Mandate Watch

Mandate Watch: Confused About Tax Promises

David Sirota — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 11:43:45 -0800

I'm confused about the state of Barack Obama's tax promises. Last week we heard this strong, admirable declaration that campaign promises would be upheld - a rejection of the "center-right" media meme that tax increases on the super-wealthy hurt the economy (anyone remember how the economy boomed after Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy?):

Aide: Middle-Class Tax Cut a Priority
Emanuel Hints That Increase for Upper Incomes Also Won't Be Postponed

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 10, 2008

President-elect Barack Obama plans to push ahead with a middle-class tax cut soon after taking office, his choice for White House chief of staff said yesterday. Rahm Emanuel also hinted that Obama would not postpone a tax increase for families earning more than $250,000 a year despite the deepening economic gloom. (emphasis added)

Now this week we get this:

Obama may delay tax-cut rollback for wealthy

By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama may consider delaying a campaign promise - to roll back tax cuts on high-income Americans - as part of his economic recovery strategy, two aides said on Sunday. David Axelrod, the Obama campaign strategist who was chosen to be a senior White House adviser, was asked if the tax cuts could be allowed to expire on schedule after tax year 2010 rather than being rolled back by legislation earlier. "Those considerations will be made," he said on "Fox News Sunday." Bill Daley, an adviser to Obama and commerce secretary under former President Bill Clinton, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the 2010 scenario "looks more likely than not." (emphasis added)

I'm confused. Beyond the very clear - and admirable - mandate Obama created for himself in terms of raising taxes on the rich, history suggests such a policy is not at odds with righting an economy.

While I'm not a huge fan of Bill Clinton on a lot of issues, I think he was courageous on the issue of income taxes - and that his courage proved to be good policy, as evidenced by the economy's performance right after the tax increase, and as evidenced by the fact that the tax increases gave his government much-needed new revenue (revenue that Obama now needs for priorities like energy investment, health care and economic stimulus/infrastructure spending). Clinton proved that the right's rhetoric about tax increases on the super-wealthy hurting the economy is a bunch of B.S. - and he proved it only 15 years ago.

I hope the example Clinton set on the tax issue is the Obama administration's path forward.

Mandate Watch: "Team of Rivals" Or Rival Team?

David Sirota — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:35:13 -0800

A quick lexicographic note: Seems to me the term "Team of Rivals" is the new euphemism for "bipartisanship," which unto itself has always been a synonym for "buypartisanship" (ie. bipartisan corporatism) and "Broderism" (the principle, championed by Washington Post columnist David Broder, that bipartisanship is an inherent virtue regardless of what it is in pursuit of). The terms are cousins of the "center-right nation" meme we've been hearing. The language changes with the times - but the definitions stay the same.

"Team of Rivals" is now being used to justify Obama administration appointments and congressional Democratic moves that appear - at least aesthetically - to be somewhat at odds with all "change we can believe in" rhetoric (and for those who don't think there have been many appointments already, there have been many through the transition and the transition's extremely powerful "advisory" committee - and if you think those are irrelevant, you must have forgotten the influence of George W. Bush's similar appointments in 2000). The real question is what are the boundaries of this Broderism in disguise? Is "Team of Rivals" really a veneer for creating a rival team against progressives?

Does "Team of Rivals"-ism mean appointing, say, neoconservatives warmongers because they supposedly have a valid meritorious perspective that needs to be included, despite Obama's anti-war campaign platform? What about free trade zealots from Bob Rubin's extended political family - should they be included in the "Team of Rivals" after an election that saw Obama and downticket Democrats campaign vigorously against NAFTA-style trade policies? And sure, Joe Lieberman should be empowered to subpoena the incoming Obama administration that he declared his hatred for, right? Because hey, it's a "Team of Rivals," right? Hell, why not give some congressional chairmanships to some Republicans, so that Congress can have it's own "Team of Rivals?"

Look, I'm all for "inclusion" - but let's also remember, the most comprehensive post-election poll shows that a whopping 70 percent of Americans want conservatives to bend to Obama's agenda, not the other way around. And so what about the other side of the "team?" If "Team of Rivals" = "Bipartisanship," shouldn't there be some full-on progressives in some very powerful positions? Wouldn't that complete the "team" in "Team of Rivals" and the "bi" in "bipartisan?" Or are we really not going to see a "team" nor "bipartisanship" - but merely lockstep corporatism/conservatism disguised with the latest happy sounding terms from the Broder dictionary?

