AGREED (4.00 / 5)

I have nothing really to add, other than I agree completely.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 14:05:24 PM CDT

yes and no (4.00 / 4)

Yes, there is, of course, a diversity of opinion, but as has been pointed out many times by you yourself, there's a paucity of movement progressives (or actual leftists) inside the WH, (And that's reflected in their policy and strategy.).

Further, they're more concerned with the "success" of the Obama administration than the long-term advancement of progressivism. (The former is their job, after all.) I mean, how many people inside the WH have suggested that it might be better to pass no health care bill than one without a strong PO?

---

by: david mizner @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 14:15:18 PM CDT

Obama probably is debating himself half the time as well (4.00 / 3)

That's what it means not to view everything through an ideological prism--one has to study and debate most issues.  That is evidently how Obama is, despite his generally Left-of-Center views on many issues.

This is a smart post that many would do well to remember.  The other part is that to be on the very progressive Left means not actually winning many battles, unless one defines winning as moving the debate to the Left.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 14:52:02 PM CDT

Much ado about very little (4.00 / 3)

I wouldn't dignify expressions of frustration at our temerity, followed by there, there, pats on the head with the term internal debate. As far as I can see, there just isn't any genuine debate in the White House about anything that we care about. Debate about whether or not we're worth mollifying, perhaps, but I doubt even that.

If we stick with the idea that actions speak louder than words, it's pretty clear that President Obama thinks that he has nothing to fear from us, and nothing to be gained by paying any respect, except rhetorically, to our policy concerns.

That's a judgment, not a debate. Personally, I think that he's essentially right about us, but not about what we represent. Confusing the two may prove more costly than he imagines, and not just to us.

---

by: William Timberman @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 14:56:53 PM CDT

The Problem of Collusive Bargaining (4.00 / 4)

The internet/blogosphere is a transformative technology. It now poses a threat to the practicality of a regime of collusive bargaining that dominates our government today. We already know that regime is not very reliable and makes huge mistakes.

Collusive bargaining is how the SCOTUS is supposed to work. And, it has probably always been a part of how legislative bodies work. But, it is now out of hand and breeding distrust within both parties and rebellion outside the governing party.

There are at least three problems with collusive bargaining where responsible, two-party government should be:

First, collusive bargaining presumes a heirarchy of knowledge in which a few Congressional insiders or those in military, civilian, or corporate executive suite know better what is and is not better for interests they represent increasingly remotely and sometimes corruptly. This failure of agency invites "seat at the table" complaints, especially when the seats are allocated with capricious or malicious discrimination.

Second, bargaining is an especially bad substitute for fair deliberation when conflicts of interest are hidden before the fact and executive responsibility is buried in collective denial after the fact.

Third, bargaining, collusive or not, presumes an alignment of interests that with the best intent and no conflict of interests may not be polar -- excluding the middle -- or may not be commutative -- excluding improbable or inconvenient truth.

Collusive bargaining needs to be dialed way back by the ruling elites. They cannot put "Humpty-Dumpty" back together again and are toying with "Versailles" -- a threat to the very legitimacy of our government -- not theirs.

Of course, it would also help if the internet/blogosphere had more than etiquette where deliberative conventions should be and a viable business-model for journalism. Those take time to emerge and evolve. But, digital triumphalism does not help.

Technically, the internet is still half-baked and toy-like, stuck at IPv4.

Politically, the blogosphere is juvenile, which is however better than clueless or zombie -- words which come to mind in connection with the DNC and the DSCC/DCCC.

::JRBehrman

---

by: JRBehrman0 @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 15:27:54 PM CDT

What would be an example (4.00 / 1)

of the progressives winning one of these internal debates? (They have to win sometimes if real debates are occuring, right?)

Prior to the current one on troop escalation, the only alleged real debate I recall was in the early days, where according to reports there was a question on whether the administration should fully commit to being the waterboy of the banks.

Supposedly Geithner won and Axelrod lost, and since that day there's never been any doubt at all about the power and profit of the bank rackets being the #1 priority. (With health care and the war now jockeying for #s 2 and 3.)

I admit I don't understand why these endless debates on policy principle, if actually occuring, are supposed to be such a great thing anyway. If I were president there might be vigorous debate on strategy and tactics (though the baseline would always be aggressive, attack and counterattack), but little or none on the basic trend of policy, which would be dictated by principle.

If they really do wake up each morning not knowing what they're going to have believed that day until they go to bed, how is that a good thing?

It doesn't seem to me that that's what's really happening. The policy trend looks pretty monolithic to me - as corporate-friendly as they can get away with.

http://attempter.wordpress.com

---

by: Russ @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 15:32:18 PM CDT

Correction (0.00 / 0)

That's power and profit of health insurance, not "care."  

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

---

by: lambert @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 16:43:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I dunno, Chris (4.00 / 2)

Left-wing fringe?  Civil rights for a group of human beings was the prompt for that Harwood report, was it not?  With Barney Frank telling the AP, "The only thing they're going to be putting pressure on is the grass.", we should see this as part of some internal debate.

If this administration hadn't so thoroughly co-opted all of the progressive lobbying organizations, I might be inclined to agree with your premise that a seat at the table is better than an empty chair.  Or, if this administration weren't in the process of fighting/ignoring every, single progressive proposal, I might be inclined to view the internal debate defense a bit more charitably.

You're asking me to accept that the administration isn't  monolithic in its views.  And, while I accept that in theory, in practice it's very hard to see how it isn't.

