The Nation: Does Rachel Maddow Speak for the Left?

[marmar]

Does Rachel Maddow Speak for the Left?
posted by Eyal Press on 07/08/2009 @ 2:43pm


A few weeks ago, Rachel Maddow appeared on Charlie Rose and announced that conservatives weren't the only ones disenchanted with Barack Obama. "The President has disappointed the left," she said. Rose asked her to be more specific – on what exactly? "I would say on the war, on healthcare, on economic (policy)… on civil liberties and on civil rights," Maddow said.

That's pretty deep disappointment. But if it's true, it begs the question of what, exactly, constitutes "the left." Certainly not most Democrats, 90 percent of whom approve of Obama's job performance (that's from the latest Quinnipiac survey; other polls have recorded even higher figures). Or most African-Americans, among whom Obama's approval rating is 94 percent. Or most Hispanics, 70 percent of whom think Obama is doing a fine job. Or most voters under thirty-five.

Maddow, presumably, was referring to a much smaller cohort of self-identified (white) progressives: people who favor a single-payer universal health-care system, have attended antiwar demonstrations, believe catastrophic global warming is imminent, support shutting down Guantanamo immediately, champion full equality for gays and lesbians, and perhaps supported John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic primary before finally coming around to Obama.

I know a number of such people (they're not hard to find in New York City), and, since watching Maddow's appearance on Charlie Rose, I've shared Maddow's assessment of Obama with some of them and asked whether they agreed with it. Nearly all have said they did not, quite a number sharply and angrily. "That's absurd!" one exclaimed. "Ridiculous," said another. What explains this? I think there are three reasons:

(1) Progressives and left-leaning Democrats (if not self-identified radicals who want the system overthrown) are in an overwhelmingly pragmatic mood, notwithstanding the wide-eyed idealism that supposedly swept Obama into office. They see the auto industry collapsing, the financial system melting down, Pakistan imploding, Iran imploding, jobs disappearing. These are big, complicated problems that do not seem amenable to easy solutions or quick ideological fixes. The fact that Obama has been confronted with so many problems all at once naturally makes people sympathize with the sheer difficulty of the challenge facing him. .........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/449794/does_rachel_maddow_speak_for_the_left

[Kahuna]

1. She does. Thankfully she has a very small following.

Not on the issues but on her tactics such as Nader voting and doing all she can to PUNISH non-compliant Dems.

Putting on my flame-retardant suit now. :D

[Dogmudgeon]

2. "The Left" isn't monolithic -- fortunately

I don't think I agree 100% with ANYONE -- but I also value differences of opinion.

Ideological conformity is for the Right.

--d!

[marmar]

3. Agreed.....And I agree with Rachel far more often than I disagree with her.

n/t

[bertman]

28. I agree with marmar. nt

[tularetom]

4. It's possible to not have a dog in this fight

I mostly support what Obama is attempting to do and I usually agree with Rachel Maddow,

I don't ALWAYS agree with anyone. If I did I'd be a dumbass or a republican.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. And i agree with you

at least on this.

[xchrom]

5. i'm a follower of rachels. nt

a rachel-ite. as it were.

[Larkspur]

6. One can vote for Obama but still be disappointed in his Clintonesque attitude

I mean we really didn't have much of a choice -- Cranky Old Repuke(McCain) or Bill Clinton ver 2.0(Obama).

I'm glad that Rachel is taking it to Obama and the ConservaDems when they serve Wall Street before Main Street. She speaks for me in that case. Also, she proves that Left Wing media stars, unlike Right wing ones, are more likely to be servants of the Truth instead of propagandists for the Powers that Be. James Madison advised us to not trust anyone with power. Critiquing Obama the way Maddow does is in that spirit.

[Bjorn Against]

7. The author of this piece is using a common logical fallacy

Despite this authors assertions Obama's approval rating does nothing to tell us how progressives feel about his policies, there are many people who approve of Obama in general yet are troubled by some of his actions. Approval ratings do not show the strength of support nor do they show any potential troublespots and it would be a really bad assumption to determine that everyone who tells pollsters that they approve of Obama also approve of all of his policies.

[glowing]

8. This is true.

[NRaleighLiberal]

12. YES! N/T

[JHB]

19. That was my thought. One view does not negate the other.

In fact, as I recall, the approval ratings of Reagan, Poppy Bush, and Clinton were often higher (sometimes substantially) than approval of their policies.

Heck, during the buildup to Desert Storm, when people were asked their opinion of what action should be taken, only a minority chose what Bush was doing. But when asked "do you support the president?", he got strong majorities, as high as 90%.


So disappointment with the prez over policy does not necessarily translate into opposition, particularly given the alternatives.

[Stinky The Clown]

21. I learned that logic in grade school:

"Elephants have big noses. Johnny has a big nose. Ergo, Johnny is an elephant."

[readmoreoften]

36. +1 /nt

[ellacott]

9. Most of the people on the left who are his harshest critic didn't support him in the Primary

He was their consolation candidate.

[Larkspur]

30. I didn't like any of the Dem primary candidates

but I definitely did not want Hillary in the White House. Unfortunately, Obama has become Bill Clinton ver 2.0 minus the philandering.

[Loge23]

10. Rachel is a pundit after all

Let me say that I agree with most of Rachel's positions, but she is a pundit after all. She is paid to analyze the political landscape and her appearance on Charlie Rose's show was all of that. I don't look for anyone to speak for me, nor do I advise it!
But I guess I most identify with that "much smaller cohort of self-identified (white) progressives..." - as if I needed a group to know which one I wouldn't want to identified with.
...and yes, I did support DK and then, JE! Oh well, at least I'm not a "self-identified radical(s) who want(s) the system overthrown" - yet.

[NRaleighLiberal]

11. As other responders said, there is a false premise- that the 90% who approve

of Obama in principle agree with everything he is doing and how he is doing it. It is a black/white, absolutist (GOP style) trap! I am overall delighted with Obama, and have some significant disagreements with what he is doing and how.

Democrats CAN walk and chew gum at the same time!

[Loge23]

13. Yes! Well said!

There's another thread around today that fell into the "my president" abyss.
Obama is our president! He has encouraged an open debate. Why would anyone walk lock step behind him?
I realize my views are more to the left than reality may allow. But we have to criticize, we have to express our disappointment, and we have to let DC know that we are still alive. That's the only way our agenda will recieve any consideration.
Why should we stop now??

[glowing]

14. So, who exactly is still wanting wars we can't pay for while America crumbles?

I don't know anyone who wants to continue sending money to the banks, watch CEO's collect a bonus, and they themselves lose a job that paid $10.00 and hour (a struggling wage at that). And last I knew, 3/4 of the people want a public option for healthcare.. so exactly, how radical is the left? Last I knew, we were more right than wrong. AND they know this, or they wouldn't buy the media and smear lies 24/7.

[Echo In Light]

20. Every govt's primary enemy is its own populace. If more understood that fact, things would change

And for the better.

Currently, however, a large segment of the educated/professional class are indoctrinated into siding w/one of the two Name Brands that scarcely have a dime's worth of substantive difference between them when it comes to the overarching aims of empire ...and this is why some oppose that fact so vehemently: propaganda targets the emotions while insisting it's grounded in objective fact. Which it is not.

[nevergiveup]

15. Rachel

is very talented, intelligent and does a great interview but she always sees the cup half empty. She had me convinced before the election that Obama was going to lose. She needs to be more upbeat at times but still, all in all, she is a great voice for progressives. She isn't afraid of anyone.

[KoKo]

16. Interesting post from a commenter on article over at "Nation."

#

Is the Left now so big that we can segment it into White Progressives and Black progressives? Why stop there? Let's take things to their logical conclusion, and then we'll be able to read poll results like,

"59% of Latino Trotskyists are dissatisfied with the President's Health Care plan, while over 44% of Nader supporters of Korean origin in Arizona and New Mexico feel the same way. 10% of Jewish Woodie Guthrie cover artists deem the stimulus plan "insufficient," as do a majority of Senegalese-American librarians and Italian-American anarcho-syndicalists living in the suburbs of Billings, Montana."

The left is already fragmented enough- please don't bring a non-issue like race into the mix!

Posted by Fako at 07/08/2009 @ 5:07pm

[Forkboy]

17. I can think of worse people to speak for me.

Me, for instance. :)

[Mari333]

18. if being anti war puts me in the minority of democrats

thats pretty fucking depressing.
thats why I support a draft.
there sure were a lot of anti war advocates when bush was in office.
suddenly, obama is in, so sending drones in to kill civilians is okie dokie.
chickenhawks amongst the dems, who woulda thunk it.
fair weather folks arent they.

[Echo In Light]

22. Many Dems today are like moderate Repubs of many yrs past

As where the Repubs today simply use their terms and tags euphemistically to disguise the fascist prototype within their intent and motive. I'm unsure that some of them even realize that, though.

[ThomWV]

23. She sure as hell speaks for me - so is that left, right or center?

And I consider myself to be a somewhat conservative Democrat.

[Winterblues]

24. She does not speak for me but she does help to inform me

She is one of only a few that actually do really inform people.

[Uzybone]

26. Maddow speaks for the M$M, she knows where her bread is buttered

I am glad she is on to attempt to balance the fascism propaganda that makes up cable news, but she is still M$M, and thus completely out of touch.

[Deep13]

27. I usually agree with her, but I speak for myself.

But I like her show a lot. In fact, I like it better than Olbermann.

[madfloridian]

29. Rachel is usually spot on.

I am impressed by her.

[KamaAina]

31. No one person speaks for "the Left".

That's what makes us the Left, dammit! It's supposed to be like herding cats!!

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[LeftyMom]

33. She speaks for me.

:thumbsup:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. Rachel Maddow doesn't speak for me, she speaks for her corporate bosses.

Hence the Jim Cramer censorship.

[readmoreoften]

35. I love that all African-Americans and all Latinos are naturally assumed to be "on the Left"

so what remains? Disgruntled white folks! Maybe 20% of those disgruntled Latinos are actually leftists and 40% of Latino Obama supports are right wing free-marketeers?

This article is some dumbass bullshit.

[Jennicut]

37. Rachel is a die hard progressive. Nothing wrong with that...the left is made up of many factions

I hate how we are all lumped together, we are a pretty diverse community of voters.
Sometimes I agree with Rachel and sometimes I don't...she can be overly pessimistic for my tastes (especially during the campaign).

[mmonk]

38. The ugly truth is

MOST people LEFT or RIGHT do not understand the true level of assault on constitutional principles that have taken place or the war crimes, or the imperialism. That speaks to sorry state of journalism in America. If two people are correct about something and a thousand are wrong on an issue, the thousand are not right because there are more of them.