Should Progressives Be Upset with Obama?

In the past few weeks, I've been repeatedly asked by friends and acquaintances, "Well, what do you think of Obama's first appointments?" These various inquisitions gave me a chance to organize conflicting thoughts--which was fortunate, for the Washington Post's "Outlook" section asked me to contribute a piece on this question. The article will appear on the front page of the section on Sunday. But it's already been posted--old media meets new media--and here are some excerpts:

The more things change, the more they stay . . . well, you know. And looking at President-elect Barack Obama's top appointments, it's easy to wonder whether convention has triumphed over change -- and centrists over progressives.

A quick run-down: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who supported the Iraq war until she initiated her presidential bid, has been handed the Cabinet's big plum: secretary of state. And Bush's second defense secretary, Robert Gates, will become Obama's first defense secretary. The Obama foreign policy adviser regarded as the most liberal in his inner circle, Susan E. Rice, has been picked for the U.N. ambassador slot. Obama is elevating this job to Cabinet rank, but he's still sending Rice to New York -- and in politics and policy, proximity to power matters. For national security adviser, Obama has picked James L. Jones. The retired four-star general was not hawkish on the Iraq war and seems to be a non-ideologue who possesses the right experience for the job. But he probably would have ended up in a McCain administration, and his selection has not heartened progressives.

Obama's economic team isn't particularly liberal, either. Lawrence H. Summers, who as President Bill Clinton's Treasury secretary opposed regulating the new-fangled financial instruments that greased the way to the subprime meltdown, will chair Obama's National Economic Council. To head Treasury, Obama has tapped Timothy F. Geithner, the president of the New York Federal Reserve, who helped oversee the financial system as it collapsed. Each is close to Robert Rubin, another former Clinton Treasury secretary, a director of bailed-out Citigroup and a poster boy for both the corporate wing of the Democratic Party and discredited Big Finance. Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board will be guided by Paul Volcker, the former Fed chairman whose controversial tight-money policies ended the stagflation crisis of the 1970s but led to a nasty recession. (A genuinely progressive economist, Jared Bernstein, will receive a less prominent White House job: chief economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden.)

It's no surprise that many progressives are -- depending on whom you ask -- disappointed, irritated or fit to be tied. Sure, Obama's appointments do represent change -- that is, change from the widely unpopular Bush-Cheney status quo. But do these appointments amount to the kind of change that progressives, who were an essential part of Obama's political base during the campaign, can really believe in?

Perhaps Obama is trying to pull off something subtle -- a sort of stealth liberalism draped in bipartisan centrism. But it's understandable that progressives are worried....

So with these hawkish, Rubin-esque, middle-of-the-road picks, has Obama abandoned the folks who brought him to the dance?

My hunch is that Obama has made a calculation. In constructing his administration, he has decided not to create a (liberal) Washington counter-establishment. Instead, he's fashioning a bipartisan, centrist-loaded version of the Washington establishment to carry out his policies, which do tilt to the left. (And good news for the establishmentarians: Having screwed up on Iraq or the economy is no disqualification.) When asked at a Nov. 26 news conference whether his appointments of old Washington hands indicated that his administration was not going to be a festival of change, Obama replied, "What we are going to do is combine experience with fresh thinking. But understand where the -- the vision for change comes from first and foremost. It comes from me." His job, he added, was to "make sure . . . that my team is implementing" his policies. In other words, la change, c'est moi.....

For the moment, the watchword for progressives ought to be a version of an old Reagan trope: hope, but verify....

You can read the conclusion and the entire piece here.

This item was first posted at www.davidcorn.com.

Comments

[bluehaze]

Considering today he just condemned 800,000 Americans arrested each year for simple possession of marijuana to face prison, rape, the loss of the financial aid, the loss of ones drivers licenses, possibly the loss of ones kids and possessions under civil asset forfeiture for what he himself engaged in when he was younger, I say YESSSSSSSS. He has disappointed me on his right wing picks and now he has finished the job on his hypocritical and curt answer to THE number 1 question on his website change.gov question answer section. What a fraud. I won't be voting for him again and frankly I won't be voting to put a democrat in in place of a republican because there really is NO difference. They are both corporate owned. Vote republican and get neocons. Vote democrat and get a republican Gee don't I feel like a fool for expecting anything else. Frankly I don't give a damned about any other issue if I am facing jail or in jail. This is THE number one issue of our time! I don't see to many gays being thrown in jail for their peaceful activities.

[LynnW49]

"Should Progressives Be Upset with Obama?" No. No. No.

[westbrooks01]

I think that lables short-shrift "liberal" "progressive" stereotype. Liberals and progressives are, as a whole, more highly educated than conservatives, and we value rationality. I think most of us educated people will support Obama's choices if we believe they are made openly and fairly and with some thought and reason why they are good picks.

The thing about us, is that we may not totally agree with his choices, but we can accept them as his choice. OUCH THAT CHOICE WORD!!!! BURNNNNNNNNNNN.

[Jezreel]

I think that many commentors in this thread are conflating Liberalism and Progressivism. Liberalism is ultimately a concept of left-wing vs right-wing. Liberals, like Conservatives operate in an us vs them paradigm. Liberals want PEO to be a vindictive, radical, anti-Bush politician. An example is the Liberal response to Obama's pragmatic approach to Joe Liberman. Obama was the attacked and smeared by Liberman. For practical purposes, Obama chose to cut Liberman some slack. But Liberals behaved as though Liberman attacked and smeared them personally and were angry with Obama because he didn't seek revenge.

Progressives represent a contemporary branch of political thought which tends to advocate certain center-left or left-wing views that may conflict with mainstream liberal views, despite the fact that modern liberalism and progressivism may still both support many of the same policies (such as the concept of war as a general last resort).

Obama is a Progressive. Like most Americans, his views are sometimes Liberal, sometimes Conservative and oftentimes centrist. He's not an ideologue. I doubt he ever will be.

[Jazzcomedian]

I used to act on the HBO western "Deadwood" which was run and written by the brilliant, eccentric David Milch. I used to hang out on the show's website and read all the poster's reactions, speculations and advice on where to take the show's characters in the upcoming episodes. And they were always wrong. Hell, even all of us actors couldn't guess where Milch was going to take things from one day to the next. We just knew it would be interesting. He was thinking on another level with regards to drama and human nature, and no one could accurately predict it.

Obama reminds me of Milch. I've seen all the presidential cats from JFK until now, and Obama's by far the most cerebral and politically skilled. The gracious way he's reaching out to the vanquished (Clinton and McCain), the GOP governors at the conference, and his pardoning of Lieberman are all subtle yet dramatic departures from the politics of the last 30 years. The GOP, and far left progressives are going to have to be committed to being perceived as unreasonable, and unwilling to elevate their thinking to try the same political BS with him. It's fascinating watching him spin his web. He's playing chess, and the pundits, media, political strategists, and most of the posters are still playing political checkers. He's being just what he said he was in his books and writings. It's gonna take a while for people to realize that. Then they'll understand him.

[Yermammy]

That's all fine and dandy. As long as he restores the Rule of Law, and initiates a probe into prosecuting this Administration, he can play chess all he pleases. If he doesn't, he's just as treasonous as the administration he's following! It just that simple! Like checkers! :)

[Jezreel]

Agreed. Excellent post, Jazzcomedian.

[TRYKER]

To answer your question Mr. Corn, I'd say we have to see what this administration does before we get upset. DUH
Obama is the cook, stirring together all the ingredients...when he bakes the cake, we can take our taste and see if it is palatable. How long do you think we should let it bake? Maybe a couple of months and a few pronouncements and executive orders at least?
And too , trying to bake a cake in the midst of a perfect storm ought to allow him some leeway from everyone, left or right. Come on.
The garbage is piled up on the streets, and we have one lone garbage handler to get it all out of there...thrashing him as he rounds the corner with the dump truck full of workers doesn't say much about his potential, as it exposes us, the garbage makers.
The campaign went on too long, was too emotionally addicting...now we can't relax and wait and see, we keep after those instant "fixes", the yeah-buts and I told you so's.
He knows the draw-backs of each appointee, he can use that to his advantage in governing them, he'll know what to watch out for and will be keen to any that talk the talk but don't look like they are walking the walk. He said the change comes from him, so until he is in office, who can judge anything?

[Kalifornika]

It took a lot more voters than the "progressives" to make Obama the president of the US. Please, get over yourselves and stop whining like a bunch of progressives.

[Querent]

You are nothing but a troll. I don't even know why you're on this site, unless it's to undermine and divide. Without progressives, Obama would not be President-Elect. Period. Yes, other people voted for him. That doesn't give them the right to call everything we say "whining". You don't even have an argument. All you have is juvenile name-calling.

[Jezreel]

Kalfornika, your comment is spot on, though a little blunt. But nonetheless truthful.

[IndependentTogether]

It's amazing that I've been branded a troll and "Obama worshiper" by some Progressives simply because I do not think it matters that Obama appoints Progressives in his cabinet, and that I think it's childish to complain for not getting something that was never promised or that may not be practical.

That's fine. But the fact remains that Obama is not currently the president. The only thing he can really do now is appoint his cabinet and weigh in on issues without overstepping.

From my vantage point, Obama has stayed true to his word on policies he would support. This steadfastness says to me that he values his word. It is through that prism that I view his appointments; it's highly unlikely that he would appoint anyone that will veer off course. And should anyone veer off course, I'm willing to wait and see how he handles it. If he does poorly, then I will certainly be willing to criticize his actions or inaction. However, none of us will be able to make any assessments until he actually takes office in late January. So, let's wait and see what he does.

That's not being a troll or engaging in Obama worship... that's just being pragmatic.

[Querent]

Nope. You're right. That's not being a troll. Calling other people's opinions "whining" is, though, and trying to marginalize progressives as "loony left" or "ideologues" is, though.

[IndependentTogether]

Actually, I don't have enough power to marginalize progressives. I'm just one person posting my opinion.

Further, if you believe that appointing progressives should take precedence over Obama finding the people that he believes would be best for the job, then you are indeed an ideologue. There's nothing troll-like about pointing that out.

[DaCoach]

I understand the tendency towards skepticism after the Bush years. However, if must be noted that Obama is still only President-Elect. Right now he's appointing people representing all shades of political belief which is what he promised. He's also bringing in candidates with experience getting thing accomplished. Unless you're convinced Obama is ignorant enough to allow others to set policy or act in opposition to him, give it time.

The constant whining from many progressives is getting old already.

[Querent]

The "whining" meme has gotten to the point of being abusive. I think you should stop it. Now.

[IndependentTogether]

So some, the constant complaining about Obama (BEFORE HE'S EVEN TAKEN OFFICE) is much more grating. So, it works both ways.

[MsFeminist]

Whats getting old to this tough Obama supporter and hard hard worker for BO is folks like you who seem to believe that following the leader is the one and only way.

I recall that the Great One says he values those who disagree with him more than yes men. Seems to me that the name calling (progressive? Is that like Bushie, or liberal, or what?) comes mostly from Obama Wannabe Yes men and women.

I'll wave a great flag again for BO in 2012.. Or I won't. I am so sick of those who call names like they know what the h*ll they are talking about. They remind me of neocons screeching in the night. I thought those bloody divisive days were past.
Another veteran for Obama. Or not. As I choose.

[Jezreel]

"The Great One"? The only people I've heard refer to PEO like that are neocons, like McCain and Palin.

[DaCoach]

I can assure you I am anything but a yes man. But it's tiring to suggest that only progressive policy (whatever that is) be implemented. Because someone disagrees with the degree of urgency that a non President can implement doesn't make one a neocon. The last thing we need to do is insist there is only one solution to our problems and that the progressive wing of the country can solve the problems without support across the political spectrum.

[SolarPowerGuy]

"I understand the tendency towards skepticism after the Bush years."

The tendency toward skepticism began in 1991, thank you very much. That was the year that a majority of Democratic Senators voted to give George Bush Senior a politically advantageous, accelerated timetable for Gulf War One.

Clinton/Gore did nothing to ratchet down the skepticism. And then we reach your Bush years, which you acknowledge were a fiasco.

Watching seventeen years of kleptocracy unfold can make a person awfully tired.

[clevelandchick]

We'll see. Some of the centrists don't bother me. I never believed Obama was going to completely extricate us from Iraq. He's even said he'd keep a residual force of 50,000 there which means we'll remain an occupier. It's up to us to fight him on that.

One appointment I am very disappointed in is Eric Holder as AG. Holder was key in pushing through the reauthorization of the Patriot Act and helped Chiquita Banana get away with a slap on the wrist for hiring guerillas murder union organizers and workers rights activists in Columbia. I don't care if he's the first black AG....the guy is a Neocon.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_change/384564

Obama will be making a huge mistake if he doesn't go left on the economy. He'll lose the support of the people for sure. Which is also why I'm disappointed he picked Summers over Stiglitz. It signals that he is more inclined to follow free trade rather than fair trade policies.

[SolarPowerGuy]

"I never believed Obama was going to completely extricate us from Iraq. He's even said he'd keep a residual force of 50,000 there which means we'll remain an occupier. It's up to us to fight him on that."

That's clear judgment, and I respect that. Every progressive should have realized what you did. If we want progressive change from this President, we'll probably have to fight for it.

Now, as to whether a progressive could still have voted for Obama, knowing what you knew -- that's debatable.

"One appointment I am very disappointed in is Eric Holder as AG."

Absolutely. I think Russ Feingold would have been a far better choice for the job. I would be resting a LOT easier at night, if just ONE progressive of Feingold's stature was nominated for an important post in the Obama Cabinet.

[jfor]

It seems that we as a country have become a nation who defends anything a President does or does't do or a nation that criticizes anything a President does or doesn't do. This is certainly true to the Polar opposites of the Clinton vs Bush years, both of these Presidents had plenty of both types of Americands to defend or denigrate them and thier decisions. As a result the majority of us have to live with the never ending circus of division and hate which stifles our growth and future as a nation. There are plenty of reasons to fault Clinton and Bush for the mess we are living in today but no one should get more blame than the electorate that put these men in office and allowed them to politicize every aspect of our government and lives.

[Jezreel]

Most of us are pragmatists and moderates, not Polar opposites of the Clinton vs Bush years. Obama could not have won the election with just those on the Left voting for him anymore than John McCain could have won with just those on the Right voting for him.

[IndependentTogether]

So true. And, those of us who haven't been criticizing President-elect Obama are staying mute mainly because he's not actually the President, yet. We're living in a seriously pivotal time, of which Obama is aware, and we need pragmatism more than anything else. However, this doesn't just apply to the PE it applies to all of us; we must stop bickering over labels and get focused on the seriousness of our issues.

[Violist]

I think we should reserve judgement for his cabinet at least until they actual get into office. The point is whether or not they implement the change he promised.

[SolarPowerGuy]

Recall, in 1992, Bill Clinton promised change too. He also promised to nominate a Cabinet that "looked like America." Clinton's picks did not generate nearly as much trepidation as Obama's.

But even with his more moderate Cabinet, Clinton managed to sell progressive politics pretty far up the river during his first two years.

So, I ask you, how confident are you today?

[rf-hawaii]

The press needs to shut up about Obama's choices and wait for a real story.

They are appointed as subordinates. Why would they all go rogue on him?

Why don't we assume the worst possible outcome in every case?

[SolarPowerGuy]

"Why don't we assume the worst possible outcome in every case?"

Well -- these are Democrats we're talking about. Even if you assume the best about their intentions (and ignore their records), you can count on them to stumble. And when they do -- curiously, they always fall to the right.

[Gib]

Well said.

[XME]

Obama stated when he was running that he wanted to represent EVERYONE, not just the left.

If Progressives don't like his choices, they can be upset as they want, but he does not represent ONLY the left, and they need to try and remember that. They seemed happy that he ran on trying to "bring people together", but now seem a little in denial on what that really meant.

Bush divided the country by being a close-minded "rightie" who didn't give a crap about those on the left. You can be sure that Obama has learned from the mistakes of Bush (and other past presidents), and won't make the same mistakes.

As far as I'm concerned, everyone should be content that Obama cares about more than one group of people! You can be sure that no president will give any one group everything they want AND be successful. Progressives should be happy that Obama will care about many of their concerns, even if they can't have everything they want...that's life. They also need to care more about what his appoints DO in their appointments, than who they believe they "represent" and what they think (assume) that appoints means.

Personally, I believe Obama is making appointments that will appease the right, thus letting him get away with other things that appease the left. Have some patience already...he hasn't even taken office yet folks!

[monicaangela]

Excellent post!!!!!! Well said!!!!!!

[k4obama]

Agree, let the man we elected do his work. Dems only shoot themselves in the foot by whining.

[Jaybot]

Upset? Absolutely! The real question is should they be surprised. If they are, they weren't paying attention.

[rmax53]

Exaclty. Obama never ran as a "progressive" so if he includes some progressives in his appointments, all we can hope for is balance.

[SolarPowerGuy]

How's that working out so far?

[SolarPowerGuy]

Exactly.