It Wouldn’t be a White House Proposal Without ‘Centrist’ Democrats to Undermine It

It Wouldn’t be a White House Proposal Without ‘Centrist’ Democrats to Undermine It

It Wouldn’t be a White House Proposal Without ‘Centrist’ Democrats to Undermine It

For the second time in as many weeks, “centrist” Democrats have emerged to criticize any semblence of liberalism from the president. 

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

After President Obama announced the American Jobs Act, conservative and moderate Democrats emerged to criticize the plan for its spending increases. Today, those same Democrats have followed up their complaints with attacks on Obama’s plan for deficit reduction, with particular disdain for the new taxes on high income earners. Politico reports:

Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, who is up for reelection in 2012, has supported raising taxes on millionaires but was still weighing whether he’d support higher taxes on those who make more than $200,000 a year, said spokesman Dan McLaughlin.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), a key moderate who’s up for reelection next year, didn’t mince words: “There’s too much discussion about raising taxes right now, not enough focus on cutting spending.”

The Obama administration is far from perfect, and this latest push for jobs and higher taxes on the rich might be too little, too late. But before we unload on the Obama administration for its failure to hew to consistently liberal policies, we should reserve some opprobrium for the “centrist” Democratic senators who both attack proposals from the White House, and—in Ben Nelson’s case especially—work to block the president’s policies. Over the last three years, these senators have placed their narrow political advantage at the forefront, with negative consequences for nearly every liberal initative from the Obama White House.

Insofar that anyone deserves anger from progressives, it’s these senators. Indeed, in the long term, efforts to displace Democratic “centrists” with actual liberals will do more to advance progressive policy than any amount of disdain for the president or his administration.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x