Open Season On "The Left"

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 14:43


Barack Obama, seven days ago, when announcing his national security team:

"I am going to be welcoming a vigorous debate inside the White House," Obama said.

Steve Hildebrand, deputy national campaign director for Barack Obama, yesterday:

This is not a time for the left wing of our Party to draw conclusions about the Cabinet and White House appointments that President-Elect Obama is making.

Um, what? Obama himself said that he is "welcoming a vigorous debate," but one of Obama's top deputies writes that "this is not a time for the left wing of our Party to draw conclusions." Was "the left wing" just disinvited to participate in the debate?

Two weeks ago, I met with the Obama transition team. The meeting included members of Obama's senior staff, and they were all quite welcoming. There was no berating, and no orders that people like me stop criticizing Obama's cabinet picks. We smiled, shook hands, chatted, asked each other questions, and talked about ways we could work better together. It was very positive, and quite different from being told that we shouldn't participate in the overall debate and / or draw any conclusions about Obama's cabinet picks.

Let me draft what would have been a more appropriate, coalition-sensitive response from Hildebrand:

While some members of the left-wing of the Democratic Party are concerned over some of President-elect Obama's cabinet selections, they can rest assured that President-elect Obama welcomes a vigorous debate inside his administration, and that such debates will include voices from the left.

How hard would that have been? Just invite the left into the discussion and the debate. Say that Obama is listening to a diverse range of voices. Let progressives know that they are included, but that they won't dominate, because Obama wants to hear from all sides.

Being told, instead, that this isn't a time for the left to draw conclusions will, to most people on the left, sound a lot like "the left shouldn't criticize Democrats during election season." To be told, again, when the election is over that it still isn't time for the left to criticize Democrats kind of sounds like there is never an appropriate time for the left to criticize Democrats. It sends a clear implication that left-wing viewpoints are simply never welcome.

There are some members of Obama's transition team that have made it quite clear that the left-wing of the Democratic Party is welcome to participate in, and debate with, an Obama administration. This piece by Steve Hildebrand is not one of them. Instead, it sends a signal that it is open season on the left-wing of the Democratic Party. Even worse, combined with Obama's bi-partisan rhetoric, it sends a message that Republicans are preferable to left-wing Democrats in an Obama administration.

This is a pretty wretched piece by Hildebrand. David Sirota tore it down yesterday, too. Hopefully, it isn't representative of a broadly held view among Obama's senior staff.

Update: Some of you might want to notice that I was criticizing a single piece by Steve Hildebrand, not either Obama or all of Obama's staff.

And to participate in a debate without making any statements and only asking questions is, well, kind of difficult.

Chris Bowers :: Open Season On "The Left"

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
"Now is not the time..." (4.00 / 4)
What he really means is:

"Save your criticism for historical texts written years after Obama leaves office."

Is that so hard?


Sounds like the neocon mantra (4.00 / 3)
"we make the history, you report it" to me.

[ Parent ]
Who's the president elect? Obama or Hildebrandt? So, what? (4.00 / 1)
The solution is simple: When dealing with conflicting signals simply ignore the more inconvenient one. Just like JFK did during the Cuba crisis. And in this case, the more likable message even comes from the higher authority!

Why care about Hildy then, who does he think he is, Jack Lemon???  


Uh. (4.00 / 4)
Was "the left wing" just disinvited to participate in the debate?

"Now is not the time to draw conclusions"

And

"Now is not the time to criticize"

Are not equivalent statements.

Sometimes I feel like this blog cares more about framing than content.


Criticism does not mean the expression of negative sentiments, (4.00 / 1)
rather it's necessary part of any thoughtful analysis and evaluation of an issue.  When Hegel spoke of criticism as "labor of the negative," he wasn't talking about being dismissive.  Rather he referred to the act of bringing about change through analysis, of which "drawing conclusions" constitutes an indispensable feature.  In short, "drawing conclusions" and "criticism" are inextricably connected.

[ Parent ]
Good point, Wobbly! However, ... (0.00 / 0)
the blogosphere shouldn't engage in pure negativism, what seems to tbe the trend right now. What I'm missing is more of a focus on progressive policy proposals and candidates. To voice what you don't want is fine and necessary, but where are the alternatives? If the left wing doesn't present clear preferences, you can't blame Obama for making the "wrong" choices, imho.

