One thing that has always intrigued me about debating politics on Daily Kos is the types of arguments that people use to express their political views. As someone who has frequently criticized President Obama in several policy areas, I've participated in some illuminating discussion with many users who have disagreed with me. Occasionally, however, I will see arguments in defense of Obama that I think are quite common yet ultimately unpersuasive and unproductive.
With that in mind, I'd like to present my responses to a series of arguments frequently used to defend Obama from progressive political criticism. I consider these arguments to be flawed lines of reasoning that otherwise detract from productive debate. They are related to each other in their own way, and they each take some form of the statements below in bold.
A few notes: 1) Most of my responses will refer to civil liberties since that is where I have my biggest objections to the Obama Administration. 2) Obviously, not everyone who defends Obama from progressive criticism uses the arguments contained herein. 3) I admit to being passionate about the subjects discussed, but I will do my best to explain my responses in as civil a way as I can, and ask others (even those who agree with me) to do the same.
1. "I'm tired of [so-and-so] constantly criticizing Obama with his/her progressive purity."
The "purity" talking point is probably the one that I abhor the most, so I will address it first. At its basic level, this is a method of broadly dismissing certain progressive criticisms of the Obama Administration's policies on the grounds that such criticisms represent unreasonable demands on the President. It's also frequently used to denounce progressive critics as unrealistic ideologues who apparently a) don't think any Obama Administration action is good enough and b) don't take enough time to offer praise of White House policies -- as though there's an expectation to offer praise of policies that one may not like.
But I actually think the "purity" argument does something even worse than that: It reinforces an ideology that is frequently used by conservatives and Republicans. To give one example, Bush Administration officials and its defenders used to argue repeatedly that opposition to things like waterboarding and denial of habeas review were radical, "leftist" positions. Those who criticized the Bush Administration's civil liberties policies were ridiculed by Republicans as extremist liberals who were weakening national security. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has continued the system of denying criminal trials to many suspected terrorists who have been held at Guantanamo and Bagram for several years, even though a majority of those detainees who were granted their day in court have been found to be innocent. Denouncing criticisms of that particular policy as calls for "purity" simply reaffirms the Republican mentality that terrorism is so grave a threat that civil liberties can and should be ignored and violated -- hence why one should ignore the "purists" who object to that ideology.
As another example, Dennis Kucinich was sometimes derided by users during the health care debate as a "purity troll" because he initially hinted he would not vote for a final health care bill that lacked a public option. Occasionally, some users would go even further and advocate that Kucinich should be kicked out of the Democratic Party if he voted against it. Isn't that same mentality -- vote for this bill or get out of the Party -- applying a purity litmus test for which many progressives (and even a few conservatives) regularly criticize Republicans? In fact, how can the demand for a public option possibly be considered "purity" given that it was a policy widely supported by the American public?
To me, "purity" is just another term used to condemn progressives for their principled objections, even when those objections might be legitimately directed at Democrats. It's a fallacy that attempts to redefine and then dismiss policy alternatives that might be considered more progressive than what the President advocates as irrational and unwarranted. I also suspect that many users who brandish the "purity" talking point in response to criticism of the Obama Administration's civil liberties record would have loudly objected when the same policies were adopted previously by the Bush Administration.
Thus, the application of the "purity" fallacy strikes me not only as unpersuasive, but hypocritical. Why is it considered a demand for "purity" when someone voices their strong displeasure with the Obama Administration's civil liberties policies, but it's not considered a demand for "purity" when someone else states that critics should refrain from objecting to them because the President needs our support? Why was it considered "purity" when progressive elected officials like Kucinich stated their objections to the health care bill based on the absence of a public option -- a piece of legislation that the President himself had supported during the campaign -- but it wasn't considered "purity" when there were calls to remove those Democrats from the Party if they voted against it?
(With respect to the health care bill, I'm not arguing that there weren't good reasons to support it -- in fact, I supported its passage myself, although I had many reservations, especially the lack of a public option. It's also worth mentioning that there's nothing wrong with disagreement in and of itself, even with progressive members of Congress like Kucinich. If you think he's wrong on a particular issue, you're at liberty to say so. But to frame his objections to the health care bill as a demand for purity is a fallacious argument that ignores what I believe are legitimate criticisms.)
(Also, I'm curious: For those who advocated throwing Democrats out of the Party for voting against the health care bill, would you have advocated the same thing for Democrats who, say, voted to invade Iraq in 2003? or voted for the re-authorization of Patriot Act? or voted for the 2008 FISA bill that provided retroactive immunity to telecom companies which had illegally spied on American citizens?)
2. "But Obama hasn't given me my pony!"
I won't say too much about the "pony" fallacy since it amounts to nothing more than a broad-brush insult that trivializes issues which are very important to a lot of people. Actually, I'm optimistic that it is falling out of favor, given the massive support I got from the community when I recently asked in a comment that Daily Kos users stop perpetuating it.
So, I will simply reiterate what I wrote in that comment: Policy areas like DADT, war escalation, and the erosion of civil liberties are not petty and inconsequential matters like the President's bowling ability or his favorite bands -- they're incredibly important political subjects that affect millions of people's lives and thus merit substantial discussion. Voicing such criticisms does not make a person a petulant whiner who's demanding a "pony"; it means that person is standing up for his or her political principles.
3. "Good luck getting the legislation you want when the Republicans return to power."
This is a version of something I refer to as the "President Palin" argument, which I partially addressed in a previous diary of mine. The general concept is that progressive criticism of the current Administration is unwarranted because the Republicans are worse than the Democrats, and because such objections give fuel to the Republicans' electoral fortunes -- with the scariest prospect being that Sarah Palin might beat Obama in 2012. The argument is also occasionally employed to criticize users who have declared that they either intend to vote for third party candidates or sit out the election.
For my part, I will be voting in both 2010 and 2012, but I'm a person who believes that there are certain political principles which are far more important than electoral strategy. That President Obama and the Democratic Party are better on the issues than the Republican Party does not excuse the President or the Democrats from advocating, enacting, and executing policies that might be truly bad ones. That Republicans might retake the House in November or defeat Obama in the 2012 election is not a good enough reason for me to refrain from objecting over Obama Administration policies that I don't like. Taken to the argument's extreme, progressives should never object to indefinite detention for civilians not captured on the battlefield, nor the reported program to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process -- because that would somehow increase the risk of the Republicans reclaiming the majority.
It goes without saying that despite the many problems I have with the Democratic Party, I don't think the Republicans represent a better alternative, and it's fine if one wants to argue that refraining from voting altogether is a bad idea. But that's besides the point. The "President Palin" argument is unpersuasive because it's a means of disqualifying objections to Obama Administration's policies -- no matter how odious those policies might be -- on account of the Republicans being a worse choice. Using the fear of Republicans returning to power might or might not be an effective tactic at getting progressives to vote for Democrats, but that does not necessarily say anything about how good the Obama Administration's policies have been, and it most certainly does not justify dismissing progressive objections to them.
(By the way, the fact that we are approaching election day is irrelevant to my overall argument. My philosophy is that bad policy is still bad policy, and legitimate criticism is still legitimate, whether they come in January, July, or October. Additionally, if it turns out in November that there's a substantial voter enthusiasm gap in favor of Republicans, then I'm inclined to believe that would be much more heavily influenced by the Democratic Party's policies and performance than by progressive criticism to them.)
4. "Obama is just one man. He can't just shake a magic wand and change everything all by himself."
Very few people would ever argue that the President has the power to fix every potential problem with the snap of a finger. I, for one, am not laboring under the impression that President Obama is an omnipotent, god-like savior with magical abilities and the power of divine intervention. But by the same token, let's not pretend that the Presidency is a weak and powerless office. Even if he can no longer cast votes in the Senate, that one man in the Office of the President wields great political power with which to influence public opinion, the political debate, electoral races, and his own political party to push for particular policies and legislation. Obama does not have to be omnipotent for that fact to be true.
Another problem with the "magic wand" argument is that it assumes that President Obama is working to change our political culture by fighting for more progressive change, if only in incremental steps. That may be true in some policy areas, but in others that may not always be the case. In fact, in some fields he might actually be exacerbating some of the problems that currently exist in the political realm.
In terms of civil liberties, he has already adopted some of the more reprehensible detention policies of the Bush Administration. During the health care debate, he spent months and months courting the votes of Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins in the name of "bipartisanship" -- long after it was painfully clear that neither of them would support the bill. The White House also worked behind the scenes with the pharmaceutical industry to push health care legislation that would prevent the government from re-negotiating lower drug prices in exchange for Pharma's support for the bill, illustrating the powerful grip that major corporations have on our political system. And let's not forget that when it came to Blanche Lincoln -- only one of the most conservative members of the Senate who has repeatedly worked to impede the Democratic Party's agenda on a countless number of issues, including the public option (which Obama had insisted he had supported) -- the President backed her in the Arkansas primary.
I don't dispute that President Obama was elected and inaugurated under very difficult circumstances in both the domestic and foreign policy arenas, and that there are very complicated problems in our country that will not be fixed overnight. I also don't dispute that he's been dealing with a Republican minority that has uniformly opposed the domestic agenda of the Democratic Party (and constantly threatened to filibuster it, in the case of the Senate). But the complaint isn't that Obama needs to have a "magic wand" or be omnipotent while serving as President -- it's that he shouldn't be enabling the Republicans and reinforcing the ideology that produced many of the systemic problems that our country is currently facing.
5. "Come on, Obama has been President for only [insert X number of months here]."
This argument doesn't appear to be that unreasonable on the surface. It espouses the value of patience, which I think many people would agree is a beneficial characteristic under most circumstances. Of course, when we're talking about issues like DADT or detainment of war prisoners -- in which groups of people have seen their basic human rights and civil liberties either denied or stripped away from them for a very long period of time -- then I think it becomes much harder to justify the concept of patience with each passing day.
But more to the point, I believe the "Obama has been President for only [X amount of time]" argument often misrepresents progressive criticism in at least one fundamental way. Speaking for myself, when I discuss my biggest objections to White House policy -- it's not that I think the Obama Administration isn't moving fast enough in the right direction to address and solve important problems (although I do sometimes find that distressing). The real issue is that I think in several policy areas, they're actually moving in the wrong direction.
I was vehemently opposed to escalating the war in Afghanistan both during and after the campaign season; as President, Obama decided to do exactly that. I support investigating officials in the previous Administration who authorized the brutal treatment of detainees; as President, Obama has declared that we need to "look forward, not backward" (all while the DOJ prosecutes the whistleblowers who exposed such criminal wrongdoing). I support the principle of providing due process to all suspected terrorists who have been arrested far away from the battlefield and locked up for years without constitutional rights at Guantanamo and Bagram; as President, Obama has worked to keep many of those same prisoners locked away indefinitely without criminal trials.
Those are just three examples where I vehemently object to Obama's policy choices. Patience is unquestionably a valuable trait to have in several policy debates, but no amount of it is going to help if the President moves towards and adopts bad policy choices. You might disagree with my criticisms of those particular policies, but that does not change my principle that should progressives be encouraged to advocate for change and register their dissent sooner rather than later when they believe the Obama Administration is doing the wrong thing.
6. "If [insert blogger's name here] is so smart, why doesn't he/she run for President?"
This argument is used from time to time to rebut criticism of the Administration by suggesting that political commentators who voice their objections should not be taken seriously because they aren't elected officials and haven't run for President themselves. Being President is a tough job -- do those pundits really think they could do a better job than Barack Obama? This is a line of reasoning I've seen many times in reference to prominent progressive writers and observers who have been quite critical of President Obama's policies, including (but not limited to) Paul Krugman, Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Jane Hamsher, and Cenk Uygur.
Where I think this argument falls apart is that it perpetually reaffirms authority. Most people will never hold elected office in their lifetimes, but that doesn't mean they can't express a dissenting opinion towards the policies of those who are in office. The precise reason that those prominent voices are offering their objections is because they think there are better policy alternatives to what Congress or the President might be advocating. A person might rationally disagree with what they say or write, but they are not required to run for office for their perspectives to have merit.
Consider these questions: The President receives intelligence briefings about Afghanistan and Iraq, and private citizens don't -- does that mean that private citizens should never question or object to what we're doing in those two countries? Should people refrain from registering their strong criticisms of the health care bill because they don't have an R or a D next to their names? In addition, for those who would argue that progressive critics should run for office themselves since they strongly object to many Administration policies -- were you making the same argument when George Bush was President? After all, if all those liberal and progressive pundits were so upset with the Bush Administration's record, why didn't they run for President?
(And just to clarify -- no, I'm not saying that Obama is equal to or worse than Bush. You can argue that Obama is better than his predecessor in any number of policy areas, but that's immaterial to my argument. The point is that it isn't logical to dismiss other people's political objections on the grounds that they should run for office before their criticisms can be considered valid.)
7. "I'm sick of all the negativity and the anti-Obama hatred on Daily Kos."
I see comments of this nature fairly often. But I should note that there's more than one argument being presented here -- there are actually three of them, each similar to one another and each with its own flaws.
Negativity: This is a common method of framing progressive criticism of the President, in which objections to Obama Administration policy and criticisms for what the Administration has thus far failed to accomplish are characterized as "negative" and destructive to the discussion. The implied converse of the "negativity" frame is that progressive praise of the Administration's accomplishments is therefore viewed as "positive" and constructive to the discussion.
While I think there is value to expressing praise of policies that one likes, I would caution that the "positive vs. negative" dichotomy actually has the potential to serve as a divisive and unproductive barrier for rational debate, particularly when users equate criticisms of Obama Administration policy with inaccurate or inflammatory assertions about Obama, and treat the former as an unwelcome sign of "negativity." Some of those policy criticisms might be perfectly valid. As I mentioned previously, I believe that between progressive objections to Obama Administration policies and the policies themselves, the latter has far bigger potential to create long-term consequences -- hence why I think progressive dissent can and should be considered valuable.
That doesn't mean that all criticisms of the President from progressive observers are necessarily correct, and it's true that some might use inappropriate rhetoric with which to describe their complaints about a policy or users who defend it. However, I nonetheless maintain that encouraging robust debate, expressing rigorous dissent of detrimental policies, and exerting pressure on politicians when warranted (including Obama) are vital functions of democracy. I don't view legitimate objections to Presidential policies as "negativity," but rather as critical thinking. In my opinion, rational discussion of the issues is always a positive thing. Besides, how am I supposed to react to policies like a due process-free assassination program -- which the Administration has defended -- with anything except "negativity"?
Anti-Obama: I've never really understood the validity of the "anti-Obama" label nor its opposite "pro-Obama," at least when they are applied on Daily Kos. I also find it confusing when a person claims that Daily Kos has somehow become a well of vast "anti-Obama" sentiment, given that the President currently enjoys a 76% approval rating among Democrats. However, it's not uncommon to see accusations of a widespread "anti-Obama" mentality among Daily Kos users, which implies that the only reason one might object to the Obama Administration is because he or she is opposed to anything and everything the President advocates simply because he's Barack Obama. That might be an apt description of right-wingers who have stated their wish that Obama fails, but I do not believe that is an appropriate description for most progressives who have expressed displeasure with the President.
Those of us on the left who have been very critical of certain Obama Administration policies are not hoping that he fails -- on the contrary, we want his Administration to be successful, and we also acknowledge that there are accomplishments by the Administration that should be recognized. We just think that there are many policies that Obama has adopted (and many policies that he has not) which will make his Presidency an unsuccessful one unless the Administration changes course.
Hatred: Personally, I find "hatred" to be a pretty strong emotional word that shouldn't really be thrown around so lightly. I really don't know what might lead a person to conclude that progressive criticism of Obama must be based in "hatred" of the man. My suspicion is that many avid supporters of the President view him as someone very close to them, or even as a member of their own family, and are thus very protective against what they perceive as personal attacks. That said, I generally find the "hatred" accusation against Daily Kos users to be overused and fundamentally wrong.
Speaking for myself once again, I don't "hate" Barack Obama. In fact, I don't really have an emotional attachment to the President or any politician for that matter. Frankly, I don't think it's healthy for private citizens to form an emotional bond with their elected officials at all, either in the "positive" (love) or "negative" (hate) direction, since I believe both mentalities serve to prevent rational argument and objective analysis of policy decisions. None of this is to say that a liberal voter cannot have an emotional hatred towards the Democratic President -- it's entirely possible that one can. Similarly, I am not suggesting that an admirer of the President cannot also display critical thinking and good judgment. But I highly doubt that "Obama hatred" is a widely prevalent attitude among Daily Kos users, including the most prominent of progressive critics.
With that in mind, my principle is pretty simple: I will offer praise of policies that I like, and offer criticism of policies that I don't. It has nothing to do with "hatred" of the President. If there's anything about the Obama Administration that I might "hate" (or at least strongly dislike), it would be the policies that I think have already created and will continue to create horrible outcomes, as well as the arguments that Administration officials use to defend them.
**********************************
In conclusion, these particular arguments in defense of the President are quite common, but I generally find them to be unconvincing at best and completely fallacious at worst. Some of these arguments distort progressive criticisms, some misrepresent them, some trivialize them, and some just simply ignore them altogether.
To be perfectly clear, I'm not suggesting that progressives should never voice their agreement with Obama Administration policies of which they approve. In fact, I'll list a few that I like, some quite substantially: I supported the Administration in their efforts to end the ban on stem cell research, prevent criminalization of medical marijuana users, grant hospital visitation rights to gay and lesbian couples, reduce the supply of nuclear weapons, and pressure BP for a $20 billion escrow fund. Further, I am not saying that there aren't any good arguments one might raise to answer objections of the President's policies, nor am I saying that there aren't any bad arguments that a progressive voter might use to criticize the President.
But, one should at least consider how those seven phrases above in bold are uniquely flawed and thus weaken the case of those who employ them. Better arguments promote better debate and a better understanding of the issues -- and in my opinion, the aforementioned arguments in defense of President Obama provide neither of the two.