Frustration is a wonderful motivator for blogging -- and for those of us steeped in politics, each day brings an extra measure of it.
Take Karl Rove's encomium to the gloriously successful Iraq war and his abiding humility in admitting a big mistake: not attacking the war's critics more effectively.
Trotting out a long-ago debunked argument about weapons of mass destruction, Rove writes:
Saying the commander-in-chief intentionally lied America into war is about the most serious accusation that can be leveled at a president. The charge was false--and it opened the way for politicians in both parties to move the debate from differences over issues into ad hominem attacks.
Yes, it is a serious charge, and to those of us who protested the Iraq invasion with all our might (and who were called traitors in the process) it was not leveled lightly. It would take more than a single post to fully refute the falsehoods in Rove's piece, but here are a few key points:
And yet, the idea that Iraq is a success is not exclusive to Karl Rove. Glenn Greenwald explains:
There's no question -- as this glorifying, propagandistic Newsweek cover story reflects -- that it's now official dogma that this was the right thing to do, or at least that we produced something great and wonderful for that country, as was our intent all along (leaving aside the what is actually happening in Iraq). It's nothing short of nauseating to watch those responsible glorify what they did without weighing -- or, in Friedman's case, affirmatively dismissing as irrelevant -- the extreme amounts of death and suffering that they caused, all based on false pretenses.
Pivoting to a larger issue: the manufacture and sale of Washington's major export: conventional wisdom (and I use the latter word with appropriate cynicism). Beltway 'wisdom' is the product of an incestuous DC environment, where reporters, politicians, assorted bigwigs and yes, even some bloggers, hob nob and stroke one another (mostly figuratively) and where ideas and notions and narratives are tossed around and stirred till something emerges that vaguely mirrors reality but has little substantive relationship to it.
A quintessential example is this piece in the Politico, an outlet that has become a powerhouse in the new media era, employing some of the sharpest political reporters and connected to our capitol's power centers.
Entitled Why Obama loses by winning, it lists the reasons why, despite big legislative victories, (chiefly, health insurance reform and financial regulation), President Obama is still "widely perceived as flirting with a failed presidency." Among those reasons?
"On the issues voters care most about ... Obama has shown himself to be a big-government liberal." And: "an elite group of commentators on the left -- many of whom are unhappy with him and are rewarded with more attention by being critical of a fellow Democrat -- has a disproportionate influence on perceptions. The liberal blogosphere grew in response to Bush. But it is still a movement marked by immaturity and impetuousness -- unaccustomed to its own side holding power and the responsibilities and choices that come with that."
In fairness, the article makes a couple of accurate points. One in particular I find especially resonant and have written at length about, that Obama has failed to articulate a grand vision. But the idea that Obama's problems are a result of his excessive liberalism or the alleged immaturity, impetuousness and irresponsibility of progressive bloggers, is plain wrong and says more about the authors' views than the facts.
It didn't require convoluted Beltway analysis to figure out that Bush and Rove were lying in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. And it doesn't take the Politico's regurgitation of Beltway wisdom to tell me what's ailing the current White House: simply put, Obama hasn't adequately repudiated Bushism, in deed or words.
Beginning in 2001, the opposition to Bush on the left centered around war, civil liberties, civil rights, secrecy, national security, and hostility to science (and by extension the environment). That opposition spawned the netroots and set the groundwork for future Democratic victories, including Obama's.
Today, the complaint from Obama's progressive critics is that in many of those areas, Bush's approach lives on, neither disavowed nor discontinued.
It astonishes me that the White House, Obama's supporters, and pundits fail to understand how profoundly detrimental this is to his fortunes. In the long run -- and coupled with his unwillingness to present a grand unified vision -- it will likely trump his legacy of legislative achievements.
Unfortunately, the President, his advisers, and many Democratic leaders and strategists are captives of the same Beltway mindset that tells us Iraq is a resounding success and Obama's problem is the liberal blogosphere. In too many ways they embrace and embody it, running away from the "liberal" tag, shunning the left, marginalizing progressive ideas, and working overtime to please the likes of David Brooks, a prime purveyor of Beltway wisdom.
At this point, bemoaning the fact that Obama isn't a true progressive is overdone. Who knows or even cares what's in his heart. What matters are the results of this administration's policies. Elected officials are answerable to us - we have failed ourselves and our country if we don't hold them accountable every single day. It's our job, our duty. It's also our responsibility to research the facts, know the issues and reach our own conclusions, not the storylines fed to us by Beltway pundits or DC communications shops.
Obama and his team have accomplished some big things - they should be lauded for persevering in the face of withering criticism and an entrenched opposition held hostage by reactionaries. Still, we must continue to demand true progress, not half measures. We must demand fealty to fundamental Constitutional principles and to the highest ethical ideals. Anything less is unacceptable.
It's always easier to go with the flow, but I for one will proudly tell my daughter that I pulled, pulled, pulled to the left as the nation drifted right.
Follow Peter Daou on Twitter: www.twitter.com/peterdaou
Bush made horrible mistakes, and I agree we should not have gone into Iraq (not because of the "lies", but because of the complications that predictably arose after the successful invasion, but which were not planned for), but "Bush lied" was and is a Democratic construct for political gain. Rove is right, that his worst mistake was allowing that tale to be told without refutation, leading to the disaster of the 2006 and 2008 elections.
But the ultimate US victory in Iraq washes away much of that pain. Although the Democratic Party did its utmost to try to stop a successful outcome (e.g., Harry Reid - "this war is lost"; Obama's opposition to the surge which saved the day), Bush at least had the guts to stay in and find a successful strategy to avoid defeat. Few will agree here, but history will record Iraq as a conflict reviled during its time, but with far reaching positive effects on US strategic goals. Unless Obama finds a way to screw it all up again.
The current tsumani to cutting and even killing Social Security is getting the same push from the so called news.
Push back and push back hard.
Iraq is now just as much a theocracy as is Iran.
All the news, yes all of it including NBS(owned by multinational GE)
and NPR/PBS (80% support from corporations) is conservative
and want the Republicans back in power.
Looking after corporate profits.
Every news organization in the nation owned by the same billionaires that own the Republican Party.
Mr. Daou is right is saying: "Who knows or even cares what's in [Obama's] heart." What matters is that Obama and all Democratic elites LOOK like political quislings who privately support the Republicans' worldview and policies, albeit sans the "rough edges". Indeed Obama and his entire team ardently promotes this image.
This capitulation to the premises of the rightist movement goes all the way back to the days following the end of Franklin Roosevelt's Democratic Party leadership (in 1945) and the decline of Eleanor Roosevelt's influence in the 1950s.
A progressive third party that is "choice not an echo" to the "bad cop" Republicans and the "good cop" Democrats could work a realignment of American politics by combining Rooseveltian liberalism at home (favored by coastal liberal Democrats) with traditional "Mid-western" isolationism in foreign and defense policy (favored by the majority of Americans in the "flyover" states).
The British Liberal Democrats have given American progressives a blueprint to roughly emulate. If not us, who? If not now, when?
Eric C. Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, California
http://www.libdems.us
The bad cop says to the crook, look, you're in a heap of trouble and you better come clean if you know what's good for ya. The good cop says, hey, we feel the pain of your neglected childhood and know what you did wasn't really your fault. So let us help you out of this situation.
If I was voting for cops, I'd vote for the bad cop.
Why the going is so tough for a nation with a solid liberal majority that did elect a solid liberal majority to the House, fell short in the Senate, but does have the Presidency.
The electorate is clammoring for change, there seems to be enough
Democrats to get more movement.
Do you really think the elected Dems are just caving to Republicans?
http://www.myspace.com/virginiadem
My Rep is a Blue Dog, he did vote for the Stimulus, Health Care, Finance Reform.
First, we need to define "victory." The health reform legislation was not a victory -- it was a preemptive capitulation to the right, in which the two most popular elements of reform were never seriously pursued: universal single payer care, and the public option.
And how about financial reform? Victory? Yeah, for the banks and Wall Street. Glass-stegall remains and too big to fail was abandoned, even though both are core reasons for the economic collapse.
Both Health Stocks and financial stocks soared when the Bills were passed. that tells you all you need to know about who won and who lost, but if you're in denial, they won, and the people lost and the Obama administration barely showed up.
Now, as it happens, real reform was backed by huge majorities in both cases, and real reform was, by any measure, "liberal," or to use a less tainted term, progressive.
So, that tells any thinking person that the Obama administration is in danger of failing because they're too conservative.
As Ghandi said, "There go my people. I must hurry and get in front of them, if I am to lead."
Obama is firmly at the back of the pack and paying for it. So are we.
Look at this instead Begin with the Regan 1st term. 40 years ago that allowed all that money
to accumulate at the top.
Change the regs to allow monopolizaion
including all news organizations.
Information
Food
Energy/Power Grid
Banking/Wall Street
Everything really, but those are key.
If a few people control all that, do you think an election is going to stop them?
President Obama seems content letting the "democratic process" do its thing, despite the obstructionism of the Republicans. The game has changed, and the President should realize this, and the People should be prepared for the consequences. A strong executive is needed in order to get things done these days, and for the will of the people to be acted upon.
Letting Congress and the Senate fight it out has run its course because of party-line politics, and ideological battles crippling social well-being. The People have been undermined by this turn of events, and have been relegated to bystander status who get what they get; good or bad.
Earlier post:
How about the apathy and lack of initiative on behalf of the American People? We have become spineless whiners who are afraid of losing what we do have, and cannot fathom actually standing up and revolting. On the one hand, Ameicans do have it better than a lot of other people around the globe, but on the other hand, things could be a lot better if only We stood up for ourselves in meaningful ways that cannot be ignored.
Obama's the one who didn't hold up his end of the bargain. It's not my job in a representative democracy to march in the streets every day. It's Obama's job to do what he said, or at least try. He's not trying.
My mother can now get preventative care without out of pocket costs, my daughter can stay on my insurance. We will have preventative care without out of pocket costs. I can get insurance despite a pre existing condition. My credit card statement is easy to read. There is now a cap on the fees I can be charged. My children will not have to pay more than 10% of their income each month for student loans. Their loans will be forgive after 20- 25 years of payments, my daughter must be paid the same as her male counterpart, large businesses will be required to offer adequate health benefits, etc...
Let us not forget that G-Dub and his posse increased executive power dramatically. I think he could and should use it; instead, he's either 1) respecting the process, 2) lying to us on the Left, or 3) just a whimp.
Some things are getting done, but not without an over abundance of compromise. Even with health care, we had the Left wanting this, and the Right wanting that; what we wound up with is a Frankenstien composed of bits and pieces that no one is overjoyed with.
Ultimately, we who supported him wanted bigger change, faster, and it's disappointing to realize that our expectations are not in line with reality. Sigh.
1. Ordering targeted assassinations of Americans, not tried or convicted of any crime in a court of law, Anwar-al-Awlaki comes to mind, Source - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html
2. Ordering, in December 2009, 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan
3. Resisting court ordered releases of Gitmo detainees, Source - http://www.propublica.org/article/as-gitmo-detainees-legal-victories-mount-obama-admin-resists-orders-to-rele
4. Increasing use of unmanned Predator drones; philosophy similar to Bush administration’s http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/2010/03/30/what-obama-s-predator-strike-policy-tells-us-about-bush-s-covert-attacks.html
5. Continuing Bush Administration rendition policy, Source - http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/01/nation/na-rendition1
6. Continuing Bush Administration policy under “No Child Left Behind” – high stakes testing, Source - http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/obamas_education_policies/
7. Defending Bush Administration policy of warrantless wiretapping, Source - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123638765474658467.html
8. Signing one-year extension of Patriot Act, Source - http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0301/Obama-signs-Patriot-Act-extension-without-reforms
"In his executive order on lawful interrogations, Obama created a task force to reexamine renditions to make sure that they "do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture," or otherwise circumvent human rights laws and treaties.
"Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured"
Another example would be the recent "financial overhaul". This was a step in the right direction, but in terms of achieving successful measures that will protect the interests of the average person, it fell short; again, a half-measure compromise that allows everyone some sense of success as well as a sense of failure.
In must jurisdictions, negligence and criminal negligence are against the law, in that a person harmed by acts thereof can sue the actor for damages. Most jurisdictions also build criminal negligence into their penal codes, as a mens rea element of particular crimes.
Many blame Rahm Emanuel and others for giving bad advice; I blame Obama for heeding it.
Actually, the party you call "NO!" was defeated in the 2006 and 2008 elections and your party is in charge now. See how liberals snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!
The real problem with American politics is the over concentration of wealth, with about 50% of American wealth held by about 1% of the population. What Bloomberg (Republican) and Corzine (Democrat) have shown is that very wealthy individuals can buy themselves elections out of pocket. CEO's pay structure in part has risen dramatically relative to inflation because they are able to use Political Action Committee money collected from their subordinates to lobby for their own personnel benefit. At this juncture, the voice of the middle class is being drowned out by the money of the wealthy. What is needed is a clarion call from Progressives to promote leveling the playing field by putting an end to special tax breaks, special incentive pay, stock options and monopolistic practices that allow the wealthy to steadily and rapidly increase their portion of the American economic pie.
Oh yeah, because Geithner is a plant in the Obama administration from Goldman Sachs. He was a protégé of ex-Goldman CEO Robert Rubin, who gave Geithner a job in the Clinton Treasury Department. And as New York Fed President, Geithner worked closely with ex-Goldman CEO "Hank" Paulson and Fed Chief Bernanke on the bailout of AIG which benefitted mostly Goldman. And, Geithner's Chief of Staff at Treasury is Mark Patterson - a former lobbyist for Goldman Sachs.
So really, Goldman Sachs IS the government.
"The liberal blogosphere grew in response to Bush. But it is still a movement marked by immaturity and impetuousness — unaccustomed to its own side holding power and the responsibilities and choices that come with that.
So many liberals seem shocked and dismayed that Obama is governing as a self-protective politician first and a liberal second, even though that is what he campaigned as."
Good in November Democrats. You're going to need a miracle.
Broader thinkers have to see relationships between events that are, on the surface, unrelated. I thought that was one thing liberal arts and philosophy majors were supposed to learn, i.e. how to THINK GENERALLY and then drill down to ferret out those relationships. Many problems we face, IMHO, we face for the same meta-reason. The reason our leaders (and us) keep trying to fit problems into our world view, no matter what side were on, is not only greed and indoctrination, but a lack of the ability to mentally take that unifying step. IMHO, here's why they are, generally, mentally incapable of it. It goes back to training. This is why, "When you're only tool is a hammer...".
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/10/the-creativity-crisis.html
This is why I use the terms "office gerbil" and am so against people who don't make ANYTHING for a living.
We have to be more general in our approach to problem solving, and seeing commonality and relationships between disparate things, with is difficult, or we're just fighting the next fire, usually with the last method. If we can't be creative AND altruistic, we're all f***ed.