In Search of Disappointed Liberals

Well said, Joe. I would say that in May of 2009 it would be more appropriate to comment on the President’s performance, than 5 weeks after the election. Besides, he hasn’t even been sworn in yet. As someone who can remember life before Reagan, we are returning to a time in America, where reasonable, intelligent people will not be marginalized.
.
I will never be completely satisfied with an Obama presidency, a fatuous expectation, but Obama is an incredible improvement over the alternative. That is what we should be thinking about over the next several weeks.

.
Well but then, we are entirely entitled to express our opinions and weigh in on the appointments and policy positions even in the pre-partum phase of the presidency.
.
And entitled to weigh in as aggressively as possible when a possible grievously flawed name is floated for a nomination. I refer here to the John Brennan trial balloon, of course.
.
Waiting and watching and hoping for the best isn’t always a good option, Joe. Because most of these nominations are going to skate through on greased bearings, when a truly egregious nomination is contemplated it is incumbent upon us to say something sooner, rather than later.
.
You might have missed the kerfluffle on Brennan, and the current aggressive pushback by his supporters.

actually, its not hard to find disappointed liberals — if you can see past the borders of the Village.

Most prominent, at this point, is Chris Bowers over at OpenLeft. The people at correntewire.com, especially lambert, have been highly critical of Obama’s personnel choices. Glennzilla has also been getting on Obama’s case on occassion.

But on the whole the fauxgressive blogosphere is living up to its name — it continues to be more interested in advancing/protecting Obama’s personal reputation than in advancing progressive issues and positions.

And if you want to know what a “fauxgressive” is, find someone who is wetting themselves over the Shinseki appointment to the utterly insignificant (in terms of big policy decisions) Dept of Veterans Affairs — without going apesh*t over the fact that Gates is probably going to remain in the far more crucial job as Sec. of Defense.

Not only is Shinseki just a “bauble”, its important to recognize the double standard that the fauxgressives employ — fulsome praise when Obama does something “progressive”, and silence when Obama does something that the Center-Right Village considers awesome, but that real progressives see as a sign of betrayal.

This whole thing could have been avoided by including one liberal in a prominent role. Liberals are not demanding that only liberals be included in the cabinet, but they do want some representation. They have been shut out by centrists and the Right, who worked against Obama.

[chuckle]
.
Well, at least I’ve finally found one, in pluk, one of those angry left wingers.
.
Bowers hasn’t fit that profile, Paul. GG pointed out today that people got upset about appointments like Bolton, so they thought they mattered then, but the appointments haven’t been people like Bolton. Gates isn’t Rumsfeld.
.
Agree on Shinseki as a shiny object, but he certainly was a well-chosen shiny object, both for purposes of message and appearance and for substance. The VA will need to be well-run in the next four to eight years, even if its director has no policy influence.

The anger in the liberal grass roots is real. Check out the talk shows or the blogosphere. Obama is spending the time to become a centrist at the expense of the Left.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Pluk – I’ve decided you’re probably a troll – the most clever we’ve had, if so. Just saying I’ll take anything you say with a large grain of salt.

Having now read the link, I’d like to point out again that much of the confusion I see has to do with the conflation of two senses of the term liberal which get used interchangably but are only marginally related. People who want infusions of Federal money to rebuild bridges, green up industry and are in general sympathetic to organized labor are often labelled liberal. People who oppose wars of agression, secrecy in governance, and torture and cruelty directed at foreigners are also labeled liberal. While there is some overlap, they are not necessarily the same people. The people who want a classic “New Deal” style liberal in office have plenty of reason to celebrate. The ones who want to curb the secrecy and cruelty that surrounds our Foreign policy apparatus, have plenty of reason to still be worried.

It’s not that hard to describe or figure out. But the confusion of the two groups among pundits is probably deliberate.

Obama is not behaving any differently than he said he would, during the campaign. It will be easier to pursue progressive policies with a cadre of people who don’t freak out the right.

But Joe, of course liberals are going to be disappointed! They simply refuse to recognize that America is a center-right country, and that to succeed Obama must govern from the center-right. Why oh why won’t liberals accept this argument? The press and political commentators have been doing their job and ramming it down our throats, so why can’t the liberals cooperate and roll over?
.
If Obama appointed liberals to his cabinet he would be going against the center-rightness of our country. To truly serve the people that elected him to office on a liberal platform, Obama must ignore the people’s conscious objections to appointing moderates and conservatives, and focus on their subconscious desire to live in a center-right country.

plukasiak there are a number of people on this site now who love throwing out the “troll” accusation. I don’t know why that is but it is a common tactic among real trolls. Do what the rest of us do, just ignore them.

derekg says, “They have been shut out by centrists and the Right, who worked against Obama.”
.
Centrists did not work against Obama; they won the election for him. Those pesky suburban swing voters. And so far, there isn’t a single person Obama has appointed who is from “the Right”, which would make it hard for them to shut anyone out.
.
Frankly, I’m convinced that there are pundits on the left whose self-interest is to squawk as loudly and vociferously as they can, if only to elevate their own profile. This has nothing to do with genuine complaints, but to get the attention on themselves and somehow position themselves as the “leader” or spokesperson of the disgruntled progressives. It’s purely about self-promotion.

What James, Los Angeles said. People need to stop overreacting to perfectly normal criticism of some Obama appointments, or even possible appointments. This is how the political process is supposed to work.
–
Paul Dirks, good points. My only disagreement is that I think it’s still unclear if Obama will sufficiently embrace New Deal spending – sufficiently being the key word there. He probably will, and I’m becoming more optimistic. Also, the key problem with separating these two aspects of “liberalism” (it is such a poorly defined word, especially for those of us who automatically think of Adam Smith as a strong liberal) is that they are linked. Obama will not have the money for a green New Deal unless he downsizes foreign policy. Which in the long term will be difficult to do if by torturing people we keep creating new enemies. And obviously it’s not compatible with wars of aggression. There’s just not enough money to bailout Wall Street, fight wars of aggression and invest in a green New Deal.
–
plukasiak and Kathy, neither of you are trolls.

Hey now, the right needs this. They haven’t been able to take pleasure in the pain of their self-chosen “enemies” in months! They’re really gagging for a fix, and will take whatever weak sauce they can.

Seriously, why are people so skeptical of the idea that progressives could sincerely be unhappy with Obama? Larry Summers and FISA are reason enough. I get not feeling the same way. But this idea that anyone who disagrees with us is stupid or dishonest is destructive.

GG pointed out today that people got upset about appointments like Bolton, so they thought they mattered then, but the appointments haven’t been people like Bolton. Gates isn’t Rumsfeld.

talking about moving the goalposts!

“not as bad as Bolton” is suddenly the basis on which we judge the appointments of a Democratic president? Let alone a President who presented himself as an alternative to the far too “establishment” and “centrist” Hillary Clinton?

What we’re looking at here is village Obamaphile “center-right” framing — Klein calling Gates “the best” choice?!?!?! WTF? I mean, its one thing to call Gates an acceptable choice, but the idea that a Bush do-boy who makes “diplomacy first” noises (hey Joe, Rumsfeld made those same “diplomacy first” noises) would be called “the best person for the job” in a Democratic administration after eight disasterous years of Bush is mind boggling….

Obama used millions of progressive votes to get the nomination, and used the energy and enthusiasm of those millions of progressives to win in November. Now that he’s won, the fraudulent nature of his election persona is becoming more and more obvious — he’s really an attractive but (ultimately empty) suit, fronting for the Village approved Wall Street agenda promoted by Rahm and his buddies.

But because human nature means that you don’t admit mistakes until well after the mistake has become obvious, the fauxgressives continue to employ their double standard, and act as if Obama is not betraying them.

BTW, Bowers is a “disappointed” liberal — he’s not angry about Obama, just “disappointed”. What gets Bowers angry is that Kos get phone calls from the media, and he doesn’t. (see http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10347)

Yes, people are deeply disappointed in Obama’s performance thus far: Seventy-nine percent approve of Obama’s performance so far during transition, with 18 percent disapproving.

Do cabinet appointments equal policy?

And did Obama even associate himself strongly with the progressive wing of the Dem party during the election?

Feel angry the country isn’t moving as far left as you wanted, but don’t feel betrayed. Especially since I’ll bet most of you voted for Edwards.

plukasiak there are a number of people on this site now who love throwing out the “troll” accusation. I don’t know why that is but it is a common tactic among real trolls. Do what the rest of us do, just ignore them.
_
trust me, as someone who never supported Obama, I’m used to Oborg labelling me a troll. But more than enough of the original gang know who I am that these “newbies” calling me a troll will be ignored….

pluk says, “What gets Bowers angry is that Kos get phone calls from the media, and he doesn’t.”
.
I suspect that that is heart of the truth.

And did Obama even associate himself strongly with the progressive wing of the Dem party during the election?

Obama signalled to progressives that he was, in fact, a progressive (remember FISA?) but Obama never associated himself strongly with anything other than his own personality cult.

.
btw, pluk, it’s good to “see” you here again. If there has been *any* positive of this lame new WordPress system, the fact that you can make your appearance again is it.
.

I wonder how many times we can have the exact same conversation bewteen now and when BHO puts his hand on the bible?

P-NNTO, probably every day except over the holidays. Actually, I think I’m done with this conversation about the legitimacy of evaluating Obama’s Administration on the basis of appointments and comments during the transition period. If McCain had been elected, I can’t imagine never criticizing any of his appointments or never expressing concern about what his appointments suggested about his Administration. I’m just tired of this idea that no can say anything negative about his decisions because we don’t know the policy outcome yet. Notice that it’s “negative” comments that are unacceptable. Talking about how the Shinseki pick shows he will be a great President is just fine.
–
And once again, debate is good. Maybe we should do what Chris Bowers suggests, and actually believe Obama’s comments about welcoming vigorous debate. http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=06FA77F5460398C98174FDD9F0F0DAB7?diaryId=10349

Rose-
And the flip side of that coin, of course, is counter arguements are greeted with “What, can’t anyone have concerns?”

If his cabinet is filled with nothing but members of the centrist cult guess what kind of advice he is going to get. There is nothing unusual about the Left wanting to have someone at the table representing their point of view.

Is Joe Klein still promoting the thoroughly discredited, leftist kook conspiracy theory that Eric Shinseki was “forced to retire from the military” or has Klein issued an apology and retraction to said discredited fantasy?

Yeah! And what about Joe Klein saying Obama won the election? People say it’s common knowledge, but I demand proof or retraction!

P-NNTO, I’m saying we should be debating the concerns, not the legitimacy of having concerns.

I dunno. Maybe I’m not as liberal as I thought. The cabinet looks slightly more centrist than I expected, but still center-left, which is where I thought he’d be.

perhaps take the opportunity to read a good book

Following the election, I’ve chilled out a bit on the online world, and I’m more interested in books. This Sam Tanenhaus speech gave me a book bug and I’ve taken to reading old conservative books–mostly to go back and try to figure out how these guys learned to think (or not). (It looks like what I’m doing is a trend these days…)

Isn’t Daschle a progressive?

Here’s a thought for any “disappointed liberals”. Quit crying and gain some perspective.
.
I submit for the left (arguably a group I am most identified with) the same tonic I dish out ‘liberally’ to the right: grow up.
.
It makes no sense to complain about anything Obama has done in this transition simply to promote the idea of reckless engagement towards any and all long-time supposedly liberal ideas. No more sense than it makes to always be against anything, just for the sake of being in opposition and stagnant. A characteristic of the ‘right’ by sheer definition of being conservative it seems in their minds.
.
We need smart, open minded leadership that is frank about its intentions and candid about success as well as failings. The ideologues of either traditional side serve no good purpose for this country. The right decision for the right problem at the right time is what is required, and that is something that is always fluid.
.
If you have a good idea stop complaining and get involved in a positive way to get it implemented. A “disappointed liberal” that is complaining right now before the man has even taken office might as well just call themselves a neocon and save the rest of us the trouble of considering them worth listening to ahead of time. We don’t need any more distractions from the ever mounting real problems we have or the effort to fix them.

And if you need any reminder: if you are soooooo unhappy with the pre-sworn Obama, you could have always had Palin. Good God America, no wonder we are in the shape we are in. Reason, logic, rationale, civics, perspective …. all seem lost within our borders in any substantive quantity.

To anyone who thinks it is wrong for the Left to have an opinion why don’t you move to Saudi Arabia or somewhere where free speech is not permitted.

But more than enough of the original gang know who I am that these “newbies” calling me a troll will be ignored….
.
pluk isn’t a troll, but I did prefer HH’s brand of bomb-throwing.
.
On Obama’s cabinet choices – I’m fine with people who know what they’re talking about, like Greenwald, taking issue with the appointments.
I don’t know who these people are, so I’m going to keep my trap shut for a little and see how they work.

No criticizing anyone else’s opinions, everyone! From now on, the internet is only for singing “Kumbaya!”

Texte: Is Joe Klein still promoting the thoroughly discredited, leftist kook conspiracy theory that Eric Shinseki was “forced to retire from the military”…

Yawn. How many times do we have to hear this faux-aggrieved wingnut talking point? Here’s what happened:

The relationship, never close, hit the rocks when Rumsfeld let it be known in April that he had decided to name Gen. John M. Keane, the Army’s vice chief of staff, as its next chief, 15 months before its current chief, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, was scheduled to retire. This immediately made Shinseki a lame duck…

If you want to make a semantic argument over “forced to retire,” go ahead, flip out, do somersaults, etc., but it makes you look pretty silly…

Pluk

Is your doppelganger Stuart Zechman? His rise seemed to coincide with your departure, and now that the election is over, his departure seems to mysteriously lead to your return?

I say this with love for both of you. Of course, I think (both of) you were straight delusional, in thinking Hillary was any more progressive than Obama. They’re both, as was Clinton I, dyed in the wool centrists. But we each have our anointed “one” we’re in denial about.

“fulsome praise when Obama does something “progressive”, and silence when Obama does something that the Center-Right Village considers awesome”

Bingo–some are constitutionally incapable of criticizing Obama. With my dad it was Clinton I–he could have molested children in the oval office but after 12 years of Reagan/Bush he’d have written it off. It’s ultimately about faith, isn’t it. For many who want to believe in something larger than themselves, something pure and meaningful. Make of Obama and idol, make him Jesus and, sh-t, you’re no better than the Joe Kleins and MSM figures you purportedly scorn.

I’m proud I helped elect Obama, but I remain a proud member of Zinn’s resistance too. In other words, faux-progressives, you can think and chew gum at the same time.

“The Unreported Resistance”
by Howard Zinn

‘In the early 1990s, a writer for the New Republic magazine, reviewing with approval in the New York Times a book about the influence of dangerously unpatriotic elements among American intellectuals, warned his readers of the existence of “a permanent adversarial culture” in the United States.
It was an accurate observation. Despite the political consensus of Democrats and Republicans in Washington which set limits on American reform, making sure that capitalism was in place, that national military strength was maintained, that wealth and power remained in the hands of a few, there were millions of Americans, probably tens of millions, who refused, either actively or silently, to go along. Their activities were largely unreported by the media. They constituted this “permanent adversarial culture.”
The Democratic party was more responsive to these Americans, on whose votes it depended. But its responsiveness was limited by its own captivity to corporate interests, and its domestic reforms were severely limited by the system’s dependency on militarism and war.’

Pluk – I’m happy to stand corrected.

“I’d also disagree with Tomasky that naming Robert Gates as SecDef is somehow a concession to the centrist Establishment. As I’ve often argued here, Gates is the best person for the job–and very much in line with Obama’s diplomacy first doctrine.”

Can’t it be both? While I personally think Richard Danzig would make a slightly better fit at DoD, it’s so signifigant a gap to override the obvious benefit that the centrist Establishment <3 Robert Gates.

As for waiting and watching without commenting, I say kudos to those who are able to ramp up and down their level of concern. While I can clearly accept Robert Gates, John Brennan was a non-starter. People should say what they think and their reasons why, so others (such as myself) can learn more about the process and the people involved.

Finally, I’m not “disappointed” but I am concerned, depending on who gets the deputy Secretary and other important positions around the executive branch. (Didn’t Dick Cheney stick his people in many of those slots?)