barbara is experiencing cognitive dissonance, writ large.
Predictably, Republicans are sniping every hour of every day, boring new holes in Barack Obama’s body and body of work.
Less predictable, and even more disturbing, is the passel of progressives who are doing the same thing. Bloggers and commenters, mostly. A few columnists and commentators. And some just plain folks.
My afore-mentioned dissonance is rooted in my own growing concern about Obama’s decisions and actions (OMG, my third-choice candidate is not perfect), even as I am becoming increasingly snarly about the pitchfork attitude and tone of some liberals. If one were to read a compilation of derogatory comments about PBO and those with whom he has surrounded himself, I say you’d have a tough time IDing the source by party.
The smuggery is getting on my nerves.
I’m not well positioned to smug back. For starters, I’m not the brightest bulb in the pack about the intricacies of political maneuvering. I don’t fully understand how the game is played. (Does anyone?) And, to be fair, I know far less about issues than some of Obama’s detractors. So I do pay attention to what they’re saying. And I’m learning things, to the extent I can trust opinions perpetually presented in pissy prose.
There’s a fine line that separates civil discourse and constructive criticism from sniping and undermining. I’d be hard pressed to map that, but I know it when I see it. My tolerance for poo-flinging is reaching an unprecedented low-mark.
Here’s my current working theory about all of this. We spent eight years building up a wildly outspoken snark machine concerning the egregious misdeeds of GWB and company. We had to, went the reasoning, because the media were not doing their job. Most weren’t. Sometimes, we snarked reflexively. As time passed, snark became the default and civil discourse fell by the wayside. And yes, along with sticks and stones, words do immeasurable harm sometimes.
I dunno about you, but I have been changed, likely forever, by the eight years as hostage of Bush and the Republics. My cynicism has grown by epic proportions. (It is possible you may have noted that here at FDL, ahem.)
The growing number of blogs provided a place for us to vent our beleaguered spleens, either as posters or commenters or both. It became my habit to check in with a few of my favorite blogs several times a day, followed by forays to the likes of the NYTimes, WaPo, Salon, and yeah, even Faux News, etc.
Then, along came the most unlikely of candidates and, ultimately, our new POTUS. He speaks eloquently. He made a boatload of promises that even I knew would be difficult to keep. Even if he had the full backing of his party, which he doesn’t. There’s the matter of the fractious, barely Democratic Blue Dogs Americans voted into office in the interest of pandering to, well, to everyone. And good luck with that. You get what you vote for if you don’t vet your candidates thoroughly.
I don’t know from personal experience whether Barack Obama knows his butt from his elbow. But I have known all along the way that he’s definitely smarter about politics than I am, and likely smarter than the majority of his most outspoken critics. Critics who, for the most part, sit on their elbows much of the day, pounding out merciless attacks on pretty much anything that crosses their line of sight or can be heard.
I did my share of pounding during the Reign of Bush. More recently, about Alaska’s peculiar snow queen. And about Norm. Yup, mea culpa. And chances are good that won’t stop. So yeah, I’m a hypocrite.
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that Barack Obama is off-limits to us self-appointed know-it-alls (or, in my case, know-barely-enoughs). I am, however, remembering all kinds of fervent pledges to him from the people who elected him: “We’ve got your back, Obama!” That began to wither on November 5 and pretty much petered out as he left the dais on inauguration day.
Obama was in the crosshairs of his own party from the get-go. Admittedly, it didn’t help when he tapped Rahm Emanuel (arguably the most contentious, controversial, spiteful Dem in the pack) to be his chief advisor.
I do understand that it could be dangerous to let the leash play out too far, whatever that means. To “allow” the administration to do its thing, to see how it rolls. Who decides when to reel ‘em back in? And what should that look like? When do watch dogs need to become pit pulls? Or do they?
That’s my issue, I guess. Some progressives came off the blocks as pit bulls last fall and ramped up the rhetoric as the months passed. I’m all for accountability. But there are ways and there are ways. I realize that for some, civil discourse rankles. Sounds to them like backing down, making nice, playing dead. I don’t think that’s true. And I absolutely believe that perpetual attack mode undermines all of us. It’s not productive. Is, in fact, counter-productive.
Enough. Rip away. Or not. But please do it nicely.





85 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
President Obama should stop acting so much like President bush and he wouldn’t be receiving so much flack from progressives. Obama has litterally back peddled on every single promise he made to us. I worked my ass off to get him elected and I gave him my hard earned cash.
I never expected to see Obama fight against transparency in government, yet that is exactly what he’s doing. I never expected he would move to keep people incarcerated that are found innocent in a court of law. I never expected to see him issue bushesque signing statements. I never dreamed he would protect bush era war criminals but he has done all those things.
IMO the people that are upset with Obama have every right to be. He lied to us, there is no denying that fact.
If you don’t speak up for yourself and your fellows who do you think will represent the average American. Certainly not the insane clown posse we call Congress. They have sold out to the highest corporate bidder time after time. So excuse me if I can no longer stomach sitting in the corner and watching my country being swallowed whole by the corptocracy that owns us lock stock and barrel.
I absolutely agree about the speaking up for oneself, tbsa! What’s grinding on my last nerve is the demonizing. I believe Obama has made some big mistakes (near as I can tell), but feasting on him like so much roadkill isn’t going to get us through the next 3.5 years. What think?
I guess I am just disgusted that he so boldly lied to us durring the campaign. After everything we went through for 8 years with bush it’s terribly disheartening.
I took time and energy and resources from my family to ensure he was elected. I feel betrayed. He said one thing to win the nomination then once elected disregarded all the people who got him there. What kind of person does this? Obama has brought change, only the change he brought was telling us all one thing, then arriving in Washington and doing something entirely different. Had Obama been truthful from the start I would have voted for Clinton.
In all fairness, he hasn’t been in office that long and I think he’s having a more difficult time that he anticipated getting congress to all join in. That said, by now he’s had time to realize that he’s dealing more with a greedy kindergarten class than a group of reasonable adults who have the good of the country as a priority. If health reform that benefits the people over the insurance companies passes, I’ll keep supporting him. Let that die in the water and I’m out of politics.
I can’t do the broad brush-stroke that suggests Obama is a liar as his defining characteristic. I certainly see evidence of saying one thing and doing another. And boy howdy, I invested heavily in this guy, too. I’m just trying to figure out what’s really going on here.
There is something in the way Christy presents issues and events that is different from the norm. I think she’s a super model for how things can work.
She expresses her anger and upset clearly, but somehow, she does it in a way that isn’t reflexive attack mode. She leaves room for discussion, for disagreement because she doesn’t come down as she-who-knows-all. It’s a matter of tone, I guess. It’s the tone that is wearing me down, rather than disagreement. Does that make sense to you? I struggle with this every single day, and particularly when I come to FDL, my blog o’choice.
Don’t go away, please! Stick around and see how this all plays out long term. Is it fair to judge Obama’s entire presidency on the basis of this health care issue that decades of pols have been unable to resolve? (The answer might be yes, but somehow I don’t think so.) Honestly? I’d like to say the same thing you did, i.e., that I’ll just give up. But no, we need to keep plugging away, I think (not to be confused with reloading and firing with intent to maim). How can we inform the debate, the issues, especially when (like mine) there are legislative “representatives” who don’t even come close to representing. Who does Obama listen to? Is he so amoral that it’s only corporate interests and big money that supported him? Lordy, lordy, I hope not.
Yes, you make perfect sense. And Christy is awesome. Perhaps it was too much to expect from a politician to be truthful. As far as calling Obama a liar I believe he told us he would do things he never had any intention of doing.
Emotions are high for me right now, I have a vested interest in the healthcare issue. My family has been almost bankrupted because of our sick child. Healthcare is not a game to be won or lost. For people who will never know what it’s like to have to figure out how to eat, have a roof over your head and fight insurance companies that would rather let your child die, to sit around and say there is no hurry or we don’t need a public option infuriates me. In part I pay for free healthcare for life for these people.
For the record I’ve said more to you about how I feel about Obama and what he’s done than I have on this or any other blog. I have been coming to FDL for about 3 years and it’s definitely my favorite blog. I can’t say enough about how much this blog means to me. I absolutely respect your opinion and I’m sorry that you’re disheartened by the bashing.
Exactly. Plus, a lot of the people who are attacking him now never really were on board in the first place.
Really. Harry Truman tried it, the Clintons tried it. They couldn’t get it done. It’s amazing that Obama has got as far as he has.
Truman and Clinton didn’t have the # of votes Obama has for one thing. And I gave time and money. I walked precincts and registered people to vote for months so this man could be elected.
(((tbsa))) I didn’t know about your child. Crap!! I hate that for you. I do. And it helps me understand your sense of urgency around this issue. No, make that “it makes me understand,” to the extent that’s possible. Your honesty here means a lot, to me and others who are reading here. Help us know how we can help you and yeah, what kind of boot in the butt we need to give Congress and Obama to keep trying (try?) to do the right thing.
I’ve been curious all along the way about whether Hillary and Bill are advising Obama on this. Blind leading the blind? Good advice? Bad advice? Who is/are the go-to people to make this happen, I wonder?!
Amen. The snark machine is on auto-pilot and out of control. However, there is a good side to that. I’m getting a lot more work (and play) done ignoring the internet and teevee. OT – ’opinions perpetually presented in pissy prose’ is my favorite phrase o’ the day.
Your points are well taken; this issues tears me up every day. We so desperately need/want someone to believe in, someone to rally around, and then they fall short of some ideal that probably never existed in the first place.
I’m also coming to believe that Pogo was right — “we’ve met the enemy, and he is us.”
Without excusing the actions we find dismaying, the expectations for Obama were/are impossible. The country and it’s governance institutions have been dragged down so low that the nation may be virtually ungovernable except for slight adjustments at the margins, and to expect some guy to ride in and fix everything is just silly, naive. It will take a huge, unrelenting collective effort to turn this thing around, to revitalize our governing institutions, and restore a sense that democracy can actually move the country forward. Right now, that’s hard.
This site is founded on the belief that this is possible, that we can actually make a difference. It also assumes that “we the people” have to do this, and not assume one guy is the solution, even though the President can be very helpful (or destructive). I hope Obama helps us, every day, and many days he does — I cheer him for that — he’s the best educator we’ve had in my lifetime — and then on other days, he seems to defend the indefensible. I would clean out his entire stable of attorneys except for a few.
Is it because he’s as corrupted as the instutitions he’s trying to fix? I don’t buy that, though its a common view. Or because he knows this is virtually impossible to fix all at once and you have to make awful choices between focusing here and letting something else, equally important, just slide backwards. The question is making us all schizophrenic.
We ask too much of our Presidents and not enough of every one else, including ourselves. Is there any excuse for our Senate’s behavior? The Supreme Court, which keeps jerking us backwards with each 5-4 decision? An opposition party that is trying to destroy the country just to make the Democrats look bad, and their duplicitous DINA/Media helpers?
The task is overwhelming. But either we become the change, or it doesn’t happen. “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
Nice diary barbara. I think a lot of the problem is that people do not understand that this is an incremental process. The oligarchs have been dismantling the system since 1968, and it is not going to be rebuilt overnight. The first step was to stop it from getting worse, which we did by defeating John McCain (who, if he had not picked Palin, would probably be President today). We have pulled the plane out of it’s dive-this is a huge accomplishment. Now we must level off and fix a bunch of broken things, before we can again start gaining altitude. This may be the work of generations, and it will not be easy.
I second the remark that Christy is a model critic. Would that I were as thoughtful and articulate. Maintaining a polite discourse isn’t easy, especially when your opposite numbers aren’t interested in either politesse or discourse.
Barbara, with all due respect, you are dancing around the core facts of our situation and asking people to put aside their grievances out of some idea of obedience to the administration. I don’t like reading the blistering critiques of the guy I voted for any more than you do. I especially don’t like being one of those people, although I am. To me, it’s both saddening and maddening that only six months into the Obama Administration, he’s not only eviscerated every single one of his “promises,” but is in fact taking us down the same road HalliBushCO did.
He campaigned on health care reform–but he’s more than happy to let the Public Option go if he can get GOP votes for a non-reform bill he can sign and declare Faux Victory. He campaigned on restoring the Rule of Law–only to volunteer to become an accessory after the fact to Bush’s war crimes. He campaigned against torture–only to keep some key proponents of torture in his administration. He campaigned on transparency–only to vastly enlarge the State Secrets Privilege. He campaigned on economic reform–only to become a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman Sachs, running the economy solely to benefit a few huge banks that are insolvent due to massive fraud. He’s even proving to be quite the enemy of the environment.
I don’t think much of anyone who supported him enjoys doing this kind of critique. I find it deeply troubling.
But asking us to sit down and be good little boys and girls doesn’t work in politics and it never will. Living in a democracy means people disagree about stuff. When we’re being outspent and out-accessed by huge corporate concerns, our collective voice is all we really have. Obedience gets you nothing but contempt from the powerful.
I’m old enough to remember how Bill Clinton pulled a lot of the same 180s in his term. So I’m not willing to simply accept that POTUS Knows Best and just go back to sleep. We did that last time and look at what his “reforms” did for our economy, standard of living and so on: a $12 Trillion bail-out of banks that are totally insolvent, leaving nothing for the Real Economy to go on. But at least Clinton was decent on the environment and he didn’t go around covering up crimes against humanity.
Between global warming, our imploding economy, peak oil, our colonial wars and the massive corruption that is crippling our government in dealing with any of these things, we’re simply in too much trouble collectively to sit back and be good little automatons.
If we don’t speak loudly now, we’ll not get another chance. Perhaps one reason why many are so pissed off is they feel like they shouldn’t have to be fighting with their own “leadership” and it bothers them a great deal. Perhaps some of us howl in disgust at a government that knowingly flaunts its contempt for it’s own people and their future. Perhaps some are like me, who rail at the sheer stupidity of what passes for a policy-formation process in this country and all that bodes for our future.
One thing is certain though, the future isn’t what it used to be. Perhaps some people do not wish to go silently into that Night. Perhaps that’s a good idea!
I voted for Obama so I would like to reserve the right to criticize him. Yes, unfortunately he is acting much like George W. Not exactly what I expected. Too many bailouts of the fat cats.
Some on the left are really no different from those on the right in that they are so wedded to a political philosophy or a single issue that they can’t or won’t compromise. And when they won’t consider or comprise on the left it’s noble, when it’s on the right it’s evil.
I find it funny and off putting at the same time when I read people crucifying the right about their beliefs and doing the exact same thing by not willing to compromise or even consider an alternate point of view.
Not all conservatives are evil, and not all progressives/liberals are great.
I sent Barack Obama $50 on two separate occasions with the understanding I was to receive a t-shirt each time. In both cases I got not a thing.
If you’re reading this, BO, I ordered size XL. Just send them to my home address.
Compromise with republicans = people are screwed and corporations are rewarded. You might be okay with that, but IMO 8 years of that shit was quite enough. They couldn’t give a rats ass about comromise with the democrats when the republics were in office. Not saying two wrongs make a right but if the republics don’t want to compromise with the starting point benefiting the American people and not the corporate lapdogs they are beholden to then f**k them.
I liked Kucinich best, but I didn’t want to waste my vote so I voted for John Edwards. True story.
I voted for Obama in the general.
I do think Obama sucks. In addition to the complaints duly noted above, I dislike his Clinton retreads. Holder, Panetta. I fear that Sotomayor is a Conservative trojan horse. I hate the Goldman Sachs boys – recycled and otherwise. And there’s a guy for the FDA from Monsanto that Obama wants in that position.
