Obama's Critics From the Left: As Wrong as His Critics From the Right

When President-elect Obama said he'd reach out to the Republicans and all Americans, he was telling the truth. Apparently some people on the left hoped he was lying. Obama's "sin" in their eyes is that he is keeping his promises.

Other than the perpetually aggrieved paranoid cranks on the far right -- FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, James Dobson etc., -- most Americans (no matter who they voted for) are just glad that someone brimming with confidence, intelligence and good will is in charge of our rescue, at last! (Watching President-elect Obama's recent press conferences, one could hear a collective sigh of relief from sea to shining sea.) Nevertheless, a few critics from the left are now demanding progressive purity from President-elect Obama that is not in keeping with his clearly stated campaign promise to bring all Americans together, and to put governance and competence ahead of ideology. In that sense they are working against the aims of his presidency.

A few progressive critics are bewailing the fact that President-elect Obama's cabinet is "too centrist," or made up of "too many former Clintonites," or that he's working with the Republicans, or that he is "too hawkish on Afghanistan." Turns out some Pharisaical progressives are into guilt by association; "Look at the bad company he's keeping!" they groan. General Jones?! Clinton?! Gates?! The sky is falling!

As someone who escaped the fever swamp of the Religious Right many years ago -- I know fundamentalism when I smell it, be it religious or secular. And the criticisms of President-elect from the left stink to high heaven of fundamentalist orthodoxy, albeit with a "progressive" twist.

Here are a few examples of the fundamentalists of the left trying to make Obama fit their political "theology:"

Chris Bowers writing in Open Left (Nov 21):

"I know everyone is obsessed with the 'team of rivals' idea right now, but I feel incredibly frustrated... Why isn't there a single member of Obama's cabinet who will be advising him from the left? It seems to me as though there is a team of rivals, except for the left, which is left off the team entirely."

Cris Hayes writing in The Nation (Nov 21):

"Not a single, solitary, actual dyed-in-the-wool progressive has, as far as I can tell, even been mentioned for a position in the new administration. Not one."

William Greider in the The Nation ( Nov 25)

" A year ago, when Barack Obama said it was time to turn the page, his campaign declaration seemed to promise a fresh start for Washington. I, for one, failed to foresee Obama would turn the page backward... Obama's [cabinet] selections seem designed to sustain the failing policies of George W. Bush."

And this from Noam Chomsky, the grand old man of the left himself, on Democracy Now!. (posted on Alternet Nov 28)

"Rhetoric we know, but what are [Obama's] actions?... The first choice was the Vice President, Joe Biden, one of the strongest supporters of the war in Iraq... The first post-election appointment was for Chief of Staff, which is a crucial appointment; determines a large part of the president's agenda. That was Rahm Emanuel... again, a longtime Washington insider. Also, one of the leading recipients in congress of funding from the financial institutions hedge funds... Obama's choices... [include] Robert Rubin and Larry Summers... among the people who are substantially responsible for the crisis. One leading economist, one of the few economists who has been right all along in predicting what's happening, Dean Baker, pointed out that selecting them is like selecting Osama Bin Laden to run the war on terror..."

What is the message from these cheerless Scrooges of the left? Joy? Celebration? The hard work of actual governance? Ba Humbug! We don't do winning! We don't do actual governance! We only do permanent opposition! Coal in everyone's stockings... again!

Before I continue please note: There is a line between opposition to say, a specific policy and undermining our new President-elect's overall efforts by casting doubt on every selection he makes (or doesn't make) for his team, let alone pitting his rhetoric against his actions in a manner that implies he is lying. This "line" matters, even if it's fluid and hard to pin down because this is a critical -- perhaps fatal -- moment in American history.

That said... There is a reason that the likes of Saints Kucinich (from the left) and Huckabee (from the right) are not the President-elect: most Americans don't want the Church Ladies of the right or the left running the country. Sunday school is one thing, the presidency another. Our country is not so much "center-right" or "center-left" as fundamentally anti-ideological. (Which, by the way, is one reason why the Sarah Palin nomination backfired so badly for McCain.)

There are two kinds of people, those that allow reality and experience to define and constantly modify their ideas and those who insist that their ideas define reality. The first kind make things work. The second type (be they right wing creationists, or progressive purists) stand on the sidelines wringing their hands and criticizing the doers for their "heresy," because doing anything in the real world always equals compromise, learning and change.

What they of the purist left want from Obama is an ideological orthodoxy of thought and action that does not actually exist, except in their imaginations. And where do they think they are living? This is America and that means that Obama will be trying to govern a country so diverse that Sarah Palin and Noam Chomsky both have a fan base here!

Moreover many of Obama's legion of young and energetic supporters have not heard of, nor do they care about, the Noam Chomskys or James Dobsons of this world. History is moving on. Obama is bigger than the pundits. He's bigger than the movements that have divided us. Believe it or not -- this is a new day.

As Thomas B. Edsall wisely noted in the Huffington Post (Nov 29) in Battle Royale: Center-Right Versus Center-Left In the Democratic Party:

"A close examination of the data suggests that the political and policy-making environment is more complex than either side [in the left/right debate within the Democratic Party] acknowledges, and that thinking in terms of a left-right dichotomy may distort policy options."

Under the surface gloss of the left wing criticism of Obama there is, I suspect, something else: the critic's psychological need to feel indispensable, not to mention superior to those of us who like, trust and will follow President-elect Obama because he strikes our gut as likable, trustworthy and deserving of loyalty based on the self-evident merits of his outstanding character. It's just not in their genes to ever be so "ordinary" as to become team players, even when their side has just won. They would rather be in permanent opposition than ever be accused of -- horrors! -- being mainstream.

Again; I know about this form of messianic mental illness all too well from my own delusional days as a leader in the fundamentalist evangelical world back in the 70s and early 80s. We were proud of being outsiders, yet resentful of not being included, and yet again weirdly and moralistically haughty because of our self-imposed outsider status.

For the fundamentalists of the left, it's no good just getting the job done, let alone doing it in a way that mirrors this diverse, complex and one-size-does-not-fit-all country we live in. From the point of view of the ideologically pure of heart, the only way to get the job done is an in-your-face crusade that humiliates former opponents. This is the don't-forgive-Lieberman "reeducation" theory of political change: it's not enough to just win then change things, you need to do so in a way that leaves anyone who ever disagreed with you punished and out in the cold, furious and plotting your downfall.

Here's the right wing ideologue's nightmare:
What if President-elect Obama keeps being truthful and doing what he said he'd do? What happened to all those on the right who have been proven wrong about things they said during the campaign, for instance the right-wing Jews who said Obama would be surrounded by anti-Semites, and then the first thing he does is make Rahm Emanuel his chief of staff? And what are the right-wing evangelicals, who said he'd be a socialist appeaser and friend to terrorists, to do now that President-elect Obama has appointed a pragmatic economic team, and persuaded Gates to stay on for a year at Defense and General Jones to advise him? And what will the anti-abortion community do when Obama does what he said he'd do and initiates programs that actually reduce abortions by lifting women, families, teens and children out of poverty?

Here's the left wing ideologue's nightmare:
President-elect Obama does not bring the emotional and psychological baggage of my boomer generation's schoolyard fights with him. He meant it when he said he doesn't see a "red" or "blue" state America but the United States of America. He's of the left but without the I-told-you-so smarminess of we boomer culture warriors. He's progressive but without the need to punish former opponents. He won handily but is not interested in putting his political foes in their "place." He actually seems to want to serve all Americans, even the "wrong" kind, even the "other."

President-elect Obama is smarter than his critics and a better and more strategic politician than his rivals. As my friend (blogger and commentator) Frank Gruber wrote to me;

"Every move he makes is confident. He is in charge and thinking ten moves ahead. If I was a rival politician, left or right, I'd feel overwhelmed -- what's he going to do next? It's even more baffling because Obama tells you in advance not only what he's going to do, but what you're going to do. Think about that debate when he told Senator Clinton he was looking forward to getting advice from her after he became president. At the time I'll bet she dismissed that as mere rhetoric. Wrong! Who is going to be Secretary of State? Or what about when he gave that speech at the beginning of the summer of 08 outlining every tactic the McCain campaign would use against him?"

As for we self-proclaimed commentators, we have a President-elect who has more intellectual firepower than all the punditry put together. How confusing! That's good for America. But that's something a whole class of professional carpers will never forgive. And so expect mirror image left/right attacks from the class of talkers to whom the glass is always half empty, because they insist that any water that might be in the glass is inferior if they didn't personally invent it!

One reason that President Obama is going to be a very successful President is precisely because his understanding of the cosmos is that his ideas (political, philosophical or theological) do not define it. That's called wisdom. That's called humility. And that is the very wisdom lacking in Obama's ideologically driven left wing critics, who never seem able to complete a paragraph with the words, "But I could be wrong." That is why their posture is already a crouch of disappointed expectation, even before President-elect Obama has been sworn in!

When President-elect Obama said that he will try to do what works, regardless of the ideological label or where a good idea comes from, he was telling the truth. Most Americans know how lucky we are to have this remarkable, pragmatic, subtle, thoughtful man for our President-elect. Most of us also know how lucky we are that our next president -- unlike our current White House occupant -- is more interested in being a good president than in proving his "side" right about everything. And most of us also know that the stakes are sky high and that now is a time to stand with our new President-elect, come hell or high water or, perhaps, because of the hell and high water we're already neck deep in.

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. Now in paperback.

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

Comments

[dbrog]

Frank, you are right-on as usual. Your writing is clear and succint. Obama will do what's best for the most of us. That's American. That's what the Founders intended to create. Now we just need to educate our citizens in the processes of government. Is it too much to expect that he could be the one to return us to our "Enlightenment" roots? Probably. But I've not seen this much hope in the country since Kennedy. That's good for us right now.

[lafrance]

Excellent post.
I think many did not really listen to what Obama was saying Change did not mean his staff but, policy. And he's said it again last week. Yet many confuse it with meaning personality rather then policy.
He also has said he rejects ideology and tags of left right or center. He wants to govern in common sense and practical solutions devoid of ideology and purity.
We all saw what a resounding failure Bush was governing as a pure ideological president and ignoring the rest of the country. Why in the world would any president following that want to do the same thing???

[McCamyTaylor]

A bunch of people on the left looked at Obama's demographics and they filled in his political positions based upon their own prejudices. It just goes to show that the old adage--when you assume, you make an ass of you and me---is true. Obama has always presented himself as a moderate Democrat with more or less exactly the same positions as Hillary Clinton. Watching the self proclaimed leftists (mostly ivory tower elites who would die of shock if a true working class socialist revolution ever happened in this country and they had to pay the people who cut their grass a decent wage) proclaim that Obama was all good and Clinton was all evil was such a hoot. I might put together a greatest hits from the primary---famous last words that people will never live down about our new Secretary of State. On the other hand, the Republicans have a rule. What happens in the primary, stays in the primary. Maybe the Democrats should learn that, since United We Stand, and Divide and Conquer is the GOP's favorite strategy, and anyone who turns on Obama before he even gets into office and enacts his first policy is a total fool. more concerned about appearances than results.

[NewCenturyWoman]

Bravo! What an analysis and commentary--all in one. I wish more of my leftist brethen would take a realistic look in the mirror and get a glimpse of what they are doing when they write all of those OMG diaries of doubt and fear. It seems, sometimes, that we democrats, do in fact eat our own. Let's be patient, and let 's wait and see what the man we've invested in as our new leader can do for our country. He really needs us now, more than ever.

[lafrance]

It's called looking for a cloud in the silver lining.

[Balzac]

Frank, you're absolutely wrong. You're just taking the easy position of opportunistic centrism.

[Gunga-Din]

Left? Left is Chaves, Lula, Evo Morales. Obama is a soft right wing.

[Z2221344]

That is an utter lack of perspective. By that logic every western nation and political would be right wing thereby rendering the entire political lexicon useless.

[lafrance]

Too bad you never listened to what Obama was saying. He refuses to be into ideology. Get a clue.

[cheforacle]

If he gets universal health care passed, that will be left; if he cuts taxes that will be right. The issue is whether he achieves the agenda he ran on and whether he solves other problems that arise in the interim. All the rest is interesting analysis or, in the case of politics, the kind of scorekeeping that we use in sports contests. It was George Bush's strict adherence to ideology that led us in to the morass that is Iraq and the ironic necessity to eventually have to engage in nationalizing our country's biggest insurer and some of its banks.

[Livvy]

This is one of the best pieces of political commentary I have read since this election.

As a fairly "progressive" person I can only shake my head at those people on the left announcing Obama has sold them out. it shows a level of political laziness that surprises me. They must not have read his books or really done any research in understanding his goals and governening style. They were projecting on to him whatever they wanted to project.

