Obama and Progressive Discontents*
* Sorry for the pretentious headline.
So we had a bit of a dust-up in a Jonathan Taplin thread this week that, after an interjection by MJ Rosenberg, wound up spanning two of Taplin's threads.
Taplin's initial point was that Obama enjoys deservedly strong report from Democrats, independents and even a lot of Republicans. Quibble with the president over the details, says Taplin, but at least recognize that even people who disagree with the guy have faith in his abilities. And also, stop calling Taplin "Obama's Butt Boy" because it seems to irk him.
MJ chimed in to defend Obama's tactical approach to changing the system (radicals accomplish nothing, says MJ, Obama is in the mold of a smarter progressive like King) and he also pointed out, based on his own experiences in the civil rights movement, that a lot of Obama's critics or, as he calls them "the indifferent to Obama" crowd don't understand cultural signifigance of Obama's presidency.
But it all gets down to who gets to call themselves a liberal, progressive or whatever. Taplin claims he's more progressive than his critics. Rosenberg just doesn't have much use for what he calls a "radical left" and then, somehow it all devolved into a discussion about angry Hillary Clinton supporters who won't get on the train and are out to sabotage the president (a charge lobbed at everyone from Nobel laureate Paul Krugman to TPM poster dijamo).
I think we need to examine who Obama's critics are, why they are actually allies of the president and why some charges lobbed at Obama's critics are just stupid.
Charge One: Obama's critics are angry Hillary Supporters. Evidence: Paul Krugman supported Hillary and criticized Obama during the primaries. The primary arguments at TPKMCafe were rather... erm... heated. Why This Makes No Sense: Hillary's not even mad at Obama. She works for him! Besides, the policy differences between Clinton and Obama were never that dramatic. You don't see a lot of people arguing that President Hillary would have dealth differently with Wall St because it's a silly argument: Larry Summers would still be involved and we all know that.
Besides, Hillary's millions turned out in droves for Obama in November. What more do they have to prove?
Charge Two: Obama's critics are radical leftists. Evidence: They want a fuller, faster withdrawal from Iraq, they don't want to increase our military presence in Afghanistan, they think the stimulus package should have been focused on Main St. and not Wall St. they want universal healthcare as a priority despite the recession, want the Pentagon budget axed and they want Obama's Department of Justice to stop using Bush era legal tactics and the "state secrets" doctrine to stop civil libertarians from using the courts to uncover the secrets behind the domestic surveillance programs.
Uh... do people here really look at those priorities and say "Helplessly radical?" I might buy that some of that is unattainable but some of Obama's will -- he could direct the justice department to stop making "state secrets" arguments in court, he just doesn't want to or doesn't think that's the right approach. But that doesn't make his critics radical. It just means they disagree with the president.
Charge Three: Obama's critics are impatient. Evidence: It's not even 4 months yet! I have a lot of sympathy for this but I think it's fair for Obama's critics to warn the rest of you that 4 months is a short time for the president but a rather long-time given that we're headed into midterm elections in 2010. If we come out of the recession the Democrats could add to their majorities in the next cycle but that's no guaranty right now. If we lose our majority or one of the houses, these first four months will look, in retrospect, more crucial than they might seem now.
Charge Four: Obama's critics want Obama to fail. We're better than that. The only person who wants Obama to fail is eating hot dogs and Oxycontins right now.
Charge Five: Obama's critics are uncompromising idealists who don't realize that politics is the art of the possible and are willing to sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect. Come on, it's just people voicing their opinions on the Internet. But there's a real danger in this line of thinking: what if some of people around here who like to talk about "the possible" are underestimating what is actually possible?
As MJ says, this is a historic presidency. There's a poetry to it that makes it especially important, poignant and, in the long run, effective. So lets dream big and lets speak up. Maybe Obama's critics are just pointing out that more is possible than some of you think.
Maybe, we really are all on the same side.
So we had a bit of a dust-up in a Jonathan Taplin thread this week that, after an interjection by MJ Rosenberg, wound up spanning two of Taplin's threads.
Taplin's initial point was that Obama enjoys deservedly strong report from Democrats, independents and even a lot of Republicans. Quibble with the president over the details, says Taplin, but at least recognize that even people who disagree with the guy have faith in his abilities. And also, stop calling Taplin "Obama's Butt Boy" because it seems to irk him.
MJ chimed in to defend Obama's tactical approach to changing the system (radicals accomplish nothing, says MJ, Obama is in the mold of a smarter progressive like King) and he also pointed out, based on his own experiences in the civil rights movement, that a lot of Obama's critics or, as he calls them "the indifferent to Obama" crowd don't understand cultural signifigance of Obama's presidency.
But it all gets down to who gets to call themselves a liberal, progressive or whatever. Taplin claims he's more progressive than his critics. Rosenberg just doesn't have much use for what he calls a "radical left" and then, somehow it all devolved into a discussion about angry Hillary Clinton supporters who won't get on the train and are out to sabotage the president (a charge lobbed at everyone from Nobel laureate Paul Krugman to TPM poster dijamo).
I think we need to examine who Obama's critics are, why they are actually allies of the president and why some charges lobbed at Obama's critics are just stupid.
Charge One: Obama's critics are angry Hillary Supporters. Evidence: Paul Krugman supported Hillary and criticized Obama during the primaries. The primary arguments at TPKMCafe were rather... erm... heated. Why This Makes No Sense: Hillary's not even mad at Obama. She works for him! Besides, the policy differences between Clinton and Obama were never that dramatic. You don't see a lot of people arguing that President Hillary would have dealth differently with Wall St because it's a silly argument: Larry Summers would still be involved and we all know that.
Besides, Hillary's millions turned out in droves for Obama in November. What more do they have to prove?
Charge Two: Obama's critics are radical leftists. Evidence: They want a fuller, faster withdrawal from Iraq, they don't want to increase our military presence in Afghanistan, they think the stimulus package should have been focused on Main St. and not Wall St. they want universal healthcare as a priority despite the recession, want the Pentagon budget axed and they want Obama's Department of Justice to stop using Bush era legal tactics and the "state secrets" doctrine to stop civil libertarians from using the courts to uncover the secrets behind the domestic surveillance programs.
Uh... do people here really look at those priorities and say "Helplessly radical?" I might buy that some of that is unattainable but some of Obama's will -- he could direct the justice department to stop making "state secrets" arguments in court, he just doesn't want to or doesn't think that's the right approach. But that doesn't make his critics radical. It just means they disagree with the president.
Charge Three: Obama's critics are impatient. Evidence: It's not even 4 months yet! I have a lot of sympathy for this but I think it's fair for Obama's critics to warn the rest of you that 4 months is a short time for the president but a rather long-time given that we're headed into midterm elections in 2010. If we come out of the recession the Democrats could add to their majorities in the next cycle but that's no guaranty right now. If we lose our majority or one of the houses, these first four months will look, in retrospect, more crucial than they might seem now.
Charge Four: Obama's critics want Obama to fail. We're better than that. The only person who wants Obama to fail is eating hot dogs and Oxycontins right now.
Charge Five: Obama's critics are uncompromising idealists who don't realize that politics is the art of the possible and are willing to sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect. Come on, it's just people voicing their opinions on the Internet. But there's a real danger in this line of thinking: what if some of people around here who like to talk about "the possible" are underestimating what is actually possible?
As MJ says, this is a historic presidency. There's a poetry to it that makes it especially important, poignant and, in the long run, effective. So lets dream big and lets speak up. Maybe Obama's critics are just pointing out that more is possible than some of you think.
Maybe, we really are all on the same side.
