The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Maiello's picture

    How socially progressive is Obama?

    By Michael Maiello on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 12:41pm | Politics

    This week for The Daily, I wrote about the Obama administration's overruling the FDA and continuing to restrict over the counter sales of Plan B birth control pills to women under 17.  When I posted the news item on this site last week, some of you commented that Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius had legitimate health concerns about how Plan B might affect younger users.  I'm no longer convinced that such concerns are valid, or that they truly factored into Sebelius' decision-making.

    This Plan B thing is really all about being squeamish about teen sex, but that's all in the column.  Here, I'd like to widen the discussion to just what kind of society Obama wants for America.  He's been admirably progressive on same sex marriage.  I think he's actually changed some minds.  He's voiced sympathy (but not support) for those in the Occupy movement.

    Then there's what Obama won't do.  He won't give up the President's powers over the post 9/11 surveillance state.  He won't leave states with medical marijuana laws alone.  He won't even direct the SEC to stop seeking low stakes settlements with the companies that it regulates (recent examples include Bank of America and Citigroup).  His administration has even tried to pressure my own state's AG into settling issues over foreclosure fraud without even getting public disclosure on the issue.

    What do you all think?  Does he get more socially progressive during a second term or is this it?

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    Of course, whatever we think is all about reading the tea leaves in order to see what lurks beneath the surface of Obama.  But that hasn't stopped me before. 

    I don't think he is going to get a whole lot more progressive.  Even though he won't be seeking re-election, as figurehead (at the very least), and thus representative, of the Democratic Party, and given much of what he will need to accomplish will need to have the blessing of the Democrats who will be seeking re-election in the future, he won't be doing things like seeking higher stakes settlements (have to keep the cash flow coming in if the Dems hope to compete as party with the GOP).  His stance on issues like the Plan B birth control pill will still influence how people view the Democratic Party, and they want to win in places like the heartland.

    I've pretty much seen Obama as a transitional president.  I did think he would be a little more progressive than he has been, and probably would have been had the economy been humming along when he took office in my speculative opinion.  But as transitional I mean that if we can recovery from the economy with eight years of socialism under Obama, it will allow for more progressive candidates for president in 2016 win the nomination because they will be more easily be perceived as being electable (in other words - will real progressives or those closer to be progressive continue to be more like the Ron Pauls of the GOP or more like the Mitt Romneys?)


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 1:06pm

    To be clear, in my previous comments, I merely suggested that there are valid health concerns. I did not suggest they were the motivating factor behind this decision. To the degree that the health concerns are a factor at all, it's that they give cover to the squeamishness about teen sex. If health concerns truly are the main reason, I truly believe those could be addressed, perhaps through some semi-anonymous tracking system that makes sure that teens aren't using this more than X times per year or something.

    As for your question, I'm guessing this is about as progressive as Obama's going to get, although I'd like to be wrong about that. I chose to emphasis about, because I do think he'll get a little more progressive, but not nearly enough to please most of us here at dagblog. (Which is not to say I won't vote for him. I will, and without hesitation.)


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 1:38pm

    I agree with you completely on both accounts.  As far the pill is concerned, like you, I think there are valid health concerns, but they were most likely just being used for political cover. 

    The one issue I think needs to be addressed with say thirteen and fourteen year olds (putting aside the extreme cases of the eleven years old for the time being) is the question of pharmaceutical abuse.  A 13 or 14 year old's (and even 15 and 16) cognitive development is still developing, and this includes rational decision making areas of the brain.  Along these lines, teens are also truly more impulsive than adults when taken as a whole.  And so we face at the very least the problem of some 13 or 15 year old thinking 'if one is effective, than three or four pills would be even more effective' or 'I need to take them on a regular basis, and not just on as needed basis, just to be on the safe side' (although the cost factor may limit the latter from being too much of an issue).

    What does the data tell us about the potential risks?  If there really isn't any, or they are extremely minimal, then the administration and the various departments can focus on a campaign to get parents and their kids (in this case, their daughters) talking frankly about their kids' related activities.  We are still extremely squeamish about this topic, and there is definitely a religious facet about premarital (let alone teen) sex which operates as a barrier to this, especially in the bible belt.

    This situation shows we as a nation definitely have a long way to go, and provides some understanding why Obama in certain areas will not be a whole lot more progressive in his second term. 

     


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 2:10pm

    Plus one can imagine some kind of shocking thing happening where there is some isolated but heart-wrenching abuse of a teen or by a teen that becomes a Willie Horton campaign ad. It would be easier to ease this restriction next year.


    by Rootman on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 2:18pm

    Great point.  The administration may be just trying to kick this particular can down the road to 2013.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 2:20pm

    One other thing - that could be a political nightmare - I forgot to add was teens who, since they have this pill they think they just need to pop right afterwards, is a rise in unsafe sex among the teen population.  The data would be able to be gathered by the time of the election, but there is also the possibility in couple of years that it is shown there is correlation between the intro of the pill over the counter and a rise in sexually transmitted diseases among teens.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 2:26pm

    I think abuse of the "if one pill is effective, why not 3 or 4 to be safe?" variety would be quite limited.  These things are sold in single doses at $45 a pop.  That's a lot for a 14 or 15 year old to shell out.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 2:50pm

    Well that would be true.  (although if it went to over the counter eventually there would be a reduction in the price in the long term, but probably not much).


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 3:13pm

    These girls don't get pregnant because they have a contraceptive malfunction. They get pregnant because they don't use contraception.


    by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 4:19pm

    Well, if the pill costs $45 a pop, then how often could a 13-14 year old afford it without a parent's or adult's help or knowledge?

    And if the parent is jake with the kid having sex--unprotected sex--then I'm sure he'll spring for the pill with an Rx.

    Kids are advanced these days and afford all kinds of drugs, I suppose but don't know.

    I dunno--doesn't seem like we're going to prevent a lot of pregnancies if the drug costs $45 a pop. Every time the girl has sex she takes one of these? Not likely.


    by Peter Schwartz on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 4:18pm

    I agree with you.  It's almost a silly issue, so far as retailers are concerned.  So, say the girl goes to Planned Parenthood.  Do they have to have a licensed doctor there to write them a scrip?  Do all Planned Parenthoods have licensed doctors?  That I don't know the answer to those questions means I got lucky as a teenager.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 4:56pm

    That you don't know the answers to these questions means you aren't a woman. Planned Parenthood doesn't need to have a physician in the office at all times, they are staffed on a daily basis by Nurse Practioners, physicians are not necessary every day, but there is always access to a physician if necessary. Nurse Practioners can write prescriptions. Planned Parenthood charges on a sliding scale, a woman or a younger person in need of care doesn't necessarily obtain that care for free.  It becomes more complex and more expensive than just the cost of the pill.

    However, if a person was underage, but needed to obtain this pill, most likely they would ask a friend who is of age to obtain it for them.  That is how they get their cigarettes and alcohol, I wouldn't expect this to be any different.

    P.S. Nice new coat.


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 7:02pm

    "That you don't know the answers to these questions means you aren't a woman."

    Too true.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 10:05pm

    Prescribing privileges for nurse practitioners vary from state to state. In some states, only an MD can prescribe Plan B.


    by Rootman on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 11:13pm

    I have no problem with the Administration's decision on Plan B. As the mom of a 16 year-old girl on birth control (yes, I think it's the responsible thing to do, no, I don't think it's like giving her 'permission'.), I think when PARENTS get less squeamish about their teens' sexuality, then maybe the government will follow suit. My daughter doesn't really like going for her quarterly injection, and admits that she wouldn't be doing it if it was solely up to her. She's also been sexually active in the last year. What am I, as a parent, to do then? Cross my fingers and rely on her teenage decision-making, or more stupidly, hope that her boyfriend wears a condom? Don't make me laugh. Parents need to be initiating these conversations with their kids and being proactive and teaching their kids to be responsible for their own health. In cases of rape or incest, I don't think the institutional enabling of secrecy (by allowing young teens to just go to the pharmacy and "take care of it") is healthy either. I guess what I'm trying to say in all of this is where is the parental involvement in young teens obtaining birth control? Why is the government the bad guy here? A parent of a sexually-active 13 year-old should be taking them to PP or a physician for a script for birth control, not to the pharmacy for Plan B anyway. And granted, sometimes teens are having lots of sex way before their parents find out about it, but that's still not the government's problem. That's a parent's problem.     


