UNDER ADVICE OF FRIENDS...
In both Matthew and Luke, we find well know variations on the following theme: Ask and Ye Shall Receive. It should not have surprised me then, that in asking liberal Democrats to “let me have it” in response to my last blog, which was highly critical of Obama, I was soundly hammered. The criticisms were of two basic types: Notably feeble attempts to defend those actions of Obama that I had criticized, which I ignored, and serious suggestions that perhaps anger and/or frustration were clouding both my perspective and efficacy. Some of my closest and most trusted friends were among the latter genre of critics, forcing me to seriously reconsider both my writing style and the accuracy of my perceptions.
As for the accuracy of my perceptions, after lengthy deliberation, I have concluded that while I am angry when it comes to my disappointment with Obama, my criticisms of his actions thus far in office, are indeed legitimate and accurate, however much said criticisms may offend liberal Democrats. Regarding my vitriolic style, however, perhaps I am losing “street cred” with the liberals, “turning them off” as it were, to the point where, so I am told, some old friends have suggested I’m no longer the liberal I used to be. If they mean that I’ve become conservative, it’s a silly notion, but if they mean that I’ve moved unrealistically far to the left, I can only respond that one ought, in my meager opinion, speak with an idealistic fervor, while being willing to compromise in action, when it comes to politics, except when supposedly necessary compromises in turn compromise one’s moral decency.
I confess to wondering how much friends and liberals are turned off by the admittedly sometimes bitter manner of my criticism and how much they are turned off because I’ve, over the course of several blogs, presented some essentially irrefutable evidence of dramatically non-progressive things that Obama has done in office. Calling him The Savior is admittedly not constructive, and I plead guilty to having succumbed to political anger in response to far too many Democrats blindly supporting the current president, no matter how non-progressive, and in many instances (particularly civil liberties, secrecy in government, and boondoggles to large corporations), downright conservative his actions have been.
Nonetheless, believing Einstein was correct when he said that “one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true,” I agree that I have been gratuitously and self-defeatingly harsh in the tone (but not the substance) of what I have written about President Obama. (One friend claimed that I had written “fuck you” to critics of my criticism of him, to which I replied that I would never write such a thing in a blog. It turns out that I did not write it in that context, but two years ago, in a withering condemnation of right wing lunacy, I closed the column by saying “fuck you” to right-wing crazies. There is no place for such nastiness in political discourse, and I both apologize for posting that remark and promise to henceforth leave such tactics to the likes of Dick Cheney.)
I am also frequently told that I turn people off by never mentioning anything good that Obama has done. Let me do so now. I just learned from a friend that, thanks to this president, if one is laid off, she or he only has to pay 35% of Cobra costs for the first nine months. In his first two days in office, President Obama issued two executive orders regarding Bush’s secret maintenance of information. The first reversed Bush restrictions of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) access, thereby giving citizens greater access once more, to government and presidential information, and the second reversed Bush’s notorious executive order that allowed a president to keep information secret after his or her term, thus requiring former presidents to sue for the right to do so, under a strong burden of proof. Also in his first week in office, to me, by far his best (meaning most progressive) week, he reversed Bush’s denial (through the EPA) to states, especially California – which is not only the most populous state, but also an important transportation trend-setter – the right to set their own auto emissions and fuel efficiency standards beyond those required by federal rules.
He also ordered Gitmo closed by late January, 2010, although critics from both sides question the wisdom of what he plans to do with the prisoners now residing there. In his initially proposed stimulus package, Obama called for $150 billion in new federal spending for school districts, child care centers and universities. Without question, the man has done good things. My question, however, is if I am so readily willing to admit he’s done good things in office, why are most liberal Democrats so loathe to, or even incapable of admitting that he has also done bad things in office (and that it is intellectually permissible to argue that the severity of the bad things outweigh the benefits of the good ones)?
Naomi Klein says it is because we are in love with him, and love is stupid. To which I add that we needed a Savior, so we invented one. We are not only entitled, but obliged as vigilant and progressive citizens, to watch what he does as closely as what he says, and hold his feet to the fire when he is wanting. As Howard Zinn wrote in the May, 2009 issue of The Progressive, “Our job is not to give him a blank check or simply be cheerleaders. It was good that we were cheerleaders while he was running for office, but it’s not good to be cheerleaders now.” We must see what is before us, not what we want to see. If the guy or woman shows no signs of liking you, he or she probably doesn’t like you. If you’re not playing piano reasonably well after a few years of lessons, you probably won’t make it to Carnegie Hall, no matter how much you practice. If the President of the United States continues to act in importantly non-progressive ways, for say a couple more years, he’s probably not a progressive President.
It doesn’t matter how much my critique of Obama bothers people. What matters is what he does. Before his election, Obama said, “It’s not enough to get out of Iraq; we have to get out of the mindset that led us into Iraq.” Do you, his loyal liberal supporters, truly believe that the President is getting us out of the mindset that led us into Iraq? This column is not to argue substantive specifics, but here I ask you, rather than replying with platitudes about how much better than the alternative he is, if you really think he is acting with a mindset other than the one that led us into Iraq. From where I sit, Mr. Obama is exacting the quintessence of the Iraq mindset with his policies in Afghanistan.
To my twelve or thirteen readers, I offer the following proposition: I will do my level best to set aside my prejudices against the man and write of Mr. Obama without anger, hostility or bitterness, if you in turn, will set aside your unquestioning approval of him and rationalizations in defense of his policies, taking a long hard look to see if he is really doing the things you wanted when you voted for him last November 4th. Then perhaps we can have a constructive conversation about Barack Obama and in the areas where we agree he is wanting, work together to fulfill our civic duty to make him become a better President.
July 4, 2009
As for the accuracy of my perceptions, after lengthy deliberation, I have concluded that while I am angry when it comes to my disappointment with Obama, my criticisms of his actions thus far in office, are indeed legitimate and accurate, however much said criticisms may offend liberal Democrats. Regarding my vitriolic style, however, perhaps I am losing “street cred” with the liberals, “turning them off” as it were, to the point where, so I am told, some old friends have suggested I’m no longer the liberal I used to be. If they mean that I’ve become conservative, it’s a silly notion, but if they mean that I’ve moved unrealistically far to the left, I can only respond that one ought, in my meager opinion, speak with an idealistic fervor, while being willing to compromise in action, when it comes to politics, except when supposedly necessary compromises in turn compromise one’s moral decency.
I confess to wondering how much friends and liberals are turned off by the admittedly sometimes bitter manner of my criticism and how much they are turned off because I’ve, over the course of several blogs, presented some essentially irrefutable evidence of dramatically non-progressive things that Obama has done in office. Calling him The Savior is admittedly not constructive, and I plead guilty to having succumbed to political anger in response to far too many Democrats blindly supporting the current president, no matter how non-progressive, and in many instances (particularly civil liberties, secrecy in government, and boondoggles to large corporations), downright conservative his actions have been.
Nonetheless, believing Einstein was correct when he said that “one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true,” I agree that I have been gratuitously and self-defeatingly harsh in the tone (but not the substance) of what I have written about President Obama. (One friend claimed that I had written “fuck you” to critics of my criticism of him, to which I replied that I would never write such a thing in a blog. It turns out that I did not write it in that context, but two years ago, in a withering condemnation of right wing lunacy, I closed the column by saying “fuck you” to right-wing crazies. There is no place for such nastiness in political discourse, and I both apologize for posting that remark and promise to henceforth leave such tactics to the likes of Dick Cheney.)
I am also frequently told that I turn people off by never mentioning anything good that Obama has done. Let me do so now. I just learned from a friend that, thanks to this president, if one is laid off, she or he only has to pay 35% of Cobra costs for the first nine months. In his first two days in office, President Obama issued two executive orders regarding Bush’s secret maintenance of information. The first reversed Bush restrictions of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) access, thereby giving citizens greater access once more, to government and presidential information, and the second reversed Bush’s notorious executive order that allowed a president to keep information secret after his or her term, thus requiring former presidents to sue for the right to do so, under a strong burden of proof. Also in his first week in office, to me, by far his best (meaning most progressive) week, he reversed Bush’s denial (through the EPA) to states, especially California – which is not only the most populous state, but also an important transportation trend-setter – the right to set their own auto emissions and fuel efficiency standards beyond those required by federal rules.
He also ordered Gitmo closed by late January, 2010, although critics from both sides question the wisdom of what he plans to do with the prisoners now residing there. In his initially proposed stimulus package, Obama called for $150 billion in new federal spending for school districts, child care centers and universities. Without question, the man has done good things. My question, however, is if I am so readily willing to admit he’s done good things in office, why are most liberal Democrats so loathe to, or even incapable of admitting that he has also done bad things in office (and that it is intellectually permissible to argue that the severity of the bad things outweigh the benefits of the good ones)?
Naomi Klein says it is because we are in love with him, and love is stupid. To which I add that we needed a Savior, so we invented one. We are not only entitled, but obliged as vigilant and progressive citizens, to watch what he does as closely as what he says, and hold his feet to the fire when he is wanting. As Howard Zinn wrote in the May, 2009 issue of The Progressive, “Our job is not to give him a blank check or simply be cheerleaders. It was good that we were cheerleaders while he was running for office, but it’s not good to be cheerleaders now.” We must see what is before us, not what we want to see. If the guy or woman shows no signs of liking you, he or she probably doesn’t like you. If you’re not playing piano reasonably well after a few years of lessons, you probably won’t make it to Carnegie Hall, no matter how much you practice. If the President of the United States continues to act in importantly non-progressive ways, for say a couple more years, he’s probably not a progressive President.
It doesn’t matter how much my critique of Obama bothers people. What matters is what he does. Before his election, Obama said, “It’s not enough to get out of Iraq; we have to get out of the mindset that led us into Iraq.” Do you, his loyal liberal supporters, truly believe that the President is getting us out of the mindset that led us into Iraq? This column is not to argue substantive specifics, but here I ask you, rather than replying with platitudes about how much better than the alternative he is, if you really think he is acting with a mindset other than the one that led us into Iraq. From where I sit, Mr. Obama is exacting the quintessence of the Iraq mindset with his policies in Afghanistan.
To my twelve or thirteen readers, I offer the following proposition: I will do my level best to set aside my prejudices against the man and write of Mr. Obama without anger, hostility or bitterness, if you in turn, will set aside your unquestioning approval of him and rationalizations in defense of his policies, taking a long hard look to see if he is really doing the things you wanted when you voted for him last November 4th. Then perhaps we can have a constructive conversation about Barack Obama and in the areas where we agree he is wanting, work together to fulfill our civic duty to make him become a better President.
July 4, 2009
posted by david hoch at 5:35 PM
1 Comments:
Dave,
You are a very learned man. I do not believe that any rational man would deny you your place in Smartsville. When a man, with little to no political clout (in the scheme of things) talks of what he will do when he crosses the threshold of the White House take that like a child off to Harvard telling you how he is going to set the place on fire. I have no doubt the child believes in what he says but when a man with a reputation for winning takes on an institution with a reputation for enduring it is the reputation of the institution that remains in tact.
Wheatman
pclark010@columbus.rr.com
Post a Comment
<< Home