Thank God, My Boss Is An Asshole!

by: Chris Bowers

Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 00:03


"Thank God, my boss is an asshole!"  I have to say, this is a sentence that has never crossed my mind since I got my first job at Wegman's 18 years ago. (Yeah, Wegman's. I really am from Upstate New York.)  It seems unlikely that many people have earnestly thought or spoken this sentence. And yet, many people seem to think that it is a good idea to have an asshole managing the White House.

Now, perhaps I am reading the situation wrong. For one thing, it is possible that Rahm Emanuel is not an asshole. I don't really know, as I have never met the man. Also, it is possible Rahm Emanuel is being praised for being "tough," and therefore a good choice for Chief of Staff. Maybe I am just confusing praise for being tough with gratitude for being an asshole. It is possible, since being tough and being an asshole are not the same thing, but there are occasional surface similarities.

However, it sure seems that a lot of people, both online and off, think that Rahm Emanuel is a good choice for White House Chief of Staff because he is some form of asshole. I don't bring this up to comment on Obama's choice of Emanuel, which I have done on numerous occasions so far. Also, as already noted, I have no idea if Rahm Emanuel is actually an asshole or not. Rather, I bring this up to comment on the commentary about Rahm Emanuel becoming Chief of Staff. Within that commentary, there seems to be a distinct strain of thought that argues it is a good idea to have an asshole for a boss. This strikes me as demented, since I doubt anyone has ever earnestly thought or spoken the words "thank god, my boss is an asshole!"

Anyway, this is an open thread on the transition.

Chris Bowers :: Thank God, My Boss Is An Asshole!

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Thank God, My Boss Is An Asshole! | 81 comments
Perhaps (0.00 / 0)
But I'm sure there have been quite a few bosses that appreciated having a hatchet-man to get all the dirty work done.
Probably (4.00 / 4)
But I think the people who had that dirty work done to them by someone other than the boss didn't leave the experience with a good feeling about the boss himself.

Simply as a discussion on workplace dynamics, which is how I intended this article, it leaves a bad feeling in my mouth to see people arguing that assholes are a necessary and important role in any successful operation. I have run a small business for a year and a half now, and for three years before that I was a mid-level manager in another. While I didn't like doing the "dirty" work myself, I considered myself a coward if I handed it off to someone else. If I am going to run the show, then I accept the unpleasant aspects, too. And I never try to be an asshole.

[ Parent ]
I didn't mean to imply a hatchet man was necessary (4.00 / 1)
Only sometimes useful.

I understand your small business analogy.  I currently work for a small non-profit and agree whole-heartedly with you on this.  A hatch man would be detrimental to the workplace dynamics.

On the other hand I spent nearly 10 years in the military, a massive bureaucracy.  In the Navy the most important position in the larger commands (especially at sea) was the Executive Officer (the second in command).  The XO was often the hatch man executing the CO's vision and orders.  He often had to be a hard ass (especially if the CO was an easy-going type).  Basically, someone has got to drive the action when there are hundreds, if not thousands of people involved in the proper function of an enterprise.  In the current administration the VP is this person (and hate him as much as we do- he is actually one of the few people in the world I do hate- he was VERY effective at getting what he, ahh, I mean the President, wanted done).

[ Parent ]
If the White House is run like the military (4.00 / 2)
then consider me very worried about civilian rule in America.

I haven't been in the military, but that isn't a management styue I want to be involved with in either direction.

I would strongly hope that the government, which is technically a non-profit, is run more like a non-profit than like the military.

[ Parent ]
Chuckle, chuckle (0.00 / 0)
I didn't mean it as a direct analogy, only to illustrate the usefulness of a hatch man, get-the-job-done type in a large bureaucracy.

And I too hope the rest of the government and especially the White House runs differently from the military.

But I must say, this is my third non-profit to have worked for and the other two were large and very large.  The large one had an effective hatch woman in the second slot and ran (fairly) well.  The very large one was a total disaster and I hope our government is run better (perhaps I'm dreaming here).

[ Parent ]
I think alffy's point (4.00 / 2)
> If the White House is run like the military  
> then consider me very worried about civilian rule
> in America.
> I haven't been in the military, but that isn't a
> management style I want to be involved with in either
> direction.

I think alffy's point was managing, and particularly leading, an organization of 3000 is different from owning and running an organization of 5.  In the latter case you can see and know all that is going on, and immediately detect and deal with (if only subconsciously) anyone who diverts from the organization's goals.  

Having worked in many large organizations, both corporate and non-corporate, I can attest that that the challenges of management and leadership at that scale are much different.  The leader (or leadership committee in the case of partnership) doesn't necessary know what is going on.  But more importantly, he/she cannot satisfy the desires of, and be nice to, everyone in the organization because it is physically impossible to do so when that many people have differing, and often competing, opinions and goals.  Someone will need to be told "no" and it is best if the top person (or committee's) nos are saved for the situations where it is really critical.  "Sorry John, Robin will be getting the office with the window" is something best left to the XO so that "Sorry general; we will not be launching a war with Elbonia" from the leader not only has more force but has more support within the organization of 3000.

FWIW, my limited contact with Navy organization and decision-making is that it is a fairly open and consensus-drive style except in situations where death is actually on the line (which is a very small percentage).  In fact I suggested to my spouse that our local Obama campaign was badly in need of a CO/XO type system because the leader was a bit too nice to get a very independent and fractious group of volunteers moving in (approximately) the same direction.

sPh

[ Parent ]
the opportune word (0.00 / 0)
The opportune word here is try.  j/k
[ Parent ]
What Does the "Chief of Staff" Do? (0.00 / 0)
He helps keep the White House staff organized. His job is to see that the Presidents' priorities get translated into action. The President makes decisions, the Chief of Staff goes out and makes calls, and brings in Congressmen so the President can lobby them.