Mandate Watch: NAFTA Reform? Psych!

David Sirota — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:55:50 -0800

What do you do after a huge number of new swing-district Democrats win office promising to reform NAFTA? Apparently, if you are D.C. Democrats, you do this:

Obama May Delay Nafta Overhaul, in Victory for Caterpillar, GE

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama, who threatened during the presidential campaign to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement unless he could renegotiate it, may delay reworking the accord...

Nafta is a powerful symbol because of its unpopularity. More than half of American voters polled in June by Rasmussen Reports favored renegotiating the agreement...

“We saw more candidates campaigning on fair trade than in anytime in history,” said Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, a critic of the Bush administration’s free-trade agenda. “It’s become a national priority.”

Obama joined Hillary Clinton in Ohio earlier this year in holding out the prospect of withdrawing from Nafta unless Canada and Mexico agreed to renegotiate...At a July campaign event, he described the changes he was looking for as “tweaks.”

I forget - is this 2008? Or did I accidentally turn on my flux capacitor and send myself back to 1992? Is this "Change We Can Believe In?" Because it seems like Changeiness.

Were Democrats Elected With a Mandate to Attack "The Left?"

David Sirota — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:54:42 -0800

Seems to me that House and Senate leaders have declared an all-out war on "the Left." In fact, "seems" is the wrong word. It doesn't "seem" like that. They are actually saying it explicitly.

Here's this excerpt from the Washington Post (h/t FDL):

Asked what it would mean if Lieberman kept his chairmanship, one Senate Democratic aide said bluntly: "The left has been foiled again. They can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes."

Here's the Hill newspaper today:

Democratic leader says party won’t turn left

By Mike Soraghan

As the House prepares to elect its leaders, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is challenging the idea that the expanded Democratic majority and its leaders will make a hard left turn.

To show that these aren't errant, uncommon statements, make sure to read Glenn Greenwald's review of how this hatred for "the Left" now reaches all the way to the top of the new Obama administration through Rahm Emanuel.

Whether you think the Lieberman issue is a big one or not - and I think it's not all that huge, really - there's something way bigger going on here. Indeed, it's pretty odd that only two weeks after a landslide election that saw a huge ideological progressive mandate, Democratic congressional leaders think it's a great public message to declare jihad on progressives.

I don't know, call me crazy, but I think 67 million people voted for Democrats because they want Democrats to reject Bush's ideological conservatism and solve problems - not spend their time making paranoid, quasi-McCarthy-ist speeches deriding "the Left."

If we wanted that, wouldn't we have elected John McCain and Sarah Palin?

"Center-Right Nation" Watch - Hoover Institution Admits It's a Center-Left Nation

David Sirota — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:01:58 -0800

The Hoover Institution is one of the major conservative think tanks in this country, so this op-ed in the Washington Post today is pretty incredible for its honesty:

Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, in Outlook last week: The United States "is indeed, as conservatives have been insisting in recent days, a center-right country." On election night, former Bush guru Karl Rove opined on Fox News, "Barack Obama understands this is a center-right country, and he smartly and wisely ran a campaign that emphasized it." And it's not just conservative pundits and operatives singing this song. Take Newsweek editor Jon Meacham, who wrote an Oct. 27 cover essay entitled "America the Conservative," which argued that Obama will have to "govern a center-right nation" that "is more instinctively conservative than it is liberal."

The only problem: It isn't true. Or at least, not anymore.

Here's the stark reality: It is now harder for the Republican presidential candidate to get to 50.1 percent than for the Democrat. My Hoover Institution colleague David Brady and Douglas Rivers of the research firm YouGovPolimetrix have been analyzing data from online interviews with 12,000 people in both 2004 and 2008. It shows an overall shift to the Democrats of six percentage points. As they write in the forthcoming edition of Policy Review, "The decline of Republican strength occurs by having strong Republicans become weak Republicans, weak Republicans becoming independents, and independents leaning more Democratic or even becoming Democrats." This is a portrait of an electorate moving from center-right to center-left.

Read the whole admission here. It's dead-on.

This Moment Screams For Boldness

Leo Gerard — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:03:34 -0800

Within hours of Barack Obama’s election, naysayers chastened caution. Don’t go too far, they inveighed. Build trust slowly with restrained, moderate, and gradual actions, they admonished.

In other words: Start with piddling plans.

Basically, they want to abort hope -- kill it before it has a chance.

That is all wrong after an election in which it’s believed that a higher percentage of Americans voted than at any time in the past 40 years; a win that brought tears to the eyes of even hardened reporters; a result that drew joyful citizens into streets across the country to celebrate, a balloting that swept even larger majorities of Democrats into the U.S. House and Senate.

This moment during which the nation is suffering great economic peril pleads for political valor. This moment screams for boldness.

Troubled times demand greatness. Franklin D. Roosevelt knew that. He’s the reason U.S. presidents are judged by the sum of their accomplishments in their first 100 days in office.

When FDR was inaugurated in 1933, the country was in the midst of the Great Depression. He didn’t waste time tinkering. After 100 days, he’d given the country the Emergency Banking Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Federal Emergency Relief Act and the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Obama may not inherit a Great Depression, but he’ll take the oath during an intense recession. Look at the news that arrived the same week as his election: Unemployment rose to 6.5 percent after 10 straight months of jobs losses totaling more than 1.2 million; the stock market dropped 1,000 points in 48 hours after the worst October showing in two decades; auto makers traveled to Capitol Hill begging like hobos for handouts to stave off bankruptcy; two dozen major retailers revealed sales declines, most double digit; and The New York Times reported hospitals are strained as they register fewer paying patients and increased charity cases.

These problems won’t be solved with timidity. In his first press conference after the election, Obama said resolving the economic crisis is his top priority. He said, in fact, “I will confront the economic crisis head on.” No weak-heartedness suggested there.

He said a new president can restore confidence and advance an agenda for the middle class. That is exactly what FDR did with the combination of legislation and fireside chats.

During this brief press conference, Obama got it right, emphasizing aid to the middle class. He said it is essential to pass a rescue plan that would create jobs and extend unemployment benefits. He wants aid to state and local governments so they don’t increase taxes or furlough workers.

The federal government should help both small businesses and the huge auto industry, which provides jobs directly and indirectly through its suppliers.

The $700 billion bailout must be reviewed, he said, to ensure that it is stabilizing markets, that it’s not unduly rewarding the Wall Street risk-takers who caused the crisis, and that it’s helping families avoid foreclosure.
In addition, he said it’s essential to implement policies to grow the middle class such as investing in clean energy technology, resolving the nation’s health insurance dilemma, and providing tax relief for working families.
These are the correct priorities. And his plans are audacious. Which means he needs our help.

He called for bipartisan cooperation in accomplishing these goals. But he’ll need more than that. He will need the kind of support he got in those weeks just before Election Day.

All of those who voted for him, all of those who want to keep hope alive, and all of those who want real change must demand both houses of Congress and both political parties work with Obama to accomplish it. Those who believe in real change must make it clear that they won’t stand by and allow courageous action to be reduced to faint-hearted baby steps.

On election night, Obama told the crowd in Chicago that the victory was theirs: “I know you didn’t do this just to win an election and I know you didn’t do it for me.”

Then he warned of what is ahead:

“You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime–two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century.”

With more than 10,000 volunteers across the country, the United Steelworkers campaigned hard to help get Obama on that Chicago stage to make that speech. We will back him as he works to fulfill his promises of what is a New Deal for the new century. And we urge every American who wants real change to join us to ensure his success, the nation’s success.

Progressive Mandate in a Sea-Change Election

Robert Borosage — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:15:44 -0800

Barack Obama’s historic victory in 2008 spearheaded not only a change election, but a sea-change election. It marks the end of the conservative era that has dominated our politics since 1980, and the beginning of a new era of progressive reform, driven by an emerging progressive majority.

The scope of the victory itself reflects the desire for change. Obama’s historic and unlikely candidacy won a majority of the vote, the first Democrat since Jimmy Carter to accomplish that. Democrats in the House and the Senate gained seats in back-to-back elections for the first time since the Great Depression.

The repudiation of George Bush and the Republican Congress and the conservatism they championed is clear.

But what marks this as a sea-change election is the consolidation of a new majority coalition, and the mandate provided for progressive reform for Obama and Democrats. Republicans emerge from this election as an aging, monochromatic, largely regional party, increasingly in the grip of its evangelical base. Democrats are consolidating a governing majority in what is, increasingly, a center-left nation.

MORE RESOURCES

VIDEO: See Robert Borosage discuss
the findings of the "Change Election"
report with pollster Stan Greenberg.

» Read the report

The Emerging Progressive Majority

With voters overwhelmingly looking for change, Obama did better than John Kerry in 2004 virtually across the electorate, with the exception of the older white voters. He narrowed the margin in rural areas significantly; he did better among white men; he made gains among professionals; he consolidated support in the suburbs and exurbs. But what is striking about this election is his ability to consolidate an emerging strong majority coalition.

Young voters – 18 to 29 – represented about 18 percent of the electorate and supported Obama better than two to one. This is the third straight election in which this new generation has voted for Democrats in large numbers. And in this election, they can rightfully lay claim to having propelled the Obama candidacy from the start, playing an instrumental role in his victory in the primaries.

African-American voters came out in great numbers – representing 13 percent of an expanded electorate – and voted, needless to say, overwhelmingly for Obama. Latinos, the votes that some said he might not be able to win, constituted 10 percent of the electorate and voted two to one for Obama. Single women voted 70 to 30 Obama. Union households constituted almost one in five voters, and voted 65 to35 percent for Obama. And Obama, as his predecessors, consolidated support among professional Americans with advanced degrees, by 60 to 39.

The Emerging Progressive Movement

This majority is propelled by a progressive movement of increasing capacity and sophistication. This election represented the largest mobilization of that capacity. Obama, of course, ran a truly remarkable campaign, rewriting how campaigns will be run in the future. He set new ground in using the Web to build a community of volunteers and activists, to raise money, to communicate to voters. He devoted more resources to a ground operation. That built upon work done by Moveon.org, by the vibrant progressive blogosphere, by the Dean campaign four years previously.

He also benefited from growing capacity of progressives on the ground. Labor and Working America were on the front line of the debate with working people, and delivered, particularly in key battleground states. Women’s Voices Women Vote expanded its capacity to register and mobilize single women. America Votes helped coordinate an expanded effort by citizen groups on the ground. The Obama campaign, aided by groups like Acorn, expanded voter registration efforts, particularly among the young and in African American communities.

Our poll shows the result. Voters -- particularly independent voters -- report greater contacts from the Obama campaign in every area of campaigning -- more ads on TV, more contacts by volunteers, more ads on lie, more people at the door, more emails, more cell calls. Only in the area of mail was McCain competitive. Even in the contacts of the last days—the vaunted area of the Republican 72 hour plan—the Obama campaign and its allies were far more effective.

The Mandate for Progressive Reform

Not surprisingly, the economy was the overwhelming priority of voters. Nothing else really came close. The argument about the economy – about what Obama described as the “failed philosophy” of trickle-down economics, or what McCain described as a choice between economic growth and socialist redistribution – was the center of the debate between these candidates.

Obama’s agenda was grounded on issues that were championed by progressives: Investment in new energy and conservation as a jobs and growth agenda. Affordable health care for all paid for by raising taxes on the affluent. Investment in education and infrastructure. Empowering workers to organize through passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Holding corporations and banks more accountable. Ending the war in Iraq. Promising no more NAFTA-type trade agreements, and to repeal tax breaks for companies moving jobs abroad.

McCain largely defended the verities of Reagan era conservatism, founding his campaign on more tax cuts, on freezing spending and stopping earmarks, and continuing corporate trade policies. His health care plan featured a tax credit for those negotiating their own plan. He favored Bush’s privatization of Social Security. He began the election committed to less regulation, but adjusted as the unregulated shadow banking system collapsed. The maverick stayed true to the core of the conservative agenda.

