plus, I'm nerdy and intense. So no, I didn't fit in all that well. I still learned a lot, glad that I got involved, in fact proud that I did my part. That's what it's all about in a democracy, standing up for what you believe.

Again, this was way back in 1991. Possibly things were different in '05, 06, '07.
 
IMHO, the Obama "movement" was about voting for a saviour more than a president and the rhetoric of the time bore this out. I mean seriously, what was that heal the planet speech? He might as well have recited the Sermon on the Mount. But then he had to build up expectations that high in order to beat Hillary Clinton. It just came back and bit him on the arse because saviours aren't supposed to need assistance.
 

jahenders

Banned
I think this misses the whole dynamic of such movements. At least in recent US history, such movements generally develop/grow when they see themselves in direct OPPOSITION to something major. Once the left elected Obama as president (especially with the messianic flavor and ridiculous expectations), the movements largely deflated because most of the "bandwagon" participants felt that they had "won" and just wanted to celebrate.

Part of the reason this movement collapsed was that Obama stopped driving it. I am writing a whole chapter on this in my upcoming book Trickle Down Poverty.

The Obama Movement was so linked to Obama as a person. It had few actual surrogates and was based solely on momentum. The few members of it that were true activists did remain active but found themselves totally out massed without the Zerglings behind them. The LGBTQ community and Pot people didn't continue on which is why both of them have made tremendous headway.

The main reason for this was that Obama decided to govern like well a I big city mayor and not a change candidate. To keep things going he needed to do 3 things and not push for Healthcare in the first 2 years.

1) Focus on Change Issues: Early on Obama focused on issues only Democratic partisans would care about like Card Check. He needed to fight a crusade against lobbysists, berak up the banks, try Dick Fuld for treason and so forth.

2) Rule with an Iron Fist: Obama has always had a problem of floating up an idea then running back on it when anyone opposes it. What he needed to do is hone in on issues and ball hard until he got them.

3) Maintain the Mass Rallies: These were so key. They capture the imagination and allowed people to organize locally. When he was elected I said that if he continued them with all of the power of the Presidency that Obama could probably do anything he wanted. He didn't but that desire was still present as seen with Occupy Wallstreet and the Rally to Restore Sanity.

If he had done these things the movement could have held together and survived 2010. If that had happened we probably would have: a Single Payer Option, higher minimum wage, broken up banks, etc, etc
 

jahenders

Banned
1) is quite blatantly wrong. He decided to push his agenda whether or not there was an ounce of support on the other side. That "other side" represents 40-60% of "all Americans" at any given time, so completely ignoring them, is ignoring about half of "all Americans"

3) Yes, despite his claims otherwise, the VAST majority of the "shovel-ready" projects he cited were far from actually ready to productively spend money and employ people.

9) True, it did primarily just add complexity and cost overall. The effort (and its defense) also expended lots of his political capitol and good will

Okay, we're probably going to disagree more than we agree, but perhaps we can have a good conversation, perhaps even because of that.

(1) Obama wanted to lead for all Americans. He just did, whether or not that was a mistake.

(3) Infrastructure projects were very popular politically early '09 (maybe sooner), even though per economist Paul Krugman you can't ramp these up quickly enough in macro terms, regarding GDP, employment, etc.

(9) maybe, maybe hit upon the idea that what people really object to with the Affordable Care Act is that you're overlaying one more layer of complexity to an already complex system!
 
Yes, despite his claims otherwise, the VAST majority of the "shovel-ready" projects he cited were far from actually ready to productively spend money and employ people.
I remember during President Obama's inauguration he said turning around the economy would take a while but we would eventually get there. He may have later overpromised regarding the shovel-ready projects. I hope not.

I do go quite a ways with economist Paul Krugman that you can't fast-track these projects quickly enough or big enough to make that much of a macro difference. So, there's a tension between this and Roosevelt's CCC and WPA. Maybe the question becomes to what extent can public works programs address a recession, and what else can we do?
 

