The Two-way Mirror of Political "Purity"
Back in June, I had wondered what the dynamic would be like here at TPM Café after Obama became the presumptive nominee. It had been so rancorous between the Obama and Clinton camps that I was unsure how things would play out. While there were a few weeks of calm and relative peace among the readers, things heated up with the impeachment and FISA issues. Finally, after a primary dominated by such issues as flag pins, commander-in-chief credentials, and working class “bitterness”, there was an opportunity for the Democrats and Obama to distinguish themselves from the Republicans and McCain. Right? Well, no. But at least prominent Obama supporters such as Robert Wexler, Russ Feingold, and Chris Dodd were leading the impeachment and FISA challenges. This spoke well for Obama, right? Well, apparently no.
Of course, there were many readers who felt strongly about both sides of these issues, and TPM should be an appropriate forum for discussing those opinions. However, it did not take long for me to learn about the new world order here at TPM. Time after time, I would be reading a post that I thought made some valid points, and suddenly the thread would become filled with insulting and demeaning attacks. The general message was clear: anyone who disagrees with Obama’s positions or actions should shut up and get over it. If not, you are an “ideological purist” which apparently is equivalent to a Republican troll.
While these attacks may be directed at the original poster, the reality is that any reader who agrees with the post is subjected to the hostile insults as well. It is ironic that one blogger in particular rationalizes his attacks out of concern for how criticism of Obama may be received by the large, highly-impressionable audience that he believes follows the reader posts. If anything, I believe that the intolerant and insulting behavior that he exhibits is more damaging to his candidate than an honest difference of opinion. But this is beside the point. Obama is a shrewd and tough politician. He can take care of himself without having these self-annointed watchdogs attack anyone who disagrees with him.
Unfortunately, there has been a sustained directive from some bloggers that we must support Obama unconditionally until he is elected president because any criticism can be used by the Republicans to undermine him. After all, the only thing that matters is getting a Democrat into the White House. Given these beliefs, I am wondering why these “rules” were not followed during the primary? Shouldn’t the same concerns have been equally valid? Instead, it was clearly acceptable to attack the other Democratic candidate in spite of the potential harm to the candidate and to the Democratic Party.
It is even harder to understand why these speak-no-evil Obama supporters were so critical of Hillary Clinton in the first place. As most people acknowledge, there was little difference in the positions of the two candidates so it really came down to questions of style, character, and trust. And with Obama’s recent shifts on issues (especially his FISA vote, his naming of Jason Furman as his economic advisor, his speech to AIPAC, his position on NAFTA, etc.), it is hard to argue that Obama is more ideologically principled than Hillary Clinton. And please don’t say that if we had paid attention and done our research we would have known that these were always his views. The positions that he explicitly and implicitly promoted during the primary certainly gave a different impression, which doesn’t speak well to Obama’s forthrightness. While some supporters have recently defended Obama’s campaign pragmatism and political maneuvering, on what grounds did they so fervently oppose Hillary Clinton? Since it was clearly not based on political principle or ideology, I can only conclude that such supporters are “Obama purists”. Their support for Obama is not based on his actions but rather on him as a person. In some cases, there is an almost devotional aspect to their support.
I came to support Barack Obama because of his campaign promises of change and political reform. At the same time, my distrust of Hillary Clinton continued to grow due to her ends-justifies-the-means campaign tactics. In other words, my support for Obama and criticism of Clinton were based on political principles, and I made this clear in my TPM reader posts.
For example, I stated in my first post that “this election is not just about whether a Democrat or Republican wins but if the checks and balances are restored to the three branches of government. … If Hillary Clinton is willing to use lies and deceit to win the Democratic nomination, what assurances do we have that she will not continue to use them once she is president?” In another post I wrote “This is not to say that I will support Obama blindly since I don’t believe that any candidate should be trusted completely. … With Obama, however, there is at least the chance that he will listen to the will of the people and represent our interests.” And after Obama became the presumptive nominee, I wrote “If Obama is elected, our society will change further only in as much as Obama lives up to our hopes and faith in him. But this is where we must do our part. … We have to loudly and clearly make our demands heard for a more progressive agenda”.
Since I wrote these posts, my enthusiasm for Obama has been significantly dampened because of his recent actions. However, I was clear that my support for Obama was not unconditional but was based on my faith in his campaign promises. But faith in a candidate cannot be won through threats and bullying, as some Obama supporters would have, but rather it must be earned. It would also be hypocritical of me to have condemned Hillary Clinton for her win-at-all-costs campaign tactics and not hold Obama up to the same standards.
However, now it is the Obama supporters who are defending the win-at-all-costs approach to politics and are attacking his critics as being “ideological purists”. This is hypocritical, to say the least, since Obama’s primary victory was achieved through the welcome support of such “ideological purists” as the anti-war community, political / campaign finance reformists, and civil libertarians. Moreover, the record-breaking online fundraising that propelled Obama to victory was obtained in large part from the progressive netroots and ideologically-oriented groups such as moveon.org. However, to hear some Obama supporters spin it, those on the left who do not continue giving until it hurts are the worst type of traitors. In reality, I do not owe Obama anything. Rather, he owes me a debt of gratitude. I gave more money to the Obama campaign than I have ever given to a political candidate or, for that matter, to all previous presidential candidates combined. I voted for him in my state primary and I will vote for him in the general election. I have been a strong and outspoken supporter, as anyone can verify by reading my posts. But I still have the right to disagree with him.
Well, not according to some Obama supporters. I find it disgraceful that the very groups and individuals that so greatly contributed to Obama’s primary victory are now treated as pariahs simply because they disagree with Obama’s recent positions. There is an almost patronizing attitude that progressives should be seen but not heard, like children. I think in reality some supporters feel that Obama is entitled to the progressive vote since we supported him in the primary, and they want us to step aside while the campaign turns its sights on the more conservative, undecided voters. If Obama wants to court different voting constituents now, that is his right. He is a politician. However, progressives should not be expected to abandon their principles simply because Obama does. Rather, the Obama campaign should respect all of our viewpoints since it will need the support of diverse communities, including progressives, to achieve victory in November.
In fact, it is unclear which political demographic is being won over with such a public repudiation of the liberal community. Strangely, the Obama campaign seems to be willing to alienate its broad, progressive base in its effort to gain a slice of the smaller undecided vote, which seems to be reflected in Obama’s stagnating polling numbers. And in their effort to squelch further dissent from progressives, many Obama supporters are displaying an elitism that would not seem to go over well with the typical undecided voter, even as Obama himself is trying to shake the stubborn “elitist” label.
For example, some TPM bloggers have accused Obama critics of having no idea how Washington actually works. Apparently, only Washington insiders can understand the complexities of our political system. Some supporters have taken it so far as to say that only lawyers should be qualified to discuss Obama’s FISA vote! But lawyers do not always interpret the law, or even the Constitution, in the same way. Why else would we see such extreme division among the Supreme Court justices or the proclamations by Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo that torture is legal? On what grounds would the ACLU be filing a FISA lawsuit? And by logical extension, only doctors would be qualified to discuss health care issues, only scientists to discuss global warming and energy issues, etc. In essence, some Obama supporters are suggesting that political dialogue and participatory Democracy are just too complex and intellectual for the average citizen.
There also seems to be a pervasive attitude among many TPM bloggers that they are part of an elite group of “political junkies” who are better informed and wiser than the average person. One such self-important Obama supporter asked me in my post on impeachment, “Are you interested in real change? Or are you interested in a purity test?” While this comment is condescending enough, he continued “Sometimes the bad guys get away clean. You've got to be able to deal with that. It's Chinatown. Our hope comes from the new opportunities to correct the wrongs of tomorrow, not in chasing the shadows of crimes committed yesterday.” Such cynicism and amorality is hard to believe. I thought our criminal justice system was all about chasing after crimes committed yesterday, but what do I know? I am a “purist”. However, I wonder if Obama has been given this memo. It seems inconsistent with his recent support for the death penalty for child rapists. Of course, maybe the blogger was only referring to criminal justice for politicians like George Bush who can “get away clean” for the killings of Iraqi children.
I have become increasingly disturbed by these types of arrogant and intolerant statements from some Obama supporters. They have insulted the dignity of fellow Democrats by asserting that most of us aren’t qualified or wise enough to challenge Obama’s positions. However, wisdom is not something that comes with a law degree or Washington insider status or through political blogging. It is gained through our unique experiences, interactions, and culture. Progressives, in particular, have a certain kind of wisdom that comes from being outside the system. As such, the claim by some Obama supporters that progressive dissent is dangerous and naïve is really quite sad. What progressive victory in this country would have been accomplished without popular movements and public pressure that made life uncomfortable for politicians? I think the unfortunate reality is that the Democratic base has been a little too concerned about the comfort of our elected leaders in recent years even as those leaders have repeatedly betrayed our confidence.
I sincerely hope that these Obama zealots do not represent the views and values of the Obama campaign. In fact, I wonder how Obama would react if he saw these things being said on his behalf. I am not sure what Obama’s vision is for the Democratic Party and American society but I had thought that it was about bringing the people into the process and letting their voices be heard. I do not believe that Obama is so disingenuous as to ask for public participation and input and then treat it with disdain. I would respectfully ask Obama supporters to think about whether their views reflect those of the Obama campaign.
Of course, there were many readers who felt strongly about both sides of these issues, and TPM should be an appropriate forum for discussing those opinions. However, it did not take long for me to learn about the new world order here at TPM. Time after time, I would be reading a post that I thought made some valid points, and suddenly the thread would become filled with insulting and demeaning attacks. The general message was clear: anyone who disagrees with Obama’s positions or actions should shut up and get over it. If not, you are an “ideological purist” which apparently is equivalent to a Republican troll.
While these attacks may be directed at the original poster, the reality is that any reader who agrees with the post is subjected to the hostile insults as well. It is ironic that one blogger in particular rationalizes his attacks out of concern for how criticism of Obama may be received by the large, highly-impressionable audience that he believes follows the reader posts. If anything, I believe that the intolerant and insulting behavior that he exhibits is more damaging to his candidate than an honest difference of opinion. But this is beside the point. Obama is a shrewd and tough politician. He can take care of himself without having these self-annointed watchdogs attack anyone who disagrees with him.
Unfortunately, there has been a sustained directive from some bloggers that we must support Obama unconditionally until he is elected president because any criticism can be used by the Republicans to undermine him. After all, the only thing that matters is getting a Democrat into the White House. Given these beliefs, I am wondering why these “rules” were not followed during the primary? Shouldn’t the same concerns have been equally valid? Instead, it was clearly acceptable to attack the other Democratic candidate in spite of the potential harm to the candidate and to the Democratic Party.
It is even harder to understand why these speak-no-evil Obama supporters were so critical of Hillary Clinton in the first place. As most people acknowledge, there was little difference in the positions of the two candidates so it really came down to questions of style, character, and trust. And with Obama’s recent shifts on issues (especially his FISA vote, his naming of Jason Furman as his economic advisor, his speech to AIPAC, his position on NAFTA, etc.), it is hard to argue that Obama is more ideologically principled than Hillary Clinton. And please don’t say that if we had paid attention and done our research we would have known that these were always his views. The positions that he explicitly and implicitly promoted during the primary certainly gave a different impression, which doesn’t speak well to Obama’s forthrightness. While some supporters have recently defended Obama’s campaign pragmatism and political maneuvering, on what grounds did they so fervently oppose Hillary Clinton? Since it was clearly not based on political principle or ideology, I can only conclude that such supporters are “Obama purists”. Their support for Obama is not based on his actions but rather on him as a person. In some cases, there is an almost devotional aspect to their support.
I came to support Barack Obama because of his campaign promises of change and political reform. At the same time, my distrust of Hillary Clinton continued to grow due to her ends-justifies-the-means campaign tactics. In other words, my support for Obama and criticism of Clinton were based on political principles, and I made this clear in my TPM reader posts.
For example, I stated in my first post that “this election is not just about whether a Democrat or Republican wins but if the checks and balances are restored to the three branches of government. … If Hillary Clinton is willing to use lies and deceit to win the Democratic nomination, what assurances do we have that she will not continue to use them once she is president?” In another post I wrote “This is not to say that I will support Obama blindly since I don’t believe that any candidate should be trusted completely. … With Obama, however, there is at least the chance that he will listen to the will of the people and represent our interests.” And after Obama became the presumptive nominee, I wrote “If Obama is elected, our society will change further only in as much as Obama lives up to our hopes and faith in him. But this is where we must do our part. … We have to loudly and clearly make our demands heard for a more progressive agenda”.
Since I wrote these posts, my enthusiasm for Obama has been significantly dampened because of his recent actions. However, I was clear that my support for Obama was not unconditional but was based on my faith in his campaign promises. But faith in a candidate cannot be won through threats and bullying, as some Obama supporters would have, but rather it must be earned. It would also be hypocritical of me to have condemned Hillary Clinton for her win-at-all-costs campaign tactics and not hold Obama up to the same standards.
However, now it is the Obama supporters who are defending the win-at-all-costs approach to politics and are attacking his critics as being “ideological purists”. This is hypocritical, to say the least, since Obama’s primary victory was achieved through the welcome support of such “ideological purists” as the anti-war community, political / campaign finance reformists, and civil libertarians. Moreover, the record-breaking online fundraising that propelled Obama to victory was obtained in large part from the progressive netroots and ideologically-oriented groups such as moveon.org. However, to hear some Obama supporters spin it, those on the left who do not continue giving until it hurts are the worst type of traitors. In reality, I do not owe Obama anything. Rather, he owes me a debt of gratitude. I gave more money to the Obama campaign than I have ever given to a political candidate or, for that matter, to all previous presidential candidates combined. I voted for him in my state primary and I will vote for him in the general election. I have been a strong and outspoken supporter, as anyone can verify by reading my posts. But I still have the right to disagree with him.
Well, not according to some Obama supporters. I find it disgraceful that the very groups and individuals that so greatly contributed to Obama’s primary victory are now treated as pariahs simply because they disagree with Obama’s recent positions. There is an almost patronizing attitude that progressives should be seen but not heard, like children. I think in reality some supporters feel that Obama is entitled to the progressive vote since we supported him in the primary, and they want us to step aside while the campaign turns its sights on the more conservative, undecided voters. If Obama wants to court different voting constituents now, that is his right. He is a politician. However, progressives should not be expected to abandon their principles simply because Obama does. Rather, the Obama campaign should respect all of our viewpoints since it will need the support of diverse communities, including progressives, to achieve victory in November.
In fact, it is unclear which political demographic is being won over with such a public repudiation of the liberal community. Strangely, the Obama campaign seems to be willing to alienate its broad, progressive base in its effort to gain a slice of the smaller undecided vote, which seems to be reflected in Obama’s stagnating polling numbers. And in their effort to squelch further dissent from progressives, many Obama supporters are displaying an elitism that would not seem to go over well with the typical undecided voter, even as Obama himself is trying to shake the stubborn “elitist” label.
For example, some TPM bloggers have accused Obama critics of having no idea how Washington actually works. Apparently, only Washington insiders can understand the complexities of our political system. Some supporters have taken it so far as to say that only lawyers should be qualified to discuss Obama’s FISA vote! But lawyers do not always interpret the law, or even the Constitution, in the same way. Why else would we see such extreme division among the Supreme Court justices or the proclamations by Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo that torture is legal? On what grounds would the ACLU be filing a FISA lawsuit? And by logical extension, only doctors would be qualified to discuss health care issues, only scientists to discuss global warming and energy issues, etc. In essence, some Obama supporters are suggesting that political dialogue and participatory Democracy are just too complex and intellectual for the average citizen.
There also seems to be a pervasive attitude among many TPM bloggers that they are part of an elite group of “political junkies” who are better informed and wiser than the average person. One such self-important Obama supporter asked me in my post on impeachment, “Are you interested in real change? Or are you interested in a purity test?” While this comment is condescending enough, he continued “Sometimes the bad guys get away clean. You've got to be able to deal with that. It's Chinatown. Our hope comes from the new opportunities to correct the wrongs of tomorrow, not in chasing the shadows of crimes committed yesterday.” Such cynicism and amorality is hard to believe. I thought our criminal justice system was all about chasing after crimes committed yesterday, but what do I know? I am a “purist”. However, I wonder if Obama has been given this memo. It seems inconsistent with his recent support for the death penalty for child rapists. Of course, maybe the blogger was only referring to criminal justice for politicians like George Bush who can “get away clean” for the killings of Iraqi children.
I have become increasingly disturbed by these types of arrogant and intolerant statements from some Obama supporters. They have insulted the dignity of fellow Democrats by asserting that most of us aren’t qualified or wise enough to challenge Obama’s positions. However, wisdom is not something that comes with a law degree or Washington insider status or through political blogging. It is gained through our unique experiences, interactions, and culture. Progressives, in particular, have a certain kind of wisdom that comes from being outside the system. As such, the claim by some Obama supporters that progressive dissent is dangerous and naïve is really quite sad. What progressive victory in this country would have been accomplished without popular movements and public pressure that made life uncomfortable for politicians? I think the unfortunate reality is that the Democratic base has been a little too concerned about the comfort of our elected leaders in recent years even as those leaders have repeatedly betrayed our confidence.
I sincerely hope that these Obama zealots do not represent the views and values of the Obama campaign. In fact, I wonder how Obama would react if he saw these things being said on his behalf. I am not sure what Obama’s vision is for the Democratic Party and American society but I had thought that it was about bringing the people into the process and letting their voices be heard. I do not believe that Obama is so disingenuous as to ask for public participation and input and then treat it with disdain. I would respectfully ask Obama supporters to think about whether their views reflect those of the Obama campaign.
