Skip to main content

Cross-posted at Politics and Other Random Topics

So, here's a good question; whose opinion do you trust regarding whether President Obama has been an effective progressive, Al Giordano's or Paul Rosenberg's? Well, before giving my opinion, let's see both sides of the "disagreement" (well, let's face it, one argument is a lot better than the other, and anyone who knows me will know which side I come out on). More below the fold.

So, here's a good question; whose opinion do you trust regarding whether President Obama has been an effective progressive, Al Giordano's or Paul Rosenberg's? Well, before giving my opinion, let's see both sides of the "disagreement" (well, let's face it, one argument is a lot better than the other, and anyone who knows me will know which side I come out on).

First, here's Rosenberg's piece:

In turn, to understand why Obama [is] potentially such a disaster, we  can look to his career-making speech at the 2004 DNC, which millions of  liberals took as clear evidence that Obama was one of them, while  millions of conservatives drew the same conclusion. It's now clear that  the conservatives were right: with few, if any, exceptions, all his  liberal impulses are expressed in terms of a political and conceptual  framework defined by conservatives.  (Conservatives themselves may not  like his choices, but heck, they'd defeat Ronald Reagan in a primary if  he were alive today--if he didn't pull Charlie Crist on them first.  He  is, in short, a Reagan Democrat.)  And thus he follows the Supreme Court  rules created by conservatives: (1) No ideology on the court. (2) "No  ideology" means "strict constructionism" "calling balls and strikes"  "insert your conservative buzz-phrase here".  He does not challenge the  conservative rules, because he believes in the conservative framework,  here in dealing with the Supreme Court, just as he believes in the  "long war" approach to terrorism, and just as he believes in balancing  the budget, provided that the bottom 99% pay the vast majority of the  bill.

Next, here's Giordano's take:

What has really just happened is conventional media  wisdom has begun to shift, and it looks to me like President Obama is  about to get that honeymoon from the media that all the <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">white</span> previous presidents  got in their first year in office, only a year and some months late.

And that works out real well, too, since it is this  year when midterm Congressional elections will be held in the United  States. Sometimes it makes sense to save the honeymoon for the second  anniversary.

It won’t last – no media honeymoon does – but it  might well endure through November, which would be another triumph in  political timing with positive, real world, consequences.

Even if I didn’t like and admire this President, I  would still be impressed by his temperament, and by the way he plays the  political game. It is worthy of study, and I've learned lots of new  tricks just by watching him in action, and taking notes.

So, who's right? Well, to those who know me, it shouldn't come as any big surprise that I come down on Al's side of this (in fact, I've had plenty of problems with Open Left in the past, particularly a scuffle with David Sirota). Frankly, I don't fully understand why people like Rosenberg, Sirota, or Open Left founder Chris Bowers (who seems to be taking sides in this by blasting anyone who dares criticize that which is Open Left) are so fixated on the notion that Obama is not one of them (sounds eerily like the right-wing fringe, doesn't it?) To be fair, I happen to agree that Obama isn't one of them, Obama, unlike Rosenberg and company, has actually accomplished something for the poor and working class of all races, rather than just complaining about how important their opinion is and how horrible it is when people disagree with it.

Incidentally, this brings up something else that Al mentions:

...[F]or sixteen months, denied the media honeymoon  that every other president always had in his first year in office,The  President has been one hundred percent unflappable. He has not lost his  cool or blown his temper in public, not even once. Instead, Obama set to  work cueing up his legislative priorities and shepherding them, one at a  time, through a difficult Congress, especially hard in the Senate where  40 Republicans plus any one or two conservative Democrats could, as a  minority, block the 100-member chamber from voting on any proposed law.  And on every single law he proposed or backed, he won passage. Let me  repeat that: Every single one. In baseball terms, Obama has batted  1.000. He hasn’t struck out once. Not yet. In a funny way, that  infuriates his naysayers even more.

Whether one agrees with Obama’s positions or not,  one has to give credit that is due: He walks to his own drumbeat and  step by step has gotten big things accomplished.

After all, even in frat house hazing rituals, if  the guy being hazed endures it with grace, he has to be invited into the  fraternity. In that sense some of the current serial hazers have shown  less class than frat boys.

Suddenly – and I suppose the Rand Paul implosion  pinpricked some white liberal consciences to contribute to their sudden  turnaround, because it made it clear just how much of the American  dysfunction is about race – some journalism and opinion column insiders  have begun to consider the cumulative whole of President Obama’s first  sixteen months in office and do some very simple math.

This is why I've always been a big fan of Al Giordano, he's very good at making connections to things that aren't always completely clear (but when he makes them, they always make perfect sense). Speaking as a white guy in a country that tends to be a lot more favorable towards whites than nonwhites,  it's easy to forget how often race explains a lot about what happens in the world, and how easy it is for people like me to forget that for a lot of people, race is more than just an interesting dissertation, it's the way a lot of people are viewed and how they are treated in the world. The same applies to President Obama, and frankly, I suspect that if John Edwards were president right now and accomplished half of what Obama did, Bowers, Sirota, and Rosenberg would be on the forefront championing man-of-the-people President Edwards who is only out for the average worker.

To be fair, I have no idea what the Open Left crowd is really thinking, and for all I know, they'd be just as hard on President Edwards as they have been on President Obama, but it really is interesting that President Obama, who has accomplishments which are on par with Franklin Roosevelt's and with a lot less to work with, is being called a conservative corporatist by college-educated white guys who get to write for a living and not have to actually do any labor or do any real work helping people. For the record, I'm a college educated white guy myself, but I'm certainly not under the delusion that the progressive movement is only made up of people like me. Ultimately, if progressive means what Rosenberg and company seem to believe, then you can count me out, but if progressive means actually working towards the betterment of the poor and working class and not an ego trip for some college-educated white guys (who give the rest of us college-educated white guys a bad name), then count me in!

Originally posted to NMLib on Mon May 24, 2010 at 05:29 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site