Walking On Water: Persistence Of Vision
by sarabeth at 6:00 am on December 31st, 2009 in Depends on the Definition of Change, Dismantling Bushworld, Obama Uber AllesI’m not a great one for year-end lists, and Looking Back (sagely or otherwise) at The Year That Was. But I thought I’d share this reflection.
The biggest political story of the year, I think, should have been the huge gulf between the Obama we were sold (Obama-who-walks-on-water) and the Obama we find we actually bought (Obama-who-governs-strangely-like-Bush-in-so-many-ways).
Notice that I’m not even referring to the obsessive-compulsive need to envelop Republicans in his warm legislative embrace, the need which led to making huge concessions before negotiations even started (sometimes to the point of giving away the store in advance), the need which led to continuing to make concessions even as Republicans laughed in his face and publicly declared they weren’t negotiating in good faith, in fact they weren’t even negotiating at all, and that they would vote in lockstep against whatever deal was eventually “negotiated”.
And I’m not referring to this obsessive-compulsive need, because this was hardly a surprise. This is exactly what Obama had advertised throughout his presidential campaign he was going to do, bring us all together, Republicans and Democrats, and forge consensus, heal all our George Bush wounds by applying the balm of compromise, which would involve bending over backwards to meet Republicans halfway, regardless of how absurd their positions were, and how inflexible.
Here’s how little of a surprise it was. Here at 1115.org, we were already complaining about him doing it — not talking about doing so, but doing it already — back in August of 2008 (when he suddenly decided to “back limited offshore drilling as part of a broader energy package that attempted to bring down gas prices” after firmly opposing offshore drilling as a policy of pointless pandering).
But back in the giddy days of “Yes, we can!” and “Change you can believe in!” — when people who should have known better became starry-eyed Obama girls — anyone who tried to ask questions about what Obama’s defining principle of bipartisan compromise would involve, and how it could possibly work in practice, given that the Republicans were who they had become, was just ignored and dismissed. There was, evidently, some kind of deeply felt need to embrace Obama without critical scrutiny, to feel offended by critical scrutiny.
So the bipartisan-compromise-mania certainly wasn’t a bait-and-switch. But what about all the myriad issues where Obama — after imploring us to elect him so that he could dismantle Bushworld — unaccountably decided that what he wanted to do most of all was to seamlessly continue some of Bush’s seamiest and most odious policies?
Here, via Glenn Greenwald, is a short list:
Has he appointed financial officials who have largely served the agenda of the Wall Street and industry interests that funded his campaign? Has he embraced many of the Bush/Cheney executive power and secrecy abuses which Democrats once railed against — from state secrets to indefinite detention to renditions and military commissions? Has he actively sought to protect from accountability and disclosure a whole slew of Bush crimes? Did he secretly a (sic) negotiate a deal with the pharmaceutical industry after promising repeatedly that all negotiations over health care would take place out in the open, even on C-SPAN? … Is Bob Herbert right when he condemned Obama’s detention policies as un-American and tyrannical, and warned: “Policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House”?
What’s really funny, though, is how, despite all this, Obama still walks on water for so many people.
Maybe I should rephrase what I said at the beginning?
The biggest political story of the year, I think, should have been how so many people are still so blind to the huge gulf between the Obama we were sold (Obama-who-walks-on-water) and the Obama we find we actually bought (Obama-who-governs-strangely-like-Bush-in-so-many-ways).
kiel wrote:
I am in agreement; however, I would also ask you this: When have you ever found that what you have bought is actually as good as what you were sold?
Posted 03 Jan 2010 at 7:50 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
It’s all about how big the chasm between the two is, though, isn’t it? With Obama’s presidency, I think the chasm is so big, it would make the Grand Canyon blush and withdraw its nomination.
Posted 04 Jan 2010 at 3:53 am ¶
matt wrote:
>When have you ever found that what you have bought is actually as good as what you were sold?
really?
Posted 04 Jan 2010 at 10:07 am ¶
kiel wrote:
S: Agreed–the chasm is great, and filled with a river of disappointment, with a few small successes floating on the top.
M: Yes, really. (Outside of maybe a garage sale cache of old baseball cards or some such.) It seems to me that, despite being sold a water-walker, no one in his or her right mind bought a water-walker–to do so would have been equivalent to buying a perpetual motion machine or cold fusion generator. So the chasm is really between what we bought and what we got, not what we were sold and what we got. That chasm is still great (see above), but not as great as you are making it out to be. Are you complaining about how he’s governing, or about how his governance fails to live up to promises? You might be complaining about both, but they are two separate things, with the latter fairly well endemic to politics. That was my point. Really.
