My apologies for false advertising!!
Actually, this is a meta diary addressing one of the most troubling, chronic, and seemingly irreconcilable divisions within our humble little community.
The split was on full display as recently as Tuesday, with PBS's Frontline as that day's catalyst. (The division was well exemplified in more than one diary -- including within the spirited comment thread of my diary published immediately after the show aired).
My only intent today is to address what seems to be the most fundamental, relevant question coming from my adversaries in this standoff.
It's a fair question, and it's voiced often.
I'll quote directly from one of Tuesday night's participants:
"How can we keep pushing for a progressive agenda if we can't point out where Congress and the president fall short?"
Clearly, there are many here who believe they are simply doing their job as progressive citizens when they hold Obama's feet to the fire -- while naive Obama lovers keep telling them to fall in line and shut up.
Meanwhile, I (and many others) have long argued that there's a fine line between pushing/criticizing Obama (something he has always invited) and kneecapping him. I (and others) have pointed out, for example, how certain vitriolic responses here to Obama's health care reform strategies contributed to a steep slide in his political capital as well as the general approval of "Obamacare."
While none of us thinks the legislation couldn't have been better (or, now, can't be improved upon), many of us believe the sweepingly negative tone directly provided capital to opponents of reform. (One need look no further than the misleading polls -- touted daily by all manner of media -- saying that only thirty-something percent of Americans approved of Obamacare, and giving the impression that only a minority of Americans were interested in a more progressive health care system.)
Which brings me to Debbie Wasserman Schultz today on MSNBC.
Her opposition to Obama's current NASA plan provides a useful example, particularly because the issue, while contentious, is not likely to provoke such an emotional reaction among progressive bloggers here as healthcare -- so, hopefully, her response can be studied in a meta manner, without our getting overly bogged down by the details.
So, again, the question:
How can we argue against our president if we can't point out where we feel he falls short?
Well, let's look at the Wasserman Schultz model.
Did she call Obama a sellout? Did she say she regretted supporting him? Did she say he was a liar? Did she accuse him of being a closet corporatist? A glib egotist? Did she accuse those who support him (e.g. Buzz Aldrin) of having a crush on him, of drinking too much kool-aide? Did she say Obama cared more about his own power than the lives and welfare of all the people whose jobs were directly threatened by his chickenshit lack of leadership?
No. She did not.
While she did argue with him, she did so with a pointedly constructive tone. She treated him as an adversary, while never forgetting that he is, in the larger sense, an ally.
She advocated with some passion for her point of view, but, at the same time, she "commended" the president for listening to all sides. She praised his willingness to compromise (in contrast to Bush's "my way or the highway"). She pointed out that she agreed with certain aspects of Obama's plan, but that she thought it could be made better, both for her constituency and for the future of science and space exploration.
This is the kind of constructive politicking some of us are talking about when we beg progressive critics to push and critique our president without trashing him.
When we trash him, we are contributing to the cluttered, ugly din of voices typified by John McCain, Mitch McConnell, and Sarah Palin.
I realize this last statement is seen by many of you as fighting words. There's hardly any insult here worse than being mentioned in the same breath as a Republican. But I think the polls (if not common sense) demonstrate that there are substantive unintended consequences to crossing the line between critique and kneecapping. Clearly there is a better way.
[FYI -- Wasserman Schultz was interviewed at 12:25 on MSNBC. I don't see any video yet; maybe they'll post it later.]