Neither Obama nor Clinton

I occasionally hear the word "progressive" used to describe either Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. Whenever I hear that, I have to shake my head. It quite frankly bothers me that mainstream corporate liberalism is somehow trying to co-opt the word "progressive" for beliefs and values that are diametrically opposed to progressive ones.

Let's get something straight. There will be no progressive realignment under a Democratic president. While I understand the frustration that one feels after eight years of Bush, I would not characterize either Obama or Clinton as being even remotely progressive. Both candidates, for example, have gone out of their way to placate corporate interests in the hopes of getting support from Big Business (as the recent article in Fortune that I cited in my previous entry put it, "Clinton and Obama view CEO support as a key part of their crossover appeal.")

You cannot be a progressive if you are not willing to actively challenge the corporate ruling class--something that is clearly off both of these candidates agendas. Instead, they go hat in hand looking for handouts from corporate CEOs. And we know how the tit for tat works in that case.

Neither candidate calls for single-payer health care. Neither candidate calls for an immediate and total withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Both candidates have repeatedly voted to fund the war in Iraq when it has come up for a vote. In fact, neither Obama nor Clinton will commit to getting US troops out by 2013! Obama counts among his advisers none other than Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was one of the biggest hawks in the Carter administration.

There is a lot of wishful thinking every November among people who support the Democrats, who keep hoping that this party, that is so much in bed with corporate interests, and which refuses to denounce Bush as a war criminal, and which continues to fund the war in Iraq, will somehow act as a progressive force in American politics. It just ain't gonna happen.