His office follows up on decisions the President has made to make sure the federal bureaucracy is doing it's job. If not, he informs the President so the responsible cabinet head can be called to account for his department.

He keeps the President's schedule. He is responsible for seeing that the White House staff operate smoothly as a team, without a lot of ego clashes.

He makes sure that the President can make the most effective use of his time.

That's his job. What his job is NOT is to tell the President what to do on every issue. He will certainly have some input, but do you really see Emanuel telling Obama that he can't talk to Iran or withdraw from Iraq?

[ Parent ]
I don't know crap (4.00 / 4)
But it seems like the crux of the pro-Emanuel argument is that he is a perfect "bad cop" to Obama's "good cop," that his powers as an Enforcer to Get Things Done, which heretofore have been used in the name of assholism, can now be harnessed in the name of Enacting Obama's Agenda, corralling Congress, doing all the vicious shiv-sticking that Obama can't be seen doing.

Well, I don't know what to think. As a progressive, Rahm Emanuel looks like the enemy. But I also believe that as CoS his role will be pretty much whatever Obama wants it to be. So his individual views on the issues may or may not be as important as his other qualities.

Maybe the bottom line is that, three days post-election, we just don't know. We don't know how Obama will actually govern. We don't know if Rahm Emanuel will be an asset or the worst thing to happen to the progressive cause since 9/11. We just don't know.

My own personal response is to give Obama the short-term benefit of the doubt and give him a chance. There are several points along the long timeline of this campaign where I thought he was crazy/stupid/wrong and, well, he's President-elect now so who's the dummy? Which doesn't mean I want to give the guy a blank check, just that he's earned at least a modicum of slack. With me. Your mileage may vary and that's cool w/me.

Why do you persist in thinking Rahm was hired to (4.00 / 2)
to pursue a progressive agenda?  The evidence points all the other way.  The thing about being a good cop in the good cop-bad cop paradigm is that the good cop really isn't all that good; he's just pretending.  



"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
yes (2.00 / 4)
i'm also concerned he was just pretending and is actually a muslim socialist.
[ Parent ]
that was vile of you to say and to accuse me of (0.00 / 0)
Apologize

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
That isn't what she was saying at all (0.00 / 0)
That was pretty frakking low.

The good cop-bad cop routine is about pretending. To claim that pointing that out means she was implying Obama is pretending to not be a Muslim is a flat out smear.

[ Parent ]
What Evidence? (4.00 / 1)
What evidence do we have beyond his appointment?  There is good evidence that he is not a progressive himself.  There is, I take it, evidence which supports and evidence which goes against the claim that Obama is a progressive.

But it is only the second issue that is relevant to what Emmanuel was hired to do.  His views are not particularly relevant.  He has accepted this job.  If Obama supports progressive policy X, and Emmanuel fails to move it through congress and mishandles the press, then Emmanuel looks like an idiot.  His future job prospects depend on his doing well in his current job.  The only reason to think that he was hired to push non-progressive policy is the thought that Obama gave him a non-advisory job, in order to be an advisor.  Whether Obama is progressive or not, he is certainly smart.  I think he understood the COS job, and I don't think having a centrist in the room, in a non-advisory role, is going to sway him.

I think a lot of these worries are misplaced.  Emmanuel is not the problem.  The problem is Summers.  Almost everything people are warning about with regards to Emmanuel seem like worries much more apt with regards to Summers.  He will have an advisory role.  Obama will be disposed to listen to him on policy issues.  He will be able to make policy himself (at least at some level).

Emmanuel is a self-interested hack whose future depends on doing what Obama tells him to do well.  Summers is a guy who is going to continued to be employed in academia and/or Wall Street no matter what, and has already proven succesful once at moving a democratic president to the right.

[ Parent ]
What evidence? (0.00 / 0)
Sry, but your attempts at mindreading Obama are no real evidence.  
[ Parent ]
Did the Darth Vader to the Emperor comment (0.00 / 0)
disturb you too?  Is that what we signed up for.  The Dark Empire?  I thought this administration was about people and not power.

My blog  
Perhaps I am too much the cynic (4.00 / 1)
Or pragmatist...

But my hopes and dreams of this administration are not tied to the people involved with it but rather Affordable Healthcare for all, an end to the war in Iraq, the repeal of the Bush tax plan and a return to a progressive taxation system.  Not to mention I sure would love to see investigations into criminal activities by the current travesty of an administration.

This is not to say, though, that the ends justify the means.  There has to be ethical behavior and proper conduct.  But that does not mean having a hatchet man to advance our agenda equates to having a Sith apprentice executing the master's evil plans (just to continue your analogy).

[ Parent ]
CoS has a say in policy (4.00 / 3)
To envision the CoS as purely a hatcher man is wrong. The CoS will have a say over policy. In fact, the CoS will talk to the President more than anyone else in the country. To argue that Rahm as CoS will be purely a hatcher man to execute the policy with no say over it is just flat wrong.
[ Parent ]
I agree again (0.00 / 0)
The CoS is not just a hatchet man, but a key advisor.  I understand your, and others, concern on that.  I happen to like the diverse opinions coming in to my President.