    by Kudra on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 1:18pm

    Thanks for a thoughtful post.  I guess my response is... simply making the product available to all people of reproductive age doesn't cut the parents out of the process, it just creates another avenue for people with parents who are not, perhaps, as understanding and progressive as you are.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 1:28pm

    I agree with you that some parents are perhaps too conservative or neglectful or simply in denial about their teens' sexuality and my personal practice wouldn't resonate with everyone. I also believe that there are important reasons why certain substances aren't available to everyone of any age in every circumstance. Anyone who has taken hormonal birth control even in the short term knows they are not without side effects and complications. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you about the reasoning behind the decision (or any agendas therein). I'm adamantly pro-choice and pro-birth control, but as a parent of a teen and pre-teen, I can't disagree with the decision. There are bigger issues than the availability of Plan B at hand if our young teens are sexually active.


    by Kudra on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 5:10pm

    There have also been a number of environmental things that should have been handled more progressively. I think as a lame duck, with a better economy, changes in the national debate on income disparity, and the desire to do some good, there is reason to believe in a better Obama 2.0.


    by Rootman on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 1:55pm

    Much of the barrier to handling the environmental things is directly tied to the bad economy - in the short term, the federal involvement in improving our environmental sustainability requires economic sacrifice on someone's part. And at best is job neutral, but in many cases creates a loss of jobs or potential future jobs.  There is the whole "green economy" thing, but much of the need has to do with stopping and minimizing the output of the things that make our economy move. One good example is dealing with the coal issue - which if dealt with would lead in the short term to higher electricity prices in places like Indiana where I live.  From most of the people around here, they see it as something like a tax hike on everybody in the region, including the poor and the small businesses, at a time when people are struggling to make ends meet.

    So, indeed, if the economy can have a good rebound in the coming years, it will allow Obama to begin to make more progressive moves on the environmental front without worrying about the tag of 'job killer' tossed onto him.

    While he may be a lame duck, what will be interesting is to the extent Obama sees things through a more individual prism (what is my legacy) or through a Democratic prism (how will this impact the Party in the coming years). 


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 2:19pm

    I respectfully disagree.

    There will  only APPEAR to be a better Obama 2.0;  because that is the direction the protestors will take. 

    Obama will jump out in front of the parade; AFTER the people show the direction.

    REALLY! Who needs Obama to play-act the leadership role? 

    Primary Obama, so we can find a real leader for the left and not a pretender, who only seeks to serve as the pressure relief valve in the service of the capitalists;  who don't want to give anymore to the peasant class  than they have to. 

    Obama the pacifier.

    Anyone can jump out in front of the parade or band AFTER the momentum has been initiated; any one can pretend to be the Grandmaster or band leader then.  

    Maybe the Obamabots are pleased, with SLIGHTLY center right? 

    Obama just left enough, to keep the peasants satisfied, so there will be no rebellion against the status quo? 

    Pacifier Synonyms: conciliator, make-peace, pacifier, reconciler, peacemaker, baby's dummy, comforter, teething ring, allayer,  quilt, reliever, comfort, sympathizer, peacemaker,puff.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 2:42pm

    Before I get started, like most folks I have my socially finer aspects and my more bigoted aspects. I fight to remain truer to my more humane perspectives.

    Now...

    The day after President Obama is re-elected President of the United States (God help us all!) he becomes a lame duck.

    So Barry has nothing to lose really and he has decades to work on some library or some rewrite of history.

    At this point in time I think more pragmatically (with a tinge of the bigot I suppose).

