.........TABLE OF CONTENTS.........
PREFACE: In Which I Describe My Movement Away From Daily Kos and the Liberal Bubble
CHAPTER ONE: Whereby I Argue That There Is Indeed A Liberal Bubble
CHAPTER TWO: Whereby I Refudiate Kossacks' Claims of Impotence
CHAPTER THREE: In Which I Make the Argument For a Different Kind of List of Obama Accomplishments
CHAPTER FOUR: Where I Begin a First Draft of This New Kind of List of Obama Accomplishments –- For Your Mocking Pleasure
CHAPTER FIVE: In Which I Argue that Long-Term Narratives are More Important Than Short-Term Narratives
CHAPTER SIX: Whereby I Am Reminded That All Politics Is Personal –- And That Many Liberal Obama Critics Have Always Been Invested In Proving Him Weak
CHAPTER SEVEN: In Which I Declare that, Yes, Obama IS a Liberal
PREFACE: In Which I Describe My Movement Away From Daily Kos and the Liberal Bubble
So much to say -- so little time.
Not that MY time is particularly limited. In fact, I’ve been seriously underemployed (and uninsured) for some years now -- which means I have skin in this game. Today’s political arguments are not abstractions to me.
But after posting diaries here from time to time over the past few years I’ve learned the drill: you do a rapid scan to decide whether I’m on your side or not. Then you move along, perhaps after taking a moment to call me a naïve fool, declaring your particular "last straw" with Obama, case closed, end of argument.
No, I don't blame you. I don’t expect you to spend your valuable time reading every long tome you happen across.
But it's a problem that's reflective of our political culture writ large. Why is it so rare for Obama critics here to address the actual content of reasonable Obama defenses? Is such a debate simply beneath you? Does your ideology mandate that any alternative explanations for Obama's actions be dismissed with instant derision?
This pattern, I believe, is symptomatic of the times we’re living in: the information age allows easy access to the public sphere, but that sphere is now comprised of such a never-ending avalanche of information and opinions that we tend to respond like jackals on meth. Plenty of fierce responsiveness, but not a whole lot of pause for reflection. In true McLuhan fashion, this dynamic actually shapes our ideologies. Now that immediacy has become such a prized commodity in communication, our minds naturally have trouble breaking away from the frenetic rhythms of the 24-hour news cycle. This, I believe, is one of the reasons it's become so difficult to seriously debate "the long view." We're so engulfed by our daily battles that long-term ramifications have become abstractions.
These past couple of weeks have prompted me to be more proactive about how and where I spend my time -- where I go for my daily news and dialogue. To my mind, the liberal bubble –- e.g. Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow –- has become unbalanced with reactivity, and is no longer grounded in the real world.
(To be clear, I'm not someone who draws a false equivalence between MSNBC and Fox News. And I am capable of being amused by Olbermann's "Worst Person in the World" segment. But I think the professional left loses its bearings when it decides to go to war against its most powerful ally -- the president -- in unproductive displays of independence.)
Ostensibly a Democratic community, Daily Kos now sees itself as chief guardian of a single strand of progressive ideology. And by ideology, really, I’m talking more about strategic and tactical vision. Yes, I know I’m not the only voice of dissent here, but the moderators and front-pagers set a tone of closed-mindedness to other perspectives. Those of us who believe in Obama's "long view" are consistently bullied by the savvy "experts," who routinely dismiss us as politically clueless. This is usually done with a handy conflation of two very different questions: Is Obama a strategic pragmatist, or is he a moderate/conservative? By equating these two very different qualities, critics refuse to acknowledge that the vision Obama has consistently articulated since he entered public life might just possibly be more than a hopey-changey catch phrase; that he might actually be offering something of great consequence to this nation.
So, for my own health and productivity, I'll be altering my orientation in the public sphere. No big deal. But as a relatively long-term participant in this community, I prefer to post this final diary "for the record," rather than fade away in silence, as some here have suggested people like me ought to do.
CHAPTER ONE: Whereby I Argue That There Is Indeed A Liberal Bubble
As it happens, I have the pleasure of chatting casually with a big diversity of modestly informed citizens on a regular basis -- including many conservatives and libertarians. I confess I sometimes have to struggle not to lose my temper with them, because, as I’ve said, I have skin in this game; so it’s hard for me not to feel personally affected by their anti-government rants. But I’ve come to realize their minds will not be changed merely by hearing my rational arguments. Their convictions simply run too deep. They are, for example, immune to righteous proclamations that it is immoral for huge corporations to get obscenely rich off people’s misfortunes. Because their beliefs are entirely rational to them. Because they truly believe that a for-profit system is the most efficient way to deliver healthcare to the most people. They are not ashamed of their tax-cuts-for-the-rich position, and they do not consider it at odds with their proclamations against deficit spending. Because they genuinely do not consider tax cuts to be spending; they see these things as opposites. Spending is something the government does with our money, whereas tax cuts are something the government doesn't do. These are deep, deep convictions.
Contrary to what many here seem to believe, these people will not be shamed out of their beliefs. They are absolutely convinced they are right. The only way to edge them in another direction is to show them, over time, that another direction actually works. And by time I mean years and decades.
This is clearly the kind of time frame Obama is working with. But you refuse to entertain that he even has a long-term vision. You prefer to team up with the likes of Sarah Palin, mocking his "empty rhetoric," rather than actually debate the long-term goals he's been spelling out since he entered public life.
But my point is that the "professional left" (an apt term, I think, for anyone whose career or ego is so invested in voicing liberal orthodoxy that they’ve grown incapable of seeing the big picture) stubbornly dwell in a liberal bubble, refusing to acknowledge that not all of their political adversaries are as cynical as Glenn Beck. There’s a huge swath of America out there that truly believes conservative approaches and economic libertarian values make the country a better place. They will not be "fought" out of existence. They are just as strong-willed as you are, and they will demand to have their arguments considered with respect. And they will go to war if they feel ignored.
CHAPTER TWO: Whereby I Refudiate Kossacks' Claims of Impotence
Some of you practically hate President Obama, which prevents you from considering his actions with any sympathy whatsoever. Others are ever-eager to define your job as "holding his feet to the fire," which has amounted to a license to relate to him solely on critical terms.
Regarding the former group, I know there’s no chance for dialogue. But I’ve always held out hope the latter group would come to recognize they are, in effect, disempowering themselves.
Here's an example: Whenever I've tried to argue about the importance of political capital –- and how rabid negativity can eat away at that capital (which, in turn, can eat away at substantive policy results –- your response is always the same: nobody pays attention to us bloggers anyway. Apparently you see this site as little more than a place to vent.
Slatsg revealed in a recent diary called "And Now a Word From The Organization of Professional Leftists," that few here embrace the very real roles we play in shaping the public sphere. "This is an uninfluential blog," said Slatsg. "A diversion."
Well, I’m not here to divert myself. I am here to actually participate in the political process. I see this site as a consequential location within the public sphere. A place where arguments are hatched before being adopted by a Keith Olbermann. A place where moods are established before being reported to a mainstream audience by a Chuck Todd. A place where opinions are delineated, massaged, and hardened before being shared with neighbors and co-workers, before being picked up by pollsters, before limiting or expanding real political capital.
In short, I believe this community has far more power than many of its denizens recognize.
Feeling disempowered leads to unfettered nay-saying:
"Why don’t the fucking Dems ever have the balls for Rethug-style politics?!"
This, of course, is a legitimate question which deserves to be reflected here on a regular basis (see Lionel Trilling's perspective on liberalism in Chapter Seven below). But how often do we entertain the parallel question of "Why don’t Kossacks ever have the balls to unify behind their leaders?"
CHAPTER THREE: In Which I Make the Argument For a Different Kind of List of Obama Accomplishments
Every once in awhile we see lists highlighting what Obama has accomplished so far. There’s the popular site, "What The Fuck Has Obama Done So Far." These are good lists –- reminders of a bottom line that we should all review and update regularly. But these lists don’t get to the heart of the man. There’s another kind of list that will be slower to compile –- and, in the short run, easier to ridicule (see Chapter Four). But it’s the kind of list I think historians will draw upon in the coming decades when assessing his presidency, and which will make the next generation proudest of this president.
Please, let’s not forget, we find ourselves in a climate where politics is broken –- where the kneejerk tendency among the fray (those of us not actually burdened with the near-impossible task of governing) is to fight fire with fire, taking on Rethugs as Mad Max took on gangster-terrorists. The thought of actually working to transform political culture now seems quaint to most of us. We’ve dismissed Obama’s determination to do so as facile hopey-changey rhetoric -– empty and, perhaps, cynical. But we see by his actions –- month after month, year after year –- that he is profoundly committed to this problem. This does not make him a centrist or a moderate or a blue dog. Such accusations totally miss the point of this presidency. No, his unyielding commitment to this goal makes him a visionary leader.
The list I suggest we start compiling has to do with Obama’s successes confronting the root of our broken political culture: the fact that no one is willing to take responsibility anymore. Progress is slow-going -- especially given today's climate -- but I think we can start pointing to (and encouraging) the emergence of tiny buds from the frozen ground.
Newark mayor Cory Booker put it well on John King’s CNN show (12/10 – 8:30): "We’ve got to stop looking at politics as a spectator sport in which we give color commentary from the sidelines in the most negative way."
We’ve got to stop looking at politics as a spectator sport in which we give color commentary from the sidelines in the most negative way.
Often when Obama is criticized for being aloof or disengaged it’s clear to me he is actually cajoling other institutions to step up to the plate. Our political system has become so dysfunctional because the ingrained habit of almost all players has become to do nothing but cast blame toward whoever is "in charge."
For example, when asked by the media whether his messaging has been inadequate these past two years, Obama agrees it could have been better. But he reminds those of us cat-calling from the sidelines that time and resources were finite as he worked furiously to keep the country from spiraling into a depression –- and that the media could have stepped in more to help with the messaging.
Think about it. Our media institutions (including much of Daily Kos and Huffington Post and MSNBC) choose to spend the majority of their time dwelling on lazy debates like "Why hasn’t Obama been a better messenger?" instead of jumping in directly to help with the nitty-gritty work of championing policy facts over Fox fiction. In other words, while a president certainly needs to use the bully pulpit, he can’t spend all his time there. He can’t be the only entity responsible for messaging. But those of us who are his natural allies –- and who ought to be picking up the majority of the messaging slack –- have decided instead to spend our air time "holding his feet to the fire" in an unrealistic struggle for ideological purity.
I saw Richard Wolff not long ago on Olbermann, spending almost an entire segment arguing that Obama needed to do a better job promoting the narrative that business has done well during his presidency. Both Wolff and Olbermann were, firstly, conveniently ignoring that they usually tend to devalue Obama’s efforts to bolster business health. But what I found most interesting was Wolff’s framing of the issue. Rather than spend all his time criticizing Obama’s messaging, why didn’t he simply spend all that time correcting the misrepresentations about Obama being anti-business?
I do expect Obama to continue to engage in messaging more effectively –- especially as some of the immediate fires of his first two years gradually subside. But I also expect him to continue to expect the media to tire of their single-minded focus on Obama’s day-to-day effectiveness. Already I see more and more pundits rebelling against this framing (see Lawrence O’Donnell’s excellent new show).
By not pretending he can "do it alone," Obama asks us to make a choice: continue our showboating, complaining, and obstructing, or roll up our sleeves and get to work where we can.
So, knowing that critics will accuse me of rationalizing Obama’s weakness, or attributing accidental progress to his 12-dimensional mind, the list I want to begin compiling is of all the ways Obama prods other players in our political culture to fulfill their responsibilities.
First and foremost, Congress can’t continue to get away with empty posturing (from the left) and total obstructionism (from the right). That’s why Obama doesn’t pretend he’s LBJ, corralling cattle. If we’re to find our way out of today’s political cul de sac, our elected reps are going to have to start figuring out how to get things done. Obama –- even while aware that he is frequently accused of passive leadership –- consistently shows he is attempting to be selective (conservative) about how and when he dominates the debate, encouraging Congress to rise above the posturing that has come to define that institution in recent years. It is inconceivable to me that some of you actually believe Obama could have, in effect, bullied the likes of Lieberman, Nelson, Manchin, Snowe, Lincoln, etc into submission. Or, for that matter, that Hillary could have done so.
A renewed joint ownership of our culture is what Obama is all about. Because he knows that if we continue down our current path, any progressive gains will be small and, perhaps, temporary (as the political pendulum swings back and forth). We say Obama should be willing to play hardball like Republicans. But they are unwilling to be supportive of him the way Fox News is supportive of the GOP. I’m not advocating blind, unlimited support. But we have to be realistic about when and where our critiques are productive.
We –- the professional left –- have, for example, encouraged the House Progressive Caucus to righteously protest Obama’s tax-cut compromise in an act of political theatre that ignores reality. We are contributing to the continued dysfunction of our political culture that sustains itself more with posturing than results. Thankfully, the outrage on the left will not block the president's compromise -- and we're already starting to see positive results beyond the tax-cut/stimulus, as Congress prepares to address other progressive goals that would have been buried in the wake of a sustained, righteous, and unwinnable fight over taxes.
CHAPTER FOUR: Where I Begin a First Draft of This New Kind of List of Obama Accomplishments –- For Your Mocking Pleasure
You like to accuse Obama of twiddling his thumbs while Rome burns, but I see a growing list of institutions large and small gradually figuring out that they need to get more serious about their own involvement in bettering our nation.
Granted, this list will be easy to ridicule. I'm not oblivious to the fact that it's really a list of things Obama is not personally doing. But I believe there is a lot of evidence -- both from his oft-stated priorities about renewing political culture, but also from his frequent reluctance to get involved in everything -- that these examples represent the sort of broadening of responsibility to which Obama believes we need to return.
I’m not attempting to single-handedly create a comprehensive list here. I just want to offer a few examples off the top of my head.
>> President Bill Clinton. When Obama left Clinton alone at the press-room podium Friday, Obama was not only executing a deftly timed political maneuver (aimed at you), he was also exhibiting a consistency of vision. Even more than self-confidence, he was telegraphing -- as he usually does -- that his primary interest is getting things done, rather than getting credit or showboating. Obama fiercely believes we're all in the same boat. His infamous "pragmatism" is really just a way of saying he's determined to do whatever it takes -- and involve whoever is appropriate -- to make sure the boat doesn't sink.
>> David Brock and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend creating new fundraising arm to counter the US Chamber of Commerce. Until something is done about Citizens United, balance is essential –- but achieving this balance cannot be Obama’s responsibility, as he needs to be seen as "president of all the people," not a political hack.
>> Vermont deciding to move toward a single-payer system. It would have been nice if we’d already been able to pass a nationwide single-payer health insurance system, but since that was impossible, a state like Vermont is planting seeds –- made possible by the bipartisan "Empowering States to Innovate Act." If you choose to condemn this laboratory approach as Republican-light, you are cutting off possibilities to expanding healthcare to real people who need it (like me).
>> Dick Lugar. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), is one of the first Republicans to finally start to break with the GOP strategy of incessant obstruction, providing a sign that Obama’s persistent efforts to keep the lines of communication open may be starting to pay off. Lugar recently suggested he could no longer abide his party’s party-line criticisms that Obama won’t listen to them, telling fellow Republicans to stop always being the "party of no." Lugar fears voters will begin to blame Republicans for government not getting anything done.
>> Activist pressure leading to near-consensus on repeal of DADT. Fuck John McCain. We will sooner or later repeal institutionalized bigotry in the military. The pressure has been warranted and welcomed by the president. But that doesn’t mean Obama should have been cowed into alienating old-guard military leaders (to the detriment of other areas of his presidency), losing public support, by ramming through repeal via stop-loss, as so many here have argued. See Adam Winkler’s piece, "Obama's Wily Strategy for Ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'" on Huffpost.
>> Republicans like Charlie Crist and Bob Inglis. Yes, these two are currently without a home, but they represent the coming tide of moderate conservatives fed up with the GOP's obstruction-only strategy as promoted by Fox News. Promoting their "No Labels Rally" on last night's Hardball, Inglis said something that I can't believe any currently serving Republican could say today: "Republicans have good ideas about building wealth and Democrats have good ideas about fairness and rules of the road" (a rough quote). Does anyone here disagree with this statement in the abstract? I doubt it. The real obstacle to these two sides of the political spectrum working together in ways that benefit the nation is not their ideas so much as the political culture we're all stuck in -- which is exactly what Obama is concerned about.
>> Joe Lieberman. A dickhead. But a dickhead Obama was not willing to divorce. A dickhead who is now is playing a major role in the eventual repeal of DADT, and occasionally supports other Democratic initiatives. If he'd been chased out of the party as everyone here (including me) wanted to do, he'd just be one more lock-step Republican.
>> Lawrence O’Donnell, a socialist, and Chris Matthews, a centrist, both served in government, which gives them perspective that renders them fed up with unrealistic, unproductive liberal narratives (Matthews has recently been listing Obama’s legislative accomplishments, while O’Donnell has fiercely taken on the dead-end argument of tax-cut critics). Part of what many here see as Obama’s obtuseness, is simply him waiting out the media. By refusing to get caught up in a day-to-day defense of his messaging, he is refusing to feed the fire of hack narratives. He is trusting that eventually more and more segments of the media will tire of nonstop superficiality. With the tax-cut debate we are starting to see evidence of this movement, as more and more pundits shake their heads at the posturings of an Alan Grayson.
>> Motor Trend. An example of media having the balls to step up to the messaging battle (regarding Rush Limbaugh’s tirade against the Chevy Volt). I read somewhere that this is the sort of messaging Obama ought to be doing. Why? Or, at least, why leave it solely to Obama and the Dems? All manner of media need to start speaking the truth all on their own.
>> Five former secretaries of state writing a letter to the Washington Post to voice support for the new START treaty. Obama, refusing to be shamed into acting like he can handle all messaging himself, allows room for professional diplomats to make themselves relevant again as they choose to state their allegiance to results above partisan politics.
>> Elizabeth Warren. Heading a new consumer financial protection agency –- just one example of new infrastructure designed to systematically delegate a piece of the social justice puzzle.
>> Politicians like Jared Polis (Colorado rep) who initially gained political mileage out of trashing unpopular but necessary initiatives like the auto bailout, but who now are starting to acknowledge they were wrong.
>> Average voters. While cable news likes to milk narratives that paint Obama as being in perennial deep doo-doo (which encourages critics here to bring up the possibility of a 2012 primary challenge), in reality Obama’s standing with the public continues to be "remarkably stable."
>> Democrats in the House and Senate (belatedly) calling for a vote on middle-class tax cuts. This was essential. Unable to round up 60 votes in the Senate, they provided Obama everything he needed to know about whether to pounce on the strongest compromise possible. The vote showed him that any other approach would have been a waste of time –- posturing leading to real people suffering and a weaker economy. So, staying true to his pledge not to bullshit us, Obama delegates the matter to a working group and Joe Biden, who forged a realistic compromise ASAP. It is delusional to believe that Obama could have done or said something to cause seven senators to flip-flop from their recorded vote. So, while the results of the vote were unfortunate, it was, in fact, a successful tactical collaboration between Congress and the administration.
CHAPTER FIVE: In Which I Argue that Long-Term Narratives are More Important Than Short-Term Narratives
Slinkerwink likes to tell this story: "The President does not care about what we in the base think about his rightward shift towards the Republicans." She tirelessly cites every pragmatic decision Obama makes as evidence that he’s a cold-hearted "moderate."
No doubt he would help his standing with Slinkerwink if he railed more often, but there are rational reasons for a president not to get involved in each day’s narrative battles. Political narratives (like the auto bailout) have ups and downs. Eventually people (like Polis) start to see that certain narratives don’t jibe with reality (like "Obama is anti-business"). Sweeping change in a narrative amongst the electorate doesn’t happen overnight because a president shouts at them. Such righteous posturing just causes people to hunker down deeper in their fox holes. Sweeping change occurs as the electorate starts to see long-term results that they find palatable.
Obama has always recognized the value of long-term patience with narratives in flux. This facility was underestimated by both Hillary and John McCain. And it is underestimated by you if you believe his presidency and his goals are finished.
The verdict is still out as to whether his vision will prevail in the end –- whether his tenure will lead to a betterment of political culture. But, whether you think his is a winning strategy or not, it’s paramount that you begin to recognize his is a genuine strategy to confront a horribly intractable status quo, rather than continue to paint him as a weak fool. He may not represent your style and inclinations, but if you have a come-to-jesus conversation with yourself you may start to realize that trying to undermine his goals every step of the way simply cannot be productive. The sooner we acknowledge that he’s actually attempting to address something urgent, the sooner his approach has the potential to yield fruit.
"Are We A Serious People?" That’s the question Al Gore asks, according to Geomoo, who wrote in a critical diary here recently:
Obama is not going to save us. And it's not his fault. We damn well better get serious.... For starters, this means discussing facts, policies, and tactics without resorting to petty, polarizing tactics.
Serious progressives now are asking what are the real-world consequences of the tax-cut compromise –- weighing the harms of the cuts for the rich against the risks of continued battling. See Derek Thompson’s recent Atlantic piece, "Why Liberals Shouldn’t Despair About The Bush Tax Cut Deal."
Again, I’m not calling you a fool if you simply disagree. I’m saying you’re a fool if your righteous indignation is preventing you from even considering opposing arguments that are based in rationality.
CHAPTER SIX: Whereby I Am Reminded That All Politics Is Personal –- And That Many Liberal Obama Critics Have Always Been Invested In Proving Him Weak
When I see Paul Krugman on ABC’s This Week saying of the tax-cut compromise, "I’d be happier if they hadn’t done anything," my jaw drops over his unabashed preference of abstract victories over the suffering of real people. Krugman –- who has carved a cushy life for his family by parlaying his economic sharpness into a career of careless political opining –- is the very definition of someone living in the "liberal bubble." For a man who only in the last decade showed any interest whatsoever in politics, he is remarkably confident of his political prowess.
But then I remember he had very much put his ego on the line during the 2008 primary season when he threw all his chips in for Hillary Clinton.
Yes, all politics is personal.
In a way, this is Hillary v. Barack all over again. Because Obama is leading in exactly the way he promised he would –- prioritizing long-term political culture above short-term political gain.
Many progressives didn’t like the sound of that from the beginning, preferring Hillary’s "fight." Those who castigate him now feel they have all the proof they ever needed that they were right about him all along. Or they never took him at his word in the first place.
(If you don’t believe the Clinton factor is still playing out, you should have seen Ed Shultz’ face on his show Friday when he revealed the results of his daily poll. He was so stunned that a majority of his viewers suddenly supported the tax-cut compromise that he couldn’t even bring himself to state the percentages out loud. This, after his previous polls showed overwhelming opposition. What had changed? Just one thing: President Clinton had joined Obama at the podium earlier that afternoon. Whenever you minimize the Clinton divide, you minimize the demonization of Obama policies.)
CHAPTER SEVEN: In Which I Declare that, Yes, Obama IS a Liberal
Lionel Trilling, in writing about "the liberal imagination" said liberalism is "a large tendency," rather than a concise body of doctrine. In fact, Trilling felt that doctrinaire liberals were just the flip side of doctrinaire conservatives. In other words, the tendency to simplify culture’s complications into black and white, good and bad, is a conservative tendency. Whereas art -– with its investigations into life’s subtleties and gray areas –- reflects liberalism much better than crass politics. Trilling agreed with MLK’s sentiments (later cribbed by Obama) –- that the arc of history naturally and necessarily bends toward justice. These three men all possessed an ultimate faith that liberalism eventually prevails.
To function as de facto conservatives –- that is, fighting conservatives by attempting to disenfranchise them and their opinions –- slows down that general movement toward justice. By sanctimoniously insisting on today’s definition of justice without slowing down enough to engage the opposition may make us feel righteous in our positions, but it is, in fact, an abandonment of big-picture, long-term liberalism.
Yes, taking time to "hear" DADT-repeal objections coming from certain corners of the military means more gay soldiers are unfairly discharged, but, in the long run, it’s an extremely healthy strategy to prevent these opponents from feeling railroaded into dangerous postures based on religious fears. Insisting that the whole process of repeal unfolds as transparently and by-the-book as possible, Obama is lessening the chance that an entire segment of the military population won’t feel ambushed (which could ensure that the negative effects of repeal they predict would be a self-fulfilling prophesy). Just as importantly, Obama is asking other institutions besides the presidency to participate -– the Congress, the courts, the media, the voters, as well as the military leadership. As Defense Sec Gates said, "judicial fiat" would be the most dangerous course of repeal; the very threat of court action is a constructive partner in the process.
When someone like Slinkerwink insists that Obama doesn’t care about the base, she is advancing an unsupportable narrative. Or, rather, it’s only supportable if you totally ignore all the arguments for why he does what he does, if you dismiss his big-picture rhetoric as empty words, rather than focused determination to solve an urgent crisis in our political culture.
Obama cannot spend all his time justifying his strategies and defending his long view. He needs some of us to pick up the slack. But he hints at his long-term goals with great regularity. In his Thanksgiving speech to the troops in Afghanistan he said, "As so many institutions are shirking their responsibilities, the troops are not." This is the central theme of his presidency: encouraging all of us to step up to the plate and participate constructively.