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.
Advertisement
Great post.
"...Obama enjoys deservedly strong report from Democrats, independents and even a lot of Republicans..."
I think Taplin and many others are making a mistake of assuming that 100% of people who voted for Obama did it on the merits of the Obama candidacy.
I'm sure that many did. But the unpleasant reality is that the vast majority of voters, who are not political junkies, are voting based on choices presented.
If you only have a choice of McCain and Obama, you can only do two things: pick one or pick none.
Taplin's problem is that he assumes that everyone who voted for Obama did so because of Obama himself, and he discounts the possibility that a vote for Obama could be nothing more than a vote against the republicans, Bush years and McCain.
Binary black/white choices are creating a perception that voters are expressing a far more radical orientation than what they really believe.
If you can only choose between coffee and Coke, it would look as if the nation consists of coffee and Coke advocates fighting over merits of caffeine delivery.
So, it is because Taplin takes the Obama vote endorsement on the merits, that he's bound to be disappointed with the inevitable critics, resisters and doubters.
April 10, 2009 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Lalo. This is a point I've been making all along. A vote against McCain (and/or SP) or, worse, against the outgoing administration does not equal a progressive mandate. This reality is shaping Obama's strategy and will, sometimes detrimentally, dilute his legislative accomplishments.
April 10, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't followed the discussion that inspired destor's post. But I have a suspicion that when Taplin and others talk about Obama "critics", he really means people who are politically engaged and active: bloggers, activists, talking heads, etc. That small bubble leaves out millions of voters.
And it also underscores the developing dynamic that while ordinary people continue to like Obama as a PERSON, they do not necessarily agree with his actions as the president: his stimulus policy, his Detroit policy and possibly even his budget policy.
If this is true, it will leave Taplin in an even bigger bind soon: Obama will be forced to become more and more centrist if he wants to be re-elected.
April 10, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama is trying to engage those millions of voters in a substantive discussion of what our values and priorities ought to be. That's the reason for the "bipartisan/nonpartisan" meme, which really has little to do with Congress and everything to do with building the foundation for a common social agenda.
If it works, it will be a great thing for democracy and a springboard for progressive policy. A lot of Americans have progressive values -- until you put a label on them.
April 10, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have only one or two quibbles with your argument. Krugman, while you may well be right I think because Hillary has moved on so has he is a false equivalent. Not saying he hasn't, but one does not equal the other.
Not understanding politics, I do believe there are many critics out there that just don't get how it works. We got used to eight years of a guy getting things done by decree and for some who have just entered the arena this is all they know. Not faulting, but when this is what you are used to or all you know the art of the possible and understanding the concept of sacrificing the perfect for the good escapes them.
Now all that said, as I recall he asked for the push back and I plan to push when he goes off the reservation. FISA/State Secrets not happy about, but so far two cases and Holder say there is a third about to come up where they probably won't make the claim. So for me I think they are taking it case by case as opposed to Bush where it was just a blanket policy.
April 10, 2009 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
A little support here. Good Show.
April 10, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding your analysis of those five charges:
CHARGE ONE: Of course it makes sense. Just because Hillary (may) no longer be mad about the election doesn't, at all, mean her supporters no longer are. It's clear to me, just from my own personal interaction with Hillary supporters, that some of them are, indeed, still angry. Go figure. In addition, as was argued by a Hillary supporter (I'm sorry, I can't recall who) on these blogs last week, Hillary supporter votes for Obama were just as likely to have been votes AGAINST McCain, not FOR Obama.
CHARGE TWO: Obama's critics on the left are not, IMO, radical. They are ideological, at least, they are to a degree that Obama is not and that's what irks them most about Obama.
CHARGE THREE: Some on the left argue that Obama has not moved quickly enough, while the right argues that he's moving too quickly. The calendar facts are that Obama has completed only 6% of his first term. The 2010 mid-terms are a 14% closer than they were when Obama was sworn-in. Therefore, I'd say that, "impatient", doesn't seem an unfair characterization of such critics.
CHARGE FOUR: Of course, Obama's critics on the right DO want him to fail. I've never heard that charge leveled at critics on the left.
CHARGE FIVE: Do you seriously believe you, or anyone on the left, need explain to Obama or his supporters about idealism, or about what's possible? Barack Obama is, hands down, the most improbable person to ever have successfully fight their way to the White House. I think you confuse Obama's governing intellectual pragmatism with his, can-do, personal idealism.
Criticism of our politicians is, of course, fundamental free speech. But, such criticism itself is legitimately subject to counter-criticism. My only objection to counter- criticism is when it attacks the individual making some criticism, rather than the criticism itself, as the right so often does.
April 10, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey new10, discoverer of gravit3:
I'm all for counter-criticism and argument but the whole "you're just an angry Hillary supporter" argument is usually an ad hominem, meant to dismiss Obama's substantive critics without dealing with their arguments.
I'll debate with you any time though, you seem to be above that.
April 10, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think there is something to the Hillary supporters mantra, but not in the way New10 means. Those who supported Hillary in the primaries have never worshiped at the alter, to use a bad metaphor. They had reservations before the election, and so they do not have the well of affection to draw upon when things are less than perfect. Or less than great. Or crappy. So they are more inclined to criticize because they have less emotional investment in Obama than those who have supported him all along do.
April 10, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good responses to a good post.
destor, I find myself defending Obama on this site more than I would like, given that I agree with much of the substance of the criticism.
Let's stipulate that the majority of criticism of him here is based on objections to the Geithner economic recivery plan. I agree with criticism arguing that the plan is clearly a giveaway to institutions (and, ultimately the people who ran them) that, in a just world, would collapse of their own mismanagement.
However, far too much of the criticism argues with utter certainty that the Geithner plan is fatally flawed, and it is flawed because Obama and Geithner are merely tools of Wall Street, and seek to enrich their contributors and/or buddies at taxpayer expense. I think this is unfair, and not least because the critics so charging have nothing but their reflexive anti-establishment stance (although, interestingly, many of these critics were silent when the establishment aided and abetted by the Bush administration ran us into the ditch we find ourselves in) for support.
I find it more persuasive that, as Obama has said, the money center banks have the ability to blow the economy up, and we have to talk them down off the ledge slowly. In the meantime, organic economic recovery may ease the liquidity issues facing middle class America. This plan will need time to work, and I think it makes sense to give it that time before we charge Obama with sacrificing the average american on a cross of gold (or credit default swaps).
I am also reluctant to go all Greenwald on Obama for his questionable moves on national security issues, although these are more troubling to me. While I understand making hawkish moves during a political campaign, I just don't see the downside to a more rapid withdrawal from our over-militarized approach to the Middle East, and a clearer retreat from a surveillance state here at home. I think good police work is more likely to prevent a terrorist attack than any of the Bush initiatives, and absent another attack, I just don't see Republicans gaining much traction with "Obama is coddling terrorists" rhetoric in 2010.
