Obama and the Right
by: Eli Zaretsky on February 4th, 2010 | 9 Comments »
From the beginning of his Presidency, Obama has been guided by one fixed principle: keep the right wing of the Republican Party at the center of the nation’s consciousness. The reason is obvious. Compared to Neanderthal Republicans, even the lamest, most conservative, most devoid of ideas Democrat will look good.
Let us examine how this works. Find a Republican who thinks we should not help people out of work; by comparison, a Democrat who wants to spend a thousand dollars on jobs looks like a latter-day Franklin Roosevelt. Find a Republican who wants to use small-scale nuclear weapons in Afghanistan; just one row over, a Democrat who only sends an army looks like Gandhi. One sees the method in Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann nightly: right wing idiocies are trotted out so that the liberals and Democrats can feel superior. Above all, never examine Obama’s policies. That would be “divisive.”
Obama may not have invented this idea, but he has pursued it more consistently than any other modern politician. His approach has had three dimensions to it. To begin with, he has acted as if nothing could be accomplished until he got the help of the Republican de jour, normally Olympia Snowe, sometimes rightwing Democrats like Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman. The important thing was to keep the potentially huge left of the Democratic Party (the people Rahm Emanuel calls retarded) off stage. Make the whole politics hinge on a discussion between a sage-like Obama and rightists. Act like “independents” are people who want to average out ideas out from the left and right wings of American politics, not people who want a new direction and leadership.
The second way that Obama made sure that there would be plenty of media coverage of the right, and as little as possible as the Left, was to channel right wing language. Thus, he almost never spoke of the government’s obligation to provide health care to all American citizens, a once-sacred Democratic principle, but instead claimed that we had to “bend the curve,” lower costs, the classic demand of the Right. Nor would he ever say, while handing trillions over to the banks, that we needed a new role for government; instead he insisted that we have to get back to markets as soon as possible.
The third way that Obama has kept the right at the center of his Presidency was prompted by the Massachusetts Election and enunciated during the State of the Union. This involves visiting the GOP, “confronting” them, calling for them to come up with good ideas, telling them that they are co-responsible for government, as if we elected a European style grand coalition, and not a supposed progressive. This development got predictable enthusiasm from the Obamophile liberals like Jane Walsh of Salon, who said it showed “spine,” and Hendrick Hertzberg of the New Yorker, who said that the President “looked and sounded like a trillion bucks.” Emboldened by such responses, the White House announced today that it would be a continuing policy, as if the United States had a Parliamentary system in which the Prime Minister answers to the Parliament, and not a Presidential system, in which the President answers to the people.
The real conversation the President needs to have is with the Left, but so long as he can take them for granted, the charade of a discussion between a conservative President and a far right faction in Congress will pass for government in our increasingly vacuous atmosphere. No good can come of this.
” ” ” Few remain as 1962 Pa. coal town fire still burns ” ” ”
HUMMMM – - – Looks like the THALS have set the world on fire. WEll atleast there world – One quick flash across coal country – There all gone – - – But everybody – - SHHHH – Let them keep there secrets – - – Tosted-Thals for all soon. But we do have a problem – WE are what we eat – Think we can boil out stupid?
El, I would agree with you but Americans are brain dead with short memories. Americans are into immediate gratification. They cannot think beyond today and they cannot remember what happened yesterday.
The GOP, aka Nazi Party, are not real Americans.
“[S]o long as he can take them for granted” …. indeed. That is why I no longer support Obama and why I protest so much. It is also why liberals don’t like me any longer – I have broken with the accepted wisdom, which has gotten us into Iraq, Afghanistan and many other quagmires. I’m too old for this garbage any longer – it is time for everyone on the “Left” to speak up and speak out! Obama is merely a silver-tongued Devil.
After 35 years I have finally left the Democratic Party. Does Rham Emannuel care? I hope the silence of progressives in the next election will send a loud message. But I doubt it. Does Obama want to talk to me? About as much as Benjamin Netanyahu.
I continue to believe that Eli’s criticisms reflect an anger and cynicism that are not productive. Did a similar outraged approach to the past president do any good? Why use the same methods that clearly bear no fruit?
We perceive others through the lens of our own understanding. Do you agree, Eli? It could be that the strategy you ascribe to Obama suggests your own reasoning and not necessarily his.
I believe that it is essential to monitor and criticise all people in positions of responsibility, but, in my opinion, there could be more of a sense of working for what is right rather than this bitter condemnation.
Should we try for a multi-dimensional, and rigorous wisdom in our criticisms, rather than this reactive anger that Obama is doing everything wrong.
If that approach didn’t work before, why would it work this time?
I perceive an authenticity in Obama that I have seldom, if ever, noted in a politician before. He is not superman, and he may indeed not be making the choices that would transform the US during his term of office, but I respect his attempt to call on the Republicans to take responsibility for the well-being of the country.
In this he may certainly be naive, but while this may lead to his downfall and the disappointment of his supporters if not challenged, the challenge should inquire into and assess his motives fairly, rather than summarily judging them.
Dear Valerie: I believe that anger, sarcasm and the kind of vituperative humor that I sometimes use have an important place in politics. That place is to expose the pretenses of politicians who otherwise get to command the media spotlight without criticism. In addition, I have a specially negative feeling about Obama. Politicians have a responsibility to the people who worked their hearts out for them, their so-called base. Obama’s base was the anti-war movement in the Democratic party, and then idealistic people, especially young. Obama has shown no loyalty to this base. On the contrary, as Gary Wills pointed out, he has acted ashamed of them. Most importantly, however, I believe that for progressives to start thinking straight they have to stop supporting Obama, they have to start thinking about alternatives to a corporate-dominated and war-making Democratic Party that regards its leftists as “retards.” Finally, as to what i am for– I am a democratic socialist and I am opposed to American militarism. I worked hard to elect Obama because I thought there would be some movement in those directions in his Presidency. Since there has only been movement against the things I am for, I have decided to oppose him.
There is (at least) one other reason I have expressed myself in angry terms. Probably more than almost anything else, i value intellectuality and thoughtfulness. I think I can tell the difference between a thoughtful person who comes up with views that i disagree with, and someone who uses the image of thoughtfulness to put a good face on lousy policies. I have seen Obama do the latter over and over. Afghanistan was only the most egregious example, with its fraudulent veneer of thoughtfulness, all to give the generals whatever they wanted. Another example are the various statements about how it takes a long time to change the country and so forth, as if someone like myself is some fool that thinks it would be very easy– as an intellectual, I don’t like the intellectual pose being manipulated politically, and that is what I see happening.
Frankly, I think people really should’ve known that Obama would royally betray and screw over the people who elected him into office. His war votes and his vote for the FISA Bill, plus his appointees, not to mention his pre-Election positions on foreign policy, all should’ve sounded an alarm indicating that he was never a good choice.
Dear Eli,
Thank you very much for responding to my comments. I appreciate your explaining both your opinions and your style of expressing them.
This may also be helpful to others besides me.
May the ideals you and others work hard to realise come closer to fruition despite Obama, or — very optimistically — with his eventual cooperation.
Since I am, myself, a babe in the woods regarding political strategy, I will watch and hope silently.