The Obama Administration's Movement-Triangulation

by: Adam Bink

Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 13:00


Lest the White House not take me seriously, let me emphasize I am fully dressed and do not have a bag of Cheetos to my left as I type

As Chris wrote last night, the White House called me and all of you an "internet left fringe", and declared that I need to understand that running the country is difficult. This is nothing new from this Administration, since another (or perhaps the same) WH adviser dismissed those who push for a public option as "the left of the left", and Obama himself has said he doesn't read blogs, that he found DailyKos boring, skipped the Senate vote to censure MoveOn, and on and on.

Folks in Obamaland have been hyperparanoid for some time that a vast majority of the electorate not only understands the progressive internet media and organizing space, but that it's a Very Important Issue to voters, and they will take great offense if Obama said he read a blog every once in awhile and, hey, even found DailyKos to be interesting, and even voted with 25, or about half, of his Democratic colleagues against censure. Surely, that would have made front-page headlines, inspired huge attack ads from McCain, and caused us to lose the election, Obama advisers must have thought. In reality, not so much. "How will it play in Peoria?!", Rahm anxiously thought. "What's a blog?", Peoria resident might have responded.

Simultaneously, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has engaged in something of a week-long war this past week against FOX News, on the record. Earlier she said FOX is "opinion journalism masquerading as news" to TIME Magazine, then followed up on CNN yesterday, saying FOX is "either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party", then did an interview with the New York Times published today, saying "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent... As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."

Perhaps this is either another game of 32-dimensional chess from the White House- this time with the media and the electorate instead of with Republicans in Congress- but it's like triangulation is again in vogue. And this time it's 21st century style- movement-based instead of issue-based. As John Harwood said when reporting the White House comment:

we've seen and certainly Bill Clinton learned that they Democratic President can get punished by the mainstream of the electorate for being too aggressive on social issues so for now I think the administration feels that if they take care of the big issues - health care, energy, the economy - he's going to be just fine with this group.

That is actually much in dispute, since as Mike Lux wrote here, depression of base Democratic turnout- not anger from centrist voters over social issues- was the key to the losses that year. But Harwood's views are clearly echoed by this White House, which is determined to make sure it is not seen as either captive of the movement left or the movement right. Never mind that, um, the movement left helped get Obama's ass into the White House. Never mind that when a zillion of these Obama voters who report how they haven't voted since Ted Kennedy in 1980 (some even earlier) vanish if we don't get a lot of the hope-iness and change-yness that Obama promised, movement lefties like many of us at OpenLeft will be the only ones here battling to make sure we don't get crushed in Congress and at the ballot box. Never mind that the Obamaland folks' comments about blogs and the "left of the left" are actually aimed at elites, since "mainstream" voters don't care about or understand blogs or progressive movement institutions. And I have yet to find data or analysis of any kind demonstrating that other stupid things to smack the left that Obamaland has done- for example, his random editorial board interview praise of Reagan- was a significant contributing factor to his election, or even noticed by "mainstream" voters.

I'm glad that the White House is engaging some kind of war with FOX News, and I know that I, many of my blogging colleagues, and many of you here in our internet left fringe have thick skins. But there are limits to the bullshit, both in rhetoric and in policy delivery. And why the White House chooses to do stupid little things like this without any perceptible reward from voters is beyond me.

Adam Bink :: The Obama Administration's Movement-Triangulation

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
"Progressives" have thick skins? (4.00 / 4)
Really?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

Actually, yes (4.00 / 1)
Writing a diary about something like this is kind of at the low end of the totem pole of response.

[ Parent ]
Coulda fooled me (0.00 / 0)
Brush up against one of 'em sideways, and it's like, well:

Link in case the YouTube doens't work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


[ Parent ]
Paraphrased anonymous source of unknown origin (4.00 / 1)
I have a hard time taking some reporter's paraphrase of some anonymous source as "The White House".  I do, however, think it is an accurate reflection of what some people in the White House think, but that could be said for almost any opinion of anything.  A lot of people work at the White House.

On the other hand, Obama has called progressive bloggers in press conferences, raising them to the level of non-blog reporters.

And just today:

This morning, White House Deputy Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer told Greg Sargent, on the record:
   
"That sentiment does not reflect White House thinking at all, we've held easily a dozen calls with the progressive online community because we believe the online communities can often keep the focus on how policy will affect the American people rather than just the political back-and-forth."


mark, that quote is totally unsatisfying to me (4.00 / 3)
1. conference calls are in no way the same thing as being invited to help craft policy in closed door, back room sessions. lefties aren't invited to that table, ever. big industry, otoh, as well as republicans and anti-gay zealots, are.

2. "sentiment?" which one, exactly? the part about pajamas? the part about us not understanding how government works? the ridiculous idea that the gay rights movement = the blogosphere? that last is just the depth of stupid.

3. why is it so hard for the WH to make a strong, affirmative defense of the gay rights movement and/or blogosphere? "The WH is a staunch supporter of the gay rights movement are rejects childish insults masquerading as analysis. The WH respects and admires the contributions of the blogosphere, particularly in democratic electoral success." etc.

4. Dan can't be much of a blog reader, if he thinks there is no "political back and forth" in the online communities. i appreciate that he sort of groks that we do more, but come on. back and forth is mother's milk for a lot of blog communities.  


[ Parent ]
At least it's a quote... (4.00 / 1)
...instead of a paraphrase, and not an anonymous one at that.  It carries 20 times more weight than the literal "rumor" started yesterday about the pajamas non-quote.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
no doubt, but would you care to address any of my critiques? (0.00 / 0)
yes: it has more value. but does it satisfy you, as a statement? if so, why?

[ Parent ]
Good points (0.00 / 0)
1. I wish more progressives were involved in White House discussions, as well.  There are several on the staff, of course, but I'd like to see more outreach as well.  I understand why the think they need to focus on votes in the middle, but the seem to completely miss the need to pin down the left-hand side of the Overton window during these discussions.

2. Exactly?  I'm not sure.  All kind of jumbled, isn't it?

3. I certainly don't think the White House has much trouble saying the right things about the gay rights movement.  Tom Hartman was practically in tears this morning discussing the unprecedented speech Obama made over the weekend.  The problem is action, not rhetoric.

As for the blogosphere, Obama has always had a weird relationship.  Basically, see #1.

4. I thought Dan's comment was fair, but missed the big picture.  It certainly true that the blogsphere spends far more time on policy than the MSM.  Compared to everywhere else, the political back and forth is minimal, sad as such a statement may be.  (Here it is only 80% of what we discuss!)

But he seemed to be desperately looking for a reason to support us, didn't he?  Even a simple "they are our base" would have had a deeper, greater meaning than what he came up with.


[ Parent ]
They're NOT Focused On Voters In The Middle (4.00 / 3)
Their failure to enthusiastically champion the public option is all that's needed to demonstrate that.  But if you need more, see their slavish support for Wall Street, and their determination to stay in Afghanistan & almost certainly escalate.

Voters in the middle are not their concern, although they may often be their excuse, regardless of whether or not it fits the facts.   Their concern is with elite opinion, nothing more, nothing less. Obama's the best spokesmodel the elite have had in decades, and keeping on good terms with them appears to be just about his only real priority.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Voters IN CONGRESS (0.00 / 0)
It is congressional votes in the middle he is worried about, not popular votes with the people.  (With the middle, unfortunately being allowed to define itself as the 60th percentile in the Senate.)

What a strange reaction to what I said, as it seems fairly obvious what I was talking about.  Or, apparently not.


[ Parent ]
OK (0.00 / 0)
But surely he knows how easy it would be to go over their heads to the voters?  Didn't he go out of his way while running for President to praise Ronald Reagan for essentially doing just that?


"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
'Back And Forth" (0.00 / 0)
as in the "back and forth" of WWI trench warfare, kiddo!

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Oh, please stop tyring to use reason and facts! (0.00 / 0)
It's much more important to get all riled up over unsubstantiated unattributed rumors (not even an actual quote!) to confirm the predisposition by OpenLefters that Obama is the incarnation of evil. "See!!! I told you he was out to get all of us!  See?!?!"

The whole thing gets incredibly ridiculous.  I'm getting a little tired of the left's persecution complex.

Is it possible that some guy in the white house staff may not like us?  Yeah, probably... There were people in Bush's white house that didn't like the religious right.  In fact, I recall in the 90's a GOP congressman that actually went after them.  The RR went apoplectic on him, too.  Big deal.  It didn't reduce the religious right's influence.. in fact, it increased it!

The only reason that they may be mad at us is that we are still relevant and are pushing them.  If we really were a "fringe" no one would care.

I'm sure they'd rather not deal with gay rights issues.  Just as the Democratic establishments fears of 1994 are the ONLY thing pushing them to passing a health care bill, those same fears are keeping them tepid about gay rights.  Clinton's popularity PLUNGED mightily after he attempted to desegregate the military.  The same fears that are driving the health care bill are the same fears that are keeping the WH inactive on this front.

But, it's irrelevant... they know they have to do it, and they will, as much as they are scared to do it.

Pressure works, whining doesn't... keep up the former and realize that they only complain when your being relevant.  Revel in their complaining!  FDR didn't like the left, either... so what?  He was forced to listen.



REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
Incarnation of evil? (4.00 / 2)
Please. Obama is criticized here regularly for not living up to specific campaign promises, or for falling short of the progressive ideals that the writers here criticize every other politician for falling short of as they happen to come to our attention.

Granted, the president comes to our attention more often than any number of random congressional backbenchers, but the reasons for that should be obvious to any sentient being.

What I'm tired of is people defending him on the basis of how mean it is to attack him rather than on how well he's kept his word or how responsive he's been to the policy needs of the people who got him his job. The Obama administration's constant comment to all of us, in contrast with the gung-ho of his campaign, has been 'Sorry, we couldn't,' and it's pathetic.

We're still doing rendition. Banks, in particular the Wall Street banks who are Geithner's best buddies, got bailed out instead of homeowners. They've backed off the public option whenever they thought no one was paying attention. They're stepping up the war effort or sticking to Bush's plans. They've taken Bush administration positions on any number of public disclosure, warrantless wiretapping or search and seizure issues. And yes, they keep issuing little swipes at the independent activist community, exactly as Adam recounts, not seeming particularly pleased by people who expect them to keep the substance of their word.

Those aren't nebulous personal attacks, they are policy-based particulars. I was angry at the Bush administration for pulling that kind of crap, and it will continue to make me angry because it's the behavior, the result, the effect of a policy on the real world that concerns me.

If that sort of argument interferes with your happy little personality cult bubble, well, I'm not sorry.


[ Parent ]
And another thing (4.00 / 2)
If you have evidence for believing that the Obama administration will inevitably give in and listen anyway, please share it.

Glenn Beck has a long string of scalps he's gotten out of this administration. Progressives? Not so much.


[ Parent ]
We didn't need this quote (4.00 / 4)
to know that WH wants to keep a "safe" distance from progressives. We can just look at their actions--or, if you prefer, other things they've said, as Greenwald does.

Just this weekend, a "top gay Democrat close to Obama" was granted anonymity by Politico to dismiss administration critics on gay issues as "naive."  Just six weeks ago, an equally cowardly "senior White House adviser" hiding behind anonymity told told The Washington Post that the only people who cared about the public option in health care were "the left of the left" -- those same fringe, irrational extremists.  In June, an anonymous "friend of John Brennan's" told Jane Mayer in The New Yorker that the people who prevented Brennan's nomination as CIA Director (because of his support for some of the most radical Bush Terrorism policies) were nothing more than "a few Cheeto-eating people in the basement working in their underwear who write blogs."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/g...

What's more, it's hardly a secret that it's always been part of Obama's marketing strategy to distance himself from "interest groups"--whether it's trial lawyers (tort deform), teacher unions (merit pay), and Daily Kos. Asked during the campaign whether he'd ever gone against the  base, he talked up his vote for tort deform and his Kos post defending Sens who supported John Roberts.. Adam is right: it's aimed at elites like Border and Brooks, who are deeply impressed by this "courage." (Never mind that it would take actual courage to identify with the base.)

