We were all outraged with Bush for mutilating the Civil Service and substituting his incompetent and corrupt cronies, but now the armchair leftists are scandalized that Obama isn't doing the same thing--isn't putting together a government of yes-men and clones, and creating a bubble of Groupthink. Speedy as he is, Obama can't top the armchair leftists for early starts--they're on the attack before he even takes office.
Armchair leftists seem to have a hard time distinguishing between talking and doing. They admire the political talkers but disdain the political doers of America, who are never progressive enough. Armchair leftists know for sure that their opinions are the correct ones, and like to listen endlessly to other people who profess them. They vote piously for fringe candidates who don't have a prayer of winning--ideologues who couldn't mount a viable political campaign if their lives depended on it. Fringe candidates in America have this advantage, after all: they will always remain pure, like a bug preserved in amber. They'll never get sullied by having to participate in the messy business of negotiating with the conservative unwashed. (This would change, of course, if we had proportional representation, but we don't). Fringe candidates have the further advantage that you can vote for them and feel you contributed to a progressive cause, and then go home and get back to the more comfortable business of whining about the status quo and the perfidy of politicians.
Armchair leftists don't really like democracy--don't like having to deal with people of different opinions. Much too messy and difficult. They would prefer to see their own opinions imposed on the ignorant masses by force. If only somebody would go and do it. At bottom, they're closet authoritarians. They would feel much happier with a left-wing dictator, at least for a while. Sooner or later they'd probably complain about him, too, only more quietly.
Obama has always been a moderate liberal--never claimed to be anything else. Only the fundamentalist Red State crazies see him as socialist or communist. But he's the most progressive president-elect we've ever had, except possibly LBJ and FDR. But he's far less likely to embark on stupid military escapades than LBJ was, while FDR couldn't have accomplished anything if he didn't have what was then the Solid South behind him. They didn't care what he did as long as he preserved segregation. Which he did.
Keep in mind that Bill and Hillary were pretty progressive when they started out in 1992. Bill wanted gays to be able to serve in the military and Hillary was going to reform health care. And they were both promptly squashed. They over-estimated their power and under-estimated the opposition, something Obama is unlikely to do. All they managed to achieve was to eliminate excessive secrecy in the federal government, which was undone, in spades, by the Bush administration.
The important thing to remember about Obama is that he was a community organizer. The Republicans stupidly sneered at him for it, but it's how he won the election, and it's how he's building his cabinet. What he'll be able to accomplish in the present chaos is anyone's guess. But he's creating a solid foundation right now, with no one opposing him except fundamentalists and a few die-hard neo-cons. And, of course, the armchair leftists.
(Check my website for information on my new book THE CHRYSALIS EFFECT: THE METAMORPHOSIS OF GLOBAL CULTURE).
I liked your observations about the "Armchair leftists" in the 3rd paragraph. It's so true. I had a friend who was more Liberal Than Thou - and I swear if I closed my eyes when she spoke, the judgemental and dismissive tone could have come out of the mouth of another right wing acquaintance. Their certainty of their rightness didn't leave much room for the voices of all the other American people they claimed to care about so much. They would either have been happier in a monarchy.
It's interesting. In spite of the constant (and well deserved) praise for Obama's speaking skills, I think his real strength is going to be in listening. Or in this case - selective hearing with a built in mute button. :-)
While I am thrilled to know that YOUR views have evolved to supplant Party orthodoxy, as a leftist armchair whiner, I would like to know why WE should alter our traditional view of the way the Party works in favor of the G.O.P. model; faith based worship of authoritarian figures?
While it is true that Obama has not even been inaugurated yet, it is also true that he has shown by his FISA vote and backing of the CEO bailout of Wall Street that his actions bear watching. If the only criticism heard on Capital Hill is levelled by Conservatives, it is the conservatives who will be heard. That is not what we voted for the lesser evil to see.....again.
Right now, all we have to judge is the perception of what we each believe his cabinet will do, and the reading of tea leaves by pundits trying to speculate what policies will be implemented and how. So, essentially, we have the team roster, but we have not played one second of the game.
What I personally hoped the election meant was that we had move past the ideological blinders era. I didn't like it on the right, I don't like it on the left. I think it strangles decision making, promotes gridlock, and keeps the focus on tit-for-tat battles that do nothing for real progress. But, based on the number of overwrought hair on fire chicken little articles so far, we are not there yet.
All I want now is a competent government that ignores this noise, puts its nose to the grindstone and honestly tries its best to make good on the promises made during the campaign. If it ticks off the left or the right... so be it. If they succeed they will have my backing. If they veer off course, they will have my criticism. But it will be based on what they actually DO.
How hard is that?
West coast since high school.. Have lived or worked places like Redono/Manhattan/Hermosa beach (LA...just lovely years ago), ...Bay Area, Seattle, ...
Home base.. 25 yrs .. The People's Republic of Eugene, Oregon (STILL lovely)
Suffice to say, Phil..I hear 'ya.....I feel your pain. Over the years I've had dear, DEAR friends, STELLAR people who DEFINE "making the perfect the enemy of the good".....They'd have voted for Nader in 2000 even if it meant Joe STALIN became President! (not far off)
Remember the FISA vote during the primaries? Tel com immunity? Sen. O got a lot of points with me for voting the way he did.
What?? security freak?..INTO wiretapping? Nope..... the vote was wrong...(the big wrongs were done) Meanwhile, at a time when the race was tied..he had the CONFIDENCE to risk infuriating his entire worshipfull base,....and he knew the conservatives (who might approve of the vote) would NEVER lift a finger for him.
The Lefty Blogs exploded...and serious Dems like me said "Hmmm, Tell me some more about this guy"
The N.Y. word for that rhymes with "walls" . Presicely what's needed now is a Progressive who'se Heart is in the right place (as always) but one whose cojones are as well... and securely fastened!
GREAT piece, Phil......Red meat for the "Keep it real" base
tm
The progressive community has been something else. I mean, let's face it, many doubted his strategies and engaged in daily hand-wringing. I didn't say all did, but many did.
In fact, right now, Rachel Maddow is doing something that I don't like. Maddow, a self-styled progressive, has been repeating that "o-o-o-h infrustructure" line about four days a week now. It's a line she intones just after talking about Obama's plan create millions of jobs that would repair our roads, bridges, highways, levees, tunnels, sewers, and, our electric grid which needs to be updated to meet our 21st century energy needs.
Its not that Maddow says it. Its that she uses a ridiculous tone, as if she's mocking a grand idea, an easy idea, to put people back to work in the short term. Its one of the reasons her show no longer gets my full, undivided attention. I've started switching back and forth between her and Larry King, something I never did before.
Its ok to question for progressives to question Obama's cabinet picks, to question what judges he might put on the Supreme Court, and even to question how far-reaching his environmental policies and health cares policies will be. But to turn mock his ambitious agenda and harshly attack his inclusion of Republicans in his "coalition government" before the man is even inaugurated is just plain ridiculous.
I have the same way about Rachel. I love her dearly. But I'd also like to know what her "o-o-o-h infrustructure" line means. My sister, who also watches Maddow, asked me last week what I felt Maddow was trying to say with her "o-o-o-h infrustucture" line. I told her I didn't know but it probably was good. I mean, is she trying to be funny? Is she mocking Obama's plan? These are good questions.
But I must say this: Maddow, Greenwald, Sirota, and Markos are merely progressives who we see. The progressive community is large and multi-layered. So while many in the limelight believe they speak for ALL progressives, they don't. There are progressives, "ideologically inflexible" progressives as you've termed them, who are content with JUST blogging and making position papers, and then there are those who are indeed pragmatic, organize marches, write letters, and even invite dissent.
I love being a progressive and I love the liberal blogosphere. And, I just wish that the liberal blogosphere allows Obama to get in and perform his duties before administering blistering criticism that I believe is unjustified at this point.
Bingo!!! They are no less desirous of telling others how to live their lives than Christian conservatives. And the idea of actually accomplishing something good for the country is much too terrifying... better to stick with the armchair and the perma-whine.
I'll be standing by for your response...
I too find it dishearting to read the whining from the left about "this isn't change" or is this "Clinton's 3rd term" or the "progressive have been thrown under the bus". Obama is only half way through his cabinet pick and White House Staff selection and already the interest groups, like "Latinos", "progressives", and previously "women" are all complaining that he isn't picking among them. geese! Next I wait for the "Muslims", the "Christian Fundamentalist" and the "Bigots" to start complaining too.
I believe Obama, give all the challenges he and the world is facing right now, will be a great president and people just need to be patient and have a little more faith in the guy.
No one is beyong reproach. Not Obama. Not me. Not even you.
Wanna know what is the operative word in your post? "If". "if he puts into office individuals who were 100% behind the war crimes..." Its cool to "if this" or "if that", but its gone way beyond something hypothetical for those ideologically inflexible progressives. Its now to the point where they believe they actually know how is going to govern. But how can they know that and he hasn't even taken office yet?
No one knows. Not me. Not you. So why not let him get inaugurated first? And then press him on this or that. GEEEZ.
Someone said something so relevant and so thought provoking the other day that I think it is a meme that bears repeating. They said if you don't want to turn over the federal government in this time of so many crises to unexperienced newbies with unproven and untried theories who haven't got a clue where the pipes and wires are in DC then who do you select from?
The only experienced Democrats at the federal level in 28 years are Clinton appointees. A litmus test of whether they supported the war initially is unfair because they would likely, in the environment the Shrubs administration created, been permanently driven from public life.
The public was screaming for someones blood after foreigners had the effrontry to attack us. I listened to ugly commentslike "we should kill all Muslims" or my son's Marines fav phrase that was repeated often " Kill em all and let God sort them out".
I WANT A GOVERNMENT that WORKS and does so in a constitutional manner. I trust that the man I voted for is going to deliver that. I saw the incredible level of criticism about his campaign and he was right. So YES I believe we got ourselves a 'live one' who just may deliver what we need.