It was bound to happen: people were going to criticize President-elect Barack Obama. It's hardly surprising, given the divided, partisan nation we live in.
Except that the latest batch of critics is complaining that Barack Obama isn't nearly liberal enough for them:
Liberals are growing increasingly nervous - and some just flat-out angry - that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.
Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He's hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he's stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss.
"He has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it's all over we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment," said Tim Carpenter, national director of the Progressive Democrats of America.
Progressive Democrats of America? Isn't that an oxymoron?
But there's more:
During the campaign Obama gained labor support by saying he favored legislation that would make it easier for unions to form inside companies. The "card check" bill would get rid of a secret-ballot method of voting to form a union and replace it with a system that would require companies to recognize unions simply if a majority of workers signed cards saying they want one. Obama still supports that legislation, aides say - but union leaders are worried that he no longer talks it up much as president-elect.
"It's complicated," said Tasini, who challenged Clinton for Senate in 2006. "On the one hand, the guy hasn't even taken office yet so it's a little hasty to be criticizing him. On the other hand, there is legitimate cause for concern. I think people are still waiting but there is some edginess about this."That's a view that seems to have kept some progressive leaders holding their fire. There are signs of a struggle within the left wing of the Democratic Party about whether it's just too soon to criticize Obama -- and if there's really anything to complain about just yet.
It's easy for someone like me, who wasn't ever caught up in the Obama hype, to say that this sort of reaction was probably inevitable. After all, President-elect Obama gave frequent clues during the campaign that he was talking general policies, not making specific promises, most of the time. The Iraq withdrawal time line wasn't carved in stone, and neither were many of his other positions. There wasn't any "Read my lips" moment; Obama made it pretty clear that he expected voters to trust him, once he was in office, to make the right decisions, not to be bound to campaign promises when the realities on the ground might change at any time.
Anyone who was listening heard him say those things; but I've suspected for a while that a lot of people weren't listening--not just people like the enthusiastic supporter who thought she'd never have to pay for gas again, but a lot of people who seemed to have projected onto Obama whatever they hoped the next president would be, and are going to be disappointed no matter what Obama actually does, because no human being could possibly satisfy so many contradictory hopes or grant so many conflicting wishes.
It's hard for me to imagine anyone complaining that Barack Obama isn't liberal enough. But then again, if people really believed that the oceans would recede and the planet heal once Obama was elected, there's no telling just how disappointed some of them are going to be.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Actually, people began writing about "the failed
Bush presidency" before he was even inaugurated. But at least it was Democrats saying that.
I highly doubt if Mr. Obama will listen to what I have to say. But I intend to be in Washington DC on Jan 22 to say it with about 100 thousand other people.
Susan Peterson
Fake right.
Head left.
Obama's books are full of this sort of thing. He'll make a few genuflections to right-leaning arguments, sometimes rephrasing them better than the rightists do, and then he'll come down on the leftward side of an argument. I expect his governing style to be much the same. Right now he's trying to secure some maneuvering room for later one. When he pushes a more radical program down the line, he can retort to those complaining that he's a leftist, "Look, I appointed Hillary (!) and Gates."
Unlike Bush, Obama isn't going to be run roughshod over by his cabinet and advisers (and VP). He actually appears to care about policy, which is something that Bush never did. (Seriously. I'd be surprised if a single idea out of the White House had originated in Bush.)
So Obama's going to direct his staff. Hillary Clinton isn't going to run around threatening other countries with war without his approval. And Gates is going to withdrawal from Iraq, that's the whole reason he's staying on, to provide cover to that 'decision'. (Which ironically is no longer a decision, considering Iraq has kicked us out.)
It is mildly ironic that Clinton lost the primary due to her Iraq war vote, and she's being put in charge of State, but Clinton is not, and has never been, a warmonger, she just got tricked into a bad vote. Which has always been her (and Bill's) problem, she triangulates and panders too much to the middle, which could be a problem if Obama leaves her hanging out in the wind without direction, but I doubt that will happen.
I find it interesting that, for some reason, the right is trying to play up the idea that the left is disappointed in him (Hint: We're not.) for not being far enough to the left, when two months ago the right was screaming that he was the mostest liberalist person evar and once he got in he'd turn openly communist.
Do you not see how silly that makes you guys look? Obama is a fairly centrist Democrat, and everyone who actually listened to him during the election knew that.
I personally wish he was further to the left, and was for Edwards because Edwards was slightly further that way, although a) Edwards pushed the discussion to the left in general (especially WRT to the poor and health care) so it wasn't as bad at the end, and b) I'm glad he didn't win because of the affair thing that came out. But I know pretty well where Obama stands, or at least claims to stand, and it's about where the American people in general stand, aka, in the right half of the Democratic party.
I also love the idea that somehow the left has devolved into a dozen groups all pushing their own agenda, and hence Clinton is the 'enemy' of Obama or whatever. Just because the left doesn't like Clinton as much as Obama doesn't mean they are mortal enemies at each other throats. They agree on 90% of the same stuff.
You guys are projecting the problems of the divided right onto the left. We don't have three or four groups that are totally opposed to each other and fighting for control of the party. We just have a perfectly normal primary race over mostly identical positions, it wasn't various parts of the party fighting other parts. Maybe the Clinton machine fighting the Chicago machine, but it wasn't a fight over principles.
Now...Democrats in Congress we're pissed at, and have been for two years. Because they are weak-willed President Bush Yes Men.
Obama's not liberal? LOL!!!!!
No, he's a radical liberal. But even liberals have to deal with reality, and reality is that Obama doesn't know ANYTHING about governance or running something. So, he's been grabbing up Clintonistas. For whatever the have for values, they "have been there before", and he hasn't. And they are the only pool of "left of the aisle" people with "experience" there are.
I suspect he's been given a few security and other briefings at White House and blanched whiter than Bush has ever looked and decided the old boys doing security weren't that dumb after all.
In reality, liberals and conservatives want similar things... domestic security, a level of prosperity, etc. Just because Obama's had a few hundred "OH MY ***" moments, and has probably adjusted his policy stances a bit, does not change his inherent belief in the superiority of government over the people and over the private sector. He is STILL a hard left liberal. But even liberals, if they have a brain, will end up being confronted by the emptiness of their own ideas and adjusting them at times.
Also, If we're to believe Toe Sucker Morris, Obama's engaged on a party control strategy, not a governance strategy. Thus, you put key possible troublemakers in places where you've got thumbscrews, and you control the party to control the government.
In reality, Obama's an ideologue with no practical experience. His only option is to slide sideways into where Bush is and work from there. He hasn't the capacity or capability of synthesizing a governance policy and structure on his own.
"Progressive Democrats of America? Isn't that an oxymoron?"
I'm sorry, but I think the fact that your party gave us George W. Bush kind of cost you your right to pot-shots like this. I don't have any love for the extreme left, but your and yours on the right are certainly no better.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.