    If any repub is elected to the POTUS, we are all fucked!

    Does anyone in their right mind believe that Wall Street could ever be seriously regulated under a Newt regime? Or a Perry regime? Or a Mitt regime?

    Does anyone in their right mind not believe that millions more would be thrown out of their jobs under Newt or Perry or Mitt or Paul? Hundreds of thousands and possibly millions would receive notices of their pending unemployment within the first hundred days in office.

    And when millions lose their jobs, millions more lose their jobs because the government workers who are no longer receiving salaries will no longer show up at Walmart or Kmart or anywhere else to buy things.

    Goodbye unemployment benefits if a repub gets a seat in the Oval Office.

    Goodbye foodstamps if a repub finds his seat in the Oval Office.

    Goodbye voting rights if a repub finds his seat in the Oval Office.

    Goodbye to any hope of peace in the ME if a repubs puts his ass in that WH.

    Hello to the Great Round-up of nondocumented workers.

    Hello to a fifteen hundred mile fence.

    Hello to the end of any union rights in this country.

    Hello to at least two new fascist Supreme Court justices.

     

     

    Oh but I am over reacting.

    Oh yeah? What exactly did the repub govs of NH, Wisc, Ohio and several other states do as soon as they got into office?

    Blue collars who voted for these carnivores went:

    WHAT?

    WHAT THE HELL?

    Well they cannot recall the prick who sits in the governor's mansion in Ohio! The best they could do was nix some anti union law.

    So...

    I would rather not listen to the pleas of transvestites during this coming election year.

    And I would rather not hear about gay marriage during this coming election year.

    And I would rather not see the dems nix this pipeline project this coming election year.

    And I...

    See, my bad side bubbles up as soon as I contemplate another repub capture of all three branches of my government!

    Come December 1, 2012, as long as Obama is re-elected I will sign any fucking social petition that becomes available. I will sign any green petition that I find in my email.

    But Jesus H. Christ, this country loses everything if the repubs reign!

    That's enough.

    Anymore and I will pass out.

     


    by Richard Day on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 2:29pm

    Richard, ....If the Republicans get control;  will you be praying for the Rapture? 

    JESUS.....GET ME OUT OF HERE.

    21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.

    Matthew 24:21


    by Resistance on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 2:52pm

    Dear Resistance:

    I hereby render unto you the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here Dagblog Site, given to all of you from all of me for this gem:

    JESUS.....GET ME OUT OF HERE.

    hahahahaha


    by Richard Day on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 3:02pm

    I always say this to my cab driver, who is usually Puerto Rican.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 4:59pm

    Symbols can be powerful.

    hahahahahahahahaahahahahhaahha

    Ah Destor, the sun has set in these here parts so I shall render unto you the Dayly Nightly Line of the Day Award for this here Dagblog Site. hahahahahahahah


    by Richard Day on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 5:43pm

    I think this is about as progressive as Obama gets.

    That doesn't mean that the country can't get more progressive.  Obama's a cautious politician, so he'll go with the crowd wherever it moves.  If we pass progressive legislation, Obama will sign it.  If we pass more conservative legislation, he'll sign that too.


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 8:55pm

    Witness indefinite detention.

    Franken signed on, too.

    What is going on with this?


    by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 3:46pm

    I think what's going on is that the mainstream public will tolerate indefinite detention.  There's no political downside in doing it.  There is political downside in opposing it as people will shriek about our collective safety.


    by Michael Maiello on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 5:29pm

    Yes.

    So much to say about this, but I can't organize my thoughts. Fear is a powerful motivator in certain circumstances.

    And NO ONE thinks THEY will be detained indefinitely. They have a hard time thinking of Awlaki as American citizens and, in his case, I do, too. But principle is very disturbing.

    One of the arguments conservatives have used against liberals on this issue is: Why are you willing to KILL Mr. X in a foreign country, but if you CAPTURE him, you're suddenly very considerate of his rights?

    And one could argue that one reason Obama stepped up drone attacks is so he wouldn't have to face this issue...


    by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 10:52am

    The strategic answer would be that Awlaki, who had deep operational knowledge of Al-Qaeda, would have been worth far more to us alive than spread across the desert in pieces.  But, given the complexities of capturing somebody on foreign soil and bringing them back here, the drone was expedient.

    I don't exactly brim with sympathy for the guy, either.  Nobody does.  And I'm also sure that no matter how many times I blog that Obama isn't liberal enough or jaywalk across fifth avenue, that he's not going to drone strike me, so it isn't a practical civil liberties issue.

    Until, of course, it becomes one and some guy charged with a relatively minor crime finds himself yanked into a terrorism case.  Even then, the person will likely have done "something wrong," and people will say it's unfortunate but that it doesn't happen to the generally law abiding.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 11:41am

    This touches upon a problem that liberals have when it comes to the law and order facet of society: recidivism -- the act of a person repeating an undesirable behavior after they have either experienced negative consequences of that behavior, or have been treated or trained to extinguish that behavior.

    Releasing a person with the basic understanding that they will commit a future bad act doesn't sit well with a lot of people.  An abstract principle can't compete with the sensationalism of the real crimes committed after release.  We all know about Willie Horton. 

    This can be seen about how sex offenders are now dealt with after serving their time - being put on SO lists for life and posted for the communities they live in.  Assumed guilty of a future crime.  A lot of people would have no problem if all felons were treated this way after serving their time.

    When it comes to terrorists - or those presumed or suspected of being a terrorist, releasing them "knowing" that they will very likely go back to attacking the US in some fashion or manner, and releasing them to do their thing seems the height of insanity.

    So prisons serve the function beyond punishment and rehabilitation (yeah, right) of the prisoners to that of just keeping out the general population and communities.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 12:20pm

    Heck, most states don't even allow felons the right to ever vote again and nobody really seems to care.  It's amazing how quickly we are to assume that people are irredeemably bad.  If there are no second acts in American lives it's because the audience leaves the theater at intermission and never comes back.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 2:16pm

    American: "What do you mean everyone dies at the end of Hamlet?"

    I was involved in implementing a prisoner re-entry initiative (although it should be referred to at least former-prisoner re-entry - but once labeled...) and the neighborhood community flipped out.  You could tell them: they're going to come back home anyways, don't you want to facilitate the greatest likelihood that they don't return to crime and break into your home - it doesn't make any difference.  A lot of them were just pissed because we were spending money on these "criminals" and "thugs,"  and a couple of them were pissed we were giving them any support - "i work my job and pay my taxes and no one is trying to help me. but you're going to help these lowlifes.

    Americans do have a hard time with the notion of redemption.  (The movie 16 Blocks pops into head).  I think it comes in part from the thread that stretches back to Calvinists and their predestination.  There are those blessed by God, and are good, and there are those forever unblessed - lock 'em up and throw away the key.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 2:39pm

    Your anger is not at Barry, Your anger is at the American People.

    I have made the same mistake.

    Did you know that the DNC is doing all they can to keep Ben Nelson in the Senate?

    Nelson is a conservative, corporatist, oligarchist prick!

    But, he usually (and I underline usually) does not cross party bounds to filibuster.

    Every fucking repub, all of them, filibuster 99% of the time.

    Steer your anger toward the filth of this nation for chrissakes!

    Do you really believe that Barry could make some speech that would change things?

    This country, as a voting unit, sucks.

    And there is not a goddamn thing anybody can do about it.

    All the leaders can do is sway.

    To blame the hopes and wishes this fascist people upon Barry is nuts!

    So go ahead.

    Vote for the NAZIS.

    Cause that is all that is left!


    by Richard Day on Thu, 12/15/2011 - 6:17pm

    The American people had the banker class/NAZI'S on the ropes.

    It was Obama who selected Tim Geithner and Larry Summers in order to protect these bastards from the angry middle class.

    WE HAD THEM ON THE ROPES AND OBAMA PROTECTED THEM. 


    by Resistance on Fri, 12/16/2011 - 4:32am