For months, formerly enthusiastic supporters of Barack Obama have sought to assuage their disappointment by means of deft explanation. The truth is that no compelling explanation or description for Obama’s numerous successes and failures in office has yet been proposed and adopted wholesale. The narrative and trajectory of the Obama administration remains a mystery. Evident with both critics and apologetics alike, those who seek to make sense of it all have consistently tried and failed.
Salon columnist David Sirota has recently set forth an interesting rationale to explain this apparent executive branch inertia or timidity. In short, to Sirota, Obama is far more powerful than we even imagine, but he’s miles away from a liberal. The basic premise I agree with in general sentiment. During the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, Obama was often castigated by the left for being too much of a moderate. It is probably worthwhile to remind those of us who voted for him that we saw in him exclusively what we wanted to see. Whether it is a movie star, a musician, or an actor, we routinely project our hopes and aspirations upon those who inspire us deeply. And it is, in part, the residual aspects of those views that would have us look for explanations based exclusively on our own terms.
Sirota is not especially kind to disappointed progressives, even calling them “narcissistic” for believing that the presidency is theirs and theirs alone. As one such frustrated progressive, I take no small liberty with this perspective. The last liberal president was arguably Lyndon Johnson, but his legacy is forever tainted by the guns aspect of Vietnam than the butter of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Great Society reforms. In other words, it’s been a long time for us. Democratic presidents since then have been centrists and more inclined to posture to the left than to advance a truly progressive agenda. Many of us thought that this was finally our turn and we should be forgiven for making an incorrect assumption.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jason
"Democratic Presidents since then have been Centrists and more inclined to posture to the Left than to advance a truly Progressive agenda."
I think it is called "continuity of government" which means that nothing ever changes no matter who gets elected. The left and socialism etc. are not liberal in any sense of the word.
2 - Kevin
That's certainly one way to look at it, sure, but if we get too cynical about government, then nothing will ever get fixed.
3 - Whocares
Obama is "hard to pigeonhole" because he stands for nothing and for everything at the same time. Be serious, he is the least qualified President in the past 70 years (probably longer). Any many who thinks that we have 57 States, that thinks that Austrians "speak Austrian," and who cannot pronounce the word "corpseman" is not a genius - quite the contray. What was it that Hillary said, "what are we going to do, elect him (BHO) because he gives a pretty speech" - yup, this guy is in way over his head.
4 - Arch Conservative
Not only is he the least competent but he's also the most arrogant. he makes it easy for so many to utterly despise him on a personal level.
When Sean Penn said what he said about Reagan, that his getting Alzheimer's was karma, I thought it was a horrible thing to say about a person. Now that I've been made to witness Barry Sotero in action, I get it.
5 - Glenn Contrarian
Arch -
I've learned over the years that one can usually tell who's arrogant if that person refuses to apologize for what he did wrong.
For instance, Obama's publicly apologized a few times - he's not afraid to admit when he did something stupid.
Compare that to, say, Dick Cheney, who accidentally shot somebody in the face and has yet to apologize for it.
But given that it's Obama that we're talking about, I realize that if you say something bad about Obama, it must therefore be true because he's Obama and he's a liberal and anything bad said about a liberal must be true.
Come to think of it, that's the same kind of accusation Roger throws at me concerning conservatives...but unlike you, Arch, I've complimented conservatives on several occasions and even written a couple articles pointing out what they did right.
So that begs the question - are you able to sincerely state (without any sarcasm) things that you believe that liberals or Democratic presidents did right? Or is it liberals bad, all the time, without exception?
6 - Arch Conservative
I think requiring to insurance companies to cover birth control is a pretty good thing.
But that's small potatoes. On the big, important things, Obama is nothing but wrong. The Demcorats are nothing but wrong.
Perhaps you can tell me how it is that people can take seriously the Decomrats' pledges of government spending as a panacea for our national and social ills when the government spends more and more every year but year in and year out we see the same old problems, with no relief whatsoever. Being that Seth Rogen, I mean cabaretic brought up LBJ, a glaring example of this comes to mind. In 1964 LBJ declared war on poverty and the great society was born. Many years and trillions of dollars dollars spent later, the poverty rate is higher today than when LBJ was in office.
7 - Baronius
I think Arch is pretty close. Barack Obama was raised by an anthropologist mother. He doesn't commit to anything. He pictures himself standing above every debate, analyzing both sides. His training in law also contributes to this instinct. Unfortunately, he doesn't have enough self-awareness to question his own assumptions.
So, when he steps in to resolve a dispute between the Republicans and Democrats, he engages in analysis that he thinks is neutral. His analysis of the Republicans is that they are motivated by greed, which is a perfectly common human instinct. His analysis of the Democrats is that they're motivated by love of humanity, but sometimes lose sight of the big picture. That's why he can step in and oversee a better deal than the Democrats can come up with without him.
It doesn't occur to him that he could be wrong. He's never been challenged on a confirmable point his entire life: academia, law, politics, and community activism aren't falsifiable endeavors. He's never experienced a klong, that moment when you realize that you're undeniably wrong. The only things he's ever had to overcome are his skin color and his lack of a father; he's never had to bounce back from personal failure. He really thinks that everything that's gone wrong in the last 30 months is Bush's fault, because if that's not true, then something would be his fault.
Now, I always warn against psychoanalyzing your political opponents, because you risk of responding to their perceived neuroses rather than their arguments. So take my comments with a grain of salt. I only know that I seem to have less trouble understanding President Obama's actions than a lot of liberals do.
8 - zingzing
"I only know that I seem to have less trouble understanding President Obama's actions than a lot of liberals do."
from your point of view.
9 - zingzing
really, baronius, that reading is so slanted and simplistic (and wrong--he's lost an election), i don't know what you were thinking... or if you were thinking at all.
10 - Baronius
Well, Zing, I'm not writing articles about how tough it is to understand President Obama, and I haven't been thrown by some of the things that seem to confuse Sirota and others.
11 - roger nowosielski
#2
But Kevin, haven't you intimated in one of your comments on the previous thread that we can't really depend on the government to get things done, that if you want something done, do it yourself?
I believe Anarcissie closed that comment thread with what I consider an incisive remark. Yet, I don't remember anyone picking up the ball and running with it.
12 - Arch Conservative
There's not all that much there that's too tough to understand.
He's a thin-skinned, narcissistic, dickhead who is terrible for the economy and the nation in general.
13 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
So if the government does something poorly, then it can't do anything right?
No, that's not what you mean - of course it's not. But that's the attitude of many of your fellow anybody-but-liberals. Furthermore, can we really depend on the free market to, say, regulate food safety or auto safety or airline safety? I think that even you would agree that we cannot trust the free market to do so.
In other words, we need to stop running with the talking point about how poorly the government does this or that, or how government workers are somehow leeches - witness the air safety inspectors who kept working even though they weren't getting paid, and traveling to keep on schedule at their own expense...and I haven't seen anything showing they'd get reimbursed.
14 - Glenn Contrarian
Arch -
Being that Seth Rogen, I mean cabaretic brought up LBJ, a glaring example of this comes to mind. In 1964 LBJ declared war on poverty and the great society was born. Many years and trillions of dollars dollars spent later, the poverty rate is higher today than when LBJ was in office.
If LBJ and his 'Great Society' were so bad, then explain why it is that the poverty rate was 22% when Ike was in office, but from the time Welfare and Medicaid took effect until the Great Recession, the poverty rate hovered between 10 and 15 percent.
Hm?
But wait, I must remember that everything that the Democrats and liberals do is badbadbadevilevilevilbadbadbad. Keep up the good work of being the tool of Big Business, Arch!
15 - roger nowosielski
Arch a tool of Big Business?
Tell him, Arch. Straighten that man out.
16 - Glenn Contrarian
And so are you, Roger.
17 - Glenn Contrarian
Baronius -
The only things [Obama]'s ever had to overcome are his skin color and his lack of a father; he's never had to bounce back from personal failure.
Riiiiiight. I grew up without a dad, and it ain't easy...but a few years of his childhood were in a third-world country where he couldn't identify with anyone and didn't speak the language, with a stepdad not of either of his races...and while I didn't face these particular challenges, I do have a REAL good idea of what he went through since my youngest son is in a third-world country where he doesn't speak the native tongue and he sticks out like a sore thumb since he looks much more white than Filipino, and it ain't easy for him, either. And then there was Obama's battle with drugs.
Baronius, just once couldja try walking in someone else's shoes before you judge them?
18 - zingzing
baronius: "Well, Zing, I'm not writing articles about how tough it is to understand President Obama, and I haven't been thrown by some of the things that seem to confuse Sirota and others."
you also wrote something incredibly simple-minded and ridiculous. at the best, it's patronizing. at the worst, it seems the work of a fool.
19 - Cannonshop
#18 but the fool's analysis FITS the phenomena, while your wise men keep being baffled by it.
For instance, B.O.'s Administration commonly blames his immediate predecessor for everything that goes wrong-that's not hyperbole, it's a fact...yet his solutions to foreign policy and domestic economic policy questions inevitably read "What Bush did, but Bigger, and BIGGER, and maybe we'll let the French run one of the new operations, and why won't you people let me raise taxes?"
I mean, people were PISSED about the AIG bailout, then Obie comes along, and does it even BIGGER, less than four months into his first term. We've had a Surge in Af'Stan under Obie, plus two new and exciting fronts opened up in a war that is increasingly becoming a war with the Islamic World, rather than any specific enemy, and lack of reporting on happenings at GitMo doesn't mean that business there has changed materially in the last three years-it just means you're not HEARING about it.
Baronius' analysis fits Obama's actions in office better and better with each marker that comes up.
20 - roger nowosielski
#7 may be wrong in more ways than one, if may be off the mark, more importantly, it may be an account/explanation may people might vehemently disagree with, but it's certainly anything but "incredibly simple-minded and ridiculous ... or the work of a fool." And it's certainly not patronizing ... especially since it's coming from Baronius who rarely if ever can be accused of this fault, even and especially with regard to the President.
So quite characteristically, rather than dealing with an account he disagrees with, Mr.Zkng shoots down the messenger.
Which makes one wonder, which party to this dispute comes across as incredibly simple-minded, patronizing, or (at worst) a fool?
21 - zingzing
"#18 but the fool's analysis FITS the phenomena, while your wise men keep being baffled by it."
but it's not anywhere near the truth. it's just some silly nonsense. how does baronius know what goes on in his head? and how does he know what obama has gone through in his life? how does he presume to know? and that bit on self-awareness... come on. it's junk, and you know it.
and you as well make large stretches and forget a lot of things when you simplify what has happened. the world is complicated. i'm sure you don't think things can be summed up the way you have done. that's called being a hack.
22 - zingzing
So quite characteristically, rather than dealing with an account he disagrees with, Mr. roger shoots down the messenger.
23 - roger nowosielski
In fact, I find it very interesting, if not ingenious, Cannon. Baronius should of course owe up to the possibility that he may in fact be relating this account second-hand, if he's doing so. Otherwise, he should take full credit for a very insightful account.
24 - roger nowosielski
Won't work this time round, zing. Used your own words directed at Baronius and put them in the form of a question.
Your own words, directed at another person under these very specific circumstances, condemn you. I only acted as a court steno.
25 - roger nowosielski
How doe3 Mr. Zing know what's in Obama's heart and mind, other than saying that Baronius doesn't? At least Baronius offered a plausible account as to how he, Baronius, understands the man. It may not be a true account in many respects, it may be true in some others. But Mr. Zing didn't offer us any alternative account or way of understanding the President as a person.. But simply because he dislikes Baronius's account, he calls it simple-minded and a work of a fool. Again, amazing since he's got no alternative to offer as of this writing.