The Two-way Mirror of Political "Purity"
Back in June, I had wondered what the dynamic would be like here at TPM Café after Obama became the presumptive nominee. It had been so rancorous between the Obama and Clinton camps that I was unsure how things would play out. While there were a few weeks of calm and relative peace among the readers, things heated up with the impeachment and FISA issues. Finally, after a primary dominated by such issues as flag pins, commander-in-chief credentials, and working class “bitterness”, there was an opportunity for the Democrats and Obama to distinguish themselves from the Republicans and McCain. Right? Well, no. But at least prominent Obama supporters such as Robert Wexler, Russ Feingold, and Chris Dodd were leading the impeachment and FISA challenges. This spoke well for Obama, right? Well, apparently no.
Of course, there were many readers who felt strongly about both sides of these issues, and TPM should be an appropriate forum for discussing those opinions. However, it did not take long for me to learn about the new world order here at TPM. Time after time, I would be reading a post that I thought made some valid points, and suddenly the thread would become filled with insulting and demeaning attacks. The general message was clear: anyone who disagrees with Obama’s positions or actions should shut up and get over it. If not, you are an “ideological purist” which apparently is equivalent to a Republican troll.
While these attacks may be directed at the original poster, the reality is that any reader who agrees with the post is subjected to the hostile insults as well. It is ironic that one blogger in particular rationalizes his attacks out of concern for how criticism of Obama may be received by the large, highly-impressionable audience that he believes follows the reader posts. If anything, I believe that the intolerant and insulting behavior that he exhibits is more damaging to his candidate than an honest difference of opinion. But this is beside the point. Obama is a shrewd and tough politician. He can take care of himself without having these self-annointed watchdogs attack anyone who disagrees with him.
Unfortunately, there has been a sustained directive from some bloggers that we must support Obama unconditionally until he is elected president because any criticism can be used by the Republicans to undermine him. After all, the only thing that matters is getting a Democrat into the White House. Given these beliefs, I am wondering why these “rules” were not followed during the primary? Shouldn’t the same concerns have been equally valid? Instead, it was clearly acceptable to attack the other Democratic candidate in spite of the potential harm to the candidate and to the Democratic Party.
It is even harder to understand why these speak-no-evil Obama supporters were so critical of Hillary Clinton in the first place. As most people acknowledge, there was little difference in the positions of the two candidates so it really came down to questions of style, character, and trust. And with Obama’s recent shifts on issues (especially his FISA vote, his naming of Jason Furman as his economic advisor, his speech to AIPAC, his position on NAFTA, etc.), it is hard to argue that Obama is more ideologically principled than Hillary Clinton. And please don’t say that if we had paid attention and done our research we would have known that these were always his views. The positions that he explicitly and implicitly promoted during the primary certainly gave a different impression, which doesn’t speak well to Obama’s forthrightness. While some supporters have recently defended Obama’s campaign pragmatism and political maneuvering, on what grounds did they so fervently oppose Hillary Clinton? Since it was clearly not based on political principle or ideology, I can only conclude that such supporters are “Obama purists”. Their support for Obama is not based on his actions but rather on him as a person. In some cases, there is an almost devotional aspect to their support.
I came to support Barack Obama because of his campaign promises of change and political reform. At the same time, my distrust of Hillary Clinton continued to grow due to her ends-justifies-the-means campaign tactics. In other words, my support for Obama and criticism of Clinton were based on political principles, and I made this clear in my TPM reader posts.
For example, I stated in my first post that “this election is not just about whether a Democrat or Republican wins but if the checks and balances are restored to the three branches of government. … If Hillary Clinton is willing to use lies and deceit to win the Democratic nomination, what assurances do we have that she will not continue to use them once she is president?” In another post I wrote “This is not to say that I will support Obama blindly since I don’t believe that any candidate should be trusted completely. … With Obama, however, there is at least the chance that he will listen to the will of the people and represent our interests.” And after Obama became the presumptive nominee, I wrote “If Obama is elected, our society will change further only in as much as Obama lives up to our hopes and faith in him. But this is where we must do our part. … We have to loudly and clearly make our demands heard for a more progressive agenda”.
Since I wrote these posts, my enthusiasm for Obama has been significantly dampened because of his recent actions. However, I was clear that my support for Obama was not unconditional but was based on my faith in his campaign promises. But faith in a candidate cannot be won through threats and bullying, as some Obama supporters would have, but rather it must be earned. It would also be hypocritical of me to have condemned Hillary Clinton for her win-at-all-costs campaign tactics and not hold Obama up to the same standards.
However, now it is the Obama supporters who are defending the win-at-all-costs approach to politics and are attacking his critics as being “ideological purists”. This is hypocritical, to say the least, since Obama’s primary victory was achieved through the welcome support of such “ideological purists” as the anti-war community, political / campaign finance reformists, and civil libertarians. Moreover, the record-breaking online fundraising that propelled Obama to victory was obtained in large part from the progressive netroots and ideologically-oriented groups such as moveon.org. However, to hear some Obama supporters spin it, those on the left who do not continue giving until it hurts are the worst type of traitors. In reality, I do not owe Obama anything. Rather, he owes me a debt of gratitude. I gave more money to the Obama campaign than I have ever given to a political candidate or, for that matter, to all previous presidential candidates combined. I voted for him in my state primary and I will vote for him in the general election. I have been a strong and outspoken supporter, as anyone can verify by reading my posts. But I still have the right to disagree with him.
Well, not according to some Obama supporters. I find it disgraceful that the very groups and individuals that so greatly contributed to Obama’s primary victory are now treated as pariahs simply because they disagree with Obama’s recent positions. There is an almost patronizing attitude that progressives should be seen but not heard, like children. I think in reality some supporters feel that Obama is entitled to the progressive vote since we supported him in the primary, and they want us to step aside while the campaign turns its sights on the more conservative, undecided voters. If Obama wants to court different voting constituents now, that is his right. He is a politician. However, progressives should not be expected to abandon their principles simply because Obama does. Rather, the Obama campaign should respect all of our viewpoints since it will need the support of diverse communities, including progressives, to achieve victory in November.
