I don't see how any ideologue, left or right, will be happy with an administration...

[Writer]

not so wedded to strict ideology. This isn't about liberalism v. conservatism anymore. It's about solutions. It's about pragmatic thinking REGARDLESS of what school of thought it comes from.

Progressives have a point in saying that they helped elect Obama, but so do the many disenchanted Republicans who crossed the aisle to vote for him this year.

If Obama pulls us safely out of Iraq, slows the hemorrhaging economy, and improves our ability to pay for health care, does it REALLY matter whether he makes liberal or conservative choices, or whether his cabinet choices are themselves liberal or conservative?

It's time to transcend the false dichotomy we have been lying to ourselves about for three or four decades! Let's move on.

[EFerrari]

1. The problem is, Obama's handlers have gone out of their way to invite the right

and to try to tamp down the left.

*They* are promoting ideological splits when they use these terms.

[gcomeau]

4. For cripes sake...

Of COURSE you think they're "going out of their way" to invite the right. The right is, BY DEFINITION, "out of their way" so any invitation extended to include them as part of an attempt at bipartisan governance is immediately perceived to be some kind of extraordinary effort to reach in that direction.

Obama's team, on the other hans, ARE the left. There is no goddamn need for them to "go out of their way" to invite themselves to the freaking table. And the accusation that they are "tamping down" the left is idiotic. They are doing no such thing.

[EFerrari]

6. No. I don't "think" that. Rahm issued a press release.

I don't have the power to "think" a press release from his office

And, yes, Obama's handlers are tamping down the "left". Maybe they need you to remind them that they are "the left".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7961547

I had no illusions about Obama's orientation at all. He's doing exactly what I expected him to do and that's fine. His handlers, on the other hand, need to go back to Charm School or, in Rahm's case, need handlers themselves.

[gcomeau]

11. Link the Emanuel press release please.

Why do I have this strong suspicion it doesn't actually say what you interpret it to say?

And yes, I read the linked thread. It was absolutely packed full of pointless hand wringing over nothing. I read Hildebrandt's article. He happens to be exactly right and fully justified in what he said.

[EFerrari]

15. Can't find the press release but this is what the IHT did with it.

Obama reaches out to Republicans


By Jeff Zeleny
Published: November 24, 2008

CHICAGO: In the third week of his transition to power, President-elect Barack Obama is working to build a cordial relationship with Republicans by seeking guidance on policy proposals, asking for advice on appointments and hoping to avoid perceptions of political arrogance given the wide margins of his victory.

Obama has made calls to Republican leaders, and he dispatched Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff, to meet with them on Capitol Hill. He asked Republicans to support his economic recovery plan and was expected Monday to name Timothy Geithner, who worked with the Bush administration, as his choice for Treasury secretary.

And while he has yet to name any Republicans to cabinet positions, he is strongly considering for national security adviser James Jones, a retired Marine general who endorsed Senator John McCain during the election.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/24/america/obama.php

And I seriously don't care if you get it or not.

[gcomeau]

19. So let me get this straight.

The great crime which has you all up in arms is that he asked Republicans TO SUPPORT *HIS* ECONOMIC PLAN? That... and he's <gasp> talking to them and asking them to contribute ideas?

THAT is what you expect us to be all concerned about? THAT is why we're supposed to be wringing our hands in agony over Obama's direction?

Are you completely out of your mind?

[EFerrari]

21. And you expect anyone to take you seriously?

Good grief.

[gcomeau]

28. Yes, actually I do.

I read the article you linked, which I can only assume was meant to be an illustration of your gripe with how the Obama team has been handling things and indulging the right while "tamping down" the left, and I summarized what it contained. The only damn thing it said was that Obama was talking to Republicans, asking them for input, and asked them to support his Economic plan. And that he had dispatched Rahm to make contact there as well (that should be part of his job FYI)

So what the hell exactly is your problem? That he's communicating with the right at all? Name a policy they've convinced him to pursue since the election that causes us problems. Name a specific ACTION they've talked him into taking that negatively impacts your life (and no, "he appointed someone I don't personally like and I think MIGHT do something nasty" doesn't bloody well count unless that person then proceeds to actually DO something harmful.)

