03/02/2009 03:05 pm ET | Updated May 25, 2011

Who Needs the Right When the Left Has Itself?

I'm a fan of Bill Scher, the popular creator of the Liberal Oasis blog, but I don't agree with him and others who have argued that the Left has been doing itself any favors since the presidential election. And if this discord were only over Mr. Obama's economic plan, I would hold my tongue. But it is not.

There's a conceit on the Left that all the public disagreements and squabbles are helpful - that this is the burden of a big tent party.

And what's made the territory even muddier is the fact that journalism, opinion and advocacy have crossed lines in our new media.

I suppose too that the cocktail of what passes for news - the Ann Coulters, the Rick Warrens, the Rod Blagojeviches, the Caroline Kennedys, the Palins - make life interesting, but the net result is a narrative of special interest squabbles. The 'air in the room' has been taken up by these stories and scarce else can be covered.

And I say this knowing that reality is harsh and we all need relief from it, anything to amuse us. (To this point, there's probably a reason Apple's top selling application over the holidays was its "fart" app. )

In my own corner, these angle squabbles came up strongly post election from blacks. I'm all for people of color getting ahead, but I had/have a problem with African-Americans pressuring the first black president to populate his cabinet with minorities. I kept thinking - what's more important - the best candidate or the appearance thereof? Time and again, we've learned that cronyism is the path to failure - Mr. Bush aside - one need only look at the failed state of our nation's cities, run by scores of black mayors to see that. (e.g. As I write this Baltimore's impoverished city is grappling with its mayor's obscene waste of public monies.)

And this is the nub of it for me with the Lefties: they do not truly understand who they are, nor what they are motivated by. They are confederates and not a unified body. The slightest bump in the road leads to anarchy or dissent: think of the absurd statement by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently that he "does not work for Obama." Understanding that the legislative branch is a check on the executive is one thing. But what might Reid think he gains by saying this? Was his grandstanding necessary? What is the endgame? By flexing his muscles, Reid only diminishes himself, his party and emboldens the Right by showing a workable wedge between himself and the incoming president.

In just days Mr. Obama will take the oath of office with urgent, complicated problems to solve. But in the weeks leading up to this date, the public's been heartened not by the facts, figures and information that will equip people to understand their predicament, but rather, by a slew of tabloid-y stories. So Obama will have a double load to carry: to pry the public's gaze away from the car crashes all around them and show the highway ahead.