In fact, it is unclear which political demographic is being won over with such a public repudiation of the liberal community. Strangely, the Obama campaign seems to be willing to alienate its broad, progressive base in its effort to gain a slice of the smaller undecided vote, which seems to be reflected in Obama’s stagnating polling numbers. And in their effort to squelch further dissent from progressives, many Obama supporters are displaying an elitism that would not seem to go over well with the typical undecided voter, even as Obama himself is trying to shake the stubborn “elitist” label.
For example, some TPM bloggers have accused Obama critics of having no idea how Washington actually works. Apparently, only Washington insiders can understand the complexities of our political system. Some supporters have taken it so far as to say that only lawyers should be qualified to discuss Obama’s FISA vote! But lawyers do not always interpret the law, or even the Constitution, in the same way. Why else would we see such extreme division among the Supreme Court justices or the proclamations by Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo that torture is legal? On what grounds would the ACLU be filing a FISA lawsuit? And by logical extension, only doctors would be qualified to discuss health care issues, only scientists to discuss global warming and energy issues, etc. In essence, some Obama supporters are suggesting that political dialogue and participatory Democracy are just too complex and intellectual for the average citizen.
There also seems to be a pervasive attitude among many TPM bloggers that they are part of an elite group of “political junkies” who are better informed and wiser than the average person. One such self-important Obama supporter asked me in my post on impeachment, “Are you interested in real change? Or are you interested in a purity test?” While this comment is condescending enough, he continued “Sometimes the bad guys get away clean. You've got to be able to deal with that. It's Chinatown. Our hope comes from the new opportunities to correct the wrongs of tomorrow, not in chasing the shadows of crimes committed yesterday.” Such cynicism and amorality is hard to believe. I thought our criminal justice system was all about chasing after crimes committed yesterday, but what do I know? I am a “purist”. However, I wonder if Obama has been given this memo. It seems inconsistent with his recent support for the death penalty for child rapists. Of course, maybe the blogger was only referring to criminal justice for politicians like George Bush who can “get away clean” for the killings of Iraqi children.
I have become increasingly disturbed by these types of arrogant and intolerant statements from some Obama supporters. They have insulted the dignity of fellow Democrats by asserting that most of us aren’t qualified or wise enough to challenge Obama’s positions. However, wisdom is not something that comes with a law degree or Washington insider status or through political blogging. It is gained through our unique experiences, interactions, and culture. Progressives, in particular, have a certain kind of wisdom that comes from being outside the system. As such, the claim by some Obama supporters that progressive dissent is dangerous and naïve is really quite sad. What progressive victory in this country would have been accomplished without popular movements and public pressure that made life uncomfortable for politicians? I think the unfortunate reality is that the Democratic base has been a little too concerned about the comfort of our elected leaders in recent years even as those leaders have repeatedly betrayed our confidence.
I sincerely hope that these Obama zealots do not represent the views and values of the Obama campaign. In fact, I wonder how Obama would react if he saw these things being said on his behalf. I am not sure what Obama’s vision is for the Democratic Party and American society but I had thought that it was about bringing the people into the process and letting their voices be heard. I do not believe that Obama is so disingenuous as to ask for public participation and input and then treat it with disdain. I would respectfully ask Obama supporters to think about whether their views reflect those of the Obama campaign.
Of course, there were many readers who felt strongly about both sides of these issues, and TPM should be an appropriate forum for discussing those opinions. However, it did not take long for me to learn about the new world order here at TPM. Time after time, I would be reading a post that I thought made some valid points, and suddenly the thread would become filled with insulting and demeaning attacks. The general message was clear: anyone who disagrees with Obama’s positions or actions should shut up and get over it. If not, you are an “ideological purist” which apparently is equivalent to a Republican troll.
While these attacks may be directed at the original poster, the reality is that any reader who agrees with the post is subjected to the hostile insults as well. It is ironic that one blogger in particular rationalizes his attacks out of concern for how criticism of Obama may be received by the large, highly-impressionable audience that he believes follows the reader posts. If anything, I believe that the intolerant and insulting behavior that he exhibits is more damaging to his candidate than an honest difference of opinion. But this is beside the point. Obama is a shrewd and tough politician. He can take care of himself without having these self-annointed watchdogs attack anyone who disagrees with him.
Unfortunately, there has been a sustained directive from some bloggers that we must support Obama unconditionally until he is elected president because any criticism can be used by the Republicans to undermine him. After all, the only thing that matters is getting a Democrat into the White House. Given these beliefs, I am wondering why these “rules” were not followed during the primary? Shouldn’t the same concerns have been equally valid? Instead, it was clearly acceptable to attack the other Democratic candidate in spite of the potential harm to the candidate and to the Democratic Party.
It is even harder to understand why these speak-no-evil Obama supporters were so critical of Hillary Clinton in the first place. As most people acknowledge, there was little difference in the positions of the two candidates so it really came down to questions of style, character, and trust. And with Obama’s recent shifts on issues (especially his FISA vote, his naming of Jason Furman as his economic advisor, his speech to AIPAC, his position on NAFTA, etc.), it is hard to argue that Obama is more ideologically principled than Hillary Clinton. And please don’t say that if we had paid attention and done our research we would have known that these were always his views. The positions that he explicitly and implicitly promoted during the primary certainly gave a different impression, which doesn’t speak well to Obama’s forthrightness. While some supporters have recently defended Obama’s campaign pragmatism and political maneuvering, on what grounds did they so fervently oppose Hillary Clinton? Since it was clearly not based on political principle or ideology, I can only conclude that such supporters are “Obama purists”. Their support for Obama is not based on his actions but rather on him as a person. In some cases, there is an almost devotional aspect to their support.
I came to support Barack Obama because of his campaign promises of change and political reform. At the same time, my distrust of Hillary Clinton continued to grow due to her ends-justifies-the-means campaign tactics. In other words, my support for Obama and criticism of Clinton were based on political principles, and I made this clear in my TPM reader posts.
For example, I stated in my first post that “this election is not just about whether a Democrat or Republican wins but if the checks and balances are restored to the three branches of government. … If Hillary Clinton is willing to use lies and deceit to win the Democratic nomination, what assurances do we have that she will not continue to use them once she is president?” In another post I wrote “This is not to say that I will support Obama blindly since I don’t believe that any candidate should be trusted completely. … With Obama, however, there is at least the chance that he will listen to the will of the people and represent our interests.” And after Obama became the presumptive nominee, I wrote “If Obama is elected, our society will change further only in as much as Obama lives up to our hopes and faith in him. But this is where we must do our part. … We have to loudly and clearly make our demands heard for a more progressive agenda”.
Since I wrote these posts, my enthusiasm for Obama has been significantly dampened because of his recent actions. However, I was clear that my support for Obama was not unconditional but was based on my faith in his campaign promises. But faith in a candidate cannot be won through threats and bullying, as some Obama supporters would have, but rather it must be earned. It would also be hypocritical of me to have condemned Hillary Clinton for her win-at-all-costs campaign tactics and not hold Obama up to the same standards.
However, now it is the Obama supporters who are defending the win-at-all-costs approach to politics and are attacking his critics as being “ideological purists”. This is hypocritical, to say the least, since Obama’s primary victory was achieved through the welcome support of such “ideological purists” as the anti-war community, political / campaign finance reformists, and civil libertarians. Moreover, the record-breaking online fundraising that propelled Obama to victory was obtained in large part from the progressive netroots and ideologically-oriented groups such as moveon.org. However, to hear some Obama supporters spin it, those on the left who do not continue giving until it hurts are the worst type of traitors. In reality, I do not owe Obama anything. Rather, he owes me a debt of gratitude. I gave more money to the Obama campaign than I have ever given to a political candidate or, for that matter, to all previous presidential candidates combined. I voted for him in my state primary and I will vote for him in the general election. I have been a strong and outspoken supporter, as anyone can verify by reading my posts. But I still have the right to disagree with him.
Well, not according to some Obama supporters. I find it disgraceful that the very groups and individuals that so greatly contributed to Obama’s primary victory are now treated as pariahs simply because they disagree with Obama’s recent positions. There is an almost patronizing attitude that progressives should be seen but not heard, like children. I think in reality some supporters feel that Obama is entitled to the progressive vote since we supported him in the primary, and they want us to step aside while the campaign turns its sights on the more conservative, undecided voters. If Obama wants to court different voting constituents now, that is his right. He is a politician. However, progressives should not be expected to abandon their principles simply because Obama does. Rather, the Obama campaign should respect all of our viewpoints since it will need the support of diverse communities, including progressives, to achieve victory in November.
In fact, it is unclear which political demographic is being won over with such a public repudiation of the liberal community. Strangely, the Obama campaign seems to be willing to alienate its broad, progressive base in its effort to gain a slice of the smaller undecided vote, which seems to be reflected in Obama’s stagnating polling numbers. And in their effort to squelch further dissent from progressives, many Obama supporters are displaying an elitism that would not seem to go over well with the typical undecided voter, even as Obama himself is trying to shake the stubborn “elitist” label.
For example, some TPM bloggers have accused Obama critics of having no idea how Washington actually works. Apparently, only Washington insiders can understand the complexities of our political system. Some supporters have taken it so far as to say that only lawyers should be qualified to discuss Obama’s FISA vote! But lawyers do not always interpret the law, or even the Constitution, in the same way. Why else would we see such extreme division among the Supreme Court justices or the proclamations by Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo that torture is legal? On what grounds would the ACLU be filing a FISA lawsuit? And by logical extension, only doctors would be qualified to discuss health care issues, only scientists to discuss global warming and energy issues, etc. In essence, some Obama supporters are suggesting that political dialogue and participatory Democracy are just too complex and intellectual for the average citizen.
There also seems to be a pervasive attitude among many TPM bloggers that they are part of an elite group of “political junkies” who are better informed and wiser than the average person. One such self-important Obama supporter asked me in my post on impeachment, “Are you interested in real change? Or are you interested in a purity test?” While this comment is condescending enough, he continued “Sometimes the bad guys get away clean. You've got to be able to deal with that. It's Chinatown. Our hope comes from the new opportunities to correct the wrongs of tomorrow, not in chasing the shadows of crimes committed yesterday.” Such cynicism and amorality is hard to believe. I thought our criminal justice system was all about chasing after crimes committed yesterday, but what do I know? I am a “purist”. However, I wonder if Obama has been given this memo. It seems inconsistent with his recent support for the death penalty for child rapists. Of course, maybe the blogger was only referring to criminal justice for politicians like George Bush who can “get away clean” for the killings of Iraqi children.
I have become increasingly disturbed by these types of arrogant and intolerant statements from some Obama supporters. They have insulted the dignity of fellow Democrats by asserting that most of us aren’t qualified or wise enough to challenge Obama’s positions. However, wisdom is not something that comes with a law degree or Washington insider status or through political blogging. It is gained through our unique experiences, interactions, and culture. Progressives, in particular, have a certain kind of wisdom that comes from being outside the system. As such, the claim by some Obama supporters that progressive dissent is dangerous and naïve is really quite sad. What progressive victory in this country would have been accomplished without popular movements and public pressure that made life uncomfortable for politicians? I think the unfortunate reality is that the Democratic base has been a little too concerned about the comfort of our elected leaders in recent years even as those leaders have repeatedly betrayed our confidence.
I sincerely hope that these Obama zealots do not represent the views and values of the Obama campaign. In fact, I wonder how Obama would react if he saw these things being said on his behalf. I am not sure what Obama’s vision is for the Democratic Party and American society but I had thought that it was about bringing the people into the process and letting their voices be heard. I do not believe that Obama is so disingenuous as to ask for public participation and input and then treat it with disdain. I would respectfully ask Obama supporters to think about whether their views reflect those of the Obama campaign.
Advertisement
Thoughtful, insightful and breathtakingly honest post. Hopefully, most will acknowledge the truth in this post.
We cannot and should not subscribe to or accept different standards for Obama than for any other candidate. We have an obligation to hold him accountable for his words and actions if he has not adhered to his words and promises previously made to us. But, in a manner that is not disrespectful or disparaging.
Neither is it positive or productive to resort to personal attacks inclusive of belittling and profanity laden sarcasm/remarks when responding to either a post or other's comments.
I appreciate the message in this post and admit, it needed to be published. Thank you. Rec'd.
July 15, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the support, Aunt Sam. I appreciate it.
And I agree that challenging Obama on his positions should not be considered disrespectful. It's kind of like the people who say you are unpatriotic if you criticize the government. True patriots have greater faith in the their country and feel that it is their obligation to speak out.
July 15, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree the atmosphere here and elsewhere can get ridiculously over heated. I think we need to be cognizant of a larger picture. Supporters seeing cable news invite two republican strategists (rather than the rep/dem split we've become accustomed to) to discuss all of Obama's struggles, weaknesses (liberal with this), short comings, and the otherwise incessant criticism from the media. I can see how one might get defensive, particularly when some might be posting the gop narrative that Obama has wavered on his support for troop withdrawl. You can sit and watch, some will call others out. Largely, the Democratic party won't defend the candidate, someone should.
July 16, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Waldengirl,
Thanks very much for your post. Another excellent essay, as always.
There's no doubt that Obama got to where he is by appealing to the idealism of voters. That's one of the things that drew me to his campaign as well.
Your idealism is commendable. It's important, though, not to be disillusioned by comments on blogs. Blogging comments are by their very nature short snippets of arguments. They rarely provide context, subtlety, or well-reasoned arguments of the kind that you can get in a real conversation with someone. Plus, too many participants are more interested in living up to their persona than engaging in real discussion. If they get a rise out of someone, well, that's much better than a "me too!".
In other words, don't take criticism personally. Life's too short to let blog comments annoy you. :-) Don't be discouraged. Give Obama Hell when you think he deserves it - he expects it. He doesn't want an echo chamber, and he knows the US will only come closer to the "more perfect union" that we all want if we're willing to argue in good faith. Bush's administration is the perfect illustration of what happens when you're surrounded by too many people who agree with you.
Thanks again.
July 15, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your thoughts, Metamorphic.
However, it's not that I take the criticism personally, exactly. I just feel that such personal attacks can further alienate people and make them much more entrenched in their positions. It is hard to agree to disagree and move forward together if one side is telling you that you are a traitor to the cause.
July 15, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I'm not of the specific political perspective that you represent, but this is a marvellous post - thoughtful, courteous and cogently expressed - and I've rec'd it.
I've come to the conclusion that politics is something that inherently carries with it the propensity to passion for people who care enough about it to sit on the net and blog, which is why
no doubt many people knee jerk react with a `troll` to anything that treads on their own sense of ideological purity or even maybe sometimes pragmatic necessity.
I'd like to respond to a couple of particular points you make, viz.
"What progressive victory in this country would have been accomplished without popular movements and public pressure that made life uncomfortable for politicians? I think the unfortunate reality is that the Democratic base has been a little too concerned about the comfort of our elected leaders in recent years even as those leaders have repeatedly betrayed our confidence."
I think that balance is crucial to any aspect of successful life and that applies to politics as everything else. And balance is never achieved at an extreme end of any spectrum. So it's a very difficult line that politicans have to tread trying to find the art of the possible. It may seem nothing but trite to people on the left of the Democratic movement, but still it remains true that first you have to get elected to be able to do anything. And America is a centrist polity.
So I conclude that Obama is a man whose heart is with progressive politics but who's head won't let that allow his party to be relegated to the opposition benches until kingdom come. He will do as much as he *can* do.
You say, "I do not believe that Obama is so disingenuous as to ask for public participation and input and then treat it with disdain."
But the left has to understand that it is not the totality of the public, and many, many less left have also participated and donated. I think so far it seems to believe it has a monopoly and many are fully as disdainful of centrists.
It works both ways, no?
July 15, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fran, thank you for your point of view.
I understand the balancing act that politicians must master. I just think that many people, not just progressives, are tired of the tightrope that is always being walked by politicians, with nothing ever really getting done in the process. Democratic voters have patiently stood by as the Patriotic Act was passed, the Iraq War was started, illegal wiretapping was conducted, etc. but understood that there was not much that could be done with the Republicans in power.
But now the Democrats have at least some power in Congress AND Bush and the Republican "brand" are about as unpopular as any of us can probably hope to see in our lifetimes. When exactly will the Democrats stop being so frightened of getting off the tightrope and standing on principle?
I agree with you that there are many centrist voters out there that are also important. I think, though, that the polls show that MOST Americans reject the policies of the Bush administration and want a change. As such, I believe that they are more receptive than we may assume to the reforms being demanded by those on the left.
We should stop defining Constitutional law and reform as "liberal" or "left" because they aren't. They are American. However, such labeling can inadvertently divide the electorate into "liberal" and "moderate" camps when they really don't have to be divided at all.
July 15, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an excellent way to put it.
One of the things that bothers me most about modern politics is the mania that the political consultants and the press have for dividing people into categories. While it's true that it's essential to have a meaningful vocabulary to discuss a topic, especially in limited space, I think only small minorities of people really fit in well-defined boxes. And anyone who is over 40 realizes that the characteristics of the political boxes have changed over the years to such an extent that the words are nearly meaningless anyway! (Was Nixon a liberal? Is W a conservative?) There's as much variability in opinions in hard-working Americans, white Americans as there is in any other grouping you can come up with. Such language only serves to divide people.
