Our Dear Leader

by: David Sirota

Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 15:34


Lots of folks are expressing concern over Barack Obama's appointments, and in my new newspaper column I offer three separate thoughts on the worries: 1) Don't worry so much, 2) Worry a little bit and make your worries heard and 3) What did you expect?

This last point is arguably the most important. Because of the structure of the movement Obama built for himself, and because of the refusal/inability of an independent progressive movement to make concrete demands, he has more top-down power than any previous president. Whether you think that's good news or bad news, it is reality. We have elected a Dear Leader, and have ceded a lot of power to our Dear Leader. We have to simultaneously hope he makes good decisions, and figure out how to organize effectively in case he doesn't.

Read the whole column here.
David Sirota :: Our Dear Leader

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Our Dear Leader | 39 comments
Well put (0.00 / 0)
I wanted to get some praise in before the kool-aid drinkers started in.  Fran Piven had a great article in the Nation:  Obama Needs a Protest Movement:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/2...

Can someone explain how to link properly?

I live in a true blue state--I will have a choice in November

This kind of makes me wonder... (4.00 / 1)
...if now is a good time for us to lose David Sirota's voice on the topic.  Not that I won't read the David Sirota Guide to Roadside Attractions.  Don't get me wrong.
And to further demonstrate what I mean- (4.00 / 2)
The netroots will have to rely on people like Josh Marshall- http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c... to speak for them.

I realize the blogosphere is a madhouse and not a democracy, but with friends like this- who needs enemies?

[ Parent ]
It makes me wonder if this is result of using strategy 2) on David! (0.00 / 0)
He really sounded less alarming and more down-to-earth as usual. Well, maybe that'sonly my personal impression. However, good column, I'm certain this will be well received by the newspaper readers.

As for the "David Sirota Guide to Roadside Attractions", I would certainly buy that. Sounds like a great kick-off for planning the next holidays in the US!
:-)

[ Parent ]
Wrong. (4.00 / 1)
We don't have to figure out how to organize effectively in case Obama doesn't make good decisions. We have to figure out how to organize effectively around solid proposals based on coherent Left ideas, and how to sell them to the pols, the media, and the citizens. Regardless of who's in power or what they decide. It's decades past the time to quit just being reactionaries.
Can organization without political leaders IN OFFICE succeed? (0.00 / 0)
Assuming Obama is not some sort of progressive Messiah with secret plans (ha, ha, I know), how can any long term, far reaching changes occur in the the US 'democracy' in the next few years without prominent leaders who can primary Obama?

Imagine if, oh, say Feingold, Kucinich, and Boxer were outspoken in their criticism of Obama, had even half of Obama's charisma, and announced that they would run for President if Obama doesn't deliver some sort of bare minimum (which they would explicate). Imagine further that these 3 put out the call to the public at large (but especially Democrats) that if they have leadership qualities, they need to consider running for office - and therefore organizing in that sense. And finally imagine that they did so today, not after Obama allows the US military to kill a few more million people.

Although getting media attention will be a problem from the sycophantic press, I think the greatest motivation for Obama (short of a depression, which may be in the cards) to enact deep changes of the positive sort is to know that he can be replaced, by people within his own party who aren't afraid to speak truth to power. Yes, even if it ruffles the feathers of other Democrats, who think they have a right not to be too severely criticized by their own party members.

If Obama delivers, then the Feingold/Kucinich/Boxer leader/pit-bulls can postpone their Presidential runs another 4 years (if they so desire), while still calling for a new generation of like-minded leaders to seek political office. After all, even a President Feingold will need supporters in Congress to pass bills he approves of...

I have to admit, I'm not too rational about the whole "supplicate the mighty President/Senator/Representative" process. It seems humiliating. Aren't they supposed to work for us? My attitude toward elected officials is like Donald Trump's toward his employees. Either do the job, or "You're fired!". I've worked for subminimum wage, as a waiter, and knew that if I mouthed off to just one nasty customer, I'd likely be fired immediately. And rightly so. Why should I have to beg anybody to please, please, pretty please do their job in an ethical fashion?

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org

[ Parent ]
A variation (or two) on the Feingold/Kucinich/Boxer idea (0.00 / 0)
1) Feingold, Kucinich, and Boxer could agree that at least one of themselves will run for President (again, if Obama doesn't pass muster), with the active support of the other two.
2) Feingold, Kucinich, and Boxer could cohost a weekly radio program, to be broadcast over the internet, where they talk about what's going on in Washington (and what should be going on). The model here is "Lunch with Bernie", the hour that Thom Hartmann does with Senator Bernie Sanders every Friday.* They could also take turns writing a column, with the other two.

* Speaking of which, I bet Hartmann would give this troika regular airtime, too.


DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org

[ Parent ]
Meant: "Writing a column with the other two adding comments" (0.00 / 0)
Meant: "Writing a column with the other two adding comments"

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org
[ Parent ]
"More top-down power than any previous president"? (4.00 / 7)
Because he has a few million email addresses? Really?

I would remind you that we've had presidents wage undeclared war and consign many, many thousands of US citizens to internment camps. We've had presidents suspend habeas corpus and ignore the Supreme Court, arrest people for sedition based on speech.

But Obama's the "Dear Leader" because of his email list. Uh-huh. Riiiiiiight.

because of the refusal/inability of an independent progressive movement to make concrete demands

You know, I've been pretty cool with the idea that, yes, be mouthy and pushy about policy and appointments, squeaky wheel gets the grease and all.

But what, we're all of 25 days or so past the election? The rhetorical hyperventilation is a bit extreme here. You might be surprised that every liberal who's voted for Obama isn't showing up with pitchforks, torches, tar and feathers because President-elect Obama hasn't announced the implementation of every one of Dennis Kucinich's campaign planks, but I'm not. Like it or not, Obama ran as a center-left politician, and that's what we're getting, and some liberals are actually pretty OK with it (an awful lot of people voted for Hillary Clinton OVER Barack Obama, for instance). The parallels with JFK are pretty striking (JFK tried to run to Nixon's RIGHT on national defense, for instance, and is remembered as far more liberal than he actually was).

Because those email addresses... (0.00 / 0)
...came from compromise and ideological sublimation. Millions set aside personal wishes to elect a Democrat, but apparently many hung on to those wishes hoping for or expecting that once elected Obama would don the apparel of a true progressive. Those millions gave up a lot of power with their votes.

Amplify this when considering the leaders of the progressive blogging movement. Their power positions depend on their willingness to continue supporting Obama, as if he were still a candidate, and that is the crux of why we are reading what we are reading lately.

Obama's first moves as president-elect mirror his campaign strategy (and his Senate voting record) and are blowing many of those buried hopes and expectations to bits. Add to that the fact that our country is in crisis mode, and the likelihood that progressive ideology will be held high diminishes.

If financial conditions two or three years down the road are improved, with elections once again in sight, we may see a more left-leaning Obama administration. But for now, the campaign is still on, and as someone who dared question Obama during the campaign knows, there's not much room for dissent in that Big Tent.

[ Parent ]
Careful, David, "Dear Leader" has other connotations (4.00 / 1)
It's also the term used for North Korean President Kim Jong-il. That's one comparison I don't want made.
"Dear Leader" (4.00 / 1)
What does this even mean? This is such a dishonest way to make an argument- You can go either way on whether its a good thing Obama is a dictator. But if you think he isn't one you're not in touch with reality!
If only Obama would appoint you to something... (2.86 / 7)
I mean, that's the only way he'd be deemed "progressive enough" for you and we all know it.

Are you aware, by the way, that Krugman has even weighed in at this point to let you know you're jumping the shark? Or is he a traitor too now because he disagrees with you?

