I just read bobswern's diary "“President Pushover,” Paul Krugman on Elizabeth Drew’s Latest in the NY Review of Books+". This is not an attack on bobswern. It is, however, a rant on the insidious ludicrousness of what such an article (Krugman's) represents.
Here is yet another opinion piece/person that places the fuss squarely in the place where it least ought to be—the President—instead of attacking the Republicans for everything they're doing to wreck our country.
I thought the home team was supposed to receive vocal support (even when the team is playing poorly, because you know that, given the right tools and conditions, that team will represent for your hometown) while distracting or otherwise helping defeat the opposition?
Speaking about sports, there is some level of punditry that goes on (naturally) when it comes to professional athletes, but for the most part, professional athletes are treated as such—you don't hear a ton of condescending "well, they're playing completely wrong" or holier-than-thou "here's how I would play better". You don't hear a ton of that stuff precisely because people understand those individuals are professionally trained and professionally equipped to make the best decisions they can based on the parameters on the playing field, and because most reasonable individuals know they could not, actually, do a better job at what those professionals do.
Yet when it comes to professional politicians, some with resumes and experience sets many times more formidable than ours, people trip over themselves to over-analyze and one-up nearly everything these professionals do. Now, I'm not saying others don't have (or don't have the right to profess or speak on their) insight into politics, or that they somehow shouldn't express their opinions, because they can and they should (if they believe they ought to). But let's recall that Barack Obama learned political science, studied and practiced law, served as associate attorney, was a state and U.S. senator, and is now, as President, one of the most highly informed individuals on the planet regarding nearly every topic and subtopic of social import, both national and international. Let me borrow a slice of dmitcha's recent and patently superb diary Rise of a New "Confederacy": Race, Privilege and President Obama (POLL)+. Here's a partial CV of Obama's accomplishments (which, I'd like to add, might supersede that of most previous Presidents):
2008 to present President of the United States of America
2009 Recipient, Nobel Peace Prize
2005-2008 U.S. Senator, State of Illinois
2007 Time Magazine: One of the "100 Most Influential People in the World"
2006 The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, Crown Publishers (NY Times Best-Seller)
2005 Time Magazine: One of the "100 Most Influential People in the World"
1997-2004 State Senator, State of Illinois
1995 Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, Times Books (NY Times best-seller, reprint 2004)
1993 to 2002 Associate Attorney, Davis, Miner & Barnhill, Chicago, IL
1992 to 2004 Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, University of Chicago Law School
1991 J.D., Magna Cum Laude, Harvard Law School,
1990 President, Harvard Law Review (first African-American)
1983 B.A., Political Science, Columbia University
Let me repeat: Barack Obama learned political science, studied and practiced law, served as associate attorney, was a state and U.S. senator, and is now, as President, one of the most highly informed individuals on the planet regarding nearly every topic and subtopic of social import, both national and international. So to somehow suggest that he's a "pushover" or to incessantly deconstruct his decision-making as substandard to ours, is, in most cases, in my opinion, extremely self-indulgent, at best.
If I had to put the number of individuals in American society that would be able to actually perform the duties of the Presidency and successfully navigate the complex 4-year web that it entails, I would not say there's more than a few hundred or perhaps 1,000 such people. I don't mean how many people could potentially be President, but rather the number of people that could pull off the 4-year job without quitting, having a nervous breakdown, getting bored with it, making a grievous international fuck-up, or whatever. I think Barack Obama, all relevant attributes considered, would rank in the top percentiles of that list if we could make one. I seriously doubt Paul Krugman would.
That Republicans are hell-bent on destroying America in order to ruin Obama's presidency or legacy (as the first black president or just as an individual they dislike), the rest of us be damned, is not Obama's problem to own; if anything, I think Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives have done little more to support Obama against that Republican affront than to point it out as a footnote, rather than mobilizing to neutralize it.
I'm all for freedom of speech. If you have something to say, then say it. Just keep in mind whether it's self-serving bullshit or has actual merit; if it comes from an informed place based on all the facts, or from a safe, privileged, insulated, and sometimes limited place of punditry.
I suppose history will decide. I sometimes wonder if our actions make the case we profess here on a daily basis, or if history will cast us as a silent impediment to the progress we envisioned when we worked our hearts out for the 2008 election. Because the reality of the matter is, change takes time, is slow to pick up momentum, and requires us to be more persistent and less fickle than the opposition is relentless and sociopolitically backwards.
UPDATE
Since the point of coming on here to begin with is to engage in meaningful debate, I'd like to repost what I consider to be the most nuanced and critically thoughtful comment (and my response) below:
From Duncan Lewis:
I recommended your diary (2+ / 0-)
and see the value in what you say. I am still glad to have such an intelligent person in the White House.
I generally have two competing narratives competing to establish my political landscape.
The first is that our entire system is inherently and institutionally corrupt. Sometimes brilliant people with greatness in them try to accomplish good things within that system. However, that inherent and institutionalized corruption absolutely requires that you play by the systemic rules, or you accomplish nothing. So, the idealistic, brilliant hero makes a choice; play by rules and try to accomplish something, or at least slow the injuries inflicted by those who benefit from corruption.
This kind of compromise is seen by the ideological base as a character flaw and abandonment of the ethics and principles of the party or movement.
Arguably, it may be unfair that this kind of personality gets such a bad rap as a narcissistic opportunist without principles. The person may indeed have principles, and may be the only kind of person capable of accomplishing anything in the system.
The second narrative is that the political system is inherently and institutionally corrupt, that it's design evolves to weed out the decent people early in the process. In this narrative, anyone at the highest level of power is completely corrupt, and that when we see these millionaires battle over how much to cut the safety net, we are being distracted from the real trick, (taking everything) in the same way that a magician uses distraction to obscure the mechanics of his illusion.
Neither scenario is very comforting. What I realized while writing this is that the first narrative could be perceived as the naive one, while the second one is the cynical one. Perhaps I am the cynical one, as even my naive narrative assumes a totally corrupted system.
In the end, I still have to lean towards the first one, as I find it unlikely that every political figure is really Snidely Whiplash, twirling his mustache and laughing evilly while the default train bears down on the economy he has tied to the tracks.
You are certainly right that there are grounds to defend the president, and I have done it myself in comments over the last few days. I also found Elizabeth Drew's perspective unsettling.
What you may be missing is that the president desperately needs his left flank, found here and elsewhere (you can pretty damn sure David Plouffe's people monitor DKOS closely) to be a loud voice and influence dragging him left when he veers right.
Widespread attention to a piece like Drew's might be exactly what Obama needs right now; to know that there is a well-informed segment of voters he requires to win in 2012 that are developing a cynical and apathy-inspiring view of him. If that becomes a threat to his re-election, he might modify his behavior to be more consistent with what his supporters want.
Complex, learning systems are never controlled solely from the top down; they are also influenced by disturbances from the bottom up. Since we can't force the system to behave how we want, we instead disturb it in a manner to nudge it closer to the behavior we want to see.
And my response:
I've read in the past two hours I've spent feverishly responding to things.
However, that inherent and institutionalized corruption absolutely requires that you play by the systemic rules, or you accomplish nothing.
I certainly think this makes for the most parsimonious explanation, and also the one that happens to inspire us to continue believing that something might be possible to achieve in that system.
What you may be missing is that the president desperately needs his left flank, found here and elsewhere (you can pretty damn sure David Plouffe's people monitor DKOS closely) to be a loud voice and influence dragging him left when he veers right.
On this point, I've always been on the fence. On the one hand, he (and any president, or in fact, any country) needs people asking the tough questions and having the tough conversations. But not so much for him/her (President) as much as for themselves (the citizenry). It's one facet of political engagement that is absolutely essential to moving a nation forward. However, I think the concept that Plouffe and Co. "need us" is a sort of quasi-arrogant, self-serving thought that makes us feel good about the ideological work we do here on dKos. Granted, some of us/you actually take action outside of the confines of dKos, but I argue that what Plouffe and Obama actually need—the only thing that actually makes a difference within the timeframe of a Presidency—is for those of us with the ability to organize ourselves do so. There are 300 Million people in the U.S. making under a million dollars, complaining about how good and how much influence the 3 millionaires have it, rather than mobilizing our sizeable numbers to change that imbalance.
The cynicism among some of us on here that you speak of doesn't threaten his re-election as much as it slows the roller-coaster of progress—substantially. I submit that at the canopy level that Obama deals with, the issues are far more complex than it's worth to alter your behavior over a subset of your population being unhappy with your decisions. Insofar as what we all want is progressive change, the only thing that can possibly impact that canopy is if those of us here in the understory work to impact all the levels of government in a way that would allow someone like Obama to make canopy-wide decisions that would have actual support in Congress and the Senate. In this sense, we are both saying the same thing:
Complex, learning systems are never controlled solely from the top down; they are also influenced by disturbances from the bottom up. Since we can't force the system to behave how we want, we instead disturb it in a manner to nudge it closer to the behavior we want to see.
:)
Alright guys, I'm off to go make some music. Enjoy the rest of your weekends and an early Happy Monday to you! Talk soon,
-therehastobeaway