All of us should, no must, be willing to speak our minds about our positions and not be afraid of being ostracized by those who feel that the no true Scotsman type of argument is persuasive. There's nothing disloyal or traitorous about strongly disagreeing with a candidate that you'll ultimately give your vote. Personally, I can't think of a politician that I've voted for that I haven't had strong disagreements with... :-)
Thanks again.
July 16, 2008 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
"But now the Democrats have at least some power in Congress AND Bush and the Republican "brand" are about as unpopular as any of us can probably hope to see in our lifetimes. When exactly will the Democrats stop being so frightened of getting off the tightrope and standing on principle?"
My response to that unfortunately is never, when you're talking about a Presidential campaign and the particular issue is a wedge one involving national security & terrorism that will be used atainst the candidate to devastating effect.
I fervently hope that Obama will reintroduce the legislation once he's elected.
"I think, though, that the polls show that MOST Americans reject the policies of the Bush administration and want a change. As such, I believe that they are more receptive than we may assume to the reforms being demanded by those on the left."
I think you're a truly lovely person who completely underestimates the vileness of the GOP and their ability to recast the nature of these debates once the campaign is in full throttle. What people think in a non-election environment when the media simply focuses on what's wrong in government is totally different from how people think once we're in election mode and the GOP go to work on reframing the issues.
"We should stop defining Constitutional law and reform as "liberal" or "left" because they aren't. They are American. However, such labeling can inadvertently divide the electorate into "liberal" and "moderate" camps when they really don't have to be divided at all."
I agree with you. Unfortunately the GOP doesn't and, again, they're simply better at manipulating campaign issues than the Dems are - and in this they have the MSM helping them because most of it is owned by their partisans.
I watched a rerun of `So Goes the Nation` last night. It's a documentary that was done in 2006 analysing the 2004 election.
If you didn't see it when it came out, see if you can rent it. It's devastating. It shows so horribly clearly just how much better than the Dems the GOP were at redefining everything.
sigh
July 16, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post, Waldengirl.
Funny but the FISA Amendment, Patriot Act, etc. are portrayed as being about catching the criminal of tomorrow. In fact, most of the new “tools” that have been seized in the name of the WOT are about catching the criminals before they’re criminals. Now, that’s a laudable goal but it means that everyone is assumed guilty first and so illegal searches, spying, kidnapping, torture, etc. are applied to determine guilt.
The program of spying, indefinite detention, torture, etc is euphemistically described as just "intelligence gathering" (something helpful temperate librarians do). In fact, these “tools” aren’t very effective at preventing crimes but are crimes committed against innocent people. They work sort of like the old witch tests did. Throw the accused in the river: if she floats, she’s a witch and must be hanged; if she drowns, well, she’ll get a good Christian burial.
July 16, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don, you have made some very interesting points.
It is all too true that our new "security" measures are geared to preventing future crimes. Unfortunately, we can all too easily become a person of interest for engaging in political activism or speaking out against the government or even corporate interests.
While future crimes are considered unacceptable and worth giving up our rights to prevent, it is irrelevant whether any crimes are committed against innocent people in the process.
And meanwhile, our prison system is bursting at the seams with non-violent drug offenders, the mentally ill, poor people, and minorities who tend to get disproportionately harsh sentences, but yet the obscene corporate crime that is responsible for ruining thousands of lives goes completely unpunished.
Of course, our attention has been diverted through fear of the unknown terrorist who may be lurking around every corner which justifies the new security measures to prevent future crimes...
I feel safer already!
July 16, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You both may be interested in this BoingBoing link to a FISA flowchart that spells out the differences between the old and new law, in addition to the vagueness of certain key terms.
July 16, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link. The strange (perhaps not) thing about the various FISA changes and other security amendments is that the bills get more vague, unclear and convoluted with each pass.
July 16, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great link! Thanks.
July 16, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
My objection to Clinton was less about her positions and more about her tactics. Mostly what I perceived to be a sowing of racial division, exploitation of right-wing smear attacks (Wright, patriotism), and a dismissive attitude toward those who supported Obama (on the part of the candidate, not her supporters). To me, this is a whole different animal than Obama emphasizing his more centrist positions as he tries to connect with a greater diversity of voters in the general.
I bring this up not to rehash old Obama vs. Clinton issues, but just to point out that your analogy between objections to Clinton in the primary and possible objections to Obama in the general, and your assertion that the "only conclusion" is that folks are hypocrites or part of a "devotional" following of Obama the Person, doesn't necessarily hold up. You're assuming a lot about why people might have supported Obama in the primary (or not supported Clinton). And in my case at least, Obama has adopted none of the behaviors in the general that turned me off of Clinton in the primary.
Anyway, while I disagree with one or two of your arguments, I appreciate the thoughtful and well-written post and I agree that people should feel free to speak their minds on TPM and not feel pressured to stifle criticism of Obama. As I've written elsewhere, this is a blog site, not a branch of the Obama campaign.
July 16, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
bdh, I agree with you that Clinton's campaign tactics were in a league of their own. I was outraged during most of the primary, and I kept thinking it couldn't get any worse and then it would.
At the same time, I don't feel that Obama is simply emphasizing his more centrist views. I think he misrepresented his views during the primary, and some of the views are not insignificant. I can't help but draw the conclusion that such misrepresentation was deliberate since he is now claiming that the "new" positions were his positions all along.
Again, I understand that there is a difference in that he isn't employing hateful rhetoric like Clinton did, etc. But on a fundamental level, he has employed deceptive campaign tactics to win votes. I don't think that this should be acceptable to any Obama supporter since trust is something that is hard to gain once it is lost.
The question I have is why did he misrepresent his positions in the primary? If he felt that he couldn't win without doing so, I find this to just be a different color of "ends-justifies-the-means" campaigning that I accused Clinton of.
July 16, 2008 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see what you're saying, but I guess I 1) don't see such an egregious level of misrepresentation and/or 2) have a higher tolerance for this sort of finessing of the issues.
There are two issues where I see actual shifting of position. The first is the notorious FISA. I do think this is an important issue for the country, and I do think his shift was mainly political expediency. At the same time, I don't see how his taking a stand against the bill would have accomplished much. The bill still would have passed and a no vote could have been an election-year liability (in my opinion). Not a principled position on my part, I know, but my tolerance for political maneuvering can withstand this much. I do understand concern about this one, though.
There's also the comments he made to AIPAC about an undivided Jerusalem, which he seems to be backing away from now. I don't make excuses for him here, either. But this one definitely isn't keeping me up at night.
The second issue where I think he has shifted to a degree that doesn't qualify as mere emphasis is one that hasn't gotten much attention, actually, and that's free trade. He started shifting away from anti-free trade rhetoric back in the primary season--I think shortly after Ohio--and has continued to do so into the general campaign. As far as the issue itself goes, this doesn't bother me because I'm not anti-free trade, and I think greater environmental and labor protections are the way to go. This is kind of a reverse situation, though, because I'm actually happier with his current position than I was back when he was projecting a more hardline stance for political expediency in the primary.
When it comes to the faith-based business, I find this to be consistent with his position as expressed previously, including books and speeches.
When it comes to Iraq, his position hasn't changed in any substantive way as far as I can tell, regardless what the press chooses to suggest. He's always said withdrawal would be "careful" and influenced by information on the ground at the time.
If there are other issues you were thinking of that I'm not addressing, I'll have to be reminded. These are the ones we seem to hear the most about.
When it comes to selective emphasis, he didn't bring up, say, faith-based initiatives in the primary and he certainly is choosing to do so now because it makes sense politically. I have no doubt omitting this during the primary was a calculated move, but that simply doesn't bother me. He's addressing an audience in the general that includes a higher proportion of people interested in such an issue. I don't agree with his position on this. But I don't think he ever misrepresented it. And I do think it's an improvement on where we are now, without a doubt. (I thought he was pretty forthcoming about his views on religion, for example, during the "compassion forum" CNN did way back when. And I found him to be more inclusive of minority perspectives--"Eastern" religions, atheists, etc.--than most elected officials.) And I think it's appropriate for a general-election candidate to speak also to perspectives other than my own.
This is probably getting too long for a single comment. Hopefully I clarified my perspective to some extent. (It's nice to be on vacation and have some time to try!) You may conclude that my standards are low when it comes to my expectations in this sense for a presidential candidate. That might be true, relatively speaking. I know I'm less idealistic than I used to be, for better or worse.
July 16, 2008 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amazingly sober comment. My sentiments exactly. I do wish the passions would cool so we could have a discussion along these lines, but I have little hope for this at this stage.
July 16, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Waldengirl,
I suspect if you go back and look at Hillary's supposed campaign tactics, there's less there there than we were led to believe.
"Hillary didn't cry for Katrina" was simply outrageous, requiring absolutely no parsing or mind-reading to make it so. A completely ad hoc, out of context racist statement. But do many remember this comment or remain offended?
"Hillary passed on pictures of Obama in Muslim garb" coming from Drudge - let's talk about a deceitful right-wing source starting a whisper campaign that progressives eagerly bought into. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
"Mark Penn didn't know how the California delegate rules worked" - let's talk about a reality-challenged smear that somehow grew legs.
Only the first item can be directly blamed on a high-up Obama functionary. I suspect a number of others, and probably if I spent the time could make the case for some more, even though the press dutifully did the job without campaign help.
(See Bob Somerby on how the moderators picked up the slack when Obama backed out of attacking Hillary in the debates last October).
In short, you credit there being a lack of policy difference, only a presumed difference in style, character and trust. Of course we've seen the shift in policy this last month (is it just a political stunt? a real difference in policy? how should we tell?), which has seriously damaged his trust brand. And I suspect revisiting the campaign events, especially with an eye on the ground movements through 2007, will give an idea that Obama's campaign received way too much credit for playing fair, for being "post-political". They're anything but. They're way into the political machinery, and quite successful at it. But like WalMart or Starbucks, everyone loves you when you're the next big thing, and then they start to look at the warts. Starbucks announced some 600 store closings in June. Every fairy tale has its ending, happy or not.
July 16, 2008 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You really have to wonder how it was Hillary lost when (apparently) her campaign made no mistakes -- at least in the revised histories of some of her followers.
July 16, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to be the one that brings rain to this happy parade, but there are so many misrepresentations and falsehoods and plain old revisionist history in this post that I have to be the bearer of more critical tidings.
Yes, well written and heart-felt and all that. I don't disagree. That doesn't make it less biased and less subjective. While some Obama supporters go over the top, it is hardly the epidemic this blog makes it out to be. Waldengirl goes out of her way to paint all Obama supporters with the broad and vague brush of McCarthyism.
Really? Is that what happens? A thread is making perfectly reasonable points that Obama "shredded the Constitution" and is a "liar" who sold the democratic party a bill of goods.
It then becomes "filled" with insulting and demeaning attacks? I suppose my comment here would qualify as an attack? Are they worse that this? I am sure some could be considered insulting and demeaning, but I would hardly characterize any thread as being filled with that sort of thing.
Besides, if it is perfectly rational and logical for some in the democratic party to kick our own candidate in the balls to make sure he can take it or to toughen him up, then how is it any worse for other democrats and independents to call out the bullshit attacks against our candidate. Are we only supposed to object to republican attacks? I don't understand how asking for good manners and a more holistic view of the issues are attacks. I also don't think it is fair to take the final comment on a stair-stepping "He Said, She Said" discussion as being the starting point.
Holy crap. Really? When someone says, "Do you think it is productive to call our candidate a lying weasel who betrayed his oath of office?" we are saying you aren't wise enough to comment?
Well, that can be true for some comments, but not in the sense that you are taking it. Your position may be plenty wise and reasonable while your way of expressing said opinion is still damaging and naive. That isn't a logical fallacy and seems a common sense conclusion to me.
Hope I didn't insult your intelligence by saying so.
None of us here represent the Obama campaign. Our views are our own. That anything a blogger might say would make you feel "insulted" or "demeaned" says more about you than the debate medium, I am sorry to say.
Wait, was that demeaning? I am so confused by this shit. Is there a manual somewhere about the proper way to offer criticism or should we just shut the fuck up?
July 16, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Jason -- this "devotional" "Obamabot" "purist" certainly appreciates your take on the discourse.
July 16, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, Jason! Why is it Obama supporters get smeared when there are a legion of Hillary diehards working to defeat the candidate of their (ostensible) party?
July 16, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think in the long term, the attitude of our candidate will have a trickle-down effect on all of us.
We will undoubtedly come together in more harmony than the internicene battles we have been indulging in here.
July 16, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whereas I agree that Sen. Obama's more ardent supporters have been disruptive all to often around the Cafe, it's not fair that they should bear the brunt of the criticism for having done so. In my opinion, each side of the argument has contributed to the degradation of discussion here. Further, I think both sides have done so in roughly equivalent amplitude -- with the difference between the two falling within the margin of error.
It is certainly true that when Sen. Obama's critics have posted an article, the comments would fill up rapidly with slams from his supporters and kudos from his detractors, followed by slams for the slammers and more praise for the praisers. Just a few on each side made an attempt at rational discourse.
But let's have the clerk read back the testimony. When the converse happened, that is, when Sen. Obama's supporters protested the protests, so to speak, the expected mirror-image equivalent took place with vitriol flowing like wine in a two-way decanter. And again, some small minority on both sides attempted to turn the fire-fight into a discussion and failed.
It has been said here (by someone I really don't care for personally but who writes quite well and who can be very perceptive on the rare occasions when his prosaic muses gain the upper hand) that we mostly come here for the emotional product rather than the intellectual one. I think that he has lifted the hat that covers a dirty little secret (not to mention his pointy little head).
How about you? (I don't mean YOU, Waldengirl, I'm addressing the group. Thanks for a well-written article with whose spirit I agree although not necessarily the balance.) Is your conscience clear? Have you been posting with your brain or your gonads? Or are you happy with the current level of "discourse?"
Remember, only you can prevent flame wars.
July 16, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Much better said than my comment. I agree completely and am far from innocent. I am working on it, though, with varying levels of success.
July 16, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, two blogs in a row where I'm in wholehearted agreement with Tankard. It's either the beginning of the Harmonic Convergence or of the Apocolypse.
Or, I guess it could just be expected variance from the mean, if one wanted to get all prosaic about it.
July 16, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's either the beginning of the Harmonic Convergence or of the Apocolypse.
No, you're just beginning to become wise and mature.
July 16, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm totally agreeing with this post.
jasoneverett, "biased and subjective" really? Isn't this forum for commentary (i.e., opinion)?
Kinsley's essay in Time last week is yet another voice saying, in essence, "Get over it (HRC supporters) and realize that we have to get a Democrat in the WH."
That's what Obama is trying to do. He's a politician, after all! It's his job to try to win.
We don't know yet how much principle he'll sacrifice to do it.
It's our job as citizens to shout about everything we like and don't like, about our party, our candidate, and our country. We only get to vote occasionally, but we can use our voice quite a bit more.
July 16, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure it is, just seemed to contain an overt claim to objectivity. I freely admit that may be my own prejudices, though.
July 16, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post and read. Thank you.
I believe that the intolerant and insulting behavior that he exhibits is more damaging to his candidate than an honest difference of opinion.
I couldn't agree more.
July 16, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
This sounds about right to me. I am still an enthusiastic Obama supporter myself, but I have frequently found myself wondering of late how I ended up on the heretics' register in the logbooks of many of my Obama supporting fellows. In any event, I agree with almost everything you just wrote, dear Waldengirl and thought that, this being the case, you might enjoy the latest This Modern World. Be sure to check it out if you have not already seen it.
July 16, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Missouri voter, I just got home and and am too tired to do much of anything now. But then I clicked on the "This Modern World" link and you made my night! It's perfect. Thanks so much.
July 16, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reflection can be enlightening and lead to productive, civil, and thus engaging discourse. I fell prey to a heated exchange recently and eventually resorted to insulting someone's intelligence. I later regretted it after reading further and discovering many stellar examples of how to express disagreement with another's views in a respectful manner. Finding common ground is a good place to start.
I don't visit the blogosphere for the emotional zing; rather to be better informed. The relentless vitriol has been unsettling to say the least. I return, though, because invariably someone reveals a gem of information that garners further exploration.
Thank you Waldengirl for your honest post. The comments have given me much to ponder. And, Lux, your words and example are very much appreciated.
July 16, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Parsing!
Ab altes speres alteri quod feceris!
"Expect from Heaven, what you do to others!"
July 16, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've sometimes felt the same way, Waldengirl. I will offer this, though. We need to view each other in the best of possible lights. So where you might see the people who criticized Hillary for trying to "win at all costs" in the primary now acting like hypocrites as they pursue a "win at all costs" agenda for Obama, I see a difference between the primaries and the generals.
Ideally you win a primary without hobbling your opponent. Sometimes you want your opponent to be veep, or in your cabinet, or head of the DNC, after all. All bets are off when it comes to McCain who we should happily hobble. No skin off my back if McCain loses not only the election but his influence in the Senate, after all.
So, I don't see that as hypocrisy so much as different reactions to different situations.
That said, we could stand to be nicer to each other. But we probably won't be. This medium kind of draws out the snark and sarcasm and, yes, the namecalling. TPMCafe isn't as bad as most places on the Web but it will never be perfect. I think the best advice I can muster is to try and assume that people have the best intentions (to get Obama elected) even if they're obnoxious about it. This is easier for me since I'm sometimes obnoxious as well. A bit harder for you as you've been more high minded. But try it.
I also think that for those of us who came over to Obama's camp later in the game as a second or in my case third choice candidate that we have a different experience than some of the longtime supporters. I'm in a place where he's getting my vote but I still expect him to be winning me over. I don't feel a need to defend him against every criticism or even every outrage. I want him to win but he's not my hero. I think he'll be a good president but I'll be watching skeptically even when he takes office. For some others around here the relationship to Obama is far more personal or at least more developed and maybe even more of a habit. Some of them, as a result, strike me as easily outraged though they would no doubt tell me that from their perspectives they are slow to anger and have had to endure just too much BS.
July 16, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Waldengirl,
Got a few problems with your post. The overall problem is that it feels preachy, lecturey (Colbert's word). I think that lectures to behave are what they criticise, albeit more subtle, less obviously slanderous. Take for example the following seemingly self-contradictory passage in your post.
This is a demeaning characterization of Obama, and it is arguable. It's a euphemistic version of "liar," "of poor character," and the like. It's a point of view that has no proof behind it. You just can't prove those statements except by appealing to a circumstantial evidence that, by any standards, is thin. In such cases, it makes sense to refrain from coming to a conclusion until more evidence accrues. The point again here in this paragraph is that this part of your post is evidence that you're falling prey to the problem you're concerned about.
In the same vein, consider another part of your post.
Now maybe you really believe, as your statement above indicates, that he is that kind of person. He is unprincipled. But I think, to make that charge worthy of publication and worthy of a responsible writer and political actor, you have to prove it. No one has done that. They've only string together a bunch of circumstantial evidence and made arguments that don't speak to the best counterarguments you can find. There is no careful conditions of your statements, as in, "It appears based on circumstantial evidence that he might be unprincipled, but there are reasonable counterarguments. We all need to wait and see and go on the best information we can gather, which includes his history, what people who know him personally have said over the past 25 years, and more.
I have a few other problems. Here's one that comes under the heading of making false generalizations that themselves are insulting inasmuch as they insultingly characterize anyone who lapses into insults as a purist who is bent on controlling input at TPM. Speaking of people who insult the critics, you wrote,
While I sympathize with the feeling one has upon being insulted, I know that, when I insult people, I really don't believe that they should shut up. I'd like for them to say something that would rescue us from our conflict. My insult expresses a frustration with the conflict more than a wholehearted attack against the person I'm insulting.
I sympathize wholeheartedly with the basic idea you're trying to get at, that insults muck up conversation, but I think you're doing what you decry, which makes it difficult to get much help from your post. In my similarly aimed post, "Elizabeth2 Bring Us to the Brink of Enlightenment," I argue that it's difficult to even know when you're dissing somebody. It's difficult to know when a characterization of somebody is reasonable or shaming, as in the case of you euphemistically calling Obama unprincipled. As a psychotherapist who specializes in this problem, what I call, "shaming people for shaming people," I can only say that this is a very difficult to understand problem that will take much unraveling over the next fifty years. Meanwhile, I think we can appeal to ordinary cannons of proof as a basis for concluding whether a statement is insulting or factual.
July 16, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
She cites specific examples, Preach. FISA's a good one because Obama's position was clear and it clearly changed. Merely calling her examples circumstantial as you've done here does nothing to refute or explain them. So, by your own standards your response is pretty thin gruel.
Besides, for a psychologist you're surprisingly missing the subtleties here. In any event, you're responding to an argument that Waldengirl doesn't really seem to be making. She isn't saying that Obama is unprincipled. She's saying that he's done a lot of things that Hillary got criticized for during the primaries. Unless you think Hillary is unprincipled, then you don't have to read her description of Obama as a euphemism at all. That's up to you, of course.
July 16, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 16, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am banning myself from further comment until I learn to properly use blockquotes.
The first two parts were in quotes...the rest my reply.
On to Wikipedia to brush up on HTML language.
July 16, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've never believed in repressing discourse or honesty. Nor do I think Obama does. As he has said on multiple occasions, he has a thick skin, politically.
Slurs and obvious attacks on a person I don't care for. But issues with the policies, decisions, process and conduct of a candidate seem fair game. I don't agree with Obama completely on everything, and yet I think he's being self-consistent. It's just that many of us had our own idealized impression of his "self" that wasn't necessarily his.
One thing I would disagree with is that supporting the person is in some way being a cultist. I support the person, Obama, not unconditionally, but because, on the whole, I like what I see and what I see is someone I believe (stress on "I") would make a very good president. His decisions on individual policies and Senate votes may differ from my ideal, but overall, I think his personal qualities are of a high standard. I also believe that a statesman who can inspire people through his speeches and someone who can gain the admiration and trust of most of the world outside the U.S. is potentially someone who can heal some of the divides that Bush has exacerbated.
So I agree with this post that dissent and disagreement are essential, and would add that I think it can be done with mutual respect and civility. Some people enjoy being confrontational and unpleasant, calling names or impugning the intelligence of posters, and I really think that's unproductive. But others disagree, sometimes quite vehemently, but express their arguments carefully and with clarity in a real attempt at communicating ideas instead of anger. That works better for me, at any rate, and opens the door for me to learn from them.
July 16, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've been a great example for me as I negotiate my tone. :O)
July 16, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, Your posts are terrific, interesting and well researched. I notice that sometimes in your 'comments' - you adjust your 'tone and verbiage' to the person you're replying to.....
Personally, I wish they would attempt to rise to your level rather than vice versa. For me, credibility is lost when someone resorts to disrespectful, denigrating, rude and personal attacks. Any idiot can do that, but they (my opinion)are unable to debate with intellect and facts. (So not your issue!)
However, a little humorous 'snark' is oft necessary. (Been there, done that, sometimes enjoyed it a bit too much!)
July 16, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink