One of the problems I've always feared is that should we elect a Democratic president in this country, he or she might face a domestic handicap among that most unlikely of sources: liberals. Sadly, I'm turning out to be right, and today's collective pants-wetting on both liberal blogs and on Twitter has been a sight to behold.
Let's go back to the beginning. Every viable candidate for the Democratic nomination came down on the center-left of the American political spectrum. Especially when it came down to Clinton and Obama. On the Republican side (at least perception wise) the candidates that were viable were seen by most to be on the center-right. Why? Because when it comes down to it the American people are not overwhelmingly of any consistent ideology. The same people who would riot in the streets if you touched Social Security or Medicare are the same people who think they should get a tax cut and that the government "spends too much" (just don't cut the government money that *their* member of congress brings home, the problem is with the *other* 434 districts and 49 *other* states, naturally).
What happens in the Democratic party is that the center left candidate makes his positions on the issues pretty clear, and the progressive base of the party assumes that like the Republican candidate, he or she is secretly one of them and upon election day will bust out with some Howard Zinn on everyone's ass. On the Republican side, they don't win unless they cover up their zealotry with "compassionate conservative" pixie dust, they largely stay the hell away from clerics like Pat Robertson and Grover Norquist come election time.
As we saw with Bill Clinton's presidency, the reaction to this not happening can get pretty loud pretty quickly.
Personally I'm not as liberal as a lot of the Democratic base, but I'm not nearly as conservative as others inevitably accuse me of being. I'm pretty liberal on social issues but a caveman on national defense and criminal justice. I think that's pragmatic, but one man's pragmatism is another's Mao or another's DLC. Whatever. Either way, I tend to think Democratic presidents don't do enough of what the base wants -- for example Clinton's NAFTA mistake or Obama's inexplicable foot dragging on Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal and fruitless concessions to the GOP and conservadems on the size and impact of the stimulus.
That said, the liberal attacks on Obama, just short of calling him The Black Hitler, don't accomplish anything other than sending a signal to Democratic presidents that their base really does want to find the quickest most expeditious path to knife them in the back.
I'm not saying liberals should keep themselves quiet and rubber stamp the president -- people who make this argument are simply making a down payment on the straw to run their farms. But what I am saying is that liberals too often treat Democratic presidents like Maury Povich just told them that he has in fact failed the lie detector test.
We saw that on Monday with the leaked story that the Obama administration planned some spending freezes. What we know about the proposal:
* It exists
* Defense spending is exempt
* If/when there's a second stimulus or jobs bill it is exempt
* Health care reform would be exempt
* It is targeting redundancies, waste, excess, etc.
* The details of what will be targeted have not been released yet
That halfway story seemed to be all liberals needed in order to issue their own Fox News Alerts about the betrayal and then began the parade of frankly embarrassing hysteria.
I don't personally like the framing of these issues in one that favors conservatives, that is a fight versus government spending. Not at all, and in an ideal situation a Democratic president should laugh at the idea, knowing that everyone with common sense understands the long term value of government investment in the American economy and social safety net.
We do not live in this ideal world. We live in a world where, as I noted above, the people across the spectrum hold contradictory ideas within their own minds about what constitutes rational public policy. If some are concerned with spending, it seems the least harmful way to do this is to have a bone thrown their way that will actually lower *some* spending without harming the president's domestic agenda.
Is it less perfect than a pony? Sure. Would President Jed Bartlett do it? Probably not, but real life isn't a pitch-perfect Aaron Sorkin script and a fade out after 60 minutes of plot.
How does one correct someone who is on your side but has bouts of straying like President Obama? Offer constructive criticism, rather than throwing his clothes on the lawn, for one. You've got a perfectly good right to bitch as well as moan about things, but the equivalent of crying "fire" in a crowded theater just makes for a crappy moviegoing experience.
Barack Obama is the center-left, charismatic politician he has been for most of his life in the public. There are numerous issues on which he should be much more progressive, not just for the overall fortunes of the progressive movement, but for the future strength of the country. But we won't get there if every perceived misstep (especially one based on a less than clear story that is slowly being filled in) is greeted as if he kicked a puppy in the teeth. We shouldn't help a media environment that already favors Democratic politicians wagging their finger at the base, nor should we allow Democratic pols to get away with conservative nonsense.
Measure pols like Obama on their words and hold them to high standards, but don't profess anger at them for not holding up to a caricature you dreamily doodled in your Trapper Keeper.
Oliver Willis blogs daily at OliverWillis.com
Follow Oliver Willis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/owillis
I think this is mostly due to frustration. The context is two ongoing and very expensive
occupations and what appears to be 20% under/un/discourgaged employment for the foreseeable future. In this context, a discretionary spending freeze is floated as meaningful policy?
In this case, I think Mr. Willis characterized it correctly -- a bone thrown to the born-again-as-long-as-it-doesn't-affect-me deficit hawks. The thing is, what's the point? They're not going to care. They're going to be just as obnoxious as ever, because what they really want is not control of the deficit but the return of Republican political dominance. (If you doubt this, try to find one that thinks Bill Clinton was a good President because he ran surpluses).
So, some libruls, including me, regard this as a bad idea mostly because it's a pointless distraction. If implemented, it would have negligible impact on the deficit and zero impact on the obstructionists, and by even proposing it, the President is implicitly conceding more ground in exchange for nothing. At this rate, we won't even need an election to return the Repos to power.
Straw man: The “Liberal Blogosphere” is damaging the President and the nation by behaving childishly (see, “Trapper Keeper”) and maliciously (“Black Hitler”) because they were too stupid to realize Mr. Obama is a centrist Democrat.
While “liberal blogosphere” is not an oxymoron like “liberal MSM”, it's still uselessly vague. Now, it could be defined to include every random ALL-CAPS commenter on any remotely liberal blog, but this would overlook the existence of both genuine left-wing loonies and lots and lots of trolls. A more useful definition would be “folks who blog on a regular basis, and who self-identify as liberal”.
Very few of these folks were surprised to discover that the President is not a flaming radical. OTOH, many have been surprised and disappointed by the number of occasions where he has adopted – or accepted – positions well right of center. Criticism has been slow to emerge, and generally respectful (“Excuse me, sir, but did you notice you just screwed over a whole lot of the folks that voted for you?”). BTW, please do give a citation supporting your “Black Hitler” remark.
Intellectual inconsistency: “I'm not saying liberals should keep themselves quiet and rubber stamp the president …”. But that is the whole point of the article, isn’t it?
“Either way, I tend to think Democratic presidents don't do enough of what the base wants…”. But the base should just shut up?
In 2012, the Republicans win...and we're back in the s - - tpot again.
Repubs : "Yaaaayyyyy!"
Dems : "Oops!"
Sorry I'm just a dumb librul, but this makes no sense.
'one man's pragmatism is another's Mao or another's DLC. Whatever.'
is precisely the kind of slogan or even 'truth' that needs to go. For good.
In the short term:
the pro and cons of the spending freeze are subtle and terribly difficult. I am against it. But what's certain is that it has NOTHING to do with gut decisions that build along the scale of lifetimes. It's something else. I don't know what it is, but it's something else.
To all my fellow liberals and progressives, I'm not entirely happy with how things have panned out either, but I think the anger is misdirected. I'm not so mad at Obama than I am at Congress and Senate who seem to be the true cowards and weaklings unwilling to pass the items on the President's agenda. They water down or in some cases straight chop out those elements that progressives and liberals want. If Obama runs again, I intend to vote for him again. As for my Senator and Congress person, not so much.
Also, I was never under the impression that Obama was a progressive. He never ran as a progressive. I think all of you were indeed projecting an ideal on him. You all on the left that are mad at Obama, is this the first time you're following politics? Did you follow the Bush presidency as well? I ask because it seems like a lot of you don't really get how it works, particularly the role of the legislative branch.
Except I will vote for my Senators (Tom Udall & Jeff Bingaman) and my Congressman (Martin Heinrich) again!!
And don't come saying, but..but...they shouldn't have expected.
It's all good.
O shouldn't expect their votes again.