Tom Hayden recently published “An Appeal to Barack Obama” on Huffington Post wherein he criticized Barack’s statements in a New York Times Magazine interview rejecting the Vietnam-era framework of Scoop Jackson Democrats vs. Tom Hayden Democrats. Hayden accuses Obama of Clintonian triangulation and centrism on the War in Iraq and with respect to the issue of race. He argues that Obama would be better served politically by appealing to the antiwar “Tom Hayden Democrats” who will predominate in the Democratic primaries and intellectually by engaging in “substantive thinking” instead of just looking for a point exactly equidistant from each extreme. He also believes that Obama is consciously downplaying to his detriment his best rationale for running for President -- his race. It’s my view that while Hayden represents the old style of ideological progressivism that has followed the “Sixties” generation from their college days until the present, Obama represents a new style of pragmatic progressivism that I believe can bring about a new governing majority in America. While the ideological progressive is so convinced of the righteousness of his or her particular cause, identity, etc., that they are willing to sacrifice the ability to actually carry out their agenda in order to remain “right” and/or “authentic” the pragmatic progressive understands that bringing about actual social change through the political process requires compromise, imperfect solutions, engagement with those who may be enemies in one context, allies in another.
Barack Obama's recent pronouncements on Social Security are absolutely brilliant in my opinion. He's proposed a simple, elegant and fundamentally fair solution to looming difficulties facing the system: raise or remove altogether the cap on contributions.
Many people may not even know that people who make six figure incomes do not have to pay into social security on any of their income over $97,500. That's right, while the vast majority of people pay 6.5% of ALL of their income in social security taxes, the rich pay NOTHING on most of their annual income.
If we removed the cap entirely, the system would be far into the black with no cuts in benefits. We may, in fact, be able to sufficiently shore up the system with just a modest raise in the cap.
Some have criticized Obama for buying into the Republican hysteria around a supposed "crisis" in social security that has been used to argue for privatization. I disagree. While there is no crisis, the projections make many of us doubt whether or not it's going to really be there for us or our children. That undercuts our sense of security and our faith in government.
But privatization is not the answer. Wall Steet will pillage the fund for its own purposes. Obama's answer does not privatize or cut benefits, increases fairness in the system and shores up the guarantee provided by Social Security for the younger generation.
I just finished watching Washington Week with Gwen Ifill. She had a reporter on from Iowa who had recently spent a couple of days with Barack Obama. While he reported on the great organization and legions of volunteers for in Iowa (yeah!), he also noted that at every stop along the way Obama faced tough questions about illegal immigration. He said that Barack thinks that illegal immigration is going to be one of the two big issues that the Republicans will use against the Democrats in the upcoming election.
Obama takes credit for helping to craft the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill last summer in Congress and at last week's debate, he went on the record in favor of granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Most polls find that about 75% of Americans, including majorities in both parties, oppose both of these measures.
I struggle to comprehend why we are willing to throw away one of the best chances we've had in years to win the Presidency in order to give a break to immigrants and employers who can't be bothered to respect our nation's immigration laws. Immigration is a great thing, but it has to be done the right way -- legally. It's really not that complex and the vast majority of Americans seem to understand this. Come on Barack, are you really going to let this issue drag us down to defeat in November?
I'm not sure why the McClurkin issue has so captured my attention (latent homosexuality of my own, perhaps?). It probably has to do with the fact that, more than anything else, it is Barack Obama's unique ability to bring together widely divergent groups of people that has most excited me about his candidacy. An inevitable fallout of that ability, however, is that, at least with respect to some issues, many of those same people may be at odds with each other. It is only by finding ways to resolve this controversy that Obama will succeed in his mission.
McClurkin has drawn fire because he claims to have been “cured” by God of his homosexuality and has established a religious ministry aimed at helping other gays to become similarly cured. McClurkin himself denies hating gays, saying that, as a Christian, he loves all people, including gays, regardless of their “sins.” He has written and spoken publicly about homosexuality within his family and within the black church, winning him no friends in either. And it may be worth noting that he has also offered his unconditional support for a presidential candidate with a platform and record on gay rights that is superior to that of any other major contender.I’m not gay, but as a Jewish African-American, I don’t assume that anybody who criticizes Israel or opposes affirmative action is an anti-Semite or a racist. I’m also not pollyannish enough to believe there are people who have never had a bigoted thought. Engaging in productive dialogue with people with whom we disagree, even vehemently, is a necessary part of transcending the divisive politics that has failed our nation for the past three decades. Barack Obama offers America the best chance we’ve had in a generation to finally, in his words, “bring the country together to get things done.” I hope we don’t miss it.