I hate the mountaintop removal and the pussy footing around on wind and solar. Never liked his support for “clean” coal. The inadequacy of addressing global warming. The DOMA, the DADT, and the NCLB. The weak tea on union support, taxation of the rich and job outsourcing.
The suck is horrible, but not as bad as McCain.
And marijuana needs to be decriminalized. So his position on marijuana is another complaint. And the bullshit war that benefits only the MIC.
I don’t believe Obama is playing Chess or seven degrees of Kevin Bacon. I think he is Joe Lieberman without the dildo up his ass.
I see things pulling both ways, almost. On the one hand, as much as we wish it could happen, Washington doesn’t change in a day. Obama has decided not to run smack into Washington’s morass, and so by dancing with the culture here a bit, he’s not delivering as quickly as I might want.
On the other hand, I see lots of progressives getting very disillusioned very quickly. The game on, say, health care has yet to be completely played, and yet every bump in the road spells disaster for some folks. They have a hard time believing (hoping?) that people in Congress can change with a President like Obama in the White House.
I don’t know who’s right, it’s probably a bit of both. But I’m in agreement with the Obama bashing. There are constructive ways to criticize him. That doesn’t always happen.
For some that game has taken everything they have worked for. Maybe if you were struggling to keep your house or feed your children because of the money both you and your wife had to pay to keep one of your children alive you might have a different POV. Does the whole blame for that belong to Obama, no.
I feel you there. I’m not saying don’t be pissed or active, because we need both pissed and active. Obama can be doing his navigating, and we can be doing our organizing.
Barbara….Very thoughtful and well-written. I share your concern…the bashing, the tone, et al. And wanting very much to have belief and hope while I do not “get” some of his positions/changes. There is more to be seen. He is the community organizer trying to bring the people along…there are still questions. We do need to speak out; I think your weary caution is very well taken and important.
Barbara, some things are nonnegotiable. Fewer than most people think, but some. They’re not policy differences, they are fundamental principles. For me, they include the specific crime of torture, the more general category of “war crimes” (that is, violations of Geneva Conventions, UN Conventions and related U.S. statutes), and the principle that no one should be above the law.
I’m a Republican who hammered Bush publicly, long and hard, on these topics and took a great deal of heat for doing so. I did that because otherwise I couldn’t look myself in the mirror.
Now that Obama is not only NOT prosecuting Bush-era crimes but is also committing some of the same crimes (yes, crimes) as Bush, I’m going to be just as hard on him as I was on Bush. This has nothing to do with “politics,” it has nothing to do with how hard or easy something is, it has nothing to do with the size of the Democratic majority in Congress.
Presidents of the United States take an oath not to protect the *country* but to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That, in a nutshell, is the job description. When the president doesn’t do the job, he/she is going to hear about it from me, regardless of party … and, I trust, will be hearing about it from you, too.
Peace.
Barbara – Thank you for this diary.
I had to leave for a while, so I’ve fallen far behind here. Scarecrow, thanks so much for weighing in on this. I’m going to reprint your comment here and comment within your comments:
It may indeed be a work of generations, but no one is much inclined to give it more than 180 days. Patience is in short supply, in no small measure because of twisting slowly in the wind for the past eight years. It’s probably not fair to blame it all on George, but everything seems to circle back to him and his henchmen.
Oh, yikes! I’m not suggesting that people stifle their grievances. I’m suggesting the possibility of thinking things through first before sharpening the guillotine. Much of what’s happening seems to be conditioned response. Knee-jerk, if you will. And that makes Obama a walking pinata. He is damned if he does, doesn’t, might, could, shouldn’t, didn’t, won’t, can’t, can, etc. All I’m suggesting is backing off a half step lest we castigate out of habit rather than for cause.
Criticism is our fundamental right! And actually, we have the right to be shrill if we so desire. My point is that I don’t see that accomplishing what needs to be accomplished. And yes, I’m being redundant, I’m being redundant.
Absolutely true. Both veteran politicos and newbies. Also those who were disillusioned before he was elected and inaugurated. Were they/are they right? Maybe. Maybe. But it’s difficult to think for all the shouting.
fixed?
Thanks, Sister! It seems to wear us down. Something in all of this is where assertive leaves off and aggressive begins. And as part of this basically peace-loving bunch (with respect to war anyway), I advocate for non-aggression!
You are absolutely right. And so I would submit that “hearing from me/us” is a key element here. I have a totally unresponsive Congressman (okay, he’s a Republican, but we had Republican Jim Ramstad in MN CD3 who listened, learned, and legislated accordingly). I now have two senators. But here’s the rub. How can/will Obama “hear from me/us”? I think we need to move off the page, off the cell phone and into the community. And believe me when I tell you that’s as much marching orders (so to speak) for me as for anyone. The “afflicting the comfortable” thing, writ large.
You’re very gracious. Thank you!
Others have said it. I’ll say it.
This is NOT the change I voted for.
PBO has backtracked and waffled on way too many issues.
He gets pressure, the Senate and the House get pressure.
They all get pressure until we get what we want, and so far, we ain’t gettin it fast enough, if all all..
Barbara, this country, and I, have spent decade after decade watching corporate encroachment buy off our elected officials time after time as they enacted and passed legislation that was NOT in the interests of the masses, we the people.
I just can’t see being nice and fuzzy about PBO, or anyone, until I see the changes we were told would be forthcoming.
It’s a long hard fight, and NOW is the time for increased pressure, folding in the centrists and the rest of america to a progressive agenda as we ALL battle loss of jobs, homes, healthcare and hope.
This is a unifying moment, when all but the 23% wingnut righturds can see how in the past 40 years the middle class has been wiped out, and we lose more and more of the hope we had for a better world for us, and our children, and our grandchildren.
In all honesty, if you want any hope and ACTION, you’ll have to get mean to get it, being nice and fuzzy has only got us to where we are at now. And that’s unacceptable.
Join the rest of the country, Barbara, and give them elected officials hell, they have it coming for not listening to us for decades. They talk a good game, and then create and vote in legislation that’s not good for us.
NOW is the time to let your inner wild eyed activist/progressive out of its silenced shell. Now. IS. The. Time. Moreso than ever, aside from trying to stop the Vietnam War. Hell, we’ve got two wars going on now, and it’s breaking us financially and in SO many other ways, but there’s no heavy numbers in the street, so the antiwar thang ain’t getting done.
Now is the time though, as more and more Americans realize they’re losing more and more, and in reality, getting screwed by the politicians who are bought out by the corps.
Now, Barbara. If not now, never.
Thanks for your post.
Alright, one of the newbie’s! **G
“The game on, say, health care has yet to be completely played, and yet every bump in the road spells disaster for some folks”
Ya see, in my eyes, every bump in the road IS a disaster. If we DON’T respond to every bump, history has PROVEN the bumps get bigger, faster, and we lose.
So, IMHO, every bump deserves the admonitions we can muster to fling at it. The poo, the flinging, is the ONLY thing that gets us further down the road we want to travel. Without it, they tread on like a tanktread upon the earth and asphalt, regardless of the damage done.
*G*
Scarecrow, I agree with much of what you say, but with reference to this:
“This site is founded on the belief that this is possible, that we can actually make a difference. It also assumes that “we the people” have to do this, and not assume one guy is the solution, even though the President can be very helpful (or destructive).”
I don’t think I am asking Obama to be the solution, but I am asking him to lead in the way that FDR and Harry Truman, and even Lyndon Johnson (in the area of domestic reforms) led. Barack Obama is not leading the Congress. He is not mobilizing the public to support a Progressive program. His approach to Congress seems to be coming out of his community organizing experience. He thinks he can run the country by herding congressional cats, waiting for a consensus among them to emerge, throwing his weight behind that consensus to get legislation, and then declaring victory because he’s gotten Congress to do something.
The only problem with that sort of pragmatism is that what Congress decides to do may have nothing to do with what the country needs or wants, especially since Congress is so responsive to special interests these days and so little concerned with what Americans need or want.
In any case, thus far, Barack Obama is no Roosevelt, or even a Harry Truman. And I’m afraid that our country, threatened as it is by emerging Plutocracy, really needs that kind of leadership right now. So, I’ll go on criticizing Obama until he provides that kind of leadership. I’ll criticize him because he took single payer off the table. I’ll criticize because his stimulus package was too small. I’ll criticize because he didn’t try to go after the filibuster in the Senate and dramatize the issue. I’ll critcize because he didn’t fight for a good climate bill. And above all, I’ll criticize for continuing the course of the Bush Administration in undermining the constitution of the United States.
Cautious and kind and thoughtful rhetoric did NOT this nation make.
It was blood spilled that led to the rhetoric and documents that FOUNDED this country.
IMHO, we are at a crossroads today.
Either we push and get some pendulum swinging our way, or it’s over and our demo republic is gone.
For that, I would not fault the harsh. The harsh is what’s helping to push the envelope of our needs.
Calling, calling, protesting, showing the truth to the beast . . . over and over. That’s the means, and our ends is justified, based on our founding documents.
Now is the time for loud voices to push back, harder and harder. With voice AND deed.
To be still and inactive, or even polite, won’t get the job done. I offer the past 40 years as evidence.
That’s a nice way of saying it . . . and it’s in a firm tone. *G* I’m with ya.
Right! And if the pressure doesn’t work. It’s time to get busy on a new Political Party. The Democrats are not fulfilling their historic mission, which is to represent the interests of working people. That creates an opening on the left. If we can’t move Obama left, where the Party belongs, we need to leave him and the Blue Dogs and try to get a majority on our own.
Thanks for provocative diary, though I think I am one of those you are taking issue with.
Is Obama riding the tiger of status quo dysfunctional monster amoral programs like the military industrial complex including the torture “deciders” and “apologists” and Wall Street machine with its lack of accountability with bonus baby banksters or is he in the tummy of the tiger?
He deserves credit as an adept politican and for his rhetoric. We desperately need reform. Is he a reformer? He is a communicator who is adept at compromise. But constitutional and moral law not often up for compromise. He is doing some good stuff. But is he caving on the really controversial stuff?
Does he have that capacity, the heart and courage of a serious reformer? I wonder. He seems to be defying the public will re to stop war, not to risk lives, ours and foreign, for imperialism and economic cronyism and profiteering. Did he have to “give away the store” to woo the power brokers to become president of the “store”, so to speak? Is Obama’s “brand” enthralling others, a kind of opiate of the people, to promote the status quo and distract and interrupt outrage and its momentum building from the bottom-feeding Bushco? The greed takeover and sacrifice of the common good by our lobbied compromised representatives.
Something Digby wrote really resonated:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com…..-ceci.html
Obama and healthcare stance:
I think we need to ask Obama to walk the walk. He got to talk the talk during the campaign. We need the walking the walk now. Joining the gated community political/corporatist elite is seductive and also formidable to defy. Who does he owe to having become president. The grass roots that worked so hard? Or the big guys?
Great diary, Barbara. Thanks for weighing in.
It’s a hard dilemma to face. And I think much of it comes from having people view political races like sports teams — our guy vs. their guy. Which isn’t totally wrong, “their guy” would’ve been a disaster. But as progressives, it’s also our job to commit to progressive values — not to personalities. But if you let people get carried away and weaken “our guy,” you get “their guy.” Definitely no good.
When Obama chose Rahm, I went on MSNBC and I said that he should have who he wants in the cabinet, but if things screw up, he is responsible. Rahm does a lot of damage, and right now in Obama’s poll numbers I think we’re seeing what happens when you alienate the base and they are not there to catch you when economic times are hard. 10 dimensional chess with Republicans over civil liberties, Guantanamo, state secrets, torture, the banks, DOMA, DODT etc. have caused a lack of trust on the left that is independent of what anyone in the blogosphere says because it goes against progressive values.
Those sacrifices have a price, and if we let Obama slide on stuff we blamed Bush for, we lose too.
Cautious and kind is not the issue, I think. Inflammatory is. Pretty much all of us here are on the same old page with respect to wanting to be heard and having a boatload of stuff to say. I continue to believe the following:
(1) The message is lost in inflammatory rhetoric. All that comes across is the flames.
(2) Sometimes we (yes, I am guilty of this, too) make knee-jerk responses that are inflammatory (see number 1 above).
(3) Once someone is demonized in an individual’s perception, it’s harder than bloody hell to back away from that, even on those (rare?) occasions when there’s good reason for that. GWB is a classic case in point. There came a time when even if that four-down, two-low, yellow-timing belly flusher (h/t Johnny Hart, BC) crawled on his hands and knees to my doorstep, begging for forgiveness for his transgressions, I’d have probably stomped on his hands before he uttered a peep. And I’m a relatively peaceful person. So I get rage and outrage. I do. Is it too soon to dismiss Barack Obama out of hand? I think it might be. Just sayin’.
A really good question. I. Don’t. Know. Some Republicans would be quick to say he’s absolutely in the belly of the beast. Is the beast. Is the living personification of Revelation, right here, right now. Seems kinda over the top to me, frankly.
But I return to the “I don’t know” thing. I don’t know him personally. I don’t know his posse. I only know these people by reputation. And really, that’s the most bothersome thing to me. The company he keeps. The good, the bad and the ugly, the old, the failed, the untested, the bright, the dim, the fiercely ambitious, the brink of retirement folks, etc., etc. I have not yet had my antennae go bonkers, signaling to me that Obama is the anti-Christ or, worse yet, a DINO.
If we’re going to make a difference, if we’re gonna deliver a message that can be heard, I think we need to come to some agreement about what the message is and deliver it so it can be heard rather than extinguished.
Sure it’s too soon. Let’s see how he replies to progressive criticism.
Hey, Jane! Thanks for stopping by. I’m honored!
Yeah about Emanuel. It was a really terrible choice. Why do I think that Rahm is less likely to have Obama’s back than anyone?
And double yeah about “if you weaken our guy, you get their guy.” That’s part of what I’ve been trying to say. But Obama’s most fierce detractors contend that’s already happened. Contended that the day he was elected, in some cases.
How can we make him strong? How can we help him do the right thing(s)? Rhetorical, I suppose. And it all comes back to the need to decide what our message is and best possible way to deliver it so that it won’t be dismissed as incendiary blather. Tone does matter, I believe.
I’m wearying of people wearying of “Obama bashing”.
Sorry kid but this is the big leagues and we’re in desperate times. Criticism goes with the territory of Obama’s job. He knows that. So should you.
For the record I am not and never have been an Obama supporter (no, I didn’t support Hillary Clinton either). I personally sensed a lot more hype than hope in the guy and found his political philosophy a bunch of facile nonsense that was bound to be ineffectual in the rough and tumble of real world politics. Furthermore, I was turned off by his FISA cave-in and his proposal to continue (and expand!) the Bush program of funding faith-based social organizations (which he has followed through with as President).
I did vote for Obama, albeit with very low expectations and a mountain of reservations. I have to say that he’s mostly confirmed the main reservations I had about him which was that he and the Democrats (now that they were getting the “control” over government they said they needed in order to be able to do anything) would do nothing more than provide a more competently executed version of the Bush agenda.
Obama, in my view is not a progressive, a liberal or (horrors!) a socialist. He’s essentially a conservative who, despite his lofty rhetoric, is not committed to the fundamental change we need in this country. Everything he’s doing seems aimed at tinkering around the edges of the system rather than systematically reforming it. It’s disingenuous for him and his supporters to claim that he really would prefer more progressive policies but is being forced to compromise. It’s more accurate to point out that he’s forcing compromises skewed towards conservative and corporate interests (who don’t seem to have to work so hard to “make him do it”) on to progressives. It’s hard for me to see his goal as anything but foisting on us a more “palatable” form of the same conservatism, corporatism and militarism that both the Republican and Democratic leadership have been in thrall to for the past four decades.
If you consider this “bashing” well, nothing personal kid, but too bad. The issues we’re dealing with are way too important to worry about whether we’re asking nicely.
Kid? Wow! Been a long, long time since anyone called me that!
Once again, I will say that I do not equate criticism with bashing. Those two things are not necessarily one and the same, though when they are, it’s…how shall I say this?…wearying.
I was thinking that more hard lefties were of that thinking. I think the Repubs think the “beast” of which I am speaking is their friend. Part of their gated community. I find the “beast” terrifying.
I think cronyism is a danger, whether among the right or left. And I think some of us may get passionate and strident and disrespectful (I think I labeled Obama “The Newest CEO of War Incorporated” on one diary, but I was making a strong point about his apparent and intense militarism) because we fear his popularity, the personality over principles seduction, especially with a media that doesn’t deliver the priority facts and issues going on, is letting him coast and postpone reform and that window will close soon enough. Is his eye too much on the next election sacrificing real reform opportunities?
I think, too, I am appalled and think it is rude of him when he flip flops on a campaign promise to NOT acknowledge or apparently feels no obligation to, that he did say one thing long ago and is now acting contrary to it. As if that was just campaign-speak and he can crazymakingly pretend it was never said. I find that offensive coming from his end of it.
I know it is crazymaking to listen to the wingnuts go on about Obama, reacting to Obama the person or the politician with irrational pronouncements, but that should not muffle real criticism of Obama out of “Obama team loyalty”.
Obama kool-aid very tastey, his personality very winning. We need to be careful. Personality is one thing. Character is another. I am not condemning his “character” but as he is president, I get to question it re his decisions and as you say who his advisors are and what they are saying and doing, too. The moral quicksand that is the Beltway is another HUGE factor. I think Ralph Nader was right, both Dems and Repubs have sold the citizenry far down the river. I think we have to stay awake especially between elections!
ps. barbara, I think we need to celebrate what Obama does that is good. I heard an interview on Ring of Fire recently how Obama gets serious props for his contributions already to fighting “human trafficking”, a nightmare problem in the world. I was so gratified to hear that. So we owe it to him and ourselves to go positive when it is due! (and your consciousness raising here will help remind me of that)
You are my poster person for what we need! You don’t mince words. You are very clear and quite specific about your misgivings re Obama. You do not indulge in mega-snark to make your point (not here anyway *g*). Full disclosure: I’ve been known to do that. You challenge me (and others) to think, rethink what’s going down in WhiteHouseLand. I’m totally open to that! Tone makes an immense difference. I will believe that to the end of time. Tone and the ability to say, as you did, “Well, okay, there is this positive thing he did.” Booyah!! And thanks for your comments.
I don’t know how to give Obama more time to do the things he’s already done.
There are certainly political realities that can get in the way of some things, but begrudgingly being frustrated by political realities is significantly different than active advocation. My problems with Obama aren’t only what he might actually have to fight the establishment on, but more specifically where he’s actively standing in the way of letting the system work the way its supposed to, and further advocating and expanding on the Bush-era prerogatives of the Presidency. Worse still is that the only thing that overshadows their multitude is their gravity. His track record on civil-liberties is horrific, and almost astonishingly getting worse as time travels forward.
I also find it exceedingly disturbing how people have accepted a faustian bargain of prima facia reforms in exchange for a complete dismantling of their fundamental protections. To say nothing of the false dichotomy that said reforms are some how mutually exclusive from judiciously executing the law and upholding the Oath of Office.
In short: the excuses of time, process, and inertia for so many critical issues are simply strawmen.
Thanks, barbara, for the validation. Also thank you for triggering a very valuable discussion we have to have here on the left with each other and with the Obama frontline.
Also, for one example, to loudly embrace and push for the idea of a universal single payer system should not be played by press or Repubs as being against a “pragmatic” public option, and framed that way into our own thinking. Progressives need to show, as you suggest, a healthy forum of idea-pooling and honest debate, not authoritarian following which Bushco took such advantage of, wedge-issued-lemmings-over-the-cliff leadership.
Doing it nicely means doing it with precision.
Obama is bought and sold. He was a willing participant.
You want him to be better.
Good luck.
barbara – thanks for bringing this up. The varied responses here indicate the problem, to a great extent.
One of the things I love about this blog is that the founders, especially Jane, keep reminding us this is “a marathon, not a sprint.”
I get discouraged too, and sometimes back off for awhile.
But after 35 years or so as a “leftie,” it has been my sad perception that liberals are more likely to give up if we don’t get our goals right away.
A major reason the right has taken over so much, from government to media to the assumptions of ordinary folks about what’s “normal,” or “middle-of-the-road,” is that they began 30 + years ago, small-scale, with school boards and small-town councils, learned how to take over, and kept moving up and perfecting their organization and discipline.
Democrats will never be disciplined and all-together-on-one-message, and I don’t reallly want us to be.
But we could sure learn something about working for the long term, recognizing obstacles and learning how to get around them and keep moving. We really need to understand that giving up when things don’t go our way the first, or second, or third, or fourth (etc., etc.) time means we will lose, because we’re up against people who don’t give up.
Without FDL, and a short list of other blogs, I would’ve maybe gone insane from frustration the last 8 years, and without FDL and the same short list, plus others, we wouldn’t be where we are now. And, much like growing old, it is still better than the alternative!
Hadn’t thought of this, but it seems right. And in light of your observation that we’re up against people who not only won’t ever give up but also excel at pitting us against each other, it makes hanging in there all the more essential, doesn’t it? Urgh.
Would a modicum of discipline and shared vision on an issue-by-issue basis be such a bad thing? Might the end justify the means? Again, just askin’.
P.S. One more thing. FDL helped save my sanity as well (though some might argue it’s been saved). It’s why I keep coming back.
David was a marathoner. He didn’t start running until mid-life. Well, less than mid-life, as things turned out. I remember him saying that in a marathon race, he sometimes walked for a while on the steepest up-hills, saving some of his energy for the long haul. Strategic running. He never intended to finish first, but he was determined to finish well. And he always did.
Jane is right about the political marathon, of course.
Barbara is right that the last eight years have been a nightmare. FDL and other sites were breathing room for me to get out from under the weight of propaganda, the daily avalanche of crap, coming out of Washington. We’ve all become very honed as to what is wrong, what needs to be exposed, stopped, torn down. The progressive capacity for critical thinking has been brought to new heights, and that is a very good thing. I think at the same time we would help ourselves and our cause(s) by carving out a bit of time on a regular basis to remember, clarify and express what we are for, what we want to build, what positive values we want to make a lasting part of the world. For me, healthcare for all is a big part of that, and pressing my congressman to take the pledge (without result, so far) has been a great channel for constructive energies.
Some of my greatest inspirations are people in their 80s and 90s who have kept plugging away for peace and justice their whole lives. I’ve been privileged to know a few. Hope and faith in a better future, along with righteous anger, is the things that unites them… They are consistently amazing and show me the marathon’s goal.
barbara, Thanks for doing this. A much needed discussion around these parts.
My problem with the “bashing” you speak of is the complete and total ignoring by many of the positive changes President Obama has already helped bring about, which are many and massive. If people don’t know about these, they are either purposely ignoring these incredibly positive Changes, or they need to find some new outlets for their information gathering. It’s all out there!