[EFerrari]

29. Obviously this is only my problem and not a problem across the left.

And obviously you will be a great recruiter of support for the Obama administration.

Carry on!

[gcomeau]

30. WHAT is only your problem?

I just asked quite directly for you to spell out the nature of your complaint and I get nothing. Or are you now conceding you don't actually have one and were complaining for the sake of complaining?

[EFerrari]

31. See #1.

[gcomeau]

35. Yes Mr. Comic, I SAW #1.

And I responded to it. and there was a series of posts in which I asked you HOW your complaint was substantiated.

Still waiting.

[cali]

14. umm, no. despite that meme

he's done no such thing. Who on the right has he reached out to. Who on the left has he "tamped down"?


It couldn't be clearer that Obama really is eschewing the right/left dichotomy.

[EFerrari]

17. Wear yourself out, cali, and read the thread.

When Rahm is out there reassuring Republicans and this kid is out there telling the "left" to back off, they are indeed promoting division more than their supporters on the left.

[cali]

22. Rahm was also out there telling corporate types that there would have

to be big changes. And talk about totally misinterpreting Hildebrand and taking offense where none was proferred...

this is just so fucking petty and silly and pathetic. Argue issues and policies, not this petty bullshit.

[EFerrari]

23. Sorry, I can't hear you above the gratuitous imprecations. n/t

[Runcible Spoon]

36. I wouldn't use large words around that one.

I appreciated them, however!

[DJ13]

2. In normal times, I would completely agree

But our current mess stems from a right wing orthodoxy that became entrenched in our government (in both party's), so I would hope that we would be smart enough to shun anyone from the past who espoused that right wing orthodoxy in our attempts to repair our country and move us away from this crisis.

[rch35]

5. i definitely understand your feelings, but there is an important distinction.

the problem with dividing everything up between right wing and left wing and the squishy center is that it makes it so that,in a world with vastly more than 3 different kinds of points of view, they are divided into 3 categories. there are many different reasons one can be called right wing, beyond the "social and economic conservative" categories. Milton Friedman, for example, is regarded as a conservative by pretty much everyone (although he calls himself a liberal in Freedom and Capitalism, but thats just because of Americas warped definitions of the words), but his ideas on economic policy are absolutely nothing, nothing at all in even the slightest way comparable to the economic actions of the Bush Administration.

Its in much the same way that some terrorists (true terrorists, not the boogie men the Bush Administration created in the public imagination) call themselves Muslims, and justify it by paying lip service to a particular document, and by warping its ideas and philosophies to justify their crazy goals.

[anonymous171]

53. I would consider myself a pragmatist, and I also agree.

Now is not the time to be lukewarm. Obama needs to be bold and unabashedly leftist if he wants to save America from a devastating depression.

[Uzybone]

3. not to mention close Gitmo and end torture.

call it whatever name you wish, but Obama will be doing what progressives/liberals/ the left have been waiting for for 8 long years.

[mwei924]

7. Obama wouldn't have won without the "middle" either.

So to say that the left is the only indispensable constituency he has is loony.

[EFerrari]

8. Is anyone actually saying that?

That would be loony.

[mwei924]

9. A lot of people are acting like he has to satisfy their every whim..

..because "we put him there!" Well yes, but so did indies and moderate Republicans.

[EFerrari]

16. So, that's a "no", I take it. n/t

[mwei924]

18. What else are they saying when they claim these things?

He picks a moderate for something-- and all of a sudden they act like its the ultimate betrayal. Does that not mean that they want him to cater to their needs more than the moderates and indies?

[EFerrari]

20. Well, it looks this way -- you decide.

The Obama team reaches out to Republicans. (That makes sense. They need to and will need those votes to get anything done, right?) And it gets a lot of press.

Howard Dean is stepping down as DNC Chair and no one from Obama's team talks about his huge contribution or about a possible position for him. Nada.

Along comes this kid who may be replacing Dean, and he shakes his finger at "the left" and tells them Obama is everyone's president -- as if "the left" didn't already know that. As if "the left" hadn't worked their butts off to make sure Obama was everybody's President.