Now, it's impossible to say whether the quote in question (or the many others like it) are merely part of the distancing strategy, or whether they reflect genuine animosity. Probably depends on the person. But it doesn't take much imagination to assume that many people inside the WH are fed up with those progressives who haven't joined the Amen-chorus.



[ Parent ]
They've Done This Repeatedly Mark (4.00 / 3)
They dis folks on the one hand, and then hold out an olive sprig on the other.  (Note: sprig, not branch.)

This is a perfect strategy for them, as it keeps the people they are dismissing arguing amongst themselves.

One only has to compare this to how the GOP treats its base to get a reality-based picture of what's going on: we're being hosed repeatedly.  But occasionally we're being hosed with lemonade instead of Koolaid.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
Yes, THEY Have (0.00 / 0)
It is almost as if they were somehow more than one person with more than one belief.

Nah...  couldn't be.

How about this?  I agree that the anonymous quote represents the collective id of that group, but the official quote represents the collective super-ego.


[ Parent ]
Ego Absent? (0.00 / 0)
On that point, I'd agree 100%

My bottom line point here, Mark, is that GOP administrations almost never send these sorts of mixed messages.  They will mix messages over specific strategies, but not over their base itself.

The difference with the Dems is like night and day.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
That's true (0.00 / 0)
My bottom line point here, Mark, is that GOP administrations almost never send these sorts of mixed messages.  They will mix messages over specific strategies, but not over their base itself.

Conservative leaders learned long ago to just laugh at their base behind close doors, but rarely ever get caught.  I'll agree with that.  Ask a prominent Republican how old the Earth is and watch them squeam; great fun!

But Republican ability to actually deliver to its (non-corporate) base has been practically non-existent.  So I'm not sure the difference is as great as the rhetoric implies.


[ Parent ]
Yes And No (4.00 / 3)
Given how restricted abortions now are, how widely science education has been rolled back, the spread of "faith-based initiatives" and a number of other indicators, I don't think the GOP base has been nearly as ignored as you--and many others--seem to think.

Of course they haven't gotten the big enchilada, the repeal of Roe, and on that point you are certainly correct.  But there's a great, great deal more to the culture wars than just that.


"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
My response (0.00 / 0)
is here. I think pointing to how you work with a community misses the point entirely.

Get your copy of The Progressive Revolution
Me on Facebook

Me on Twitter


[ Parent ]
movement left (0.00 / 0)
adam, i think this was a very offensive comment and unfortunately reflects some real WH sentiment, but I would disagree with your calculation that any movement left can upend his re-election.

the so-called "creative class" is a pretty good description of obama's dem base and altho there are obama-haters contained in two of the three groups that make up the creative class (young people and highly educated white people) there are practically zero obama-haters among people of color--people like african-americans who disproportionately voted for obama at rates close to 90 and 95%.

and even tho nader voters may have contributed to bush's victory in 2000, its hard to see any anti-obama dem vote overcoming the increased vote by people of color.

"white progressives" have to figure out how to connect with people of color....and i don't see that happening any time soon. there is a serious disconnect between the blogosphere and regular working class minorities...imho


i thought you alluded to it but if not (0.00 / 0)
sorry for the mistake

[ Parent ]
I've Never Eaten Cheetos In My Life (4.00 / 4)
In fact, I'm not really sure what they are.

But I do know that a large part of the answer to why Obama does these sorts of stupid things lies with the populist analysis that John Emerson has been carrying on here on weekends for the last couple of months.  Basically, Democratic elites have never been interested in reflecting the needs, values and priorities of the people at large.

The fact that they can't create a viable working majority without doing so means that they will doggedly continue with profoundly ineffective government, because they'd rather do that than treat the great unwashed with dignity and respect.  And, of course, they will use their own ineffectiveness to turn around and argue that we just don't understand how hard it is to govern.

The only way to deal with these people is to defeat them politically.  They've already proven they are incapable of learning--and we are just like them if we don't learn that.  The progressive block defeated their initial intention to pass a 100% industry sweetheart "health care reform" bill.  That's the only sort of strategy that will work with them.  I wish it were not the case, but wishing does not make it so.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


you keep the cheetos on the right (0.00 / 0)
only a n00b tries to eat Extruded Orange Satan with the left hand. very inefficient.

Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search