The premiere of Lawrence O'Donnell's MSNBC show last night provided a great glimpse into the Alice-in-Wonderland-like feedback loop between the progressive pundit class and the progressive base.
Keith Olbermann -- arguably the dean of the "professional left" -- joined O'Donnell in what amounted to a meta conversation about the power struggle for the hearts and minds of base voters.
Of course Olbermann has never shied away from discussing the nuances of political strategy, but when paired with O'Donnell -- someone who has seen the inner machinations of practical politics inside and up close -- Olbermann seemed compelled to reveal his cards in a more transparent manner than ever. In doing so he shows us a dark side of the professional left.
When the discussion turned to the administration's "stop whining" controversy, Olbermann concluded that such "buck up" talk was not going to help get progressives out to the polls. (This part of the conversation seems to have been scrubbed from the MSNBC website, so I can't quote it directly.) There was a clear sense from Olbermann (which was reinforced several times later) that his main reaction to the squabble was more personal than strategic.
Olbermann revealed an ugly side to progressive punditry: at times it is propelled more by professional power plays (whether ideological or emotional) than by pragmatic results.
This matters to me. And not in a theoretical way. Because my life -- like so many others -- is on the line as I await political results. I have no time or patience for battling egos. I had to give up my health insurance several years ago due to spiraling premiums, and I've been seriously underemployed for the past two years. I'm a fifty-year-old man with no current prospects to stop the bleeding. I am counting on results from our imperfect, lackluster, scared politicians.
Later in the show Olbermann acknowledged that he wasn't sure about, for example, whether the Senate's decision to pass up a tax cut fight was strategically smart or not. (He'd spent much time on his own show boldly painting the Dems as hapless, cowardly idiots on the matter.) O'Donnell -- who understands the pragmatic reality of Senate limitations -- exhibited a refreshing lack of certainty on the subject. Olbermann nodded in agreement, but then offered this:
I want to see courage. You [Senate Dems] don't have the courage. I want somebody else. I'll take six years of this idiot and I'll come back to you later.
It's an incredible statement when you think about it. (This part of the interview you can view at MSNBC.com.) Olbermann is saying that, even though he's agnostic about the rationality of Democratic strategy, he's emotionally willing to allow Harry Reid to be defeated in order to teach him a lesson in courage. By extension, I have to conclude, he's willing to cede the Congress to Republicans until Dems learn to cater to his emotional desires.
I do realize Olbermann may think he's merely analyzing the current culture of politics. But when he says progressives won't want to vote after being told to buck up, he's not simply making a prediction. He is part of the feedback loop. His opinion carries great weight among average progressive voters. He cannot ignore the role he plays in shaping day-to-day dynamics. His proclamations fuel indignation among bloggers, etc, until, before you know it, polls show voter enthusiasm way down among progressives -- and those polls are featured on the nightly news. You people who live and breathe this stuff for sport may not realize the degree to which your "whining" shapes the political landscape -- directly impacting my family's prospects for security. I'm afraid someone like Olbermann (who I genuinely like) sometimes allows personal/ego/professional considerations to infect his analysis, which affects my chances of finding full employment and health insurance.
I am not asking him to propagandize dishonestly. But he, along with many others in the pundit class, have made it clear they are savvy enough to recognize the roles they play in shaping political strategy. "Everyone here knows too much about the political process," Olbermann confessed to O'Donnell. "The whining would stop if [Democratic Congressional progress] increased."
There was conscious strategizing in the trashing of healthcare reform. But the (understandable) demands for better reform soon devolved into a widespread cynicism about the entire effort. That cynicism was quite potent, and is still currently handicapping Dems' ability to hold onto Congress.
This is what the professional left does. At its worst, it transforms healthy criticism into cancerous cynicism by hammering us with negativity 24 hours a day -- because, after all, that's what they're paid to do.
Don't get me wrong. I learn a lot from watching Olbermann (and others), and will continue to do so. But I am convinced there are too many comfortably employed members of the professional left (bloggers, pundits, etc) who have cultivated negative -- yes, whining -- voices that provide them an edgy full-time profession which has distanced them from the plights of the real people they presume to care about.
I'm looking forward to seeing more of O'Donnell's show. Hopefully it will continue to provide balance against the destructiveness of, say, Dylan Ratigan, who never misses an opportunity to try to convince viewers that the entirety of politics is corrupt. Just seeing the promos for the two shows is a study in contrasts. While Ratigan tirelessly proclaims himself a fearless truth-teller, exposing a corrupt system that needs to be thrown overboard (sentiments likely to prompt voters to either stay at home or vote for teabaggers), O'Donnell's promos actually exhibit compassion for the people we've hired to try to make some progress in this unwieldy, unpretty system we've all inherited. Hopefully the TV market will support O'Donnell's less destructive model of political discourse.
In summary: If you choose to get pissy when Joe Biden says buck up, and if you channel that pissiness into negativity that is likely to depress voter turnout (whether in yourself or across the country) then you are directly threatening my very welfare.