As pointed out upthread, I too feel his numbers are dropping from a miscalculation on his part (which I also believe he’ll adjust to this…), and that is Obama didn’t realize how childish and pouty much of his base is. There have been several times I’ve seen him talk, and he’s very clearly giving a “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” to Liberals as if to say, “Get active. I got YOUR back on this or that issue,” only to be met with constant derision and ridicule.
This often takes the form of the mocking of 15-dimension underwater, upside down, blindfolded chess, but it really is pretty basic stuff. For instance, just saw a headline in a BigMedia outlet saying Warren Buffett says a second Stimulus is needed. Now isn’t it preferable to have Buffett and others like him saying this rather a DeeCee politican like Obama? Obama has consistently expressed his desire for publically funded healthcare (wink, wink), but isn’t it better to have such a massive Change to our system come from public demand rather than the appearance that one person is forcing it upon us? This is happening right before our eyes.
This is community organizing 101. The people lead and the leaders will follow. Clinton never did this. Carter never did this. It will allow for a long-term, sustainable transformation into a Liberally-led country. That is, if more Liberals will get some humility and start looking at current events in some ways they never have before. It’s thrilling for me to think about what’s possible in front of us, but I actually have been waking up at night recently worrying that too many people can’t see the golden opportunity in front of them. It’s up to each one of us to make these things happen…not one man.
This is a funny argument to me, and unfortunately see it a lot.
Obama shattered every record for fundraising from small donors. He raised incredible amounts more from $200 and under donors than he did from BigBidness.
So if the theory is that he’s beholden to the largest income streams, then he’s beholden to the average American more than anyone else. For instance, if he pissed off the financial sector so much that they’d put all their money toward an Obama opponent, Obama could make up that difference in one fundraising email blast to his organizer list. He is not “bought and paid for” by BigMoney, in my opinion.
This isn’t true for many DeeCee politicians though, and that’s why I feel it’s inaccurate to paint Obama with this same brush.
I actually don’t like the marathon analogy that much. I prefer to think of politics, and life for that matter, as a series of sprints, with rest periods in between.
Who looks more healthy…a strong sprinter or a frail marathoner?
Bingo.
He deserves every scrap of it and more.
He basically started fucking you on November 5 and has kept doing it ever since. A few days ago he stood up and expressed his desire to see the free market run American healthcare. His response to the economic crisis was to throw trillions at the banks who supplied his economic team and a bone to the people who are suffering for it. His environmental policies offer cosmetic change and a big fillip for coal. He has broadened your war against Islam, so that now you are murdering Pashtuns across borders. His administration intends to detain people who are acquitted of the crimes they are accused of.
He rode the desire for change to the White House, just as New Labour rode our desire for it in the UK back in the 90s. He’s not a new FDR. He’s a new Tony Blair.
As for this, #62:
this is exactly why he’s getting bashed. He talks a good game. He pretends to care what you want. He says he has your back. But curiously, he is not having it, and his policies seem to have hurt corporate America none and the people plenty. When someone has my back, I don’t expect them to knife it.
Actually no. They just spent money. The right represents the interests of the rich and we have a world that runs on money. The media doesn’t even come close to representing people’s views. How would it? It never asks people what their views are, and could care less. Polls reveal, time and again, that the populace holds much more liberal views than the media makes out that it does.
But look, threequarters of your nation backs a strong public option, yet your lawmakers claim they cannot get the support. Does it never occur to you, or the others who want Obama to be given a break, why they think that, or what they mean by it even? They mean the money won’t get behind it, no more no less. Obama’s a money guy too. Yeah, he’s reasonably socially liberal. He doesn’t want too much unemployment. And he’ll pick a Hispanic woman for the SC, so long as it’s a decently centre-right one. But he knows who’s buttering his bread and it’s not you.
Excellent post and an even better thread.
I have a hard time seeing an extremely negative reaction to actions taken by the DoJ in cases like Jewel, Al-Haramain, Jeppesen, etc. as “childish and pouty.” Likewise for dismantling habeas corpus, due process, promoting a multi-tiered system of justice, directly defying court orders, and so on.
If vehemently opposing expansions of government secrecy, the establishment of an indefinite administrative detention regime, and a series of kabuki-courts to acquire pre-ordained convictions is “childish and pouty,” then you’d better hand me a binky and a blanket posthaste; there’s an atomic temper-tantrum brewing.
Obama has even been highlighting the various public opinion polls that show 70%+ want a public option. He’s using the bully pulpit he has to say this Change is coming from the people, and not being forced by him and some Dems. This is fantastic.
He isn’t “just talk.” He has a lifetime and his entire Presidency so far as proof of who he really is, and the proof is in the form of actions and actual legislation that has been enacted.
And once again, this is why the ignorance of the positives, either willfully or not, is so detrimental to Liberal reform as a whole. Focusing ONLY on the compromises Obama makes to the cesspool he did not create, diminishes morale among fellow Liberals, and then eventually leads to deterioration of public opinion, which we’re seeing some early stages of right now. I suspect Obama will adjust, as he has done so many times before successfully.
I’d argue that now more than ever in my lifetime is when the balance should be to the side of praise for what Obama has done so far, since now the real meaty fighting is starting. This will embolden Liberal organizing more and get more and more people fired up to make these huge Changes possible.
Yet, around many Liberal blogs at least, the balance is so, so far to the side of “holding feet to the fire,” which is hurting Liberal reform as a whole.
As I said, if it starts becoming clear that Obama is another Bill Clinton, which I’d say there’s more evidence that he’s the opposite so far, then I’ll be changing my tune, but as of now, Obama has earned my trust, and don’t know about you, but I’d rather not play into the Repub strategy of dividing and conquering us at a time when we need to be more united than ever.
Bad Penny here. I think the “childish and pouty” reference was not meant to be about vehement opposition to particular issues. I defend your right to be totally pissed about those things. I don’t think anyone here would disagree with that.
What root-canals my brain is the wholesale dismissal of all things Obama, and at the six-month point of his four-year term, the snide obituaries re his failed presidency. It’s too soon for that. Way too soon. Course corrections called for? Sure. On an issue-by-issue basis, yes/no?
Vehement opposition, when rooted in facts, is a healthy thing. Demonizing Barack Obama isn’t. The Republics must be laughing their behinds off at us. We are becoming their strongest and most reliable weapons of destruction.
I think the “childish, pouty” reference fits to some degree in this nation that has become increasingly steeped in instant gratification. That and no small measure of “it’s all about me,” which used to be the exclusive domain of the Republics, as I recall.
When I spoke earlier of our need to row in the same direction, I didn’t mean lockstep. But when we are not clear and at least relatively united about what progressive principles and goals are, specifically, we’re apt to make endless circles.
I’m guessing that if we did a pop quiz on some variation of “Why I Am a Progressive,” or “This Is What Progressives Believe,” we’d get a very disparate assortment of answers. Some of them in conflict, perhaps. This is a useful thing to think about, I believe. More than useful. Essential, really.
Now that I think about it, the “Why I Am a Progressive” or “What Progressives Believe” would make a great post by one of the front-pagers.
Brewing? I’d say many Liberals around here are on their 18th tantrum already, and they started before he was even elected.
Your comment highlights what I’m talking about. I’ve read several places, and talked with friends at various nonprofits, where they’re thrilled with some of the changes that have been happening. A longtime lawyer friend of mine was recently telling me that in 30 years of dealing with Federal courts, he has never seen such an openess to share information and such transparency from the Fed government. Narconews.com recently had a report on how helpful the Obama Admin has been with FOIA requests.
You don’t hear about this sort of stuff around many of the Liberal blogs. Just the stuff you pointed out. Yes, it’s all troubling and I’m glad people are staying on these issues, but isn’t it reasonable to assume that it might take some time to undue the INCREDIBLE amounts of massive fraud and legal actions that was handed to the Obama Admin? Not to mention all the booby-traps left for Obama’s folks.
They’ve done so many good things so far that I still believe they want to change all those things you pointed out. As Obama himself has said in a number of issues (recently with GLBT rights), he thinks we’ll all be very happy with him when he’s done…just hang in there. He needs the backup.
And again, this is why the unfair balance to the “holding feet to fire” while ignoring the positives is detrimental to the movement as a whole. Just my opinion.
I raised the issue of Obama using the community organizing paradigm to deal with issues and specifically with the Congress in reply 40 to this post, and pointed out 1) some of the ways in which that approach can go wrong and 2) that Obama is falling far short of FDR, Harry Truman, and even Lyndon Johnson as a leader.
However, while continuing to emphasize those points, I think there’s a larger one here. Community organizing, small “d” democracy, relies a lot on self-organizing, and the general idea here is for the community organizer to play an enabling role for activism and the creation of new community vitality and life that can lead to the solution of social problems. However, in every community, the organizer has the problem of how active one needs to be to enable self-organization, participation, and change. The key is that one needs to provide a “tag” around which the community can self-organize, and when it does begin to self-organize to provide certain support measures that will further enable the new activism.
Sometimes, activism is blocked by old structures and power relationships and anyone interested in change has to disrupt old patterns first in order to enable self-organization. Now here’s a problem. Obama appears to be trying to apply community organizing perspectives to Congress. he makes speeches to encourage action on certain subjects. Then he steps out of the way and lets Congress go through its processes to produce a result, while he makes judicious and relatively non-disruptive interventions to bring things along. In working this way however, Obama is trying to organize change in an environment that has been designed, and that in recent years has evolved even further toward, an immobilist system that resists legislative problem solving, rewards passivity and going along, and protects vested interests that are opposed to changes introduced by the Government that impact other economic and political power structures in society.
Obama, assuming he really wants to organize Congress to make changes, can’t readily do this without disrupting the structures in Congress that are opposed to change. But he has done nothing to make that happen. So his efforts to treat Congress from a community organizing perspective always get channeled through established pathways and perspectives that are opposed to the changes he supposedly seeks.
Obama is involved in different communities with different biases and different established structures: the National Political System; the legislative community; the intelligence community, and the international community. In the national political system his involvement and leadership motivate hope and activism among people who have not been benefiting very much from the evolution of out political and economic system since the Johnson Administration. But this new hope and activism can’t be satisfied without changes in the legislative community, the intelligence community, and in the globalizing international community. Unfortunately, the community organizing approach he’s used successfully in the national political system, can’t work in the other three communities without disruption of key aspects of their previous patterns. In Congress, things like the filibuster and the Seniority system have to change to enhance legislative problem solving and adaptation to the host of challenges we face. In the intelligence community patterns and structures that have opposed accountability to the public and Congress have to be disrupted to protect the Constitution. In the globalizing international system the Big Banks and financial institutions have to be brought under control, so that they serve the financial needs of the global economic system without creating bubbles, super-bubbles, and busts every few years. In all of these communities disruption is necessary before progress can occur.
Obama however, is Mr. “no drama.” He doesn’t like disruption. He doesn’t like to junk old structures no matter how badly they’re performing. He doesn’t like to use “populism” against established elites and elitist structures. He doesn’t like to hold people accountable for past crimes. Thus he runs the great risk of not being able to make significant changes at all, because the creative forces of community-based change and activism are grounded in the very populism he is rejecting, and every significant change we have had in American History has been grounded in populism to some extent.
Maybe all this is too complicated. Perhaps Obama is just selling out to “the interests.” But it doesn’t seem likely to me that a man who saw his mother die while fighting the insurance companies for health care would be likely to sell out to those same insurance companies. No, I think there’s something else involved. Some theory about how to manage things or to effect change that has worked in various areas of his previous very successful experience, but that will not work in the Presidency. Let’s hope that his much vaunted pragmatism will supercede his theory about how to get change through community organizing when reality shows him that his efforts are not working, and let’s hope also that this happens soon enough that his huge Party majorities in Congress aren’t sacrificed to his worst ideas about change management.
How can they want to change the things that I pointed out, when they’re actively pursuing the exact opposite. Like I pointed out. It isn’t a matter of needing more time, the Obama Administration is already actively engaged in these particular things, and they’re not stalling for time, or battling against an entrenched status quo. The Obama Administration is explicitly pursuing and expanding radical Executive prerogatives.
Case in point, “prolonged detention.” There is literally no reason for the program to exist, not political, not practical, and not legal. The renewed military commissions aren’t going to allow torture evidence, so they don’t solve the much ballyhooed, “But what do you do with the people who we would charge based on torture?” strawman that constantly gets erected. There is literally no legitimate reason to suspect that providing a proper trial through the Federal courts would put too many dangerous people back into the wilderness; conspiracy statutes are notoriously broad, the courts already have a better track record than even Bush’s military commissions, and if you can’t convict someone in a U.S. court of law that is being detained under U.S. prerogatives, then you let them go. That’s a fundamental tenet of our republic. The only way you get out of that condition is if they’re legitimately prisoners of war, and that itself is a critical issue left wholly unresolved. Calling into question the legality of the war, the fact that under that designation we can’t be transplanting people to the battlefield, and calling them POW’s, etc.
I find literally nothing more aggrevating today in American politics than the characterization that Obama is biding time, or will eventually get around to doing the right thing. Why? Because I can’t answer this question.
How can I give Obama more time to do the things he’s already done?
Shorter: If the Obama Administration were just cautiously stalling I’d be nudging and pushing, but the Obama Administration is running flat-out in the wrong direction. They’re asserting these positions, not tacitly accepting them for the time-being. There’s a massive difference.
I think you’re really right on in that analysis except on one point. Obama is greatly disrupting the system you so correctly described.
I base that opinion on my own experiences where I’ve found you can change systems much more dramatically and sustainably from the inside out. I’ve been accused of being a sell-out and such even in my own tiny little circles for wearing a suit and hanging out with people I greatly disagree with. It’s like going into the belly of beast, and I’ve had some success in these situations of getting entrenched interests to soften their positions on all sorts of issues. Much more so than had I stayed in the adversarial posture my friends like to take, standing on the outside screaming, “Listen to me!!!” (actually, I think both approaches work well together as complements).
Obama has clearly talked about this over the years and how he favors this approach as well, and by bringing community organizing into the sick cesspool DeeCee systems you described, I think those changes are happening from the inside out. It simply takes some time (much change has happened already), and Obama has also talked about how balancing these things is so key as well, you know yin-yang, and has chosen to really force some things through as well. Whatever the case, if he is using community organizing techniques to change a corrupt entrenched system, then he surely needs every bit of support he can from the public to make the change happen, right, since it’s quite the uphill battle.
Anyway, time will tell of course, but there are many signs that we should be excited, and that Obama’s motivations are just and moral, which many around here claim are not the case, hence the reason barbara posted this in the first place.
I completely understand the frustration and confusion on some of these things you bring up. Not being a legal eagle and not having much time to really dig in on most of these things, I can’t really offer much in terms of the specifics.
I am convinced though that Obama’s motivations are true and Liberal based on so many other things that he’s done, that I’m willing to believe his hands are tied in some of these circumstances.
Again, not to focus on my own small experiences, I’ve joined Boards of Directors for some small nonprofits, and even at the tiniest level, there have been some occasions of past employees holding us hostage about this or that issue (things set before I ever got there), and we’ve decided to pay them off instead of starting court battles and such. I can’t even imagine the amount of this kind of stuff that’s going on for the Obama Admin. Not to get all tin-foily, I also think he might protecting his own life in some cases, but that’s a whole ‘nuther thread.
So Shrub, Dick Cheney and other neocons quite clearly wanted to suspend habeas, have indefinite detention and so on. That’s why they did all those things. I simply don’t feel Obama is motivated to do these things and is not controlled by the same forces that guide the neocons. Sure, looking at some of these cases you mentioned at the surface is disturbing, but these things don’t happen in a vacuum. There’s a lot going on behind the scenes that we’ll never know, and because of the good things Obama has done so far I’m still trusting that he’ll figure out how to undue a lot of this mess. If you’re correct that he’s “running flat-out in the wrong direction” and he’s not, as I would claim, covering his bases for the future fights (for instance, won’t going after those troubling cases be helped greatly by Obama loosening FOIA requests first, as he has already done?), then I’ll be right there with you. So far though, I’m excited and motivated to start really shaking some shit up.
Obama’s motivations are just and moral
What is just and moral about locking someone up and throwing the key away after a court of law has found them innocent? Just sayin…
Hi Barbara
Because it would be intellectually dishonest not to do so
To criticise Bush and his admin for his egregious policies and not Obama for continuing said policies would be …
I’m finding it difficult to explain without it sounding like I’m criticising you – which I don’t want to do. I hope the words of Justice William Brennan will suffice
Nobody is disputing that. It’s about balance. Yin-yang.
When the balance is so far off, which it is to the side of “holding feet to fire” regarding Obama and much of the Liberal blogs, it hurts our efforts. It hurts because it demoralizes the activists and leads to giving up in a chorus of “they all suck,” when this is simply not true in Obama’s case. We’re on the verge of major reform, and we need every bit of support we can get to get some of this stuff passed. It’s an all-hands-on-deck moment.
By no means does this mean never criticize Obama, but it does mean he should get some well-deserved credit at the same time. Know who the real enemy is. It is not Obama.
Okay. Is Marcy castigating out of habit? Is Jane? Is Glenn Greenwald? I mean, these are some of the opinion leaders of the progressive sphere, are these people hackneyed in their work? Of course not! So who are you talking about, exactly?
The bottom line of your message is that you want people to “be more careful” in what they say. You want people to doubt their positions. You may not mean it that way, but if you’re going to apply false dichotomies, then you should expect a healthy dose of skepticism in return. That is the way it comes off.
I can’t blame anyone for not liking the current state of affairs. I can’t fault you for not liking all the criticism being lobbed at POTUS–I don’t like criticizing him either, since I voted for him. But Obama is earning it and only he can turn that around. None of us can change that. Only he can.
I agree that we need both “inside” and “outside,” and I’m not one to rail against people because they’ve decided to work inside. However, I need to ask you exactly what Obama has been disrupting? He’s re-inflated the pre-existing financial system, saving the large banks rather than taking them into receivership when he could have. And in doing that he’s gone against the advice of the best economists in the country, and failed to produce the necessary financial support for main street business because the Banks are holding on to the Federal funds to strengthen their balance sheets.
He ignored them again, when he produced a stimulus package that is plainly inadequate and that is likely to leave us with an unchanged economy, and an unemployment rate in excess of 10%. He was warned that if he didn’t push a package in the range of 1.5 trillion, he would not be successful in pulling us out of the recession, and also that he wouldn’t get the chance to go to the well again. Clearly, that is the way things are working out.
He’s also blocked any reckoning on the crimes committed by the last Administration, and continued many of its illegal practices, while attempting to extend the prerogatives of the Presidency even further.
In the area of Health Care Reform he’s taken Single Payer off the table, and in doing that he’s weakened his bargaining position with respect to a public option, even if that is what he really ultimately favors. He should have scared the bejesus out of the insurers and their allies, then they would be a whole lot less willing to take chances by opposing a strong public option, when they could have that as a compromise position. By leading the public option he’s not gained anything anyway
On the climate change bill, just passed in the House, he’s compromised away a really good clean bill, and now has one that is a big giveaway to the coal industry and won’t help us very much with the problem of climate change, and, of course, further compromises are likely in the Senate.
Finally, he’s done nothing to shake up the Congress and its way of doing things. He’s the leader of all the people, the only person elected by all of us. If he’d wanted to, he could have gotten rid of Harry Reid and gotten the Democrats to put in someone as majority leader who, shall we say, is a bit more decisive in enforcing party discipline in the Senate. He also could have encouraged the majority leader of the Senate to use the “nuclear option” to get rid of the filibuster for good and all, so that the few “moderate” Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats would have less of a say in what goes on.
So, forgive me, I don’t see what he’s disrupting in the dominant pattern of politics. What I see instead is someone who appears content to get legislation of some kind through the Congress, and then claim victory, whether or not that legislation solves any problems. That may get him re-elected in 2012. But it will get the Democrats slaughtered in the 2010 Congressional elections, and the hope for real change will be gone.
I won’t be able to continue any of this for a couple days due to travel, and I’ve been having the same debate on another thread (and have been for a long time around here), but tried to quickly address some of your points here already:
http://seminal.firedoglake.com…..ment-55819
Oh, and didn’t troops just pull out of Iraq’s cities? My central point again is balance. I too wish things were more dramatic and faster on a number of fronts, but I’m also understanding of how much Obama is tackling and all the different influences fighting against him. It’s not as simple as you seem to think it is, in my opinion. Adios.
Okay. Is Marcy castigating out of habit? Is Jane? Is Glenn Greenwald? No, no, no. Their work is rooted in research, best efforts to ferret out the truth. Call to arms based on data. Snarky sometimes? Yes. But they’ve given over their lives to attempting to inform the rest of us. I mean, these are some of the opinion leaders of the progressive sphere, are these people hackneyed in their work? Of course not! So who are you talking about, exactly? I’m talking about the hit and run grenade throwers whose accumulation of habitual smack-downs is both wearying, as noted, and damaging. Operating reflexively out of an “Obama is failing us” mode that does not seem open to considering the whole range of what is/is not happening. Labeling. Branding. Lynch mobbing. Just a few of my favorite things. /s
The bottom line of your message is that you want people to “be more careful” in what they say. You want people to doubt their positions. That is totally false. I want people (including me) to think first and speak from an informed perspective. And to take a half-step back from the aforementioned lynch-mob mentality before shooting off their/our mouths. You may not mean it that way, but if you’re going to apply false dichotomies, then you should expect a healthy dose of skepticism in return. That is the way it comes off.
I can’t blame anyone for not liking the current state of affairs. I can’t fault you for not liking all the criticism being lobbed at POTUS–I don’t like criticizing him either, since I voted for him. I’m going to say this one last time and then give it a rest. Criticism and the freedom to unleash it is not the problem. Is, in fact, the backbone of a democratic society. But before we pounce, we need to hear him/them out. Ergo, listen, inwardly digest, then pounce as necessary. But Obama is earning it and only he can turn that around. None of us can change that. Only he can.
Bonkers, I agree with your central point that we what we need is balance. But the problem with a word like “balance” is that anyone can use it. For example, Faux News claims “balance.” And I suspect that all of us here think that our view on Obama is balanced. And I suspect that many of us think that your view is not “balanced,” but is quite slanted toward Obama.
I think we need to stop using words that don’t mean anything. There are different conjectures at issue here. One is that Obama is making great progress. Another is that he’s making very little progress in doing what he needs to do to help us solve our problems. Still another is the prediction that everything will be all right if we wait because he has good motives. One counter to that is that he may have good motives, but that his motives include a strong orientation toward toward short-term pragmatism at the expense of principle that is counter-productive in our present situation. These competing conjectures can be compared to one another if we expose them all to criticism, as we have here. Then each of us has to evaluate which of these conjectures is doing a better job of surviving the vriticisms we bring to bear on it. My judgment is that the conjectures suggesting he is making very little progress and that he is beset by a short run pragmatic orientation of the same sort Bill Clinton are contradicted far less than the ideas that he has made good progress and that everything will be all right because his motives are good. Others’ judgments may differ. But my point is that the only way we can come up with the judgments that are most likely to lead us to the truth is by not sparing the critical evaluation we’ve going through. Real rationality lies in our doing this continuously, not in sparing the criticism for any political purpose.