Jonathan Chait, “What the Left Doesn’t Understand About Obama.” Pretty much what I’ve been thinking for awhile. It also explains why I think Matt Stoller is a spineless, wimpy, appeasing dupe of the Right.
Chait is pretty much correct. The only thing he does not touch on is the idiotic public option debate, where we all get to relive the joyous occasion of the screamers claiming Obama strangled the public option to death in the crib (JUST ASK JOE LIEBERMAN!) while never once grappling with the fact that there were never 50, much less 60 votes.
See also “EPA Smog Rule Freakout Is Ridiculous.”
Ditto!
Too bad normal, non-hysterical, thoughtful liberals don’t have a cute moniker like the Firebaggers and T-danistas. We’d be so hip, so cool, so … f’ing nihilistic.
I think electing our first Black President was just a baby step for this Country and that many more steps were needed for our first Black President to govern well. Unfortunately, most of us just plain did not realize how difficult the Republicans would make it for him to achieve a modicum of success. I think possibly even Obama did not think he would have the seemingly insurmountable problems he has had with our racist and obstructionist Congress. The disrespect of this President by this Congress is truly mindboggling and unimaginable. I have never seen any thing like this and I have voted in 11 Presidential elections. The Republicans have shown nothing but bad manners, no respect, no humanity, no devotion to our country, no scruples, no trustworthiness–and, I could go on. In short, the Republicans have let the country down and should be taken to task for it; such as, a Democratic landslide for all positions available in 2012.
Matt Stoller makes the statement that Obama “continues in two idiotic wars”…The question is how do you extricate yourself from two idiotic wars without losing everything that was put into them. Those two idiotic war cost us (or will cost us when the counting is through) over 3 trillion dollars. No matter how much we want those wars to end..we just can’t walk away without something to justify that expense in money and lives. Unfortunately Obama got stuck holding that bag of shit that Bush and his NeoCon buddies created…Does anybody have the answer on how to end those wars without destroying the credibility of the United States? If you do…then please answer up cause I’d be more than interested to hear a solution to ending the idiotic wars.
One of my concerns is that come December and the remaining troops aren’t out of Iraq as scheduled that Al Sadr will start to raise hell like he promised.. then we’ll have a whole new ball game because we aren’t in a position to combat a rested Madi army. A situation similar to the Paris Peace Accords during the Vietnam war where we were supposed to defend South Vietnam in the event of military actions by North Vietnam, but once we were out there’d be no way we would ever step back in to that quagmire. So if Obama isn’t careful Iraq could re-ignite and he won’t be in a position to handle it.
I don’t agree with the reasoning that we have to keep pouring blood and treasure into wars until we stumble into an outcome that makes them worthwhile. My impression is that Obama has been cautious about withdrawing because he’s trying to avoid a “fall of Saigon” total meltdown.
How is suggesting a Primary for Obama spineless and wimpy? Seems pretty brave to suggest that in this current climate and mean it.
You must not hang out on the leftie blogs much. Replacing Obama is the current favorite knee-jerk position; in some places it takes courage to say we shouldn’t. It’s also spineless because it comes out of the magical thinking fallacies that Chait outlined. Those lefties acting like children who want the good candidate fairy to come up with the Magic Democratic President, who can impose progressive policies in the current political climate and with the current Congress, need to grow up before they help hand the election to the Republicans.
We did primary him, don’t you remember? Hillary was on his right and Edwards on his left. He was Goldilocks since no one was going to take Kucinich seriously and Dodd, Biden and Richardson just couldn’t catch fire. We’ve had this argument, and will have it again. We’ve set aside a specific time and place already and it comes in about 4 years. Meanwhile, talk of a Quixotic run at Obama from the left now is not brave, but naive and nihilistic.
The difference between an act of bravery and stupidity is often timing. Both are dangerous, both can be well intentioned. Both are often worthy of accolades … posthumously.
Not really; if you look at their campaign positions on domestic issues, there was barely any daylight between Sen. Clinton and Obama. However, the fact that he was “primaried” in 2008 is irrelevant to the current argument. I don’t see your point.
Dear Mr. Stoller, in this country, when the President enters, we play “Hail to the Chief,” we don’t jump up and yell “Hail Caesar!”
He’s a Presdidint, not a Dictator.
Thanks for those two articles, maha. They were like day and night. And, Stollers is the ‘night’ piece, ’cause it’s usually not too bright at night. And if you want some pure comedy gold anyone, go and read his last paragraph.
I think this is one of your best posts, Maha.
It’s very easy to get frustrated with the seemingly lack of progress until you realize
there are proceedures and road blocks to be negotiated.Obama is not an emperor.
I remember back in the last election, when I thought to myself, “who wants to be the leader of this bag of shit?”
Wars / covert ops in too many places, a tanking economy, no jobs, a petulant, dumbed -down population….constant FOX “alerts”.
It is no wonder that so many elected are not seeking office the next time.
As far as getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan goes, I’m in favor of just getting out, but that presents the hugh problem of a blood bath when those protected by the US no longer have the protection.
perhaps the first step is prosecutions of those responsible for starting the wars in the first place. Fat chance…..
There is no honor in continuing wrong or stupid behavior just so you won’t appear to be wrong or weak.
A revealing post, Barbara. Putting the two editorials up together said more than either could separately. Ignoring content, Chait is at least honest in his style because he discusses the trade-off decisions Obama made. You may disagree with the deals struck, but Stoller is either dishonest or ignorant. At no point does he portray Obama in balance. Example – Obama got in Ryan’s face directly to his face in defense of Medicare. Nowhere does Stoller account for an obstructionist Congress. Chat wrote an editorial – Stoller wrote a hit-and-run assassination.
The reality is that the presidential election will beween a principled moderate and… I shudder that the least appalling option is Romney. If the right is united in their opposition to Obama, this will be frightening close. There is NO PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATE who stands a better chance than Obama. If Nate Silver can show me numbers to support the argument, I will change my tune. (He hasnt, and since he’s scrupulously honest, I doubt we will ever see that suggestion.) Without the numbers to show victory with a progressive is possible, a successful campaign to primary Obama would put Romney in the WH or could put Perry in the White House if teabaggers prevail in the GOP primary. This should sober up even the most progressive activist, but ideological purity does not only blind the right eye. The left goes just as blind.
Exactly. There are arguments out this morning that Chait’s portrayal of the stimulus fight is inaccurate, although not ENTIRELY inaccurate, and I think the “corrected” version still supports Chait’s thesis. I think Obama’s single biggest error of judgment is that he didn’t try harder for a larger stimulus package at the beginning of his administration instead of naively thinking he would be able to get other incremental stimulus packages passed later. But other that that, on domestic issues I think he’s squeezed about as much progressivism out of Congress as could be squeezed.
So now we’re waiting for the “Victory With Honor” moment. Maybe Nobel Peace Prize winner Henry Kissinger can assist our Nobel Peace Prize winner president with creating that moment.
I’m really tired.
Chait’s article is full of details, that do supply a helpful corrective perhaps to the most common form of magical thinking, but I’m just not buying the overall theme. I’ve written many times before that Obama had plenty of chances to make a break with the past, in terms of the people he appointed, and in terms of requiring fundamental change when our system was down on its knees. He plainly did not want any of that.
I will never forget the moment when I first started to smell that something wasn’t right. I was in an airport waiting area, watching him on TV give a townhall type speech about rescuing this or that bank. What he was saying about the banks (and sadly, the details escape me) just did not add up. And I’m thinking to myself – this very smart man, who should know better, is just feeding us (and perhaps himself) a bunch of BS. And well all know what happened next – the banks absorbed tons of taxpayer money, nothing was reformed, and our system continues on to the next crash.
Doug H wrote upstream that There is NO PROGRESSIVE CANDIDATE who stands a better chance than Obama. From my perspective, there is NO progressive candidate, period. Yesterday, I linked to an article by a former GOP operative “who left the cult”. I don’t remember the exact words he used to describe the Democrats, but they were apt, and along the lines of “craven, incompetent, and half-hearted”. If that’s what you mean by progessive, God help us all. President TeaBag, here we come.
Yes, and to not see that is more magical thinking.
I ran into a blog post this morning that called on Obama to “fall on your sword and let a real Democrat lead the way.” But who is that “real Democrat”? Especially one who has even a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected? There is no Democrat I can think of who hasn’t caved on some part of the progressive agenda over the years. There is no Democrat I can think of who seems any better equipped to handle the constraints and handicaps that go with being a Democrat in the White House these days.
Stoller’s idea is even crazier. He is looking back to Williams Jennings Bryant, who was nominated to replace the unpopular incumbent Grover Cleveland on the 1896 ticket. And he lost. But that’s OK, says Stoller, because Bryant’s campaign magically led to the transformation of the Democratic Party and the election of Franklin Roosevelt, 35 bleeping years, a World War, and a Great Depression later.
But in between 1896 and 1932 you also had a strongly progressive (for his day) Republican president, Teddy Roosevelt, and another Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, and the country didn’t go completely to hell until Calvin Coolidge got hold of it. In other words, looking back, the loss of Bryant gave us TR as vice president and eventually as president, followed by Taft and Wilson. A mixed crew, but respectable.
America and the rest of the world does not have the luxury to wait 35 years before we get a Democrat we can support. The country has already been run into the ground by wingnut ideology; if the wingnuts get control of the White House and Congress again, none of us will live long enough to see the recovery from the damage they will do. We wouldn’t be turning the White House over to the moderate (for his day) William McKinley but to William McKinley’s corrupt, ignorant, and sociopathic great-grandchild.
Now, I would love it if congressional leaders came forward to pull the Democratic party in a more progressive direction, but they don’t have to “primary” Obama to do that. They can start anytime they like.
Doug, I’m not so afraid of a Romney administration, but a Bachmann or Perry one does scare me. Like Obama, they will be bound by their constitutional powers; what scares me about the latter two is what they would as “commander in chief”
“Nobel Prize winner” Kissinger is a war criminal.I hope one day he gets his due.
Ditto. True. My complaints have all been affectational and have to do with his inability to share the outrage demonstrably enough to become the seed crystal for change. The truth of Guantanamo does not overshadow the perception and he shares some part in the responsibility for that. To me it says something about his administration. I’d be much happier seeing some sharp elbows used with surgical precision but not the kind we saw from Rahm.
I am afraid of a Romney administration. He made his money gutting companies and sending the jobs overseas. Luckily, the tea party is catching on to him.
Bachmann IS scarier though. I’m scared of them all except for Huntsman and Buddy Roemer who couldn’t get press if he molested a 3 year old.
Has anyone considered how our unemployment numbers would look if we shut down operations in Iraq and Afghanistan? Aside from the military (assuming they would stay employed by the military state-side) there are about 242,657 contractors working in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course they could probably be put to work on our crumbling infrastructure but that would take a while.
The whining Left (it’s in their genes I think) along with the brain-dead Right have done and are continuing to do a real number on Obama. Can we even begin to realize what his life has been like since he took that oath of office to defend the Constitution? Either he’s made of steel or he’s a basket case.
By the way, Swami, when JFK was asked how we could get out of Nam and still save ‘face’ he said, easy, we just say they asked us to leave.
moonbat,
It’s like all of the people on our side of the aisle screaming for a Liberal or Progressive to ‘primary’ Obama.
So, I ask, “Primary him with whom?”
They can’t tell me.
There are close to zero well known national Liberal or Progressive politicians out there, let alone people, with a chance to win the general.
Maybe it’s me, but if there’s a great Liberal/Progressive hope on the horizon, I don’t see him or her. And I think that if that person did pop up, started to get a following, and posed a threat to the monied class, well, my guess is that his/her candidacy would be terminated with extreme prejudice – ASAP (which, in my mind, explains to some degree Obama’s centrist leanings).
And I wasn’t one of the people who thought Obama would be some great Liberal lion – though I think he’s done as good a job as he could with the Congess that he had.
Anyone have any ideas on who can be our Liberal/Progressive hope?
Is there one?
