Obama's been taking a lot of hits lately, here and elsewhere, for his cabinet appointments. And it has become clear to me that few are prepared to defend these decisions credibly and often end up inflaming and dividing the community more.
I will get to specific arguments below, but the first thing to understand is that in order have have credibility in an argument, it is essential to demonstrate that you have some grasp on where the person you are trying to convince is coming from.
Many people are new here so they may not understand this, but both Kos the individual and Daily Kos the community have been diametrically opposed to the bogus centrism of the Democratic Leadership Council, Blue Dog Democrats, and people like David Broder for years now. Broderism even became a pejorative expression to convey just how opposed we are.
Since the beginning of Daily Kos time, we have, by a vast majority consensus, been railing against the false notion that to be successful, we need to be more like Republicans.
Instead, we have advocated that Democrats need to be selling a progressive vision - one that reflects the beliefs and values of the majority of Americans, even if they don't call themselves progressives. And it is true, most Americans are far more progressive or liberal on the issues, then their self-identifying labels would suggest.
This is not radical leftism. It is as pragmatic as one can get - start representing the people again on real bread and butter issues, stand up to the lies of the right, be it on trade, the environment, the economy, health care, national security, or protecting the constitution, and do it with fight and determination instead of constantly caving to fear, and we will see a progressive revolution in this country. For the most part, that's been the message coming from Daily Kos for 5 years.
And while many were skeptical of Obama's allegiance to this vision, he won us over with his talk of change, changing the way Washington does business, and his self proclaimed identification as a progressive.
So it should come as no surprise that many in the progressive community are deeply troubled over Obama surrounding himself with our political enemies.
In fact, I can almost guarantee you, if Obama were to have announced his intentions to retain Bush's secretary of defense Robert Gates, back during the primary, we would be talking about the Hillary transition right now.
So while there is a credible defense of these appointments, which I will proceed to shortly, it is entirely unreasonable, indeed offensive, to mock or insult those who are troubled. Obama's really asking a lot from us here. He appears to be doing the exact opposite of everything we've been working for.
BOGUS ARGUMENTS
There are three arguments that I have noticed are the primary defense of Obama's cabinet picks. They are all deeply flawed:
- 'He's not even president yet'
While it is true that he hasn't been officially sworn in, not only has Obama's presidency already begun, but he is in one of the most critical stages of it - constructing his cabinet. Just as elections matter for who we put into office, appointments matter. Obama is building the foundation of his presidency. To claim that we the people have no interests in these cabinet choices until January 20 is absurd.
- 'Trust him, he's really smart.'
If that is your conception of informed citizenry in a Democracy then you and Brittney Spears need to start your own country.
In this country, we are the greatest check on power there is. We criticize our politicians and hold them accountable. That is how democracy works.
Obama is really smart. But we the people are too. And we know when what was sold on the campaign trail and what is delivered after all the votes are cast, are not the same.
You have every right to forfeit your power as an American citizen to express your views and try to affect the decisions of our leaders.
But you have no right to expect, much less demand, that others do so.
- 'We NEED more bipartisanship.'
This is, amazingly enough, an argument we are starting to see pop up here at Daily Kos.
Watch Glenn Greenwald destroy it:
Where is the evidence of the supposed partisan wrangling that we hear so much about? Just examine the question dispassionately. Look at every major Bush initiative, every controversial signature Bush policy over the last eight years, and one finds virtually nothing but massive bipartisan support for them -- the Patriot Act (original enactment and its renewal); the invasion of Afghanistan; the attack on, and ongoing occupation of, Iraq; the Military Commissions Act (authorizing enhanced interrogation techniques, abolishing habeas corpus, and immunizing war criminals); expansions of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom immunity; declaring part of Iran's government to be "terrorists"; our one-sided policy toward Israel; the $700 billion bailout; The No Child Left Behind Act, "bankruptcy reform," and on and on.
Most of those were all enacted with virtually unanimous GOP support and substantial, sometimes overwhelming, Democratic support: the very definition of "bipartisanship." That's just a fact.
What we need is what we voted for: CHANGE. Is Republicans and Democrats coming together to overwhelmingly support legislation that is wrong and bad for our country - not to mention ALWAYS rightwing - really change?
Is it realistic to expect that suddenly Congress is going to do the right thing just because a new president is in office?
Of course not. Change is a change in philosophy. It is a change in policies from the status quo right wing idiocy that has marked not just the last 8 years but the last 30.
Change is the final, and well deserved defeat of the conservative ideology.
That is what this country voted for.
There is one other argument we hear often, but it's not really an argument so I don't count it. It needs to be addressed though so I'll defer to Meteor Blades who, many new people apparently don't realize, is probably the most respected person here:
Obviously, the left isn't above ... (53+ / 0-)
...criticism. If it were, I surely wouldn't be here, where the left gets a pretty good pounding every day.
As for criticism, as I have made clear, the criticism I won't stand for is STFU.
There is a credible argument for these appointments though. And one not made nearly enough.
'Obama is playing chess'
Props to the few others who have made this argument. It IS the argument that should give our progressive brothers and sisters comfort.
To fully grasp what what Obama is up against, you have to understand the way power works. Your elected politicians are not the most powerful people in Washington. Not even close. Our country is run by a many tiered establishment which operates for the most part behind the scenes.
The notion that Obama, on the tide of electoral victory, can just sweep into town and begin unraveling decades of corruption, cronyism, and countless webs of power and control is naive to say the least. The presidency is just not that strong.
Obama has to navigate a labyrinth, fully rigged with land mines, of conflicting interests, few of which share the interests of the American people. This is the game of the century and little of it will be played out on television.
The system Obama has walked into now is old, entrenched, and ruthlessly skilled at protecting itself. Pray for him. For while some are seeking to use him, others are plotting to destroy him as we speak. Remember, Bill Clinton was not a progressive and look at what they did to him.
While I cannot be certain, it is highly likely that Obama is playing master chess with these appointments. Who better to enlist to dramatically change the culture of the Pentagon than one of it's most revered members?
Who better to dismantle the house of Wall Street than one of its architects?
Obama is a genius. And if he's still that community organizer from Chicago, who is fully committed to removing the great injustices of our society, as most local activist are, then his cabinet picks take on an entirely different light.
His plan may not work. And there is an argument that it would have been better to build a mass consensus for radical change by calling out the enemies of change in public, firmly place targets on their back, and let the sparks fly. That's certainly what I've been trying to do for the last 5 years here.
I do think we should give Obama a chance.
-Not because he hasn't had enough time. Only a fool can't see what Obama's up to already, even if we're not clear why.
-And not because we should just trust him. What a dangerous sentiment that is in a democracy. There is no excuse for any sentient, rational being giving themselves over to a political leader. Our politicians are servants. They work for us. We have every right to demand that they perform as promised.
-And certainly not because we need to come together. Washington has been coming together to screw the American people more than we can stand. We didn't just defeat the Republicans in the last election. We defeated an entire way of thinking. That truth cannot perish in a cloud of phony bipartisanship.
No, we should give Obama a chance because he very well could be right. This is the way to pull it off. The easiest way to destroy something is from the inside. And we've got one of our own on the inside now. That doesn't mean we should STFU. I'm merely don't write him off. He very well may surprise us all.