So far I am most amazed that he appears to be exactly as advertised. He is exactly the president-elect I would have expected from reading the Audacity of Hope and while I think he hold many progressive views Obama doesn't simply think in the boxes of left or right. It is one of the things I found so interesting and hopeful about him. I think we have found something I was afraid was gone in our modern age. Real leadership.

[lafrance]

ditto. As a common sense progressive I am more interested in him solving the economic crisis and foreign policy mess of Bush, ending the war and doing health care.
I don't care who he picks for his cabinet. I want him to govern effectively. But, he never claimed to be a far left candidate and anyone who is upset refused to listen to what he's said and wrote.
He is not going to be far left. I never expected that. I expected smarts, ability and trying to do whatever he could to solve the problems.

[JRsNana]

Totally agree Livvy. I have been astounded at the negative tone of the left in the last 4 weeks. I expect it from the right, but the left seems to have just assumed things because of the "D" after his name and gone from there.
I have not been one bit surprised by any of his appointments (oh - ok - Hillary made me go "hmmm" for about 30 minutes). I did my homework on Obama even before he announced he was running and I liked his approach to problems and issues. It's pragmatic, it's inclusive, it's smart.
To think that he was going to choose a bunch of far left progressives with no experience in government to help him govern was ridiculous. That would have required a new slogan "change for change' sake".

[starboymikey]

The way I see it, we can view what Obama is attempting in two ways: as a sell-out or as an attempt to shift the power paradigm of American, and perhaps world politics.

I believe that lasting, progressive change must be evolutionary rather than revolutionary, so I prefer to see the glass has half full, even if it's just one small, perhaps halting step in the political evolution of this country.

Meanwhile, the world is so far from Utopia that we can't even conceptualize what it might look like.

[kallisti7]

As a former left-wing zealot, I couldn't agree more. While the rethugs controlled all three branches of gov't I felt like it was Germany circa 1934. But now I realize compromise is the best we can or ever have done, and that's not a bad thing. The pendulum did, eventually, swing back to the left and that restored my faith that while I may never get exactly what I want I will get at least some balance. What more can you really expect? After a brief "Obama is God" phase I quickly came to my senses and started predicting things like, Obama will never entirely pull our troops out of Iraq. (Mark my words, he won't.) But that doesn't make him an appeaser of the right or a liar. It makes him the leader of the imperialist United States of America.He can't just change everything overnight. No one can. Not Gandhi. Not FDR. Not MLK. Not Reagan. Not Thatcher. Not Clinton. Not Palin. Not Obama. Not anyone. Anyone who believes otherwise is living in a fantasy world. So cheer up lefties, at the very least he's simply NOT Bush. That's worth something. What did you think? Obama was gonna legalize gay marriage, marijuana, abortions for minors without parental consent, get out of Iraq in 18 months, found universal healthcare and give everyone a free rainbow-colored unicorn, too. C'mon. I hope your smarter than that. Otherwise, it's gonna be a long disappointing life for you suckers.

[mauibob]

"Obama will never entirely pull our troops out of Iraq"

That makes his position the same as McCains. That was not his position when he ran. Another lie.

[MarieFara]

See I read sentences like "Obama will never entirely pull our troops out of Iraq", then read a response like "That makes his position the same as McCain's. That was not his position when he ran. Another lie" and all I can think is:

WHAT OBAMA SPEECH WERE YOU GUYS LISTENING TO?

As an early supporter I listened to quite a few of his speeches and I heard "I will pull all COMBAT TROOPS out of Iraq", I also heard "I will leave some residual forces for logistics, etc..."

When did Obama say "I will pull ALL troops out of Iraq" or "I will leave NO troops in Iraq"? People who wanted that should've voted for Kucinich. and for the love of God when did McCain EVER promise to pull troops out of Iraq at all? From McCain I heard "we'll come home in victory" but when is that? what is victory? Can we achieve that in my lifetime? I never got an answer. How can anyone saying Obama and McCain's positions could ever be the same. I'm baffled by some of these comments and can't help but think that people were not listening , which is a scary concept actually.

[cheforacle]

The notion that you make a quote that Obama never said and them try to claim his position and McCain's are the same is representative of what Schaeffer talks about in his piece. You assert Obama is a liar when you falsely attribute a quote to him. What does that make you. And if you lie about what he said, then do you retain the moral right to judge him.

[cheforacle]

I am a big supporter of Obama but I have always believed that he would probably only withdraw most, but not all, of the troops from Iraq. He's even used the term"combat troops" repeatedly as a qualifier to give us a hint - as he did today. He won't legalize gay marriage as it is not really within his authority although I do believe the issue will take care of itself. Young people don't have the same attittude on that issue. Within five years, a few states will legalize and fifteen years from now, people will look back at this time and laugh that it was a barrier we had to overcome. I do think, if he plays his cards right, we will get universal health care within 5 years but, if he did make a strong shift to the left now, it could jeopardize the effort. He will address global warming because we have reached the point that we have no choice and it is actually going to be a net plus for the economy.

[rixter1965]

Contrary to those Christian-Conservatives who seem to think the Founders (despite their Enlightenment credentials) founded the United States as a “New Israel” and based on “Biblical principles,” I have always believed that a crucial Enlightenment principle – BALANCE -- was enshrined in the founding of the United States, in its Constitution, in its politics, and in its development.

When “out of balance,” the United States spirals downward into crisis – as it did at numerous junctures: during the Civil War, for example. The Bush administration had a narrow concept of governance based on a singular ideology and rewards to loyalists and the base.

Balance, however, does not preclude change and evolution. Just to be clear.

I think that “the Left” – like others – projected onto Barack Obama their own vision, rather than actually listening to what he had to say. His decrying of the red-state/blue-state division of the United States (a media tool to illustrate electoral results) meant something. It was "two Americas" that should be ONE.

The Democratic primaries were not a contest among Democrats – for many Obama and Clinton supporters– but a fight to the death, with the loser being cast into the dustbin of history. Again, that mindset does not reflect the vision apparent in so many of Obama’s key speeches because that approach has not resulted in change, but rather in gridlock.

[UncommonSenz]

Well said.

Given he said, repeatedly, that we needed to end this "my side-your side" divide, I don't know why people are crying now that he is doing exactly that.

[jcephrie]

"What they of the purist left want from Obama is an ideological orthodoxy of thought and action that does not actually exist, except in their imaginations."

Nononono. That's not what we want at all. We want people who are smart enough, wise enough, and brave to have been against the war in Iraq from the beginning to finally have a say in the corridors of power. We want environmentalism to be taken seriously because it is a serious issue. We want to end corporate dominance in government. We want to give people health care and save billions of dollars while doing it. You don't get that from the centrists and right-wingers. They've had their chance, and they've messed up. Us lefties want that same chance to put our ideas into practice, and if we fail just as bad or harder than center/right (read: corporatist) then our reality based perception will force us to realize that we were wrong and we'd act accordingly (admit we messed up, change our ideas and move on).

American's are non-ideological and result oriented. If we ever got the chance, Americans would like what they see.

[UncommonSenz]

"We want environmentalism to be taken seriously because it is a serious issue. We want to end corporate dominance in government. We want to give people health care and save billions of dollars while doing it. You don't get that from the centrists and right-wingers."

Really?!?!

Giving people healthcare is not centrist?
Ending corporate dominance in government is not centrist?
taking the environment seriously is not centrist?

Wow... sorry to break your bubble, but those on the left are not the only ones in favor of these things. Not by a longshot.

[jcephrie]

Centrists aren't for universal, single-payer health care. They tend to be for more oil drilling, ethanol, "clean coal," nuclear energy, and war. All things at odds with the health of the planet. Centrism as a philosophy prides itself on not disturbing the status quo, which is a government bought and paid for by big business and other interests. Sure, those espousing centrism will throw a bone in that direction, but only a bone.

[jcephrie]

Replace that last part with this:

If Americans are non-idealogical and result oriented, then they would be pleased with the results of leftist governance.

[starboymikey]

if we (lefties) fail just as bad or harder than center/right (read: corporatist) then our reality based perception will force us to realize that we were wrong and we'd act accordingly (admit we messed up, change our ideas and move on).
________________________________________________________________

This statement just flies in the face of the reality-based world. Human psychology simply doesn't work that way. Note I say "human" psychology, not "left-wing" or "right-wing" psychology.

Do you seriously believe that if we had an extreme left-of-center government that failed miserably, it's adherents would simply throw up their hands and say "well, we were wrong and the neo-cons were right. Let's all join the Republican party now."

Far more likely, what we'd hear is "well, we just didn't run far enough to the left for the majority of Americans."

What we need to focus on is not being right in our beliefs, but in creating change that will actually benefit the entire country. The Bushies have shown what happens when you govern by ideology instead of pragmatism. I'm not prepared to exchange one sort of extreme ideology for another, just for the sake of being in power.

[jcephrie]

They wouldn't say the neocons were right. We recognize failure when we see it. I'm sure some will stick to their guns (errr... implements of pacifism) are go farther to the left, but those people probably held those beliefs before. Notice most of us aren't looking for complete central planning of our economy, and that probably won't change if our ideas didn't work.

[boophus]

I was with you on what our goals should be until you started slandering moderates like me - Corporatist - a fine insult and one that makes me pretty damn angry. Fine you want the democratic party to eject moderates - keep it up. I am sure that without the moderates you wouldn't have a chance at any of the policies you want. Because seriously i am getting really offended and resentful that now that you spent the campaign insulting and alienating as many on the right as possible that now you feel you have to alienate any moderates from your own side because you want what you want NOW without any consideration for the real flesh & blood people who may suffer if we are too rash or for the money spent on ideas that are not negotiated carefully. Certainty is the mark of ideologues who have an idea without proof and want a chance to screw with peoples REAL lives to prove themselves right and demonstrate just how you have exact answer on every question. Why would I give anyone who consistently dismisses my beliefs and ideas a chance... I hate a 'Bums Rush'.

What is so amazing is that you are willing to tear apart Democrats once again to satisfy your own ego EVEN BEFORE Obama is on office. What you are succeeding in doing is pushing moderates like me into looking at any proposals out of your insulting and marginalizing mouth Very carefully.

[jcephrie]

Why don't I get offended when you imply I'm not a "real flesh & blood" person "who may suffer if we are too rash or for the money spent on ideas that are not negotiated carefully?" Maybe I'm a real flesh and blood person who is suffering now?

Now you seem to imply that I'm a democrat. That is offensive. Do you know the philosophies of the centrist groups within the democratic party (the blue-dog dems and the DLC)? I assure you, they aren't worker friendly.

[Rockwell]

Frank, as a recovering Southern Baptist, I agree with you completely about Fundamentalism. Its comes from both extremes of the spectrum. I read an article the other day with some left-wing nut whining that the Presidential Limo got crappy fuel efficiency. I thought it was a paraody at first but the writer was serious. I guess Obama is supposed to travel on a bamboo bicycle or something.

But I must confess that I had my own Oh-No Obama moment with the Liebermann kiss-and-make-up. I'm still angry with that one but with the passage of time I'm at least able to understand the other viewpoint and acknowledge that it fits in with how Obama said he'd govern all along.

What gives me hope is that Obama is for the first time in my memory, the President of all the people rather than the republican or democrat conqueror. If liberals thought they would take over the democratic party and elect their own extreme partisan version of Reagan or Bush, they are sadly mistaken. The movement that brought American's together to support Barack Obama is much bigger than party politics and certainly much bigger than a party faction.

I still have my liberal agenda and I hope that Obama moves on much of it. But most of all, I'm proud to have an intelligent and strong leader moving into the Oval Office. A president for all of the United States.

[Bagger]

Frank,
I love you. All through this political year you have been the one person I could turn to lift my spirits and to put things into a rational perspective. I hope to meet you someday.

[amitabul]

For "non-ideologues" there is a rigid unanimity of opinion here. "Moderates" are often imbued with a strong, even extremist, sense of purity that is based not on fact, but on perceptions that fit one's particular world view. In other words, "centrism" is another ideology.

This author and supporters deal with facts sloppily. They create strawmen, imaginary Obama critics who want "everything purely, rigidly left." In the very examples that were supposed to prove "extremism," we see "can't we at least get just one? please?" Hardly the rhetoric of extremists.

Moreover, ideologues interpret the actions and intentions of their counterparts the worst way possible. Thus, you can't think that Lieberman should lose his privileges because loyalty should be prized, and that hardworking Democratic Senators in line behind Lieberman got the shaft. No, to the centrist, others only protest things because they aren't pure.

Yet, centrists seem to be purer than pure. They exist on a higher plane, where "just wanting what works" never comes into contact with people whose purpose is to make sure "what works" is crushed. Their "pragmatism" cuts through conflicts inherent in a democracy by ignoring them, issuing gauzy propaganda, "we are ALL AMERICANS."

If it is pragmatism you are after, look at whose analysis has been correct. Given their prescient warnings about the dangers of imperialism, unbridled capitalism, a lack of universal health care, and unbridled growth destroying the environment, surely the leftists have something to offer, no?

[UncommonSenz]

So now moderates are the new extremist. Wow... this doublespeak is killing me.

How about this for a moderate (non-extremist) view:

I want to see progress towards the goals outlined in the campaign.

I don't care what the ideology of the cabinet is, so long as they are smart, experienced and the most qualified people out there.

I will judge this administration on its actual progress (or lack thereof) towards the goals outlined in the campaign.

If the administration veers away from those goals, I will demand a reason, and if the reason is not justifiable, I will be an outspoken critic.

If the administration makes progress towards these goals, I will praise it for that, and then demand to know what the next goal is.

I will participate in the public debate when we struggle with the hard choices that will have to be made.

and lastly, I will hope my voice gets heard, I understand that not all decisions will be ones I personally approve of, and I will try not let my disappointment from any individual decision blind me to the importance of making progress on multiple fronts.

There... please tell me what is so "extremist" about that!

[amitabul]

What is extreme is thinking such common sense is limited to "centrists." Maybe, might it be possible, that leftists believe in leftism because they think is it leftism that will "just work" just like moderates think their plans are all about finding "what works"? Thinking that people whose opinions are different than yours renders them insipid and lacking in any semblance of common sense (which is what the author did explicitly, and you implicitly), that's extremist.

Moreover, and more damning, it is extremist to believe that only your group. Since moderates and centrists seem to believe that whatever result is arrived at by their means can be good, they are guilty of being ideological extremists. While centrists pride themselves on "getting things done," what they do is merely find the fastest way to end debate. It basically boils down to a belief that if everyone stops arguing, then our problems fade away.

What was the "moderate" position in February 2003? Send half the Army to Iraq, invade half the country, and set up only seven, instead of 14, permanent bases?

While it may bother the moderates to no end, some of us deem principles like human rights, at home and abroad, to be more important than "let's all get along." Maybe leftists will work harder to get along when their opinions are taken seriously and they are not used as whipping boys for centrists to prove to the right, "see, we're not crazy like those guys."

[boophus]

Nicely turned insult. Offensive and self-congratulatory at same time. Of course everyone who is political has an ideology. AS a Liberal, I do not adhere to a PURE far right or PURE far left ideology. As a Liberal I can see that you can get more done with the more people you have working together. You get more accomplished and it lasts longer when more see the value in it.

I can see it now you wanted what you wanted and you wanted it now and to the exact measure you believe you are entitled. Anyone who disagrees with you is a weakling or an idiot, ... i find it insulting that you assume that only your level of leftness and its positions on issues like Liebermann are relevant and correct. I can list many arguments on these very issues you name. I was opposed to the Iraq war & Aftghanistan as invasions. The environment , civil rights, womens rights, reformatting the military, etc have been a major concerns of mine for nearly 40 years. And the growing power of corporations terrifies me worse than AlQaida. The last 8 years has been Hell but if we are just as intractable and marginalizing then Dems can be thrown out again.

Peace-- I am a lefty - maybe not as much as you- ...I believe in an organic approach to politics so I tolerate ants and spiders and a few snails so I don't use poisons that hurt everything and everyone.

[cheforacle]

If we solve the global warming crisis, I don't care that it was a DLC member like Al Gore who put the issue on the table. If we get universal health care, I don't care if Lieberman and McCain lead the effort. If we get troops out of Iraq, I don;t care if Gates oversees the effort. All of these things are change whose time has come (or are overdue). I don't think many of these things are, or have been, currently centrist but if we get them passed, they will be the new center. If you told somebody in January of 1929 that w/i 50 years, we would have Social Security, Medicare, the EPA and a myriad of banking and OSHA regulations, they would think you were talking about a Communist nation. If we focus on the goals of the agenda that he ran on, we will move the country further to the left at a pace that is currently feasible politically, economically, socially and culturally.

[ManuOB1]

Ummm....I'm a proud far-lefter and I LOVE what O is doing. Just who are these whiners you describe? Name names! I haven't read any credible complaints from legit lefty websites, except for a few disgruntled bloggers who, for all we know, are neocons in cyber drag.

[gxpgxp]

Here's one for you:
http://counterpunch.com/ross11252008.html

counterpunch.com is full of hard-left anti-obama sentiment.