TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM
July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
09.12.2008
Somewhere a Liberal Is Angry...Or Maybe Not

Apparently liberals are angry at Barack Obama. Well, some liberals. And, come to think of it, they may not actually be angry. They're just a little concerned about some of his cabinet appointments.

Or, at least, they were merely concerned until former Obama deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand decided on Sunday to post an item on the Huffington Post. It was a message to Obama's progressive critics--something I know, with certainty, because the item's headline was "A Message to Obama's Progressive Critics."

In the item--or message, if you prefer--Hildebrand told liberals to calm down. He didn't actually mention any progressive critics by name, leading a lot of people (myself included) to wonder exactly which critics needed calming down and exactly how many of them were out there. But the message itself was clear enough: "This is not a time for the left wing of our Party to draw conclusions about the Cabinet and White House appointments that President-Elect Obama is making."

This message, naturally, really did make a few liberals angry, which may or may not have been the Machiavellian motivation behind the original item (depending on how you like your political conspiracy theories). And among these newly angry liberals was activist and writer David Sirota.

Now, in fairness, Sirota wasn't newly angry per se. He's been angry for a while. About a lot of things. But now he was angry at Hildebrand for, as Sirota put it, telling liberals to STFU. Needless to say, Sirota had no intention of STFUing--or, to use the grammatically correct term, SingTFU.

On Monday, Politico decided to write a story about the controversy, such that it was. 

Politico quoted OpenLeft blogger Chris Bowers--who, yes, really had been angry about Obama's cabinet appointments, even before Hildebrand decided to send the left holiday greetings via the Huffington Post. "Isn't there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?" Bowers had written a few days before.

Mostly, though, Politico quoted liberals noting that Obama had appointed some relatively moderate cabinet officials--which was entirely predictable, since the same sorts of people had staffed Obama's campaign. Ezra Klein subsequently made this very point in a post on his blog, over at the American Prospect. Ezra, by the way, was not angry.

Politico also quoted liberals saying that they'd be keeping a close eye on Obama to make sure he didn't veer too far right--which was also rather predictable since, after all, that's what liberals do. True, sometimes liberals get angry when they do this. But most of the liberals quoted didn't seem too angry. Just like Ezra.

And, as it happens, just like me.

I'm a pretty staunch liberal. And, lord knows, plenty of things make me angry. But it's things like the fact that, for the last eight years, government botched everything from the Iraq occupation to the Wall Street bailout; that we let middle class wages fall behind even during the recent economic boom; that, after all this time, we still have 47 million people with no health insurance; and that, by the way, we're not stopping global warming.

About Obama, though, I can't say I'm angry. Or even disappointed. In fact, like my fellow liberal Michael Tomasky--who put this all far more eloquently than I have--I'm pretty excited about the news out of Chicago.

Obama's cabinet may feature some veteran Clinton centrists on economic policy, but--as my colleague Jon Chait has noted--there's precious little daylight between the centrists and liberals on economics these days. As proof, just look at the stimulus package Obama unveiled, which in size and nature blows away anything Democrats have tried in a generation.

Obama has also been crystal clear--and consistent--about his ambitous plans to fight climate change and to reform health care. Via Rahm Emanuel, his incoming chief of staff, Obama has also suggested he sees the present economic crisis as an opportunity to make sweeping legislative reforms.

This is all very good stuff. I'm sure Obama will do plenty of things that make me angry in the coming months and years. If he backs away from universal health care, I'll scream bloody murder. But, so far, I really can't complain.

That doesn't mean I think Bowers, Sirota, or any of the others should STFU--or whatever Hildebrand was trying to tell them to do. They can speak their minds. They can even be angry when they do it. But I do think it's important to remember they don't necessarily speak for all or even most of their fellow travelers on the left.

Of course, this whole storyline may be dying. In case you hadn't heard, the governor of Illinois is in some legal trouble. It seems that he tried to sell off Obama's former Senate seat to the highest bidder, in a corruption spree brazen even by the standards of Chicago--which is to say, pretty darn brazen.

Now that's a good reason to be angry.

Update: Bonus themed Billy Joel video!

 --Jonathan Cohn 

Posted: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:42 PM with 10 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

hueylong said:

"...there's precious little daylight between the centrists and liberals on economics these days."

Did you not notice the wildly differing reactions to the bailout?

December 10, 2008 1:50 AM

iambiguous said:

There are two very different renditions of "the left" in America. One revolves around the Democratic party and approaches issues in the tradition of the Great Society. The other is still linked [however tenuously] to the New Left of the 60s and 70s.

Liberals [in the Roosevelt/Kennedy/Johnson tradition] live in a world of ideas and ideals. Especially with respect to domestic policies. They think about the way the world is and then they think about the way the world should be instead. Then they struggle within the system and try to bring about change. And given the successes of the civil rights, feminist, and gay liberation movement over the past 5 decades [among others] they have made enormous strides in shaping what they construe to be a more just, a more tolerant and a more progressive world.  

But they are also keen to point out that the results of these struggles did not flow from the top down; instead, as with the labor movement before them, they flowed from the bottom up. Nothing gets done because the politicians in power [snuggling in bed with the military industrial complex] decide out of the kindness of their hearts to lead the nation to the promised land. It starts in the streets; it starts with orgainzing others to speak truth to power.

At least it did until it started getting twisted into knots with the advent of "identity politics". But maybe that will now change with Obama. Or maybe Obama will find himself eyeball to eyeball with his own previous supporters if he does come through on his campaign promises. But that won't happen from the top down either.

As for the other "leftist" narrative, it still revolves basically around the crucial distinction made between what can and cannot be accomplished in the belly of the beast--- inside the social, political and economic parameters of the capitalist political economy.

There are still a zillion different factions offering a zillion different strategies. Some things will never change. And based on my own perusals [of the usual suspects] they are still spinning their wheels in the same rhetorical pothole. In other words, they are very, very good at pointing out  the dysfunctional and painful consequences of corporatism. But they really have not made any significant progress by way of offering new ways to change this. All one need do is read the essay on Naomi Klein in last week's New Yorker. She knows what she is angry about. And she knows how to connect the dots so that others are able to make a more intelligent distinction between an amorphous "the economy" and the "political economy" that is American capitalism. But if she has a clue as to how to connect this important distinction to systemic political change. it sure as hell didn't come out in the article.

At least for me.

george walton

December 10, 2008 3:08 AM

johnalthousecohen said:

"I'm pretty excited about the news out of Chicago."

Poor choice of words.

December 10, 2008 7:53 AM

Rhubarbs said:

This idea that one person expressing an opinion contrary to a second person's opinion amounts to the first person trying to "silence" the second person, or telling the second person to "STFU," is a delusion that seems to have become the fundamental worldview of many on the left. Ironically, it seems mainly to affect those who have the loudest voices, and are therefore in the least danger of not being heard. But it goes back nearly a year now to the loud Hillary brigades who seemed to regard any suggestion that perhaps Hillary might not win as an attempt to censor them and/or destroy American democracy.

Liberalism as I understand it is supposed to be based on liberty, and in its modern form on pluralism as Isaiah Berlin would define the word. And both values are inconsistent with trying to shout down dissenting voices by accusing them of trying to shut you up merely by expressing an opinion contrary to yours. So in the end my problem with the "angry liberal" thing in this case is not that the liberals are not in fact angry, but that the angry people are not in fact liberals.

December 10, 2008 8:46 AM

achester99 said:

I heart Jon Cohn's nerdy sense of humor.

December 10, 2008 8:59 AM

jwl2672 said:

I'm a pretty staunch liberal. And, lord knows, plenty of things make me angry. But it's things like the fact that, for the last eight years, government botched everything from the Iraq occupation to the Wall Street bailout; that we let middle class wages fall behind even during the recent economic boom; that, after all this time, we still have 47 million people with no health insurance; and that, by the way, we're not stopping global warming.

Let's see.  Things that make ME angry.  Oh I know.  19 scum sucking hypocrites who killed 3500 of my fellow citizens on their way to work and destroyed a building and esplanade where I grew up, went to school, visited on weekends, and worked 2 blocks away from.  Muslim terrorists killing 150 British citizens on their way to work.  Muslim terrorists blowing up a train station in Madrid 1 week after I came home from there.  Muslim terrorists killing 250 innocent civilians in Bombay.  Muslim terrorists screaming hatred at the US and Britain while collecting unemployment checks from the British gov't.  Short potato-shaped turd Hugo Chavez cursing at my President,  Liberal douches doing the same.  Russia invading our faithful ally Georgia.  Liberals ham-handing our president intervening in the Sudan.  Iran cursing and threatening Israel.

Global warming? Cyclical economic downturns? A victorious war where we change the entire culture of death in a foreign land and depose a ruthless dictator? Way to prioritize the important things, liberal douche.  Enjoy the next 4 years, cause 47% of America will be waiting for the instant this guy falls flat on his face because of corruption or incompetence.  Who knows? Christmas may have come 16 days early this year...

December 10, 2008 1:15 PM

iambiguous said:

RHURBARBS WRITES:

Liberalism as I understand it is supposed to be based on liberty, and in its modern form on pluralism as Isaiah Berlin would define the word. And both values are inconsistent with trying to shout down dissenting voices by accusing them of trying to shut you up merely by expressing an opinion contrary to yours. So in the end my problem with the "angry liberal" thing in this case is not that the liberals are not in fact angry, but that the angry people are not in fact liberals.

GEORGE RESPONDS:

"Liberalism as I understand it..."

Exactly. We take out of the word "liberal" what we first put into it: our self. Liberalism is not like a building or a DVD player or a mountain. It's not a Thing. It is a moral and political value that changes over time to reflect all of the other changes that accompany human social interaction historically. For many philosophical realists and political idealists, however, the meaning of liberal is set in stone.

The thing is though, once you are convinced that you can encompass the word Liberal as if it were set in stone, then it can easily morph into the noble end that rationalizes any ignoble means.

Sometimes the most wicked altercations occur not between liberals and conservatives over the meaning of the words that separate them, but between those who call themselves the same thing but can't agree about what that thing IS.

It almost never occurs to them this is not something one can reduce to an elemental or essential factoid.

George Walton  

December 10, 2008 3:15 PM

iambiguous said:

jw12672 writes:

Let's see.  Things that make ME angry.  Oh I know.  19 scum sucking hypocrites who killed 3500 of my fellow citizens on their way to work and destroyed a building and esplanade where I grew up, went to school, visited on weekends, and worked 2 blocks away from.  Muslim terrorists killing 150 British citizens on their way to work.  Muslim terrorists blowing up a train station in Madrid 1 week after I came home from there.  Muslim terrorists killing 250 innocent civilians in Bombay.  Muslim terrorists screaming hatred at the US and Britain while collecting unemployment checks from the British gov't.  Short potato-shaped turd Hugo Chavez cursing at my President,  Liberal douches doing the same.  Russia invading our faithful ally Georgia.  Liberals ham-handing our president intervening in the Sudan.  Iran cursing and threatening Israel.

George responds

You forgot to mention the Muslim terrorists' role in Gore v. Bush; or their moles [like Ahmed Chalibi and Screwball] who helped cook the books before the Iraq invasion; or their role in the botched FEMA response to Katrina; or the crucial part they played in instigating and sustaining the current economic crisis; or the suicide bombers they sent to the Indian Ocean in 2004 to trigger the earthquake and tsunami; or the insidious way in which they convinced the General Motors to sell Hummers; or the manner in which they infiltrated Abu Graib and took all those pictures; or the connections between them and Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, Ted Stevens, William Jefferson, Eliot Spitzer and now Rod Blagojevich; or the one who trained Barney to bite a reporter's hand; or the teams who were scripting all the public appearances of....among others....Alberto Gonzales, Donald Rumsfeld, Michael Brown, John Yoo, and Karl Rove; or the cell that performed plastic surgury on Osama bin Laden and now have him deep inside CNN; or the Sarah Palin look alike they will plant in 2012 after a rendition in which Todd and Sarah are abducted and sent to a black site in Tora Bora.  

george walton

December 10, 2008 4:35 PM

jwl2672 said:

sexuallyambiguous,

I have no idea what you're talking about.  Are these supposed to be things that liberals are p.o.'d about? Or are you trying to be sarcastic about muslims being responsible for everything? I never said they were responsible for everything.  They're responsible for far more than I'd prefer already, without having to make up crimes and atrocities to add to their account.

Walton sounds like a conspiracy theory kook to me.

December 10, 2008 5:43 PM

iambiguous said:

jwl2672 said:

sexuallyambiguous,

I have no idea what you're talking about. Are these supposed to be things that liberals are p.o.'d about? Or are you trying to be sarcastic about muslims being responsible for everything? I never said they were responsible for everything. They're responsible for far more than I'd prefer already, without having to make up crimes and atrocities to add to their account.

Walton sounds like a conspiracy theory kook to me.

George Walton responds:

No conspiriacy kook, I.

Instead, if you go to the dictionary and look up the word "irony", don't be suprised to see a likeness of youself next to the definitions.

You appear [to me] to be a reductionist. A reductionist is someone who reduces almost every moral and political narrative they come into contact with to words like Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Democrat, Good, Evil, Right, Wrong, True, False, God, Satan, Christian, Muslim, Jew.

What makes it ironic of course is that everyone who does this sees everyone else who does not share their own point of view as doing it wrong....as being out of touch with Reality.

Few ever stop and think, "gee, if hundreds of others view me the way I view them and only one of us can be right, what are the odds it will be me?"

Where I come in is in exposing the illusion that any moral or political point of view is the standard by which all others must be judged.

Irony, in other words, is built right into the relationship between the limitations of human language and the unlimited manner in which words are open to [inherently] conflicting moral and political interpretations.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.

And wouldn't that be ironic.

george walton

December 10, 2008 7:03 PM