---

by: bystander @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 15:44:48 PM CDT

The viciousness level is upsetting (0.00 / 0)

The level of viciousness against Obama that I see in the blogosphere lately is increasing, and I don't understand why.
Maybe some of the comment threads are being ratfucked -- when I see comments like "Better a right wing Republican telling us we are going to burn in hell, then a lying Democrat pretending they are with us while they stab us in the back!!!!" or "Obama, all talk - no walk" I wonder whose side these people are really on.  
But if comments like this are being posted by people who actually voted for Obama, I find their naivety and immaturity hard to believe or to sympathize with.
Folks, your choice was not between Obama and perfection, it was between Obama and McCain.  The only question is this:  nine months in, is Obama doing a better job as president than McCain would have done?  The answer, of course, is a resounding YES!

---

by: cathiefromcanada @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 16:15:18 PM CDT

So I guess your point is (4.00 / 1)

So, I guess your point is that a few random commenters you don't even link to, and who you don't know, should be more supportive of President Obama.

Which is like a deep point.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 16:31:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I have the links, if you want them (0.00 / 0)

Sorry, I should have included the links.  These are examples of the types of comments I am seeing are all over the progressive blogs these days, and my concern was to question this level of negativity toward Obama, which is feeding into the Republican meme of how Obama is an empty suit.
Not living in the States myself, I don't have a dog in this fight -- this gives me a different perspective, maybe a longer view, and it concerns me that in the long run the negativity toward Obama will not do the Democratic party or the progressive movement any good.
But of course, I could be wrong -- maybe trashing Obama will turn out to be a great strategy for progressives.(/snark)

---

by: cathiefromcanada @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 16:51:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So you believe that Republicans (4.00 / 1)

are influenced by comments from progressive blogs? That Republicans would lay off Obama if only comments could cheer lead more?  Or that the US media is driven by blog comments?  They would all just go alone with Obama is we were a little more sunny?  

I don't think those are the ideas that one gets from having a long view.

Let's face it - you object to things you have seen people say, and you are using what some other people have said (I'm assuming you do have the links) as a tool to object to what other people have said. You want people here to hold their criticism, and so you are blurring the lines between principled criticism and mindless lashing out. But that is not really an objection about political strategy - it's about personal preference.

As to strategy, if conservatives are constantly trying to push the country to the right (which they are, regardless of blog comments), and progressives go along with the Democrats no matter how much they lurch to the right, what do you think happens?  It means conservatives win more often, that Democrats appear unprincipled because they constantly give in, and even well meaning Democrats know they must fear the right but not the left.


Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel

---

by: David Kaib @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 22:51:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Its the trashing of Obama which concerns me (0.00 / 0)

I can understand your point about the concern about Democrats giving in, I think.  And no, I don't think anything would stop Republicans in smearing Obama at every turn.  I just don't think the progressive blogs should pile on as well.  Saying "Obama, all talk no walk" is not a critique, its just a Republican smear.  It is concerning me greatly when I see this kind of comment on progressive blogs, with the blog owner not calling out these kinds of remarks for their needless negativity.  
Bob Sommersby has talked about the War Against Gore which sabotaged his election in 2000.  Too many progressives voted for Ralph Nader because they bought the Republican lie that Gore was an empty suit.  Now we're seeing basically the same themes again in an equally subversive Attack Against Barak, all with the goal to make him a one-term president.  For the world, this would be a tragedy.  

---

by: cathiefromcanada @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 23:49:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Huh? (4.00 / 3)

Cathie writes:

Folks, your choice was not between Obama and perfection, it was between Obama and McCain.  The only question is this:  nine months in, is Obama doing a better job as president than McCain would have done?

OK, suppose nine months ago I buy a computer: A Mac for $1000 instead of a PC for $700.

A month ago, the Mac's hard disk started to make a grinding noise, but I decided not to get it repaired. Today, the disk freezes up, and I lose all my data. How should I respond?

Cathie would say: The only question is this: Nine months in, is a Mac better than a PC? [I'd answer yes, actually] But that's not really helpful, is it?

I would say: I should have thought ahead and fixed the Mac when it started making the grinding noise!  

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

---

by: lambert @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 16:53:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not sure I understand the analogy (0.00 / 0)

I'm not sure I understand your point.  My point is just that I know Obama is not perfect, but he's not deserving of scorn, either.  There are a number of things he has done that I don't agree with, but he's still miles better than the alternative would have been and in many areas his administration is moving in the direction I think is right.

---

by: cathiefromcanada @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 23:59:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Possibly not (0.00 / 0)

My point is that the electoral choice made in the past is not relevant -- and congratulating one's self on one's choice is even less relevant, if that were possible -- to making policy choices today.

* * *

And "many areas" is an odd measure, because it's quantitative, not qualitative. Personally, I think the massive consolidation of financial power by the Obama administration is one key qualitative measure and it's a net loss. And that's before we even talk about health care, let alone climate -- or the consolidation of Bush's authoritarian gains.

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

---

by: lambert @ Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 15:59:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

look at who Obama selected as senior staff (4.00 / 2)

Baucus COS to be 2nd in political shop

Rahm

Orszag

these are not just voices who happen to be in the WH

Obama put them there

---

by: watchman @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 18:23:49 PM CDT

to be fair (0.00 / 0)

Orszag is pretty cool.

---

by: illissius @ Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 19:21:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]