Obama Is Right, His Critics (Right and Left) Are Wrong

To the right, President Obama faces a Republican Party that is now more of a fundamentalist cult, wedded irrevocably to myth and deliberate misinformation, than a political party. (I did my part to make it that way by being a religious right anti-abortion leader and side-kick to my far-right evangelist father in the 70s and 80s, before I fled the Republican Party in disgust with its extremism and worked my tail off to get Obama elected.) To the left President Obama faces an impatient bevy of shortsighted critics.

Where Obama is measured, thoughtful and far thinking, interested in winning long term change the only way possible -- in Edward Kennedy-style increments -- the left, apparently the victims of collective attention deficit disorder and ideological fundamentalism, insist on everything being done today. No, rather, yesterday.

Where Obama offers bipartisanship the right only knows hate, pure and simple. To the right the truly insane, the armed, the deluded and the outright liars dwell.

To the left the impatient and jaded dwell. So what is the last reasonable American -- President Obama -- to do?

Appease neither.

Before continuing a caveat: I know I'm generalizing about the left. Who I'm really showing some exasperation with are the lefties of little faith, the sort of people who are now falling all over themselves to praise Senator Kennedy now that he has died, but who don't have a clue as to how he actually governed: by fighting smart, comprising when needed, and not holding himself up as some sort of paragon of ideological purity. He was willing to give his lifetime to go step by step to a better, fairer, more progressive society. Obama's critics didn't have the patience to even give the new president six months!

In the August 20 Rolling Stone magazine is a conversation about Obama's first six months among Krugman, Michael Moore and David Gergen. The interesting thing is how happy Moore -- the real Leftie "radical" -- is with Obama. Sure he has some differences, but as he put it, Obama is adept at faking right and going left. Moore was much more sensible than Krugman (Gergen was good, albeit starting out from a different place). I think that Moore's view represents a lot of what I hear from Obama's real supporters. (Keep in mind that Krugman was for Hillary, and always doubted that Obama would succeed.)

That said, Krugman and his ilk have started what amounts to an anti-Obama leftist coup that is now begining to seriously undermine the possibility for change by (ironically) harping on the theme of wanting change faster. Obama's leftist critics would all have made terrible Little League coaches! You don't boo your guys in the first inning every time they make a play you don't like or miss a catch -- not if you want to win the game.

While the critics on the left think in minutes the president thinks in years. Where the right thinks of "we" versus "them" the president thinks of "us."

How to understand Obama?

He's the leader that somehow missed the bitterness that deforms the thinking of we culture war survivors of both the right and left. He'd rather win the battle than have the pleasure of instant vindication. And he understands magnanimity -- a concept lost on the right and left.

The president is being asked by the left to stop trying to work with the far right Republicans: in other words all the Republicans these days. I agree. The Republicans have proved that they are more adept at encouraging such outrageous behavior as bare-faced lying about health reform ("death panels") and/or carrying loaded weapons to presidential rallies than at putting forth actual policy. But the president also must do nothing to appease the vocal left in terms of changing his long term incremental strategy. These critics on the left don't know what the words "long term" mean.

You can't trust people who won't admit they are wrong. The shrill left said that Obama's economic recovery program would fail. But the economy is slowly turning around. I have yet to read an opinion piece by anyone on the left who claimed to have had such perfect information on what Obama should have done now saying that maybe, just maybe, they were wrong and spoke too soon.

Instead the critics on the left have just moved on to health care in order to predict doom. They predict that somehow Obama has given away the farm and "wavered" on the public option. Has he?

No, he hasn't. Obama is grownup enough to be playing for the long term tactical victory. It is called politics. He's good at it.

Now take note, all ye of little faith, and email me in four to eight years and tell me I was right!

Health care will be reformed in stages. And somewhere in the next three and a half years of the Obama presidency there will be a public option added (by whatever name). And we will -- thankfully! -- be on our way to a single payer system by the end of the second term in the Obama presidency in seven and a half years.

And by the way the economy will be in great shape by the end of the first term.

By the end of the first term gays will be serving in the military without harassment. Gay rights, including marriage, will be achieved nationwide. And because Obama will have been smart about how to make these changes, unlike the Roe v. Wade all-or-nothing culture-war starting hubris of the left we saw in the 70s, there won't be a second culture war started and most Americans will go along.

The far right will be utterly discredited. The Republican Party is going to be repudiated for a generation. The doubters on the American left will merely look small, impatient and childish.

And I'll bet the critics on the left will be taking the credit for Obama's successes, something they have contributed little to since his election. All the leftie critics have done so far is help drive down the president's poll numbers in a way that helps hand potential victory to the enemies of change. In that sense, Obama's critics on the left might as well be in the pay of the insurance companies. After winning his many battles -- and he will win them -- knowing Obama he'll thank his "supporters" on the left anyway for all their "help." But history won't be so kind. The left and the right will be lumped together in the history books as the people one of our greatest presidents had to overcome to achieve his stunning succession of successes.

Ignore them all, Mr. President. Stick with your long term vision. You are smarter, kinder and nobler than all your critics put together. Bless you for trying to save us from ourselves. Some of us are sticking with you for the long haul and we're grateful.

Frank Schaeffer is the author of Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back and the forthcoming Patience With God: Faith For People Who Don't Like Religion (Or Atheism)

Follow Frank Schaeffer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/frank_schaeffer

Comments

[suzc]

I hang on to the knowledge that when you are infuriating both the Right and the Left you are probably doing just about the correct thing, and governing from the center.

[FINJA]

Obama WILL outsmart his opponents and succeed in the long term. Great post Mr. Schaeffer, I absolutely agree with you.

If we want to progress, we have to take whatever changes we can make as we can make them. We cannot get impatient and rush this. True change does not happen over night!

By the way, just finished "Crazy for God..." and l thoroughly enjoyed it.

[blaqntelligence]

"The doubters on the American left will merely look small, impatient and childish."

Mr Schaeffer, I read your articles religiously and agree with99.999­% of your opinions. This time, I'm not so sure.
I pray our president proves me wrong, I will gladly accept looking small, impatient and childish.
For now, I admit my nervousness with his leadership.

[Skepticat]

Almost every day Obama supporters encounter new trial balloons floated by administration staff containing new watered down health care half measures. The only reason concepts like public option haven't totally been scrubbed yet is that enough voters took the trouble to contact their politicians to demand real reform. Like Mr Schaeffer, I believe Obama is still far smarter than his critics and playing several steps ahead of the opposition. However, I also believe the FDR approach to reform " I like your idea - now make me do it" . Presidents don't just make things happen in a vaccuum. They exploit the focused continuous on-going demand for change so that ultimately they and the congress critters have "no choice" but to give into reform. For change to occur the demand has to be there - if voters don't provide ongoing pressure - who will.

[Inquisitr]

your opinion had weight till I read you considered Michael Moore the real lefty radical.

That statement makes everythign you said in this article not possible to believe.

I sir, am a radical lefty, and Paul Krugman is far more of my mindset than Michael Moore. How dare you.

Obama is betrayed everything he campaigned for. That's all well good and centrist, but us lefties who actually worked for it and got the man elected, we're done.

Kennedy was a man of compromise­..hah. The man who walked away from Richard Nixon and what many considered a good plan?

You speak nonsense and your words have no weight.

[JimReed]

"The left and the right will be lumped together in the history books as the people one of our greatest presidents had to overcome to achieve his stunning succession of successes.­"

Or maybe the history books will record Obama's successes in contrast to the Bush administration.

[the mean in meaningless]

Mr. Schaeffer, may I refer you to Bill Moyers fantastic interview on Bill Maher's (yes, yes, I know) Real Time edition from last week? Or just about everything people like Gore Vidal have to say about the current state of affairs and with special regard to the Democrats (since the GOP is way out there anyway).

Face it, President Obama turns out not to be the one thing people voted for: change.

Bill Moyers is right on the money when he says that Obama should rather lose with a truly novel healthcare reform proposal, or not touch the subject at all. So far, he has actually done the worst job possible. What else is there to get? He's screwing it up for all of us, and worst of all: Many of us naively thought that he was "on our side". We were wrong, he isn't.

[marc04]

I have been listening to critics of President Obama give him strong advice and criticize his decisions ever since he became the President elect. I have been disappointed that it has been the left who has seemed the most critical. I expect the opposition from the right, and I expect it to be fierce, but isn't the left supposed to be supporting the President. I mean, all through the election he said he was going to be bipartisan, and he insisted that he was going to be everybody's President. Now the left seems shocked that he is actually trying to be bipartisan. He is everyone's President, even the crazies.

Health care reform is important, but one must ask how it will be funded and if our economy can take immediate implementation of an entitlement this large. I want health care for everyone too how is it going to be funded? Incremental change is still change, it always has been, just think Amendments.

I am most disappointed that no matter what he does it is never enough. He has only been President for eight months and everyone is acting like this is his second term.

The people on the left also complained about Bush/Cheney forcing their own agenda on the American people and now they are advocating that President Obama do the same thing. I have heard the left threaten to withdraw their support from President Obama but my question is...With supporters like his who need opposition?

[Panglos]

Imagine you are part of a beneficent gang, like New York's Guardian Angels, that has arisen to defend your neighborhood against malevolent persons and gangs. It is the stated policy of your gang and its leadership to attempt to work things out through peaceful means as long as possible. Right off the leader of the chief opposition gang confronts your gang's leader and punches him. Your leader's reaction is to backpedal and offer concessions to the rival leader.

Do you support this strategy? Or do you say, "Wait a minute. The opportunity to work things out according to plan went out the window the second he punched you."?

It's called having a backbone. I wouldn't support such a "leader", and in this all too real case, I don't.

[erpark]

I just read Josh Rosenblatt's blog, Frank Schaeffer should read it. It might help him understand the left's angst a little.

[erpark]

The problem with President Obama as I see it is a question of leadership. Even if people are coming from a position of peace and community responsibility those people still want and expect their leaders to be strong and to have a clear vision. When a leader refuses to take a stand, fight back, or is willing to compromise their vision to gain approval, those who support this leader get nervous. The impression I have is that Obama only wants to be the president who passed HC reform and really does not have a vision of what that should look like. You are right I really do not think Obama is the leader we need, but then he lost me when he gave up “single payer”; he should show some anger some rightteousness and he really should get a press spokesman with a little fire in his belly.

[robcat2075]

I think it's "compromising" not "comprising"

[talkstocoyotes]

"(Keep in mind that Krugman was for Hillary, and always doubted that Obama would succeed.)"


Well, that makes the whole rest of the post unnecessary -- what more damning skeleton for anyone to have in their closet, basement or Rubbermaid storage box than having supported "Hillary"? Who knows, maybe she's to blame for the wildfires in California this week.

Mr. Schaeffer coyly forgot certain Obamafactoids, such as his statement to HRC last summer that he didn't support applying the word "marriage" to same-sex couples due to marriage's 'spiritual' aspects -- which Obama apparently doesn't think can apply to same-sex couples. That went way beyond the standard-issue "no on same-sex marriage but I support civil unions" cliches of the other Dem candidates at the time. People who brought that up were shouted down a year ago; now we're all supposed to all just shut up and not mention any of the disappointments since then. Obama wants the money and votes of gays and their straight supporters but he isn't going to stand up to the homophobic preachers.

That cheap shot from Schaeffer pretty much sums up the situation a year ago, which apparently hasn't changed for some people.

[alphonsegaston]

Yes, talkstocoyotes, you are right. Krugman is always right, IMHO. And of course, since he supported Hillary, well, he was right then too I think. Don't know if she could handle things better than Obama as the right would have really gone off the deepest end if she had been elected. But she has better leadership skills than Obama has, and furthermore makes sense and connects when she talks. We on the left are the stepchildren of the Democratic party, and I think it's time to let Mommy & Daddy know just how we feel.

[nkhogan]

Good post, but too optimistic about gay marriage, gays serving in the military without harrasment and about getting a public option in year 3.

Obama has to get a public option now, not later, or it won't happen. Sorry, that's just the way legislation works.

And while I would love to see same sex marriages legalized, it is a state matter, not a federal one, so I can't see certain states allowing it. And maybe the military will allow gays to serve, but I would bet a million dollars they'll still suffer from harassment. It will take more time to change public attitudes and O has no control over that.

Other than that, I appreciate your post and your optimism. You're right---O doesn't pander to the right or the left and he ends up p"£ssing them both off. And he is a consumate politician and good at politics. So we'll see where this all goes in the next few months.

[Panglos]

Frank, it's one thing to support the President. It's quite another to take cheap shots at the supporters of real change in health care who are concerned about---no, alarmed at--all the backpedaling he's done over the past several months.

The fact is that the behavior of the White House is entirely consistent with having been bought by the insurance lobby and Big Pharma in exchange for promised or presumed support in the 2012 election cycle. The big picture the administration would be ignoring is that, if they blow it on health care now, what will its current supporters vote them into office in 2012 again for? Do they expect the right wing to reward them by voting for them?

[marc04]

Punishing the pharmaceutical and insurance companies will cause a lot of people to lose their jobs...not just big executives but average working people. These companies are large, and employ a lot of people. I think the best way is to negotiate with them and get them to stop discriminating against people, changing the rules in the middle of the game, and denying care all together. The pharmaceutical companies should reduce prices and release patents earlier so generic drugs can be obtained for less.

In addition, we could start taking better care of ourselves so we are less susceptible to increased medical care. Staying healthy and getting regular check-ups is better than waiting until we are sick to get to the doctor. There are already many low cost and co-op clinics across the country that offer low cost doctor visits for check-ups and immunizations.

[Panglos]

By this logic, any activity that employs people is sacrosanct and is to be protected. Do we protect the heroin industry because it employs a lot of people? Would making it legal change anything in terms of whether it was a worthwhile activity to engage in or not? Do we want to always protect the billboard industry despite all the ugliness and visual clutter it contributes, just because it employs a lot of people? Should we protect the tobacco industry at all costs, because it employs a lot of people? (That one's a part of our medical costs conundrum.­)

The question isn't whether an industry employs people, but whether society is better off as a result of its operations. It's a matter of whether the people employed in the industry would better serve society being employed elsewhere, engaging in an activity that actually produces something of value to society, and not detrimental to it. Why resist applying the Golden Rule to the activity where people spend most of their time?

Congressman Anthony Weiner pretty much has this one nailed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz5hG8LqxTI

[kristianidol]

"The far right will be utterly discredited. The Republican Party is going to be repudiated for a generation­."

From your lips to God's ears, Frank.