The disagreements at DU are not about "Obama" per se'

[Go2Peace]

In the hopes of trying to get the "two sides" that this site has kind of split into better understanding each other, I would like to try to add some illumination that will hopefully help, if only a bit. Please take it in the way it is intended, which is not to get people's backs further up, but to try to help the "two camps" understand each other better:

There is a tendency to think that people who are unsatisfied are "simply" critical of Obama. I would argue that is not quite the case but more nuanced. But really, don't the differences of opinion have less to do with the current administration, then simply a fundamental difference in agreement about the severity and nature of our current problems?

Would it be accurate to state that for many that are happy, or close to happy, with the direction of the administration feel that our system is not fundamentally messed up, but just needs better management and steering? That the issues we are grappling with are more related to having had poor management, and that once we get things under control and fix the things that (mostly) Bush broke that we will have prosperity again?

From what I see, those who express alarm and concern, are not really against "Obama" per se, but that they see our situation as much more serious, that we are in a state that if not resolved soon will have generation impacts, and that the fix involves much deeper and more fundamental change. And that we are departing from traditional liberal values. And the administration seems to be part of a shift from those values?

The bar is different that folks use to judge if we are on the right path. I have not seen many people that are not satisfied with anything Obama is doing. I think most who are "concerned" about it's direction are grateful in some ways, but just don't think it will be enough, and that sometimes the administration perpetuates the problems. I wonder if we can recognize that and it might not help in understanding each other?

I would be curious to discuss if others feel this is an accurate understanding or not. And hopefully to discuss it with some civility?

One other thing I would like to add, is to keep in mind that DU is a discussion forum, and people are likely to express themselves more freely, and I just think that a discussion forum is going to have more discussion about contentious issues than about things we agree about? Maybe we should expect that a bit more and not get so offended if someone comes out and questions something?

(edited to fix spelling mistakes)

[HereSince1628]

1. No, it is not about severity and nature

It is about the progressive ethos vs the pragmatic ethos.

At the surface both movements most certainly have admirable ideals.

Unfortunately, the progressives see the pragmatics as caving in to the corporate powers that attracted the attention of the DLC in the wayback (as in the late 1980s)

Progressives aren't into compromising pragmatics. Period. This single thing makes it very, very difficult to reconcile the left and right wings of DU and of the Democratic Party in general.

Thanks for your concern. We all appreciate it. We just have no capacity to deal with reconciliation.

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. We may not have that capacity

...but Kucinich! does.

[Go2Peace]

5. +1 LOL, good one

[Go2Peace]

3. But we do actually agree on far more than not...

I understand what you are saying entirely. You sum it up better than I did.

I see most of the distruption occurring when folks try to shut down the other side instead of talking it out? Because if you got into a specific discussion of a very specific policy, in most cases I think both types are fairly close. That seems to be the paradox about the gap between the two ways of thinking.

[sendero]

11. There's nothing to talk about...

... Obama is a stunning disappointment in almost every respect other than rhetoric, which he excels in but its too bad that nothing he says bears any resemblance to what he does.

Obama not only has his absurd "go along to get along" "bipartisanship with those who want to kill him" problems he has the curse of abject bad timing, calling for offshore drilling right before it is about to become profoundly unpopular.

He has many major tests coming his way, actually leaving Iraq, finally figuring out that we're not going to "stabilize" anyone in the ME and the FACT that our "recovery" never was and we're already tipping back into another recession.

And I expect him to handle all these things with the comedic ineptitude that he's employed so far.

[onpatrol98]

55. I take it you're unimpressed so far with this administration

Perhaps better days are ahead.

[Go2Peace]

4. If I might add, progressives do have a pragmatic side

In some ways they understand human nature as being more complex, and thus they want more oversite and policies designed not just to deal with issues, but to deal with the processes that bring about those issues. My thought on it anyways.

[caledesi]

6. Well said! nt

[Radical Activist]

10. I believe there are many pragrmatic progressives.

Obama's overwhelming approval among Democrats suggests that most pragmatic progressives understand what Obama is doing and approve.

[bobbolink]

12. Take one big, long, look at the Gulf, and tell us again how much we need to "compromise".

[TheKentuckian]

31. There is often no middle ground between right and wrong

There is no compromising with raw avarice.