But, in both areas I mentioned, there may be political considerations we don't see necessitating the half-measures of the Geithner plan and the go slow approach to undoing the Bush national security regime. I do hope, when (if?) he gets some clear success under his belt, that he makes further moves to the left as he accrues political capital.
Bottom line, I voted for the guy, so I feel I owe him more than three months before I declare him hopelessly compromised and ineffective.
April 10, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
. . . far too much of the criticism argues with utter certainty that the Geithner plan is fatally flawed, and it is flawed because Obama and Geithner are merely tools of Wall Street . . . .
Strawman! Strawman!
What opponents of the Geithner plan are arguing is that it is designed to permit (nay, encourage) the banks to game the program.
Kindly notice that Geithner makes no mention of whether those banks will be allowed -- via SIVs and friendly hedge funds -- to buy each others' assets and overpay each other for them and stick the taxpayers with the losses. Indeed, Geithner is encouraging the banks to do exactly that. See, Rortybomb
Mischaracterizing what one's opponents are concerned about is arguing in bad faith.
April 10, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everything I've read (and I've read many of the links you provide, Ellen) states that this bank-to-bank trading (and subsequent inflation of these instruments) is a potential abuse of the plan, and has not yet occurred.
As I also understand it, Treasury or the Fed will approve and monitor these asset purchases, and presumably will not permit banks to merely inflate the value of each other's assets in this fashion. In fact, your quote from Geithner supports the idea that they will not permit the plan to gamed as you fear.
Therefore, your concerns seems to fall into the category of presuming bad faith on the part of the administration, much as you just presumed bad faith on my part here.
April 10, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course the abuse "has not yet occurred." No sales have yet "occurred."
So, the point of your non sequitur is?
April 10, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I may add to Ellen's rejection of your essay:
"As I also understand it, Treasury or the Fed will approve and monitor these asset purchases, and presumably will not permit banks to merely inflate the value of each other's assets in this fashion."
How? It's supposed to be an auction, and its supposed to inflate prices. If Geithner has a magic number in mind, then screw the fake auction, just put the number out there and it flies or it doesn't.
" In fact, your quote from Geithner supports the idea that they will not permit the plan to gamed as you fear."
I saw no such solid inference there.
"Therefore, your concerns seems to fall into the category of presuming bad faith on the part of the administration, much as you just presumed bad faith on my part here. "
Bad faith in a manner of speaking on the part of the banks who have what we may fairly call huge conflicts of interest here. I think you must not begin to understand the gaming which could go on. I'd also point out that Geithner is in effect hugely subsidizing bank shareholders et al. This is wrong, so yes, there is a basis for challenging the presumed good faith at Treasury now. Doing so is not acting in bad faith nor presuming bad faith. If Geithner is in Wall St's pocket AT ALL, he's acting in bad faith. He did not take an oath the Wall St., or maybe he did in which case it's treason.
April 11, 2009 4:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not up to Ellen to accept or reject my comments, dude. Apparently logic and reading complrehension aren't strong suits for either one of you.
April 12, 2009 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think there is something else in play, that a lot of people expected things to be, well, different. Obama's election felt like a tidal event, that things would never be the same.
Things are the same.
We're still in Iraq with no real plans to pull out anytime soon. We're still sending lots of money to Wall Street banks with little oversight. The illegal wiretapping policies of the Bush administration are still in effect. Votes are made almost entirely along party lines. Layoffs are still happening, the auto industry is still in the crapper and I don't know anyone who isn't scared of losing their job, and there are probably fewer than two degrees of separation between any of us and someone who is recently unemployed. Housing is still in the crapper; the stock market swings by 200 points and no one even blushes. Bin Laden is still at large, there's the apocalyptical stories of piracy surfacing and more troops going into Afghanistan.
And nothing seems to be getting better.
Maybe it is. Maybe it's not. But it doesn't feel better. It doesn't feel like things are improving.
But guys like MJ and Tapin tell us not to worry, that it's all going to be okay, that Obama hasn't showed all of his hands or his plans yet. His ardent supporters -- many of them here -- tell us that he hasn't had enough time to do anything, much less fix everything, to give him a chance because they know, in their hearts, that he's the right man at the right time, and that questioning him is akin to not only doubting him, but doubting them as well. My best example of this is, honestly, the Special Olympics comment. had Bush, or McCain, or Palin said the same thing we'd still have forum topics about it today. Instead those who took offense were told to chill out.
I've always been a data person -- like you, I used to be a journalist. I like facts. Right now, the facts say that despite the fact that Barak Obama is President, things are pretty much what they were before he took office. And while that may have been predictable, it wasn't what I had hoped for.
April 10, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matt, I'm not sure what it was that you expected to be so different in such a short period of time.
Our government is not a small business, that when it changes hands, can change direction on a dime.
Obama is being blocked at every turn by the obstructionist Repubs, who won't even confirm the people he wants helping him, accept his offers to put their ideas into his proposals, then turn around and vote as a block against them anyway, and whose most vocal spokesperson is calling for his failure.
Yet, in spite of that, the sense of optimism for many of us is still there, and if you look just below the surface, you can see the change beginning. To use a gardening metaphor, when you plant a bulb, you don't go out and find a full grown plant a week later...it blooms when the conditions are right.
He is planting bulbs all over the place. He is attempting to be a better neighbor in the world community, so that when we need help from other countries, they will be more apt to help us. I like that he is not a bully. Is he getting everything he wants right away? No, but good God, given what we have done to the world, financially speaking, we are lucky anyone will even talk to us.
We have not plunged into a depression. In spite of the greed of Wall St. the stock market is slowly recovering. We, personally, have recouped quite a bit of what we lost, and are feeling more hopeful about our financial future. The housing situation in our area seems to have bottomed out and is showing signs of life.
We have been doing a lot of thinking about what is important to us, what we need to live, reevaluating our priorities, as are many of the people we come into contact with. This is good stuff. As a nation we need to do it.
A lot of this is "glass half full/glass half empty" stuff. I prefer to see the glass half full.
April 10, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only is this stone-cold accurate, it's not even at odds with the notion of questioning Obama's decisions (which I've done numerous times). Well stated.
April 10, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just proved the charge that The Left is too impatient. Many times Obama told us that the changes he promised might not happen in his first year or his first term. He has told us over and over that power (the establishment in DC that you all despise) does not concede easily.
Yet, since he has been elected, I have seen dozens of articles asking where's the change. I've only been following politics for a year and it's jarring to see that people who know so much more than I do ask questions like that or show themselves to be very naive (not directed to you).
April 10, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I propose that Taplin and Rosenberg are closeted disgruntled Hillary supporters. I suspect they chose Obama against choosing her as the Democratic candidate long before the primaries. Because anyone who truly believes the "disgruntled Hillary supporter" meme has their own bizarre grudge with the Clintons that dates back to the '90s. For some it's anger about healthcare, for others it's embarrassment about blowjobs, for still others it's about being humiliated and defeated by the Republicans.
Whatever the case, it's called "projection." There is no league of disgruntled Hillary supporters other than the one that promotes its existence.
April 10, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo.
April 10, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Well done!
April 10, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto
April 10, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, you really have something there, gasket. It also got me thinking of how so many expect the hope and solidarity ginned up among the strongest supporters for a favored candidate to continue after winning an election. There's no recognition that there's simply a suspension of reality for a time, a suspension of the reality that to win a presidency what has to happen is that plenty of people vote for your candidate without being big fans, indeed probably most who vote for your candidate (if you are the "supporter" type,) are just thinking when they cast the vote: "best of the bunch, let's see how he/she does." I don't think most people go in to vote expecting the candidate to be doing everything they would like in the first place. Not liking something he/she does one elected is something they expect they will be doing.
And I don't get the implication here that blogging is seen as having to be about supporting individual elected officials, rather than supporting or debating issues and ideas, and analyzing whether the current elected officials are helping or hurting those or something inbetween.
April 10, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't this a little bit of projection?
To be sure, there are still disgruntled supporters of Hillary out there. Hillaryis44.org is still doing it's thing (I've tried combing the site for their perspective on why their heroine would ever accept a job with the much maligned Obama administration, but all that pink gives me a headache after a while).
Having that said, I don't really see this as a factor in discussions here. Though these people exist, they're a pretty irrelevant minority. Their existence alone should not be considered a valid response to those who are critical of Obama. There are many here who, though they were ardent supporters of Hillary Clinton, have much to contribute, critical and otherwise, that has nothing to do with some kind of crazed vendetta against Obama.
April 10, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ Rosenberg brought it up, that's why it's a factor in the discussions here. (See destor's 2nd link. Rosenberg's is the first comment.)
Why you would bring up hillaryis44, DF, is beyond me. Are they part of this discussion? I didn't think so.
April 10, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I point it out in support of the fact that this group exists, which I made clear. I also made it clear that I don't think this has any relevance to discussion here. Neither does your bizarre accusation that support for Obama derives from irrational hatred of all things Clinton. These two ideas have nonsense parity in my eyes.
April 10, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You equate a fringe group—hillaryis44—with all Hillary supporters, DF. I never have. Neither has destor. Neither have lots of people (except for maybe Taplin and Rosenberg, I don't know).
This sweeping-generalization argument is utterly lazy and reveals a gigantic blind spot every time it is employed.
Speaking of sweeping generalizations, if I equated all men with the trait of sexism just because I visited a website where men were saying sexist things, you'd likely blow a gasket at such a conclusion. That's because not all men are sexist.
Likewise, not all Hillary supporters are members of hillaryis44. How many times does this need to be repeated?
I don't happen to know anyone at TPM who is a member of hillaryis44. I don't know anyone here who ever was. Nor do I care. Are you kidding me?
Yet many Obama supporters neurotically hung out there during the primaries and long afterward, reading the comments and working themselves into a lather.
I've never even been to the site. I don't have time or the inclination. I like Hillary Clinton for my own reasons. Still do. So sue me. I voted for Obama, not Hillary. Why do I have to prove my cred with you? Because you're lazy? Because you never take the time to understand someone who doesn't think exactly like you do? I'm not so impressed with laziness.
Finally, I don't care if you don't like my theory about cranks like Taplin and Rosenberg. If you want to defend them on their merits, be my guest. Do it without dragging hillaryis44 into it.
April 10, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Umm.. no. I made no such equation. Quite the opposite. What I did is point out that you're doing to others exactly what you decry. You counter one claim of irrational hatred with another. This parallel seems to escape you. I believe there is a word for this phenomenon, but it escapes me...
April 10, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
projection.
April 10, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course. It's always the sins of the other, never ourselves.
April 10, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think what you like, DF. It's totally not worth arguing about mediocre bloggers like Taplin and Rosenberg or groups like hilaryis44. You can do that for hours with your like-minded friends.
If you don't follow Taplin and Rosenberg, you won't know what I mean. If you do follow them and still don't know what I mean (or don't recognize that they're mediocre), then I can't help you. Other people got it, so good enough for me.
Over all the time we've interacted, DF, you've taught me a lot about the limitations of smart people. Thanks, I guess.
April 11, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hate labels. In some ways I hate politics. No one is perfect, besides what one would call perfection another would call hell.
I will support Obama when I feel he's doing what I support. I will critique when that's needed. We all thinking people here. Most of us come to discuss. I like that.
Good blog! Good discussion. I prefer discussions that avoid labels. What good does that do?
April 10, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mind you, Des, I love your title! :)
April 10, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, exactly. Support what you support, criticize what you sdon't and let's debate the merits of ideas in musical notes and wrestler pictures.
April 10, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
April 10, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ric Flair was a roody-poo, candy-ass jabroni compared to Harley Race.
PS: :-D
April 10, 2009 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor, highly rec'd.
We've disagreed on here before, and will likely do so again. But I think it's critical to do so with a high degree of thought and mutual consideration.
Ultimately, I'm convinced I want the same things as the vast majority of people here. Where we seem to disagree is on the *journey*, not the *destination*. But we get so involved, so deep into the discussions, that sometimes we lose perspective.
Your post should help all of us to "zoom out" from the details and appreciate that, in the larger vein, we really are on the same team.
April 10, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. Thought provoking.
It's not President Obama being critiqued I take issue with, it's the manner in which some choose to sling their arrows.
However, the same is true with those who can't seem to abide any well intentioned and factual critique of his (and/or administrations) actions/inactions.
Whatever someone's rationale is for their stance, for me to give it credibility - it must be substantiated with facts. Their position needs to be stated without snark, ad hominem attacks and touting the position of one resource (i.e. pundit/columnist).
One cannot set aside that there has not been a President who has come into office needing to deal with the enormity of the issues (both domestically and globally) confronting Obama and his administration. Not proffering any excuse but truth.
Perhaps we could all take some time and turn the focus inward - query ourselves about what else we can do to deliver positive change besides engage in political discourse.
Thanks Des, appreciated.
April 10, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Sam,
Lots of Presidents have taken over in worse times. FDR had an actual Depression to deal with, not to mention fascists rising in half the world. Lincoln took over when the country was literally pulling itself apart. Kennedy took over when the Soviet Union was expanding and grabbing territory. Nixon was elected in 68, the year when the country was at war with itself and with Vietnam. Carter took over when the US's prestige was damaged by Nixon, the defeat in Vietnam and inflation -- and those times were marked by having an ideological enemy with the capacity to destroy the world. Not to mention Johnson and Truman, who took over Presidencies not their own in a time of national mourning and confusion.
Obama's plate is full, but this is not the worst time in history. When you think about the big picture, it's not even the worst time in memory.
April 10, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey there, hope all is well. Nice to 'see' you.