I hold the President responsible for sifting through the opinions to make the correct decisions.  If he makes what I feel is the wrong decision I will hold him responsible.  If the CoS overrides his authority and executes his decisions over those of the President he should be fired immediately.

So if bad policy comes out of having Emanuel in the White House it is Obama's fault for accepting it (although this should always be determined in context of the environment- I would have preferred to have gotten a reduced, less progressive Healthcare system from the Clinton administration than the wreckage of their big grab which exiled a universal system to the wilderness all these years).

Perhaps the pick will be a total disaster, perhaps not.  But as Yglesias said, it's too tough to tell at this point.

[ Parent ]
Where are the diverse opinions? (4.00 / 2)
I happen to like the diverse opinions coming in to my President.

Fine. However, where are the people in the administration advising Obama from the left? I haven't seen them acquite anything of substance so far, and certainly nothing comprable to the position Rahm now holds.

Surely, diverse opinions do not solely mean people advising Obama from the right, or a couple of token lefites sitting in on a meeting that is mainly CEO's. There simply hasn't been anything of substance given to progressive yet, which makes Rahm's role all the more frustrating.

[ Parent ]
Point taken (0.00 / 0)
But Emanuel was the first appointment.  Axelrod has also been given Assistant to Pres position which affords (assuming the tradition is continued) direct access to Obama.  

Now I am no expert on Axelrod's ideology and he may be more of a Rovian-type appointment for political strategy reasons, but from what I have read so far he is dissimilar to Emanuel in temperament and philosophy.  Perhaps you or another can fill in my lack of knowledge here.

As the appointments continue I expect to see progressives in to positions of influence.  And as I have said elsewhere, I would almost rather have progressives in the key Cabinet positions where they have more independence and the less progressive in the WH, although this presents a whole bunch of other problems.

[ Parent ]
It that happens (4.00 / 2)
As the appointments continue I expect to see progressives in to positions of influence.  And as I have said elsewhere, I would almost rather have progressives in the key Cabinet positions where they have more independence and the less progressive in the WH, although this presents a whole bunch of other problems.

If that happens, fine, I'm cool. Until it happens, I'm not going to keep nodding in assent to the genius in appointing the Rahm Emanuel's of the party positions of extreme power.

We shall see. And we shall work to help it happen.

And thank you for a good discussion.

[ Parent ]
Ditto to you (0.00 / 0)
About the future appointments and the discussion.
[ Parent ]
gatekeeper (4.00 / 4)
main obligation/power of the COS is to control who talks to Prez

not enough hours for Prez to talk to everyone

who will speak?  who will be denigrated as a wingnut, and be marginalized

that is what the COS can do

will do

not good

[ Parent ]
Picking Rahm Emanuel is what is called a "tell" in poker (4.00 / 2)
It tells you about the values of the one who picked him.

Barack Obama has chosen someone who will be around every day....Giving advice as much as executing orders. Rahm will be influencing the orders Barack Obama gives and the priorities he has.  Priorities are as much policy as the policy itself.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Perhaps... (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure if your bolded part refers to Obama's priorities or Emanuel's, but regardless, if Obama tacks away from progressive policies (and again, context is key here) and drives a centrist, or God forbid, a conservative agenda, regardless if it is his or Emanuel's doing, I hold the President responsible.

I have no problem voting against such a President in the primaries or general election next time.

So if this is a "tell" of what is to come I will brush off my Nader button if need be, but again, it is too early to tell if this is the case.

[ Parent ]
That isn't enough (0.00 / 0)
I am open to being convinced that the COS has a role in policy formation, but what you have pointed out here is not enough.  Just the fact that he talks to the president is not enough to show he has a role in deciding which policy gets supported.  Plenty of people are going to talk to Obama a lot.  Generals, Republicans, speechwriters, etc.  What matters is what he will talk to Obama about, and it isn't at all clear to me, that just because Obama selected him for COS, that Obama is going to allow him to keep starting arguments which effectively undercut Obama's own priorities.

All of this is on the assumption that Obama is himself a progressive.

[ Parent ]
Hmm... (4.00 / 5)
Thank God, my boss is an asshole!"  I have to say, this is a sentence that has never crossed my mind since I got my first job at Wegman's 18 years ago. (Yeah, Wegman's. I really am from Upstate New York.)  It seems unlikely that many people have earnestly thought or spoken this sentence. And yet, many people seem to think that it is a good idea to have an asshole managing the White House.

Hopefully, your boss at Wegmans never had to deal directly, and as part of his daily affairs, with 495 other assholes, some of which want to drag your ass back to the 1930's and lynch you... and the remaining wondering why POTUS can't walk on water like they were told he could.

The most liberal president of the century, Lyndon B. Johnson was a complete and total asshole who would hold meetings with subordinates on the toilet having a bowel movement just to show them who was boss.

If LBJ wasn't an asshole, we'd not have had the Civil Rights act of '64 and Barack Obama'd probably be a bellhop in a Hawaiian hotel watching Trent Lott's second term victory speech... .  (OK OK... a little hyperbole... but, hopefully, you get the point.)

LBJ's asshole (4.00 / 3)
I am sure that it was LBJ's asshole-ness that single-handedly secured the Civil Rights Act, and prevented us from Trent Lott becoming President. Assholes saved the world from conservatism. That sounds like an accurate reading of history.

And no, I don't get the point. LBJ was an asshole. LBJ also didn't run for a second full-term. He did some good things, but if his asshole-ness made him so transcendent, why didn't it pay bigger political dividends? Kind of seems to me like he ran out of allies, and maybe being an asshole played a role in that outcome.

Simply as a discussion of workplace dynamics, I don't think that being an asshole (defined here as mean for the sake of mean, and / or mean because you don't think any other tactic will work on someone) as a good way to manage people. But, even leaving Emanuel aside, it disturbs me that so many people seems to think it is.

[ Parent ]
let. me. spell. it. out. for. you... (4.00 / 2)
And no, I don't get the point.

Rahm Emanuel is not the only asshole here.  There are Liebermans and McConnels and all manner of lesser imps and demons waiting to rip out Obamas throat.  That's where your Wegmans analogy falls short: Wegmans, whatever it was, wasn't a brutal, no-holds-barred, high-testosterone, alpha-dog cesspool of backbiting, street-brawling and low down meanness.  

Or did you think that all would be sweetness and light as we coasted towards the progressive future...?

Get a grip.  Emanuel is the CoS.  I'm real sorry that Obama didn't think to ask you first... but it is what it is...

I am sure that it was LBJ's asshole-ness that single-handedly secured the Civil Rights Act,

The Trent Lott stuff was analogy, but other than that, yeah the Civil Rights Act was done when, and only when, LBJ decided to get it done. He had to tough up on a lotta southern assholes to do it...  Read yer history.  

[ Parent ]
that's nice (4.00 / 5)
Or did you think that all would be sweetness and light as we coasted towards the progressive future...?

Get a grip.

Wow, what an incredibly condescending comment. Yes, of course, I thought it would be all sweetness and light, because I haven't worked in politics full-time for the last five years or anything.

Read yer history.

I think you do understand what being an asshole means, since you absolutely acted like one in your comment. No wonder you favor them seeing them in power.

[ Parent ]
it's not condescending... (4.00 / 1)
Wow, what an incredibly condescending comment.

It's only condescending when there's a false appearance of vapidity on your part...

Yes, of course, I thought it would be all sweetness and light, because I haven't worked in politics full-time for the last five years or anything.

Is this the part where I'm supposed to genuflect?  Must I bow to your 'last five years'?  Or anything?

No wonder you favor them seeing them in power.

Do I, now?   I actually favor comity and would avoid the gunfights.  But when there is a gunfight, I'm a gonna bring a gun.  

[ Parent ]
Hunt for Red October (4.00 / 1)
I actually favor comity and would avoid the gunfights.  But when there is a gunfight, I'm a gonna bring a gun.

Since we are imagining that quoting rhetorical cliches is the same thing as making a substantive point, I'll dive into a different Sean Connery movie of the same era, and point out that some things in here don't react well to bullets.
[ Parent ]
Ha! Hunt for Red October rocked! n/t (0.00 / 0)


We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  
[ Parent ]
I used to have similar thoughts (0.00 / 0)
> Simply as a discussion of workplace dynamics, I don't
> think that being an asshole (defined here as mean for
> the sake of mean, and / or mean because you don't think
> any other tactic will work on someone) as a good way to
> manage people.

I used to have similar thoughts.  Until I became responsible for a group of 35 (good, hardworking, tough) in an organization of 5000 successful, productive, very driven people.  I never used the "pure a******" style of management myself; in fact in reaction I never even tried my father's patented "90% conciliator, 10% raging ex-prizefighter" style.  But as I result I was not viewed as one of the more successful  managers/leaders there (an assessment I probably agreed with around 50%, moreso in retrospect) and over 5 years I became increasingly aware that some of my more devious employees were trying to play me for a fool (I don't think they succeed as much as they think they did, but I could be wrong about that).

The 3000-5000 people that Obama will be influencing directly are if anything harder, tougher, more driven, and infinitely more self-centered and self-aggrandizing than even that tough organization I worked for.  I doubt very much that it is possible to lead such an entity without have at least a handful of tough, backstabbing a*****es in Obama's toolkit.  Human nature in large organized groups just doesn't allow leadership by all touchy-feely and pink ponies all the time.  Sometimes, yes.  All the time, no.

sPh  

[ Parent ]
Well put (0.00 / 0)


My response to Republicans who told me to leave the US if I didn't like the 2004 Election results:
"To hell with that, we're taking this place back!"
[ Parent ]
Your history is all wrong (4.00 / 1)
LBJ didn't run for a second term becasue the war in Vietnam had destroyed his ability to govern.

But he passed the Civil Rights Act, The Voting Rights Act, Medicare and most of the progressive legislation we have come to take for granted...because he was yes, an idealist, who did not waste the moment.  He knew timing was crucial.  He didn't wait. He acted.

And I say this as someone who marched against him on the War in Vietnam.  Somewho who needed decades to give him his due.

And the toilet story was an MSM apocryphal tale meant to undermine him...on the war back then, not his domestic agenda.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Exactly (4.00 / 1)
LBJ didn't get the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act passed because he was an asshole. He got them passed because he knew how to cut deals, and because he knew that there was a truly massive progressive movement - i.e. the Civil Rights Movement - that had serious pull within the Democratic Party and that would have torpedoed LBJ's chance at having a successful presidency if he did not.

Too much of the history being tossed around in this discussion is a history of caricatures. It bears little resemblance to the actual history of this country.

[ Parent ]
LBJ (4.00 / 1)
accomplished what he did simply because he believed in them, in his blood and in his bones.  
[ Parent ]
regardless of his temperament (0.00 / 0)
or lack of an understanding and nurturing soul, I will bet that Emanuel will turn out to be more effective, more pivotal, and more successful than any of these men, excepting perhaps Baker's Reagan tour:

4 H. R. Haldeman
5 Alexander Haig
6 Donald Rumsfeld
7 Dick Cheney
8 Hamilton Jordan
9 Jack Watson
10 James Baker
11 Donald Regan
12 Howard Baker
13 Kenneth Duberstein
14 John H. Sununu
15 Samuel K. Skinner
16 James Baker
17 Mack McLarty
18 Leon Panetta
19 Erskine Bowles
20 John Podesta
21 Andrew Card
22 Joshua Bolten

So... (0.00 / 0)
You are saying that you don't know anything about Emanuel, but you are pretty sure that he will be the most successful White House CoS in fifty years?

What are you basing that on, exactly?

[ Parent ]
no, I know a bit about him (0.00 / 0)
just from reading the voluminous discussions of the past few days, and a few of the profiles and press anecdotes. I'm saying that despite his personality shortcomings, I think he will be extremely effective.
Partly because of his prior WH experience, his Hill knowledge, and his tenacity.
Partly because he'll have a lot of votes in both chambers already built in on a lot of things.
Partly because I do think he is Obama's alter ego, a hot-head who will react to some ideas and proposals with fire and even anger, which will help keep Obama's decision-making sharp, and avoid falling into an even-keeled somnolence, which I could foresee with someone like Daschle.
And partly because the Obama Administration will need at least one senior aide to be its fiery, heart-on-sleeve, evangelical advocate and protector. Think of a better-looking, less anti-social Toby Ziegler. None of the great talents who helped Obama win fit that bill. If there's someone else like that I might go with him or her.
[ Parent ]
Rahm's career (4.00 / 2)
In all of Rahm's career, he has never been an evangelical for any progressive cause. His first big victory was NAFTA, and that probably remains his major policy achievement. Over the last three years, he has been instrumental in blocking progressive immigration reform, in giving a blank check for Iraq, and on helping Republicans win voes on motions to recommitt.

He is not an evangelical for progressive causes. He just isn't. Hopefully that will change, but I think we should look to other, hopefully better, administration appointments for champions.

[ Parent ]
you're assuming Obama's (4.00 / 1)
administration will be a Progressive cause. It won't. He'll pass measures that approach being progressive, like health care that fall short of universality, with no mandate, and a good green energy program, that falls short of Gore's smart goal of rebuilding the energy grid.
In any case, what I'm saying is that Emanuel will be an effective evangelical for whatever the Obama administration becomes. And yes, he will significantly shape it. So I agree with you that he's not at all the best choice policy-wise. But I wasn't arguing that.
[ Parent ]
i like that (0.00 / 0)
you are now using him getting nafta through as evidence of what he really values
[ Parent ]
And I should take it how? (0.00 / 0)
Given that this blog was co-founded by a member of Clinton's senior staff who managed to avoid being involved in the NAFTA fight, I should take Rahm being point on that fight as what, evidence that he didn't value NAFTA?
[ Parent ]
NAFTA first and healthcare second and not at all (4.00 / 2)
does tell you about Rahm Emanuel's values.  How else do you judge a person other than what he will fight and scheme for.



"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Rahm *is* well-connected and seems to know Washington, and congress (4.00 / 1)
If it's your job to twist arms and get people on side... then yeah, maybe Rahm Emmanuel is exactly the right guy. It's not like the guy has no skill or ability. You can disagree with him in a substantive way, but believe he has valuable tools.

Listen, I'm not thrilled about this, and this could go very badly. But there's potential that this could work out really well.

What's done is done. Our job has to shift to making sure the rest of the cabinet is progressive where we can get it... and accept Republicans and independents where they have the least ability to obstruct our agenda.

Your have a good point about it being done (4.00 / 7)
It is a done deal, and what is done is done. As such, why am I complaining about it? I should explain that.

I find the 180 so many people have taken on their opinions of Rahm disturbing. This has happened time and time again during Obama's campaign. First, we hated Fox News, then it was a good idea to go on Fox News because Obama said so. Then, we hated telecom immunity, but it was a good idea because Obama said so. And then, we hated Rahm Emanuel's tactics, but suddenly its great to have them in Obama's White House.

I'm complaining about it after the fact because the 180s really disturb me, and smack of a cult of personality rather than a movement with any core values at all. The arguments people are putting up in favor of Rahm are incredibly flimsy, easy to dismantle, and just not the usual stuff I see from the netroots. They are just bad arguments. And the reason they are bad is because, I fear, people just decided to change their opinions in order to avoid disagreeing with Obama.

[ Parent ]
I have thought that for a long time (4.00 / 2)
I'm complaining about it after the fact because the 180s really disturb me, and smack of a cult of personality rather than a movement with any core values at all. The arguments people are putting up in favor of Rahm are incredibly flimsy, easy to dismantle, and just not the usual stuff I see from the netroots. They are just bad arguments. And the reason they are bad is because, I fear, people just decided to change their opinions in order to avoid disagreeing with Obama.


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
I try to be nothing else if not consistent (0.00 / 0)
And if that's your beef with the Obama fan club then call them out.

I like Obama. But he's not above criticism. And now that he's elected, I'm going to make something 100% clear: I will only tolerate criticism from other Democrats. If you're a Republican or some kind of independent, I will NOT let you criticize Obama.

But honestly, I think (hope) Obama understands that you need someone who can play the game... rather than someone who changes the game or ignores the game. Maybe he's picking Rahm exactly so he can bring people like the Blue Dogs on board to a more progressive agenda.

It's not an irrational hope that I'll cling to foolishly. I guess we'll know soon enough.

[ Parent ]
Tactics vs. politics (4.00 / 3)

 I have a far bigger problem with Rahm's politics than I do with his tactics.  I think that much of the sudden pro-Rahm sentiment around here (which I am not part of) rests in a fondness with the idea of him as an enforcer, and thus a welcome break with the usual wimpiness that one associates with Democrats. We've been starved for someone like that so long that we're willing to take ANYBODY, and I think that's blinding some people around here. I think that the Rahm apologists are ignoring that POLITICALLY he's very likely to use that assholeness against us, rather than against Republicans.

 Where I'm holding out hope is that Obama named Rahm to COS just to keep him from becoming an obstructionist in the House. Obama can control Rahm better in the White House. It's a thin reed, but it's what's keeping me from flat-out condemning Obama's decision.

  So in a roundabout way I'm just saying that I pretty much agree with you...  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Tactics vs. politics (0.00 / 0)
In terms of the tactics vs. politics issue, from a purely political standpoint, let's imagine for a moment that we want a cabinet with and ideology of "x".  Then, let's say Mr. Q is the first appointment to the cabinet, and he has an ideology of "y", where we don't know the relationship between x and y, but we know they're not identical.  I would argue that despite whatever "y" is equal to, from a tactical standpoint, those who prefer a Cabinet with an ideology of "x", should heavily criticize the choice of Mr. Q, on any legitimate grounds, EVEN IF THEY FIND THE PICK WITHIN ACCEPTABLE REASON, not with the intent of making that criticism stick to Mr. Q, but with the idea that it will present a discontented constituency to Decision-maker Z, and shift the discourse for Cabinet or administration appointment number 2.  Then, hopefully, impressionable Decision-maker Z will take the perceived discontent with the choice of Mr. Q into account when making the second appointment.  To sum it, it's always in our best interest to criticize any pick that is not to the left of what we prefer.
[ Parent ]
In other words... (0.00 / 0)
the squeakiest wheel gets the grease.
[ Parent ]
I don't know hat to think (0.00 / 0)
I don't know if Rahm is an asshole.  I sort of think that he may be more of a douchebag, but that might just be semantics.  The whole claiming credit, or at least accepting credit, for the 2006 election, shows a little dochebaggery in my opinion.

I absolutely don't like that he is a DLC Clintonista.  I do know, though, that he and Obama are friends, and, for whatever reason, have trust in one and other.  Maybe that's what Obama needs.  Maybe it's a peace offering to the Clinton wing of the party.  Who knows.

One thing that I do know is that whatever the easoning, it is some shrewd politics.

You don't think he is a Clintonista DLCer? (4.00 / 2)
Then why, exactly, did he co-write a book with the founder of the director of the DLC in 2006? Do people often co-write books with people who operate the DLC in order to demonstrate how non-DLC they are?

Oh yeah, and he was senior staff in the Clinton White House, leading the NAFTA fight. Definitely not Clintonista DLCer.

[ Parent ]
he doesn't 'like' that he is a DLC CLintonista (0.00 / 0)
not doesn't 'think.'
[ Parent ]
ah (0.00 / 0)
my mistake. Apologies.
[ Parent ]
I have written this before (0.00 / 0)
Hillary tried to get Rahm fired the first year he was at the WH.  He refused to go, insisting that Bill, himself,  had to tell him personally, knowing full well that Bill hated firing people personally.  He stayed.  She still isn't fond of him.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
When can we stop blaming Clinton (4.00 / 2)
for Obama's shortcomings? The primary is over.

It's time for Obama to stand on his own feet and take responsibility for his own decisions. "Clintons made him do it" is not helpful.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Jim Messina is an asshole too (0.00 / 0)
Why no complaints on him, he's running Personnel and is a better analogy for My Boss is an Asshole.

Hell, both Stoller and Sirota can be serious assholes but we love them.  

On twitter: @BobBrigham

Seems simple to me (4.00 / 2)
This is just one version of the basic divide that is going to play out in our movement for some time to come: on one side those who think Obama can do no wrong and it's our job to fall in line behind him, and on the other side the rest of us who are actually interested in advancing a progressive agenda.

Besides, most people seem to be missing the point of the Emanuel pick: Obama has always demonstrated that he is his own man and will not be pushed, forced, bullied, or otherwise leveraged into doing a damn thing he doesn't want to do. Emanuel reinforces that - it's an ideal "reinforcing pick" to recall something Chris wrote back over the summer.

The preponderance of evidence also suggests that the main group Obama is interested in insulating himself from is the progressive grassroots. He is planning to lay out his own moderate - some might say Reaganite - agenda and is going to tell us to follow his way or the highway, using Emanuel to beat down any emergent alternative within the party.

Hence the gutting of the 50 state strategy.  

Info on 50 state strategy (4.00 / 2)
50 State Strategy Being Killed by Letting the Organizers Go
By: Ian Welsh Friday November 7, 2008 9:31 pm

http://firedoglake.com/

Is Dean's Legacy Being Destroyed?

A rumor at this point (or rather, someone unwilling to go on record) but what I'm hearing is that the DNC organizers who implement the 50 state strategy are about to be let go. Apparently they will be laid off at the end of the month, and the new DNC chair will decide whether he or she wants to continue the 50 state policy.

Of course, there's no better way to kill the program than to let the organizers go. With them will go all the experience, a lot of the contacts and most of the trust. And many of them won't be available to be rehired.