Posted 04 Jan 2010 at 12:27 pm ¶
matt wrote:
i don’t know, i’m quite happy with most of what i buy. apple products, all my nikon gear to name a couple.
i didn’t “buy” obama, i didn’t ever believe a word he said about changing anything, thus i didn’t vote for him.
due respect, as you have earned some here, this is rationalized gibberish.
specifics, please. i hear this a lot these days.
friend: “yeah matt, you were right about obama, but maybe you’ve been a bit unfair at times.”
me: “oh yeah? how exactly?”
friend: “well, um…you keep calling him president douchebag…”
being mean isn’t the same as being unfair. i stand behind 100% of what i’ve written about obama here since 2004. if you think i’ve been wrong about something, you can write it on the front page, the same offer i made to obama knob slobberers during the campaigns.
i’m complaining about both, for sure. i’m not as concerned about the promise-to-reality ratio, obama proved himself a liar long before he took office on things like FISA and other votes while he was a senator. his governance has been bad on every issue i care about, his economic team and the prioritizing of corporate interests over human interests, 2 escalations in afghanistan, no withdrawal from iraq, rights for GLBT, transparency, and more.
i get infuriated when the obamabots continue to make excuses (he’s only been in office for 3 months…6 months…9 months…a year, he can’t do it all by himself, his presidency has been exactly what this country needed, etc) when the proof is in the record.
but probably the worst part is the long lasting effect of his campaign, which drew in new voters on promises of people-power and then proved to them that corporations have all the power. in the long term, this is going to be very very bad for progressive causes. yes, politics sucks. but it’s one thing to be corrupt, it’s another to run on how you’re above all the corruption and then be so transparently corrupt.
Posted 04 Jan 2010 at 6:05 pm ¶
les wrote:
Anybody who thought a centrist Illinois Democrat was some kind of progressive savior who would walk on water, had no idea what they were buying. Anybody who can’t distinguish between the Bush regime and the current, either isn’t looking or is blinded by disappointment for unreal expectations.
Posted 05 Jan 2010 at 7:19 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Where are you getting this “can’t distinguish between the Bush regime and the current” nonsense from?
Posted 05 Jan 2010 at 11:51 am ¶
AG wrote:
I must confess that I suffer from an ever increasing persistence of support for Obama. I for one bought Obama after some thought and not because he walks on water or because he is different than Bush. And I am not the only one.
I bought him because unlike the ideological left or the right he was willing to bring in logic, evidence, thought, determination, steadiness of purpose and a realism. It is downright dangerous to have as a President a person who thinks he has a monopoly over wisdom and that rhetoric and faith overrides logic and reason. Certitude of convictions without reflection, without logic, without analysis of evidence, and disdain for views of people who think differently is the hallmark of the ideological right and left. Both the ideological left and right show faith behaviors identical to believers in “intelligent design”.
Natura non facit saltum. And good governance is about aggregating competing and often conflicting interests. Good governance is about seeking maximum good for maximum number of people. Good governance is recognizing that steady incremental progress creates a lasting and substantive change; much more so than dashing bravado that ignores reality.
Obama has shown that he has a vision and that he has the courage to persist in pursuing that vision step by step. So, a year later I am more than ever pleased that I decided to purchase Obama.
Posted 09 Jan 2010 at 10:23 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
That’s lovely. However:
1) Leave the outcome of the healthcare reform to one side. Did the way the “negotiations” were conducted make you “more than ever pleased” that you decided to purchase Obama?
2) How do you respond to the issues raised in the Glenn Greenwald quote?
3) It’s all very well to say “not because … he is different than Bush”. But out of the set of recent presidents and presidential candidates, who else do the highlighted phrases describe if not Bush?:
4) When you keep talking about the “ideological left” in the context of buying Obama as a presidential candidate, which other candidates are you thinking of?
Posted 10 Jan 2010 at 4:11 pm ¶
AG wrote:
The manner in which negotiations were conducted was in line with how bargaining happens in democracies.
Nothing stops folks from mobilizing their constituencies, challenging assertions made by politicians and making sure that they did not play games. Some did and some did not. Obama did what the executive branch is supposed to do. The fault dear Brutus ….
The manner in which most analysts, op-ed writers and bloggers talked about the health bill was instead apalling. Histrionics, personality attacks, posturing, faith substituted for any sensible and systematic scientific and economic analysis of specifics. That is scary.
