What in the world is he thinking? A liberal critique of Barack Obama

[Laelth]

An essay that addresses Obama's mystifying political strategy, as seen from the left. It also explores the nature of both the Democratic and Republican parties and tries to explain why neither party really represents the interests of the people that elect them.

For those who are interested.

Kissing Butt and Taking Names: Obama’s Winning Political Strategy

December 18, 2010

What in the world is he thinking?

Liberals have been asking themselves this question about Barack Obama and his administration since the day he was sworn into office. On issue after issue, in ways both subtle and overt, Obama has acted in ways that alienate and marginalize the political left, such as it is in America today. Assuming that Obama needs the energy, money, and political support of liberals in order to be re-elected, liberals have been left scratching their heads by this President, trying to figure out exactly what his game plan is and trying to understand why he would risk alienating his political base.

...

Given all of this, liberals are supposed to believe that Obama has liberal instincts and intentions, but that he has been stymied by Republican resistance? Republicans didn’t force Obama to take any of the positions he took on the long list of issues cited above. The argument that Obama is some kind of “liberal pragmatist” is patently absurd.

So who is this guy? What is he thinking? He’s not inept, nor is he unintelligent. Stupid people don’t get to be the editor of the Harvard Law Review. He’s not weak. Weak Presidents don’t enjoy the record of legislative successes that Obama has managed to compile. He’s not some kind of liberal pragmatist. His record shows that he’s ambivalent to liberal concerns on a whole host of issues, and it doesn’t take any Republican pressure to make Obama stab the left in the back.

...

And here we come to the only explanation that makes sense when trying to understand Obama’s political calculus. What Obama understands, and what most liberals do not, is the extent to which liberalism, as a political philosophy, has been discredited among the American political caste. Obama can not govern as a liberal, nor can he even appear to be a liberal, because doing so would make him a pariah to the political caste, and that would doom his ambition to be re-elected in 2012.

http://laelth.blogspot.com

Much more at link.

-Laelth

[DrDan]

1. sadly, I think there is more truth in that than not

[Laelth]

48. It is a sad conclusion, yes.

In my next essay, I hope to explore things that "We, the Peopl" can do to change the direction of the Ship of State.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[Sheri]

2. omg! you really nailed that one.

[Laelth]

57. Thanks. n/t

-Laelth

[vi5]

3. That's a lot of people's problems....

It's not necessarily expecting miracles, or overnight success, or not understanding the depths of Republican obstructionism. It's the ongoing and continued attempt to lend legitimacy to the demonization of liberalism and progressive values both with continued willingness to throw constituencies and values held dear by liberals overboard, but also (and I think more damaging) the willingness to internalize and give credence and legitimacy to Republican tropes and values (free market uber alles, military might=strong foreign policy, military fetishism, unchecked executive power) that so many have a problem with.

There have been short term gains and they are not to be dismissed. But because they are all enacted and implemented and bargained into place with a 2 for 1 strategy of 2 parts republican world view to every 1 part liberal world view, that the longer term damage to the Democratic, progressive brand is going to do much more damage than the good parts will do good.

[Laelth]

64. Interesting analysis. I hadn't thought of it in that way.

Each compromise does further damage to liberals goals, yes, but the problem I see is that the people in power think of liberalism as little more than a joke--thoroughly discredited. In order to have change, we're wasting our time trying to change the hearts and minds of the American people (who are, already, fairly liberal). We need to change the attitudes of the political caste.

And how can we do that? That's my question at the moment.

-Laelth

[vi5]

69. I'm a cynic. I don't think it can be done.

There's too much money involved. Too much power at stake. And nobody in that political caste is going to give that up any time soon.

[Laelth]

70. I am a cynic too, but I can't be a fatalist.

I feel compelled to try to do something. I admit, in this case, that change will be difficult.

-Laelth

[BrklynLiberal]

4. The repukes have won the messaging and debate framing war.......

"What Obama understands, and what most liberals do not, is the extent to which liberalism, as a political philosophy, has been discredited among the American political caste. "

Liberals ..and Dems better start listening to people like George Lakoff, or they will become even more "discredited"...That is, if it is not already too late.


Depressing, because of its ring of truth...

<snip>

As a result, for better or for worse, our government is completely controlled by perhaps half-a-million people who may, or may not, have the best interests of the majority of Americans at heart. This group includes legislators and their staff-members; judges and their clerks; high-level members of the executive branch of government; thousands of lobbyists; bank and insurance executives; high-powered lawyers, doctors, stock brokers, and accountants; industrial and agricultural tycoons; oil barons; military contractors and high-ranking military officers; media tycoons and editors of major newspapers; a sprinkling of Hollywood types thrown into the mix to improve the over-all sexiness of the bunch; and all the others who interact and socialize with these people.

<snip>

One thing is certain, though. If Obama determines that the American political caste wants to “reform” Social Security, Obama will do his level best to make it happen, and he will not lose any sleep worrying about how his actions will hurt the American people. Oh, he’ll blame the Republicans for “making” him gut the most popular social program in American history, but he will do it, all the same. The groupthink of America’s political caste will, once again, become the law of the land, no matter what the people think, and Obama will celebrate his “victory.” He’ll also be patting himself on the back for his “winning” strategy. Kissing the collective derriere of the entire American political caste may even get him re-elected.

[Laelth]

65. It's hard to know what to do at this point.

If we want the country to move left, we have to convince the political caste that it's in their best interests. How can we do that?

-Laelth

[nofurylike]

5. thereby acknowledging that no one supposedly more "liberal"

could be elected, and that were he to show how "liberal" he is in ideology, he would have to fight even harder to govern than repukes are making him have to fight now. or worse, as Bobby Kennedy would attest.

but those aren't the conclusions admitted here, i see. too bad, even rather deceptive.

honestly, what should people do? not vote? let the country continue to slide to the right, as happens every time "liberals" sit out and otherwise sabotage elections?

progressives do what causes progress, not a complete stalemate and resulting slide backwards.

President Obama was the one continually stabbed in the back by those extreme leftists and rightist trolls representing themselves as "liberal" and "progressive," and, eventually, by some true progressives who were browbeat, degraded and co-opted by the pseudos - and how DARE he talk back to THEM, ah?

[Laelth]

7. I intend to address what I think people should do in my next essay.

That is, in fact, a very good question. While fatalism might be a natural and reasonable response to our current political climate, I am constitutionally prohibited from being a fatalist. I must do something about injustice when I see it. The question is what?

Stay tuned.

-Laelth

[nofurylike]

9. thank you, i will. i look forward to that, then, Laelth. nt

[DemReadingDU]

31. Excellent essay.

Makes perfect sense to me what is going on. Looking forward to your next essay.

[Laelth]

34. Glad you enjoyed it. n/t

:toast:

-Laelth

[DemReadingDU]

35. P.S.

changed my avatar so I am recognizable at other forums
:)

[Laelth]

37. Sweet. Got it.

:)

-Laelth

[xchrom]

59. it's progressively sliding into neo-liberalism.

if you're happy with that -- great.

[Laelth]

67. +1 n/t

-Laelth

[nofurylike]

77. you know, we have been completely IN neo-liberalism for a long

time. reality dictates that progress can ONLY be achieved while working within it. the best chance we have is in having true progressives working to progress that neoliberalism in the direction of classical liberalism, which is exactly what they are doing. it is frustratingly slow, of course, which only makes it all the better that we have people in there, such as our president, who have the tenacity, the fortitude, and the character to carry it along - THAT, i am happy with, yes.

additionally, the alternatives are unspeakably dreadful.

thank you for replying, xchrom.

[old mark]

6. The left in the USA right now is nearly dead as an effective political group...

I have been saying this for a while, and pissing people off, but it is a fact....Most of the people who call themselves "liberals" now and the vast majority of Democrats believe Obama is doing a fine job. the number here who are offended by his policy of "bipartisanship" - including me - are pretty much on our own, without a real, effective voice in US politics now.

I didn't make this shit up, it is a fact.

mark

[Laelth]

8. I fully agree, as you know.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[TBF]

16. The "left" as in socialists and communists have been largely gone for at least a generation -

the palmer raids and mccarthyism took care of that. Now progressives are being targeted. Not much fun is it?

[old mark]

24. I remember - I have an FBI file going back to the late 1960's...nt

[mdmc]

68. 1

[BzaDem]

10. Considering that his approval among Democrats is the highest among any modern Democratic President

your post is just another example of a tiny group of people (in both parties) that will simply never be satisfied. While this group of people is smaller today than within 50 years, it will always exist, and this is not something surprising or abnormal.

[WinkyDink]

12. Yet.

[TBF]

14. All that "fact" illustrates is that the democratic party as most knew it is gone -

now we have two moderate parties fighting to be the status quo. The thing that you're wrong about is "tiny group of people in both parties" not being satisfied - there are MANY people who are not satisfied. Unfortunately they will do the same thing in 2012 as they did in 2010 and simply vote the incumbents out, and then end up with an even more reactionary government.

At some point vast amounts of people are going to wake up realizing they've lost their house, their jobs, they are living in a tent, and social security will be vastly cut or gone. I don't see this ending well at all.

[BzaDem]

17. "there are MANY people who are not satisfied"

The polling simply does not bear that out, if you are talking about dissatisfaction on the left.

If you are talking about dissatisfaction on the right, then sure.

"At some point vast amounts of people are going to wake up"

Why do you assume people are going to "wake up" --- and vote left? Do you consider the possibility that people might "wake up" --- and turn rightward? That's what I don't get among the "collapse" theorists (those that claim that everything will "collapse," or people will "wake up," and we will all eventually be living in a left-wing paradise). It sounds to me much more of a mental coping mechanism than an actual prediction of the future. People were saying the same shit right before Reagan was elected, and again immediately before Reagan was re-elected with 49 states. That was some awakening.

The truth is that Obama is unfortunately likely the most liberal President we will see in the next several decades. If you think Obama is somehow conservative, you haven't seen anything yet.

[NashVegas]

22. I Don't See It That Way

I see one corporate-backed party of social moderates and liberals, and one corporate-backed party of knuckle-draggers.

Just out of curiosity, I checked a list of my state's governors and it listed their occupations. From the Rev. War on out, they were about 90% lawyers and/or farmers. The last four are all listed as "businessmen."

[TBF]

47. That is probably a better way to put it -

if you are acknowledging that both are the same in terms of economic policies. But I am not willing to accept that, not willing to consent to corporate overlords.

[ladjf]

25. Anyone who is "satisfied" with the way our government is performing

is dumber than a rock or has an agenda that is able to profit by the political wrong moves.

[BzaDem]

30. Perhaps instead of assuming the vast majority of liberals and Democrats are "dumber than a rock"

perhaps you should reexamine and re-evaluate your own position?

[ladjf]

32. Perhaps you should reexamine and re-evaluate your own position,

In the first place it isn't true that "vast majority of liberals and Democrats ".

[BzaDem]

33. Actually, it is true.

Just because you dislike or deny reality doesn't mean reality isn't reality.

[ladjf]

36. You are apparently basing your reality on recent polls showing

Obama with about a 74% among Democrats and 69%. Since when are media polls reality?

I have expressed my opinion, you have disagreed, conversation should be over.

[BzaDem]

39. Recent polls? How about polls since the day he was inaugurated, including Democratic pollsters? n/t

[ladjf]

50. I was a strong supporter of the President during his early days

in office. It is only after I felt that he made numerous moves that I wouldn't have made that I began to lose confidence. Obviously, I would be happy if history vindicates his moves. I care about America, not whether or not I win arguments.

[Bigmack]

62. Interesting thing about "approval"...

If I'm asked by a pollster, I'll "strongly approve" of Pres. Obama.

If asked by friends, I'll say I am disappointed and pissed.

I'll bet a lot of Dems and Progressives are in the same boat.

I don't want to disapprove of Pres. Obama in public and have that disapproval lumped in with the rightwingnut critics, so I approve.

I will, of course, vote a straight Dem ticket - as I always have - and I will vote for Pres. Obama in 2012, but my enthusiasm and my contributions will not be there.

(Incidentally, I just sent a (for me) fat donation to my Rep. Jay Inslee. I've seen him in action. Nice large set of balls... he voted no on the tax sell-out. That's the kind of donations I'll be making.)

[Laelth]

72. The pony argument again?

Come on! You can do better than that.

-Laelth

[WinkyDink]

11. So we can hope for change in 2013?

[BzaDem]

13. Do you actually think there will be a President more liberal than Obama in the next, say, 30 years?

[TBF]

15. Considering who controls government now, it will probably take a revolution to fix this mess.

Most of us don't want it to come to that, but we also can't see any other way for it to go considering the vast gap between rich and poor.

[BzaDem]

18. Why do you assume your "revolution" will be successful?

I think it's pretty obvious that there will be no "revolution." Just because one really really wants something doesn't mean there is a mechanism (revolution or otherwise) for them to ever get it.

However, if there is a "revolution," why do you simply assume it won't usher in a much more right-wing government?

[TBF]

45. It may well usher in an even more right-wing government, which is one of the

reasons I even waste my time thinking about this and posting on political boards. Right now people are angry, so they are choosing the other party. At some point enough people are homeless that they must figure out that neither major party is working for them. The brain-addled teabaggerati have even figured this out, and they are armed.

Yes, I fear the revolution coming from the right, which is why I persist in speaking out from a leftist perspective. I think the only chance this nation has of surviving is if leftists put enough pressure on to get an FDR-like character to act. We thought we might have it in Obama, but evidently not. He will not act as FDR did, he will continue to help the very rich raid the treasury.

[nofurylike]

20. so many are talking of massive actions, when they won't

even go stand out and get petitions signed to give to their sens and reps.

and if they would be proactive about their legislators, things would go far better.

[bluethruandthru]

21. Of course there won't be! It's not a matter of liberal vs. conservative.

It's a matter of corporations vs. the rest of us.

Unfortunately, the right wing - with quite a bit of help from "democrats", have convinced the American people that if corporations are given free reign and allowed to do anything they like...that they will do what's right for their workers and the entire country.

There is now very little difference between our two parties....which is to the detriment of the country (we're just starting to understand that). Personally, I think 3 or 4 parties would be a good thing.

[Bluenorthwest]

38. Do you actually think you can predict the future say, 30 years out?

I tell you this, anyone who has to claim the ability to predict far flung futures is dealing in dogma, not in reality. One thing we all know is that we don't know what tomorrow brings, much less 30 years. Hell, in 2007 and even 08 there were loads of people swearing Obama could never be elected 'not for another generation at least' blah, blah.
30 years ago, Mandella was in jail. The Berlin Wall stood as did the Soviet Union. A few people in big citites were starting to deal with a mystery disease, later to be named AIDS.
AS I type to you on one of my computers, this one a light notebook version, I recall that less than 30 years ago, a man lead me to what he called 'a Kaypro computer' and told me to type a message to another man who was on the other side of the world. He said we'd send the message instantly. The surprise was hearing back as quickly as a person could type. My first 'email' and it was not even called that as yet, and there was no public 'internet'.
I just tend to wonder if your counterparts in 1980 would have been able to predict any of the massive changes that happened. Would that person agree that 2008 would be time for an African American President?
Let me be harsh with you for a moment. This week they repealed DADT. Less than 30 years ago, they were burning houses and considering mass quarantines. When I say 'they' I mean the straight community. 30 years ago, I learned what we should all learn fairly young, that we can not predict our own lives 30 days out, much less the state of the world in 30 years.
Those who claim to be able to see the future are full of either faith or bullshit or both. No reasonable person buys into such dramatic silliness.
I remind you that the day of the 'crash' in 2007, McCain was pontificating on the strenght of our economy, and Obama was sure the wars were the main issue of the day. They all sure acted surprised by that day. As did almost all of the 'experts'. So they were not able to address the crisis even 30 minutes before it happened.
Preachers, politicians, palm readers and others who say they see the future and what it contains, the potentials and the limits of times yet to be, they are all working an agenda. No one can predict the future and those who claim to for argument's sake only do so when they run dry of reason. Claims of future knowledge are the realm of the charlatan.

[BzaDem]

41. For sure? Of course not.

Though one can of course look at the evidence rather than blind themselves to it.

What surprises me most is that many just assume out of faith that we will ever have a President more liberal than Obama. If someone looked at the evidence and concluded that it was uncertain, that would be a welcome step upwards in terms of prediction accuracy.

[whattheidonot]

61. way past labels.

the situation is way past labels. the problem is where do the resources go. the resources for the last 30 years have not gone to the public. We got a propped up economy instead of a solid economy. who engineered this propped up economy. Our leaders. Obama's biggest campaign contributer, Goldman Sachs. He has Tim Geither and Lawerence whatever his name is and Bernake calling the shots. This does not have to be the way it is but it is. You cannot have a change President getting loads of money from Goldman sachs, ain't going to work.

[Laelth]

66. I wouldn't count on it.

Not until we can convince the political caste that a left turn is in their best interests.

-Laelth

[disillusioned73]

19. And so the formula is unmasked..

Run as a populist/leftist.

Get elected.

Govern as a corporatist... because you know, being called a "liberal" is bad. what a crock of shit.. hes been called a liberal/worse since the general election.

[Laelth]

23. Sure, he's been "called" a liberal and a socialist.

But is that really how he's governing?

-Laelth

[ladjf]

26. He is the furthest from being a liberal of any Democratic President

in history. nt

[Laelth]

29. As post-FDR Democrats go, I'd agree with you. n/t

-Laelth

[TBF]

43. In fact my recent research on Eisenhower (who increased those eligible for Social Security) shows

that he is more conservative than a Republican. Probably many republicans ...

[ladjf]

51. He was a Republican, maybe the last good one. nt

[TBF]

56. By "he" I was referring to Obama. Yes, Eisenhower was a republican -

and Obama appears to be more conservative than Ike (who happened to increase the number of folks eligible for Social Security).

[ladjf]

63. Yes, I agree. Sorry I misunderstood your post. nt

[KeepItReal]

27. Being called a "Liberal" or worse and having an obstinate GOP simply gives cover to his moves

Obama can honestly say, "I try to do X, but the 'other side' won't let me, so I had to 'compromise'" (thus giving the establishment what they want and even things they didn't outwardly ask for - like an Estate Tax cut)

The OP's analysis of Obama's politics could not be more accurate, IMHO.

[leeroysphitz]

28. Naw it's all just a chess match. Proles like us couldn't hope to understand...

[Laelth]

74. You know, for two years I tried to believe in eleven-dimensional chess.

I just can't make myself do that any more. Obama is just too smart to play chess this badly.

-Laelth

[kentuck]

40. Either he takes his base for granted or...

he doesn't believe he needs them??

[TBF]

44. I don't think he cares - as long as he has his wall street donations

he's good to go. He may take it for granted with a shrug and "who else will they vote for", but my answer to that is I'll stay home. If there is no economic difference why should I waste my time? Think what would happen if the 98% of us who are being screwed just said "no, we're not participating in this sham any more".

[leeroysphitz]

53. Or maybe he considers another group to be his base. n/t

[fasttense]

42. Here's the problem, what's good for Obama is disastrous for the Democratic party.

His plan of triangulation works - for him. It worked for Bill Clinton but it did not work for the country as a whole or for the Democratic party. As the political leader of a supposedly liberal organization moves right, so does the rest of the nation and the other political party.

If the leader of the party is a con (for conservatives but they aren't conservatives as traditionally defined, so I call them cons), then being a con must be the absolutist rightest thing to be. Otherwise, the leader would be more liberal, like the organization he leads.

So, when our supposedly liberal leader moves right, the nation, voters and RepubliCONS move right (even more!). It will get him reelected because now Cons are voting for him and a few remaining Democratic loyalists (because he just moved the center to the right where all those RepubliCONS are). It wont be a landslide (there just ain't no enthusiasm). And the Congress will turn right into a RepubliCON bastion as it did when Clinton triangulated.

The real problem is that turning right is the most dangerous thing he can do for the nation. As we stand on the edge of a collapse into fascism, depression and 3rd world status, turning right will only push over the edge.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Obama is just another ambitious centrist pol with his eye on the next election.

And, like Clinton is perfectly willing to sacrifice the left to burnish his "centrist", "pragmatic", creds.

[Poll_Blind]

49. First, most everything I've seen and read coming out of the administration supports this. Second...

...as critical of the Clinton semi-Dynasty as I am, while I see parallels to the Clinton presidency, I'm not able to connect the two as thoroughly (from my recollection of events).

In your opinion, was Clinton (as objectively as possible) as, uh, well "accomodating" for lack of a better word as Obama is, or just in the same ballpark?

I didn't start getting deeply into politics until 99 or so and just starting out you miss so much.

PB

[democracy1st]

52. more psycho bs !

[kentuck]

55. Could you extrapolate just a sentence or two??

And tell us why? That's quite a dismissal without an explanation.

[democracy1st]

80. Sorry for the vagueness I agree with Laelth's great piece!

[Laelth]

82. Thanks for the kind words. n/t

-Laelth

[Bluebear]

79. Dope !

[me b zola]

54. Well written and reasoned essay

--And the title reminds me a bit of Matt Taibbi. :thumbsup:

[Laelth]

76. Thanks. n/t

-Laelth

[whattheidonot]

58. not liberal

it is not liberal to watch people lose their jobs, lose their wages, lose their houses because of policies supported by the government and not speak out against it. to speak out against is not liberal either. it is the truth and it is being cloaked. these things happen because of policies and these policies are the policies of the wealthy class. Obama is going along with them. The intent is to drive the standard of living down so the US can compete in global market. what is going on is controlled depression and as cuts in spending are made it will get worse. But no one is acting against this in a forceful way. all the label are old hat. what is needed is action. the fact we have a shaky economy and huge wealth at the top is not some accident. it has been implemented and we are taking it on the way to the poor house. the majority just voted for it because the voice against these globalization policies has been silenced.

[Laelth]

83. "Controlled depression." Interesting. You may be right about that.

If so, our political caste is far more sick and evil than I imagined.

-Laelth

[xchrom]

60. that business where you outline the people in and around government

may not have the best interests of the people, etc --

spot on -- there is a single narrative at play in and around government -- and it is essentially neo-liberal.

[Laelth]

71. Agreed. Thanks for the kind words. n/t

-Laelth

[creon]

73. different critque

I take a different view of it; a practical one.
In Jan 2009, we had two serious prolems to tackle: the recession and financial reform. I thought those most important.

We needed a strong stimulus and strong reform < re instate Glass Steagall>. We did not get either one, and the recession goes on.

It was not a matter of political doctrine; it was a matter of real world problem solving.


Politics and governing are different matters altogether.
There was not very much time available to get results. Over 40% of the electorate can be counted upon to vote against Democrats.

Congress and the WH did not understand the gravity of the situation. We got half measures.

[Laelth]

75. Your assesment is very generous.

You see the problem as ignorance.

"Congress and the WH did not understand the gravity of the situation."

I am not willing to let Obama off the hook so easily. I think he is very intelligent.

-Laelth

[creon]

81. no problem

The ignorance is willed.

People in Congress and the WH did not see it because they did not want to see it.

[Skittles]

78. governing far left is one thing

blatantly kissing repuke ass is entirely another

[Laelth]

85. Agreed. And it's preposterous to suggest that Obama is governing far left. n/t

-Laelth

[newspeak]

84. and as the economy sinks and jobs are harder to find

it is those liberal/progressive ideas that actually aid those who need it most, the American people. So, while the "new democrats" play with their new best buds, the repukes, some who are self interested corrupt psychopaths, the social safety net which is needed more now than ever, will be dismantled by these cretins. And, as during the great depression, we'll have the talking mouthpieces (pimping for their masters) telling those who are suffering that it's all their fault or it's those damn furrinners' fault. I see the same blame game and most of the same robber barons playing.

Well, at least the blinders are off for all to see, if they have the guts to take them off.

[democracy1st]

87. +1

[RegieRocker]

86. Risky business at best. We will see in 2012.