When Do We All Grow Up? (Part II: Obama the Quarterback)

Perhaps I shouldn't have been, but I was frankly surprised by the response to the piece I cross-posted last week from my daily blog, The Buddha Diaries. It was called, if you remember, "When Do We All Grow Up?" and its subject was the kind of foot-stamping impatience with which progressives of all persuasions seem to be greeting Obama's first six months in office. Responses to my thoughts ranged from "Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!" to angry resentment and rebuttal.

Don't get me wrong. It's not that Obama is--or should be--above criticism. Don't count me among those who believe he can do no wrong. I am equally skeptical of those who invest the man with messianic qualities. But I do believe that criticism can be productive and supportive, if offered in the context of the bigger picture I was attempting to invoke.

When the critic allows his or her particular point of disagreement to become central and exclusive, though, the criticism soon becomes narrow-minded, parochial, and destructive. Thus, if I allow Obama's immediate resolution of the extremely delicate Guantanamo problem to become the exclusive yardstick by which I judge his performance, the sine qua non, I risk trying to bathe the baby while I watch the bath water drain away--to pervert an already overused metaphor. If I disagree with him on one, or two, or three issues, must I give up on him altogether and, worse, descend into dismissive vitriol?

The problem is that all-or-nothing progressivism plays into the hands of those who would destroy Obama at any cost--as they attempted to destroy Bill Clinton in the 1990s. While Clinton was able to hang on by the skin of his teeth, remember, it was at the cost of being elbowed further and further to the right in his political agenda. The divisiveness that results not from honest argument, but from anger, resentment, and bitter accusations of betrayal, lends both credibility and power to vitriol from the other side.

One of my respondents suggested the analogy of someone we'd hired to do a job and who should now be taken to task for failing to do our bidding. I prefer a different analogy: I see the President less as a hireling, and more as the captain of a sports team, to whom we've chosen to delegate the responsibility to make decisions in an ongoing series of ever-changing, unpredictable situations. In this analogy, we risk being the complacent armchair quarterbacks.

Then, too, the history of our recent decades should remind us that it's easy to sit back and whine about "the government," as though it were some evil, alien entity separate from ourselves. In doing so, we forget that the government is us. It's a compact between ourselves and those we have chosen to represent us. My point, to put it in a slightly different way, is that in each furiously riding the hobby-horse of our individual freedoms and in demanding that our individual needs be met, we fail on our side of the compact: we become, in effect, ungovernable, even as we blame it on the government.

I realize that my readers may not do so, but I still count myself a progressive. If I had been able--had the society in which I live made it even halfway possible--I would surely have voted for Kucinich. Given the realities of who we are as a society, my question is this: Do we really want to nitpick our current Democratic President to shreds, and clear the path for another right-wing ideologue to follow him--whether in four years, or eight? We complained quite bitterly about the ideological rectitude demanded by the other side. Do we want to sacrifice our own ultimate goals to another brand of ideological rectitude?

I think it's possible not to abandon our ideals and to exercise our right--our duty--to question policies we judge to be wrong-headed, all without losing sight of the big picture. I voted for Obama because I believe him to be a thoughtful man with all the right intentions; because I believe that he does have a firm grasp of the big picture--what Bush Senior dismissively called the "vision thing." I did not vote for him because I thought he could fix every problem in our society within six months, no matter how pressing; or that he would say nothing that I disagreed with; or so that he would take uncompromising stands on every issue. I voted for a man I thought would work, with whatever circumspection might be necessary, to achieve a more just society for us all.

Comments

[S1m0n]

Why is it's always people who AREN'T being discriminated against telling those who are to shut up and wait? I've got a better idea. Why don't you start by selling your OWN rights instead of so generously offering rights belonging to others?

[Rescisco]

All-or-nothing progressivism? How about just a little progressivism. Mind you, I believe the President is generally doing an excellent job and my quibbles are not so significant that they are worth mentioning here. But thinking more broadly, it seems to me more and more that progressivism in the U.S. is too apologetic and too timid. While it may be that some "criticism soon becomes narrow-minded, parochial, and destructive" and thus plays into conservative hands (I think this true) it is also true that self-muting by progressives fearful of being too disagreeable lest they empower conservative dolts is a prescription for conservative control of the agenda. The fact is, progressive timidity and self-imoposed silence is one of the largest contrubuters to conservative control which remains operative even when they are in the minority. Naturally, we must find the proper place between narrow-minded parochialism and fearful timidity. I call that place intelligent advocacy and it is located at the corner of analytical reasoning and respectful discourse. That is the hub of civilization.

[Roses]

I think you are right. But I also think we have that now.
Seems to me that Obama isn't getting a free ride. He is playing it pretty smart and getting alot of things done (not all, but alot for the conditions of the economy and where we are as a country).
Also, I think that with the new numbers (60 votes!) alot will be expected of the Democrats. They don't have anything to hide behind now. Maybe we can start to get things done now?

Unless Samantha Bee is right
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=232244&title=Franken's-Time

[jhNY]

Constructing an argument around the notion that those who disagree with your ideas are immature--"when do we all grow up'-- while seeming to include yourself in the question, and at the same time implying that you're a grown-up who gets it-- sort of tilts the rhetorical playing field a wee bit before the game begins, does it not? Perhaps if your argument was better, the frame wouldn't have seemed so necessary.­...

[montecarlo408]

I totally agree with your article and it makes me wonder, if McCain had won, how would be feel if the uber right started making demands to push the country farther right, even though they are less than 20% of he population? Contrary to what I would like to believe, Bush didn't push everything far right. If he had, we'd be a lot worse off (I know that doesn't sound possible, but it is).

[jmpurser]

It would be a bit less painful than seeing the supposed left leading a drift to the right.

If you have to "wonder" what it would be like for the uber right to start making demands to push the country further to the right then I suggest you talk so someone who has in America for the last 30 years. Where are you from?

[Chazet2]

I neither agree, nor disagree, in a sense. I do agree that the criticisms from some on the left open the door to those on the right who seek to undermine this president, the Democratic Party, and progressive ideals.
I am a progressive. There are issues that I have a burning passion about. I would prefer that the solutions I see for those issues be pursued now. But I know better.
My major ire with this administration is that it has done nothing to enunciate its priorities, and to sell that prioritization to the American public-it has and is failing to lead. And by failing to lead, it is losing credibility. Once credibility is lost, those on the right can reak whatever havoc they choose.
Shame on this administration for playing it safe, and failing.

[RedneckDem]

"Then, too, the history of our recent decades should remind us that it's easy to sit back and whine about "the government," as though it were some evil, alien entity separate from ourselves. In doing so, we forget that the government is us."

AS true a statement ever made. The repubs get voted into office and do everything they can to make the gov't look like the bad guy, when it is us. The true hypocrisy of a repub is going into politics for the sole purpose of proving that govt for the people does not work, instead of serrving the people, all of the people.

[jmpurser]

If President Obama is a captain of the team instead of an employee (a useful construct I believe) then how do you feel about him making a deal that our team will never enter the 10 yards of field closest to the goal? We'll slug it out over the rest of the field, as long as we cooperate with the other team, but before the game even began we gave up the right to score. Ever.

That's where we are on Health Care. NOW does he deserve a bit of criticism?

By and in large President Obama isn't being criticized for not delivering "everything right now". He's being criticized for doing the wrong thing right now. It's not his failure to live up to our wildest dreams but his repeated failure to live up to his own campaign promises and/or his failure to pursue the best policy for the nation.

[Roses]

What you say makes some sense, but not alot of sense at this moment in time.

When Obama was elected and the economy went to H**l in a handbasket, Obama said that he was going to prioritize. He asked his supporters and donors what issues were the top 3 issues they wished him to tackle first. I can't completely remember, but I think they were 1) the economy 2) healthcare 3) the environment. (They may not have been in that order but you get the idea). As far as I can tell, he is sticking to those.

In the meantime we work like all get-out for our causes. That gives you the right to complain ('we are the ones we've been waiting for). Oh, we also make our wishes known to DC and our congresspeople.

[WorkingClass]

The mushy middle should band together and kick those uppity progressives out of the party since they don't have enough sense not to stay where they are not wanted. Then the Democratic party could rightly claim to be the new and improved corporate party. That would permanently isolate the Republicans who only represent the lunatic fringe. And it would free up the lefties to form the new American Labor Party which would ride to power on the shoulders of millions upon millions of working Americans.

[gurukalehuru]

It's not just one thing, and it's not nitpicking.
1. Failure to restore the rule of law, and the higher law of human rights and common decency.
2. Failure to prosecute Bush, and Bush administration officials, for clear and provable violations of those laws.
3. re/economic recovery, showing a clear favoritism to the big money interests and failure to make necessary and fundamental changes.

I'd still vote for him over any republican, but I'm not wearing the t-shirt any more and i doubt if i'll donate money the next time he runs. He's lost this progressive and he's going to have to work to get me back.

[gregzink]

Agreed.

Power must not be assumed to be developmental or infallible, power needs to constantly justify its authority or be actively dismantled.

[gurukalehuru]

"...it's easy to sit back and whine about "the government" as if it were some evil, alien entity, separate from ourselves.­"

But it is. That's the whole problem.

[luckynewman13]

I find it strange people place the prosecutions of the Bush Administration at Obama's feet. First of all it is the job of the Justice Dept. "But But But Eric Holder works at the pleasure of the President!", No he doesn't, the President just nominated him, Eric Holder is his own man. And if anybody has read Vincent Bugliosi's (spelling?) book, then arguably ANY State or Federal Attorney could bring charges against the Bush Administration for the unlawful death of an American Soldier. But have they? Our judicial cowardice runs much deeper than progressives would like to admit.

[eciaccio]

Bush committed the supreme war crime: an illegal war of aggression based on lies (many from torture). Those war crimes have killed and maimed millions of Iraqis and thousands of Americans. The longer Obama keeps ANY U.S. troops in Iraq, the more these war crimes continue.

Bush inflicted collective punishment, another war crime, on the Afghan people as revenge for 9/11. Bagram prison has been the scene of torture and murders of prisoners.

None of these war crimes are being prosecuted by Obama, despite his LEGAL OBLIGATION to prosecute them.

Obama's drone attacks on Pakistani villages are war crimes.

Torture is still being committed in Guantanamo as well as Bagram. Rendition is still U.S. policy. Human rights have NOT significantly improved under Obama.

22,000 Americans die each year (60 every day) from lack of health care. Only a public national health care plan - single payer - will cover all Americans and also save hundreds of billions of dollars. Obama and other Democrats are so beholden to the insurance industry that single payer is "off the table". A public plan is in doubt even among Democrats.

THIS is the Big Picture. Iraqis, Afghanis, Pakistanis and Americans will continue to suffer and die as long as Obama continues these pre-Obama policies here and abroad. THIS is why we want change NOW, not in six months! We cannot wait any longer. Too many lives are at stake.

[jhNY]

Agreed! Well-said.

[caterpol]

Regardless of the endless critcism, just and unjust, nitpicky and serious, the alternative GOP ticket would have been an unmitigated disaster--­--somethin­g I wish some of the more vocal would acknowledge more often.

Thanks for the article.

[gurukalehuru]

Acknowledged. Now, back to the criticism.­...

[WorkingClass]

Defending the constitution is not a right left issue, or shouldn't be. I am a socialist but I could have voted for Ron Paul because he wants to restore the government to the people. Obama is a corporatist. That is not nit-picking. That is a very serious charge.

[elmerfude]

Americans -- grow up! LOL Things will need to get a lot worse before that happens.

[jhamm1]

Like it or not, there's another reason other than "nitpicking" to explain the large amount of criticism he has reaped on one issue or another within his first 6 months in office, much of which directly relates to the large amount of sweeping decisions that he has instigated within so short a period of time.

Granted, there's nothing insignificant about escalating the conflict in Afghanistan or instigating hopelessly misguided educational policies that blame everything on the teachers, and thus with every single reform that effects millions upon millions of people, the obligatory portions that will inevitbly become alienated as a result insures that the criticism will pile on quick and fast.

I naturally resent his unwillingness to prosecute members of the previous administration or his decisions to cover-up acts of tor.t.u.re in effort to cover our national behind, although that doesn't change the fact that overall I consider decisions he has enacted thus far as conducive to more good than harm.

When one enacts a large number of significant reforms, the culminative tally of the offended half is naturally bound to pile up

Thus, the large amount of criticism he receives is not a byproduct of "nitpicking", but a direct result of the large number of sweeping decisions he has chosen to make.

Furthermore, it may also surprise you that despite the criticism, us "nitpickers" continue to support him and continue to instigate overall feedback that sustains his favorable public approval ratings.