Comedian Bill Cosby once told a great tale about a football team. The coach is prepping the team before the big game, getting them all fired up for the contest. "We're gonna fight!" chants the team. "We're gonna win!" All fired up and rarin' to go, they attempt to leave the locker room - only to discover that the locker room door was locked.
I told you that story to tell you this one. Back in the early days of pop psych, Dr. Eric Berne wrote about a scenario in which two men vying for the attention of a woman are set up to butt heads over her. He called this scheme "Let's You And Him Fight" from the misleading role the object of attention plays with each of the suitors to get them to display the strength of their ardor via an altercation between her knights-errant. While they joust, she decamps with yet another champion. So why do I relate these vignettes? They form a description of why I feel that Barack Obama and his handlers played the American people to win the presidency.
Obama played the role of Cosby's coach. "We're gonna fight for health care! We're gonna fight for worker's rights! We're gonna end all those terrible Bush wars! Yes, we CAN!" All fired up, the people flocked to the polls, only to discover that the door to the political playing field was slammed shut and bricked up tighter than was the victim of Poe's Cask of Amontillado.
Once in office, the Obama strategy shifted to something resembling Berne's. He refused to lead himself, expecting we the people to play the role he had auditioned for. "You voted for me, now get out there and show me you you can do it for me. Go get those Republicans!" while he decamps for his assignation with Wall Street. Hence Rahm's deprecatory description of liberals and progressives.
According to Berne's theory, the advantage to be accrued is in the idea that "honest competition is for suckers" and the betrayal forms the tragicomic distraction necessary for Obama and his crew to show the hucksters of Wall Street that they also know how to scam people. It's as if winning the election and then not delivering on most of their campaign promises was something of a gang initiation. The successful scam probably won Obama a few perks, such as the Nobel Peace Prize (his acceptance of which was a classic slap in the face), and maybe the right to service the banksters in the way they like it best: with Your Money.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Clavos
Very interesting analysis of Obamian strategy, Realist. Much food for thought here.
2 - handyguy
This is not about "Obamian strategy" so much as it is about Realist's disillusionment, which would apply to virtually any politician. American elections are fought and won in the center, and centrist politics will always cause an allergic reaction in purists/true believers on both the left and right.
Realist has told us that he wrote in Ron Paul's name in 2008, but hysterically, loudly, incessantly complains that Obama has betrayed his left/liberal constituency. [This is paradoxical enough in itself, since Paul's domestic policies would look like scorched earth to any left/liberal person.]
But Obama didn't win the election as a liberal. There aren't enough liberals in this country to win a national election. At least half of those who voted for Obama in 2008 were not liberals at all; they were voting for someone new because they were sick of the status quo.
Realist makes the mistake of assuming that everyone thinks like he does. I respect his unique voice, but his shrillness is appalling and, ironically, his total lack of political realism makes his articles irrelevant to the real world.
3 - handyguy
Many of the president's 'betrayals' of his base on issues like Guantanamo were forced on him by the intransigence of Congress. We don't live in a dictatorship, and the president can't get every policy he wants by fiat.
Ironically, the loudest voices in the GOP and Tea Party have insisted on branding this president [who is a centrist by political necessity] as a Radical Socialist, a Tyrant, someone who habitually "apologizes for America," and someone who wasn't even born here and is a secret Muslim.
If Realist could pick someone who could effectively counter that kind of sewer-level political opposition, who would it be? I'm waiting for names. And how, pray tell, would he get these magical saints elected [if they even exist]?
4 - Frank
I was saying all of this before the election. Would anyone listen? Not on your life!
5 - Clavos
Well of course, as a follower, you would see Obama's actions in an entirely different light, handy,
That's what makes politics interesting.
I still see plenty to ponder in the article...
6 - handyguy
I'm a liberal who finds liberal/left activists almost as repellent as the Tea Party. Both groups share the inability to see past the ends of their own noses and deal with the world as it is.
I've quoted this before, but as James Carville once said on CNN: [I'm paraphrasing] "A politician can never win trying to please liberal activists/special interest groups...because there is no way to satisfy them with anything approaching a practical compromise. They will always keep complaining, complaining, complaining."
7 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Read handy's second paragraph in comment #6 very carefully - for trying to please such special interest groups is every bit as futile on the left as it is on the right.
Again - again! - moderation in everything.
You seem to think - indeed, you and other conservatives assume - that we liberals love everything Obama says and does. We don't, not by a long shot. If you ever listened to liberal/progressive radio, you'd find the pundits attacking Obama quite vociferously almost every day.
But the reason why we back him is that he is the lesser of many evils, and there's no one on the Democratic political horizon who is able to win in Obama's absence...except for Hillary, and she's not running.
When you attack Obama, and when I feel your attack is not warranted, I will defend him. That does NOT make me some kind of Obamabot. After all, have you written any articles praising Democratic presidents? No. I've written two on BC containing sincere praise for Republican presidents...and I recommend you take this into account when you sit back and accuse me - and liberals like me - of blind support for Obama or liberal ideals.
8 - zingzing
what the fuck has obama done? i dunno.
whatthefuckhasobamadone.com
there you go, realist. maybe you could look at it this time rather than just go off on some nonsense.
9 - Dr Dreadful
Again - again! - moderation in everything.
The full quote is: "Everything in moderation - including moderation".
This, I think, is where many who supported Obama feel that he's gone wrong.
Compromise is fine, but there are times when it's more appropriate to retrieve one's can opener and break open one's supply of vigorously-assault-buttocks.
10 - Clavos
handy and Glenn,
All I said to handy is that he would naturally see Obama's record with different colored glasses than Realist -- not either an hyperbolic nor an untrue statement -- he does.
As to paragraph 2 of #6:
I agree with Carville, and would add that the same thing can be said about a pol "trying to please [conservative] activists/special interest groups...because there is no way to satisfy them with anything approaching a practical compromise. They will always keep complaining, complaining, complaining."
Give ANY human an inch and they will ALWAYS come back for the mile...
11 - Cannonshop
I don't know, watching a Liberal Democrat re-run George Bush Junior's biggest mistake-cranked, spinal-tap-style, "To Eleven", then watching him sign a bill he backed, but did not read, with a speech claiming it does things it does not do...then seeing him re-tread the endless war concept in yet ANOTHER Arabic-speaking country, I think maybe the people with buyer's remorse on this guy might have a point.
To be fair, though, Realist, Obama Did say, during the campaign, that if he was elected, energy prices would skyrocket....
and they have, so you can't say he doesn't keep ALL his promises.
12 - Baronius
A good rule of thumb: don't put up to malice what can be explained by inexperience and naivete.
13 - handyguy
Doc, even I would like to see more whoop-ass, canned or otherwise, used at least occasionally by the administration.
But Obama seems to find sound-bite politics too cheesy. His on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand, moderate, measured, cautious centrism is part of his law-professor nature.
It seems designed to drive activists nuts, but it will probably get him reelected.
What I don't agree with at all is the paranoid notion, espoused by Realist and others, that he deliberately deceived and betrayed his furthest-left supporters. That is total hogwash [a not-too-appealing flavor of kool-aid].
14 - Costello
Is the Realist name supposed to be ironic? Because you have no realistic view of how government actually works. All presidents have to deal with opposition with people in and out of their party.
15 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc #9 -
Well said!
16 - El Bicho
isn't this the same article who wrote a few days ago?
17 - Baritone
Yes, Realist is back all too soon banging on the same drum with the same tune in mind. I guess he believes if he does this often enough, that people will finally wake up and smell his bitter brew. (Apologies for the mixed metaphor.) You could probably take the 11 comments on his previous article and put them here in tact, and they would make the same sense.
I'm sorry Clav, I don't see anything particularly thought provoking in the article. It is becoming Realist's mantra/rant. Obama has disappointed him, and he's gonna hold his breath in defiance until the evil dark lord is banished from the realm and replaced by his ideal of a left wing Sir Lancelot.
Conservative writers here at BC and elsewhere accused all of us lefties as being adoring, witless Obamabots. Sure, Obama was appealing, kind of like a 2008 political version of a new IPod. But few people - excepting for a few irrepressable zealots - believe that a new IPod or IPad or IPhone is going to solve all of our problems and deliver us to the land of great Scotch and honey. Nor did most of us believe that of Obama. We DID see in him the possibility of something new, and someone far different than W. In that, he has not disappointed.
As I asked in response to Realist's previous article: What president hasn't fallen short of expectations? As is aptly noted above, a lot of what Obama "promised" during his campaign has either fallen far short of the stated goals, or have failed to materialize at all. Certainly, Obama has his failings as do those in his administration. Anyone with a brain knows that 90% of all campaign promises are bullshit regardless of the candidate.
But these shortcomings and failures are also due in no small measure to the total obstructionist actions (and inactions) of Congressional Reps and some Bluedog Dems. Frankly, I don't remember any time when the opposition in Congress has been so totally set against anything and everything coming out of the White House or from the opposition in either or both Houses as the spectacle we've witnessed over the last 2+ years. Nor have I ever witnessed such below the belt tactics as those put forth by Reps at all levels with their relentless attacks on Obama's legitimacy as president and casting aspersions at his heritage and upbringing. The fear and hate mongering have not stopped and are, in fact, being geared up once again as we head into the next election cycle. Thanks to the Newster and others, we now have potential voters out there with visions of Obama and Mau Maus dancing around in their otherwise empty little heads. MAU MAUS? WTF!
I'd love to see the response if Dems stood up in Congress or on say, Meet the Press, and claimed that our illustrious House Speaker actually and purposely mispronounces his name which should be pronounced as Boner not Baner because, afterall, he really IS a Dick. Aw, but that wouldn't be kosher, now would it?
B
18 - Doug Hunter
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
Poor, poor Obama, he only had a vetoproof majority in the senate and a large margin in the house... how was he supposed to do anything with that? And all those poor personal attacks... every democrat was always respectful and honest about Bush.
[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
19 - Clavos
As usual, everything wrong is the fault of the Republicans. We could put Christ, Buddha, Mohammed and Moses all in the White House as a team president and those evil Republicans would fuck it all up.
Yawn.
20 - Baritone
Well, Clav, the same can be said the other way.
Veto proof? Yeah, you got me there. Filibuster proof? Well, no. The Senate Reps made use of that idiotic and arcane rule more than any other Congressional sessions EVER. Effectively, they did the same thing that Wisconsin and Indiana Dems did in their respective legislatures. The repeated use of the filibuster precluded even the possibility of debate, let alone mustering up a vote.
No one I know of seriously questioned W's heritage or citizen status. No one I know of ever cast aspersions against Laura or their kids - except when the latter made news themselves. Michelle and their kids have been the target of several often ugly verbal attacks by the likes of O'Reilly and Limbaugh among others.
21 - Cannonshop
No one I know of seriously questioned W's heritage or citizen status. No one I know of ever cast aspersions against Laura or their kids -
Well, nobody who wasn't a democrat, anyway. (those attacks originated in the hotly-contested Democratic Primary. Blame Hillary-her people were the ones that originated them.)
The favoured Bush oriented themes included "Bushitler", "Little Hitler" and "nazi".
22 - troll
...are you guys seriously going through this partisan bullshit festival again?
party politics is for dweebs and fucknuts
23 - Baritone
"party politics is for dweebs and fucknuts"
Really!
Well, it's what the world turns on - pretty much everywhere. So, I don't know if I qualify as a dweeb or a fucknut - hey, maybe both!
24 - Baronius
People did question whether Bush was legitimately elected, same as Obama. People did criticize Laura and the kids - I've heard some comments about Michelle from the bottom-rung of the Right, but nothing about the kids.
As to the point of the article, I think it was a follow-up to the article of a couple of days earlier. The first one was about opposition to a second term for the President; a lot of the comments accused Realist of unrealistic expectations. In this article, Realist fleshes out what he objected and objects to from Obama. You might not like the message, and I sure don't agree with it, but you can't fault the article as repetitious.
25 - El Bicho
Not exactly the same as Obama. There's a difference between having doubt because of all the political hacks that were involved in the decision, which would have dogged Gore as well if he won, and having doubt how a secret Muslim from another country was elected