The Cooptation of The Obama Presidency, and How the Left is Enabling It

by: QueenTiye

Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 23:35


I watched Fox news today. I've said this here at OpenLeft, and I'm going to say it everywhere I can. Liberals are about to lose the narrative if they keep whining about Obama appointing liberals who are not "progressive enough." Every time the liberal faction argues that Obama is appointing centrists and center-right types, they are feeding the meme that Obama will (and needed to) govern from the center-right - a meme that is demonstrably false, as has already been shown by others here at OL.

Let me be clear. I'm an independent, and don't care one fiddle where Obama governs from, so long as he governs well, and keeps some of his major campaign promises. Call it whatever you want. But if the liberals are paying attention - the right is getting ready to coopt Obama. Fox news was THRILLED with Obama, THRILLED, so much that they ignored the opportunity to call him "Clinton II" as the left is fretfully doing, and called him BUSH III. You catch that? BUSH III. They are gleeful, and fully ready to get on board with "their" new president, at least until they can stab him in the back with cultural warfare (that seems to be what's coming).

They even are arguing that Obama going along with the Bush withdrawal plan is Obama being Bush III. How can they get away with this? Because some progressives refuse to acknowledge and embrace that Obama has ALWAYS said he was for a 16 month phased withdrawal, and because the MSM is attempting to claim that Obama promised to "End the war" in an immediate, instead of a phased, careful sense.  AND, the right-wing media (at least at FOX) is going to credit Bush with the withdrawal, despite that the timetable was forced upon Bush by the Iraqis.

If the progressives/liberals care about narrative - this ought to be sounding alarms. The more the left wing rejects him, the more the desperate right, eager for a win, coopts him.

QT

QueenTiye :: The Cooptation of The Obama Presidency, and How the Left is Enabling It

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Cooptation of The Obama Presidency, and How the Left is Enabling It | 16 comments
But who are you? (0.00 / 0)
QueenTiye, you don't seem to have a particularly developed political outlook since you don't care "where Obama governs from, so long as he governs well."

But from the perspective of the left, there is absolutely no reason why we should hold our fire with respect to Obama's cabinet picks, policy proposals, etc.

Frankly, I think we should left-flank him no matter what he does or who he picks. Some visible and even rancorous tension between Obama and progressives will help him negotiate better deals with the corporate establishment. Leftists in the 1930s did not express much love for FDR, they always pushed for more. This allowed the New Dealers to strike bargains with big capital that seemed more or less centrist and reasonable. Roosevelt himself described the New Deal as a plan defuse a potential social revolution.  

Hi Adrian! (4.00 / 1)
Does who I am actually matter? I mean - the issue I'm raising has very little to do with me at all, and everything to do with media narratives gaining credence.

I support your efforts to "left-flank" him, largely because I want to be sure that he actually does the following:

1. healthcare
2. green jobs and energy
3. Broadband superhighway or other such concepts
4. Open government

I think aggressive action from the left will hold his feet to the fire on getting that stuff done, whereas aggressive action from the right will not lean in those directions.

OK - who am I?  I am an Obama supporter.  By Nate Silver's analysis, I'm one of those Ross Perot voters - people with a tendency to vote 3rd party reform candidates.  I voted for Ross Perot twice.  By Lee Stranahan's projection, I'm an Obama supporter (I can't claim Obamacrat because I'm not a registered democrat - but that label comes very close)- people who identify with Obama and his policies more than with the Democratic party's traditional or even progressive stands.  As an analogy, consider the "Reagan Republicans" or the "Goldwater Republicans."  Not sure I know of an individual politician in the democratic party who earns that kind of labelling, but Lee hypothesizes that Obamacrats will emerge as a distinctive grouping.

In fact I am a Baha'i, which has nothing to do with politics whatsoever, which is why I'm not enrolled with a political party.  Baha'is work toward the 3 Onenesses - oneness of God, Oneness of Humanity and Oneness of religion.  http://www.nationmaster.com/en...  Working toward those ideals informs my politics, and explains why I'm not too hard on the prop 8 supporters, even though I don't think I would have voted for prop 8 had I had a vote.   I believe that Obama's approach of inviting everyone together to speak to one another across their various divides and figure out a way forward is very much in harmony with my overall worldview.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
QueenTiye is mostly right / Bush is worst ever / Obama is centrist (4.00 / 1)
   QT,
  I recommended your post, because I strongly support 2 of your 4 reasons for supporting Obama (universal healthcare & green energy).
  I am split between you and Adrian on this, though.
  I DEFINITELY think that we CANNOT allow people to call Obama "Bush III". One of our efforts needs to be reminding people of how bad W. was. (I used to see those "worst president ever" signs, and think they were too extreme. But now I think that our worst 3 presidents were Republicans. One was Herbert Hoover, whose "stay the course" approach to the enconomy allowed the Great Depression to get much worse before FDR intervened. The second was Richard Nixon, who avoided a lengthy jail sentence by pardoning his fellow conspirators, and then resigning and having a chosen flunky pardon him. The third was George W. Bush, who has BOTH the economic callousness and cluelessness of Hoover and the arrogant lawlessness of Nixon.) Right now, W. is the most unpopular president ever... and he is FAR, FAR more popular than he deserves. About 20% of the American public still approves of him! Anyway, in 2012, everyone under the age of 30 will think of W. Bush as "the only Republican president of my adult life". So a popular W. means a popular Republican party, and an unpopular W. means an unpopular Republican party.
  However, Adrian is right that it is appropriate for progressives to complain that Obama is too centrist. When we do so, it actually helps Obama. If everyone on the Left says "Obama is disappointingly moderate", then that helps to shield him from people on the Right calling him a "far-left extremist". Furthermore, if we just passively accept every one of Obama's proposals, but everyone on the Right yells bloody murder and insists that Obama needs to move Right, then what will he do? He will see that he can take the Left for granted, and that if he moves Right, he will be more popular with the Right. So, we need to politely but firmly speak up and remind Obama of why we elected him and of what we expect him to do.
  Allowing Obama to be called "Clinton part 2" is ok, because the "Obama is a centrist" meme will help him gain support for his proposals in 2009, and help him win re-election in 2012. But allowing the Right to claim that Obama bears any resemblance to Bush whatsoever is to insult the best president of a generation (Obama) by comparing him to the worst president (Bush). We cannot allow that kind of blatant lie to spread.

Luke 12:48 "to whom much is given, of him shall much be required". Would Jesus want progressive taxation, or regressive taxation?
"feeding a meme" (0.00 / 0)
Every time the liberal faction argues that Obama is appointing centrists and center-right types, they are feeding the meme that Obama will (and needed to) govern from the center-right

The phrase "feeding a meme" may sound deep and meaningful to you but it sounds to me like you're buying what Fox is selling.  

Um... (0.00 / 0)
since I rather rarely watch Fox (this was an unfortunate exception) how about I just disagree?

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
narrative (0.00 / 0)
They even are arguing that Obama going along with the Bush withdrawal plan is Obama being Bush III. How can they get away with this?

Because they're Fox and they're making it up as they go along, not:

Because some progressives refuse to acknowledge and embrace that Obama has ALWAYS said he was for a 16 month phased withdrawal

Do you really think that if we all just keep our mouths shut Fox can't push whatever loony narrative they feel like pushing? It's counterproductive to try and keep people in line by claiming they are enabling Fox. There's always a boogy man on the left on Fox. You say you're an independent as though you think it's evidence of greater maturity and objectivity. I suggest you examine your need to label and separate yourself from the "liberal faction" and progressives you're pointing your finger at.  

[ Parent ]
fight the lies (4.00 / 1)
   You said "Do you really think that if we all just keep our mouths shut Fox can't push whatever loony narrative they feel like pushing? It's counterproductive to try and keep people in line by claiming they are enabling Fox."
  I disagree.
  It is true that we cannot control everything said on Fox. Fox will always be full of right-wing spin. But when they say things that are highly offensive or that are easily proven to be factually incorrect, people can and should speak up. (As an example, when Fox was slandering Obama by calling him "Osama" and calling the fist bump a "terrorist fist jab", thousands of people signed a petition condemning them. Fox offered a weak apology. However, the Fox anchor who made the "terrorist fist jab" remark did lose her show.)
  I am not sure myself of where to place Obama on the political spectrum. Is Obama far to the left, or close to the center? Or to put it differently - Obama is very, very far to the left of Bush & McCain. But does that mean that Bush and McCain were far-right radicals, and that Obama is centrist, or does it mean that McBush reflects the political "center" of America, and we have now seen a seismic shift of America to the left?
  Whether you see Obama or Bush as closer to the center, we must remind people that Bush was the worst president in several decades... or several generations... or perhaps the worst ever in American history. And in spite of all the slanders used against Obama, he won in a landslide, with the biggest mandate of the last 20 years. To try to pretend that Obama resembles Bush in any way whatsoever is extremely untrue and extremely insulting. When Fox tells a lie like that, we need to speak up.

Luke 12:48 "to whom much is given, of him shall much be required". Would Jesus want progressive taxation, or regressive taxation?
[ Parent ]
paranoid fear of the left (4.00 / 1)
It is true that we cannot control everything said on Fox. Fox will always be full of right-wing spin. But when they say things that are highly offensive or that are easily proven to be factually incorrect, people can and should speak up.

I agree with this 100% and one thing we can count on them doing is to try to make this or that individual  represent "the left". One day it's William Ayers, one day it's Michael Moore, one day it's Al Sharpton etc. If we respond by attacking their --scapegoat of the day-- and "throwing them under the bus" we're just playing their game on their terms. It is possible to debunk the premise that these people speak for us without validating the more general paranoia that there is an "extreme left" out there that threatens to impose their will upon the Democratic party.  

[ Parent ]
Um, I think you are being unfair to me. (0.00 / 0)
When you show me where I said anything about "keeping our mouths shut" you can criticize me for saying that.  I didn't say "keep your mouths shut." I said - stop telling all the world that Obama's appointments are "right wing."  They aren't.  If you absolutely must say something like that, use the full expression "right-wing of the democratic party."  At least that's clearly not leaning toward "Bush III" or someone Karl Rove can be thrilled about.  

Moreover - I haven't declared my independent status as proof of anything at all - certainly not "maturity and objectivity."  If I have any "maturity" it's because I'm old enough to have some, and if I'm at all objective its because I'm trying to be.  Indeed - I'm going out of my way to do so, because in our current information climate (blogs to the left, blogs to the right, etc.) people are well able to self-select their information to the exclusion of information that doesn't fit their opinions.  I'm not innocent of this, but I'm actively trying to avoid becoming too dependent on information that I like, and avoiding information that I dislike.

Going one step further, I've expressed outright why I'm an independent at this point in my life - it's a requirement of my faith. But I am very happy to BE independent at this point, because when I look to the right and to the left, I find people who are having trouble hearing anything that doesn't fit into their preconceived notions.   I find that disturbing, and upsetting.  And I find it MORE upsetting when it comes from those who should naturally be Obama supporters, largely because I am an Obama supporter, and I want his support to hang together as much as possible so he can achieve the agenda he promised.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
fair? (0.00 / 0)
I said - stop telling all the world that Obama's appointments are "right wing."  They aren't.  If you absolutely must say something like that, use the full expression "right-wing of the democratic party."  At least that's clearly not leaning toward "Bush III" or someone Karl Rove can be thrilled about.

I see that you'd like other people to be more specific and I've got no problem with that, but I  think you could benefit from taking your own advice. In your original post you said:

Liberals are about to lose the narrative if they keep whining about Obama appointing liberals who are not "progressive enough."

A rather sweeping statement don't you think?  If you're going to call a group of people --liberal whiners--you might want to be more specific about who you're calling names.  

[ Parent ]
I'll take the criticism (0.00 / 0)
I can be sloppy in my wording sometimes.

And I'll stand by my original argument. I don't often soapbox on specific language - I'm soapboxing on this because the language is the issue.

That said - no. I'm not going to be more specific. If anyone isn't whining about Obama's appointments being "right wing" then I'm not talking about them.  This isn't about pesonality - this is about perception.  

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
If language is the issue (0.00 / 0)
You said stop telling all the world that Obama's appointments are "right wing."  They aren't.  If you absolutely must say something like that, use the full expression "right-wing of the democratic party."

That's simply not an accurate description of all of Obama's appointments, Gates at Defense and James Jones as National Security Advisor for example are not from the right wing of the Democratic party. It's not at all surprising that these choices would be questioned and criticized. Dismissing these legitimate concerns as whining is arrogant and counterproductive.  

[ Parent ]
We could argue back and forth... (0.00 / 0)
But seriously? You already know that clearly republican appointees are not what I'm referring to.  

How about I concede that my wording is less precise than I'm asking for from others.  

And how about we deal with my ask - why I'm asking for it?  Cuz - that's the point of this diary.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
ok (4.00 / 1)
If your main point is to question the tactical wisdom of criticizing Obama, it's a necessity.  We can only negotiate effectively with both a carrot and a stick.
[ Parent ]
That's what I was afraid of... (0.00 / 0)
my main point isn't to question the tactical wisdom of criticizing Obama.  My main point is to question the tactical wisdom of characterizing Obama's cabinet choices as "centrist and center-right."  

It's a pretty limited criticism. I don't feel it my right or my place to criticize extensively in this community, because we aren't ideologically in sync. I'm only criticizing what I consider potential room for common ground, and a potential tactical error that feeds your opponents.

QT

Visit the Obama Project


WindOnWater.net



[ Parent ]
Obama is as Obama does (0.00 / 0)
My main point is to question the tactical wisdom of characterizing Obama's cabinet choices as "centrist and center-right."  

Unfortunately, that's about the kindest thing that can be said about some of them.

[ Parent ]
The Cooptation of The Obama Presidency, and How the Left is Enabling It | 16 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox