Glenn Greenwald to Disappointed Progressives: What Did You Expect?

by Damozel |  Here's Greenwald's take on the whole shocked-and-disappointed!!! reaction of progressives to the clear message from Obama that he's going to do things his way..

I've been genuinely mystified by the disappointment and surprise being expressed by many liberals over the fact that Obama's most significant appointments thus far are composed of pure Beltway establishment figures drawn from the center-right of the Democratic Party and, probably once he names his Defense Secretary and CIA Director, even from the Bush administration -- but not from the Left.

So many progressives were misled about what Obama is and what he believes.  But it wasn't Obama who misled them.  It was their own desires, their eagerness to see what they wanted to see rather than what reality offered....

For whatever reasons, highly influential progressive factions committed themselves early, loyally and enthusiastically to Obama even though he never even courted that support, let alone made commitments to secure it.

That may have been perfectly justified -- by pragmatic calculations regarding electability, by excitement over his personality and charisma, by the belief that he was comparatively superior to the alternatives.  Still, the fact remains that progressives, throughout the year, largely lent Obama their loyal support in exchange for very little.  He never pretended that he wanted to implement or advance a progressive agenda.  And he certainly never did anything to suggest he would oppose or undermine the Democratic establishment that has exerted power in the party over the last two decades.

It's difficult to understand what basis progressives think they have for demanding greater inclusion in his cabinet and other high-level appointments, and it's even more difficult to understand the basis for the disappointment and surprise being expressed over the fact that center-right Democrats and Republicans are welcomed in his inner circle, but -- as The Nation's Chris Hayes put it -- "not a single, solitary, actual dyed-in-the-wool progressive has, as far as I can tell, even been mentioned for a position in the new administration."...

Barack Obama is a centrist, establishment politician.  That is what he has been since he's been in the Senate, and more importantly, it's what he made clear -- both explicitly and through his actions -- that he intended to be as President.  Even in the primary, he paid no price whatsoever for that in terms of progressive support.  As is true for the national Democratic Party generally, he has no good reason to believe he needs to accommodate liberal objections to what he is doing.  The Joe Lieberman fiasco should have made that as conclusively clear as it gets. 

As Greenwald says, there's no point in whinging and all the reason in the world to get active.  As he says, the key to getting action is to make politicians pay a price for ignoring progressive goals.

Ron Chusid at Liberal Values agrees:

Barack Obama was not elected by the far left or the netroots. He was elected by a coalition which included them, but also contained many more moderates, independents, and even Republicans.

The description of Obama as a centrist, establishment politician is somewhat true in economic matters and, while I might not agree with him on everything, this is how many of us who voted for him hope he governs. In other areas there continues to be  hope that Obama will govern based upon liberal values, including strengthening civil liberties, ending the influence of the religious right on public policy, defending reproductive rights, ending the ban on financing embryonic stem cell research, protecting the environment, ending torture, and returning to a reality-based foreign policy.

Yeah, that's actually all I ask, at least to start with.  Get back to me in a year with complaints that he's practically a Republican and things aren't any better than they were and we'll talk.. For now, I don't care who he appoints or what he personally does or does not believe if he gets certain things done.  If he doesn't, I'll be glad to join you in asking why.

Besides.  Just because I have progressive ideals it doesn't follow that I want the man in charge to be driven by ideals.  Ideals are for bloggers.  The president has to hold the entire ship on course.  To put it another way:

I don't trust presidents with personal ideals, even if the ideals are the same as mine.  Idealists tend to be procrustean in trying to cut reality down to the size of their own ideas and inflexible about recognizing any limitations on their ability to carry through.  They don't care if implementing their ideals makes reality worse and they say things like, "You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet."  In other words, they end up as ideologues.

As a progressive, I want a president who is a pragmatist and proceeds cautiously.  This is because one of my friends here turned me on to the I Ching and I have come to believe that any powerful movement left or right always produces a counteraction of equal force (as we've just seen).  Find the center then move leftward deliberately but by degrees is what I say.  It's the only way to ensure that the changes "take" and that people on the other side won't grab the reins out of your hand and turn you the other way.  All the evidence suggests that the left has been right and the right consistently wrong.  Obama, being intelligent, has got to see this too. 

Anyway as my co-blogger has repeatedly pointed out, Obama is doing exactly what he said he was going to do:  reach across the aisle.  Being intelligent and adroit and a pragmatist, he is able to change positions (unlike Bush) and I trust he can see himself that the right wingers had everything wrong from beginning to end. 

Obama is scary intelligent. And he's already showing the world that he might possibly be the most politically adroit politician in the history of ever.  What could be smarter than bringing everyone into the fold---to spread around the blame, if any, and also the praise, if any?

We've been a divided America for years.  Bush showed us how to keep it that way.  Maybe Obama is actually going to achieve what I thought no one could:  unite us by gluing together the middle.  Even if you think (as I do) that some issues are binary and that the other side has proved its ideas don't work, that doesn't mean that they don't have something to contribute, even if it's just a monitory, "You'll be sorry if we do." 

Nobody, not even the progressive base, has the full truth and all the answers. Listening to the other side is a good idea.  Bloggers get so used to dismissing "opposing" views out of hand that we're no longer good judges of what works.  And we're a partisan lot by definition.  Let's celebrate the fact that we have a president who is responsive to push-back and new information.  That's one of the biggest things that separates Obama from Bush.

An Obama skeptic initially, I am awed that Obama is really doing what he said he would.  Let's give him the chance to show us whether it works.  Time enough to protest that he's failed us when he does.   

Memeorandum has more here.

RELATED BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTINGS

Media Again Misrepresenting Hillary's Record & Positions

Geithner is Likely New Treasury Secretary, Media Questionably Ecstatic

With Daschle at HHS, Expect Healthcare Reform Debate Early

Sullivan: "No Way. No How. No Brennan."

Obama: Not Throwing Any Bones to the Progressive Base?

Comments

[J. Lynne]

I've been an Obama skeptic since this time last year. Now that he's the President-elect, I'm both hopeful and wary. However, I don't understand the daily reports about what he's up to, who he might pick next for his cabinet, what kind of dog he might get, where the family might go to church, whether the mother-in-law will live with them, etc.

He's not Brad Pitt and they aren't the royal family. He isn't even President yet and already everyone is looking to him to solve the nation's and even the world's problems. Some days I think people must think he is a cross between The Beatles, Dumbledore, and JFK.

[Cliff]

If something is broken, you need to find people who know how it works and how to fix it. Therefore it is perfectly logical to select experienced Washingtonians to clean up W's mess. If after a couple of years we do not see a complete overhaul of the system then it is time to bitch. I for one would not want the Moulitas & Aravosis people anywhere near DC.

[Charles]

An article you might be interested in

www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/11/scoop_mccain_an/

Cliff, no one is suggesting that Markos be made Secretary of Defense. But it would be nice not to put the same people in charge who caused the mess. The right has been dead wrong about how to deal with terrorism and how to build a strong economy. Larry Summers, for example, has issued some modest mea culpas about his extreme neoliberalism, but the fact is that he was on the wrong side of the issue. I would much rather see Bob Reich, who has served in Washington, or even Bob Kuttner, who has not, making decisions that will affect potentially millions of auto industry jobs.