Conservatives Pallin' Around With Obama

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 13:13


Last night, Obama had dinner at George Will's house with a small group of conservative pundits (David Brooks and Bill Kristol). It is, ostensibly, something that bloggers are supposed to get angry about:

This is for real, folks. The bloggers are going to love this one.

First, I like how "the bloggers" now refers exclusively to progressive bloggers, and has for some time. Conservative bloggers no longer seem to matter, at all, as the progressive blogosphere has left them in the dust. Second, it is hard for me to envision bloggers getting angry about something that is now such a regular pattern, and such an obvious example of a broader Obama strategy. This is especially the case for such an incidental manifestation of this pattern and strategy.

From pledging to talk with all foreign governments, to a constant harping on the need for bi-partisanship, to appearing on Bill O'Reilly's show during the campaign, from palling around with Rick Warren and putting together a "team of rivals" in his cabinet, Obama has made it plainly obvious that he intends to talk with anyone and everyone. Hell, I have even met Obama in a small, private meeting with bloggers. He sincerely seeks to be a bridge-builder, consensus maker, and uniter. At this point, you would have to be pretty blind to miss that.

Now, this does conflict with the progressive movement strategy, exemplified by organizations like Media Matters, to discredit conservative media and pundits. Our goal of reshaping the national political media along more progressive lines is not compatible with Obama's strategy of appearing to be a bi-partisan consensus builder reaching out across dividing lines. Obama's strategy assumes that conservatives are acting in good faith, the progressive movement's does not. Obama's strategy is central to his personal image, while the movement's is focused on institutions rather than any single individual. Obama regularly gives conservative pundits and media more credibility, while the progressive movement seeks to undermine that credibility. Obama's strategy is short-term and focused on winning elections and news cycles, while the movement is focused on reshaping American discourse over the long-term. You can't discredit Bill O'Reilly and appear on his show at the same time. However, Obama isn't interested in discrediting Bill O'Reilly. He wants to appear willing to talk to anyone, and to try and curry favor even with conservative audiences.

The progressive movement and Barack Obama have two very different strategies when it comes to dealing with conservative media. Rather than being news, this has been obvious for a long-time. Given that anger usually has an element of surprise to it, I can't imagine why anyone would be angry about this. I wish Obama had a different strategy, and I hope that in the future we are able to convince more Democratic leaders to buy into the movement's strategy on this matter, as their failure to do so hurts both them and us. For now, I am not going to get angry about old news.
Chris Bowers :: Conservatives Pallin' Around With Obama

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Conservatives Pallin' Around With Obama | 59 comments
Different strategies reach different people (4.00 / 3)
Personally, I don't mind there being different strategies.  Different people need different strategies to be reached.  If Obama can soften the hardest support on the right while we pull over the moderates, that is fine with me.  

This could be a problem if Obama was pulling moderates to the right, but I don't see much evidence of that.

Strategieis are conflictng, not complimentary (4.00 / 4)
Organizations like media matters are not targeting moderates for persuasion. They are targeting media institutions themselves, and seeking to change those institutions. The desired end result of that is a change in American political discourse that impacts everyone, not just "moderates."

Obama isn't trying to reshape institutions like we are. He is working with existing institutions, and even trying to give their current manifestations more credibility. It isn't an example of Obama targeting conservatives and progressives targeting moderates. They are fundamentally conflicting strategies. Obama's strategy, and that of other Democratic leaders, actually undermines attempts to discredit conservative media.

Not enough Democratic elites have bought into our strategy at this time. Whatever the reason for that, we have to work to try and change it.

[ Parent ]
yes, this is all true,.... and would apply to david s. as well. (0.00 / 0)
clearly, for better or worse, there is not a single, monolithic "movement" position on what to do about fox news et al.  
[ Parent ]
Claim (4.00 / 1)
The claim is the "don't appear on Fox" rule should only apply to those who have the credentials to give Fox legitimacy.  Someone like David can go on in much the same way a conservative can go on Air America.

But the claim doesn't hold much water, does it?

[ Parent ]
If we take Obama at his word (4.00 / 1)
then he ought to bring in some progressive commentators next, in just as high profile a fashion.  Even if he has no interest in delegitimizing conservatives, he could help legitimize progressives.



Who are the best keepers of the people's liberties? The people themselves. The sacred trust can be no where so safe as in the hands most interested in preserving it.
James Madison

[ Parent ]
Ahem... (4.00 / 3)
http://www.salon.com/politics/...

By default, this isn't as "high profile" only because this is more "expected" of him.

[ Parent ]
Excellent (4.00 / 1)
Wish I'd finished reading Salon today. Hopefully this is part of a larger trend.  

Who are the best keepers of the people's liberties? The people themselves. The sacred trust can be no where so safe as in the hands most interested in preserving it.
James Madison
[ Parent ]
Target audience (0.00 / 0)
Organizations like media matters are not targeting moderates for persuasion. They are targeting media institutions themselves, and seeking to change those institutions.

Sure, but they do that by shaming the institutions every time they lie or show obvious bias.  But you always have an intended audience whenever you write or produce anything.  Media Matters is reaching to shame Fox and others in the eyes of moderates and those that see themselves as moderates, the media elite.

Once the institutions change, that of course effects everyone one.  But don't confuse that final intended effect with the current target audience.

[ Parent ]
Moderates (4.00 / 2)
Moderates are not the only people who care about lying. You seem to think that because Media Matters is focusing on when lies appear in the media, that means they are targeting moderates. Unless I am reading you wrong.
[ Parent ]
You read me right, sort of (0.00 / 0)
It takes an amazingly brazen lie to get someone to notice their own side doing it.  The people who Media Matters has a real chance to persuade directly are those who think of themselves as moderates.  I don't see how that could be considered a controversial statement.

For example, you'll find plenty of right-wing pages talking about how Media Matters lies.  Just google media matters lies to see a bunch of them.  That's how the game is played.  Media Matters has basically no chance of persuading the right directly except in the very rare, extreme, jaw-droppingly obvious cases.  (And even then, I wonder.)  The very fact they are a liberal group automatically disqualifies them in the eyes of many.

[ Parent ]
Rachalel Maddow is change. But not the important one. (4.00 / 3)
And to a lessor extent so are some of the new people at some of the networks. And I say this loving Rachael with mad passion.

How ever this is not because of pressure from people calli9ng up and saying please put on people who don't hate us. It came from programmers noticing that America had changed, the people at home had changed. America voted for Obama and democrats and progressives in spite of the media. I think they fear rightly that if they don't at least stop insulting people openly they could loose 60% of their audience.

BUT.

Real restructuring of the info-sphere has come about because of the new media, blogs in the forefront, but followed closely by macaca's youtube. Free speech is the ability for us to talk top each other. Now that we are 300 million that means we have to be able to reach a few hundred thousand to even pretend that anyone is being heard. Free speech on your porch, is love without partners. The M$M prevented free speech by eliminating any thoughts outside the accepted wisdom. Total Versailles control. The jingoistic battle drums of war going into Iraq is the most perfect example.

There is no free speech without the ability to present to an audience. We have that now. We have actually gone beyond that with the internet because the audience isn't an audience anymore. Now we have a mass dialogue.

The fact the M$M have to fill the air with lies is encouraging in one respect at least it proves just how right we are. But what happened ->during<- the Iraq war was the development of a separate discussion system for citizens to get information, facts, opinions and leadership. It was also during when people HAD to get new sources, the sheer size of the crisis, the growing obviousness of the lie-o-sphere, and the depth of disgust. That discussion system is itself the fragile cure itself.

Continuing to expose the lies of the O'rile-ies etc. helps the discussion no doubt, but the place to put your shoulder in order to maintain the free speech, without which there is no democracy, is in new media.


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Maybe... (0.00 / 0)
I'm actually not sure that these strategies are for different audiences... but I do think that they're for different purposes, and therefore I'm not sure if they're as incompatible as you think.

If, as you mention, Obama's strategy is essentially for electoral gain and political positioning, and the movement's strategy is to discredit conservative institutions to move the "national political media" in a progressive direction, then those are both basically good things for us.  While Obama may not be helping discredit them, if he actually looks like a consensus builder while trying to push a progressive agenda that we're pushing, then we win.

I suppose I'm saying... perhaps it's sort of a two steps forward, 1 step back approach.  While Obama doesn't help us discredit the conservative media, if he's actually able to build support by looking like a "consensus builder" at the same time that we're pushing our own agenda, it's possible that's a big net-plus for us.  It's important to keep in mind that even though he has "reached out" to Fox News and now other conservative pundits, he's also very specifically called out Fox News as a conservative mouthpiece (saying he was probably losing 2-3 points of support solely because of them).  Maybe what people see then is "Yeah, Fox News is just a conservative mouth piece, but at least Obama is trying to reach out to everyone."

[ Parent ]
I would not assume this (4.00 / 2)

Obama's strategy assumes that conservatives are acting in good faith

Obama didn't get this far by being naive  

[ Parent ]
Not sure (0.00 / 0)
Obama has worked with conservatives in good faith many times in his career.  He has proven (to himself) he can make it work.  In other words, he may very well be this naive.

I'm one of the "Obamabots", but I've always thought the "naive" take on Obama was closer than all the other criticisms.  I don't think it is quite right, but it is in the ball park.

But regardless of actual intent, it is very useful for conservatives to assume Obama is acting in good faith.  The easiest way to do that, perhaps the only way, is for Obama to visibly treat conservatives as if they are acting in good faith.

You can't piss all over someone's leaders while telling them it is for their own good.  Sure, it would be true, but that truth and $3.50 will buy you a mocha latte.

[ Parent ]
No You're NOT An Obamabot, Mark (4.00 / 1)
An Obamabot is someone who just mindless follows Obama, and thinks he can do no wrong.

You can't piss all over someone's leaders while telling them it is for their own good.  Sure, it would be true, but that truth and $3.50 will buy you a mocha latte.

But that's not the real choice here.  One can treat conservative leaders with respect without giving them a lifetime free pass.  But this fact never even seems to occur to Obama, and that's where I have a real problem with him.

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

[ Parent ]
Dinner vs. Invocation (4.00 / 2)
One can treat conservative leaders with respect without giving them a lifetime free pass.

Sure, which is why I always agreed that having Warren do the invocation was a bad idea.  This dinner would be an example of the correct way to thread the needle.

[ Parent ]
My take is more like this... (4.00 / 3)
I think Chris is right to keep pointing out the ways in which Obama is not a movement progressive. We forget that at our peril.

On this episode, though, I feel that it is a bit more like "keep your friends close and your enemies closer".

If you are going to wield power and make change, you have to neuter, win over or destroy your opposition. It is easier to do all three if you talk to them on a regular basis and get inside their heads.

I can't say if this is what is really going on, but tactically it makes sense.

Now if he would ALSO sit down in a high-profile way with progressive opinion leaders, I'd feel a bit better about him talking to the David Brooks of the world.

He did today (0.00 / 0)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

On the list: the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne and Eugene Robinson, the Wall Street Journal's Gerry Seib, National Journal's Ron Brownstein, the New York Times Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd, and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, among others.

[ Parent ]
Every time I see Dowd's name (4.00 / 4)
on that list, I laugh. It sounds like this: boo hoo.
[ Parent ]
I feel slightly better (0.00 / 0)
But only because of Robinson, Dionne, and Maddow.

Brownstein's wife did work for McCain this cycle so I'm not sure how liberal he is, though I do find him to be pretty fair in his writing. Dowd is... I have no idea since its been so long since she had a column that had an idea in it.

[ Parent ]
Wish I agreed… (0.00 / 0)
...Obama's strategy is merely about his "personal image," but I think it may be a bit more complicated than that. Since the conservatives have been on the ropes, I've noticed this weird "common-sense" or pragmatic-sounding approach from folks like Brooks and Will (Kristol's an unreconstructed a-hole). Controlling the news cycle is very much about marshaling public opinion, which also helps get things done. When folks in Congress go back to their districts and have to contend with constituents who believe the myths and inaccuracies fostered by the mainstream media, it's kind of an imperative to have the media on your side. I also think it's quite possible to discredit the conservatives after being on their shows. Talking to folks means you can actually quote what they've said to you; it kinda cuts both ways.

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams
This Is A Nice THEORY (4.00 / 2)
I also think it's quite possible to discredit the conservatives after being on their shows. Talking to folks means you can actually quote what they've said to you; it kinda cuts both ways.

unfortunately, we've never seen it in practice.  It's out there with Nellie and Bigfoot.

Could it change?  Sure.  But isn't it getting a little late for that?  It's already showtime in Congress.

Besides, you don't really need to go on someone's show to quote what they've said to you as a killer rhetorical move.  It's just really neither that necessary nor that powerful.

Finally, the best damn way to control the news cycle is to say, "There they go again, lying about FDR, and how the American people dug themselves out of the conservative-caused Great Depression."

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

[ Parent ]
You're kinda coming at this… (4.00 / 1)
...with an axe, no? No one used the word "need," i.e., said the tactic was a necessity. Even your sarcastic remark suggests that it's "possible."

