Rebuild the Dream (13 page)

In the end, in a narrow sense, OFA was a good tool for supporting the president and the Democratic Party. But, in a broader sense, it was a poor tool for growing a transformative movement. OFA's limitations would not have been so disappointing, if there had been another national organization in place to take on the “transformative movement-building” work.

The problem was no other organization existed. Grassroots progressives were far from building one, when Obama launched
his campaign. When the campaign was over, many hoped that OFA would become that organization, and they were bitterly disappointed.

In June 2010, James Vega, a colleague of the legendary pollster Stanley Greenberg, even laid out a proposal for building an independent organization, to complement OFA:

Progressives need an independent movement, but not because Obama “failed” or “betrayed” them. Progress always requires an active grassroots movement, and the lack of one for the last thirty years is the key cause of progressive “failures” and “defeats.” . . . Defining a broad progressive agenda and building an independent “yes we can” movement to support it is the way to escape the vicious circle in which the progressive movement now finds itself—forced to constantly criticize Obama for not continuing to play the role of the progressive leader of a social movement that it is simply no longer in his power to play and then castigating itself as a failure for its inability to force him to do so. This is not the best way to build an independent progressive movement.

(Note: an independent progressive “Yes We Can” movement would not need to compete with or be in conflict with the Organizing for America organization that has now evolved into the grass-roots base for the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Party. OFA is narrowly and specifically focused on organizing support for Democratic candidates and the immediate Democratic agenda—which is a vital and legitimate function. A broad progressive “Yes We Can” movement, on the other hand, would be more explicitly progressive, more long-term oriented and more sharply focused on creating enduring community institutions and movement spirit.)

Unfortunately, nobody stepped up to turn this proposal into a practical force.

Perhaps it should not have come as such a shock that the DNC proved itself incapable of running a mass movement. But in the end, many committed activists felt duped and abandoned nonetheless. The loss of a political home was disorienting and demoralizing for millions.

Many said, in essence, “I worked my butt off for this victory. I was just out there at the inauguration with two million people, holding hands with strangers. I was weeping with joy while Bush's helicopter flew over my head, taking him away to Texas. I felt like I had finally gotten the country I've always wanted. I felt like I belonged. I was so excited, so inspired. And now all of that feels like it is gone. What happened?”

What happened was a mistake, and it was just the first. In the months and years to come, the lack of a fearless, independent, populist force for change would cost the reform forces dearly.

For any incoming administration, the transition from campaigning to governing is always difficult. Obama became president during a financial collapse, in the middle of two wars, and on the heels of a grueling, eighteen-month electoral campaign. Nonetheless, by all accounts, the Obama transition was exceptionally well managed.

Right out of the gate, the young administration scored an impressive win by passing the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Unfortunately, it bungled the opportunity to explain the value of that victory to the American people.

The plan, often referred to as the stimulus bill, was imperfect: economists like Paul Krugman agreed with Robert Reich's assessment that it was not enough, suggesting that $1.2 trillion or more was needed to create enough demand to grow jobs. He cited the $30 trillion in today's dollars with which FDR bolstered the post-Depression economy. But many Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats could not stomach the higher number; the White House went forward with a smaller package. Perhaps as a result, the stimulus bill did not succeed in keeping the unemployment just below 8 percent, as Council of Economic Advisors chair Christine Roemer had suggested it would.

However, the U.S. economy had recovered 2.6 million private sector jobs as of September 2011. The increase in public sector spending blunted the fall off in private sector demand, which kept the economy functioning long enough for businesses to begin to recover. The Democrats and Obama have gotten little or no credit for this achievement. To the contrary, by 2010, the term “stimulus” itself had become a dirty word. Republicans and
Fox News
promoted the notion that the measure was a monstrous, embarrassing, money-wasting failure.

One reason these arguments seemed plausible is that the Democrats and the media presented the bill mainly as a job-creating measure. But very little of the money—only about 33 percent—was aimed directly at job creation. Of that amount, even less was designed to create jobs immediately. The vast bulk of the money went to other items and priorities, including initiatives that should have had strong, bipartisan appeal. For instance, one-third of the money took the form of tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans. The other one-third was dedicated to providing direct aid to America's states and cities, helping them to avoid catastrophic layoffs and cutbacks.

That's right. “Socialist” Obama was cutting taxes and keeping cops on the beat.

But at no point did Democrats make an effective, concerted effort to take credit for those aspects of the stimulus package. By letting the stimulus bill be judged solely on the grounds of job creation, the Democrats put themselves into a box—and played to their weaknesses in the middle of a protracted unemployment crisis. The easy question to ask was, “Where are all the jobs?” Of course, the jobs' numbers would have been much worse without the stimulus. But that point rang hollow to millions of anxious Americans who had hoped to see a wave of new employment opportunities.

Team Obama and his backers could have pursued an alternative course, talking about jobs while also cheering loudly about his tax-cutting measures. In fact, throughout 2009, the president's first name should have been “President Obama.” His last name should have been “Who-Cut-Taxes-for-95-Percent-of-Americans.” Team Obama could have repeated the phrase “the Obama tax cuts, included in the stimulus”—until the phrase “Obama tax cut” was linked to the stimulus package and became as ubiquitous as “Bush tax cut.”

Because the White House never effectively coordinated those kinds of talking points, few Americans know that Obama cut their taxes; in fact, most think he raised them. Republicans relentlessly created the impression that he was in favor of taxing everyone and everything. Perhaps Americans did notice a few extra dollars in their direct deposit statements, but many probably assumed that their bosses had given them a small raise. They didn't understand that the extra cash was there because of tax cuts that came from the same stimulus bill that was being denounced nightly on
Fox News
as socialism. By failing to tout his tax-cutting record, the White
House missed a big opportunity to undermine the opposition's claim that “Obama is a big-spending liberal.”

The Obama tax cuts may or may not have been good fiscal policy, but a president's team should always make sure that he reaps the political benefits of passing such measures. That was not the only mistake Democrats made in defending and promoting the stimulus. They also failed to get credit for helping states and cities. Had the federal government failed to pass a stimulus bill giving aid to states, America's state and local governments would have been forced to lay off tens of thousands of teachers and first responders. As those workers would have eventually stopped buying products and paying bills, the economy would have gotten even worse. For the first two years of the Obama administration, only one thing prevented that calamity: the stimulus bill that Obama championed.

It was not enough for Obama supporters to talk in abstract terms about the jobs that the stimulus “saved.” The public needed help appreciating the impact. During the spring and summer of 2010, the Democratic National Committee could have run compelling television ads called “Thank you, Mr. President” with the following scripts:

Did you drop your kids off to
school
recently? Was your kid's
teacher
inside? Or was she standing outside in a bread line? Hmm. Well, thank you, Mr. President. Without the stimulus, thousands of teachers would be out of work in America. Some Republicans seem to hate the stimulus. I guess they'd rather see our
schools closed and empty
. I'm glad President Obama cares more about our
kids
than that. Thank you, Mr. President.

Have you seen any
police cars
this week? Were there any
police officers
in them? Or were they all standing in bread lines? Hmm.
Well, thank you, Mr. President. Without the stimulus, thousands of cops would be out of work in America. Some Republicans seem to hate the stimulus. I guess they'd rather see us
fight the criminals
on our own. I'm glad President Obama cares more about our
safety
than that. Thank you, Mr. President.

Heard any
fire trucks
recently? Think there were
firefighters
in them? Or were they all standing in bread lines? Hmm. Well, thank you, Mr. President. Without the stimulus, thousands of firefighters would be out of work in America. Some Republicans seem to hate the stimulus. I guess they'd rather see us
fight fires with our garden hoses
. I'm glad President Obama cares more about our
homes and families
than that. Thank you, Mr. President.

These thirty-second ads could have gone a long way toward reframing the conversation about what the Democrats had achieved and how much worse things would have been under Republican proposals.

Instead, no coherent strategy emerged to defend and celebrate one of the singular achievements of the 111th Congress. The public had no idea how much good President Obama and the Democrats had done for the nation. When the stimulus expired, and local governments started implementing layoffs, almost nobody knew to blame the Republicans for their pain.

The GOP succeeded in turning a major accomplishment into a major albatross.

Throughout the summer of 2009, conservative commentators were openly interpreting President Obama's economic policies as
“socialist” or even “communist.” For proof, they lumped together the stimulus package, President Obama's rescue of U.S. automakers, his clean energy proposals, and the healthcare bill. They even pointed to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)—which George W. Bush signed into law in October 2008! Right-wing pundits presented all of this as evidence that President Obama was more than just a run-of-the-mill liberal; he was a socialist who was plotting a government takeover of the entire economy.

The allegation was and is, of course, ludicrous. Yes, Obama has run up large deficits, but so did his predecessor, and nobody has ever suggested that George W. Bush is a communist. Obama took extraordinary economic measures in extraordinary economic times. But Bush did the same thing when he passed his own stimulus package (almost entirely tax cuts) and bailed out the banks with TARP. If Obama is a socialist, then so is Bush.

A socialist would have nationalized the banks, not given them essentially free loans. A socialist would have taken over the auto industry, not given automakers loans. A socialist would have proposed liquidating the private insurance companies altogether—in favor of a government-run (“single payer”) approach. To address climate change, a socialist would have used the government's authority under the EPA to order big polluters to dump less carbon into the atmosphere. Instead, President Obama championed a market-based “cap-and-trade” program, modeled on business-friendly proposals that originated at the conservative Heritage Foundation. A socialist would never have put Wall Street sweethearts like Geithner or Summers in charge of the economy.

I could go on and on, but my point is that President Obama's beliefs and actions are those of a mainstream capitalist. The effort to create the opposite impression is the lynchpin of a wholesale effort to sow fear, doubt, and confusion about his agenda, and to cast his most innocuous achievements in a sinister light.

To be clear, capitalism is not perfect, and many critics of the free market, including Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., have made important contributions to our nation. Neither side will admit it, but the endless contest between those who love capitalism and those who loathe it has made America a better nation: today we live in a country that is more prosperous and more just than it would have been without that multiplicity of voices. By borrowing and experimenting with ideas from across the political spectrum, the United States has created a society that has a safety net and ladders of opportunity, which are two very good things. I have no problem acknowledging the contributions to the national debate of every kind of American, including left-wingers who would not even touch Adam Smith's grave with a ten-foot pole.

I do have a problem with political opportunists pretending that President Obama somehow belongs in the anti-capitalist camp. It is a ludicrous charge. If anything, his detractors on the left would say that he has given too much deference to the prerogatives and demands of big capital—from Big Oil to Big Pharma. But Obama's opponents never intended to have a fair or rational conversation about his economic beliefs. Their plan and
modus operandi
was simply to pass out megaphones and make their allegations too loud to ignore.