"Cheerleading for someone because they're on "your team" is appropriate for a sporting event"

[leftchick]

Glenn Greenwald does an excellent piece on the hypocrisy of those who criticize some dissent of any of Obama's policies. I have been beaten up here time and again because I disagree with Obama's economic plan, therefore "I want to see him fail". Which is just nuts.

Great job Glenn!


Glenn Greenwald
Tuesday March 24, 2009 09:14 EDT
A major difference between conservatives and progressives

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

<snip>

It’s certainly true that one has no difficulty finding cult-like liberal veneration for Obama – those who invoke Bible-like "he’s-a-master-of-11-dimensional-chess" clichés to justify whatever he does (the Lord works in mysterious ways but even when we don't understand what He does, we Trust that He is Supremely Good and more Wise than us and knows best); who declare, in Bush-like "with-me-or-against-me" fashion, all critics of Obama to be the Enemy; who pay homage to Kim Jong Il-like imagery such as this and this; who believe that "trust" -- a sentiment appropriate for family and friends but not political leaders -- should be vested in Obama and thus negate any concerns over how he exercises power. Some overly-eager journalists and bloggers are devoted to carrying forth the administration's message (usually delivered anonymously) in exchange for favorable treatment and/our due to a painfully excessive sense of devotion, and there's a Democratic establishment with a built-in machinery to defend Obama no matter what he does.

But outside of those anonymity-granting blogger/journalists and Democratic apparatchiks, these drooling, worshipful, subservient sentiments are largely confined to the fringes. With some exceptions, to find this right-wing-replicating blind loyalty to the Leader, one has to search blog comment sections and obscure diarists. Many -- arguably most -- of the most vocal liberal Bush critics have kept their critical faculties engaged and have been unwilling to sacrifice their political values and principles at the altar of partisan loyalty.

It should be emphasized that mere criticism for its own sake is also not a virtue. Those who reflexively and blindly criticize whatever Obama does (based on the immovable, all-consuming conviction that he is intrinsically Evil) are nothing more than the opposite side of the same mindless coin as those who reflexively and blindly praise whatever Obama does (based on the immovable, all-consuming conviction that he is intrinsically Good). Pre-ordained, overarching judgments of Obama that are detached from his actions and grounded in Manichean caricatures are irrational in equal measure, whether that judgment yields praise or condemnation.

A rational citizen, by definition, praises and supports political leaders only when they do the right thing (regardless of motive), and criticizes and opposes them when they don’t. It's just that simple. Cheerleading for someone because they're on "your team" is appropriate for a sporting event, not for political matters. Political leaders deserve support only to the extent that their actions, on a case-by-case basis, merit that support, and that has largely been the behavior of progressives towards Obama.

[DainBramaged]

1. Democrats, members of the elite circular firing squad

and one wonders why for generations at a a time, the Rethuglicans beat us into submission...............

[ihavenobias]

17. Do you think there's a difference between bashing and constructive criticism?

Do you think there is any merit to constructive criticism? It's not just Krugman and Greenwald, it's many other respected progressives (Joseph Stiglitz being another great example).

Bashing is a problem, of course. But constructive criticism from informed progressives (see above) is important and welcome in my opinion, even if we aren't always happy with what they have to say.

[DainBramaged]

33. We don't constructively criticize anything here

Impatience is the daily meal, with consternation the desert.

[ihavenobias]

36. That's quite a sweeping generalization.

There are plenty of people who express legitimate concern. Unfortunately some are lumping together those that do with those who don't, which makes me question if it's actually the message (not the messenger) that' the issue.

[DainBramaged]

39. A LOT of FAUX Democrats come here and start threads attacking Obama ALL THE TIME

and yes, it is pretty sweeping. Having been here for so long, I see the changes. We are being taken over by Reagan economic apologists, peak oil hand wringers, and lovers of all things Foreign.

Oh, and the Obama Administration doesn't take it's marching orders from DU, we're too dysfunctional.

[ihavenobias]

40. Reagan economic apologists?

The funny thing is, the people I see DEFENDING Geithner and his plans are in a sense, deregulation apologists. How else can you explain the free pass given to TG, Summers, etc.?

That's the initial issue, that our President appointed "centrists" (read pro-corporate, pro-Wall Street, pro-deregulation) to run the economy. Unfortunately Geithner has only added to this reputation with his statements and proposals.

Rallying against this nonsense means rallying AGAINST Reaganomics (massive deregulation, screwing over the tax payer in favor of Wall Street, etc.).

PS---It's not about taking marching order from DU. It's about listening to the top progressive economists in the country (once again, Krugman is not the only one in that camp) who have no hidden agenda to derail the Obama administration.

[napoleon_in_rags]

49. Hey, what's wrong with peak oil hand wringing?

That's one of the hand wringings that makes sense: Alternative energy is not something to wait on till the last minute.

[Cowpunk]

29. It's Called Self-Defense

When the president's men want to rob me to pad their rich buddys' wallets, I fight back.

When my inalienable rights are being threatened by further abuses of executive power, I fight back.

When the president wants to pardon the crimes of those who tried to destroy this country, I fight back.

[DainBramaged]

32. So you must mean the Booshies........

[BobRossi]

2. Amen! Complacency brought us 8 years of shrub.

Sixty days in I'm not impressed.

[liberal N proud]

3. Agreed but...

BUT, there are factors that require us to stand up for the one we elected.

1. If we don't who will? The media spends it's every waking moment along with the GOP trying to take Obama and any policy he develops down.

2. We have to give this NEW President some time to turn around the worst economic disaster in 70+ years. Too many around the country and here on DU as well have the illusion that Obama was going to change things overnight. Once he was in office everything would be fixed with one swoop of the pen. It has only been 65 days.


Other than that, everyone is entitled to their opinion and should feel free to express it as they feel. That was mine on this.

[leftchick]

5. we don't have time to futz around with a rehash of Paulson's plan

That is basically what Geithner's plan is, another do over of the same doomed policy as Krugman explains so well. My beef is he is wasting time listening to the same robber barons that created this mess and not listening to top economists. My family's life is at stake here, literally, we do not have the luxury of time.

In my opinion.

[zipplewrath]

4. Legitimate criticism

It should be emphasized that mere criticism for its own sake is also not a virtue. Those who reflexively and blindly criticize whatever Obama does (based on the immovable, all-consuming conviction that he is intrinsically Evil) are nothing more than the opposite side of the same mindless coin as those who reflexively and blindly praise whatever Obama does (based on the immovable, all-consuming conviction that he is intrinsically Good). Preordained, overarching judgments of Obama that are detached from his actions and grounded in Manichean caricatures are irrational in equal measure, whether that judgment yields praise or condemnation.

I agree with the above statement. However, I might also add the caveat about "criticism for its own sake". Criticism is easy, especially in the absence of complete information. And all economic decisions come with some risk. Much of the criticism I see of any of the economic proposals that come from any source, including Obama, indulge in the easy game of identifying the risks, and presuming that they will occur, and in the worst possible sense. If one is not willing to make a relatively "complete" argument involving comparisons to the alternatives, and some discussion of the possible variations in potential outcome, then to some degree they're just lobbing bombs. If someone wants to criticize a particular feature of some policy action, that's a bit easier (single payer, tax increases, agriculture subsidies) as long as it is JUST about those features. But to declare a large and complex thing like an economic plan, or even the full government budget, based upon one feature is to ignore the larger product, or to extrapolate a single item to the whole budget.

There is the real possibility that there are several possible solutions to the current crisis and that each one has its strengths and weaknesses. Evaluating any of them, merely upon the weaknesses is lazy and cheap. And it ignores the fact that the differences between any two plans may be vastly less than the consequences of arguing about it for a long time. It's not " all-consuming conviction that he is intrinsically Good" to merely suggest that we had about 2 years to discuss and argue these things and in the end this guy was chosen to sort it all out. Asking that evaluation of his actions be done on the basis of a presumption that his goals are consistent with his previously stated intents is not "blindly praise whatever Obama does".