But none of them had to deal with the technology that allows every move they make to be broadcast far and wide - under the same type of microscope. If they had been, might their 'legacies' be the same? Would their actions and reactions have been different? We'll never know.
The US and world populace has grown immensely; nations are more inter-connected due to trade, global economics and other policies; the development and use of nuclear and other weaponry is now more widespread; actions and inactions are monitored by the seconds; awareness of other lands/regimes human rights abuses is now a much greater part of the equation; the knowledge and now recognized need about our need to develop, implement and maintain energy alternatives is now critical; environmental abuses and repercussions of same have greatly accelerated..........
The list goes on and on.......so, Matt, I stand by my proclamation that the enormity and intensity of issues this administration must consider and address is greater than any other.
April 10, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with much of what you say msa. One thing I would note however, is that, had the financial crisis been apparent for more than a few months prior to BHOs assumption of the presidency, it probably would have facilitated bolder action. By the time FDR assumed office in 1933 the economic depression was in full swing. As such, he truly had a mandate for sweeping changes. In our current situation, there are still a lot of Americans in denial about the severity of our economic predicament.
April 10, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point.
April 10, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, Des. Recommended.
I agree that many of the charges and, worse, the labels slapped on critics of the administration are stupid. Mixed in with healthy and constructive criticism has been more than a little overcooked rhetoric which is also stupid.
A lot of this is a natural consequence of the times. Blogs and discussion threads have gone pretty deep into the weeds on a few extremely complex topics, where there are no clear answers and sometimes little historical precedent. Heavyweights with background, strong opinions, and assertive -- some might say combative -- rhetorical styles end up in shouting matches with others who lack expertise in subject but will fight to the death to hold a philosophical or policy position.
We are lucky to have both here at TPM, and most of the time the self control to keep things from getting out of hand. It does help to remember that we're all pretty much on the same side.
April 10, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect.
April 10, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
As to Charge One: Paul Krugman, first and foremost during the primaries, was a health care advocate. As an economist, he believes that the best way to bring our economy back to life is some kind of national health care plan. It will create jobs, well being for the work force, give us more of a competitive edge, etc. I was an Edwards supporter since 2003 for that reason and for "rewarding work over wealth". Krugman was very much a supporter of Edwards' health care plan and critical of Obama's which was not good. When it was obvious after Iowa that Edwards was not going to be the nominee, he threw his support behind Hilary's health care plan. Just like Edwards pushed Hilary and Barack in the primaries to the left, so Krugman kept pushing the remaining candidates to adopt a real health care plan.
Krugman has not wavered in his belief in continuing with FDR's economic bill of rights. I never bought into the idea that he desperately wanted a cabinet position. Doesn't seem his style to be "locked in the cabinet" as Robert Reich termed it. But I can't get inside his brain.
Howard Zinn says that the job of a politician is to win. The job of a citizen is to fight for what is right. Each of us must choose what they think is right. Many do not support empire on the right and left. They believe in a government of "limited powers and modest ambitions".
Isabel Myers of the Myers/Briggs Type Indicator was a Jung scholar. She wrote a book called "Gifts Differing". She said that we should use the "judging" decision making mode for our own thoughts and behaviors, not for other people. "Why am I doing this?" For others, perception is wiser and kinder. To judge others actions is giving youself God like powers of getting in somebody else's brain. "They are disgruntled Hilary supporters". "They don't understand the cultural significance." "They have faith in his abilities."
Her advice is to not use "they" in your arguments.
As to the radical charge; I was with Jim Hightower last night. He listed off a series of statistics about "radical" ideas like belonging to a union, people wanting health care, nationalizing banks, curbing CEO pay etc. All of these are now firmly the majority views. Nothing "radical" if you mean "crazy". It is radical if you mean from the roots.
April 10, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand why Taplin and MJ are so irked by the criticism from the left, from civil libertarians and from others. There is no evidence whatsoever that this criticism is weakening either Obama or his political position. The evidence, in fact, points in quite the opposite direction. They should be grateful for the criticism.
Criticism from the left allows Obama to adopt moderately progressive policies and yet position himself as a centrist. He told the corporate CEOs that he is the only one standing between them and the pitchforks. If there were no angry economic populists fulminating against Washington and Wall Street, and waving pitchforks, he wouldn't be able to tell them that, and the CEO's political position would be strengthened.
I have been more supportive than many here of the bailout plans and other economic policies, and have tended to resist what I see as a lot of blind, poorly-uninformed, knee-jerk fulmination that aims at extracting short-term, class-based vengeance without a lot of regard for the broad economic consequences of the policies. On the other hand, I confess that much of the finance debate goes over my head, since I am not much of an investor and have never mastered the complex vocabulary of money and trade. I read Krugman and Roubini and DeLong and several other economics blogs and websites, and do my best. But when it comes down to it, I have to admit I haven't the slightest freaking idea whether the Geithner plan, the Krugman agenda or some other plan would be the most effective at restoring prosperity. I feel like I'm smart enough to rebut certain particularly stupid arguments, but usually I'm in the dark.
On foreign policy, I have found the administration's positions to be a mixed bag, promising in some areas and very disappointing in others. I am happy with how he handled this recent trip abroad, including the final Middle East leg of the trip.
Obama is very close to my age. I have read a lot of his writing and speeches, and find that my political philosophy, personal sensibilities and general outlook very closely match his in many respects. I like the man. But I don't participate in politics so that I can find someone to worship or follow, or because I want a symbolic leader who "represents" some vague cultural something-or-other for me. I vote for them so that they will do some of the things I think need doing, and I try to measure their performance by that standard.
Yes, I do like Obama. But on the whole, I suppose I don't like or trust politicians very much, so I am happy to see that there are a lot of critics working hard to keep them honest, whether these critics are right or wrong. I also don't like the culture of Washington, and feel intense, instinctive distrust toward the kinds of people who would want to live and work there, even though I intellectually recognize the obvious need for there to be such people. Every time I see a politician on television, from no matter which party, I experience some degree of stomach-turning disgust. The same is true of all the ambitious think-tankers who have gone to work for the American empire.
I can see that others are responding differently than me to the present times, but I have to say that my overriding response lately has been alienation. I feel alienated from both parties and their dominant cultures. America itself has worn me out. The sprawling, crazy American empire overwhelms me. I am just so fatigued by the endless foreign wars, the economic doldrums, the media, and the irrepressibly ugly, freak-show popular culture. Both the several varieties of conservatism as well as mainstream liberalism seem like dying and decadent political outlooks to me. I feel like we're waiting for something else.
I don't find a lot of soulmates on the blogs either these days. Many once-vibrant blogs have been dumbed-down, co-opted. And even where not co-opted, they are intellectually stagnant. I find myself increasingly intellectually detached from many of the conversations people are having here and elsewhere.
Some of this outlook may be an enduring psychological response to the atrocities of the past eight years, and the depressing realization that the political realities that produced those atrocities are not temporary anomalies, but are endemic to our sick politics and the pathologies inherent in empire. Consider Iraq: I have seen Washingtonians take responsibility in a general way for "bad policy advice", or for recommending courses of action that "weakened our strategic position in the world." But screw that stuff. I have yet to see a single person in Washington express the sort of remorse most normal people would feel for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Can you recall reading a single person say, "Wow, I recommended invading Iraq, and as a result thousands of innocent children were blown up. I'm a participant in butchery." Washington seems like a nearly psychopathic city in which people are bizarrely distanced from the life and death consequences of their actions. They are all trying to impress each other with their ruthlessness, and their easy superior comfort with the tools of power. Apparently, only provincial bumpkins like me worry about murdering people. Not Washington übermenschen.
Finally, there is nothing that turns me off more than writers who appear to be "in the tank." I don't mean writers who honestly support some politician's policies, and write reasoned pieces in defense of those policies. I mean intellectually dishonest hacks, lobbyists and propagandists. The blogs and "new media" are filled these days with the writings of people who are effectively producing sheer propaganda. In some cases, I suspect they are actually being paid to do so. I don't care if this is propaganda for my side or some other side. It smells. I suspect some of the backlash on the blogs is a reaction to this kind of kneejerk cheerleading and puffery.
I was thinking the other day about these lines spoken by Albany at the end of King Lear:
The weight of this sad time we must obey;
Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say.
These are very sad times. We are seeing brutal wars; threats of more war; the enduring effects torture; increased surveillance by a seemingly all-powerful state; economic dislocation; piracy and other breakdowns in general order; raging fanatics on the airwaves threatening violence; people hoarding and burying guns in private arsenals; a deteriorating natural environment threatening most of the species and natural beauty in this world; and a debased and degrading culture that is destroying much of human beauty, and is toxic to elevated art, thought and culture. And we have a government that, despite occasional good intentions doesn't seem to be able to get any kind of real handle on this. Who can be expected to "get with the program"? Isn't it natural that people want to speak what they feel, not what they out to say?
April 10, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
A very interesting point -- that it's for Obama to make use of what we say in order to further his political position (like your example of the AIG rage) but it's not really our job to do that for Obama (indeed, his strategists would rather take issue with our interference).
Just a small part of what you've said but I agree with your analysis over-all.
April 10, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent analysis, Dan K
Criticism from the left allows Obama to adopt moderately progressive policies and yet position himself as a centrist
That is exactly correct and why I support criticism of his policies. I think many of us here abhor the culture of greed in this country and worship of the CEOs/masters of the universe. We are strongly irked by the giveaways to wall street. Many of us perceive that the time is ripe for a populist revival and dramatic shift towards a mixed European socialist system and are worried about Obama's slow and steady approach. We have been waiting our whole lives and don't want to see this opportunity squandered.
But you hit a real nerve with this:
America itself has worn me out. The sprawling, crazy American empire overwhelms me. I am just so fatigued by the endless foreign wars, the economic doldrums, the media, and the irrepressibly ugly, freak-show popular culture.
I share your feeling of Alienation, I am not sure if it is solely America's empire though. To me it is Modernity, or rather Post-Modernity. The pace of change we have all grown up with and witness day to day is astounding. From the technological to the epistemological. There is just so much we keep learning and experiencing. There doesn't seem to be any calm moments, no peace, no stability. Then we are forced to watch as we collectively make massive mistakes (iraq) or tragic garbage (reality tv). Its like a slow moving car wreak, sitting helpless in the passenger seat.
April 10, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever the source, Saladin, I think Obama and much of the Washington establishment will soon find out that many of the global and domestic policies Washington has pursued for decades are now utterly unsustainable. All those megalomaniac eager beavers in Washington think they are actually leading the country. But perhaps some day soon they will finally turn around and notice that very few people are following them anymore. As they begin to come to grips with the reality of vanishing public support and diminishing moral and material resources, they are going to have to start making some very uncomfortable choices about contracting the US's vastly overextended interests around the world.
As Americans increasingly turn away from an ugly imperial culture, corporate-run economic system, militaristic leviathan and dysfunctional government that are toxic to their moral, physical and mental health, and seek freedom and purpose in smaller, more local and more neighborly communities, and more peaceful and ennobling pursuits, Washington's endless schemes and projects abroad will become decreasingly relevant to their lives.
My sense is that something revolutionary may be happening. Its not the kind of revolution that involves people storming the citadels of power with guns and pitchforks. It's a revolution of necessary and healthy institutional decay. The Second World War drew America far out beyond its shores into a realm of extravagant commitments that are unnatural, and an unendurable strain on the democratic roots of national psyche. In some sense we have been fighting a post-WWII aftermath war ever since. That war might be ending. The whole tired edifice of imperial institutions of the postwar American Century is being eaten away from within by disaffection, economic dissolution and fatigue.
Somebody better tell the "best and the brightest", who have been reared on an ideology of service to the empire.
April 11, 2009 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Charge One: Obama's critics are angry Hillary Supporters. Evidence: Paul Krugman supported Hillary and criticized Obama during the primaries
This one especially slays me. Paul Krugman actually supports Paul Krugman's ideas, that's what he does. Anyone who thinks that if Hillary was the president right now he wouldn't be picking apart everything her Treasury Department was doing, and offering what he thought were alternatives, doesn't understand what Krugman's sees his job as. He is not a "supporter" of any elected politician, though he often points out ideas of those which he thinks are promising. Whether they are campaigning or already elected, that doesn't seem to matter to him...funny, I call that integrity to one's own ideas....some seem to think that if you happen to have a prestigious reputation that influences, you should just not do that in order to "support," especially when there is an election going on, never thinking that sometimes one gets a prestigious reputation by being true to oneself rather than being a "follower."
April 10, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess when you're arguing with a mind like Krugman's I guess it's easier to try to ascribe some sort of vile motivation to him than it is to go toe to toe with his ideas.
April 10, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. Let's not forget that Krugman didn't end up working for President Clinton precisely because he was (and is) so willing to chafe. I generally consider this to be a Good Thing (TM), whether or not it puts him at odds with Obama or anyone else.
April 10, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like you have a typo in the headline, it should be "Assholes and Progressive Discontents".
April 10, 2009 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. Fair and balanced.
I'm all for legitimate criticism. I have issue when a progressive does it as a 24/7 cottage industry (IMHO Krugman).
April 10, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the things that bugs me the most is that many of his critics are quick to point out the the problems, the short comings, but rarely, if ever, give credit where credit is due. It would be a refreshing change to see those who disagree with him and his policies acknowledge those infrequent times when he says or does something that they agree with. No one can be wrong ALL the time, but to hear many of these folks, you would think that was the case.
April 10, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
He has a cult following to point out everything he does right. And he has Republicans to tell us everything he does that is not far right enough. If you are left of center your only use is to 1)send money 2) vote and 3) shut up. Oh, and 4) send more money.
