dagblog - Comments for "What the hell is Barack Obama's presidency for?"

I look at an essay like this

Peter Schwartz — Tue, 04 Mar 2014 13:37:56 +0000

In reply to Ramona, I see a large number

I look at an essay like this one as political news. Meaning: this guy who once was a supporter is mightily disappointed in that he didn't get what he thought he was buying. He gave it a considerable amount of time but now feels he should speak out. I wonder how many others out there are like him. And what their disappointment is teaching them about what they will buy next time.

If you think disappointment in Obama--by his supporters--or former supporters--is "political news," then you've been sleeping with Rip Van Winkle.

You wonder "how many others out there are like him"? Even if all you read was Dag, you'd have lost count by now.

It would be interesting to know what this is "teaching" him about what he will buy next time. It would have been interesting to hear him provide insight about anything.

Unfortunately, any sort of insight that might have made this worthwhile article is missing. All we hear is his whine echoing about the great nothingness of his bland, blanket condemnation of the Obama WH.

Although I definitely agree

Verified Atheist — Tue, 04 Mar 2014 13:16:34 +0000

In reply to if it weren't 2014 and we

Although I definitely agree with your first paragraph, and I can't completely disagree with your second paragraph (although I disagree with what I perceive to be the implied "both parties are the same" bit of it), I become increasingly concerned with what you're implying in the 3rd and 4th paragraph. We definitely should keep trying.

We should keep trying to get the best local politicians promoted to higher-level offices.
We should keep trying to get the best politicians to win their primary elections.
We should keep voting for the lesser of two evils^* when that makes sense, as unfortunately is usually the case.
We should keep trying to hold our elected politicians accountable, whether we voted for them or not.

^*Lesser of two evils is an idiom and not to be taken literally. I feel I have to say this, and I also anticipate this caveat being ignored.

(Edited to add 4th point)

if it weren't 2014 and we

Resistance — Mon, 03 Mar 2014 23:01:17 +0000

In reply to If you want to recruit

if it weren't 2014 and we weren't in a battle like the one we're in.

We are always going to be in this battle, because this is how both the left wing and the right wing, of the same vulture; that preys upon the working class, stays in power.

The Capitalist Party; keeping the working class disorganized and attacking one another, takes the focus off of the real controllers of their government.

Allowing the people to have their wishful belief, in a system really geared to serve the vultures interests and not the peasants; keeps the peasants somewhat calm, but heated up enough to fight amongst themselves . The plutocracy knows it isn't threatened, as long as the peasants believe it isn't a futile exercise.

Like some carnival hucksters, who suckers people into playing their games. "Boy you were really close that time; try again"

Michael, based on his

artappraiser — Mon, 03 Mar 2014 20:17:55 +0000

In reply to Sure there are. Elizabeth

Michael,

based on his decades-long polling experience, Andrew Kohut of Pew/Gallup argued in Feb. 28 op-ed WaPo that Democrats already have been getting more liberal; might be of some interest to you to counter or agree or inbetween. It is nuanced, he compares with GOP, reflects on how the power in the Dem party still rests with moderates & conservatives but is heading in a more liberal direction, how GOP still seen as more extremist, etc.

Who are you talking about

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 02 Mar 2014 21:28:45 +0000

In reply to ...If the progressive

Who are you talking about here, Peter?

The easy answer to this "us" is this:

I'm talking about all the people who care about a list of issues--everything from abortion rights to voting rights--and who agree with the stance on those issues which Democrats generally take...and which Republicans almost always oppose.

Please note the word "generally."

Unfortunately, we're now at a place where the person's party counts as much or more than the individual. "Moderate Republicans," as it were, have been neutered and driven from the party and Congress. Nor do the remaining ones tend to rebel when they don't like the leadership's position, unless they are further to the right than the leadership. Voting for an individual Republican, however much one may like him or her individually, simply gives the TP one more vote in Congress.

On the Democratic side, you don't find this. If you like independent-minded folks, you will find them on the Democratic side--which is another reason I support the party and its candidates. To the degree they have any party discipline, they promote programs and issues I support and can block harmful GOP moves.

Let's discuss "loyal

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 02 Mar 2014 02:31:13 +0000

In reply to Younge does note

Let's discuss "loyal shill-dom" whether hyperbolic or not.

AA sets up a dichotomy between the Democratic Party and the ordinary voter. On one side, you have operatives like Axelrod and his minions...on the other side, you have the average voter who gets to decide whom to vote for at election time.

AA seems to get agitated when ordinary voters take part in politics beyond just voting or blogging and actively try to get their candidate elected or re-elected. Or even defend their candidate against criticism they feel is unjust or slanted. To her, this is doing Axelrod's job for him and, somehow, distasteful to her.

But this is a ridiculous dichotomy.

I vote Democratic for a very simple reason: In general, Democrats support positions on key issues that I support. And I support these positions because I think they are good for me, people I know, and for we, the country, IMHO, of course. I also support these candidates because they counter other politicians whose positions are abhorrent to me and which are bad for we, the country, IMHO.

It would be silly for me not to argue for the policies and candidates I support. This isn't "shilling"...it's supporting, being engaged. If AA brings up nonsense criticism of Obamacare, I don't have a problem pointing it out. Her constant refrain that it's settled law and doesn't need defense has some merit but largely ignores the last five years of our political history. In fact, one of the reasons the program has had problems is the active opposition to it in quite a few states and in the House, which has tried with ever fiber of its being to find ways to make it fail.

So let's get to Younge. Younge's article regurgitates the same litany of complaints about Obama we've heard now forever, but wraps them in a bow with the headline: Obama doesn't stand for anything. This has also been said forever, but it's Younge's only attempt at originality so it deserves a little time.

Maybe it's the hour, but I honestly don't know what this criticism means or amounts to. I'm trying to ponder it, but nothing comes. He's president, not an advertising slogan. He set out a bunch of goals, some of which he's met, others of which he hasn't. In some cases, he's made contrary decisions. Some of these decisions have been very disappointing.

So what?

But what light does Younge shed on any of this? None. There are a million things Younge could have assayed about any of these disappointing decisions that could have illuminated some or all of them. Instead, we get this great nothingness about Obama not standing for anything. For my money, you could almost lay this one down right alongside "Barry, the communist, is dismantling our way of life."

However, you are also

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 02 Mar 2014 01:43:12 +0000

In reply to Younge does note

However, you are also unwilling--or unable--to address critiques of your critique.

Yes. 100%.

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 02 Mar 2014 01:41:04 +0000

In reply to AA, my point from the very

Yes. 100%.

That was your argument, and

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 02 Mar 2014 01:02:30 +0000

In reply to That was part of my argument

That was your argument, and that's what I said...in my first subordinate clause.

So here I am, accepting some of your arguments, at least arguendo, and you're still complaining.

Michael, you're a far more

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 02 Mar 2014 00:43:23 +0000

In reply to Peter, I agree with you

Michael, you're a far more knowledgeable student of electoral politics, and the history of same, than I am, but here are things I'd note:

• I don't think we want to follow the example of TP because they've boxed their party into a corner from which it will be hard to emerge. They don't have a national message they can win with. Ted Cruz talks a lot, but how much does he get done, other than hold things up and eventually lose?

• The only reason they've gained traction, as far as I can see, is that they've played hard at the state level and then basically gerrymandered the hell out of the state. This allows them to send very unrepresentative representatives to Congress. They're a bunch of hot house flowers who can't survive outside of the green house.

• I could be wrong about this, but within the TP, they stay on message. Maybe they eat their own, too. Not sure.

• AA would be even unhappier because she already thinks there's too much party discipline and ideological purity tests in the Democratic party or among progressives. Wait until she meets the Democratic "Ted Cruz" wherever he or she is.

• At the risk of incurring the wrath of Big Foot from Canada once again, I think the GOP has an easier job of it. Their principle duty is to stand athwart history and yell, "Stop!" There's very little of a constructive nature that they want to do. They want the government to do less. Blocking legislation is easier than, say, passing health reform. So they can afford to be steered by a bunch of yahoos with bad breath. The Democrats can't.