I have criticized Obama before, and I will do it again. However, I will always attempt to either present it as a deviation from those principals upon which he campaigned, or as a potential repeat of previously tried (and failed) attempts in the past. I will not assert some supposed superior knowledge, capability or intellect of myself. That isn't hero worship, that's giving the guy the benefit of the doubt, and half a chance (after 60+ days). I gave Bush at least as much a chance, and I figured he was a loser before he ever started. It would seem that Obama should get at least that much around here.

[Winterblues]

13. While I agree with you in giving the guy a chance

There still has to be some push from the peanut gallery or some things may just get left out. Such as criminal investigations and if needed prosecutions for crimes committed by previous Administration. Obama seems to be dragging his feet very much on this issue and I personally believe it is equally as important as our economic situation. In fact I would venture to say that they are intertwined to the same degree that health care is. The USA signed treaties and made commitments. We are obligated by treaty to investigate war crimes/torture if the one official international body that has been recognized and authorized to give the definitive account of whether there has been torture or not reports there has indeed been torture. that body is the Red Cross and they have indeed made that official report. We are obligated to investigate but IMO it isn't going to happen unless the people make enough noise about it and force Obama's hand. If we do not do this then other countries will question whether any commitments we have made will be fulfilled. That includes any financial commitments we are making or have made. We have to be a nation that is trusted throughout the world and unless we fulfill our commitments we won't be that nation and this is not just an American economic crisis. It is going to take the rest of the world to get things going again.

[zipplewrath]

24. You might be surprised how much I agree

I stated:

"If someone wants to criticize a particular feature of some policy action, that's a bit easier "

And it was about points like this. I am critical of his approach to the criminal actions under the previous administration. I can be critical of that as long as I stick to a few basic rules. 1) I don't try to use it as some evidence that his entire Justice Department is corrupt or politicized. 2) I acknowledge that he did not particularly campaign upon prosecuting or investigating these issues, and was to some degree suggestive that it wouldn't be his first priority. 3) I don't make the criticism from some basis of moral or ethical superiority. 4) There are strong legitimate disincentives that are at work here and that this will be one of these "hard jobs" that makes it to his desk. 5) Historically, these kinds of investigations and/or prosecutions don't bring about the kinds of convictions we all seek (Watergate, Irangate, Plamegate) that we seek. 6) The public and the press can make the entire process a joke.

I'm still willing to make these criticisms in that context. I think a case can still be made DESPITE the reality of the above.

[leftchick]

38. I am so glad you have the luxury of waiting to see what he does

Regarding the economy, are you aware that this Geithner plan is the exact same plan Paulson tried last fall and it failed? It is just tweaked a little here and there but it is essentially the same and lets the criminals off free and we pay for the bad assets, which actually could add up to many trillions.

The prudent approach would be to nationalize them, which is what most economists suggest.....

http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-james-galbraith-geithner-plan-extremely-dangerous-banks-massively-corrupted-2009-3


Professor James Galbraith didn't pull any punches on TechTicker this morning (click videos below). He hates the Geithner plan, calling it "extremely dangerous." He says the banks may game the plan to bid up the prices for their own crap assets and that getting bad assets off their books won't get them lending again.

Like Paul Krugman, Galbraith thinks the FDIC should just put the banks into receivership and have the banks' subordinated bondholders pick up some of the cost of restructuring them.



This fucking around with the wall street solution, already proven a failure, is wasting precious time. Time my family and I do not have.

[zipplewrath]

41. More like no other choice

I'm not an expert by any means. "Dance with the girl that brung ya" and all that.

He does not currently have the authority to "nationalize" AIG. He is seeking it for the future, but the suggestion is that this time has passed. We now are 80% investors in the bank and stand to lose the most. We have nationalized it to the extent we can. And by attempting to sell off the assets in question, we will be nationalizing the assets to a great degree. 90% of those assets have some value, and the intent is to sell them to people who are interested in that value.

The site you point to is interesting in that there are both fans, and detractors of the plans from people all over the poltical and economic map. Which only goes to show that no one has a crystal ball here.

[leftchick]

42. then why is he wasting time

with a Paulson redo?

[leftchick]

59. I never get an answer to this.

:shrug:

[sharp_stick]

6. But whining sure seems popular around here

It's getting boring, probably because the exact same thing is being posted over and over again with slight little changes by the same people.

[DainBramaged]

7. It's the 'look at me' disease' that has contaminated DU

[sharp_stick]

9. Unfortunately I can't seem to stop looking

It's a sickness I think. I know what I'm going to get when I see the subject line, I know I should just ignore it and move on but nope I click on it and I'm dissapointed. Just like I expected to be.

Reminds me of a line from the movie GO! about the Family Circus comic in the paper. Something like... You know you don't want to read it but you have to. Open up the paper and there it is just waiting to suck.

[CrispyQ]

15. "the exact same thing is being posted over and over again"

I've found that to be an increasing issue at DU.

Does anyone search before they post? :grr: No wonder it's so difficult to get coherent discussion on this board - there will be 10+ threads discussing the same frickin' topic in one morning! A variety of good points will be made in more than one of those threads, but because there are so many threads, a thorough discussion rarely ensues.

I have limited internet time. I can't spend a lot of time searching for the thread that has the better discussion. I generally follow the thread I first responded to.

[sharp_stick]

19. Often all in Latest Breaking News with a pile of !!!! n/t

[redqueen]

43. No, it doesn't seem like anyone searches...

just another symptom of the same disease IMO.

[kiva]

8. Well stated.

I've never understood why anyone here would assume that some of Obama's policies wouldn't be criticized. A quick read of DU before the primaries made it clear that there were people here who:
*opposed the war in Iraq
*opposed the war in Afghanistan
*supported single payer health care
*opposed funding faith based programs
*supported gay marriage

Criticism about Obama's handling of these issues isn't 'bashing' him, it's that famous 'holding his feet to the fire' that so many here said they would do after he was elected. All elected officials need this input from the voters.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. Please Don't Confuse Criticism With Knee Jerk Irrational Incessant Whining Ignorant Stupidity.

There's legitimate criticism and then there's the latter. Too often here, we see the latter.

[bahrbearian]

25. Would" thank God it Passed" fall into

the "Knee Jerk Irrational Incessant Whining Ignorant Stupidity" category

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

26. Nope.

But the constant and repetitive use of it by the likes of you would.

[BlooInBloo]

47. The OP isn't *confusing* the two. The former is used as a *cover story* for the latter.

[MadHound]

11. Nice piece, spot on, but be prepared

As you're probably already aware, the Obama cheerleading team will be out in force on this thread trying to shout it down and flame it to ashes.

[leftchick]

12. the beauty of this article

is it is very difficult to argue the logic presented. I really don't feel the need to don my flame suit at this time. But
I could be wrong.

:)

[SlowDownFast]

14. K&R n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Great job?

Anybody who writes a 125 word sentence is trying to be too clever by half.

The chess analogy (not "he’s-a-master-of-11-dimensional-chess") DOES apply. If you don't understand the game, you watch the play and wonder "why did he just sacrifice his knight?" If you do understand it, you can see at least a couple different reasons why. And that doesn't rule out the possibility that it WAS a mistake. To start screaming "Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!" is just as misguided as blind following.

[WeDidIt]

18. Glen Greenwald

<click>

[Political Heretic]

20. Here is the best sentence of at least the last month if not longer:

"Pre-ordained, overarching judgments of Obama that are detached from his actions and grounded in Manichean caricatures are irrational in equal measure, whether that judgment yields praise or condemnation."

I can think right now of one person who is one of the irrational all things Obama are intrinsically good camp, and one person who is from the irrational all things Obama are intrinsically bad camp - and both of them annoy the piss out of me.

[Individualist]

21. K&R

[Lilith Velkor]

22. Fuckin' A.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. It is the responsibility of citizens of a democracy to NOT trust politicians.

The "party loyalists" who applaud, on cue, every decision made by the "leaders" want to forget that the "leaders" (allegedly) work for us, not the captains of industry, the generals in the pentagon, other political cronies, or those who make the largest bribes..er..."campaign contributions".

The government should fear the scrutiny and dissent of it's citizens. It should not expect us to blindly follow the anointed bosses.

[leftchick]

27. want to forget?

You are too kind. I believe they do not even see the relationship between politicians and the robber barons.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Conformity is a hallmark of "party loyalty". The herd instinct in action.

What I always find amusing is that there those who accuse dissenters of "purity" while defending every and any action of the bosses because they have a (D) after their names.

[C......N......C]

28. How do you stand it.

I have read your posts and comments and a lot of the adverse criticism toward you seems to come from a Conservative Republican thought process?

[MadBadger]

30. Now I'm starting to see the other's points against you.

[leftchick]

37. did you read the whole article?

It is not that simple, please don't make me explain it to you. Black/White :eyes:

[flvegan]

34. "...these drooling, worshipful, subservient sentiments..."

So very well put.

[NNN0LHI]

35. Hard to tell what "team" someone is on by reading an anonymous website

Normally there are two teams at sporting events and they wear uniforms so they know who's side everyone is on. We have actual Democrats here as well as a mixture of Nader Nuts, Ron Paul Crazies and Republicans trying to cause trouble.

The point the author attempts to make in the OP is invalid here because of that.

Don

[leftchick]

44. you forgot

leftists/liberals/progressives. The majority of Democrats used to be much more progressive. Before the DLC transformation.

[wyldwolf]

52. yeah, from roughly '68 to '84. 16 years of landslide election losses

[Bjorn Against]

57. And big Democratic losses when the DLC ran things from '94 to '06

[wyldwolf]

58. just how did the DLC "run things" from '94 to 2006?

As I recall, the Democrats won 3 out of 4 presidential elections in that span (which should be '92 - 2006)

[FLAprogressive]

45. Post this in GD:P (aka GD:DLC), where politics is a game and everything is hunky dory so long as the

blue jerseys are winning and you're bound to receive a totally different response.

[leftchick]

48. no can do

I do not have the patience for that.

[FLAprogressive]

53. lol. Neither do I.

[BlooInBloo]

46. (shrug) That's nice. I'm only concerned with the fucking whiners...

who criticize ANYTHING he does.

[Djinn]

50. K & R

If you disliked Bush because of Iraq/Afghanistan, toadying to corporate interests, non support of public healthcare etc then cheering when Democrats doing the same shit makes no friggin sense

[wyldwolf]

51. This is why "Greenwald Progressives" seldom if ever hold any meaningful sway

They simply don't know the definition of loyalty and, if we're using sports analogies, are nothing more than the crazy fans in the stands with painted faces telling everyone how the team should be run and that they'll never buy another ticket unless the coach takes their favorite player off the bench.

[FLAprogressive]

54. I would liken the relationship between today's Democratic Party and those on the left to an abusive

one. Where the people on the left keep coming back every election day....hoping that things will be different.

DLC interests have taken over the party, and you're a prime example of DLC arrogance and contempt for the people who put your stooges into office.

[wyldwolf]

55. I won't argue your first point

The second, of course, you know I disagree. The people who put "my people" into office are the majority of the electorate. I believe the arrogant ones are those who believe they're smarter than the electorate.

I guess time will tell if the progressive movement decides to ever take another serious run at third party politics (the last time you were seriously squashed.)

[leftchick]

56. or a wife beater

btw, very well said. :)

[bertman]

60. Too late to rec, but kicked because Greenwald is correct and thanks to leftchick for

the post.