April 10, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
That so? Perhaps there is some sort of a bell curve of leftyness.
April 11, 2009 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was hoping we could get through this entire thread without a cult reference.
If you can define a cult, outline a cult's techniques, and actually tie it to the President, then you can lay claim to the word.
Otherwise, STFU.
Do you like it when Hannity says liberals like us have a mental disorder? Do you like it when Rush says liberals are brownshirts? I am guessing you don't... So quit using the same tactics on your PEERS.
April 11, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good post Destor!
I think what it boils down to is that there is a certain group of people who fall into the "Obama right or wrong" category. Anyone who does not remain in that column is treated as a heretic, a radical, etc... by that crowd. They are well meaning but confusing valid criticism with disloyalty and aiding and abetting the enemy. The enemy is the status quo, not those who want the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to win more policy battles more often. Then there are those who like to think of themselves as liberals or progressives and therefore anyone who isn't satisfied when they themselves are satisfied is a wild-eyed radical leftist.
Of course, this is all nonsense.
In the overall stategic sense, for those who actually are liberal/progressive and are interested primarily in the issues and policy objectives as opposed to the personalities there are good reasons to both support and vigorously criticize Obama. Supporting and being critical of his Presidential decisions are not mutually exclusive. Trusting politicians to do the right thing is not only naive it is pernicous and undermines the democratic process by leaving the field to the special interests of the parasite classes.
Obama is a centrist/corporate Democrat. He falls firmly in the middle of the pack on just about everything when measured against other DC Democratic politicians and since securing the nomination has drifted more to the right generally speaking than he has to the left on anything at all. Under the circumstances and given what goes on in Washington, anyone who actually is a liberal/progressive committed to liberal/progressive policies and principles has to be vocal in demanding those things come to pass. It simply isn't good enough to mouth bromides about the art of compromise and so on. If liberals/progressive keep their mouths shut and rely on the goodness and wisdom of Obama we're going to get shut out.
The President prides himself on his conventionality. He is often cautious to the point of genuine timidity. Unless he is pushed, cajoled and understands liberals/progressives really do support the things they say they do, they really believe certain principles are important enought to fight for, and that they really want to see substantive changes and not more half measures then there isn't even a slight chance the White House will support such principles and changes. In the end, the Obama right or wrong crowd ought to thank those who criticize and agitate and push because otherwise none of the change they want Obama to deliver will take place at all.
Back in the 1770's we had these same factions. Some demanded some degree of adherence to the principles and policies the colonists supported. Some counseled moderation and even up to the point of the signing of the Declaration of Independence the moderate faction equivocated, demured from harsh criticism of the King and wanted to avoid conflict. Thank God the sensible moderates failed! I pray for their continuing failure in the life of our country.
April 10, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for this, er, highly objective view..
I think the problem, insofar one exists, is simply "Obama right or wrong" and "Not Obama right or wrong", not one nor the other.
April 10, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a fair assessment.
April 10, 2009 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I fear Obama is one of those who always stands in the center regardless of where the center is. For example, Fox is hosting Bayh and Coburn on Sunday. Should Obama stand in the center between them? If you are always in the center, it's a good sign you aren't likely to change anything that matters or reform anything that's difficult because if you cared passionately enough about anything to have the perseverance to change it, someone would surely call you an extremist. Centrists are as good at obstructing reform as they are at passing reform. They can just as easily be the deal breakers as the deal makers.
April 10, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many of those Tory moderates became successful Federalists and helped steer our government in its infancy. The pro-monarch right wing has been within our government ever since. They simply moved away from the British monarchy and helped create an American empire whose essential imperial nature remains constant no matter who takds the helm.
April 11, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good calls, destor. Leaving behind the insularity of the election cycle is what the Cafe needs.
April 10, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just wanted to add, Destor, I appreciate this blog and the resulting discussion.
Thanks. Rec'd
April 10, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
They want a fuller, faster withdrawal from Iraq
Iraq has now been punished continuously for almost two decades by America. We elected a father/son tag team from an inbred carpetbagging Texas political family, whose ancestral home is up in Kennwefukdapoor, Maine, and in the tween, The Clinton Sanction machine. The second war we waged under false pretenses of cause. It was without doubt, an immoral invasion because of this. Iraq has been devastated by America, and now that a presidential changeover has occurred, you just wanna say, "it's not my problem", and just walk away, come hell or high water one more time for Iraqis. Now that the son of a Bush is finally back where be belongs in Middling, TX, we still have a blood debt, and a duty to honor, to as least try to help Iraq up onto its feet, toward a future they self-determine. Doesn't matter how much your opposed and protested, you're American too, and guilty, of at the very least, impotence.
they don't want to increase our military presence in Afghanistan
You're practising the Arrogant American Three-Monkey Naivete. The Soviet and US flooded Afghanistan with an end of Cold War pissing contest. We trained Arab "freedom-fighters" in the black arts of insurgency, armed them, then sent them packing down through the Khyber Pass and into Kabul. When the smoke cleared, after the Soviet fell, we walked away from Afghanistan, and let if fall deeper into hell. We bear responsibility for the Taliban, the Opium War Lords, and the Freedom Fighters turned international terrorists. Again, Duty to honor for a blood debt. Additionally, our real enemy, the perpetrators of 911, still walk free. This isn't about vengeance or retribution, it's about reality. They will not fade away into the sunset, and if left to their own devices, will come at us again. We created the monster, and are responsible for taking it down.
the stimulus package should have been focused on Main St. and not Wall St.
God, am I tired of dialectical anti-semantics spewed from both sides of the political bipolarity. Don't worry son, yours is in the pipeline, unless you live in one of the few states dumb enough to elect an ideoillogical Republican hammerhead for governor.
want universal healthcare as a priority despite the recession
Wimpynomics: we will gladly have them pay you next generation for our self-beneficiary today.
want the Pentagon budget axed
As nasty as it is, you cannot simply ax the Defense Industry to death, especially in a downside economy. It is a symbiotic parasite; a leech sucking off the economy, that must be excised gradually.
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.
Greenwald has an agenda, and has been dishonest with hurled charges of Obama's unprecedented assertion of power. I believe that "state secrets" and sovereign immunity", have been abused and that these claims need be curtailed, yet it wrong to use untrue hyperbole as the means to effectuate this.
In SCOTUS case law, The Federal Government's Sovereign Immunity was assented to early on in Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 6 (1821): "The universally received opinion is that no suit can be commenced or prosecuted against the United States; that the Judiciary Act does not authorize such suits". United States v. Reynolds 345 U.S. 1 (1953), had SCOTUS rolling over and playing dead with just a whisper of "state secret". Greenwald surely must be aware of this.