[ Parent ]
I saw a few alternatives for positions at treasury suggested here (4.00 / 2)
I think the point is that we're being accused of pure negativism by team Obama as a straw man excuse to dismiss the left as a bunch of fringe radical filthy hippies.  After all, it was the New Left that put the stench in existentialism.

[ Parent ]
Maybe. And now, what? Do we give up and start to cry? (0.00 / 0)
Ok, this is an inner party fight about influencing the course for the next four and maybe eight years. This had to be expected. And I really think the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party" got to have a better answer on this than simply complain.
Let's fight back! (and f*** the f***ing yankees!)  

[ Parent ]
Where did I say anything about tears and surrender? (4.00 / 1)
What is it you think we do here, create bureaus with staffs and budgets?  Sheesh.  Criticism is in itself a valuable contribution and something not to be dismissed so flippantly.  

[ Parent ]
"What is it you think we do here" - Honestly? In the last weeks? (0.00 / 0)
Ok, imho the problem is, who cares about our criticism? Ok, Chris got cited several times by newspapers who were looking for a somewhat prominent pogressive to use as an opposing voice for their reports. Fine.

But where are our constructive proposals? Who do we trust with leading the CIA, for instance? Shouldn't progressives present a compelling program of alternatives to the centrist mainstream???

I would say yes, but what do I know...


[ Parent ]
Given the nature of your criticism (4.00 / 1)
shouldn't you have offered a suitable name for CIA?  I, for one, can't think of anyone who could rise within such a culture that would be suited by definition to wield massive state authority.  

Sifting through the posts here, even those from the past three weeks alone, I've found plenty of thoughtful alternatives, particularly on the econ and IR fronts, to the centrist pablum we both despise.  


[ Parent ]
Hehehe, GOTCHA! (4.00 / 1)
Sry, Wobbly, but you just did use the standard reply for such instances, and I'm not commenting since yesterday, but since eight years, so I expected that. :D

Here's my proposal, posted before that other comment:
http://www.openleft.com/showCo...

Silvestre Reyes, Dem Representative since 1996 a senior member of the Armed Services Committee and Chairman of the Select Intelligence Committee. Ok, maybe not the best choice, but at least a start. I need to look for more infos to come up with other ideas, sure.  


[ Parent ]
Got me, indeed! (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for the suggestion, sorry I missed it earlier.

[ Parent ]
So What Exactly (0.00 / 0)
Do you make of the fact that his "centrist" policy items (getting out of Iraq, healthcare and climate legislation), are largely progressive?

I think Ezra was right about this; this isn't about attacking anyone (which is probably why it's aimed at "the left wing), it's about framing progressive ideas as the center, and dog-whistling to progressives. Fair or not the media views the middle as the almighty, and anything that comes from the "wings" cannot possibly be good. Right now they see the center as being on the right, and that ultimately has to change. If their has to be some metaphysical "left" bashing to move the center left fair enough.  


well (4.00 / 3)
there's getting out of Iraq and then there's getting partially out of Iraq where we leave 50,000 troops for several more years because hawks in the administration win the argument. We'd prefer the former but the latter is a real possibility, especially if everyone just shuts up and quietly waits.

[ Parent ]
BrienJackson I think your explanation is too convoluted for me. (4.00 / 1)
I just do not see it.

I think this is Obama's more muted, subdued, sista souljah moment. Why he is doing it, I am not sure. But Hildebrand is certainly doing this at Obama's bidding; everything about Obama's campaign and transition makes me believe it is very tightly controlled; Hildebrand's message seems to me not to the left but to the center... that Obama is decisively moving center, center-right. I think it is interesting to speculate at what policy decisions Obama might be making which would entail this attack.


[ Parent ]
Comprehension (4.00 / 2)
Was "the left wing" just disinvited to participate in the debate?

Huh? Are you having trouble reading?


Adding... (4.00 / 1)
Jesus H. Christ, Obama just came out in favor of workers sitting in in Chicago and you're bitching and moaning about this stupid shit. Stop it already.

