Liberal Libel

Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

Recently, Rachel Maddow had as her guest David Axelrod, one of the chief advisers and architects of the Obama campaign in 2008 and 2012.

The subject was President Barack Obama’s budget, and because of the cuts proposed to Social Security and Medicare, Maddow basically was asking Axelrod how the president could betray his liberal base. This in spite of the fact that the proposal also included tax hikes on the rich, which Republicans in Congress are highly unlikely to agree to. In other words, a “balanced approach” where one would not happen without the other.

Rachel Maddow is a fine journalist, who I do indeed admire, accusing the president of wanting to pick a fight with his base over Social Security and Medicare as a way of proving to Republicans he can row against the liberal tide is absurd.

Here’s why:

The president, since he took office has taken on the very social and economic issues that liberals consider vital in creating a society that is more progressive. There was the Lilly Ledbetter Act to help insure equal pay for women in the work place, gays in the military and, since last year, gay marriage. Immigration reform, the economic stimulus, and, the icing on the cake, health care. All of these issues bring vehement rebuttal from Republicans and the right wing with some accusing Obama of being the most liberal president since Franklin Roosevelt.

Now, after five years of attempting to work with some of the most intransigent congressional members, whose allegiance is to God and tea party rather then country, Obama has put forth a budget (he admits is not ideal) to try and bring compromise. It very well may prove futile but in his usual pragmatic style, Obama sticks with the phrase he used back in 2009 during the health care debate: “Do not make the perfect the enemy of the good.”

In the interview, Axelrod tried to show how a paradigm of progressive realism was necessary if the president had any chance of moving this country forward when it came to the economy. But Maddow would have none of it, and her example of raising the payroll tax maximum as a way to increase the solvency of Social Security, while perfectly reasonable, is hardly realistic when you are dealing with Grover Norquist zombies.

The fate of social programs designed to help the elderly, especially those who struggle to get by, will only remain intact if Democrats can find subtle changes to their structure now, rather than suffer the possibly draconian cuts Republicans will seek if Social Security and Medicare become more susceptible in the future – something we all must face, for as Axelrod pointed out, a baby boomer retires every minute of every day in today’s America.

We chase our own tail if we handcuff Obama from any political maneuvering and we exhibit little trust in him if we are ready to accuse him or threaten to pull our support every time he turns a little more to the center as part of a longer term strategy.

This is not Obama’s first dance with the devil and we should not be so anxious to leave the party with someone else just yet.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

So, it is reasonable to negotiate with zombies? We have to live this way because of the stupid party? Which one is that? The one that dances with the devil most often?

spacey (anonymous profile)
April 18, 2013 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Excuse us Mr. Moualim for sticking to our principles and not just doing what Big daddy wants us to. It's mindless followers that also make a lot of people want to leave the party, just sayin A pox on both party establishments who put their petty goals over the good of the country.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 18, 2013 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money.

All of these big government programs sound great, but end up being unaffordable, lowering service levels, creating huge classes of people dependent on them and not solving the original problem.

The net result is the rise of the bureaucratic class, mediocrity and cults of personalities on both sides of the aisle.

This country was founded on limited government, self-reliance, rugged individualism and hard work. It's now being turned into a nanny state were university elite educated types are revered because they "know better than you do" about how to spend your hard earned money.

willy88 (anonymous profile)
April 19, 2013 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Anyone who tells me Obama is a Socialist is telling me they're telling me they know nothing about economics or political philosophy .

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 19, 2013 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now rich people can now fly without hassle but cancer patients can't get chemo. How does the letter writer excuse that? Blind loyalty to anything or anyone is foolish and dangerous.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
April 29, 2013 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: