But I also wonder if there is something in his psyche -- either ideological and experiential, as the "community organizer," or in his psychic equilibrium as a black man who grew up in a white world and, while loved and cherished by family beyond common expectation, might still have some deep scars from being 'different' that keep him from standing up to fight when attacked.
Miles Mogulescu of Huffington Post says this about the Obama administration:
What's most shameful is that so-called liberals and progressives like the NAACP national office and the Obama administration would be so frightened of the right that they wouldn't wait even a single 24-hour cable news cycle to investigate whether Shirley Sherrod's hateful accusers were telling the truth, and instead jumped to condemn her and deprive her of her livelihood.There used to be a time when liberals, progressive and civil rights leaders stood up to right-wing bullies like Andrew Breitbart and Fox News, fighting back, sometimes even risking their lives. No more, it seems. Today these chickensh*t liberals run for cover at the first sign of incoming fire from the rightwing media, abandoning fighters like Van Jones, thousands of poor anonymous ACORN members, and now Shirley Sherrod. They seem to have forgotten what every school kid learns on the playground -- If you don't stand up to bullies, you just encourage their continued bullying.
Another HP blogger Russell Simmons wrote this about Obama's allowing gay Lt. Dan Choi, even at this late date in the dismantling of DADT, to be discharged because he has come out:
Mr. President, the time has come for Barack Obama to be Barack Obama. When you know things are not right, we expect you to fix them. We have already lost Van Jones. We might lose Shirley Sherrod. Let us not lose Lt. Dan Choi.
If you don't come out fighting, and take the fight to the right, you'll not only lose elections, but respectfully, also your soul.
Barney Frank is calling on him to have the courage to appoint Elizabeth Warren to head the newly created Consumers Financial Protection Bureau, even if he thinks she can't be confirmed by the senate. First, he says, he's not sure he'd want anybody in this job that could be confirmed by the current senate, given the conservative record of opposition to reform. He goes on to say:
"Secondly, I don't think you give in to the threat of a filibuster. I think you make them do it. There would be such strong support for her that she would get confirmed.
But then he also says that, rather than giving in to the fear that she couldn't be confirmed, he should make a recess appointment, because she is by far the best qualified for the job.
What started my thinking along these lines and determined my noticing these particular commentaries was a letter to the New York Times today by Charles Grant about the Shirley Sherrod's debacle:
The Sherrod affair has unfortunately confirmed my suspicion of the Obama administration: it has no backbone.
The administration seems not to realize that American politics is a contact sport, not a cerebral exercise. An attack demands an immediate counterattack. Smearing Shirley Sharrod was an attack; firing her was not a counterattack, it was a misguided attempt at damage control. . . .
The Sherrod affair shows that the right keeps on attacking, even when it's wrong, and the left keeps on retreating, even when it's right.
I think all of them are right. Temperamentally, I tend to be the way Obama has been acting. But I also see that there are times when that is not what needs to be done. Now is the time he must realize this too -- or his presidency is going to be more limited than it needs be. It's one of the reason he has lost support and could conceivably lose in 2014.
Ralph
These two modes (compromise vs fighting back) are not exactly incompatible. You can negotiate the best deal you think you can get passed by congress. And you can still fight back when the right wing media distort and destroy someone who is right.
ReplyDeleteOf course, they will come back and try to turn the criticism on you, just as Bill O'Reilly is trying to do with Rachel Madow. You've got to be willing to keep coming back and not let them win the propaganda show.
I think this is why there is such a groundswell of support for Elizabeth Warren. We've all seen her on TV, telling the truth, going after the bad guys. This is what we want heading that regulatory body -- not another Tim Geithner who seeks to get the least bad deal he can get for Wall Street.
Ralph, isn't this what I've been so frustrated about all along? Obama seems willing to sell out everything he claims to believe in to appease the right. He doesn't have the courage to stand up to anyone, it seems. You're the psychologist, but it seems to me the lack of a father has to come into play here.
ReplyDeleteAnd I do think Miles is wrong on one point. Mainline liberals, and established liberal organisations may be fearful of opposing Fox, but the Progressives have been standing up to them pretty well - and received nothing but criticism for Obama for that.
richard
Richard, I was making a distinction between negotiating for the best bill you can get passed in a dysfunctional congress -- and fighting back against smears and lies and deceit. You have of course been critical of Obama all along, and I have differed with you because I felt you were not taking into account the realities of what he has to work with in congress.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree about fighting back in the second category -- and, now that Obama has given bipartisanship and negotiating a good try in the first category, and lacking serious efforts on the other side -- I am ready for him to give up on that and use whatever bully pulpit power he has to get the best things done that he can.
As to your disagreement with Miles Mogulescu: of course the progressives who talk mostly to each other and are not in power have been writing and talking all along and fighting back with words. I think who he is referring to as chicken-shit liberals are those who are actually in positions of power in government or influence in the media.
Here is an impression and observation from a Canadian with a limited knowledge and understanding of American politics.
ReplyDeleteYour President was recently in Canada for the G20 World Leadership Conference. 0bama is an impressive figure on the world stage. Perhaps in his diplomatic way, he wisely disengages by choosing to not engage. After all, as President, he holds the trump card?
In vacation bible school, this teacher was explaining how 'turn the other cheek' was what Jesus taught us to do instead of 'an eye for an eye.' I was pretty small, and that 'eye for an eye' thing was plenty scary, sure enough. But the 'turn the other cheek' method on my playground usually resulted in getting a second whack. I asked the teacher about it, but she was just no help. I worried about this dilemma much more than I'd like to admit, and it stayed with me.
ReplyDeleteSome time later, another teacher was talking about Teddy Roosevelt, 'walk softly, and carry a big stick' was how I heard it at the time. Now that was something that might work on the playground. I only had to fight back one time. I lost badly, but was able to suppress tears [at least in public]. I only had that one fight, but it changed things for me - inside and out [I still claim that Teddy Roosevelt is a biblical figure].
I hope that analogy is right about Obama. I expect he's going to have to face off with one of those bullies sooner or later. All he has to do is keep from crying...
Another thing: he's too afraid of speaking spontaneously and making a gaffe. Instead he winds up sounded scripted, because he is. And even sometimes when he is answering questions, he's too cautious in his use of words and winds up sounding scripted, even when he's not.
ReplyDeleteWhen you're in fighting mode, you don't speak as though you're reading it from a script.
Okay, you win. Maybe he needs to cry [just a little bit]...
ReplyDeleteRalph - there's a point you're missing. Obama didn't have to "negotiate for a best bill". He could've rammed one through legally. He had the votes for it, and the public support. He chose not to go that way. He was negotiating for a 'bipartisan' bill because bipartisanship was more important to him than the integrity of legislation.
ReplyDeleterichard
Which bill are you referring to, Richard, and where were the votes for what he didn't push for?
ReplyDeleteYou may be right on the evidence, but my impression was that, say, on the public option bill -- of course there were some votes for it, but do you subtract the votes he would have lost if it was in there?
He could've easily passed healthcare by reconciliation. He needed a simple majority and all the Dems admitted he had that. This was back when 77% of those polled favored the Public Option. He could've passed almost anything he wanted through reconciliation, which was used by Bush 3 times to ram through tax cuts for the wealthy. Bush also used it in a number of other ways.
ReplyDeleteMany progressive Dems did beg Obama to use reconciliation. In every instance he kow-towed to the right and refused. He watered down his bills to appease Republicans who still did not join him.
richard