Attacks On Hildebrand Aren't Progressive But Politics As Awful

Welcome to the hangover of slash and burn politics. We're gotten rid of George W. Bush. Karl Rove is reduced to a Fox News mouthpiece. The Democratic party will be running all three branches of government in just a few weeks time but the knee-jerk, over-the top-bickering that has characterized what passes for political discourse in recent memory are still with us; we don't even need Republicans any more.

I just got off the phone with Steve Hildebrand, whose piece A Message To Obama's Progressive Critics has caused a stir throughout the progressive blogosphere. David Sirota went as far as to call it a rant-ish and said Hildebrand's piece was "demanding the Dirty Fucking Hippies of "the left" STFU."

Of course, Hildebrand - who told me he considers himself 'way left' - said no such thing. Hildebrand's article isn't incendiary. He spends a good deal of his piece stating the obvious; that America faces some dire problems such as worst economic crisis in our lifetime and suggests that solving those problems has to be the first priority for all Americans. The tone of Hildebrand's piece isn't STFU but 'let's come together.'

I asked Hildebrand specifically where the line was on valid criticism and he was clear that it's not his call. "I wrote the article speaking entirely for myself, not anyone else. I certainly wasn't trying to control anybody. I'm not the arbiter of whether criticism is fair or unfair. I was stating my opinion, that's all."

It's Hildebrand's first piece for The Huffington Post. He says it came up a couple of weeks ago when he was talking to his friend Hillary Rosen, the political director at HuffPost. While talking about issues, Hildebrand mentioned to Rosen that he was tired of what he felt was 'sniping' and asked if she's be interested in a piece on the subject. He wrote something up, sent it to Rosen without showing anybody else and it was posted as he wrote it with the addition of the article's headline, which he didn't write. He stands by the piece and says that he's only received a couple of pieces of negative email but has been hearing about the firestorm it's caused.

But people hear what they want to hear sometimes and the politically charged atmosphere doesn't seem to have lost it's electricity just because No Drama Obama won in a landslide. Maybe after years of seeing dissent put down at every turn by the Bush administration, people aren't used to the idea that people can disagree without exaggerating the positions of other people, as Sirota's 'rant-ish' characterization clearly did. Far from telling Obama's progressive critics to shut up, Hildebrand was treating them like adults and explaining a different position.

Hildebrand said he understands the frustration of some people because he's felt it. "I was personally very angry at Joe Lieberman, for instance. But I'm proud of the way Barack Obama handled that situation because it was true to his pledge to put partisanship aside. I believe that was part of Obama's appeal to many voters. After two years of working for Obama, that's who he really is."

Speaking for myself, I wonder is it wrong to expect fair and calm discourse when liberals disagree with liberals? I sure hope not - because otherwise we're not going to do much better than the conservatives who've caused the trainwreck we find ourselves in.

I'm not telling anyone to shut up. I'm just asking everyone to live up to the liberal values of free, open, and respectful debate.

Lee Stranahan is a writer and filmmaker who recently called for Congressional hearings to look into needless layoffs by profitable companies. The petition is at StopLayoffs.org

Comments

[tyrdofwaitin]

Thank you Lee Stranahan on your take on Hildebrand's post. I, too, believe that some of us liberal-progressive-lefties are trigger-happy cynics; or perhaps more accurately, idelogical purists. As a child of the 50s and 60s, I have seen the left rise --- and fall --- often by their own hand. I have seen women and men of good will slice and dice and splinter over the smallest ideological orthodoxy; I've seen eager and creative young people join the struggle only to find themselves more isolated from society with their idealism and spirit crushed; I've seen the great experiments in 20th century socialism fail because their leaders were more concerned about doctrine (and themselves) and less about people.

And so as we enter a new age of progressive change, I am weary of those who would carp and snipe and denigrate Obama even before he reaches the White House. I refuse to make the same errors of the past and become an unwilling ally of the right-wing by demanding "purity", "orthodoxy" of an Obama administration. I refuse to stop listening and stop caring because I don't agree with every Obama wrinkle and move. I have fatih that the arc of the Universe is bending towards justice.

Wake up progressives: leave your bitterness and cyncism, get out of your self -involvement and your quest for perfect people and perfect worlds........................... get off your duff and help us build a better America. Let's work together!

[SolarPowerGuy]

Wake up, center-right apologists: take ONE firm step in a progressive direction, and you will be forgiven by millions of disaffected voters, including me.

Do not accuse us of hopeless idealism or sloth. We may be making rather significant changes in the world, even if it is not being accomplished through your Democratic Party.

Speaking personally, I've spent $50,000 of my own money over the past decade Greening my life. I want the rest of you to have the chance to do the same, and I figured I should lead by example.

Do not expect to be rewarded for simply holding the line on Roe v. Wade.

Do NOT insult our intelligence by conflating "Democrat" with "progressive." Democrats gave George Bush the Elder the votes he needed to get a politically-expedient, accelerated timetable for Gulf War One. It has been downhill for your party from there.

You can be forgiven for your eighteen years of error, but you MUST make a move. It is no longer acceptable to say to progressives, "You think of us before the election, and -- we'll think of you AFTER the election, OK?"

[ErikW65]

"You're either with us or you're against us"?

[thefringecenter]

Hello, Clueless. He promised us change we can believe in. His Cabinet is the change that cynics like me expected.

[ErikW65]

See? There you go, another virtual tough guy, armchair warrior. "Look at me! I'm so much smarter than you silly optimistic fools! "

I wonder what the IQ's of these cynics are compared to Barack's, and if they've ever run for office, or done anything that requires Leadership?

[SolarPowerGuy]

Don't invoke IQ scores, you'll regret it.

In the first place, IQ scores have been used historically to justify the economic failures of African-Americans. Many IQ tests are widely understood to be racially biased. I doubt that Obama would wave around his Stanford-Binet scores as a badge of honor.

Second, I would put money on the fact that at least a few of the Obama critics who post here have IQ scores which exceed that of every President.

[ErikW65]

What I find offensive is being told that because I trust Obama, because I want him to succeed in getting America back on track, because I believe that he can, and want to give him the benefit of the doubt, that I am naive, and that I must think that Barack is a messiah.

I think some people on the far left want to prove how sophisticated and intellectual they are by being cynical. It's condescending, and it fits right in with what the right stereotypes the left as being: elitist, obtuse, philosophically rigid and pure, uncompromising, and intolerant.

I also think it's generally easier to be negative, to throw stones, than to stand up for someone, to build something, which requires courage.

[SolarPowerGuy]

I'm a scientist. I'm not a cynic. When I have evidence which supports granting trust, I grant it. When I have evidence which supports suspicion, I am suspicious.

This really all boils down to one question. What is a more accurate predictor of a politician's future behavior -- their track records, or the promises they made you at election time?

I say that promises, at least from Democrats, have proven consistently worthless.

Name one time that you were ever surprised by the outcome of a political contest -- and it ended up going farther LEFT than you expected. I'm not talking about an election, I'm talking about the passage of LAWS. This has never happened in my lifetime. I wasn't born when LBJ helped to pass the Civil Rights Act.

Now, consider the number of times that a political outcome was farther to the RIGHT than you expected. Dozens of times. I only have 250 words! If you want my list of highlights, it's here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-hildebrand/a-message-to-obamas-progr_b_149089.html?page=9&show_comment_id=18624928#comment_18624928

I, too, want Obama to succeed, but at WHAT? Heck, Bush got re-elected, that's a type of success. I want Obama to FULFILL THE PROMISES HE MADE to get elected.

But he's already backtracking, and he didn't exactly start with a progressive voting pedigree. The people he's hiring have a HISTORY of opposing his promises. Be honest, don't tie yourself into knots. It isn't looking good.

[ErikW65]

Wait, name one time a "political outcome," a LAW was passed that wound up being to the left of where I thought it would? (And you're asking ME not to "tie myself in knots"?... All legislatures typically move bills to the center from both directions!

And, because no law has ever been passed that was far enough to the left for you, or because he's a Democrat, you now assume that this particular leader was lying on the campaign trail?

That's far from scientific!

[Querent]

So, you think it is appropriate to reinforce what you yourself call the stereotypes of the right? Good thing you're not a right-winger or anything.

[ErikW65]

Your ad hominem leads me to think I struck a nerve!

Question: who reinforces the right's given stereotypes of the left more, Obama's critics for displaying them, or me for pointing them out?

[jazzage]

So those of us who supported Obama are not supposed to have an opinion now that he is doing what he promised he would not do? On election night he stated he would not surround himself with "retreads" but that is exactly what he is doing. No progressives, no one to represent the middle class, just more war mongers and corporate whores.This is why the Republicans do so well, they do not hesitate to push their agenda, they do not try to move to the middle, they kick ass, and people respect that. Yeah, they lost big in 06 and this year but they were written off in 1964 and did a pretty good job of coming back, didn't they? This economic situation requires some bold moves. I hope when Obama gets in he does something to end this bailout of the bankers, stop off-shoring of jobs, and stop our expensive and morally-reprehensible militaristic approach to the world, but I don't see any evidence of that yet. Clinton? Gates? God save us.

[ErikW65]

I just read through the transcript of Obama's election night speech. I didn't find the word "retread." But I did find this:

"Let's resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long."

[brassminnie]

Exactly how do you plan to promote a liberal agenda with name-calling, ranting and foul language? Bush 'ruled' and now it's our turn to do what we want and ignore the majority of the American people? Shall we prove we're hypocrites by demanding political-appointment campaign-support payoffs, which we loudly abhorred when the Republicans did it?

I'm a raving idealist. I'm so liberal, I support democracy. So extreme, I think the way to accomplish my 'liberal agenda' is convince the 'center' to support it. Backlash has been a long and heartbreaking lesson. Now, the middle-road majority have finally said they want change. Obama is a wise man. He knows they can be led, but not pushed.

One more question, why would the 'new hires' work for the old boss, not the new one?

In crisis, there is opportunity. In error, there are lessons to be learned. And the overabundance of opportunity is going to be a long and painful lesson.

[SolarPowerGuy]

"Exactly how do you plan to promote a liberal agenda with name-calling, ranting and foul language?"

How does the demand to see some progressives included in Obama's Cabinet amount to name-calling, ranting, and foul language?

Go back and read the commentary on Mr. Hildebrand's piece. Most of it, from both sides, was quite civil.

You want bad behavior? I voted for Nader in 2000, and I don't regret it. I've heard no end of vitriol from Democratic "progressives."

[AnotherMcIntosh]

Lee,

You say "The Democratic party will be running all three branches of government in just a few weeks time."

In what way will the Democratic Party be running the judicial branch?

The Supreme Court justices and the judges sitting in other courts have lifetime appointments. Most of them are Republicans.

[Lee Stranahan - Huffpost Blogger]

Yeah, I have no good excuse for that one except I was under self imposed deadline pressure. I meant both houses of Congress and the Presidency, not all three branches. Although. that'd be nice....

[Highwind]

The bulk of Obama voters are the people who are out there working eight or more hours a day with one, two or more jobs. They don't usually pay attention to who he appoints to his cabinet. As long as he passes his middle class tax cut like he said and get the ball rolling with healthcare, he won't have a problem with them. These people are not online posting on liberal blogs. The fact that the media is up in arms about liberals not liking the cabinet choices is ridiculous. The majority of voters will wait and see what happens. People can criticize if they want, but that poll that said that over 80% of Obama voters are okay with his picks is probably what he is paying attention to at this point.

[SolarPowerGuy]

"The bulk of Obama voters are the people who are out there working eight or more hours a day with one, two or more jobs."

Umm, maybe not. Have you checked the unemployment statistics lately?

"They don't usually pay attention to who he appoints to his cabinet."

I remember 2001. Many Democratic Party SENATORS weren't paying attention to the people Bush was appointing to his Cabinet. It matters a great deal who gives the President advice, and who is charged with carrying out executive orders. Just because people aren't paying attention, doesn't mean that they SHOULDN'T pay attention.

"As long as he passes his middle class tax cut like he said and get the ball rolling with healthcare, he won't have a problem with them."

Then people are short-sighted. Obama has announced that Bush's upper-income tax cuts will simply be allowed to expire in 2010, rather than repealing them immediately. Obama has nixed taxing petroleum on account of the fact that we can no longer call it a "windfall profits tax." We've been told that the wars will be going into extra innings.

So how will we pay for the middle-class tax cuts and health care then? By borrowing money, from rich people. With interest.

"...that poll that said that over 80% of Obama voters are okay with his picks..."

Which poll is that? Provide a reference.

[AnotherunhappyDemocrat]

Lee. Take a look at Arianna Huffington's piece from today. I think she is on our side.

[LiteSleeper]

Stranahan you're wrong. If this was just about complaining you wouldn't see people getting steadily more upset about this. The problem is that Obama needs to say something reassuring to his Left constituency that lets them know he hasn't forgotten them and isn't going to sell them out. He needs to start appointing people who were correct about policies over the last 30 years. Obviously something is not working if this issue is getting bigger. Saying,"The buck stops with me," is not reassuring when most of the people around you have their hands in the mess we're in. I do understand your point that we should wait and let him govern first, but to not give Liberal voices a seat at the table is just a stupid un-pragmatic move.

[MomfromTexas]

2. With the exception of Clinton, Obama's team of rivals is there to carry out HIS agenda. There's no balancing of agendas going on. They're not being hired because they have different agendas than he has. They're being hired because they have particular skills and talents that he thinks can be used to carry out HIS agenda. He's not anti-free trade, so he's not going to hire someone who is to work in trade. If that person had great negotiation skills that Obama thought could be used in, I don't know, let's say the U.N., he might put that person as an ambassador to the U.N., but he's not going to put that person in charge of trade because anti-free trade is not HIS agenda.

Now, Clinton. Hmm. I keep thinking that Biden had a lot to do with her being chosen. That's my gut feeling. My gut feeling is that Biden is going to be primarily responsible for foreign affairs, and he wanted to work with Clinton. Clinton and Biden are buds.

[MomfromTexas]

What's this doing at the top of the page? Hmm. It belongs a couple of pages down. I'll cut and paste.

[MomfromTexas]

O.K. #1 is not on the other page. Where is it? LOL! Half my answer has been edited and half hasn't. The half that hasn't has been moved, though.

[SolarPowerGuy]

This argument was hashed out in the other thread, but it will obviously need to be repeated here... such is the nature of arguing on the Internet.

"With the exception of Clinton, Obama's team of rivals is there to carry out HIS agenda. There's no balancing of agendas going on."

Well, that's more clear-eyed than most of the people who have defended Obama to the hilt. You at least acknowledge that one person in Obama's Cabinet is likely to have some independence, not just be a lackey who carries out the President's bidding.

The job of President is huge, and you have to delegate. Cabinet officers provide the President with crucial advice, which the President uses to FORMULATE policy. If you don't think that the biases of a Cabinet officer will affect the way that they present data for the President to review, you're kidding yourself. It will not always be possible for the President to know that he's being influenced, he simply won't have time to check. He has to trust these people. It amtters who they are, and what they advocate. I DON'T trust several of them.

Two centuries ago, a bunch of dead guys in powdered wigs recognized the importance of Cabinet selection. Why are so many people having trouble seeing that? Would we have Constitutionally-mandated Senate confirmation hearings to give people unimportant, apolitical jobs?

[SEQUOIABISON]

As a staunch liberal democrat, I would not care if Obama appointed Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay the most hated names in politics for liberals, because our man is the one sitting behind the desk in the oval office.

From my perspective he is appointing competent people who will implement his liberal agenda or find another job, Obama will be the "decider" not the cabinet officers, so lets please be patient with this process and have faith that the man we elected is a true liberal progressive and not some double speak, bait and switch phony compassionate conservative type.

[SolarPowerGuy]

There's a difference between keeping your enemies close, and surrounding yourself with them. The latter is a recipe for failure.

And, autocracy is ugly stuff. Leave that "decider" language in the last administration where is belongs.

[Dailyfare]

What would be really, really nice is that if progressives would let the President-elect take office FIRST, set policy SECOND, see how the policies work THIRD - and THEN critique his presidency - which currently DOES NOT EXIST.

What's happening here is that because W was allowed to do whatever the F he wanted to for 8 years, there seems to be this need to nitpick EVERY MOVE the President-elect makes.

If progressives aren't careful, AND PICK THEIR BATTLES, they're going to nag themselves into irrelevancy.

[Carolab]

Perhaps Hildebrand needs to brush up on his communications skills, then, because the way I and apparently others read it is for liberals to NOT criticize or question Obama's cabinet picks. If "coming together" means we must all shut up and say nothing then how does our voice get heard?

[Yermammy]

I couldn't have said it any better myself. I've read all the blogs and Glenn Greenwald's summarizes it the best. Now, we're "going all crazy" because we will criticize when we please. The rethugs don't share that important quality because they're programmed to worship authority where we inherit the good sense to question it. That's NOT going to change. The "firestorm" can be attributed to the screeching of the apologist's that would justify or condone the lousy picks of cabinet members that show no progress from their past actions.

[Aaror]

Well, the way I read it, and perhaps I read it wrong, but I saw basically a "give the guy a chance," article. Obama is not even president yet, he has not done any action as president, and already people are attacking his choices on who will carry out HIS proposals.
I mean, consider Condi Rice, she is a moderate Republican, who endorses diplomacy, who has been used to push War instead. Same with Colin Powell, and I am sure a little thinking can come up with a dozen more. These moderates had to follow the dictates of Bush and Cheney, so them being moderate meant nothing.
On the other hand, consider the timing. Lets say Obama wakes up tomorrow and says "Oh my god, I am drifting towards the center!" He then puts aside any plans to fix the economic mess and shoots for the moon on liberal causes, making no attempt to be a good president of all the people (think a liberal version of George Bush Jr). If 4 years, we will have a Republican President, a Republican Congress, and liberal ideas will be widely panned.
But if Obama solves the crisis we are in while promoting liberal causes incrementally, health care for children here, a green jobs program there, those programs will be part of a "good presidency," meme, and in his 8 years of presidency, he can do more good for progressive causes and the country.

[bluehaze]

...Bring back the uptick rule, and end the derivatives racket. Re-regulate wall street and end our involvement in so-called dark markets off shore in say England. Push for a strong dollar by paying off our debt and stop endlessly printing up money. Increase the GI Bill and refocus our school system away from taking standardized tests such as FCAT and focus on math and science and refocus our high schools to reflect the needs in the market place. A liberal arts degree doesn't cut it anymore unless you plan to go on to law school or something like that. Anyway, these are just some of What I would like to see done and not just end marijuana prohibition even though that is my biggest concern since I've been fight for it for 16 yaers since I've been out of the military. If you are in jail, it is hard to care about all the perennial issues like the environment and frankly, we aren't killing the Earth if we soil it to the point of our extinction. The Earth will come back as strong as it always has. It doesn't care that we are here, though we should. Just my thoughts and canuckinusa, no snide comments eh?

[Yermammy]

George Carlin said the very same thing about the earth. It WILL survive. Us? Not so much...

[Highwind]

Yeah, the liberal arts degree is pretty dead now. We need to just go to college to train in our prospective fields and then leave after three years. I think the government should pay for a standard three year college session but if students want to get a MA or a Phd, then they have to take out loans or pay for it themselves. The thing that is the waste of time is taking classes you don' t need or classes that don't correlate with field of study.

[AnotherunhappyDemocrat]

Well, I was bothered by Hildebrand's piece, and I am concerned about the economic geniuses, who are advising Obama and joining his team. Why am I worried? Robert Rubin and Larry Summers helped get us into this mess in the first place (and Timothy Geithner is a protégé of Rubin). Rubin in particular has been laboring over at Citigroup these past several years, and well, last I checked, we taxpayers are forking over $300 billion to bail out Citigroup. Forgive me for being one of these cranky progressives, but asking the same people to fix the mess they got us into, bothers me (and yes, I know they were not alone; the Bush people certainly contributed their fair share). And I have yet to see any explanation from an Obama person about why I should trust the Rubin wing of the Democratic Party.

[Carolab]

Very well said. Thanks.

[MarieFara]

" And I have yet to see any explanation from an Obama person about why I should trust the Rubin wing of the Democratic Party."

Why should Obama "explain" and try to get you to trust the "rubin wing fo the Democratic party"? He didn't appoint Robert Rubin to ANYTHING and there is no such thing as a Rubing wing of the Democratic party.

"Why am I worried? Robert Rubin and Larry Summers helped get us into this mess in the first place (and Timothy Geithner is a protégé of Rubin). Rubin in particular has been laboring over at Citigroup these past several years, and well, last I checked, we taxpayers are forking over $300 billion to bail out Citigroup."

This is no different than the Republicans saying Obama is like Rev. Wright because Wright was his "mentor" for 20 years. This is pure guilt by association. If you voted for Obama why didn't you apply the same standards to him?

I disregarded guilt buy association to vote for Obama and I sure will disregard guilt by association when it comes to Summers and Geithner. I don't understand why you would vote for Obama and not take into account Ayers and Wright but be all upset over Geithner and Summers not because of what they've done but because of what Rubin has done. After all, I only see you complaining about Rubin.

[AnotherunhappyDemocrat]

You can't be serious. Look up the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, passed by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1999. Larry Summers was Secretary of the Treasury then, having succeeded Robert Rubin. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act would allow Citigroup (with Robert Rubin as director) to underwrite mortgage-based securities, as in that toxic stuff that was so bad, that Citigroup is now being bailed out by us taxpayers.

So I think it is perfectly legitimate to object when Obama is not only getting economic advise from those, who apparently didn't see this crisis coming, but also placing them in high economic positions in his transition team and his new cabinet. And how you can equate this with the whole Jeremiah Wright issue is beyond me.

And yes there is indeed a Robert Rubin wing of the Democratic Party.

[PATina]

This is no different than the Republicans saying Obama is like Rev. Wright because Wright was his "mentor" for 20 years. This is pure guilt by association. If you voted for Obama why didn't you apply the same standards to him?

I disagree. If Obama had been @ Trinity the Sunday that Rev. Wright gave his "God D***ed America" sermon... and there was footage of him jumping up and saying, "Amen"... you'd have a point.

Summers was @ Treasury making policy that helped de-regulate the financial services industry. That's not guilt by association... that's just guilty.