Jon Stewart has pointed out that MSNBC is the new Fox, and since the election, the left-of-center political universe has proven itself the equal of the Bushlovin', Dittohead, No-Spin Zone Right in the stupidity Olympics. First there was the frenzy to bat down the 'meme' of a center-right nation. Now there is the haste to disprove the notion of an "Angry Left."

Of course the idea of the Left is elastic. Left of Richard Nixon is not the same thing as left of George W. Bush. Harry Truman supported national health insurance, the same sort of scheme criticized in Obama campaign advertisements. Nixon supported a national, guaranteed annual income, while Bill Clinton ended welfare, crappy as it was, as a Federal entitlement. Where does center end, and left begin? Where does center-left end, and disreputable, crazy left begin?

Two of the most serious issues at stake are the welfare state and national security. We could define "left" -- the absolute left (in the categorical sense), not the left relative to somebody else -- as supportive of two premises: 1) the U.S. should abandon efforts to dominate the world militarily, which means fewer overseas bases, fewer new weapons systems, a smaller military; and 2) the public sector needs an expansion of the taxes and a reduction of defense spending to finance necessary public investment and social insurance (especially national health insurance).

This is not socialism; it's not all that radical. The public's uneasiness over these two premises is testament to its enduring conservatism. So much for the 'center-left' nation. I might add that the surging, ambiguously 'center-left' voted down the right to gay-marry in deep blue California and failed to turn out for the Democratic candidate in the recent Georgia Senate run-off.

I was charmed and a little stunned by Obama's reaction to the Republic workers' sit-in. Ordinarily any such maneuver would be met by obnoxious oinking about private property and the rule of law. It was as if BHO was photographed carrying a copy of Gramsci's Prison Notebooks. It was nice, and it fortifies my optimism about the new administration. But in terms of the bigger picture sketched above, Obama is not down with the program. That he should be is a reasonable political position. Criticizing his failure to move in this direction is reasonable. So why does such criticism met with the dumbness? Why can't the discussion dwell on the substance?

The varieties of stupidity

Assertions of criticism draw criticism of the author as on an 'ego trip.' Criticism is described in cartoonish, emotionalist terms. Criticism is never sober, it is always angry. Leftists are gnashing their teeth and tearing out their hair.

It's not a question of being angry or not angry. In general we're pretty mellow and we're not surprised. We expected something like what is going on. It didn't stop us from voting Democratic. It is a question of pointing out serious implications of the Obama Team's decisions, as they take shape. Personnel matters. The Obama teams on economic and foreign policy are deficient. Vision is not enough. Obama needs others to inform his vision and to carry it out faithfully, and the ideological predispositions of his appointees will affect the way policies are designed, implemented, and carried out. They always do. This is ABC. It's why informed people obsess about appointments.

We the laid-back left would like to take political advantage of the fact that left criticism of the economic and national security policy has been upheld by events. Capitalism is not so good at allocating capital and risk. Imperial overstretch is proving an impoverishing debacle. Joe Stiglitz was right, Larry Summers was wrong. Baker yes, Bernanke no. Noam Chomsky and Chalmers Johnson have a sharper bead on U.S. foreign policy than Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, or Samantha Power. It's not a matter of being more or less progressive; it's a question of being right or ruinously wrong. We would prefer President Obama be remembered for the former, not the latter.

Between elections, partisanship has to afford some space to governance. What are you for? Do you want to replicate Iraq in Afghanistan? Do you want the U.S. to stick its thumb in Russia's eye with NATO expansion and missile defense? Do you want to bail out everyone but the workers? AIG yes, General Motors no? Do you want a competent version of George Bush? The election is over. Now we want, we need good things to happen. It doesn't pay to be fussy, but blindness, refusal to grapple with substance stands fair to make the 'center-right' notion a reality.

If you're really left, you've been angry long enough to get over it, without forgetting why you were angry. There is no angry left. There is a critical left which can, in good faith and with substantive support, point out problems in Obama World. Get used to it. And by the way, you'll need us as 'Son of Arkansas Project' comes into view.