For a few weeks now, I've been watching the increasingly heated arguments pouring forth from the political left on President Obama and steps he has taken or not taken since his moving swearing-in ceremony on January 20th.

He's been accused of letting down gay-rights activists, abortion-rights activists, peace activists, labor unions, and just about every other liberal constituency there is.  He's not ending the war in Iraq fast enough.  He's sending more troops to Afghanistan without an exit strategy.  He's morphing into George W. Bush on national security.  He won't release the torture photos.  He's putting Republicans in his Cabinet.  He kept Bob Gates at the Pentagon.  He's appointed Wall Street foxes to watch over the Wall Street henhouse.  He caved in on Republican demands for tax cuts when he should have given more bail-out money to social programs...and, well, I could list more but I've only got so much space and time.

Today, I watched his speech on the closing of Guantanamo and other national security measures.  To me, the speech had the feel of an in-depth law school lecture, in that he specified, for instance, the five types of Guantanamo detainees, spelled out legal options that were and were not available for dealing with them, explained why he agreed to release torture memos but not the accompanying photographs, detailed the successful prosecutions of other torture detainees on American soil and how most of these detainees can be successfully tried and incarcerated in this country. 

He also dwelled on those who are not only highly dangerous to American citizens, should they be released, but whose cases were so badly fucked up by the Bush administration that now we have no choice but to either try them by military tribunals or keep them imprisoned indefinitely, for the protection of this country.  And he pointed out improvements that have been made on tribunals for when they do crank up again.  He laid out how he intends to preserve accountability and transparency in regards to Intelligence-collection and dissemination, but told in no uncertain terms what needs to remain secret and why.

I thought the speech was a triumphant SMACKDOWN of Dick Cheney.  I thought the timing of it--just late enough to run over into Cheney's timeslot--was brilliant, because Dick Cheney is a has-been whose time in power is over, period.  Barack Obama is president of the United States.  The whole split-screen dichotomy set up by the media to set the whole situation into a debate between equals was completely fictional, a construct that made their story-telling more dramatic--which the president also alluded to.

There was no real reason to even televise Dick Cheney's speech.  He no longer makes public policy--THANK GOD--and, as Condoleeza Rice herself put it--they had eight years to try their way, and it's over now.  It's time for our side to see if we can do better.

Obama is the president of the United States.  In the early months of the first Bush administration, did the media hang on every word out of Al Gore's mouth?  Did they televise HIS speeches?

Uh, no.  That didn't happen until the man had won an Oscar AND the Nobel Prize.

So I turned off the television because I didn't care what the talking-heads thought and I had no desire to hear anything Dick Cheney has to say.  He is a proven liar, period.  This is about historical revisionism, putting clothing on a naked emporer.  The man cannot be trusted and does not deserve the media attention he basks in every time he farts.

I did, however, turn to the blogosphere, and right away, I read comments from liberals claiming that Obama's speech was "window dressing" and "bells and whistles" and "mimics George Bush," was "inconsistent" with the president's own values, and so on.  And on.  And on.

There is real anger on the left because so many believe that Obama is in some way betraying them.

Now, let me start by saying, the man has only been in office a few months.  We've been out of power, basically, since 1994, when Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, and the right wing took over congress.  They cut Bill Clinton's nuts almost immediately with phony controversies, endless investigations, and ultimately, even tried to remove him from office.

In spite of that, Clinton had many admirable accomplishments, but for the most part, the neocons set the agenda and the debate, and the media followed along because they did not seem to realize that they were being played.

When George W. Bush came into office, he pretended to be a moderate who wanted to change the tone of Washington and work across the aisle for such things as education reform and immigration reform, but in truth, he moved quickly to embrace and encourage the right wing of his party because it was a political gold mine for him.  The evangelical Christians amounted to a voting block similar to when a frat rat runs for president of the student body on-campus, and his college fraternity votes en masse for him--same thing. 

By the time 2004 rolled around, he wasn't even pretending anymore.

The results have been absolute disaster for our country, and I don't need to enumerate the reasons why.  We all know why.  Three-quarters of the country's population knows why.  Hell, the whold damn WORLD knows why.

So, we have many, many legitimate interests over here that we are SALIVATING to make right: gays in the military, Bush-abuse investigations, universal health care, global warming urgency, and so on.  It's natural that we would all convene on our new president like a hoarde of starving peasants, demanding bread at the castle gates and threatening to storm the moat NOW if we don't get it.

Now, Obama was accused all through the campaign of being a flaming radical screaming liberal, and although he did have a liberal voting record (which he joked was pretty much a reaction against Bush policies), in truth, in both his books and all through the campaign, he emphasized pragmatism, common sense, and practicality over idealism or demagoguery.

After he took office, he did immediately take steps that please his liberal base, because he believed it was in the nation's interest to do so--signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act, freeing up stem cell research, removing abortion gag rules from foreign aid, as well as restrictions on American health care added in the final days of Bush's term, and so on.

He laid out a massive, groundbreaking agenda that included not just repairing the bankrupted nation, but setting up health care for everyone, establishing a sensible energy policy, and shoring up a shoddy educational system--these were all important, he said, to put us on a "new foundation" designed to bring the creaking country into the 21st century and ensure a prosperous and secure future.

I have no doubt that he cares as deeply about, say, gays in the military, as he did before, and I fully expect him to address that issue once he's gotten this powerful, important foundation laid.  He just does not want to squander his political capital--which he probably thinks will hold out maybe a year--on side debates that are a distraction from these important issues that will effect us ALL.

Once he's gotten those things established, he can afford to deal with these other needs.  He just can't do every single solitary thing all at one time, within four months of taking office.  The man is dancing as fast as he can.

And in fact, he's already done quite a bit, really.

But when it came to thornier issues, tougher problems, more complicated situations, Obama did reach across the aisle, as he said he would do, for ideas, for appointments, and for support.

And as we know, the Republicans rewarded him by turning their backs on him and making it their mission in life to obstruct him no matter WHAT he does.

That's fine, if that's what they wanna do.  The American people are paying closer attention these days than they were in the 90's, and they're not appreciating the Party of No.  In fact, they have become the Incredible Shrinking Party.

Now, I'm not saying that Democrats should rubber-stamp everything Obama wants to do, and he has not asked for that.  Healthy debate, even within one party, is essential in a democracy, and if the Republicans actually had any good ideas worth considering, I'd consider them.  They just don't happen to have any.

But for the "liberal base" to rise up against their own president with constant ongoing howls of protest over every step he takes that is not strictly liberal or progressive, is to risk OUR base becoming as deaf, dumb, and blind over the long run as THEIR base did.

When I was thinking about this blogpost, I went over to Wickipedia and looked up the term "neoconservative."

And I was surprised to learn that, when the term was first invented back in 1921, it was in response to liberals who had "moved too far to the right."

That's right.  Originally, the term referred to liberals who were perceived as being too conservative.

But as we know, the definition changed:

"The term neoconservative, first coined at least as early as 1921, was used at one time as a criticism against liberals who had "moved to the right".^[5][6] Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the current sense of the term neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy.^[7] According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about."^[8] The term "neoconservative" was the subject of increased media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush.^[9][10] with particular focus on a perceived neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine.^[11] "

So, in other words, during those years that we were running people for president like Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis, and after a Democratic presidency that was perceived as having been weak (Jimmy Carter), the conservatives smelled blood in the water.  Our Democrats in congress were getting kicked out on ethics violations right and left during those years.  We were stagnant, unable to come up with new ideas, and our presidential candidates were boring and easy to mock.

In 1980, they found a very charismatic, popular politician to run for president and the rest, as they say, is history.

So now the pages have been flipped upside-down.  Just as Democrats threatened to become irrelevent for the better part of a generation--even with Bill Clinton in the White House--now it is the Republican's turn to wander in the wilderness.

Most everyone who has given it any thought believe that what brought down the Bush administration was the fact that they put ideology above all else.  They put ideology above GOVERNING.  They put ideology above SERVING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

And during that time, when they were in power in the White House, congress, and the Supreme Court, they ran Washington with a religious zeal.  They even started a WAR that they thought of as some sort of righteous fury against evil.

This is what it means to be an ideologue.

Now we are the ones with a charismatic, popular president.  We are the ones in charge of the White House and congress, with chances to appoint more than one new Supreme Court justice over the next few years.

It is so easy to do that of which we were so critical during the Bush years.

It is so easy to turn into what I call "neolibs."

In this case, that would be a party in which purity to ideals rather than pragmatic governing, righteous indignation over common sense compromise, and closing off all reasoning against opposing points of view can not only take hold, but it can bring down our party just as it is bringing down the Republicans.

We can wind up being as self-righteous, in our own way, as they ever were in theirs.  We just don't mask ours behind religion, but it's there.

As it is right now, in congress anyway, we've got a pretty diverse party, with Blue Dogs as well as liberals, and Independents who caucus with us most of the time.

Understand:  I am not saying that conservative Democrats or so-called "centrist" Democrats or Independents are always right--in fact, they've been driving me crazy a great deal of the time.  This nonsense about not giving Obama the money to shut down Guantanamo because they're afraid terrorists will be running through their backyards is just ridiculous.

Understand:  I am not saying that I agree with everything President Obama does and everything he says.  I'd like to see him form a "truth commission" about torture similar to the 9/11 one, for instance.

But what I AM saying is that idealism is wonderful on its face, but it's a lousy way to govern.

We have an entire generation of young people who grew up during the Clinton years.  They have absolutely NO IDEA what it means for congress to FUNCTION.

Those of us who are, ahem, a bit older--we remember Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn twisting arms and making deals with Southern Democrats to push through legislation on civil rights, medicaid and medicare, and voting rights.

We remember Ted Kennedy working hand-in-glove with Ronald Reagan on education and other matters.

We remember deal-making, deal-breaking, compromise and working-out of the big, important issues.

We remember when things like the Environmental Protection Agency DID NOT EVEN EXIST.

The business of governing is messy, and it's dirty.  A president and his party have a platform that, after they take office, becomes an agenda, and they take it before congress where all HELL breaks loose.

There is politicking and grandstanding and nonsense right and left, up and down, silly stuff that can hold up appointments in committee and get important bills watered down.  Massive egos on little bitty men and women.

But when it is done RIGHT, this process--messy and dirty though it may be--winds up producing something that can be very, very good.

A president knows, going in, that he or she is not going to get everything they want.  They know that they have to be willing to be flexible, to give and to take, to move the bar when necessary and stand firm when they have to.  (Goes without saying I'm not talking about George W. Bush and his rubber-stamp neocon minions here.)

They have to do this because they know, as Barack Obama has expressed so eloquently, that this great big sprawling teeming country is not all of one mind.  There are people on one side of a debate, people on the other side of that same debate, people in the middle who have not solidified their views yet, people who don't care anyway, and people who are willing to look at both arguments and find merit in each.

For Barack Obama to pull a George W. Bush, and grab ahold of his power like it's some kind of global joystick, laughing like Chill Wills on the Bomb--is to alienate a good many of the people who are trusting him to lead them in a dangerous, difficult time.

He HAS to listen to all sides.

There are times when he HAS to change his mind.

There are times when he HAS to take measures he really does not want to take.

And there are times when he knows that, if he gives on THIS issue here or that one there...then when something absolutely ESSENTIAL to the health and welfare of this nation comes along, THEN he can take a stand, give no quarter, and call in his chits.

We can disagree with him, absolutely, that's what being an American IS.  But to DEMAND that he follow our ideology in JUST THIS WAY, and when he doesn't, attack him and his presidency...well, that means that we are in danger of becoming what I call "neolibs."

And that's just as bad, in its way, as the neocons were in theirs.

What I'm saying is that, if we want to make a truly progressive sea-change in this nation--its economy, national security, health care, energy, and educational systems--if we want to see the rights of everyone respected and take giant steps toward securing a peaceful world, then we are going to have to be PATIENT, and we are going to have to be PRAGMATIC, and we are going to have to understand that we won't get every single little thing we want all the time.

We can disagree with our president, but when it gets right down to it, we're going to have to TRUST him.

One final point.

For the past six months, I've been printing up articles from various newspapers and news magazines on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.  I was too busy during that time to read them when I printed them up, so I had three stacks of articles several inches thick.

Recently, I took a few days and read them through.  All of them.  Starting back in October, before Obama was elected, up to this week.

And when I went to sleep at night, I was racked by nightmares.  Bloody, horrible nightmares.

What I learned is that this mess in the Middle East is far, far more complex and fragile than most people even realize.  It's a tinderbox, and the whole world is watching one man and his staff to bring some semblance of peace to the area.

The whole world.

Meanwhile, our economy is still recovering from its own tsunami, and just about every single area of government touched by the Bush administration was wrecked.  Just wrecked, by political cronyism, ineptitude, neglect, and neocon idealism.

Every night before he goes to bed, Barack Obama reads through the day's briefings on all these situations.  He is juggling a thousand balls in the air at one time.

The pressure must be unimaginable.  I mean, I had nightmares from reading newspaper and newsmagazine articles.  Imagine if I'd been reading Intelligence briefings.

He is forced to make decisions that MUST be designed to keep those balls in the air, because to drop even one of them could mean catastrophe for our nation and for the rest of the planet.

So for God's sake.  Give the man a break.