I am being deluged with calls to hold Obama's "feet to the fire." With some exceptions, I didn't recall the people sending these missives being big Obama supporters in the first place. They are pissing me off already. This is why I have a blog, to spew about people that piss me off.
One, if you didn't support Obama because he wasn't "radical" or "progressive" or "leftist" enough for you, where do you get off attempting to hold his feet to anything? If you didn't support him, you're opposition. He has no more obligation to listen to you than he has to listen to Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich. You decided long ago that Obama was not the man for you. Guess what? He's still not the man for you. You can keep right on criticizing him for being a centrist sell-out, but you have no right to speak as if he owes you something. If you want to hold someone's feet to the fire, how 'bout you turn to your man Nadar and remind him that even though he is the most awesomist American evah!, that still doesn't give him the right to use racial slurs in the direction of our newly-elected black president.
Two, can you allow for the possibility that Obama is appointing people that he doesn't necessarily agree with? That he has no interest in surrounding himself with "yes" people? The he has some political debts he has to pay back and he's doing so by appointing big name friends of friends who may have little influence over him? If there is one thing Obama is, it is confident in what he is doing. How many times during that race did you doubt that he made the right move?
I remember at the end of the second debate where McCain, unprompted, launched into a closing where he touted his lifetime of service to America and his humble desire to keep on serving. Obama, awkwardly, went with being the son of a Kenyan immigrant, raised by his grandmother in Hawaii, etc. I was thinking, "No, no, no! Be All-American, emphasize your love of the flag, and that your dreams are the same as Joe the Plumbers'." I was wrong, he was right, and I was remind (when I shouldn't have to be) that his story is just as American as McCain's or Joe's.
Obama ran this campaign well. He ran as himself. I have no doubt that's exactly how he'll govern. As everyone has said, he'll make decisions and advance policies that we disagree with. He can't please everyone. Lord knows the progressive faction ain't exactly in agreement over EFCA and Big Labor ain't exactly the most progressive aspect of the Dem coalition.
Which is to say that before we go crying "Betrayal!" maybe we should wait for the man to actually "betray" us. I don't recall him promising to put together the most progressive transition team in the history of transition teams. Jesus, he turned nine Bush states blue, does that not earn him three fucking days of credibility?
Friday, November 7, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Amen.
No. You aren't wrong here.
Not wrong, not alone
I get your point, and I mostly agree (particularly in relation to appointments). But I do think it's everyone's duty to hold a politician's feet to the fire - otherwise, by this logic, I shouldn't have been complaining about Dubya these last eight years.
I agree mostly as well, and I'm willing to give most appointments a pass, but then there are some that are problematic. Those shouldn't be above criticism. In fact, I think president-elect Obama has actively encouraged that sort of good faith (and that little phrase is key here) criticism.
But criticism is a far cry from some of the hysterics I've seen. I'm not in the "give him the benefit of the doubt" camp, but I'm also not in the "he's already stabbed me in the back" camp. Agreed with dave - I'll wait until he betrays me to become indignant. I know what I signed on to and who I was going to be working with.
What really galls me is that the people making these self-righteous bleatings are trying to have it both ways. They were happy to tell you during the campaign that Obama wasn't nearly far enough to the left, that he was a centrist, and now they're outraged that his governing style is shock! centrist!
That'll surely stoke the fires of the revolution.
I guess I take "hold his feet to the fire" to mean that "he's made me certain promises, now I have to make sure he follows through." He didn't make any promises to conservatives, Greens, or unassociated lefties too cool to vote for him.
Let's also not forget that we oppose the imperial presidency. Obama cannot unilaterally, made especially in whom he appoints to the cabinet. My semi-understanding is that cabinet posts are what get traded for favors during the primaries.
He will appoint a lot of Clintonites because six months ago everyone in this country was pissing their pants he wouldn't get the Hillary voters. Hell, I was even coming to gripes with a Hillary veep choice. Now, Obama appoints a few Clintonites to his economic team and the sky is falling. I'd be surprised if they're weren't a few representatives from the most successful economic decade this country has had since the '60s.
Having former Clinton folks on his advisory team isn't a big deal and to be expected. Eh, why pussyfoot around it - I don't object to Larry Summers being an economic advisor. He certainly knows his way around the mess he helped create. But putting him back in charge at Treasury is a political mistake. There are people out there who share Summer's (presumably evolved) policy views and who rise to his level of competence, but who aren't compromised (and justifiably so) in the eyes of a not insignificant part of Obama's coalition.
Which isn't to say I want to hear the Naderites whining.
Larry Summer's appointment tells me that Larry Summers has powerful friends (Obama, tied into a Harvard power pipeline? Shocked!) and that perhaps Obama will be influenced by him. That is all.
The fact that Obama keeps using the words jobs and demand instead of trade and supply gives me hope.
for give the misplace apostrophe. If I could label my comments, this would get a BUI.
"He didn't make any promises to conservatives, Greens, or unassociated lefties too cool to vote for him."
Not specifically, no, but I thought a big part of his appeal was that he was talking to everyone. Certainly his acceptance speech seemed that way. That doesn't excuse the betrayal narrative - which is silly - but it does offer one explanation of how those who were not his explicit supporters might come to think they have the right to make demands of him.
I mean, he certainly wasn't appealing to his base in the same way Palin was appealing to hers.
Obama is certainly saying the right things, but Summers represents the neoliberalism that's partially responsible for the global meltdown in the first place.
Don't get me wrong - Summers has experiences that will certainly be valuable in governing, and I never assumed that Obama's economics would be anything other than mildly center-left. But Summers's potential placement in a high profile position like Sec. of the Treasury risks sending the wrong message to some of the new president's political allies.
Bravo. Bravo. BRAVO.
how come i get the feeling this post was prompted by the GTFF list?
sometimes i miss that list, but hearing from fringe soc grad students parroting jello biafra positions gets old.
"There is that remarkable primary debate with Hillary and Edwards, where a reporter asked the three of them who would Martin Luther King support on this day, and Hillary and Edwards responded by convincing the audience why King would have supported them. And Obama responded by saying King would not have supported anybody, that King would have organized his movement to push the winning candidate to pursue the objectives. Well, that’s the real question now in the US today."
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/6/president_elect_obama_and_the_future
I think Obama has a good point, when none of the candidates electable under the given historical context are proposing the kind of policies necessary (because they can't or won't, whichever)you make tactical decisions where necessary and apply pressure wherever and however you can.
In my experience, for example looking at the actions of the Dept. of the Interior, who is secretary does make a big difference. The idea that the head of a govt. Department is going to have "little influence" over policy implementation is silly. Appointments are important and a viable leverage point for what kind of policies the administration is going to implement. I'm sure Obama is smart enough to know King would have reacted to his nominees as well.
Sociologists! God they are so damn naive. Some of them actually have the nerve to criticize centrist neo-liberals or economists that promote environmental dumping in the developing world because it is cost effective, or even that intelligence is is gender specific. How boring. Lets get real. I mean we can all deal with a little sexism and dumping in poor countries now that we don't have a fascist in office anymore. Why criticize, be happy.
Also, using logic of the argument made in this blog, Bush was justified in pushing through his agenda of war since he was not beholden to the "focus group" who were against it. So, none of us had the right to criticize him. damn leftists.
I have to go check my 401k now.
"If you did not vote for Obama you are the opposition." Either you are with Obama or you are against him! I think I've heard this somewhere before.
Last I checked, "democracy" means I vote for who best represents my views. And if that person loses, well, the person who got elected is still my representative. I have every right to "hold his/her feet to the fire". I don't give up that right. What kind of democracy do you live in?
Again, I take "hold his feet to the fire" to be something that supporters do.
By all means, the whole world has the right to criticize anything Obama does. As Stefano points out, we criticized Bush about his war policy. Would that we had done it better.
Same for you anonymous, criticize away! I talk democracy to mean that your dissent should be loud, proud and always free.
What I was reacting to was a particular tone that I heard wherein people who did not support Obama, with exceptions, were immediately criticizing Obama's transition team choices and potential cabinet choices as if Obama were betraying them personally, or that he was betraying "the left."
By all means, if you didn't support Obama, then shout to the roof tops that you told us so if he stocks his cabinet with old-school pols of the neo-liberal stripe. I'll probably join you.
Again, I was just reacting to people who did not support Obama immediately decrying his choices as if he owed them something.
Oy.
by "I'll probably join you." I meant I'll join you in shouting about, not in shouting "I told you so." I wouldn't have that right.
Post a Comment