[TheKentuckian]

7. I generally agree with your statement. This is pretty much what I see

For some folks all was pretty much well until Junior Bush came on the scene and for others he was the end result of a dangerously captured and complicit system.

Change for some is peaches and cream at "not Bush" and for others it can only mean a change from the paradigm started by Nixon and locked in by Reagan.

If trickle down, crony capitalism, misuse of natural resources, and empire are some examples of your idea of the root causes of our problems rather than recent mismanagement then there has been little if any observable change nor is such a thing on the horizon.

I also think some people may agree on the areas of concern but not their scope or the time remaining to rectify them.
If you believe there is a finite amount of time to make an impact on conditions then calls for patience and baby steps ring very hollow. There's no sense in devoting energy, blood, sweat, and tears toward a goal you have no honest inclination of addressing in the time frame before it becomes unsolvable and if it may become unsolvable then there is no case that delay can be tolerated.

[pscot]

16. Elegant summary

I wish we could rec posts like they do over at Dkos. Well done.

[TheKentuckian]

Thanks. Just trying to call em as I see em

[Enthusiast]

52. We can give TheKentuckian a +1. nt

[chill_wind]

28. Beautifully stated! n/t

[readmoreoften]

43. Very astute post.

Good summary.

[Radical Activist]

8. No, you don't get it at all.

I think people who understand what Obama is doing also feel that fundamental change is necessary and feel the severity of our problems. They also understand the constraints of our political system and its limited ability to absorb rapid change.

The difference is that some people realize that there are no more Lyndon Johnsons. They understand that Obama can't simply force the US Senate to do whatever he wants. On the other hand, some are either politically naive about how Congress works, and/or they have other agendas that involve undermining support for the Democratic Party.

I think the most rabid anti-Obama posters have ideological motivations that involve getting people to give up on Democrats, or give up on voting and the current political system. Or they lack imagination about how to push Obama left other than constantly criticizing his every move. People can earn their "dissident" merit badge by always attacking Obama from the left. I understand the goals but I think the tactics are outdated and ineffective.

[girl gone mad]

15. That doesn't make any sense.

He can't simply force the Senate to do whatever he wants?

Bullshit.

The Senate was 100% behind a strong audit of the Fed before the White House sent their point man out to make sure it was watered down, along with the rest of financial reform.

The Senate would have voted down TARP, but Obama personally lobbied on behalf of the banks to get it passed.

Don't tell me he doesn't have enough influence on the Senate to get things done, because he sure as hell has gotten things done for his financial masters.

ETA: yes, I'm still angry about what he did with TARP. We worked so hard to keep people from being ripped off by these Wall St. crooks. That first vote was a huge victory for grassroots activism. We stopped the thieves dead in their tracks. The calls were some 200 to 1 AGAINST that piece of shit bill.

Then, what do you know, candidate Obama steps up to the plate, batting for the banks, and calls Senators in the dead of night to tell them that if TARP doesn't pass he won't be elected - no ifs, ands or buts about it. That's is what he told them. I've seen his political side at work. Very effective. Unfortunately, it always seems to be used to serve the corporations that own him, not the people who could really use that kind of leadership.

[Radical Activist]

17. Two issues, huh?

I can't define Obama's administration by two issues, there are many opinions about how he handled those, and he still isn't a dictator. I think you're politically naive if you expect any President to get all his priorities passed through Congress and never disappoint you.

[girl gone mad]

18. He does get his priorities passed through Congress on a regular basis.

It's just that his priorities are not in line with the priorities of the base that elected him to office.

[Radical Activist]

22. I'm sure its much easier to pass

those items on his agenda with more support from the special interests who control Congress. I can't get mad at Obama for only making dents in the system because I don't think its possible for him to do anything more with the current Congress. Frankly, all I want a President to do is create an environment for people's movements to grow and my biggest disappointment is with the left's failure to organize.

[Swamp Rat]

38. "Obama signs Patriot Act extension without reforms"

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0301/Obama-signs-Patriot-Act-extension-without-reforms

"President Obama signed a one-year extension of three sections of the USA Patriot Act on Saturday without any new limits on the measures that many liberal groups and Democrats said were necessary to safeguard American civil liberties.

The provisions allow the government, with permission from a special court, to obtain roving wiretaps over multiple communication devices, seize suspects’ records without their knowledge, and conduct surveillance of a so-called “lone wolf,” or someone deemed suspicious but without any known ties to an organized terrorist group."

(snip)

Shall we continue with more examples, or shall we just burn the U.S. Constitution and finally be done with it once and for all?

[Radical Activist]

45. Three portions. So not all of it then?

And you leave out the fact that Democrats managed to get changes to the worst portions of Patriot act before Bush left office. Your misleading exaggeration of what's happening is so very, very typical of the constant critics. That's why its so hard to take seriously.

[Radical Activist]

50. So I went back and finished that article.

It says that Congressional Democrats made the choice not to challenge the provisions mentioned in the article. It also says Democrats felt that by making the extension temporary, they may be in a better position down the road to build support for more checks on certain powers.

So, this isn't something Obama asked for but he signed what reached his desk. Second, it still may be changed. Third, we don't know if Obama could have gotten what he wanted or how much it may have cost him politically if he vetoed the bill. I believe this all relates back to what I wrote about some people being naive about how Congress works and having unrealistic expectations.

[Radical Activist]

20. Now I see your edit.

Isn't the money coming back in? Didn't Obama introduce more transparency to how the money was spent. Didn't it stop a spiraling failure like we had during the Great Depression? I don't know if that fear was realistic but it was presented as a real possibility. Don't we have more regulation of banks and credit cards now? I really can't see TARP as a huge failure. Isn't Dexter totally awesome?

[laughingliberal]

40. About that money coming back in...

It is one of the reasons we so badly wanted a real audit of the Fed. Estimates are that as much as $4.6 trillion was funneled to the top in secret loans which are not part of TARP. I think we ought to know who got how much of our money and who supported them getting it.

The efforts of Obama's administration to kill it are suspect.

[amborin]

25. Obama works hard to push the corporate agenda, no question;

it's the peons' agenda that he ignores or

[Radical Activist]

44. Corporations have been just begging for cap and trade, banking and credit card regulation, HRC.

Give me break.

[amborin]

53. LOL Wall St. is Relieved at this Banking "Reform"

[Radical Activist]

56. "Wall Street's main objection seems to be that the bill overreaches."

"Wall Street" does not agree with you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/21/financial-reform-wall-str_n_584593.html

One analyst interviewed by the Wall Street Journal expressed shock that the Senate bill was not weaker than the House bill.

[Tejas]

42. Thank you.

Very well put but I will point out that we elected a majority to the House of Representatives in '06 and what have they gotten done? Besides blaming George Bush for everything from global warming to the sinking of the Ady Gil, what have they really done?

We needed jobs more than anything but no, they've wasted time on everything from GM to giving $ to Pakistan and anyone else who asked for a handout. Now I'm not crazy about everything that President Obama has done but he's got the ball rolling on 10 times more items in 1 year than the HOR has in 3 years.

Maybe I'm looking at it incorrectly, but all I see in the news is how happy Congress is to have a majority and how they plan to hold on to it with their day-to-day strategies.

WTF?

Do they EVER get anything done?



3 years.....3 ^%##$&%& YEARS!

[laughingliberal]

24. I don't know about anyone else...

but as one who others would label an 'anti-Obama poster' I disagree with your assessment.

"I think the most rabid anti-Obama posters have ideological motivations that involve getting people to give up on Democrats, or give up on voting and the current political system."

I have no illusions we are likely to get anyone elected nationally, anytime soon, who is not in one of the 2 parties. I have never sat out an election nor have I ever voted for anyone who is not a Democrat. And I've been voting a very long time. I supported Obama against Hillary in our caucuses here as I felt she was too corporate friendly for me. I believed Obama to be a little more of a populist.

" Or they lack imagination about how to push Obama left other than constantly criticizing his every move."

I haven't criticized his every move but I'm not of the opinion that applauding when he is promoting the Reagan school of economics is going to move him to the left. I don't know how to move him to the left or if it is even possible but yelling 'good job' when he moves right isn't likely to work. I went through the Clinton years believing the shift to the right I was seeing was necessary due to the Republican takeover of Congress, IOW a "pragmatic" take on it. I now believe I was wrong about that. I now believe our party leaders really have become right of center and are espousing policies reminiscent of Reaganism. My beliefs about this are based on what I see Arne Duncan doing to our public education (which is what Gingrich, et al have been pushing for years) and Obama's appointment to his deficit commission of known haters of SS and Medicare. I know of not one liberal on the commission. I would like to be proven wrong but the evidence mounts that he is more on board with the Reagan side of the party than the FDR side of the party.

As for trying to get people to give up on the Democratic Party, I see the liberal bashing here as an effort to suppress the liberal vote and get more Republicans and Blue Dogs into office in order to facilitate the move to the right.

[Lorien]

33. +1. The two views can be summed up as tradition Democrats (liberal progressives)

vs. the DLC/ "New Democrats" (old republicans-and if anyone here differs with that definition then I'd like to see some distinctions drawn between Reagan's policies and those of the DLC/ ND). One group is trying to pull the party back to it's roots by demanding more worker friendly/ planet friendly legislation and voting for progressive challengers, the other defends the status quo and sees the rightward trajectory as the only means of maintaining power. One group champions Democratic principles, the other champions Democratic politicians. No one is giving up on the party. If we were we wouldn't be here.

[Radical Activist]

46. Reagan wouldn't have passed more banking regulation or made the tax code more progressive.

I don't think your assessment is realistic. I think some people are gullible about always believing articles that attack Obama from the left without taking a hard look at the details. First, what Duncan did in Chicago is most certainly not what Gingrich pushed for years. And all we have so far about the SS commission is speculation about what some people say it might do.

I see a whole lot of broad accusations that fail to look at details and paint a misleading picture. It describes 90% of the criticisms I see about Obama not being liberal enough. That 90% undermines the credibility of the 10% of serious criticisms that people should be really worried about.

I'll re-post my list for the cookie-cutter Obama attacks because the pattern is so common it has become cliche:

1) Pick an issue.
2) Downplay or ignore anything Obama has already done.
3) Portray any small progress as a complete failure and catastrophic betrayal of the left.
4) Assume that lack of immediate action exactly along the lines of what the writer wants represents a complete abandonment of the issue by Obama.
5) Claim it's no different than Bush's policy. Then copy and paste the sensational language used to attack Bush on the same issue a few years ago.
6) Don't forget to sarcastically ask if this is hope and "change we can believe in."

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Progressives Are The Pragmatic Group

From FDR through Carter, we had Progressives (known as "Liberals" back then) in charge. Hell, even Ike an his two Republican-controlled houses of Congress imposed a 91% top tax rate, something even Kucinich wouldn't dream of trying!!!

During that time, the median American's wages grew steadily and the country prospered.

The "pragmatists" took over our Part in the early 1980s, and the median American's wages have fallen steadily and our country... well, you tell me whether you think we're doing better or worse.

It's us Liberals who are the pragmatists here.

[TheKentuckian]

23. True, there is nothing at all pragmatic about fake solutions to real problems

Or engorging a wealthy class at the expense of the greater population.

[laughingliberal]

29. That is what's so infuriating. We know what works.

We now have a clear example of what types of policies led to overwhelming growth of the middle class and began the amelioration of poverty in this country. And we have seen the stunning falilure of Reaganism and it's tax cutting, deregulating binge. Yet, we watch our leaders keep traveling down that road. Pragmatism means doing what works. Doing what doesn't work and expecting a different result? Well, there's a word for that but the word isn't 'pragmatism.'

[Lorien]

35. It's infuriating that it's no longer just the GOP that we have to battle on this point

it's members of our own ranks who have suddenly adopted Reaganism as if it's something new and fashionable. Those policies failed in the 1980's and they are failing even more spectacularly today.

[laughingliberal]

37. That's a really frustrating part. Can't we just send Reagan back where he came from? eom

[DURHAM D]

13. The differences are over policy.

And sometimes process.

Not personality.

[laughingliberal]

34. I can't speak for others but it's all about policy for me.

And it has been disheartening to find myself in opposition to so many policies of a President I really like so much, personally.

[BeFree]

14. nice

What we have is a great dissatisfaction with government. Some of us anyway.
Others tend to make excuses for government. I've been in both camps.

Obama, as head of the government is a target for dissatisfaction. And if he can't stand the heat, he needs to get out of the kitchen. So too should his defenders.

In the case today, with this gusher of oil, all of us look to the government to get a handle on it and give us some good news. There being no good news, well, government seems to be failing. Even if it can't give us good news, it needs to tell us wtf is really going on. We don't want to be lied to. The bushies lied and or allowed lies to be told. Enough of that. We voted for change. We expect a change.

If the truth is that we will have 100,000 barrels a day flowing, tell us that.
Don't leave it up in the air, open for conjecture.

If the truth is the Navy can't do anything, tell us that too.

If it is going to flow for months and months, go ahead, tell us. Don't hide behind BP. Tell us what the dispersants will do. Tell us that the whole gulf coast is doomed. Don't hide the truth any more. That is what we voted for: the government to tell us the truth.

[pscot]

21. If you aren't part of the solution,

you're part of the problem. In the case of the oil spill, and other issues, it has been hard for some of us to see the President as part of the solution. As Jim Hightower famously said, the only things in the middle of the road are a yellow stripe and dead armadillos.

[BeFree]

47. Yeah

I don't understand the timidity. It is a political win to get way ahead of this.

So, given what little we know, the door is open for all kinds of suspicions.

And I understand the knee-jerk reaction to the suspicions. There was, once upon a time, a nice comfort level with our government that we hadn't had for years. And now the uprising threatens that comfort zone.

[treestar]

19. No, I perceive that some people are never satisfied

It's really that. Some people do not want to deal with reality that life will never be perfect for them. They are going to be the same way regardless of who is in the WH. Dennis himself could be there. He'd have to deal with Congress too and cut deals. They would then be saying he betrayed them and calling him a corporatist.

[chill_wind]

26. K & R for a very civil attempt at discussion.

Well I tried, anyway. The unreccers are protesting. They don't do nuance.

[WillyT]

27. Well Done... K & R !!!

:applause:

:hi:

:kick:

[WeDidIt]

30. Though I disagree with some of your points

Kudos for being civil about it.

:thumbsup:

[PufPuf23]

32. I think most of us want better and support the Democratic Party and Obama

We all express our disappointments and frustrations differently.

Just like in religion, absolutists and authoritarians stifle civil behavior and productive conversation.

[laughingliberal]

36. Good post. Thank you for writing it. nt

[Swamp Rat]

39. k&r

[alarimer]

41. For me they are.

He has turned out to be far more corporate-loving than I thought possible and completely incapable of standing up for any principles whatsoever. Now the word is that he is privatizing public housing. I predict he will do the same with social security. If these things happen, I hope it means the death of the Democratic Party because it will be a complete betrayal of what they are supposed to stand for.

[Radical Activist]

48. On second thought. Some liberals are gullible and some are not.

There's a lot of misleading garbage attacking Obama from the left. The writers who exaggerate and mislead drag everyone else down and make Obama's supporters overly defensive. They cry wolf so often that people tune it out when there's a legitimate problem we really should be worried about.

It amazes me how naive some people are at believing each and every article that accuses Obama of selling out the left. Yes, Obama is going to make some compromises we won't like, just like any President. But people have to be aware that there are pundits with other agendas. Stop believing everything they read and getting outraged without checking it out first. It will save you a lot of needless disappointment and cynicism.

[backscatter712]

49. Does Obama deserve criticism? Sure.

He clearly needs to turn the heat up on the Gulf gusher response.

BUT...

I'm seeing a lot of firebaggers, PUMAs, Freeper trolls and other haters that are using the fact that Obama needs criticism to push him into doing the right thing to drive their own insane agendas. Sure, Obama's not doing enough, and needs to keep turning up the heat, but when I see "OBAMA'S KATRINA!", "OBAMA'S A CLOSET NEOCON!" and so on, I see the words of an idiot.

[Radical Activist]

51. Yep.

And when people are fatigued from the chorus of crying wolves, it becomes more difficult to identify the needed criticisms and take them seriously.

[chill_wind]

54. ..