And, stir in, his Cabinet choices have been not only moderate but problematic -- free traders, deregulaters, defenders of Bush's torture policy, people who helped twist the Iraq intel.

And of course, this forum is telling people to STFU.

That's what it looks like from "the left".

[mwei924]

24. So you're mad about.. Clinton and Gates?

Gates is probably just a safety place holder for the first year or so, since defense is a tricky transition. And he hasn't been bad as SoD.

Holder's views are largely in line with Obama's. He opposes Guantanomo, Patriot Act, torture, surveillance, etc.

Geithner is a highly capable and respected financial expert. His views are not that clear-- but he has all the necessary qualifications for the job. The choices for Treasury were always going to be limited to moderate Dems anyways.

National Security shouldn't be a political decision. Jones is highly respected.

I wasn't crazy about the idea of Hillary at state, but she's smart and will be implementing Obama' foreign policy. And she's not the right-wing lapdog like some make her out to be.

The rest of the cabinet is fairly progressive actually.

[EFerrari]

25. I'm not mad at all.

And, there is a laundry list about the cabinet picks but, I mostly wanted to show you what it looks like, from here. :)

[JAbuchan08]

54. You are right he wouldn't have won without the votes of the middle.

Congratulations to them. They managed to vote the only sane choice left - I hope they don't break their arms patting themselves on the back!

It's like Chris Rock said about people who brag about never going to jail "What do you want, a cookie?! You're not supposed to go to jail"

Congratulations on not voting for more endless war and give-aways to the rich (we'll see if that bears out) you're not SUPPOSED to vote for those things! Now that people are trying to hold the Democratic party to it's word on moving away from destructive policies (otherwise what good is change?) we get to hear about how the middle voted for Obama too.

So when the middle voted for Obama (and presumably against these things) did they really mean it? Or did they mean to say, "we want you to make a half-hearted effort to clean up Bush's mess, but make sure that you get a lot of input from the very people who created the mess and don't want to fix it, and of course ignore the people who had any foresight on these issues (because foresight is "divisive") so that in 4-8 years when nothing has changed FOX news can say how things are just as bad under Dems as Republicans."

[FrenchieCat]

10. Big projects such as infrastructure projects is a very progressive

step.

I remember Rachel Maddow stating the day after the election that she couldn't quite figure out how Obama was going to get a big infrastructure project through cause of the ideoligical divide between Democrats and Republicans. Guess she's got a front row seat now on exactly how Obama is gonna get that done.

[Milo_Bloom]

12. Yes, BUT...

It all depends HOW Obama finds that pragmatism that matters most.

I don't believe the answers rest with any idealogue; however, when someone tries to find the "mythical center" (as Clinton did) we end up worse off in the long run.

Clinton "governed from the center", but in reality he was just appeasing bad ideas, which ended up having bad consequences.

ie Regulation vs Deregulation. Clinton's solution was SOME deregulation. This was taken further in the bush administration and poof, we have a banking/credit crisis.

When you try to find the middle by taking on a little of a bad idea, you don't get a good result, you get a little less of a bad result for a short time, until that baby step reaches its natural conclusion.

My current fear (UNSUBSTANTIATED) is that Obama is going to govern in the same manner... "splitting the difference" between good and bad to find some mythical center.

[sofa king]

13. In a way, yes.

Because the conservatives have shown that they won't pull us safely out of Iraq, can't slow the hemorrhaging economy, and refuse to improve our ability to pay for health care.

If you ask me, there is only one way to move on, and that way is to leave those suckers far, far behind.

[CADEMOCRAT7]

26. This is what I keep saying to everyone over and over.

I will be so thankful if he can pull off what you just wrote, and that is a lot at this moment in time. I believe in President-Elect Obama, and am very impressed with what I am already seeing and he is not even in office yet ! I feel there is much to look forward to, including jazz in The more energy efficient White House and poetry readings and science in the People's House.
And, I will say that I have never identified myself as "centrist" always as "left of left". I feel that those on the left who do not feel the optimism and support that I am feeling toward Obama's team and the strategy that I am "perceiving" he is using, are playing an important role by voicing their opinions.
I did not feel this way at first. I just wanted to celebrate my joy and hope and enthusiasm after eight years of suffering, and such an historical win and after such a long election. And, I wanted people to wait, and see how Obama is going to actually implement change.
Yet now, I feel those on the left that are questioning are important, just as I feel our voices from the left of support are equally important. The people that are upset and are voicing their upset are standing up and saying "you will be held accountable, even if we supported you, we will stand up to you and hold you to your word". I can respect this, and appreciate it more today than in the past weeks.
I just trust right now that President-Elect Obama is holding up to his word, and that people will see this once it plays out. He is charting a different route to get the agenda accomplished than perhaps they were expecting.

[Richardo]

27. I K&R sensibleness.

:thumbsup:

[PeaceNikki]

32. As do I

:thumbsup:

[noiretextatique]

33. centrism is an ideology eom

[Writer]

34. Obama is not a centrist.

Obama is a pragmatist. Sometimes his solutions will be centrist. Sometime they'll be more extreme.

[noiretextatique]

55. we will see

centrism is not necessarily a bad thing, imho. i was just pointing out that extremes aren't the only ideologies.

[nichomachus]

37. Definition

Ideologue -- anyone who disagrees with me.

[eridani]

38. The cheapest health care payment system IS the most pragmatic, by definition.

That would be single payer.

[Hippo_Tron]

45. Moving to a single-payer system during an economic crisis is not pragmatic

Obama said it himself. If we were starting from scratch he thinks single payer would be a great idea. But transitioning from our current system to single payer would mean that a staggering amount of people who work in the insurance industry would lose at their jobs. That's hardly what we want during a recession.

[eridani]

46. Cheap is pragmatic by definition

An economic crisis means that there is a lack of money--cheap is good, really really good. We have a big nursing shortage looming, and dealing with that would take care of the insurance company unemployment. Not to mention which, the government could flat out forbid the outsourcing of claims processing jobs. No one should be allowed to have a job killing people by denying their claims or calculating that they are too sick to insure.

[Hippo_Tron]

47. Nursing school takes 2-4 years and not everybody in insurance is cut out to be a nurse

I would imagine most claims processors are not cut out for that kind of work actually. Your argument is basically as practical as the ones made by the free traders who think we can simply retrain everybody overnight.

In the long term your solution makes sense. But the economy is in the toilet now, not 10 years from now.

[eridani]

49. Obama's infrastructure plan is long-term as well

People could be paid to go to nursing school as well. I repeat--we need CHEAP, really badly.

[specimenfred1984]

51. Tell that to someone with cancer, diabetes, depression, high blood pressure...

or any of the other things that prevents a person from STAYING ALIVE YOU FUCKING ASS!

[Hippo_Tron]

52. With all due respect

There are other ways to address those problems that don't instantly moving to single payer. I suggest that you take a look at some of those solutions proposed by the President Elect and others such as Senator Kennedy and Senator Daschle.

[cascadiance]

39. The problem is that the centrist and right wing "idealogues" have been in power for WAY too long!

And their policies have utterly failed us! We are seeing CLEAR evidence of that now every place! We progressives have not given any chance for "ideology" or whatever you want to call the ideas of the left to be put in place for well over two decades!

The right and the center, aka the corporate influenced sectors of our government, need to be told to take a step back and let voices from the left be a part of the decision making. Mind you I'm not suggesting that "the left" should *take over* and not give any voice to the right and the center. That would also go against what Obama campaigned on. But the problem is that he needs to open doors to BOTH the right and the left, not just the right. When he's calling himself the mediator in the middle or some facsimile, and not biased towards the left, then he NEEDS to also put in key positions of power those that are progressive too. After all, they are a big reason he got elected too. He can't continue to take them for granted, because if he does, and the rest of the Democrats do as well, that's when movement towards a new party starts, and either the old Dems get thrown out, or the vote gets split and they fall out of power again. I don't think there are many of us out there that expect that NO right wing or centrist views be heard or be a part of his administration. We just want to have equal or at least some degree of representation ourselves.

Now, if along with naming Gates as Secretary of Defense (or Chuck Hagel as I'd suggested earlier for that spot), he'd also named Dennis Kucinich a Secretary of a newly created "Department of Peace", THAT is the kind of balance I'd like to see Obama implement that would be true to his campaign promises. He's done the former in many places, but hardly any of the latter, if at all.

Sorry, but if people continue to say "shut up" to us progressives, we're going to either continue being perceived as having an inward fight, or we're going to look to another party to give us NECESSARY REFORM, and not more of this compromise to be nice to everyone that doesn't get us anywhere in a time of crisis that calls for significant change and departure from FAILED policies. Most of us are really tired of "going along to get along" which has put us in this position of crisis now. No more!

[polichick]

40. What used to be left-wing ideology has suddenly become pragmatic mainstream solutions...

The whole country has moved left because of the mess we're in ~ hitting bottom always wakes people up.

[Number23]

41. Completely agree

Progressives have a point in saying that they helped elect Obama, but so do the many disenchanted Republicans who crossed the aisle to vote for him this year.

In addition, there were millions of independents who helped put Obama into office, of which I am proud to say that I am one.

Very well said, Writer.

[stillcool]

42. Obama won't be able to do a damn thing...

without some support by 'we the people'. It isn't going to happen. I had thought the whole idea of 'change', was opening up a line of communication and through organizing force our...that 'we the people" thing again..voices be heard by our government. I was under the impression that just as what took place in the primary and the GE, phone calls, knocking on doors, hooking up through the internet..that kind of stuff was what was going to bring "change",..not a cabinet member. How could I be so mis-led? A little something from "The Rich and the Super-Rich" by Ferdinand Lundberg..copyright 1965...

But the reason Democratic presidents must be sympathetic toward the big wealthy at all times, short of allowing them to upset the new synthesis, is simple: All these people, even if Republican, carry great weight in American affairs because of their intimate hereditary involvement through professional subordinates in complex enterprises penetrating into every corner of society. They may no longer be self-made they may have been sired by trust, testament or codicil out of holding company, foundation and monopoly-but they are independent power wielders. They aren't average citizens. And this is a political fact, not likely to be overlooked by any serious politician.

Any criticism of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson for the nature of their top appointments should face up to this question: Where should they look for Cabinet officers? Kennedy and Johnson looked for them where Eisenhower looked for them, and where Roosevelt looked: in the large financial and industrial organizations. These organizations belong to the wealthy. They are part of their plantation, which in its broadest sweep is the market place itself.

Experts of greater if not complete independence of judgment are to be had, to be sure, from the leading universities, and Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy both drew heavily upon them for certain tasks. But scholars have neither the habit of command nor is their authority apt to be recognized by men practiced in the arts of expedient manipulation--Plato's men of the appetites. Any president has to look to the big enterprises, selecting competent men who are least compromised by egocentric self-service.

To be sure, it is not the quintet of Du Ponts, Rockefellers, Mellons, Fords and Pews that alone has supported the Republican Party in its struggles to protect and nourish big wealth and is now playing around the edges at least of the Democratic Party. They have had many collaborators among groups of lesser wealth, most of them strong Republicans in the past as now, even though some of them seem inclined to take fright as latter-day woozy fanatics come to the fore in the Republican Party.

[ulysses]

43. still with the "ideologue" thing?

Good lord.

[Grateful for Hope]

44. I think this is exactly what Obama is saying

and, I think, you are absolutely correct.

[jefferson_dem]

48. Hear hear.

It's past time we kick the petty divisions, the stale labels, the false dichotomies to the curb.

I trust Obama will stay true to the pragmatic progressivism he's promoted since he walked onto the national stage.

[bvar22]

50. "Centrism"...a dogmatic idiology unhindered by ideals.

Whatever is In the Middle is good enough for me!
AND, it should be good enough for YOU too! (Purists condemning Purity)
Look at all the benefits:
You NEVER have to think for yourself.

You NEVER have to make decisions, simply take a poll!

You NEVER have to suffer the consequences of Taking a Stand on an "Issue".

You NEVER have to STAND UP for what you believe in.

There are absolutely NO LINES you will not cross.

"Pragmatic Centrism"...because its EASY!!!!



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone