|
On Thursady, AZDem had a recommended diary at DKos, "The Myth of Certainty: Obama, Liberals & Daily Kos " that's arguably a perfect example of the way that a marginally hipper version of High Broderism manifests itself at DKos, and elsewhere throughout the blogosphere and beyond.
As with Broder himself, the diary depends on a simplistic, schematic false equivalency of left and right, which ends up praising shallow centrism as a fount of deep wisdom. Given its origins, it does not end up outright endorsing center-right policies as if they were centrist. It simply praises Obama, so that as he compromises further and further, it will have exactly the same effect, praising him for his centrism as he moves ever farther right ... unless, of course, progressives reject this argument, and pressure Obama so that he does not drift further and further right. What's more, it even goes so far as to label this centrism as "true liberalism."
In this diary, I want to challenge the simplistic terms of AZDem's narrative about certainty, and I want to propose an alternative framework--the Enlightenment framework of critical reason, which an August 2003 congressional report found to be under sustained attack by the Bush Administration. While AZDem wants to push the narrative that other Kossack liberals have run amuck with Bush-like certainty, deludedly attacking Obama for his anti-Bush willingness to hear all sides, I propose a radically different view, one that's much more grounded in the nitty-gritty of the actual historical record.
In my view, the problem is, quite simply, that Obama has not consistently committed himself to re-establishing and rehabilitating the framework of truth-seeking in policy-setting and communicating with the American people. My problem with Obama is not that he listens to conservatives, but that he accepts as valid conservative claims without empirical foundation, while at the same time ignoring progressive points of view--even when well-founded, and when representing substantial majority opinion.
|
