Harvard Law Professor Roberto Unger, who taught Barack Obama jurisprudence and a course on democracy, and also advised him in the 2008 campaign says in an eloquent u tube video that Obama does not deserve to be reelected: "President Obama must be defeated in the coming election. He has failed to advance the progressive cause in the United States." See here.
I agree with Unger’s general criticisms of Obama and almost all of the specifics. But I do not think Unger sufficiently appreciates the difference between Romney (the candidate of oil, banks, and the lunatic fringe) and Obama. Many of us thought that that Clinton was a disaster for progressives, but are there any progressives who would deny that Bush was far worse? Even if Romney were really a moderate, won’t he have to dance to the demands of the Republican Party which is as far to the right as any in the past half century? Unger concedes that judicial appointments would be significantly different, and this is not a minor concession because the judiciary can erect even more serious barriers to bringing about social change. Moreover, a Romney administration threatens to heighten the suffering of the poor and the oppressed.
Unger’s willingness to have millions undergo years of pain in order to have the Democratic Party have a more progressive message is unaccompanied by a narrative, persuasive or otherwise, about how that will come about in a system in which the system of campaign finance is rigged in favor of the wealthy. Before progressives decide to elect Mitt Romney, we need a more detailed and realistic account of how that would help. I am prepared to accept the view that Obama has betrayed the progressive cause in many respects; I am prepared to accept the claim that he does not personally deserve another term; but not reelecting Obama would be a riverboat gamble – and a losing one at that.