The exact worth is hard to quantify, but it's also possible that Obama going on O'Reilly's show when he did--and O'Reilly going to bat for him during that whole lipstick-on-a-pig silliness--actually raised some moderate eyebrows. And continuing to run a relatively issues-centered campaign after the appearance could also be seen as "discrediting" the cons. It certainly wasn't pandering.

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams

[ Parent ]
Okay, you're not angry (4.00 / 3)
Neither am I. As I've said before, I just want to see them hung from lampposts, their wives sold into prostitution, their children into slavery, all their books burned, and salt sown in the soil under the dynamited stumps of their olive groves.

I'm a moderate, after all -- no retribution incommensurate with the crime. ;-)

Is that you Coulter? ( * _ * ) (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Nope (4.00 / 3)
Think Colbert. Better to laugh than to cry, and all that. Obama can be Obama all he wants -- no arguments here, so long as anything good comes of it -- but I'm a natural skeptic, and sometimes I just gotta be me.
[ Parent ]
hahahahahah (4.00 / 1)
and hearty lol

The segue into modern warfare at its ugliest was the perfect priceless addition.

I would be more than happy to have their ignorance exposed, their petty selfishness exposed and their money dry up.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Don't you mean (4.00 / 1)
hung from lampposts, their prostitutes given the resources to find other lines of work, forced to pay child support, their drug dealers arrested, and salt sown in the soil of their trust funds?

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Kudlow dished a little (4.00 / 1)
   Kudlow: INTERESTING THING. THIS IS JUST GENERALLY SPEAKING, HE IS SO WELL-INFORMED, AND HE LOVES TO DEAL WITH BOTH SIDES OF AN ISSUE, AND I'M NOT GOING TO DIVULGE WHAT WAS SAID THERE AND I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO ANY OF THE SPECIFICS, BUT HE ENJOYS THE BACK AND FORTH, AND HE IS NOT, YOU KNOW, TOUGH, MEAN, INSULTING, SNARLING, NONE OF THAT STUFF, AND WE WEREN'T EITHER.

   THIS WAS A GOOD CONSERVATIVE GROUP AND WE JUST HAD A GREAT BACK AND FORTH, AND HE WANTS TO KEEP THE DIALOGUE GOING WITH CONSERVATIVES. I WOULD SAY I AM HONORED TO BE AT THAT DINNER. I WAS HONORED TO MEET HIM. HE IS A VERY IMPRESSIVE MAN, AND I WISH HIM ALL THE LUCK IN THE WORLD BECAUSE WE'VE GOT SOME ISSUES TO DEAL WITH.

http://wonkette.com/405434/oba...

You make me feel better (4.00 / 1)
I do know he has an inner core of confidantes that got him elected and they didn't do it all to just capitulate to the Bushies. After all Obama sees the system as totally supporting that certain someone who wishes to come up from nothing and succeed.

What he doesn't see is the incredible mothering and nurturing he received early on from his extraordinary, brilliant and genius of a mother. When you get that in infancy no one can take it away. If you get just what is known as good enough mothering then you can be pretty ok but not spectacular like he is. But most don't get either and those are the ones who rarely if ever make anything of their lives. They are fighting against a foundation of sand.

There have been case studies of genius and the mothers they have. Some call it the Jocasta Complex as opposed to the Oedipal Complex. A very unusual mother who loves you in a very special, intelligent and nurturing way while still being special women. Freud, Eisenstein come to mind first for me.

And then of course, there are Schopenhauer and Houellebecq who are the exceptions that prove the rule.

[ Parent ]
Actually, That's Not What "Good Enough Mothering" Means (0.00 / 0)
Winnicott's term the "good enough mother" refers to the fact that mothers will inevitably fail to meet all their children's needs, and that, in fact, the "failure" is actually very important for the child's growth and development, since the child has to learn to do things for themselves.

"Good enough" means that the support is there for the child so that they have the confidence, ability and support to take initiative and succeed when the mother "fails."

I agree with the larger point you are trying to make here.  But Winnicott's concept is just too significant and important to allow it to get casually lost.

Here's an introductory bit from changingminds.org:

Winnicott sees the key role of the 'good enough' mother as adaptation to the baby, thus giving it a sense of control, 'omnipotence' and the comfort of being connected with the mother. This 'holding environment' allows the infant to transition at its own rate to a more autonomous position.
    "The good-enough mother...starts off with an almost complete adaptation to her infant's needs, and as time proceeds she adapts less and less completely, gradually, according to the infant's growing ability to deal with her failure" (Winnicott, 1953)

The 'not good enough' mother leads to 'false self disorders' in the child.

    "In the cases on which my work is based there has been what I call a true self hidden, protected by a false self. This false self is no doubt an aspect of the true self. It hides and protects it, and it reacts to the adaptation failures and develops a pattern corresponding to the pattern of environmental failure. In this way the true self is not involved in the reacting, and so preserves a continuity of being." (Winnicott, 1955-6)

He sees the micro-interactions between the mother and child as central to the development of the internal world. After the early stage of connection with the mother and illusions of omnipotence comes the stage of 'relative dependence', where they realize their dependence and learn about loss. By moving away from the child in well-timed small doses, the mother helps develop a healthy sense of independence. Her failure to adapt to every need of the child helps them adapt to external realities....



"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
I too love Winnecott and his case study of String is one of the best in the literature (0.00 / 0)
I guess I was spinning on the good enough part. But still there is a difference between his definition of the good normal mother and the mother who is superlative.

Robbe-Grillet's
Freud's
Eisenstein's
Obama's also I intuit. She let him choose at 10 to stay with his grandparents. His assertive choice.

And I am sure people can think of others.

Since you love Winnecott please check out Francoise Dolto who is absolutely the best ever. A colleague of Lacan's and her case study of Dominique is the finest I ever read anywhere. And both String and Dominique were conducted within the national health system of the UK and France.]

[ Parent ]
I think we have another I wanna be loved president (4.00 / 1)
you know, like Clinton. Bush's power was that he didn't care about being loved. He already knew from his childhood that that was impossible to get. His way was to be a good ol boy and seduce as many of them as possible without caring himself. Clinton cared and I think Obama does too. This means trouble for us as history shows you are not gonna change these conservatives. They will change you.

Heck even I sometimes think it's ok to torture some of those bastards after I see what they do to women and children. What we do is too tame for me in my most furious moments.

I really don't think that it's a need to be loved (0.00 / 0)
That does not describe Obama at all.  He is anything but needy

My take on him is that all he really needs is Michelle and his girls.

[ Parent ]
Which "bastards" do you propose we torture? (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
A soft canadian christian progressive singer of incredible skill and compassion answers that. (4.00 / 1)
The song was inspired by Cockburn's visit, sponsored by OXFAM, to Guatemalan refugee camps in Mexico following the military torture campaign of dictator Efraín Ríos Montt. Although Cockburn had occasionally touched on political themes in his earlier songs, "If I Had a Rocket Launcher" was his first explicitly political song to be released as a single, and earned him a new reputation as an outspoken musical activist.

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

He is still an activist, but he is mainly a singer of deeply wonderful songs.  

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
It's not just love from anyone, either. (4.00 / 1)
Like Clinton, another fatherless child, it is the conservative bully boys whose approval he craves the most. And like Clinton, the harder he works to please him the more they will despise him for it.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Seriously? (0.00 / 0)
Being a consensus builder is practical when it advances one's cause.

Rick Warren, for example, can bring in evangelicals.  Dealing with Republican lawmakers can bring in votes.  Reciting conservative talking points can help create a bi-partisan image.

A private dinner with Bill Kristol acheives nothing, other than legitimizing the opinion of someone who shouldn't be in print or on the air.  

I disagree (4.00 / 4)
Bill Kristol should be in print and on the air. He is like Cheney, unrepentent and opinionated. These ideas, these notions, this ideology should not be allowed to slink back into the darker corners of the shadow government. It must be brought out into the public square, confronted, and systematically dismantled. The value of Mr. Kristol's musings being printed in the NYT lies in the Letters to the Editor these provoke. None are ever in support of his views.

Now, I don't know what Mr. O has in mind, but there is simply no reason to be afraid of William Kristol's articles, his paper-thin rationales are easy fodder for the public thrashing he routinely receives.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
A terrific answer! four points to you! (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Rush (4.00 / 1)
I used to think Rush Limbaugh would be good for liberalism.  He was such an obvious no-nothing jackass blowhard.

Needless to say, I was wrong.

[ Parent ]
You've got me there (0.00 / 0)
Limbaugh has become a joke, a parody.  No reason to include him in this group. My comments are for Bill Kristol (and to some extent Krauthammer). I wish they'd give Brooks the boot from the NewsHour and replace him with Kristol.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
I've been saying to my friends… (4.00 / 1)
...that the day Obama and Biden take over someone needs to start a Cheney Watch. I mean, I wanna know what he's up to all the time.

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams
[ Parent ]
I'd like to do a satirical skit (0.00 / 0)
where Cheney locks himself in the "undisclosed location" just before the inauguration and refuses to come out. He's armed with a shot-gun and dressed like Elmer Fudd; keeps accidentally shooting his staff members.  Eventually, President Obama simply decides to leave him there and build a new Bunker with some of the money allocated for economic stimulus.

Or, maybe Faux will create a Reality TV show around his new life as a private citizen. Maybe a stint as a Celebrity Judge on American Idol?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Consensus builder no-knowing your enemy yes (0.00 / 0)
Sun Tzu strategy. Unless he is a master at working with resistance consensus is not possible with these thieves and authoritarians. Just read Altemeyer's The Authoritarians.
[ Parent ]
Unwarranted (4.00 / 4)
Our goal of reshaping the national political media along more progressive lines is not compatible with Obama's strategy of appearing to be a bi-partisan consensus builder reaching out across dividing lines. Obama's strategy assumes that conservatives are acting in good faith, the progressive movement's does not. Obama's strategy is central to his personal image, while the movement's is focused on institutions rather than any single individual. Obama regularly gives conservative pundits and media more credibility, while the progressive movement seeks to undermine that credibility. Obama's strategy is short-term and focused on winning elections and news cycles, while the movement is focused on reshaping American discourse over the long-term.

It sounds to me that you're still frustrated that Obama is not more overtly hostile to conservatives. That leads you to render incorrect judgments about Obama's strategy. Obama does not assume conservatives are acting in good faith, he assumes that all parties deserve a hearing, whether they're acting in good faith or not. He's been quite good throughout the campaign in deflecting bad-faith arguments by pivoting and talking about the central facts. For example, the race speech in Philadelphia.

Just because you give someone a hearing doesn't mean you believe them, or accept what they say as true, much less adopt their point of view. I don't see how you can say that positioning the Democratic Party as one that is reasonable, deliberative, rational and thoughtful is a "personal" or short-term strategy. The Republican Party positioned itself as the "party of ideas" for quite some time to the benefit of individual Republicans. Bush, for example, played on this theme frequently by invoking the idea that private industry would develop technological solutions to address problems like border security or the broader provision of health care. Obama is trying to create the theme that those on the left have robust ideas that can survive an open discussion with those who disagree. It's projecting an air of confidence that government can create solutions to problems that the free market has failed to address.

To say that Media Matters's role and Obama's role conflict - that they somehow make each other less effective - would be like arguing that a country should either have a military or a diplomatic corps, but not both. You can't very well negotiate sometimes and go to war other times, can you?

"He assumes (4.00 / 3)
that all parties deserve a hearing, whether they're acting in good faith or not."

Why would someone acting in bad faith deserve a hearing?  

[ Parent ]
Couple of reasons (4.00 / 2)
First of all, how can you know they're acting in bad faith until they get a hearing? Also, when you wield power all parties deserve a hearing, because what you do affects them. One of the many things people found infuriating about Bush was that he deliberately stayed in a bubble - he thought it was a virtue not to listen to people who disagree. It produced bad policy and it was bad politics, because it helped motivate us. Not listening is an excellent way to make enemies unnecessarily.
[ Parent ]
How can you know they're acting in bad faith? (4.00 / 2)
Well there's always a little something called a track record. Then again, I guess those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Sounds like Bush (4.00 / 1)
You're just not going to talk to the evildoers.

Anyway, as I said, listening doesn't cost you a thing. It's remarkable that people on here think a conversation is capitulation.

[ Parent ]
But Bush did talk to evildoers. (0.00 / 0)
They were the ones who told him he could torture people if he wanted to. They were the ones who told him he could go to war if he wanted to. Bush may have said he wouldn't talk to evildoers, but he created an entire administration out of nothing else.

Did you actually take his words at face value?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
And Obama talking with conservatives is not (0.00 / 0)
a capitulation, it is simply who he is. It's who he has been all along. He is the protege of Lieberman, but we knew that when we elected him and we can deal with it, so long as we don't delude ourselves and confuse the man for the movement.


Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Conservatives Pallin' Around With Obama | 59 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.

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