"Obamania"
"Obamania"
Last week I directed folks to an excellent -- and highly controversial -- piece about the Obama administration kowtowing to Wall Street, by the great rabble-rouser Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone. Now Taibbi's back with a blog post on the some of the reaction, and I think he hits the nail on the head here:
I supported Barack Obama. I still do. If I had to vote tomorrow between Obama and Tim Pawlenty, or Sarah Palin, it wouldn’t be a choice that required a whole lot of thought. He’s done some good things. He’s restored some confidence in the United States among foreign leaders. We had something of a revolutionary regime for eight years under George Bush, and Obama has put the United States back into the club of rule-abiding nations, at least to some degree.
But I’m a little mystified by the letters I’m getting from people who suggest that being a supporter of a politician means that you should “give him a break” on this or that shortcoming, and behave more like a fan than a citizen.
I think part of the problem -- and we've seen this from liberals and conservatives -- is that both sides feel their opposite number will destroy the country if it wins the next election (ignoring the remarkable similarity between the two parties on some issues, like dealing with powerful corporations...or Afghanistan). So for the Americans who get most worked up about politics these days, their interest isn't so much in debating right and wrong but in "winning," which now isn't everything, but the only thing.
For example, from the mindset of many liberals, criticizing Obama from the left -- when added on top of the unrelenting and unmitigated criticism that he gets from the right -- will weaken the president and his allies in the mind of that tiny sliver of actual undecided voters, which means Democrats losing Congress and the White House over the next four years, which means going back to a Bush-inspired nightmare of endless tax cuts for the rich and bomb, bomb, bombing Iran; you can say the same for the conservative mindset but just substitute "socialism" and "gun confiscation."
On a certain level, it's an understandable impulse. Back in the day, the Democrats in particular had this crazy notion that you could go to a political convention and say whatever was on your mind; in 1972 they argued a lot and nominated wacky choices for vice president and looked terrible on television and pushed back nominee George McGovern's speech until the middle of the night. Over time, both parties decided that avoiding defeat meant avoiding that kind of disunity, which meant avoiding dissent -- and so what if that's undemocratic.
The problem is that "winning," which is supposed to be the only thing, is pretty much an empty thing if you don't keep pushing the "winners" to do the difficult tasks you elected them to do. If Obama isn't nagged by voters to close Gitmo or fight for the public option that a majority of Americans support, then he's not really that different from George W. Bush, and then what was the whole point? I think it makes sense to criticize when criticism is warranted, and let the chips fall where they may. America's a big country. We can handle it.
Comment removed.
Stay classy, Bill— will- Will, your blog is awesome but I disagree with you and Taibbi. First, the impulse that some have to back President Obama in the face of heavy and often dishonest criticism from the Right is entirely understandble and appropriate. Given the harshness of the political environment, backing Obama and re-evaluating what can be acheived in the first year of his presidency is logical and politically savvy. Second, some of the criticisms coming from the Left are kind of absurd. Going after Obama for having economic advisors who used to work on Wall Street would be like going after him because his surgeon general practiced medicine. It is neither realistic nor a good idea to bring everyone from academia. And Geither is not from Wall Street, as some critics on the Left state all the time. Most of his career has been in government. Second, there is no liberal supermajority in Congress. The notion that a public health insurance plan would pass was never realistic and that is not Obama's fault. He cannot order senators to vote one way or the other. Embedded in your argument is the notion that the critisms from the Left are eventually beneficial to the Obama Presidency. I'm not sure we have evidence of that yet. I don't know what Taibbi expected from the first year of the Obama Presidency. I suspect that if he articulated what he wanted, it would sound unrealistic, to say the least.— CCcomment
- I'm with you, Will. This is the USA and I say it's our patriotic duty to criticize anything we don't like about the way our leaders are handling things. Personally, I'll probably b**** about five times as much if the GOP wins the White House in 2012, but for what it's worth, no one gets a free pass from me just because he's from the same party I happen to support. As for bill at, the only wide load I see on this thread is the big steaming one you dropped on it. Substantive criticisms, please.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- Billy Ray, I think your commment misses the controversy somewhat. Taibbi is taking heat for his piece arging that Barack Obama has sold out the American people to Wall Street. Taibbi's has been heavily criticized both for his factual inaccuracy and for confabulating a huge conspiracy story out of thin air. Much of Taibbi's argument revolves around the notion that Barack Obama hired a cabal that *gasp* worked for the last Treasury Secretary under the Democratic administration (Bob Rubin). Implicit in Taibbi's article is the argument that Obama should have hired a squad of economic advisors from academia with no major government experience who wanted to take the U.S. in a very different direction on financial policy. Could we please agree that this would not have been a responsible path for Obama to walk down? Criticism is good but it might not be helpul when its false or basically lambasted Barack Obama for not being able to acheive the politically impossible. In this respect, I think Taibbi wrote a bad piece. It's also a very damaging piece as it will be read by many of Obama's core supporters.— CCcomment
- Oohhh, corporations are evilllll!! Last time I checked corporations did virtually all of the hiring in this country, brings you your lifesaving drugs, MRI machines, ipods, Priuses, granola and crappy newspapers. "Wall Street" is the means for even losers like you to make money via investments like the rest of non-socialst society- save, invest (with risk) and enjoy the profits you earn. No one is stopping you from getting in on a piece of capitalism. Instead of crapping on corporations and profits, why not bust the balls of trial lawyers and unions that destroy jobs, crush innovation and hamstring US competivness? Oh, wait...you can't: they've bought and paid for the Democrat party.— valentsgrif
- The problem of what a pol says to get elected, versus the reality of what it takes to run a country is as old as the U.S. itself. Blame it on pie in the sky idealists and ideologues. As Col Jessup said, "You can't handle the truth"— E Plebnista
- The problem of what a pol says to get elected, versus the reality of what it takes to run a country is as old as the U.S. itself. Blame it on pie in the sky idealists and ideologues. As Col Jessup said, "You can't handle the truth"— E Plebnista
- Comment removed.
"..it wouldn’t be a choice that required a whole lot of thought." We already know there's no thought behind a vote for Obama.— jmc- Shorter batboy = "I may be a obnoxious, BUT YOU DID IT FIRRRRSSSSTTT."— Talking point sleuth
- Injecting a small dose of reality into another of Tps' simplistic, OCD induced posts....Shorter "batboy" = "Will, based on some of your prior rants, you do not have the moral standing to lecture me on class."— legatus
Molecular-level batboy = "Will is the daddy I never had"- "He’s done some good things. He’s restored some confidence in the United States among foreign leaders." Translation from liberal-speak to common English: He's kowtowed to foreign monarchs and, save for the rare Oslo speech, he's apologized for America being, well, American. And jmc, you nailed that point.— pj katauskas
- Comment removed.
bill at - take a closer look that's not Maurice Lucas in the photo it is Lonnie Shelton. Na na na na scr@w classy!— bird11
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
