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

[Stephen C. Rose - Huffpost Blogger]

Good points. I think the Left has a proprietary attitude toward Barack in spite of manifold evidence of his centrist approach. They were not solely responsible for his election. In fact I think it could be argued that he won with center votes.

As one who witnessed at first hand the events of 1968 I can testify to the consequences of polarization. It led both parties to the same trough and us into the messes of the last 40 years. Therefore I am prepared to say, Not this time.

[canucklivinginUSA]

Exactly, Stephen. I am from a generation that didn't go through all that culture wars(like Obama), so to us all that culture war makes no sense to us. If you listen to the we generation(which I am a partial member of), we want unity, not division. We are tired of that nonsense. Some of you really to listen to what my generation are telling you. Enough with all the division, we don't want it

[nellie]

P.S. Very well stated, Mr. Schaeffer. Another excellent article with a common sense take on things.

[nellie]

What is most unreasonable about these complaints is that Obama hasn't even taken office. He's taken no actions at all for people to evaluate. The individuals he selects will be following his policy lead, not the other way around, as all this criticism implies. I would almost charge that it's racists, as if Obama will not provide the strong leadership that is obviously his style. But after eight years of George Bush, people are probably just equal parts paranoid and overzealous.

[dryrock]

Well put, and from someone who's 'been there'. (Though raised RC, I too spent a couple of years in college attending AG churches.) My attraction to Obama has been his sense of what's practical - some prefer the word pragmatic, which is fine with me. The nation is in an immeasurable quagmire, and staffing the White House with ideological purists going forward will not result in any better outcome than staffing the White House with ideological purists has done for us for the last eight years. Do I give a blanket agreement to all of his choices ? NO! But I don't expect to. I voted in large part for Obama because he is not an ideological purist. He doesn't have an ideological position to defend or promote, except perhaps to run the country well, keep it safe, and with luck make it prosperous again.

[allonfla]

Bravo! Bravo! You have put to paper my exact feelings and frustrations about this. I just left three long comments on TPM for one member who fits your description of leftie fundamentalist - and I still didn't say it better than you just did.

[Thucydides Jr.]

This seems to be yet another article where moving to the left seems to be a bad thing, but Bush's 8 years of moving to the right seemed A-OK with much of the media.

I'd feel more comfortable with a Repub in the Sec Def spot if Republican presidents would start putting Dems in Sec Environment or Sec Health and Human services. But they don't. And no one says a word.

So I disagree with this writer who compares the Nation and Open Left to James Dobson and Rush Limbaugh. Not even close. Noam Chomsky is a better example, but that is one out of 4 comparisons the writer even got close.

We need a progressive government, not a center or center right government. I think it is pretty clear that what is not working is the current military establishment, and protecting the established Washington Elite. I have high hopes for Mr. Obama, but the first steps of any endeavor are indeed the most crucial. I feel he is being too conservative with his foreign policy choices, which will lock us into more off the same cricle of violence that we have now.

And tone and direction of his administration are being set now, so waiting til 20 Jan to give feedback is too late.

[Hawka]

Think about it in this sense then, a lot of progressive ideology back 10 or 20 years ago is now mainstream, part of the center ideology. Universal Health Care, Climate Change, Environmental protection, regulation of the economy, public works and education, withdrawal from Iraq etc. That's something that needs to be noted and recognized in PE Obama's shaping of his policies.

[canucklivinginUSA]

So, you are prepare to say a big F U to the people who didn't vote for him but have decided to give him a chance? How did it feel when BOOSh gave you the bird and said he was going to only please his base? I know how I felt and I am not ready to do the same to the other side. And please tell me, what would you do with the military establishment when in time of war?

[several]

I love it that as a liberal one of my favorite bloggers on HuffPo is a recovery conservative Republican. :-)

[nellie]

Ditto!

[Charmed]

Great article....it seems like nobody was really listening to Obama when he said "this is the United States of America"....or when he said "the people who I didn't get their support, I hear your voices".......he has never been "left or right", he's always been in the middle in my opinion. I'm more than willing to wait for the man to first be sworn in and then get to being a leader. He has over a month before he is sworn in and people are acting like he is already the President.....George Bush is the President just in case others have forgotten.

[JuneO]

Very thoughtful and well written article. I have heard many say that they are impressed with Obama because he is "smart". Personally, what impresses is not just his smarts, but his wisdom.

I think you can be intelligent/smart without necessarily being wise. Obama is wise, and that is wonderful thing.

[nellie]

Agreed. He has wisdom and the courage to carry it out.

[ImWithThatOne]

Bravo Frank! I'm a big fan of your work, and I totally agree on this one.
I sometimes wonder if these people heard a thing O said in his campaign. He seeks to unify the entire country, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, and kept harping on the "smallness of our politics." He wasn't just talking about Republicans. He was talking about Democrats too. He was talking about our penchant for name calling and back biting that got in the way of solving our problems.

[livesimply]

I'm with you on this one. Some people are just in the habit of griping about things it seems. I knew he was more moderate than people gave him credit for. The right wing folks tried to paint him as the most liberal person in Washington, but that has never been the case. He is a pragmatist.....and a very smart one. Let him do his job and help with fixing the divisiveness.

[Jane]

Well, we'll see. The real question, since he has not put any real progressives onto the "team of rivals" i whether he will keep his promises (to get out of Iraq, close Guantanamo, rescind Bush's over-reaching executive orders, etc., fix the health-care system, revamp the "free-market") or renege on them. We don't know yet. What I like about Obama is that he speaks clearly about what he plans to do. What I don't like is that he installs people in the cabinet who have not heretofore been committed to doing these things. Is he in charge? Is he honest? Is he smart enough to accomplish all of this? We don't know yet.

[livesimply]

Your list includes a lot of tall orders. It took a long time to get in the mess we're in. It may take a long time to fix it.

[Jane]

I'm not saying that he has to solve all of these things right away, though closing Guantanamo and reversing lots of Bush's executive orders doesn't seem as though it would take much time. But if there are no progressives in the cabinet, then we only have his word that he will act in what we consider to be the nation's best interests. We can't simply ignore the histories of the ones he's chosen. Lots of people are offering the excuse that progressives lack the "experience", since it's been so long since liberals got to govern. But then that's a self-fulfilling prophecy--"You may be right about things, but you don't have experience, so we will put others in charge who don't have your convictions." I don't agree with Frank, and I don't disagree with him--I think we have to wait and see. I m simply waiting and seeing a little more skeptically than he is.

[Hawka]

Are we smart enough to give him a chance to actually do all that is the real question I feel.

[canucklivinginUSA]

Some of you truly do not pay attention. Melody Barnes is a progressive and so is Tom Daschle. And who are you to know whether his pick won't be committed to doing these things? Thats a bit presumptuous!!!! Geez, there is no point on arguing when people are obviously of getting out of box

[BARRISTER]

Why isn't anyone giving the Gentleman a chance?? It is not yet 20th. January, 2009, and he is being pilloried left, right and centre.

Peace

[LJB1977]

Very well said, Mr. Schaeffer. I have been a long-time reader of the articles and books put out by the Schaeffer household. One of my favorite books by "A New Way of Seeing" - by your mom. Oddly it gave me the freedom to step out of the Fundamentalist circle and to feel free to be on the liberal side of politics. (Probably not what she intended.) I have come to enjoy reading your current work because it is insightful and because it now warns against fundamentalist ideology - as you put here - on either side of the aisle. Thank you for your work, thank you for your honesty.