Criticisms of Policy vs. Political Hits

[tekisui]

Can we recognize the difference between criticisms based on policy versus criticisms that do nothing but inflict political damage?

It is our duty to speak and encourage President Obama and the Democratic leaders in Congress to correct misguided or overlooked policy positions. For the first time in a very long time we have our team in place. They are far from perfect, being imperfect people elected through the imperfect system to which we are bound. However, they are our team. They are more receptive to us than what we have faced before.

When we think they are wrong on how they are handling the ongoing wars, we need to tell them. When we want them to go further in protecting GLBT rights, we need to pressure them. If we feel they are mishandling the resolution of the financial crises, we have to let them know.

There is a BIG difference between criticizing policy and joining the opposition in the political fight. When it comes to the petty politics, we should stand together. Being on the opposite side when it comes to criticisms of things like gifts to foreign leaders, gaffes, the use of a teleprompter, how the President takes his message to the American people; we are not helping the advancement of any progressive agenda. In fact that is when we are doing the most damage.

Support is a pre-requisite for success in politics. The opposition will hit us on every word out of every Democrat's mouth, to try whittle away at the popular support. And, over time they will bring the numbers down, it is inevitable. We shouldn't join in the job of hurting public support, for the sake of hurting the public support. That, in the end, only hurts the opportunities of success for the progressive agenda, as you have it defined.

Let's try to keep our eyes on the prize. Recognize the difference between honest, necessary debate on policy and playing politics that are meant to, by design, wear down the capabilities of effective leadership.

[NorthernSpy]

1. this is a distinction that the compulsive carpers among us fail to make...

Excellent post! You're absolutely right.


K&R

[tekisui]

2. I think too many fail to realize this.

We should all know by now that Obama is very good at the politics. He won two very tough national campaigns, growing public support the entire way. We need to just let him handle it, when it comes to these political stories, he knows what he's doing.

We are still learning how he governs. I am impressed, so far. Of course I think he should do more, and think he will.

But, you have to wonder. Either some don't understand the distinction between policy and politics, or they have ulterior motives.

[tekisui]

3. kick.

[Christian30]

4. I agree

I find it frustrating that so many on here buy into the 24 hour cable/blogosphere hysteria. It makes it difficult to divine what is a real issue and what is a real issue where our pushing the administration would lead to meaningful change.

[Enrique]

5. some people deny there are any legitimate criticisms

they cast every criticism of him as a Puma attack.

[tekisui]

6. And, I am speaking of the distinction.

Policy concerns are legitimate. Joining the smear machine in tearing down support is counterproductive.

Those who claim ALL criticisms are unwarranted are not helping either.

[Kdillard]

7. Well stated I wish people would learn the difference.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. Great post

I've been feeling much the same way lately. I feel like it can be difficult sometimes to be objective about somebody from "our side" when they are in power. I find myself wanting to reflexively defend President Obama from any and all perceived attacks, particularly when it's difficult to sift through the smokescreen of distortions and de-contextualization that critics- of all stripes- throw up, but I also want to be able to attempt to maintain some objectivity and critical thinking about President Obama's policies and question them when necessary, as well as not wanting to stifle or "shout down" other people's opinions just because they're different than mine. I guess since our party has been in the political "wilderness" for so long and we've had to endure so much crazy (and scary) stuff during the past 8 years (14 if you want to count the "Gingrich Revolution") that, at least for me, it's almost just comforting enough knowing that intelligent, rational, and caring people are now in charge right now- both in the WH and in Congress. However, it's plenty scary knowing that there is an ever-present possibility that the GOP could eventually reclaim some semblance of power thanks to the GOP remnant and their allies in the corporate media whore network launching vicious, hypercritical (and hypocritical) attacks against President Obama and his administration day-after-day. I know that I don't (and won't) agree with President Obama on everything but my general opinion is that as long as he ends up being a slightly more progressive version of Bill Clinton and moves our country forward on some badly needed reforms (esp. universal/affordable health care and alternative "clean" energy), I think I'll feel pretty satisfied in the long term. So far I haven't felt too disappointed about anything he has done and feel more hopeful for our country than I have since Clinton was first elected in 1992. Hopefully, President Obama will be able to succeed where Clinton ultimately failed in terms of being able to make some significant progressive accomplishments during his administration (although I do give Clinton credit for trying- perhaps the timing and mood of the country just wasn't right yet). I don't expect change to come fast and not without some great difficulty, however, I believe President Obama is up to the job and I believe that the mood of most of the people in our country is more receptive to progressive ideas than they were back in 1990's or at least people finally realize how bad things have gotten and how bad of an idea it is to let people whom hate government manage it like they did.

[yowzayowzayowza]

9. Discussion of differences with allies warrants...

a measure of rhetorical deference that discussion of differences with enemies does not. Rhetorical friendly fire can indeed be very counterproductive.

[Jakes Progress]

10. Very good distinctions. K&R

The problem here is that what looks to some like legitimate policy complaints are viewed by some as carping. You and I seem to support a policy shift toward more support for GLBT issues. Others here don't share that concern, so when we voice our opinions, the purity police pounce. If the PP would confine their patrols to the truly inane carping and let those of us who have policy issues discuss them so that we get to voice our concerns and those who disagree can do so from a policy viewpoint. Being jumped by the half-dozen PP members only gums up the discussion.

[yowzayowzayowza]

11. Into which category would...

the first reply to this OP fall? What kind of counter reply would not 'gum up the discussion'?

[tekisui]

12. I'm not sure that comment deserves a response.

[yowzayowzayowza]

13. How many such posts before a response is appropriate? n/t

[Jakes Progress]

14. This could be a matter of tone.

I find the point of the OP in discussion to be undefined. The OP is distinctly pissed, but doesn't make his position clear other than he is pissed. He is not addressing issues. They are obliquely referred to in the copied passages, but the position of the OP is just pique.

It would be possible to discuss the issues presented in the quoted sources, but without the whole versions of the sources, we are only looking at cherry-picked comments. Are we to assume the OP wanted to refer to the entire bodies referenced or to just the passages? Is the OP's cryptic snark about the whole passages and their ideas or has he/she picked a single idea to discuss? Instead it is more like he/she has used some words from larger sources than him/herself to lend credence to a particular feeling.

The OP does not merit comment because it doesn't really say anything or because it tries to say too many things without a direction.

We cannot account for poor posting. Let it drop off the site. (I've had several do so without comment which I take as evidence that my posting needs work.)

Now if some feel compelled to reply, we just have to wait until one makes a point to disagree. The PP should know that the more they pound on a post, the longer it remains up.

[yowzayowzayowza]

15. I'm more concerned with the first response than the OP.

I would expect that sorta thing from freeperville. Our leadership: "shits"? GMAFB!

>We cannot account for poor posting. Let it drop off the site.

Sure, but there does come a point when such posts become so prevalent that they continually 'gum up the discussion.' When is dealing with such posts an act of the 'purity police' versus a justifiable response to an unacceptable signal to noise ratio? ...Or do we just surrender the board to such crap?

[Jakes Progress]

16. Since we have a diligent Purity Police Force

I prefer to just let them handle it. Still, it's a free site.

[yowzayowzayowza]

17. I don't think itz any more fair to refer...

to folks responding to such posts as the "Purity Police" than it is to refer to those who do not as "Surrender Monkeys".