I have no idea who made this decision, especially immediately after a year where the 50 state strategy seems to have payed off with wins in places Dems don't ordinarily win.

It is worth noting, however, that the 50 state strategy's biggest opponent, for years has been Rahm Emanuel. Rahm's new job? Chief of Staff. Wonder if Obama's ok with this?

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Chris, you are doing some great work here (4.00 / 2)
There is not much mere bloggers can do about this. If Obama wants a COS who got Iraq, trade, immigration, and a host of other issues wrong, well, there is not much anyone can do. But I do think it is worth while to draw attention to the fact that Rahm is arrogant hack who got almost everything wrong.

After all, it was just a few years ago we were just a bunch of citizens sitting behind our computers. Now we are, as Atrios put it, a non-trivial factor in the Democratic coalition.

So it is appropriate and necessary to draw attention to the fact that the COS comes across as a complete and total jerk.

Toot tired to be too cynical. (0.00 / 0)
   I want to fight for progressive change, but I'm just not sure what to make of Emanuel as CoS.  There are other positions in the Obama administration.  I want to see who gets appointed to them.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
well, I have certainly known bosses (4.00 / 3)
That other people thought were assholes, but whose people were intensely loyal because the boss got the best out of them. Of course, some people, mainly the ones who were not good but also the ones who couldn't stand him, got out. These were amazingly productive groups.  So they didn't seem to think "thank god my boss is an asshole" but rather "you think my boss is an asshole, but we do great work"

Maybe this type is more common on Wall Street or science.

I don't view it as a plus, but frankly I don't know him anyway.  I don't think Chris is against the guy because he is or is not an asshole, it's because he is not progressive.



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

Another aspect of that... (0.00 / 0)
I once worked with a guy who had a bit streak of a*****e-ness.  More than I cared for, and I was starting to dislike him.  

Until the managers of another division came after my group with an intent to destroy me and absorb my function and my people, pretty much for pure empire-building reasons.  My a*****e manager went directly after their executive vice-president like a rabid hyena and drove them back deep into their cave (in fact I think one of their key schemers ended up be demoted to nowherestan soon after).

I had a different appreciation of his skills after that.

sPh

[ Parent ]
Three Points (0.00 / 0)
One, in CoS you need someone who can crack the whip; otherwise, we can all look forward to enjoying the incompetency of the Carter years, and the first two years of the Clinton administration.

Two, Rahm post 2006 may have moderated from Rahm in the '90s.

Three, any lobbying firm that wanted to derail Obama's policies would have keyed in on Rahm in his position in the House Leadership. It would have been the perfect entry point: a member of leadership with a heck of an ego, knowledge of how to manipulate the levers of power, and pre-existing relationships with most House members. Obama removed that possibility by bringing Rahm into his inner circle.

In essence, he turned a potential weakness (a potential enemy) in a strength, which is the mark of a very good leader. And he had the sense to make the move before he even won the election.

Two thoughts (0.00 / 0)
Rahm Emanuel is no longer in Congress with this pick.  That means we can try for a real progressive for that seat.

In a large organisation it can be good to have someone who can be an asshole - someone who can push back on people being assholes to your team.  As long as he's being an asshole to Republicans and their friends, I'm pretty much OK with that.

If you were in the White House working on the Foo project and the GOP were slamming that project, wouldn't you want someone to fight your corner while you spent your time working on the project?  Then, when you need to work with Republicans on the project you can agree with them that Rahm was a jerk to them and then press on actually getting the work done.

Watch Congress, not the Cabinet (4.00 / 1)
The Cabinet selections are not where the real action is.  What we know about Obama is that he likes to build consensus legislation.  What that means is no matter who he picks for his Cabinet, if the key representatives and senators are all in thrall to centrism, we'll get centrist bills.  But if enough folk in Congress feel safest or best supported by going progressive, we'll get progressive bills.

So we should worry less about our new Cabinet and more about our new Congress.

We have an excellent chance of convincing Representatives and Senators that particular policies are litmus tests for our support, and that they need our support.

So we need to figure out what policies we're going to fight for, and how we can best push on Congresspeople to fight for them.

What I'm saying is: worrying about Rahm is a sucker bet, because it takes our eye off where we have power.  We have power to scare some Congressfolk and give courage to some others.  That's what we should be looking at.

What can we do to push Baucus on health care?  What can we do to push Dingell or whomever on energy?  If not them, who else on their committees might be susceptible to us?

I see only modest evidence that modern Presidents let their Cabinet members shape their legislation, and even less evidence that us "extremists" can be decisive in the appointments of a President who so clearly enjoys playing rhetorically to the middle.  But I think there's pretty good evidence by now that Congressmen get nervous or happy when the progressive movement moves in against or for them, and no matter how awesome Obama is, it's Congressfolk who move or stall bills -- especially because Obama likes consensus.

That's where we have power to change outcomes: in the Congress, not the Cabinet.  And we need to use it NOW, not later.  Worrying about Rahm is not the right battle: figuring out what to push on Congress and how is the right battle.  And we should be starting it now.

There may be other reasons for promoting the asshole! (0.00 / 0)
As fas as I know, Emanuel's position in the House is strong. Even though he certainly isn't popular (because of his horrible temper), there have been no reports that he is likely to lose his job. At the same time, the well known centrist Emanuel sure isn't the best advocat for Obama's programs. So, what should Obama do about this, to ensure that there isn't a strong force in the House standing in the way of getting the reform bills thorough? Well, promoting the obstacle to a prominent position in the White House may be a good idea. Of course, this sounds a bit like exchanging Scylla for Charybdis, but you shouldn't forget that executive officals serve at the pleasure of the president. And if Obama should become displeasured with Rahmbo, he could be fired in an instant. Problem solved.

So, imho in this discussion about Emanel, we should concentrate more on the question of what would be worse for progressives: Rahmbo in the House, or in the White House?
Obama seems to favor the second option. And we should be careful before judging that's simply because he wants to follow a centrist policy.

(also posted at Matt's Rahm thread)  

If he is pushing Obama to disclude us (0.00 / 0)
from his administration he is clearly worse as a cos.  He would be censured from congress before he gets to be speaker in my view.  He has alreadly lost much of his power in the dccc.

Having said that I am now prepared to be discluded from his administration and I intend to concentrate on maintaining the dnc and the 50 state strategy come hell or highwater.

My blog  

[ Parent ]
Uh, that's answer to my comment? (0.00 / 0)
It doesnt really look like it is. I didn't write about possible consequences of Rahmbo becoming CoS, my point was on Obama's reasons for doing it.

I guess you just clicked the wrong link, right?

OH, and btw, it's "exclude", not "disclude"...

[ Parent ]
You asked what would be worse for progressives. (0.00 / 0)
so I addressed this.

My blog  
[ Parent ]
Ah, right! Sry, I'm a bit slow today (0.00 / 0)
Need more coffee. Well, Rahmbo excluding progressives by denying them access to the president would be a problem. But I don't think Obama will let him get away with much of that. So, I don't see this as worse than Emanuel having his thumb on progressive legislation. Just guessing, of course.  
[ Parent ]
I have no reason to have any faith in Obama (4.00 / 1)
particularly afte fisa.

My blog  
[ Parent ]
I wondered about this as well. (0.00 / 0)
The strangest thing to me is that Rahm is a known leaker and Obama's campaign organization had zero tolerance for that behavior. Given his willingness to go around his purported bosses and work his own agenda, he seems like an odd choice for Obama unless either (1) Obama shares his agenda or (2) Obama thinks he can control Rahm better in the WH than in the house. It's probably a combination of the two.

Something that has always driven me nuts about the Clintonistas is how quickly they'd start fighting internal disputes in the press. And something I've long taken comfort in is that Obama's organization did an excellent job of stemming that behavior. I really hope that continues. There's plenty of space outside of the white house for people to discuss different options.

I truly dislike Emanuel and will be amazed if I'm happy with his conduct as CoS, but it wouldn't be the first time Obama surprised me.

[ Parent ]
Chris, this is stupid (4.00 / 2)
Ok, I'm coming to this late, and maybe this has already been said, but Chris, this is stupid.

Obama isn't hiring Emanuel to be his boss, he's hiring him to run his White House.  Obama is Emanuel's boss, and I doubt he (Obama) is thinking about this from the perspective of the people who will be working for Emanuel.  He's thinking about it from the perspective of what will be required to be effective in office.  If Emanuel is some form of asshole, that can be a good thing from the perspective of the higher up, because sometimes you need someone who isn't terribly nice to keep everyone in line.

I get that you don't like Rahm Emanuel.  I'm certain we're all sorry that Obama isn't listening solely to you.  

missing the point (0.00 / 0)
If Chris had just popped up with "RE is an asshole and therefore he shouldn't be CoS" then your argument would make more sense.

Chris was responding to one argument that many have repeated in response to his and Matt's substantive criticism of RE as CoS, and what it tells us about how we will need to relate to Obama, who chose him.

It's as if a bunch of people have been trying to wrest the narrative from the substantive point to a much weaker one about what kind of guy RE is. This isn't, or shouldn't be, about personality.

It should be about whether RE will

A) be good for advancing progressive policy

and/or

B) be someone who can be trusted to carry out his boss's agenda.

There is good evidence that the answer to both is NO, and it is therefore important to get a good read on what it means that Obama picked him.

If Obama is the progressive dream that many imagine him to be, then B is scary. On the other hand, if Obama picked him because they share policy goals, then A is scary.

[ Parent ]
Nice interpretation (0.00 / 0)
But I don't see that in Chris's post here.  Maybe he said it somewhere else, but that's not what this post is about.
[ Parent ]
Hmmm! (0.00 / 0)
As a manager, I agree with Chris.  I treat my team with respect.  Based on my own experience, I am not sure being viewed as an asshole to the outside world and being a decent boss are necessarily mutually exclusive.

I have had two bosses in politics who were total hardasses to those operating outside their relm but were actually good to work for.  They were tough negotiators and took no gruff from people who were asking for legislative items, favors, etc.  They saw their role to basically play bad cop so the elected didn't have to.  On the other hand, they treated the staff fairly and gave us a lot of latitude and independence.  People were always shocked when I said they were good to work for.

I have no idea what Rahm is like as a boss but just because he is a hardass to people asking for things from him doesn't mean he is a horrible boss.  

One other thing - I have worked for elected officials and am now in the private sector.  Elected officials generally need someone to play bad cop because people are always asking elected officials for favors.  I can't remember the last time someone asked me for a favor in this job but I got asked daily when I worked in govt.  

It is a lot easier and more effective if Obama has someone to say no to every member of Congress who wants a project in his district in exchange for a vote rather than for Obama to say it himself.  It may not be right but it is the way of politics.  It's fine for people to be mad at Rahm for saying no but you don't want them to be mad at Obama.

Thank God, My Boss Is An Asshole! | 81 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