Tweet
Netroots Nation is next week, and if you go, you’ll see the Majority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, at least three other Senators and a half-dozen members of Congress, and a bevy of candidates running in November. You won’t see a single member of the Administration, save for the late addition of the Secretary of Transportation (and that’s on a panel, not a keynote session).
See, the White House is deeply hurt that liberal validators are slagging them around. So hurt that they blabbed to VanDeHarris about it.
Eric Alterman, in a column that drew wide notice, wrote in The Nation that most liberals think the president is a “big disappointment.” House Democrats are in near-insurrection after White House press secretary Robert Gibbs stated the obvious — that the party has a chance of losing the House under Obama’s watch. And independent voters have turned decisively against the man they helped elect 21 months ago — a trend unlikely to be reversed before November [...]
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 also how he campaigned. The liberal blogs cheer the fact that Stan McCrystal’s scalp has been replaced with David Petreaus’s, even though both men are equally hawkish on Afghanistan, but barely clapped for the passage of health care. They treat the firing of a blogger from the Washington Post as an event of historic significance, while largely averting their gaze from the fact that major losses for Democrats in the fall elections would virtually kill hopes for progressive legislation over the next couple years.
In private conversations, White House officials are contemptuous of what they see as liberal lamentations unhinged from historical context or contemporary political realities.
Hands up if you “cheered” the installation of David Petraeus. We “cheered” the restoration of the Constitutional protection of a civilian-led military, and we’re not “cheering” the trashing of the Constitution in other areas (indefinite detention without evidence, anyone)? And we’ve pretty much given up on Afghanistan.
A couple unnamed cowards in the article actually get this – “mean person on a blog” matters almost nothing compared to “15 million unemployed.” The White House says they want to “reconnect with voters” on the economy. I’m afraid that’s not possible anymore. They spent over a year touting a too-small stimulus and then “pivoted” back to deficit reduction. They completely botched the popping of the housing bubble and the attendant foreclosure crisis, which hit a record high in the second quarter. HAMP is an executive branch program, so “Obama doesn’t control Congress” doesn’t apply here. (Though it should be noted that maintaining half-decent relations with Congress would probably go a long way toward improving the situation.)
I guess when you’re losing and you can’t admit to yourself the nature of the problem, it’s natural to cast about for a villain. But I’d say two things here. One, Presidents get blamed for recessions in a major way. The state of the economy is all that matters from a political science perspective. And the economy hasn’t improved in the tangible ways it would need to. You can say it’s improved, and make flashy charts and graphs, but ultimately, people know their personal economic situation and will grow more contemptuous of a government that tells them how much better everything’s getting. It’s not just unemployment, it’s that wages are dropping. It’s that inequality is spreading. It’s that the middle class continues to get squeezed. It’s that Wall Street seems to be thriving. That dissonance is driving the negative reaction to the President on every issue.
The second thing is that, to the extent that the “liberal left” is upset at the President, it’s because they are seeing a great opportunity slip away in real time. The only one that told the base that they could change America from the bottom up and bring forth a transformative new era of leadership is Barack Obama. If he didn’t want one, he shouldn’t have said anything. I guess you don’t get elected by opining on “contemporary political realities,” but these roadblocks went up in a flash, from practically the moment after the election. The people who worked for Obama, who knocked on doors and made phone calls and all the rest, got the door slammed in their face on Day One. And now, the people who did the slamming want to know why those guys are so angry all the time.
More than being “shut out” or “dissed,” because I really don’t care, the anger springs from the loss of a political moment. Nobody had a bigger challenge coming into office than Barack Obama but nobody had a bigger opportunity. And liberals like myself are generally peeved that the opportunity has been squandered. Yes, squandered: I know I’m supposed to talk about all the accomplishments and victories and how things would have been much worse if, say, McCain-Palin won. That’s a given and it’s not good enough. That’s not an expression of “immaturity” (man do I hate VanDeHarris), but an honest assessment of the situation.
If the problem is Republican obstruction, and it is, there are ways out of that both structural (structural procedural change has historically preceded real legislative change), rhetorical, and at the organizing level, and nobody has met that task. Organizing for America sent out an email yesterday telling me to call my Senators about the financial reform vote, which everyone knows is a done deal with 60 votes locked in. What a complete waste of organizing capacity. What a mockery of bottom-up change. What an advertisement for kabuki democracy. It’s not hard to figure out from where the lack of trust emanates.
If the problem is the economy, and it is, there are ways to politically position yourself on the side of those struggling and against those resisting the obvious steps needed. And that just hasn’t been done at all.
I don’t know how to wrap this up. I don’t care about not being liked by some powerful person. I’m shocked that they even notice. That they’re casting around for somebody to take the burden off their back of a wasted opportunity and a drowning Presidency is pretty telling about their character. Most of the problems they point out could be solved by being better at their jobs.
25 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Excellent post David.
“So many liberals seem shocked and dismayed that Obama is governing as a self-protective politician first and a liberal second”
?
He is governing like a liberal? If Obama is a “liberal” than I guess I am not.
Ya!!!!
What’s really pathetic is that VanDeHarris have proven they are nothing but the steno pool to the White House, and that they are willing to be treated to verbal abuse dished out by White House staff/adviser(s) for the privilege of keeping and wearing their kneepads.
Really, what was news in their 4-page piece? anything at all? Or just one long transcribed rant from an out-of-touch, power-corrupted White House?
Isn’t the problem simply that of perspective. To the administration something like HCR is the biggest change in a generation–and in many ways they’re not wrong. And it feels so monumental to them because it was such a nightmare to get through. But from the outside we all look at it like half a loaf because it doesn’t go far enough.
So while they’re expecting a standing ovation because to them it feels like they’ve just given birth, we give them a polite golf clap and ask them not to screw up the next thing on the list, which they read as a lack of appreciation.
Obama made so-called HCR “a nightmare to get through” because the final product had to conform to the secret deal he made with Pharma and IHIP. This deal was reported by the NYT last August. Anything that didn’t square with that under-the-table agreement (and would benefit ordinary Americans) had to be killed off, and Obama chose and rewarded those who did the killing for him. Remember Baucus? How about Blanche Lincoln killing off the public option? Remember Leiberman’s performance murdering the Medicare buy-in? How about the gang of assassins, including John Kerry, who killed the Dorgan Drug Re-Importation Amendment?
So yes, it is a problem of perspective. If you take the perspective of the health insurance corporations, and the wealthy elites who own their stock, it’s a great piece of legislation!
For the rest of us, it does not even warrant a “polite golf clap”. Obama’s so-called “legislative triumph” deserves our comtempt.
It’s nice that Pool Boi and his sidekick Harris have proved themselves so bi-stenographical, though: the Obama West Wing couldn’t haven’t asked for better.
The real issue, though, is: why does the Obama West Wing think this is smart? “Elite” bloggers are leading indicators, or they are irrelevant. But you gotta choose one.
Unhinged from “contemporary political realities”? You mean like the one that Mr. Obama is a right-center corporatist, not the agent of constructive middle class change he sold himself as in order to get into the Oval Office?
The “historical context” the White House has in mind must not include historic American opposition to torture and support for the rule of law, including applying the law without regard to race, color, creed or economic might? That historical context? Right.
Since no one in the White House asked my for opinion, and which is what I would expect from this bamboozlement crowd, I will utter my opinion regardless.
Despite the exasperation, frustration, and even somewhat mild contempt being expressed across America for Senator Reid, I have found his “obnoxious passivity” to be quite refreshing. To wit, he has managed to ‘capture’ Obama’s agenda and legacy. Or perhpas, Obama’s political advisers ‘colluded’ with Reid and Obama unwittingly ‘surrendered’ his agenda and legacy, unbeknowst.
Now, the result is obvious, Reid and Obama run “one” issue through the Senate, and when completed, start a ‘new’ run of “one” issue, again. And my fondness of historical figures like LBJ ran a multiplicity of issues simultaneously, and with considerable success. Thus, the Senate worked late into the night and which left no time for a behavior in which the political predators’ affinity of weak cadavers, was not a feast expected. Today, someone or anyone must be that feast, and the White House is this expected weak cadaver.
So, when our esteemed Jane Hamsher coined the phraseology of the “veal pen” no one realized that Obama’s White House is looking at the Senate’s veal pen and which is equivalent to a kid with his nose placed on the plate glass window of the Senate’s candy story. The White House is standing outside the plate glass window looking in and will take anything the Senate dishes out, and gladly.
Consequently, a “once in a lifetime” opportunity squandered, and all because of an underwhelming amount of “AGRESSIVENESS”.
Years ago, I had a private conversation with a former Governor and who resigned to become one of America’s better Ambassadors, told my that when he became Governor, he was fearful for being too aggressive since it was inevitable that he would be ‘attacked’ by the partisans. Anyhoo, a ‘wasted opportunity’ to help those with their ‘unmet needs’ never received a benefit from their vote cast at the ballot box. That that will Obama’s “burden” regardless of what his political successes or failures shall be in the future.
Jaango
David, absolutely superb post, clearly stated.
Remember the 2006 mid-terms, when all the Villagers were in high dudgeon over Howard Dean’s netroots-backed 50-strategy? How people like Rahm Emanuel and James Carville were screaming at the “misuse” of DNC funds when they could be used in targeted races to elect Rahm’s DINOs?
We were right then, and we’re right now.
The Villagers (and I’m including the administration) don’t live in the “real” world, they don’t know our economic realities and yet they lecture us endlessly. To listen to the likes of Mika Brzezinski and Mrs. Greenspan lecture us about belt-tightening — why, it’s enough to make a revolutionary out of a Quaker.
Oddly enough, the Villagers don’t seem to feel the same need to chide Wall St. I wonder why?
AmericaBlog posted a link to this article and I think the majority of my response there is appropriate here….
Obama was and is a right-winger and a fairly massive authoritarian. We were lied to and taken in by a Democratic Party whose goals are largely aligned with those of the Republicans and their rich benefactors. Their only disagreement is over the vehemence of their quest to achieve their mutual goals.
The sooner progressive voices stop rationalizing this behavior as cowardice or misunderstanding or incompetence or some such malarkey, the sooner progressives can start again to build a coalition that could save this country.
The Democratic party is as lost a cause as the GOP and no amount of rationalizing or pushing good money (or good will) after bad will change that.
The Obama administration and the Democratic party don’t care what we think, we were used as a convenient and disposable tool. Get over it and let’s move on, out of the (mostly conservative) Democratic party’s sick system.
I agree.
If they really are doing the best they can, they ‘re pretty bad at their job.
In the USA mediocrity reigns supreme. It has for many years.
For quite a few years,The people running that country have all failed at everything except enriching and congratulating themselves;
they expect you all to join in with accolades.
You really wonder, how much longer they can blunder along in this way. what’s next.
They are good at their jobs. The problem is what they are accomplishing (or avoiding) is set by their corporate masters agenda, not what the Republic or its Citizens need to survive. This of course goes for Congress. The GOP is happily acting as a whipping boy for an ineffectual(whether real or kabuki) Democratic leadership by constipating the Senate while Congressional campaign and offshore accounts are bulging as pay back.
Well said.
The anonymous WH officials are simply in denial. They don’t see that voters took Obama at his word when he made campaign promises and these voters now see that they were simply being used. People are tired of being manipulated by the corporations and the politicians. The lack of trust is palpable.
There is one thing for which we can thank Obama – he has made it crystal clear, at least to those of us paying attention, that this country is completely dominated by wealth and corporations. We have no illusions about our government anymore.
And let’s not forget WHO the WH chose to implement Health Insurance “oversight.”
Obama makes his choices. Now he gets to pay the price. The liberal bloggers surely have had no influence on the choices of personnel he has made. And those choices speak volumes about who he is and who he serves.
I fail to see how setting yourself and your party up for massive electoral losses is
but then, Rahm told me ages ago that I’m f*cking r*tarded, so what do I know?
Excellent post. We should enjoy the Politico article for the comedic propaganda that it is. This Presidency is sinking. Obama has given us nothing but a succession of lies, failures, and sellouts. They have stuck it to progressives every chance they could. Now they are whinging that we do not love them enough.
They would have us believe that they have, regardless of their actual output, been working in good faith, and they are hurt, hurt that we would think otherwise. But in fact they have been acting in bad faith all along, and this “VanDeHarris” piece is just another example. This Administration has never tried to work once with progressives on any issue. Obama and his team systematically excluded progressives from any post in his Administration, and then got rid of any who despite their best efforts slipped through.
The talking point that Obama is governing consistent with his campaign promises is typical Beltway bullshit. I know. I broke with Obama during his campaign precisely because his actions fundamentally contradicted his rhetoric.
For me, this is all just another instance of a desperately dysfunctional Administration blaming progressives and the Democratic base for its failures. They screw up so it must be our fault. For them, the problem is oh why, why can’t we just STFU and support them? That attitude says it all. They fuck us over and fuck us over and then they have the unmitigated chutzpah to wonder why we aren’t stumbling all over ourselves to lick their boots and thank them for just existing in the same universe as us. When you consider it, it is all fairly pathological.
As for Netroots Nation, it seems like an enormous waste of time. I mean Pelosi just tried to stick it to us over the cat food commission. Harry Reid has been sticking it to us on any issue you can name for years. Any group that would highlight these two is just not to be taken seriously.
Excellent statement. I’d only add that that nobody, NOBODY, respects or cares what VandeHarris thinks. Everyone knows they’re clueless, unprincipled stenographers. They’re excuse for shielding the anonymouse WH cowards again is pathetic.
Same old excuses from the Obama apologists.
For me it’s not so much the wasted opportunities, I’ve moved on to being alarmed by Obama’s actual actions…..from expanding the Bush/Obama wars to comparing gay people to incest and pedophilia to assassination orders of US citizens without trials to handing the Gulf of Mexico over to the whims of BP, etc.
It’s not what he hasn’t done, it is what he HAS done that is so alarming.
For many of us, it [HIR} looks more like half a slice, and a moldy one at that.
From the Politico article linked above:
Really…interesting.
A “liberal” second??? What indicates that President Obama is a “liberal”? He is neither liberal or progressive, hence, the basic contempt shown for both by him and his administration. Is it enough these days just to initiate a topic such as “health care reform” and then proceed to destroy real reform for the citizens, yet call it “liberal”???
Interesting.
“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 also how he campaigned.
BUT, the sad fact is that the sorry-ass liberal faction will, by and large, rally behind BHO in 2012. RahmCo has them pegged to a T. The terrified sheep will be stampeded into supporting the Dems, just to keep out whatever nutjob the Repubs trot out.
I will never vote Repub, but even a Palin-Beck ticket would still have me pondering whether to bother voting at all. I would rather be on my feet against an enemy than on my knees, getting sold down the river by my own party.
Thanks ever so much for this one, David. It is certainly being shared.
At this time before the YearlyKos convention in Las Vegas, Nancy Pelosi was expected to attend. We’ll see.
Are we better off than we were two years ago? Because that’s what this election is about. It’s what ALL elections are about.
And unless we work on Wall Street, we’re mostly not. Promises of ponies in 2014 don’t cut it.
End of story.