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
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Brilliant, Frank--perhaps the best article I've ever read on Huffington.
True believers on the left and right are brothers under the skin--they both hate the American government, harbor anti-Semitism and only support free speech when one of their own is speaking--otherwise its fine to shout the "devil" down.
As a lifetime Democrat, the smug self-righteousness and hypocrisy from the far left has made me as sick as the same behavior from the far right. Obama is proving that he is a man of reason, not true-belief, and we are all the better for it. Thanks again for the column!
I have no problem with Obama's picks [aside from HRC, but that is a wait and see -- I think/hope she will be a team player]. They are neither ideologues nor have a personal agenda or so it appears at the moment. Obama has chosen people he trusts to carry-out incredibly complicated and difficult tasks. He wants results not ideologues.
It is said that the secret to success is to have purpose rather than strictly personal ambition. John McCain and Sarah Palin put their personal ambitions above purpose which became clear by the ruthless and reckless way they campaigned. Their attacks were personal. In contrast Obama's campaign was driven by purpose (improving people's lives) and vision (how to get there). He stayed focused on failed "policies" rather than failed individuals. Therein that has led him to choose people who are purpose-driven to implement sound policies.
Dealing with the world's problems: collapsed economies, global warming, hostile entities, 2-military engagements and a host of other conflicts Obama is pulling together a team of people who are best equipped to deal with these problems while simultaneously implementing his vision. Producing results requires pragmatists, realists, thinkers not ideologues.
I think this story and a lot of comments here are missing the point. Partisans, on either the right or the left are supposed to be more extreme than the center so that new policies will be brought up and debated. Though I too get tired of people who can never be happy or content with winning, I also understand that that is the role of a partisan. I don't begrudge those on the far left for holding Obama's feet to the fire if only to remind him that he should not prize "getting along" with Republicans higher than achieving the policy goals that Democrats hold dear. If that is the one failure of the Clinton administration it was that. We didn't get a whole lot of things to show for that presidency and by that I mean permanent structural changes to our society that couldn't be immediately undone by Republicans. The comments on the Left only reflect a recognition of the historic opportunity we have to enact far reaching and lasting change and a fear that Obama won't be bold enough to seize the opportunity. I think he will, but i don't mind the pressure on him to insure that outcome.
accoding to yernannymammy, persuing criminal cases is against BushCo is " the first priority. First things first, delusional
Wow. An I thought republicans were the tone deaf ones right now.
I've got news for you clueless one, maybe you have not seen the news lately, but there is a massive amount of serious problems that are exploding by the moment.
The economy
The bailouts
The auto bailout
Foreclosures
Global Warming
Environmental destruction
Health Care
Energy Independence
The list rolls on and on. Plus we've got Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, pretty much the entire Middle East, Russia, China, Somalia and a whole host of other pots on the stove, all waiting to explode. And someone is going to have to try and undo all the favors Bush is slamming through right now for big business and the religious right.
But prosecuting BushCo is "the first priority"?!?!
Please get a grip, take a nap, and try to rejoin reality sometime soon.
You are so right these arguments are the SAME arguments the right was using against Obama. Association with Ayers and others made him a radical. Now they are saying surrounding himself with Centrist make him just continue the Bush policies.
First of all Bush is NOT a Centrist. Bush is on the Right. Second of all if you notice too they do something else thats like the republicans they PICK and CHOSE which association to highlight. They ignore the progressive picks like Melody like Susan Rice Gaspard and others and focus on the centrist picks to prove their case. Its exactly what the republicans did when they ignore Obama's working with Lugar, Hagel, Cowburn and others and focus on his left associations. Those on the left just flip it.
This is what I keep saying that the left is in danger of becomng Exactly what they hate. They want to shut out opposition they want to silence opposition thats NOT who the left was they were open minded and welcome rigorous debates.
Heres my thing too the reason why Obama's team is centrist is because Extremism on Both sides Cannot be objective competent and practical because they are consumed by ideology
Carol
Apparently they don't see they are acting like neocon evangelfundies only on the left-hey u guz get a clue!!!! u no what happens, u get booted outta office.
You wanna translate your comment into English??
I understood it. Mebbe read it again....?