And , if we can get him/her elected, do we get that person a filibuster-proof Senate, and a House without DINO Red Dog’s (nothin’ blue about ’em)?
Exactly. There are forces at work here that are more powerful than the presidency, beyond the constitutional limitations of his authority.
Bachmann/ Perry 2012 ’cause a sinlge thrust to the throat is a faster death than a thousand grams of hopeum.
“There are forces at work here that are more powerful than the presidency, beyond the constitutional limitations of his authority.”
Yeah, and THAT is the scary part.
My old work partner Don used to (and still does) say we don’t really have a democracy; we have a system that allows us the illusion of a democracy.
Every several years we hold elections that are rigged. This keeps the serfs fighting among themselves, leaving the real owners free to do as they want.
I’m not saying I buy that line, but I’m wondering if he’s not on to something.
Felicity, my mother-in -law has the same idea, but worse. She asked me what would we do with all of those returning soldiers with no job prospects.
I was really pissed when she said they should stay over there because we have no jobs for them.
Anthony Bourdain is on the tube now. He gets to travel the world, eat great food and drink his fill. I want THAT job!
Swami, hate to disagree with you, but, since there was nothing to justify the wars to begin with (although possibly a police action in Afghanistan), I doubt there will ever be any justification for them. And, as someone else pointed out some years ago, military leaders don’t make plans based on past expenses and lives (“so that previous lives were not lost in vain” – you get the idea), but on the future obstacles facing them. As to U.S. credibility, is there really enough left in that region for them or us to care?
As long as the teabaggers run the show for the Republicans, Democrats have a strong disincentive to do this. There are conservative-minded independent voters and donors who see the extremism of the Republican Party and are looking to the Democrats instead. Why would Democrats stake out progressive positions that might upset those people?
That’s not an argument if favor of a primary challenge. I think the best way forward is to simply let the Tea Party fall under the weight of its own bad, crazy and unpopular ideas. The return of a strong progressive voice in the Democratic Party may ironically depend on mainstream conservatives retaking control of the Republican Party.
So, I ask, “Primary him with whom?â€
Lieberman!….His motto is…”Have moxie, will travel”..Available for all occasions. Don’t let your political affiliations get in the way of opportunity.
Obama’s only “failing” is that he didn’t put dunce caps on the Republicans and stick them in a corner early on while clearly explaining to the American people why Repubs and their stupid, destructive ideas deserve to be stuck in that corner. In my unscientific opinion, yet based on my understanding of human behavior, this is what “The Left” wanted most of all: marginalize those ugly bastards and begin an education process for the people that, with hope, would catch on and for a long time into the future help keep the Repubs scrambling for the mere 1/3 of the vote that they truly represent. Perhaps to do that and to govern effectively would have been an unrealistic expectation for superhuman achievement by Obama, but after Bush and his gang, I think progressives were simply hoping for Superman.
Theo ….You’re right, there is no justification..What I was trying to communicate is that our government is going to need to put some form of a veneer on both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to make our loss palatable to the American public, or at least to the war mongering dupes who pride themselves on our military prowess.. Iraq’s image is shaping into a “stable middle east democracy” that welcomes our partnership, and Afghanistan will be heaven only knows because the projection date for stability is now at 2017, but the fact is we’ll never achieve any tangible goals in that country.
If Obama is reelected he might be able to kick the Afghanistan can down the road so that the next presidential recipient of that war gets to wear the blame for losing a war if they can’t be creative enough to find a sufficient justification to keep us involved in it.
Interesting comments — there seems to be a drift here toward focusing on re-election and what Obama has to do to gain a second term. What about governing?
Sure, there are constraints on the president’s power. But even in those areas where he is free to act, Obama doesn’t, very much. (Ozone emissions standards, anyone?)
I think there’s a fundamental misreading of the “leftist” position among the pro-Obama crowd: it’s not that he’s not doing enough, it’s the perception that he’s not trying. He won’t push back. he won’t twist arms, he won’t go to the public for support. I don’t know what’s going on in his head (and if I did, it would probably give me nightmares), but the perception is that, having run as a left-of-center candidate, he’s now governing as a right-of-center president because otherwise the Republicans will say mean things.
I think what we’re seeing in this post and in most of these comments is adherence to an incrementalist approach, which Obama seems to favor. Let me make one observation, from the standpoint of gay civil rights: incrementalism can be useful, but as we see from the record of the Human Rights Campaign, it’s not enough — they have become completely ineffective, in spite of all the victories they claim. It wasn’t incrementalism that got us DADT repeal; it was people chaining themselves to the White House fence. It’s not incrementalism that’s going to get rid of DOMA; it’s people suing the government — and it’s interesting to note the administration’s complete about-face on that issue, from hauling out every right-wing slur they could think of in their first brief to deciding that the meat of the law is unconstitutional. That didn’t happen because people were being “bipartisan” or “negotiating.”
I realize that beating up on progressives is de rigeur these days — the one area in which the White House has taken the lead — but I suspect if anyone were really paying attention to what they’re saying (and there are plenty of progressive blogs where you can find something other than “Off with his head!” style commentaries), maybe the dismissals wouldn’t be so automatic.
Oh, believe me, I’ve heard the “he’s not trying” rant plenty of times. And I think it’s magical thinking. It doesn’t fit the plain facts of objective reality. I wonder what planet such comments are coming from.
In other words, actually click the links and read the articles before you comment.
The question is, WHY is this so hard to understand? Myself and maybe a handful of other lurkers on lefty blogs have been pointing out that no, that Obama’s win in 2008 did not equal a “mandate” for progressive change from the “average american”, that the “average american” didn’t know dick from the public option in terms of actual specific policy points, that bitter feelings about Iraq didn’t mean that people were suddenly embracing an antiwar POV and that there is minimal attention being paid to civil liberties and security issues.
But progressives like(d) to indulge in fantasies about how John Edwards (despite his actual reacord!) was going to engage in a “fight”, or how some kind of mythological version of a “liberal” Bill Clinton was going to be better at providing the left a backbone (whatever).
This should not be hard to understand. But over and over these arguments completely devoid of actual history of the Democratic party and the deep-seated conservatism of the American public keep being made. People actually get angry when you utter the words, “center-right” nation. That’s the “default”, so if people are uninformed, that is what they will ultimately choose.
Hunter, with respect, I don’t think you know what you are talking about. For one thing, your statement “(Ozone emissions standards, anyone?)” seems to indicate you didn’t actually read the post you commented on, or at least didn’t read the linked articles.
>>But even in those areas where he is free to act, Obama doesn’t, very much.
If you look at a list of the actual accomplishments of the Obama administration, you’ll see it’s an extremely long list. You may disagree with what he is doing, you may disagree with how he is doing it, but to claim he’s not doing anything, much, is just ridiculous.
>> I think there’s a fundamental misreading of the “leftist†position among the pro-Obama crowd: it’s not that he’s not doing enough, it’s the perception that he’s not trying.
Emphasis there is mine. You’ve said a true thing here, although I think you don’t know it. You are exactly correct, the problem with Obama is that he at times appears to be not trying.
That, I think, is an artifact of his approach to getting things done in the face of unprecidented, unanimous, fanatical opposition from the Republicans. Anywhere he “appears to be trying”, he is met with total opposition, and the peculiar structure of our government is set up such that the Republicans have always had the strength to stop him on any individual thing (except for about 4 months early on)
In other words, if he actually talked a good enough game to satisfy progressives, he would have accomplished nothing.
Now, I do believe that there are circumstances under which that would have been the correct thing to do, regardless of results, in order to at least provide a clear and compelling vision for the progressive worlkdview … but I would argue that when he came into office, with a global financial apocolypse (sp?) looming , two wars to manage and a general mess of a situation on ALL fronts to deal with, that was not the time.
>> I think what we’re seeing in this post and in most of these comments is adherence to an incrementalist approach, which Obama seems to favor.
Speaking for myself only, yes, that is the case. Very, very little in this world has ever been done with big strokes, unless accompanied by a level of violence I find unacceptable. The civil rights campaign of the 60s was merely the culmination of a process that started in 1865.
And, one more thing:
>> It wasn’t incrementalism that got us DADT repeal; it was people chaining themselves to the White House fence. It’s not incrementalism that’s going to get rid of DOMA; it’s people suing the government
Again, with respect, I believe this is complete bullshit. Obama said during the campaign that he was going to end DADT, and lo and behold he done did it. The fact that it was not on an acceptable timeline for some activists is irrelevant. I don’t remember whether or not he said during the campaign that he would attempt to overturn DOMA, but I suspect he might have. He didn’t do it because of lawsuits; he represents the federal government, they have the deepest pockets in the world. If he wanted to defend this thing until doomsday he very well could have, with little to no political or economic consequence.
Given his usual approach to getting things done, my own opinion is that he wanted to do the same thing with DOMA that he did with DADT; force the congress to do its damn job and end it once and for all. He moved on the constitutional front when he realized that with the current congress, there was no way that would ever happen, and while it would be nice to think he’s got another 5 years to work on it, that’s not guaranteed. I don’t know that’s true, but it makes sense.
The fact that he was able to get DADT repealed is, again, the culmination of an effort that started in the 70’s or ’80s, not just (I would say not even primarily) on a legal front, but also on a cultural and educational front. Decades of gay people asserting their right to live with the same freedoms as everybody else, decades of gay people proving they weren’t bogeymen or monsters to be feared, but just normal people like anybody else, decades of people prominent and not so prominent raising awareness by coming publically out of the closet, all of that is what allowed the repeal of DADT to happen, and allowed the president to stop enforcing DOMA.
Activists are extremely important to that process, critical to the process, but one set of activists chaining themselves to the whitehouse on one occasion accomplished nothing but add another drop in the bucket. Decades of such bucket drops is what did it.
-Ian
No offense, but the cries of “he’s not trying” are one of the things that gets you tagged as fundamentally unserious because there’s about a nickel’s worth of astute analysis in such a phrase. What does “trying” consist of, other than trying to get stuff through Congress? What you mean is that Obama’s Administration often chooses to pass “something” rather than gambling on theatrics and the possibility of getting “nothing” in return for a “bold stand”. You may value a “bold stand”, rather than weaksauce policy. But that’s a value judgment that’s based on a lot of different factors — like whether or not you’ll be personally affected by even small changes.
Ian, Maha, Paula:
I’m talking about perceptions here, not my own reaction. And yes, Ian, when I said “the perception that he’s not trying,” I knew exactly what I was saying. It’s a pity none of you bothered to think about what I meant. And Maha, that may be magical thinking, but I’ll throw your own slap back at you — bother to read what I actually wrote. Paula, same goes for you — I never claimed that “he’s not trying” represented any sort of astute analysis — I said it was a perception. Do you understand the difference? I’d rather you not take me as a cardboard cut-out of “the left” because I don’t really fit there very well.
And one note about DADT repeal — the assertion that Obama was somehow the prime mover in that represents its own bit of magical thinking. He was going to wait until this year, when, as it turns out, there would have been no hope of getting that bill passed. If you want to credit repeal, look to Congress. Sure, maybe that was his what he wanted, but the perception is — and there’s that word again — that he wasn’t ready to move and Congress took the ball away from him. Maybe that was his strategy all along, but it’s that sort of thing that leads to the idea that he’s a weak president — and that’s not necessarily my idea, or the hard-core progressive take, that’s looking to be an across-the-board opinion. Fortunately, the public seems to feel better about him than any of the alternatives, but the public is notably mutable in its opinions.
What the bleep is there to think about? You’re saying something that is contradicted by facts. If you want to make an argument why the facts do not matter please do so, but don’t expect people’s knees to jerk and agree with you just because you’ve spouted the conventional wisdom of FireDogLake. This ain’t FireDogLake.
If you want to argue that the President could have been more skillful at handling Congress or that he’s made some strategic misjudgments, OK. That’s reasonable. If you want to argue that he could have done a better job communicating to the people, OK, that’s reasonable. If you disagree with many of his policy decisions I respect that, also. But to say he’s not even trying is just knee-jerk brainless groupthink talking, and I don’t put up with that here.