KRUGMAN: Obama admin seems to go out of its way to alienate its supporters

[yurbud]

What is truly perplexing is the contrast Krugman noted in the first paragraph I've excerpted here. Bush knew how to make his base feel like he was one of them and did so in a way that didn't necessarily alienate the middle.

Obama did that when he was running, but once elected, from the time he made his first staff appointment, Rahm Emanuel, proceeded to appoint almost exclusively corporate DLCers to his cabinet, and worse, some of the Wall St. architects of deregulation that led to the implosion of our economy, tp letting the likes of Max Baucus shape the health care reform bill and publicly praising Joe Lieberman for killing the public option, he did everything to make progressives feel like suckers and outsiders he could.

The only legitimate explanation I can think of for this is he knows the very wealthy can kill his presidency with their toadies in Congress (including many Democrats as well as all Republicans), with the media, and failing either of those, literally, if they feel threatened by him. So rather than reassure us, he reassures them and makes changes around the edges that puts some salve on the wounds the wealthy inflict.

What I think of is the contrast between how Obama operates and how Bush operated. Bush and his handlers were masters of dog-whistle politics — of conveying to their base, in ways that went under the radar of mainstream media, the message that he was really one of them. The vaguely Biblical language about evildoers, for example, struck most mainstream commentators as being slightly odd, but never mind; what it conveyed to the religious right, however, was the message that Bush was a dominionist at heart.

Obama, however, seems to go out of his way to convey the message that although he rode to office on a wave of progressive enthusiasm, he and his people don’t respect the people who got him where he is. There are the gratuitous jabs at the “professional left”, the “both sides are wrong” rhetoric even as the right goes all out to destroy him, and stuff like Lew’s testimony. I mean, how hard would it be to have a little message discipline here?

In fact, it often seems to me that there’s an almost compulsive aspect to the administration’s anti-dog whistling. Maybe it comes from hanging out with the political and business establishment, which leads to a desire to seem respectable by dissing the DFHs. But memo to the president: Wall Street will hate you anyway. All you’re doing is undermining the enthusiasm of people you need.

Just to be clear: I’m not saying that it would be right or justified for progressives to take their ball and go home. Obama has brought real change — above all, health reform, imperfect as it is (and if it survives). But yelling at the base won’t get them up and going; a little respect might.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/the-anti-dog-whistler/

[Enrique]

1. democratic voters should remind themselves

Obama is not the democratic party.

[yurbud]

2. could you expand on that?

[Enrique]

6. I mean, these things Krugman is talking about

I do hear these anti-dog-whistles from Obama, but I don't hear them from all dems. I'm thinking of Nancy Pelosi, and David Obey and Russ Feingold and Dick Durbin (though he's changed since Obama), and Tom Harkin, and many others. They seem to like the democratic base a lot more than Obama does.

[yurbud]

11. with the exception of Pelosi, those Dems aren't calling the shots in the leadership

which is too bad.

[Enrique]

15. but they're the ones up for election now

Obama isn't up for re-election until 2012, so we should hold him accountable then, not now.

[yurbud]

19. I support many of the progressive candidates financially directly

but not through the DCCC, DNC, or DSCC.

[ProSense]

3. Here's a message for you from Krugman

Just to be clear: I’m not saying that it would be right or justified for progressives to take their ball and go home. Obama has brought real change — above all, health reform, imperfect as it is (and if it survives). But yelling at the base won’t get them up and going; a little respect might.

So what party do you think President Obama belongs to?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bertman]

14. I love that new logo, ProSense. It's our GRADE. Democrats get a 'D'

for being such a bunch of wimpy-assed corporate bootlickers despite being given ample opportunity to really achieve some democratic and Democratic victories.

Really it should have been a D-

Or, given how we've failed to do much with our opportunity, maybe we should have put an 'F' in the circle.

Oh wait, that would have meant we have become Femocrats and that surely won't work.




Oh yeah, what is your question "So what party do you think President Obama belongs to?"

My answer is the New Democratic party because it sure isn't a Democratic party I recognize anymore.

[COLGATE4]

16. Under the New York State Regents system (at least in my

time), a circle was used to denote a grade that was really below the grade given but was raised to accomplish some kind of a social promotion. I.e. a 'circle D' meant the person had really gotten an F, but it was being raised to a 'passing grade'. Seems to be quite appropriate here.

[yurbud]

20. maybe graded on a curve.

[pokercat999]

17. The 1972 Republican party, working for Nixon.

[JohnWxy]

10. I think Mr. Obama needs to be reminded of that.

[Tippy]

4. One thing Obama has not learned is that "you can't be all things to all people"

What we have althogh not perfect, is still much better then the alternitive

[bemildred]

5. The national party elites are in cahoots.

They are enemies in public and allies under the table. The last thing the beltway "Democrats" want is the collapse of the Republican party as a credible national party.

[liberalmike27]

9. I think the original post has it right

Imagine huge corporations with guns trained on any candidate. It's like they all have these weapons trained on them, bullseyes on their backs, and are restrained from doing anything, only if they actually do anything progressive.

So there we sit, the evil of two lessers in power. Both are also paid for by the corporations, and wealthy, for the most part.

Add to that, if Obama did start talking like FDR, hired Krugman, Moore, Bill Maher, and Chomsky to straighten out America (I can dream), the corporate media would never air it, and if they did suddenly they'd all be calling him a socialist fascist, dictator thug.

So, here we sit, hoping our politicians will start serving, without the idea of getting reelecting, and as my Aunt lamented "Why can't they just do the right thing." Without that money, they shrivel up like staked vampires.

[yurbud]

13. I wonder if they really could do a news black out on the president, though they do a good

job on Congress.

I wondered why no one in Congress asked the right questions before the Iraq War, so I searched the Congressional Record and was shocked to find out out they DID--it just didn't make it into the mainstream media.

[bemildred]

18. It's not one or the other, it's both.

There certainly are large corporations and individuals that use their money to corrupt politics, but the collusion between the two parties to maintain themselves in power is also quite real and has deep historical roots.

[democrank]

7. President Obama should start alienating DLC corporatists.

Then he`d be more in line with a majority of voters.

[yurbud]

12. I think you'd see the press coverage of him change overnight

to mentally unbalanced radical if he did that.

But we need him to do it anyway.