To whom it does concern: As long as you persist on promoting the culture war and dividing our beloved nation, your a part of the problem, as your post clearly shows, by intent. You could have chosen to make many of your points more eloquently, but made the choice not to. What can one make of that?
Failing to recognise these these nuances under close examination is what causes problems, our biases are hard to recognise and even harder to overcome when applying proper critical reasoning to how we problem solve. Do to the "Curse of Knowledge" it is of utmost importance to proper communications.
Therefore one can agree with everything said, yet disagree with the way it was said, as it creates a differing total concept.
hey frankie--go over to democratic
"Here are a few examples of the fundamentalists of the left trying to make Obama fit their political "theology:""
I'm not from the "left" and often disagree with the democratic view. IMO it was we in the "middle" that gave Obama this election. We believed he was going to implement a new government of change. Silly us - we envisioned a government of change might have some NEW FACES in it.
Instead we got: Ms. "Sniper fire in Tuzla" Clinton @ secretary of state; "Up to his eyeballs in illegal wiretaps" Gates @ CIA; "DLC" Rham @ chief of staff; etc. etc. etc.
This sends several messages: #1 the democrats will be controlled by the DLC faction for the next political cycle - cementing a specific anti-progressive ideology as the continued status-quo. These are the same people who so polarized the nation that the democrats have spent the last decade as total losers.
#2 his rhetoric on civil liberties and the abuses of Bush (and Clinton before him) were not genuine. How can you clean up an agency that created black sites, initiated illegal wiretaps, and directly tortured prisoners while keeping the individual who ran those operations and has overseen a years-long cover up? How can extraordinary rendition be addressed when the Secretary of State's husband created the program?
He's a great campaigner, but his staffing choices create an organizational cluster-f***. This isn't 1864, and Obama isn't Lincoln. If Mitch McConnell and Rush Limbaugh say a choice is good, it's likely a total screw up: the GOP hasn't gotten anything right since 2000.
Yeah, let's just put people in who have no previous experience, no idea what they are doing, and - no matter how well intentioned, likely to make rookie mistakes taht will paralyze this presidency.
OR>>>>
We could actually wait to see how they govern before hurling ourselves off the cliff.
Snap judgments and ideological litmus tests do us no good here.
It's not either/or. One can have experience without the Clinton baggage.
Heck, one can be a Republican WITH experience and represent 'change we can believe in'.
Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar come to mind.
kgb999, I agree with you and I have to say that I'm very disheartened by a lot of these choices thus far.......
BUT, in the name of sanity (this goes under 'the things we cannot change [right now]' category), I will try to be open minded and remain optimistic that Obama's campaign promises will become policy realities of the Obama administration.
I'm still disappointed, though.
Great posting. Obama is keeping his word I don't understand what some people are getting upset about. Who exactly do they want on his cabinet?
Obama is a very smart man. I think he knows the best way to win a war is to disarm his opponent. In order for him to get his policies and agendas passed he will have to reach out to the other side. He doesn't want his presidency to be bogged down with bitter fights and then people will blame him from not getting anything done.
I admire a man who says what he means and means what he says.
Excellent piece! Thank you! I'm sick to death of all these Eeyores. It's one thing to dismiss this sort of thing from the right, but I can't stand reading it from the left.
There was another excellent article at Daily Kos last week on this same subject. I think it was called Goodbye to All My Left Wing Radical Friends. It was written by a life-long member of the radical left who looked around after the election and realized suddenly that her people were not celebrating this transcendent moment in American history, but but nitpicking every little thing that didn't go their way. She posited that the radical left was incapable of anything but negative rhetoric and appears that is absolutely true.
If you guys can't be helpful, at least get out of the way of progress.
We're supposed to be in the new age of truth and transparency. Yet is takes you a lot words to work your way around both. Tell us, what part of this is incorrect?
"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..."
Seems factual enough. Rubin, Summers, and Geithner (let's not forget Greenspan) all led us to the brink. The greatest challenge facing this country is the Economy! Even the war takes a 2nd to that. The deregulation these men pushed (and Rahm with his work for NAFTA for Bill) has given us the greatest meltdown since the Depression. That's just a fact.
Thank you, per usual, on your lucid sight on what's really going on. Always a pleasure to read the truth of the matter. Good day, Sir.