Ok, I'll pay the Troll Toll (4.00 / 1)
Where, specifically, has Krugman called out Sirota on this topic?
[ Parent ]
Who is this "we" (0.00 / 0)
about which you speak?
[ Parent ]
I have never troll rated anyone on this site before (4.00 / 1)
But you deserve it because that was a very personal, vicious attack...based on absolutely nothing.

There is only malice to support it.

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

[ Parent ]
Bad choice for the first time (0.00 / 1)
There have been much worse attacks by commenters on front pagers, and even by front pagers on commenters. Those didn't trigger your conscience, but this relatively harmless slap ("progressive enough for you") is over the top for you? Strange.
[ Parent ]
No the accusation that it was because he personally was not chosen for a position (0.00 / 0)
That's imputing a personal malice that is beyond the pale.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
D'oh. (0.00 / 0)
You rate this harmless teasing 0, and let the i-word downthread pass without rating??? Weird.
[ Parent ]
don't what you are referring to (0.00 / 0)
what is the i word?  she was the end of the thread as far as I could see.


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
"she"? You imply, "Barry" may be short for "Barbara"? (0.00 / 0)
Hmm, this doesn't sound convincing to me...
:D
[ Parent ]
check the time stamps (0.00 / 0)
i never saw the rest of the thread

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
How would I know? (0.00 / 0)
Timestamps, shmimestamps, I can't see when you visited this thread and what you read here. Timestamps of the comments only present a part of that picture.

However, the important point is, that comment downthread, "David is an i****", represents what is commonly seen as unduly criticism here, and will regularly rated 0. That's the standard that most commenters use here. But harsh criticism, and ironic statements won't be "censored" by the vast majority of commenters here, as evident by some users here recommending the same comment that you trollrated. Afaics that's the standard that Chris and Matt use here, too (even though there are seldom exceptions from the rule, but they are only human, too). After all, "be excellent to each other" isn't a clear cut rule, and this site is dedicated to open discussions. That means, there has to be some leeway for criticism, and visitors shouldn't be discouraged from openly voicing teir opinion. Accordingly, the name of this blog is "OpenLeft" and not "DiplomaticLeft" or "CautiousLeft".

Just my personal view, and of course I'm just another commenter and my opinions don't have any more weight than those of anyone else. However, I still think you should consider adjusting your "trollrating" standard to that of the majority of the users. Let's keep those discussions open, and rather answer attacks with comments than with a vote to hide them, pls.

[ Parent ]
shimestamps means I made my rating and comment before the i**** was posted (0.00 / 0)
I never saw that comment.  so I could not have troll rated it.

And I think saying one's motivation for a political/ideological point is purely venal and personal...like it's not corruption is I get some of it...is of much greater moment than calling someone a pretty generic name.

Though I never saw the comment you are referring to, if I had seen it later..after having troll rated one comment..I would have felt on a personal basis only that one was enough and two would have been overkill.

I am not the proprietor of the site however, but I do think they are entitled to a different standard than just commenters on the site.

After all they have to maintain the integrity of the site and their sense of its mission.

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

[ Parent ]
PUMAism in new packaging (4.00 / 2)
This is stupid and insulting:
Though many Obama supporters feel strongly about particular issues, and though polling shows the country moving left, the Obama movement undeniably revolves around the president-elect's individual stardom - and specifically, the faith that he will make good decisions, whatever those decisions are.

Sirota's saying Obama's supporters are robots who will obey his every emailed command. It sounds just like a talking point coming out of some rightwinger's mouth. Next up from David Sirota: Will Obama supporters try to take away all our guns? You never know about Dear Leader ....

The comment below is hidden (4.00 / 1)
Below:

very pumaisc [sic] I might add to call obama "Dear leader"

Granted, the commenter led off by calling Sirota a rather tame name, but the substance of the comments are similar.

When it came to supporting Obama, in order to elect a Democrat, I'd dare say that people were closer to acting as robots than they'd like to admit. FISA was the point where progressives had an opportunity to play hardball with the campaign, but backed down and rolled over quickly. Many ultimately attacked dissenters as disloyal to the campaign.

That was the moment when push came to shove, and many allowed themselves to be shoved and backed down.

Obama helped to take away a good chunk of your privacy; based on that action, if he thought there was a good reason, he just might take away some other Constitutional right. He might not, of course, but he's already shown that he would do it, and that was okay with many because they wanted him elected.

3) What did you expect?

[ Parent ]
While I found the title to be unfortunate (4.00 / 2)
I think this thread is being filled with personal attacks on David, without substance.
I'm not anti-Sirota, Sirota's anti-me (4.00 / 3)
From the article:
Wielding his campaign's massive e-mail list, the new president could mobilize supporters to press Congress for a new New Deal. Or, he could mobilize that army to blunt pressure on his government for a new New Deal.

Around 1.5 million people actively volunteered for Obama. Sirota's claim is that all of us have no principles, no beliefs, that we're just cultists following Dear Leader, no matter what he tells us to do. Now that's a personal attack without substance.
[ Parent ]
Kool-aid, Obamabot, etc. (4.00 / 1)
It's kind of a common criticism of Obama's supporters, really, though, and not particularly unique to David, based largely on the abstractness of his campaign rhetoric (hope, change) in relation to the huge following he had.
[ Parent ]
No, this is different (4.00 / 1)
Yes, there are lots of stupid people who use stupid labels like obamaniac, obamabot, but usually they're confined to No Quarter and TalkLeft. But this isn't like the claims that people who volunteered for Obama did so because they were gulled by vague rhetoric. This claim is that, if Obama orders us to, we will actively work against progressive policies. It's an idea straight out of a Palin rally.
[ Parent ]
I disagree (4.00 / 2)
It's an argument about a cult of personality and charismatic power, which history has shown can often induce supporters and followers to work against their own stated goals.  Not to say that it is doing so now, but it certainly has in the past, and is a valuable point to be wary of.  You can't deny that Obama gained much of his strength from the cult of personality surrounding him, and the "thrills going up [their] leg[s]."
[ Parent ]
This whole post should be troll-rated (4.00 / 2)
Sirota is talking about the activists who worked for Obama, not Chris Matthews. The people who volunteered for the campaign were labeled young and naive by the media. Sirota's using this conventional picture to smear all of us as unthinking followers. In fact, many of the activists are experienced volunteers who worked for MoveOn in 2004 or for liberals running for Congress. Sirota's argument is bullshit of the kind that belongs on RedState.
[ Parent ]
Answer me this. (0.00 / 0)
When supporters put aside feelings on warrantless wiretapping and telco amnesty and supported Obama after he voted for a rotten FISA bill, did they become unquestioning supporters? Did they put aside personal views in order to elect the candidate?

If so, why does he face so much heat for his cabinet/administration selections? Did people expect that once elected he would become a different person?

[ Parent ]
Yea! (0.00 / 0)
common Rhetoric among GOP, Haters, bigots and puma's. based on your past comments you (and david) might fit nicely with them as far as obama is concerned.  
[ Parent ]
And (0.00 / 0)
stop troll rating me for pointing out his  consistent offensive, almost neo-Nazi tone (Calling people brown shirts, His "dear Leader" posts etc) tone toward people who criticism his approaches. Grow up.
[ Parent ]
Trollrating the i-word is correct. Rtfm (0.00 / 0)
The OL manual says, "be excellent to each other". Of course, there are several interpretations on what this means, but it certainly doesn't allow such name-calling. I'm  not a Sirota fan at all, but even I agree that there have to be some limits on criticism.
[ Parent ]
Btw, Sirota has been trollrated for such comments, too. (0.00 / 0)
Those standards apply to all. However, I agree, a feature to rate front page stories, too, would be nice.
[ Parent ]
Dead on! (0.00 / 0)
Wow. Honest commentary that makes sense. That accurately captures the effect of the sublimation of progressive blogosphere's ideology in order to elect a Democrat.

And you got it in print, to boot. Bravo.

Now, how do we get people to listen to you?

Our Dear Leader | 39 comments
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.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox