The diagnosis that America is falling further behind due to a lack of social mobility, the destruction of the middle class, and under-regulated capitalism is all true. The charge that Republicans have no interest in solving these issues, that indeed they are more interested in making them worse, is also true. Where the article falls short is the assumption that Obama can solve these problems or that if he even wants to.
Take, for example, things like unions and the social safety net. The article states that " strong unions, a robust safety net, access to higher education, and a regulated business environment" are all essential to greater social mobility which, again, is true. But Obama has no interest in fighting for these things. In his nearly four years in office, Obama has not once called for the return to larger unionization. There was no better time,or place, for Obama to wave the union flag than the Wisconsin recall election, but quite tellingly, he never showed up. Not a stump appearance, no robo-calls, not a goddamned thing. If Obama doesn't think the birth place of public unions is safe place politically to support the labor movement, than he never will.
Granted, he isn't alone in that. Ever since the 80's union busting efforts succeeded and union coffers were downsized, Democrats as a whole have largely abandoned the labor movement. So in effect Obama is like every other politician; if you can't pay for his campaign, you aren't worth fighting for.
Ok, so strike one on unions, what about the safety net? This one isn't as clear cut as the labor issue, but there still are enough troubling things to make one worry. One thing Obama has been pretty good at is unemployment benefits, he's always fought for their extension and for the most part has come ok from the political battles. But where we run into trouble is Social Security and Medicare. Remember, these two are cornerstones of liberalism, and as such, have been under attack and constant threats from the Right to undermine and/or scrap them entirely. So it was a bit disconcerting when Obama voluntarily put both of those programs on the chopping block in last year's debt ceiling debacle.
No matter what bullshit Republicans and those fuckers on Fox News say, Social Security isn't in any kind of trouble. And the main problem with Medicare isn't that it's a government program but that it pays into a health system that has no concept of, or interest in, cost control. So for Obama to buy into the bullshit that we need to raise the retirement age and cut benefits for their financial health just shows he isn't to be trusted on that from either.
And then of course, there's this sentence: "Mitt Romney wants to build a new fleet of battleships to ensure that the US remains worlds undisputed superpower." Oh no! If Mitt Romney's elected he'll plunge us back into jingoistic militarism! Save us Barack Obama, save us! Yeah, that Mitt would waste that much money on the military in the light of day is really the only difference between him and Obama. After all, you can't really use the specter of militarism against one candidate when yours orders death strikes from robots that kill innocent men, women and children, who uses cyber attacks to disrupt Iran's nuclear power program, who built a massive domestic spying data storage facility and who instituted an assassination program for American citizens. (Fun fact about that last bit, he wanted the assassinations to avoid the embarrassment and hassle of imprisioning innocent people.) So yeah, no "Mitt is a barbarian!' attacks for you.
All that being said though, my favorite part is still this passage:
This has led to a sense of resignation in some camps. Many voters on the left feel betrayed because they believe Barack Obama has not been progressive enough...But I also believe that Obama has a deep understanding of the political chess match. Its a long game, hes looking many moves ahead. He has a pragmatic sense of governing a country that is profoundly fractious.
I had thought that argument had died by now. I honestly don't know how anyone could've spent the last three and a half years go by and watch Obama ditch every single campaign promise he made like they were Newt's old wives and still have thane this attitude: "It's okay that he's not actually anything progressive; don't you see? He's playing this eleven-dimensional chess game where right now he plays a center right politician. But if we keep voting for him he'll eventually have to do something liberal at some point. You know it's a genius plan because it doesn't make any sense!"
Obama is, in his heart of hearts, a status quo politician. He won't do anything to really rock the boat. That's why his healthcare reform act was the Republican strategy from the 1990's. That's why when he had a super majority in both houses of Congress he asked for a stimulus bill that was 40% tax cuts that eliminated any chances of it being effective. That's why he hasn't investigated Wall Street for the mortgage and securities fraud before and after the crisis. It even explains his most radical policies (the national security ones mentioned above), all of them
are the logical steps from what Bush was doing. And since Democrats only used those issued to get back into power, it makes sense that Obama could expand state powers without any pushback from his party. So yeah, hoping for Obama to only heed to his progressive principles is only a fool's errand; they were never there to begin with.