How is questioning the possibility for robust debate (4.00 / 2)
given that prominent members of team Obama dismiss a significant portion of the left as fringe radicals "stupid shit"?  

Sure, Obama himself approves of a sitdown strike.  But placing faith in that single action versus the mountain of data relating to appointments and policy amounts to faith in a cult of personality, something I argued quite vigorously that Obama supporters weren't party to in the primary and general elections.    


[ Parent ]
Genuinely confused... (0.00 / 0)
Where did we get dismissed as fringe leftists? I see a sort of annoyingly paternalistic reprimand but if we were being dismissed the piece wouldn't have been addressed to us. Right?

Yo soy confused.


[ Parent ]
That a piece addressed to us (4.00 / 2)
telling us to quit drawing conclusions constitutes a dismissal.  Moreover, that we're placed in the "left wing" of an ostensibly left-leaning party suggests that we're a fringe constituency.  

[ Parent ]
nuance (4.00 / 2)
Is it not possible to be both critical and supportive of different aspects of the president elect's conduct, let alone different memebers of his transition team?

Me | My Work | Future Majority

[ Parent ]
nu, principally, yes, but... (0.00 / 0)
it sure is a difficult balance if you don't happen to be multiple personalities.
:D

[ Parent ]
I'm a schitzophrenic and so am I (4.00 / 1)
Hopefully people get the hang of it, because we're going to have to do both, and with considerable agility, if this movement is going to continue to be a driver for progressive change.

The way this likely shapes up is that we have various initiatives and tracks, and in the early phases we play a critical role (unless we can actually become engaged directly on a strategic level), and then as policies and programs emerge for public approval (and congressional votes), we turn more to the role of boosters and evangelists.

This is roughly analogous to the existing roles within the establishment of Lobbyists and Public Relations people.

The tricky thing is there will be different things happening concurrently. It's not an election though, about being "for or against" Obama or the Democrats in congress. It's going to be a lot of both. Simultaneously.  

Me | My Work | Future Majority


[ Parent ]
I don't know (0.00 / 0)
seems sort of tame. Good to post on though, I'd like a clarification.

I think it's time for the apologetic tones to end (4.00 / 2)
Bower's says in explanation he is only criticizing a single piece by Hildebrand not Obama or all of Obama's staff. Well the piece by Hildebrand, the elevation of Lieberman, the exclusion of any left viewpoint in his council all come directly from Obama. We all knew that Obama was not the promised substance under the packaging. He was the best we could get. But as he needlessly weakens one of his  most loyal bases of support and throws us under the bus, it is time to stop talking apologetically. If he really supports workers sit-ins that's great; if he ends the war quickly, great; significantly expands healthcare, rights the economy, protects the environment, all great, all significant, all meaningful, all important. But let's at least proceed with the assumption that he deems the Village, the right-wing Republicans and Blue Dog Dems as much more important than the left. So we are in opposition again. That's not so bad (better would be integrating us into his administration...not gonna happen). Not the same as with Bush. But let's not start every sentence apologizing for criticizing and yes attacking Obama. He deserves it now, and clearly wants that role for us.

This is the type of posting that destroys a lot of credibility (4.00 / 2)
Despite virtually EVERY SINGLE policy proposal announced and known to be planned spelling out good news for progressives (on health care, Guantanamo, torture, huge work program, etc.) you insist on speaking for a majority of Progressives as "being in the opposition again."   That in addition to previous statements that "the honeymoon is over," "Obama is catering to village idiots" and the like.

Don't you get that you are not talking for a majority of progressives, instead for a very small (yet vocal) minority?  Most progressives don't share the sentiments expressed, and it is certainly wayyyy too early to claim that we are in the outright "opposition" to Obama, we should relentlessly "attack."   There have been way too many positive plans (for progressives) announced for that to be the progressive narrative.  

Again, you (and a few others) represent a tiny minority of the progressive spectrum.  Don't assume to be talking for a majority or even a good portion of us with this militant combat stuff.  I'll join in when we seen no action on health care, when troops aren't leaving Iraq, when we don't see a left lurch in our energy and environmental policies.  Until then - constructive criticism: yes (preferrably with solid alternatives instead of just complaints) - miltant combative posture and talk that we find ourselves in the "opposition":  No.  How silly does this stuff get anyway?    


[ Parent ]
I'm on board (0.00 / 0)
Obama developed a message for his campaign.  It got us all energized and mobilized us to get him into office.

He's developed another message during his transition.  Let's interpret that appropriately and start mobilizing to respond in a way that's smart and strategic.  This is not a time to be tone deaf.  I'm not seeing a lot of signs that are indicating that the Left should expect a smooth ride on many of the policy issues that they care about.  We should be going into this expecting a fight.  


[ Parent ]
Btw, what about Valerie Plame? (0.00 / 0)
She sure knows the agency, she certainly has some factually based ideas about the problems, and as far as I remember she has leadership skills. Also, she has no reasons to support the rethugs, which probably was a problem with Tenet. Certainly deserves a closer look.

Oh, and pls excuse my somewhat childish behaviour in that comment above! I got carried away a bit.


Comparatively junior (0.00 / 0)
If you recruit from inside, it has to be top rank or almost so. My understanding is that Plame is nowhere near that high up and that would cause far too much internal strife and disdain for an administration that would make such a pick.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
It's a point. But then, imho the agency needs to be shaken up... (0.00 / 0)
in order to break the lethargy. After reading Robert Baer's book I'm not so sure that the upper management there is up to the task. Maybe it would be good to push for a total reform.

[ Parent ]
Chris, please help (4.00 / 4)
This might not be the best place for these questions, but your answers will give me - and probably many others - a way to keep track of expectations and better evaluate what you are saying as we go through the next 4 years.

Would you (and Matt and Paul and David) please list/describe what results you want to see from the Obama administration by say, Spring of 2012? Are there 10% or 60% or 100% of those 'things' that have to happen for you to believe Obama is a 'good' president? If he closes Gitmo, but doesn't get us out of Iraq for 18 months, is that okay? If he gets most forces out of Iraq but leaves 20,000 troops there, is that okay? What if it's 50,00 troops? If we get a good start on health care for everyone, but not yet single-payer, is that okay? If we are out of the recession in 2 years - but Summers is still hanging around, is that okay? If the policies implemented by the administration are great but they weren't implemented by a progressive department head, is that okay? Are there any 'good' things can he do that will outweigh 'bad' things he does?

This is not intended as a way to start a debate about the recent (and fairly non-stop) criticisms of Obama. I just want to know how you are going to evaluate Obama once he actually takes office and what you require of him in order to earn your support in 2012.


You're drawing conclusions before anything has been done (0.00 / 0)
and you're twisting the situation to benefit your needs.

He's not telling you to stop offering critiques, he's telling you to ... stop drawing conclusions.


The Hildebrand-Lieberman theme (4.00 / 6)
is that the Left doesn't belong at the table of policy discussion with the adults; so we are supposed to form some sort of Greek chorus singing plaudits every time Obama and his shills do something positive. I think that role means death to a true progressive movement, and is under-appreciated by those so cauterized by the destruction of the right wing. Yes, Obama is better than the alternative. Yes, he offers a lot.But Obama will only succeed if his policies are tested and vetted by all of us. That is what he and shills like Hildebrand wish to avoid. Their approach is clearly "you on the left have nowhere else to go so shut up and applaud what we do". If we follow that not only is Obama doomed but this will be the shortest transformative change ever.

A+++ (0.00 / 0)
This, this, and this.   You hit it on the head so freakin' hard.

[ Parent ]
Man there is a record crop of stupid out today (0.00 / 0)
If you don't demand that Obama's cabinet represent your interests, THEN OBAMA'S CABINET WILL NOT REPRESENT YOUR INTERESTS.  If that's what you want, then, by all means, spend time complaining about bloggers who criticize the President-elect.

However, if you want Obama's cabinet to represent your interests, then demand it.

Not too complicated.

People who say, "It's too early to criticize Obama" are just guaranteeing that Obama won't represent them.  That's all.  You're not going to get a prize for your patience or etiquette.


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox