It was simple really; it came upon me that Barack Obama is a conservative human being.
What does that actually mean and entail ?
What does is mean to be "conservative" Digby says that conservatism can only be failed, but can never fail, but she does not say what it actually means to be conservative.
To me, conservatism means defense of etrenched interests, no matter where they may be found. Religion, business, law, politics, culture, sex, sports, you name it; if it's gone before and espoused by the powerful, conservatives are for keeping it that way. If it's new, exotic, or changing, they are against it, except via extreme incrementalism and plurality when instant payoff is lacking.
Conservatives would rather have "most" people happy, even with some people getting the shaft. Of course, "most people" are people like themselves- the poor and brown can never really have full standing because they never have.
President Obama is a conservative. As an enemy of change, he understands it well- so well that the very word is identified with him . So why is the Republican party of 2010 his natural enemy ? Because they are radicals. He hates that fact, because thats not the Republicanism he believes in.
What does it mean to be liberal? It means you are for change, that you know that when left to themselves, affairs tend strongly to turn out badly for the poor and voiceless. So Obama's other natural enemies are Progressives, because they want major changes, right now. That's not the kind of Democratic operation he believes in either.
Digby thought that yet another essay by a liberal urging Obama to "fight" was just a a dandy insight, but Greenwald has his man.
The "fight" over the Public Option was never a fight at all. Greenwald proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt. The PO was radical change, and if the goal (or some goal) could be achieved without radical change, Obama was all for it. He remains in that exact mold.
Look at Elizabeth Warren. To "fight" for her as head of the CFPB would have meant a recess appointment and then hardball with the new Senate. But since she represents radical change, the fight was not FOR her, the fight is AGAINST her. In that lens, here is more skilled fighting from Obama, although even 'mainstream' blogs are barely aware of it. Yet even in fighting against her brand of change, he vetoed a bill she was against (interstate notatrization), because that veto held the status-quo (of course). That kind of nuance throws almost everyone off in seeing his true axis.
Progressives MUST ADAPT themselves to the reality that Obama is a conservaitve. He always was. Obama "likes Republicans" and wants nothing more than to accomplish some worthy goals while leaving as much intact as possible, which in a way is what Republicanism used to mean before it evolved toward simple treason and sedition.
Adapting means looking for reform that works, but can be framed as incremental. It means giving Obama lanes where he will be comfortable that no major oxes are being gored, or better yet, by framing issues as "deals" right off the top. In some areas, like civil liberties, cutting defense spending, government corruption, and maybe even reopened health care (since health insurance reform is not health care reform) common cause has to be found with at least some conservative voices, because otherwise, the great fighter in the White House won't hear of it.
See, it's easy really !