Many more uninsured will benefit because of the hurly-burly of bargaining. It was disconcerting to see the Huffington crowd smugly sit on its haunches and disdain any dirtying of the hands or an energetic refutation of the rubbish Republicans were spouting. Instead, they found it more convenient to bitch and moan about the Pres.
Mr. Glen Greenwald offers no substantive evidence. He merely insinuates. And he is wrong. Neither does he offer any economic or financial analysis to support his insinuations that the recent policy measures are outcomes of cronyism and not really thought out efforts to stem an extraordinarily serious systemic crisis. Even worse, I suspect he has no alternative. He was clueless before and after the meltdown and he remains clueless about the rescue efforts
In addition to Bush the highlighted phrases describes most op-ed writers, bloggers and analysts on the ideological right and left, the christian evangelicals, the green evangelicals, and a host of ideologues who want us to suspend logic and reason. As examples are drivellings of Ms. Maureen Dowd on the left land Charles Krauthammer on the right.
The Obama purchase remains lovely!
Posted 10 Jan 2010 at 6:26 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Ah, so you picked Obama for president over “most op-ed writers, bloggers and analysts on the ideological right and left, the christian evangelicals, the green evangelicals, and a host of ideologues who want us to suspend logic and reason”?
That makes just about as much sense as anything else you wrote.
Posted 10 Jan 2010 at 7:17 pm ¶
matt wrote:
obama isn’t just head of the executive branch, he’s the head of the democratic party. it was his order to get rid of dean and all of the organizational progress he made and trade it for the ineffectual party apparatus that has supplanted the party, OFA.
it would be impossible for you to be more wrong. two comments here, loaded with nothing but the same platitudes we were forced to endure before obama was elected, you have provided nothing in the way of evidence yourself.
oooh, he pissing off the left and right, he must be doing an excellent job!
congratulations! you own the torture regime, escalating un-winnable wars, bailouts and associated corruption at the highest levels of the administration, 10% unemployment due to premature capitulation on the stimulus, soon-to-be-flipped senate seats in CO, NY, PA, and loss of potential pickups in KS and AZ due to ham-handed political calculations, and more. it must be lovely indeed to own those things.
Posted 10 Jan 2010 at 7:37 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
You may not have noticed, Matt, but facts have nothing to do with it. Because facts are just insinuations. It is necessary to avoid all specifics, and speak only in terms of generalities.
Posted 11 Jan 2010 at 4:36 am ¶
AG wrote:
Hi Matt,
Head of the Democratic Party?! No he is not. He is the President; chief executive for the entire country — dems, repubs, libertarians, liberals, conservatives, kooks, kikes, investment bankers, biologists, creationists, bloggers, op-ed writers, etc. etc.
But of course in your world, the dictator commands an ineffectual party apparatus —- an effete corps of nattering nabobs; sniveling sychophantic succulators. —(Other than of course few brave independent thoughtful souls like yourself). This Pres has made the Dem party scared of its own shadow. The senators and reps are so subservient to him. Obama only has to raise his eyebrows and the Dem pols get scared and quickly fall in line. Get real!
Bailouts, corruption at the highest level, torture regime. Wow!
No difference between you and the tea party fellows, or Pat Robertson or dear departed Jerry or the militias. You guys should get together and have a tea party and a bitchin’ session. You folks have lots in common —- complete absence of sense and sensibility
Meanwhile I am off to contemplate my lovely purchase. Have a nice day. Ta Ta.
Posted 16 Jan 2010 at 12:08 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
You better set all of us straight then: who, pray, is the head of the Democratic Party?
Also, we keep hearing about how it’s not clear who is the head of the Republican Party these days. Presumably, all the confusion exists because people just don’t get it that the head of the Republican Party these days is Barrack Obama?
Posted 16 Jan 2010 at 4:32 am ¶
matt wrote:
>Head of the Democratic Party?! No he is not.
i do enjoy when people so emphatically exclaim that facts are not true. at any given time, the president is the head of his party. he decides who runs the party committee, and what that committee will be about. this isn’t disputable.
who else was it that pushed out howard dean and flushed all the state party building he did in 4 years? who replaced the DNC with OBAMA FOR AMERICA? who chose tim fucking kaine to be chairman? who decided to muscle out dem interest groups when they wanted a say?
>No difference between you and the tea party fellows, or Pat Robertson or dear departed Jerry or the militias.
that will be the end of your annoying little run here. go fuck yourself.
Posted 16 Jan 2010 at 8:19 am ¶