I really don't think NAFTA can be traced to the financial crisis. The bill perhaps most responsible for the financial crisis, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act that led to the credit default swap binge, was silently slipped(with no debate) into an omnibus bill(which are huge bills passed at the end of a Congressional session because they are often the most important) by Phil Gramm in December 2000 after Bill Clinton became a lame duck.
"Fundamentally anti-ideological": Yes. Thank you. I'm tired of all the parsing ("I'm a fiscal conservative but a military liberal, except for health insurance, where I'm partially both."). We've been manning the barricades for the environment for nearly forty years, and all we seem to accomplish is irritating people who are not willing to eat tofu and live in grass houses with a goat in the back yard. And not surprisingly, a large percentage of the shouters aren't that keen on it either. So let's get something done and forget ideological purity.
I trust Obama knows what he's doing.
For now.
BTW
You are wrong about Kucinich:
Most Americans want impeachment.
In fact, Americans agree with Kucinich on Issues more than any other candidate.
The Plutocracy would not let Kucinich debate.
"Most Americans want impeachmen
No, I don't think so. I have not seen one poll that remotely supports that.
"Most Americans" seem to think Bush is an idiot, and my guess is that "Most Americans" probably think at least some of the crap he pulled was likely in some violation of law.
But saying that, people favor the gridlock and rancor that pursuing charges at this point seems to completely overlook the desire expressed this election in moving past partisanship.
You and your poll dependency. It's obvious now what you're all about. Obama won. We're going to punish Bush's crimes. Get over it.
Polls: 52%
http://ame
http://www
So what other lies do you have handy??
Still fighting the primary, are we? Let us know when you move into the later part of the year...
Thank you, Mr. Schaffer - your post was brilliant!
Lest we Forget...
Kucinich for Department of Peace
http://en.
The impeachment of Bill Clinton proved, I think, that this bit of the Constitution is "sooooo eighteenth century." Used as a means to castrate Bill by the GOP-led House, it proved decidedly unpopular among the American people. There are aspects of the Constitution that should be revisited -- impeachment (for its ambiguous reasons) and the "Presidential pardon" (a holdover from the semi-divine position of king-cum-P
What proof do you have that the electorate agrees with Kucinich? Any polls? I have enormous respect for Kucinich. He's a brave man but I cannot recall one piece of legislation he succeeded in passing Congress. Can you enlighten me please?
http://www
Kucinich 31.97% 49364
Al Gore 24.77% 38242
Former Senator John Edwards 15.6% 24078
Senator Barack Obama 13.86% 21403
Senator Hillary Clinton 4.21% 6504
Governor Bill Richardson 4.09% 6309
Other 2.05% 3171
Senator Christopher Dodd 1.56% 2415
Senator Joe Biden 1.12% 1723
Former Senator Mike Gravel 0.77% 1182
The process of change didn’t end with the election of Barack Obama it has only begun. As the President Elect has told us this will be a long and hard journey. It will take all of us working together to make it happen. Do not disparage the pushing and prodding on the part of progressives. Their forward thinking, hard work, and loud voices were indispensable in the election and they will continue to be essential to the process of change.
In the last 28 years this Nation has been pushed, prodded, and yanked into the ditch by Limbaugh, Hannitiy, and the rest of the right wing extremists. The press was a willing accomplice in that debacle. Where were the voices telling them the country is best led from the middle? Where were the voices telling them to be quiet and sit on the sidelines?
This crucial moment in our history is not the time for progressives to be silent and sit idly by. We worked hard (in the real world Mr. Schaeffer) to see that Obama was elected and that work will continue. We supported him in the election and we intend to be heard in his administration. To do anything less would be unpatriotic. The issues haven’t magically gone away. Our voices and our effort are necessary for the good of the Nation
Yes, be a watchdog. Yes, make sure that the progressive promises that were made are actually attempted.
But judge him (and his administration) on ACTIONS, not on the fact that somebody he picked actually worked in a previous administration.
Judgments are being made on actions. The appointment of cabinet officials is the first important action the President Elect is making. In no way should we be reticent in voicing our opinions on the people he is considering. A nominee’s past actions, affiliations and statements are of legitimate concern to those who care about our government. Do not forget that Obama challenged us to once again care, to be involved, to not be a passive electorate. When we voice our opinions we are participating in the process and anyone who suggests we should remain silent doesn’t understand what patriotism is.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
