Glenn Greenwald: Progressive complaints about Obama's appointments

[babylonsister]

Progressive complaints about Obama's appointments

(updated below - Update II)

I've been genuinely mystified by the disappointment and surprise being expressed by many liberals over the fact that Obama's most significant appointments thus far are composed of pure Beltway establishment figures drawn from the center-right of the Democratic Party and, probably once he names his Defense Secretary and CIA Director, even from the Bush administration -- but not from the Left. In an email yesterday, Digby explained perfectly why this reaction is so mystifying (re-printed with her consent):

The villagers and the right made it very clear what they required of Obama --- bipartisanship, technocratic competence and center-right orthodoxy. Liberals took cultural signifiers as a sign of solidarity and didn't ask for anything. So, we have the great symbolic victory of the first black president (and that's not nothing, by the way) who is also a bipartisan, centrist technocrat. Surprise.

There are things to applaud about the cabinet picks -- Clinton is a global superstar who, along with Barack himself, signals to the world that the US is no longer being run by incompetent, extremist, political fringe dwellers. Holder seems to be genuinely against torture and hostile to the concept of the imperial presidency. Gaithner is a smart guy who has the trust of the Big Money Boyz, which may end up being useful considering the enormous and risky economic challenges ahead. Emmanuel is someone who is not afraid to wield a knife and if we're lucky he might just wield it from time to time against a Republican or a right wing Democrat. Napolitano seems to have a deft political touch with difficult issues like immigration which is going to be a battleground at DHS. And on and on.

None of them are liberals, but then Obama said repeatedly that he wasn't ideological, that he cared about "what works." I don't know why people didn't believe that. He's a technocrat who wants to "solve problems" and "change politics." The first may actually end up producing the kind of ideological shift liberals desire simply because of the dire set of circumstances greeting the new administration. (Hooray for the new depression!) The second was always an empty fantasy --- politics is just another word for human nature, and that hasn't changed since we were dancing around the fire outside our caves.

If you want to press for a cabinet appointment at this late date who might bring some ideological ballast, I would guess that labor and energy are where the action is. It would be really helpful to have somebody from the left in the room when the wonks start dryly parceling out the compromises on the economy and climate change. But basically, we are going to be dealing with an administration whose raison d'etre is to make government "work." That's essentially a progressive goal and one that nobody can really argue with. But he never said he would make government "work" for a liberal agenda. Liberals just assumed that.

So many progressives were misled about what Obama is and what he believes. But it wasn't Obama who misled them. It was their own desires, their eagerness to see what they wanted to see rather than what reality offered.

more...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/23/obama/

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

1. HUD, LABOR, EDUCATION, ENERGY, AGRICULTURE....

These are where the liberals should go. But to assume that only 'center-right' DLC Democrats and technocrats are the only ones equipped to 'get the job done right,' is as insulting as it is wrong. For the record, it has been the liberals who have been right about everything. I love and respect Hillary, but she was wrong about he war, as was Richardson. Geithner was involved in massive deregulation schemes back in the '90s. Emmanuel is too close to DLC policies.

[DJ13]

2. Its simple..... if progressives wanted a Clinton administration

.....they wouldnt have supported Obama over Hillary.

Why is that so hard for the DLC defenders to understand?

[BlooInBloo]

4. I for one will take your concern seriously the second you tell me...

where the uber-executive-experienced *true liberals* are supposed to come from.

And "magic-pony-land" is not an acceptable answer.


EDIT: Subject typo.

[DJ13]

5. where the uber-executive-experienced *true liberals* are supposed to come from.

Academia is filled with people far smarter than those washed up DLC'ers from the Clinton days.

Your turn.

[BlooInBloo]

6. That's nice.

[scarletwoman]

8. Excellent answer.

:thumbsup:

[pnwmom]

10. Who are the "washed up DLC'ers from the Clinton days"? Clinton left the

economy in good shape.

Academia is filled with smart people; it's also filled with people who have no experience getting things through Congress. It will be great to have smart people in responsible jobs again -- but we also need effective people, and a Ph.D. doesn't guarantee that the person will be effective in the political world.

[beachmom]

11. It was the Clinton circus that was rejected. And frankly, the Clintons

loved the partisan fighting. Not liberal vs. conservative ideas fighting, but the fight Democrat vs. Republican.

Anyone who took the time to get to know Obama knew he was not going to be a left wing President.

[BlooInBloo]

3. "mislead themselves" might be better phraseology.

[scarletwoman]

7. I understand all that -- thanks, Glenn and Digby. I never fooled myself into thinking Obama

was ideologically "left" or "progressive" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean). However, one of THE big reasons I supported him was my "hope" that he'd put the DLC out of power, once and for all. It was why I fought so hard against Hillary Clinton.

I understand pragmatism and all that, but that it no way means that I will quietly acquiesce to a continuance of corporatism and militarism -- even when it's the lovely and talented Obama doing it.

I pretty much accepted that what we were electing was a more competent manager of the Empire. But accepting that that's the reality is not the same as giving up the fight against it.

sw

[beachmom]

9. Yup. Anyone who carefully followed Obama in the Senate knew

he was pretty cautious. But I also think this country is ready to take a deep breath after the extreme ideology of the Bush Administration. A wild swing to the Left was never in the cards. But I also see Obama making our government professional again, instead of full of crony hacks. I think that is what the majority of voters wanted.

[democracy1st]

12. true excellence and elite minds is what I want..I don't want to have a drink with them or goto

a football game just do your job