Obama won by large margins over McCain on every economic issue. On the economy generally, 51-38. On education, health care, the financial crisis, the energy crisis, Medicare and Social Security. He even won the debate about taxes 51-42.

When asked why they voted for Obama, the leading reasons were his proposals for withdrawing troops from Iraq, cutting middle class taxes first, providing affordable health care, and his commitment to invest in education and make college more affordable. When those who voted for Obama were asked about their doubts about McCain, picking Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin led the list, but fear that he would give tax breaks to the rich and big corporations came in second, followed by the notion that he would continue Bush’s policies.

For voters, Obama should give greatest attention to reducing unemployment and getting the economy moving. That is followed by investing in alternative energy and getting us off foreign oil and changing the health care system. Given a choice on priorities, ending the war in Iraq, ending dependence on foreign oil, fixing health insurance, regulating the banking system all ranked high.

In this the divide between independents and Republicans was clear. Independents gave Obama double-digit margins over McCain on the economy, education, health care. They have him a margin of 9 percent on taxes Only on government spending, Iraq and national security, did they favor McCain over Obama. Self-described moderates also favored Obama by double digits in economic issues. They sided with McCain only on national security.

This mandate was true down the ballot as well as on the top. Bernie Horn and Alex Carter of the Campaign for America’s Future completed a report – Congressional Elections Deliver a Progressive Mandate – looking at Democrats who won House or Senate seats previously held by Republicans. This report is available on our web site at www.ourfuture.org

We measured their position on six core progressive economic issues:

Social contract: support for quality health care for all, as opposed to the McCain type plan
Progressive taxation: support for raising taxes on the rich and tax breaks for the middle class
Fair trade: Opposition to NAFTA-style agreements
Investment: Focus on investing in clean energy sources over “drill baby drill”
Worker Empowerment: support for the Employee Free Choice Act, which business spent $20 million attacking in this election
Social Security: Opposition to the privatization of Social Security.

Of the 25 Democrats that won U.S. House seats previously held by Republicans, 15 campaigns on all six of these issues; another 8 supported the progressive posture on five of six. Of the six Democrats who have thusfar won US Senate seats held by Republicans, 5 supported the progressive position on all six issues; the other supported five of six.

Candidates up and down the ticket campaigned and won on a progressive agenda.

A Center-Left Nation

After the election, we’ve heard a repeated mantra about how this is basically a center-right nation. Obama is warned to curb his agenda. He’s warned not to succumb to pressure from the liberal wing of the party. Conservatives and Republicans take solace in the notion that by a return to conservative principles will help win back a majority.

After this election, there is no greater testament to the triumph of conventional myths over reality.

It is true that by addition, one can argue this is a center-right nation. There are more self-described conservatives than liberals. Add them to moderates and you get a center-right majority by simply addition.

But that addition disappears with any analysis about attitudes. The reality is that on basic values, on core ideological choices, on core issue debates, this is increasingly a center-left nation. And Republicans are increasingly isolated from the majority of Americans.

Worried about trade accords not protecting workers or the environment enough or about putting too much of a burden on trade? Democrats say protect by 37, Independents by 31 percent. Republicans go the other way by 20. Liberals worry about worker protections by 56; moderates by 8. Conservatives go the other way by 4.

Should gays be accepted or should their relationships be discouraged? Democrats say accepted by a 50 percent margin; Independents by 23 percent. Republicans go the other way by 20 percent. Liberals accept by 65 percent; moderates by 32 percent; conservatives discourage by 32 percent.

Does government regulation do more good than harm? Democrats say more good by 53 percent; independents by 12 percent. Republicans say more harm than good by 23 percent. Again conservatives are isolated from liberals and moderates on the issue.

Are you more worried that Obama will put minorities first or that McCain will put the rich and big corporations first? Democrats, not surprising worry about McCain and the rich by 51 percent. But so do independents by 28. Republicans worry about Obama and minorities by 35 percent. Liberals worry about McCain by 61 percent; moderates by 23 percent; conservatives the other way by 16 percent.

There is only one area—and it is a critical one—where independents and moderates still side with conservatives. That is on government spending. Clearly, years of conservative misrule have made people skeptical of the ability of government to act effectively. That will surely be where Republicans try to reassert themselves in the coming days. But the test on that will not really be about spending – it will be about effectiveness. The challenge – and it is a monumental one – is reviving the government to work effectively once more. That isn't a contradiction to the progressive project; it is at the center of it.

This has clear implications for the debate going forward. Republicans will find that their conservative base is increasingly out of step with a growing majority of Americans.

So for example, we asked voters if Republicans should give Obama the benefit of the doubt and help him achieve his policies, or, since his policies will lead us “down the wrong path,” Republicans should oppose them. By nearly three to one – 71 to 24 – voters thought they should support Obama’s policies. They’ve elected him to change things and they want that mandate respected. Independents agreed by a nearly 40 percent margin. Republicans by 40-33 said Republicans should oppose.

We asked people should Obama try to reach across the aisle to gain Republican support for his agenda, or should he compromise his agenda to gain Republican support. Voters chose 54 to 39 that he should try to bring Republicans to his agenda, not compromise it. Independents agreed 48-43. Republicans thought he should change his plans by 63-31

Our poll asked: did Republicans lose because they were too conservative or not conservative enough? By a twenty point margin, voters chose too conservative. Independents agreed by a 21 point margin. Republicans disagreed by an 11 point margin Moderates when with liberals as too conservative by 41 percent.

The Progressive Mandate

Obama and the new Democratic majorities in the House and Senate inherit the desert – an economy plummeting into recession, two wars, and an increasingly dysfunctional government. They have a clear mandate for bold change – for bringing the Iraq war to an end, for getting the economy moving, for reforming health care, on energy, on holding corporations and banks accountable, on progressive tax reform.

They face a public clearly skeptical, after years of conservative misrule, about the capacity of Washington to get anything done. That will be our test. If progressives succeed in providing Americans with at least some of the change that they so desperately need, a new and potentially enduring majority for progressive reform is there to consolidate.

The Mandate Manipulation Machine Enters Stage Right

David Sirota — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 10:54:51 -0800

As I (and many others) predicted a while back, the Partisan-Industrial Complex in Washington, D.C. has deployed its quadrennial Mandate Manipulation Machine to make sure that the 65 million Americans who voted for Barack Obama remember that America giving more than 340 electoral votes to an African American billed as a Islamic Marxist terrorist means there is no mandate for real change in this, a country obviously more conservative than ever.

A cursory glance at the newspapers today shows the media teeming with stories quoting incoming Obama administration officials, Democratic Party leaders and spokespeople for corporate front groups insisting that actually, no real change can be made, and what small-bore changes can happen, will have to happen in the very distant future, not soon.

My favorite was the one-two punch from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean. Upon hearing of his bigger senate majority, Reid said on Tuesday, "This is not a mandate for a political party or an ideology." A day later, Dean told reporters, "I don't think it's a mandate for the New Deal." Awesome—what a way to project inspiring strength and confidence.

We no longer have to sit on the sidelines and watch the professional ruling class in Washington claim this election as their own property—we actually get to have a say, even when D.C. wants to put us in our place by telling us to simply shut up and go away.

Funny, how three days shifts everything. On Monday most of these people were telling us this was "the most important election of our lifetime" because of the policy changes it promised. By Thursday, with the election over, power safely in the hands of Democrats, and plum government jobs being doled out to old Washington hands, the very same people—as if relieved to finally be able to let out a taboo secret—are saying this "most important election of our lifetime" may actually mean no significant policy changes at all.

Of course, the motives of different Mandate Manipulators vary. For example, Reid and Dean (and Obama aides) may sympathize with progressive goals, but they may also fear taking the blame for failing to deliver legislative progress from a public that now expects such progress from Democrats. By contrast, the Democratic Leadership Council and Third Way despise the very goals of economic progressivism. And, of course, movement conservatives like Bob Novak want to crush any progressive legislation in its infancy, willing to claim with a straight face that while Bush's narrow 2004 election victory was a mandate, Obama's huge 2008 election victory is not.

Regardless of the myriad impulses, the sail-trimmers, bet-hedgers, and expectation-downplayers are already doing their damndest to demoralize the progressive movement, whether accidentally or deliberately, with a "more things change, more things stay the same" meme. But there are three important things for us all to remember.

First, the behavior is entirely—almost boringly—predictable. There is an entire industry in Washington that exists solely to distort, squelch and pulverize mandates in the immediate aftermath of biennial national elections.

For example, the Democratic Leadership Council and Third Way—both corporate front groups—exist exclusively to promote their agenda in the three-month window between a presidential election and an inauguration. Their mission is making sure no matter what happens in a given election, it is portrayed in the elite media as a validation that America resoundingly voted for continued corporatism, militarism and ideological conservatism. Not surprisingly, there is also an entire elite media apparatus more than happy to parrot the propaganda, primarily because the elite media is predisposed to repeat conservative talking points (especially on economic issues), regardless of the actual data.

Second, the feverish intensity and speed of 2008's mandate manipulation is, in a way, a good sign. Usually, there is a pause of a week or so for the Establishment noise machine to ramp up, write its talking points, and then begin its misinformation campaign. But this year, the distortion actually began preemptively, with the Punditburo taking to newspaper columns and the airwaves to insist that regardless of what happened in the election that hadn't even taken place, America remains more conservative than it has ever been (see my ongoing "Center-Right Nation Watch" series).

Once Tuesday delivered a huge progressive landslide, that pre-election hysteria has turned into a full-on panic—suggesting that even the most arrogant let-them-eat-cakers inside the Beltway are genuinely afraid that there has been a paradigm shift in American politics—one that threatens the current Establishment's very relevance and authority. And so the Mandate Manipulation Unit has gone into a reactive overdrive with everyone around Obama (and aspiring for a White House job) delivering a "nothing to see here, folks!" message. Yes, after "the most important election of our lifetime" we should expect to see nothing exponentially different from our government come 2009.

Finally, and most importantly, the progressive movement that worked closely with Obama now has its own capacity to counter the mandate manipulators and crystallize the real message of the 2008 campaign. Indeed, this is a new and critical development. From the Campaign for America's Future, to labor unions, to the Progressive States Network, to Public Citizen, to blogs, to high-profile congressional spokespeople, we have our own collective microphone and infrastructure.

And we are already seeing the benefits of that capacity. Just today, for example, OpenLeft has launched a petition drive asking Obama to respect the election mandate by refusing to appoint free-market fundamentalist Larry Summers as Treasury Secretary. Likewise, check out this statement from Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown's (D) - the most powerful Democrat from the most politically important state in the country:

Sen. Sherrod Brown, a liberal Ohio Democrat, argued that Obama should strike quickly to seize the economic downturn as a way to enact bold liberal programs in the mold of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. "He won because we wanted to take the country in a very different direction from George Bush, and clearly George Bush represented the end of the conservative era," Brown said. "The voters said we want ... a progressive alternative."

That's right, we no longer have to sit on the sidelines and watch the professional ruling class in Washington claim this election as their own property—we actually get to have a say, even after the election is over, even when D.C. wants to put us in our place by telling us to simply shut up and go away.

Now, you might be wondering— why is the post-election debate over a mandate important? Simply put, because it sets the parameters of the political debate for the next four years. How the mandate is depicted—and distorted—affects what the next president will have the political capital to do, and not do.

Political capital, after all, is really an intangible matter of perception. If the president is perceived to have an electoral mandate for far-reaching change, then he will have a lot of capital to reach for that change (especially if we successfully pressure him). But if the president is perceived to have an electoral mandate merely for small-bore incrementalism (as the Mandate Manipulators always insist), then he will be under enormous pressure to reach only for incremental reform.

This is why conservatives were so adamant about claiming a mandate in 1980 and in 2004—they understood its critical connection to policy. This is also why Establishment voices are so adamant about downplaying a mandate today—because the empirical data from the election suggests that 2008 provided an overwhelmingly anti-Establishment mandate on everything from financial regulation, to trade, to health care to the Iraq War. If that mandate is permitted to be recognized, acknowledged and appreciated in the public debate, it might force significant policy change on those issues.

That's the kind of change we all voted for this week—but as Obama himself said in his victory speech, "This victory alone is not the change we seek; it is only the chance for us to make that change." Helping Obama turn that chance into something more is now our charge in the months ahead.