Puzzle

Donor
try Dick Fuld for treason and so forth.

You're saying a lot of things I disagree with, I lean to the right, but they're certainly proposals that might have kept Obama's momemtum. Of course then there's the quoted line and I have to assume you're engaging in hyperbole. Fuld might have committed crimes but treason is defined in the constitution and poor judgement or massive fraud is not part of it. Taking your comment at face value makes it seem like you want Obama to take dictatorial actions, 'ruling with an iron fist,' and it taints your entire post.
 
You're saying a lot of things I disagree with, I lean to the right, but they're certainly proposals that might have kept Obama's momemtum. Of course then there's the quoted line and I have to assume you're engaging in hyperbole. Fuld might have committed crimes but treason is defined in the constitution and poor judgement or massive fraud is not part of it. Taking your comment at face value makes it seem like you want Obama to take dictatorial actions, 'ruling with an iron fist,' and it taints your entire post.

Yes, naturally Fuld should not have been killed. Not the actions of a dictator just a stronger executive. Bush was far more willing to use executive power than Obama.
 
I think this misses the whole dynamic of such movements. At least in recent US history, such movements generally develop/grow when they see themselves in direct OPPOSITION to something major. Once the left elected Obama as president (especially with the messianic flavor and ridiculous expectations), the movements largely deflated because most of the "bandwagon" participants felt that they had "won" and just wanted to celebrate.

The opposition to George W was key yes. But the underlying problems did still exist.
 

trajen777

Banned
The issues that drove the populist movement away were a series of mistakes made by the Obama admin:

1. Complete (or nearly) focus on a National health care that was severely unpopular and was put through in such a rush that not 1 member of congress read it before it was passed. We can use a national health care but it is performing very poorly (personally my policy doubled in cost per month for less services)

2. The bills for the infrastructure projects were mired in red tape and corruption and really produced few jobs.

3. A focus on gay rights (important) but the majority of Americans want / wanted a policy of job growth and wage growth (ever though jobs have returned they tend toward to lower paying)

4. Obama was to much of a Hi Brow leader and left all of the details to more / or the same political policy people to drive the legislation (Polaci and Reid) vs using the Bully Pulpit.

5. Do what he said (TRANSPARENCY AND NO BACK ROOM DEALS) He excluded the Republicans from input on policy when he had the majority in both houses for the first 2 years and the American people responded by giving the Republicans control of the House -- and 2 years later the Senate.

-- I agree the first 2nd and 3rd policy should have been 'ITS ABOUT THE ECONOMY STUPID.
 
In OTL, most of the people who had been active just sat on their butts expecting President Obama to do everything.

Not quite. The movement came back with a vengeance in late 2011 or so, but faded almost as suddenly. After he was reelected with a GOP Congress, they seemed to give up.
 
"The movement" would needed to have existed more independently of Obama, for one. He pretty much annexed the antiwar movement and there wasn't really anything organized when the economy sank.
 
it could be supplemented by an interfaith church group trying to provide direct help to their members, and perhaps even in '07 and early '08 before the Sept. '08 crash. And this is helped by the fact that ministers are very comfortable telling people's stories without having to pretend the person is perfect.

and this might provide a counter-narrative to claims that it's a (governmental) "debt crisis" which conservatives were somewhat successful at OTL.

And seasoned religious leaders and lay leaders want to go slow at politics without shying away from it entirely, and somehow that makes for even better journalism regarding the main issues.

So, this is just regular people doing things, and is not predicated on the fact that President Obama or any other elected official is perfect.
 

jahenders

Banned
Ultimately, whether or not underlying problems remained was almost irrelevant -- most members of those movements felt that they had won by getting Obama elected. They went back to their normal pursuits when they felt the had accomplished something.

The opposition to George W was key yes. But the underlying problems did still exist.
 
Top