The Democratic Party is a party of contradictions, and Obama faithfully represents the contradictory nature of the party. I understand there are differences between modern liberals, the "Left", progressives and the Democratic Party -- conflating all these terms equates the likes of Glenn Greenwald with Maxine Waters, Paul Krugman with Sam Harris, Bill Clinton with E. J. Dionne, Ed Schultz with Charles Taylor -- all these individual are quite different, and they have quite different ideas on many current issues, yet, what ties together many disparate thinkers on the general "Left" is the Democratic Party. I'm assuming that all these people vote for Democrats and not Republicans. Many of the thinkers might criticize certain elements and aspects of the party, but they continue to support the party and have put the party in power.
I understand the resistence to being affiliated with a political party as if it defines a person, and it wouldn't be an issue if our government had not taken on so much power through the years. Now, though, government is so powerful, it's critical that Americans pay attention to politics and who's running the government. Because there's intellectual diversity on the Left, and because there's also a party line, paradoxes abound in the political realm. It's true of both Right and Left, but the Left is presently holding power. The leader, President Obama, has recently criticized Romney for being a pioneer in outsourcing jobs to China and India. This populist salmagundi of nationalism/socialism/fascism/anti-global marketism is confusing when Obama has also talked about the changing nature of globalism and our responsibility as a global partner cooperating with other nations.
Globalization is ultimately good for emerging countries who have suffered for centuries, and I thought modern liberals promoted the rise of Third World countries. I thought the idea was that if Third World nations rise and become prosperous, it will be good for America in the end, but, more than that, good for equality and justice and the advancement of humankind globally. Dictatorships will be overthrown if the people begin to work and advance and realize the fruits of their labor. Workers of the world unite, and all that. So, why would Democrats now frame economic advancement and job growth in Asia as a threat to America?
The Democratic Party is full of contradictions. Just about all Democratic representatives and members of the administration have praised the virtues of democracy, yet, as time goes on, and as new media emerges which isn't beholden to the Democratic Party, America sees a different version of the Democratic Party than the one MSM portrayed before. When the Tea Party emerged, it was obvious that "democracy" doesn't include all voices. No, the voices on the Right, when they become loud and influential, are illegitimate, even dangerous, a threat to civility and safety. When a majority of Americans disapproved of Obamacare, they just didn't understand the bill. When the people's representatives did not act fast enough on immigration, Obama unilaterally bypassed the people's representatives and made his own law regarding immigrants. Democrats talk a lot of about equality, but, because they think many Americans are incapable of success through their own efforts, so government is necessary to level the playing field, surely these people aren't capable of making good decsions for the collective. Only an elite few can know what's good for the collective. This anti-democratic mindset is at odds with the democratic rhetoric. Democrats believe that politically-correct Americans have a legitimate voice, but that voice is controlled through the power elite with political control. To release this power in the economic realm, limited by the rule of law, and trust the decisions of consumers and producers leads to injustice and suffering -- so the Democrats say. Democrats are not that democratic, modern liberals not that liberal, and progressivism has little to do with progress.