Another interesting fact not worthy of mentioning in the ravenings of Greenwall or Olbermann, is that the trial judge, who just had this "unprecedented" and Beyond Bush assertion of Presidential power dropped on his lap in a DOJ motion to dismiss Jewel v NSA, Summary Judgment, Judge Vaughn R. Walker, is one of the few who sit on The Federal Bench with the temerity to have rejected a previouly Bush Administration assertion of State Secrets, in Hepting v. AT&T. I'm not sure how to call it, but it seems odd to me that the Obama DOJ would be pushing the limits of executive power in front of this presiding judge.
we're headed into midterm elections in 2010
Already chock full of the divisiveness I've come to expect from the political bipolarity's left-side. S'OK, it's one of those things that make the Democratic Party, The Lamer of Two Evils.
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.
Unwarranted self-flattery will get you nowhere with me. I'm more inclined to believe the left is beginning to show signs they have become afflicted, just like the right with herd mentality and a propensity to salivating at the sound of a bell struck by Pavlovian puppeteers.
April 10, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Definitely deserves a response pseudo.
On Iraq: Does fulfilling our obligations there necessarily mean leaving a garrison at great expense of blood and treasure to us? There must be alternatives including more help from the international community and making our function in Iraq one more focused on economic and social institution development rather than security.
On Afghanistan: I'm not an isolationist. But I think in the long run we'd be better off building schools and houses than sending fighting brigades. If we can prove ourselves a benign force we won't necessarily be attacked again. Adding more soldiers could swell tension and foment anger. We can't beat them into leaving us alone. (Also applies to Iraq).
On Universal Healthcare: you say I want an entitlement I can't afford? I say it'll cost less than TARP and deliver greater economic benefits. Maybe I'm wrong but we could debate that instead of you dismissing me. This speaks to the Main St./Wall St. spending divide, which is real. The debate here isn't just about who gets what but about the economic effectiveness of various stimulus/rescue plans.
Pentagon: I think you kind of agree with me though we both have to admit that the pork barrel nature of congressional politics makes military cuts hard to implement in good or bad economic times.
On Domestic Wiretapping: We still have to see where this goes but there's no reason that the government HAS to vigorously defend the suit that the ACLU brought. Why not just let the ACLU win?
Midterm elections: Won't be lost because some Democrats criticize Obama. But if they are lost, it'll be harder than ever to push Obama to the left.
On the issue of my unwarranted self-flattery: I was quoting Rosenberg there so he said so nyah nyah. And... "unwarranted self flattery?" I thought we were buddies you angry red ant!
April 10, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . if [midterm elections] are lost, it'll be harder than ever to push Obama to the left.
Triangulation! Dick Morris is already making reservations.
April 10, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, at a Chinese foot massage parlor south of Canal.
April 10, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anything that comes with a "smart" label, of course, is guaranteed to appeal to merit-class bright sparks. Stop Me Before I Vote Again
As Korb says, if we want to leave Afghanistan, we've got to stay for a long time.
As the ironist asks, does that mean if we wanted to stay, we could leave.
April 10, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
a realist could ask the very same question.
To leave at this moment would assure that Afghanistan again became dictatorially ruled by an entity imbued with the murderous fantasy of coercively subjecting the world to its personal version (per.version) of pious righteousness.
April 11, 2009 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Destor, i consider you to be a friend, and truthfully, appreciate the energetic candor of your post/comments. Apology, if you did not understand the post was supposed to be perceived as a bit of teasing. Also, apology for the delayed reply. I've had a bit of a problem with a lower spine (L4 or 5) taking a walk on the wild-side for several months now. It's been a slow and arduous recovery, and my left hip's painometer broke getting up from a short nap this afternoon, so the nap became an unscheduled sleep period instead.
I think you understand what I mean about responsibility and duty towards Iraq and Afghanistan. I am unequivocally opposed to any permanent basing of US military in either country. I also feel that Mr.Bush's Wild Unjustified Ride Into Baghdad has caused far more harm than we can even possibly realise. First and foremost, because he walked away from the good fight up at Tora Bora in December, 2001. It is not easy for me to even contemplate war, supporting one brings me to the brink of madness. I served one tour as a evac medic in Vietnam. Still, the perpetrators of 911 have lost their right to live free in this world. Again, this is not from a need for vengeance, it is simply contemplating reality, and desiring a better future for all humanity. These people will not cease their efforts. This isn't any Fukyammering about a clash of civilisations; and needs to be narrowly focused in its targeting.
Yes, schools and other basic societal infrastructure/services are a major part of what we owe to Afghanistan. Did you know Afghanistan, before it was taken to hell by US/Soviet brinkmanship, was an exporter of wheat? What was done to that nation by the evil empires is almost unspeakably obscene.
I believe that in a modern technologically advanced society, priding itself on freedom, equality and justice for all, health care is a basic right of residency. There can be no liberty in a society, whose members are able to walk by someone whom the vicissitudes of life has thrown face-down into the muddy flood waters. A culture that has elevated avaricious self-interest to primacy is uncivilised. the Wimpynomics quip was two-fold in intent: a reminder of how many distort the issue into "entitlements" and "socialism", instead of just basic humaneness; to lightly chide as a reminder that the basic needs of the citizenry need be front-end funded, always, or they will become sacrificial lambs in future partisan bickering.
America's massive war machine is evil, antithetical to the Dreamtime, and counter-productive in efforts to wage peace on earth. A large standing army is a threat to global peace, and to the people's liberty, because it fosters a use it or lose it mentality, and a tendency to prioritise military options when contemplating problem resolutions. It's true costs in USD and percent of spending is seldom ever portrayed honestly to the public. In the long-run, it drains our wallets far more than the current stimulus package, for the odious purpose of death bringing. The Nation needs to muzzle and chain its Defense spending rapacity, but this cannot be effectuated overnight without creating extreme unsettling volatility to the economy. There is presently just under 1,500,000 active US military personnel. Any cuts in that number creates the same number of new job seekers. Any cuts to procurement directly affects our manufacturing base. We need to insure domestic Tranquility and promote the general Welfare as we ramp the military down to its proper size.
I am a vehement defender of civil liberties, believing that most are universal human rights and not constrained by citizenry, and that because of this, the government is still constrained when acting without the nation's borders. I am appalled by the Bush Administration's pillaging of The Nation's very soul. We are American; We Do Not Torture; and Our Government must just through procedural hoops before it can legitimately take life, liberty and/or property from any human. What the Bush Administration did in the past eight years, needs to be reversed and renounced, but the proper forms must be obeyed, and this written onto stone, or the future will again experience this sort of tyranny. A president, by his initiative alone cannot do this. I do have doubts about the Obama Administrations rectitude of intent towards civil liberties, yet am willing to give them some leeway in the Federal Courts presently, hoping that they are getting solid trial precedent set down as a bar against future encroachments. You need also consider there are conflicting issues too. A President's sworn and implied duties require that (s)he assert Presidential Constitutional Powers, and attempt to enforce lawful legislation. Should Obama be derelict in his honourably sworn oath of office just to expedite rescinding the effects of GW Bush's despicable dereliction of office? Again, the proper forms must be followed, if this is going to get grounded into bedrock as a gift to the future, and this takes time.
And c'mon, the last crack in my previous post was obvious sarcasm. I am much more comfortable in the company of idealists, than I am in the political sty, with my snout in the slop.
-- --
OT: did I really just recently see ads about Ric Flair reentering the Pro-Wrestling Ring. I stopped watching Pro-Wrestling when the Battle For The WWF never materialised, because Vince McMahon took the cowards' route after The World Wildlife Federation proposed a title-match to determine who got to walk-away in sole-possession of the WWF acronym, in a cagematch between The Undertaker/Hulk Hogan and a Polar Bear. I would have even paid to see that event. Ric Flair deserves present-day public accolades, because all by his lonesome, he has managed to keep hydrogen peroxide manufactures economically viable during this recession.
will peace, friend;
the else is incomprehensible darkness
April 11, 2009 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heal that back, friend!
April 11, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I want to address the misconception regarding military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't believe we should have been in Iraq at all, and Afghanistan was woefully mishandled. But... Our military has built in both countries. We pay contractors in local currency to build and rebuild according to certain specifications. POGs like me in the disbursing MOS hand out the cash and work alongside civil affairs throughout the contract from inception to completion.
Personally, I helped pay for three bridges, seven schools, two hospitals, one pipeline, one meat processing plant, and over a dozen roads. I also worked alongside JAG to settle civil suits for death and damages incurred through American violence. The rates sucked, but it was humanitarian.
Disbursers and civil affairs have done this work in Afghanistan, which is now being ramped up. Yes the violence is awful, stupid, and never should have occurred. But the US is rebuilding using local contractors and local labor.
April 11, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm more inclined to believe the left is beginning to show signs they have become afflicted, just like the right with herd mentality and a propensity to salivating at the sound of a bell struck by Pavlovian puppeteers.
That ringing that only you hear is only one of several signs of loss of sanity expressed in this paragraph alone. Seek professional advice immediately if you think that 'Bell and I are:
-- A. Salivating or
-- B. Being jerked around by our strings by some unnamed Svengali.
To rephrase: You seem to be putting out a lot of bullshit lately.
April 10, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL...Lately
I cannot recall you ever stating an opinion about my comments at TPM other than that they were BS.
Evil Dewars Temporizer Using Continuity Farce
April 11, 2009 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Memory failure is another indication that all is not well. Get thee to a mind-groper.
April 11, 2009 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry
Patrick Henry “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
Paul krugman could care less about what course others may take, he speaks about what he believes to be the truth
Patrick Henry “Suspicion is a virtue as long as its object is the public good, and as long as it stays within proper bounds. ... Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that precious jewel.”
Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty?”
It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope and pride. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. …..
Patrick Henry “Are we disposed to be the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
Patrick Henry “They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?
Many gentlemen cry “GIVE OBAMA A CHANCE”
A CHANCE TO DO WHAT?
Patrick Henry “It is vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, peace! But there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
THE CLASS WAR HAS BEGUN, shall we sit idly by and say Give Obama a chance?
I am niether, a progressive, a liberal,fanatical, Republican,
I am an American. And I will guard with jealousy the correct course. Even if it should question Team Obama.
April 10, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with ya!
April 11, 2009 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
why is it important to label obamas "critics"?
how you define me has nothing to do with the fact that when i argue obama has so far failed to "change" anything that counts in washington.
from his cabinet picks to his war mongering to his bush type secrecy he so far has left lots to be desired.
April 10, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to make clear since I'm consistently discontented that my discontent isn't particularly with Obama. He represents quite well the establishment Democratic insiders in Washington and New York in politics and in corporate America. The Democratic establishment just doesn't represent me. You see, I want change.
April 10, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Definitely something to point out there. Obama's not governing in a vacuum. Reid, Pelosi, stand and be counted!
April 10, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you can't have change unless you have the numbers. This is a democracy and Obama's got to get the votes in the House and the Senate or his initiatives are sunk.
April 10, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right... and bluebell is pointing out that it's not just Obama. We need to be working on the entire Democratic delegation.
Guess we have a lot of work to do. But bluebell's short comment might be one of the most important here: it ain't just about Obama.
April 10, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I know this is a democracy. That is why I expect to be represented. Take a state like Iowa. It elects both Grassley and Harkin. According to the centrist theology that should be impossible. Sometimes voters actually respect people who stand for something. We just so rarely give them the opportunity to vote for such people.
April 10, 2009 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, this is not a Democracy, it is a Republic. In a Democracy that consists of two lions and a lamb, and the issue is what's for dinner, the lamb is in trouble. In a Republic, there would be laws that protected the lamb from the majority.
April 10, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very amusing. I'm still smiling at your analogy and I stand corrected, even though you weren't addressing me.
However, wouldn't it still be fair to say that while the minority is protected, the majority rules?
April 10, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Majority rules, but under the constraint of laws that prohibit the majority from harming the minority...
This is an awesome video that explains the difference:
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
April 10, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, I stole the analogy, so it isn't actually mine, but I don't know who said it...should have given credit to an anonymous someone! I'm just not that clever!!!
April 10, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. We are not a majoritarian republic. We are a constitutional and federal republic where the rights of minorities are protected.
That means that even if you are in the minority you have rights and that the power of the majority is checked in numerous ways. This was provided for in order to avoid what the founders called "the tyranny of the majority." The Bush Republicans tried to crush and stamp out this idea with their insistence that "elections have consequences" as a metaphor for "we won so we can do anything we want." They proceeded to act accordingly. Sadly, the Democrats who were at times in both the majority and minority in Congress, didnt have the balls to use any of the checks and balances provided to keep tyrants like Bush at bay. Minorities in our republic do not lose their rights simply because they are in the minority. And that is as it should be.
April 11, 2009 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like all elected candidates Obama is moving towards the center.That isn't necessarily for cynical electoral reasons. Could be because ,also like more other victors ,he knows he has to take the country with him and taking a rigid leftist line would drive away some independents who are possible converts for specific issues.
Whatever.
Of course we should criticize the policies with which we disagree. But be careful about criticizing the person. I like the looks of the guy. Sure he's a politician doing political things but I think if given a chance he'd be more apt to advance my particular agenda than any president since FDR.
Could be I'm wrong but that's not something you can determine in 90 days. Same time next year?
April 10, 2009 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't true actually.
FDR did not move to the center. Upon being elected and grasping what bad shape the counry was in, he moved to the left. LBJ did not move to the center on domestic issues and he didn't change his position at all on foreign issues or the war once he was in office. Bush the second did not move to the center, he moved hard to the right.
April 11, 2009 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. I'm wrong.
April 11, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well done my friend. This is the kind of reasoned and detailed explanation of reality that can improve clarity for all who read it. You took the words right out of my brain.
April 11, 2009 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink