|
Not only do these Obamas lack existence, they are not even believed to exist by anyone. They survive only insofar as we imagine others believe in them. One of the Obamas can do no wrong--there is no action, however reprehensible, that is anything but good and wise at its core. The other does only wrong--the best of his efforts is merely a disguise for cowardice, complicity and immorality. I can tell you, though, that neither of these Obamas is believed in by anyone here. How is it they have such control over our debates?
In my view it works like this: Obama is great and awful at once. He is great if you consider him in terms of what is currently likely within our expensive, gamed political system--he is one of the better people that would have a reasonable chance of being elected to the presidency as a Democrat. He is awful if you think of him in terms of what the country needs after generations of decay and damage--we have so many hideous problems that to merely nibble at them (to say nothing of ignoring them or making them worse) is awful.
I think these two views of Obama dominate the way people consider events. But they misunderstand one another in discussion. Take health care reform: is it the best we were likely to get given our Congress? Sure--it was possible to push a public option or single payer, but these surely were not likely to pass. Is it what we need? Nope! Its provisions for curtailing cost of care, which is the major driver of future deficits, are extremely anemic--precisely due to the lack of any public competition to drive down prices.
So someone who is focused on what we -need- as opposed to what is -likely- comes along and points out the flagrant flaws with it and Obama. Someone who is focused on what is -likely- comes along glowing with praise for it and Obama. They misunderstand each other. To the critic, the cheers say "this bill represents my values and is everything we need!" To the givers of praise, the criticism says "this was one of the worst things we could have ever expected and is completely worthless!" Neither, of course, attempts to say anything of the kind.
This is why when replies arrive from an opposing camp, they seem nonsensical to the OP. If you're concerned with how far the bill is from the ideal, "Enjoy President Palin!" makes no fucking sense at all. The bill's bad, I said it was bad, how does this lead to Palin as president? If you're concerned with what was likely to get passed, "Sell-out Obama strikes again!" makes no fucking sense either. The thing barely passed, the GOP and insurers fought it, we needed Lieberman and Nelson, etc.--it's worth a cheer that it passed at all.
Eventually enough acrimony builds up that both sides are more concerned with embarrassing what they see as the other's view of Obama. So you'll get weird behavior like people tying themselves into knots to find the sunny side of extraordinary rendition, or the dark side of DADT repeal. It's not so much they are mindless ideologues with absolute views, but they want to shame and belittle those who -they- believe have such views.
Short version: I don't get anything out of most Obama threads because people aren't discussing what they actually disagree on, which is whether we should focus on supporting what is likely to get through or demanding what is needed.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
