Glenn Greenwald creates a bizarre construction of reality wherein the Democrats are the party of Dear Leaderism and the Republicans are the party known for dissent within the ranks. In my experience, the Left in this country is known most for its inability to close ranks, shut their eyes, and defend their leaders, come what may. The Right is known for extreme pragmatism, where religious conservatives and Wall Street bankers can maintain an unnatural alliance for decades at a time.
The Republican coalition is built of necessity. There are few other ways for Wall Street bankers to compete for majorities than to ally themselves with religious populism. The Democratic coalition is purely ad hoc, and it will remain a fluid and divisive Babel of voices and concerns so long as no single constituency is strong enough to dominate.
What Greenwald and Judis are saying is that the Left is so enthralled with Obama that they are giving him a pass rather than pushing hard for him to move to the left. And without sustained and vocal advocacy from the Left, Obama will stay where he is or move to the right.
Here’s where it gets tricky. Part of what Greenwald and Judis say is inarguable. But when it comes to individual voices (columnists, bloggers, talking heads), it’s important that we remember one thing. If you lie, exaggerate, distort, or dissemble about the facts in order to push for a better policy outcome, you will lose your credibility. Consider this bit from Matthew Yglesias:
If you succeed in muting all your critics to the left, all you do is create a situation where your program is defined in the press and the congress and the public imagination as the most-leftwing-possible proposal. And the furthest-left proposal can’t possibly win. It’s never helpful to have fratricidal warfare and battles to the death, but it’s necessary for there to be meaningful pressure to do more than is popular or possible or even necessary in order to lay the groundwork for accomplishing anything.
Again, if you are telling your readers that there is something wrong with the Democrats because they are not doing more than is possible or even necessary, you are not going to maintain your credibility for very long. There seems to be a flood of commentary today that comes dangerously close to an advocacy of demagoguery.
A bunch of loud-mouthed, well-organized, impractical, dishonest members of the Left might work to successfully move this country in a more positive direction. But that doesn’t mean we should believe anything they have to say.
Be a blogger or be a demagogue. It’s your choice, and your reputation.
Isn’t Glenn Greenwald himself the perfect example of not towing the line within our party? 😉
I’m not calling him a demagogue. I’m saying that he is making an odd argument when he says the Democrats are the party of Dear Leaderism. And I’m also tying this back to Judis and Yglesias’s points about the need for impractical criticism from the Left.
Did I say you had called him a demagogue? I was just saying he was, himself, dispositive proof of his own argument.
Here is what I think is at the root of the problem.
If you take the right-wing voices like Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, they’re clearly demagogues. They use false arguments and bogus populist appeals to push an economic agenda that serves the wealthiest Americans.
Without them doing this, the Overton Window would be shifted to the left and political outcomes would follow. So, a bunch of people on the Left are looking at the situation and saying that we don’t have that same push coming from our side that can move the Overton Window, in part because the Left is pretty damn happy and content right now with Barack Obama. They want a push from the Left, even a push that misleads our readers and advocates totally unrealistic outcomes or outcomes that aren’t even necessary.
You can see how quickly this can lead to a call for demagoguery from the Left. And that is what I am concerned with in these pieces. It doesn’t mean that they aren’t making valid points. But it means that anyone that takes up their call and begins doing that kind of advocacy (without assiduously sticking to the facts) is going to create the same kind of credibility problem for themselves that O’Reilly and Limbaugh have. Now, O’Reilly and Limbaugh are successful, rich, and influential. And they get the job done. But if you go that route, you’re going to take criticism, and rightly so.
I dunno, Boo. The dittoheads I know about (a couple of my husband’s coworkers) “believe” everything Rush says. If my husband criticizes Rush, challenges and proves his facts are wrong, this just makes them more loyal, more convinced that the Left hates Rush therefore, they should love Rush. They friggin’ laugh about making “the Left” angry. That’s the point as far as they’re concerned. It doesn’t matter what Rush says — the more outright the lie the better — as long as it makes them feel good about themselves and makes liberals unhappy.
Why couldn’t we laugh along with someone who makes the right-wing uncomfortable? I think I’d be shocked into guffaws if someone went on Countdown and passionately advocated literally eating the rich or gave the address of a CEO and incited homeless people to go take a dump in his front yard. I’d be delighted! And you would show a clip of it the next day! If the police later got called in and we got to see the CEO sputtering mad over all the turds in his yard, I would be thrilled. If it built to the point where Repubs were afraid to self-identify for fear of getting their yards draped in toilet paper, would that be terribly bad?
that’s actually happening. People aren’t taking craps, but they’re dumping old furniture on banking CEO’s lawns.
I haven’t heard any leftist say it’s okay to bend the truth to win a point. Nor have I heard them say we need the equivalent of Bill O’Reilly. (To hear a rightist tell it, we have that already in Keith Olbermann. My argument there is one is factually accurate and one is not, at least, most of the time.)
I think they’re just saying we need a strong leader who is to the left of Obama to say the things at aren’t being said.
I agree. But I also think, if we HAD such a leader, he would have been on the scene already. We don’t have anyone stronger and more to the left than Obama (not because he’s that far left, but because there’s a void to his left). So our choices are going to be limited, at best.
You are correct, there is no real leader to the left of Obama. But there is an opportunity for someone to come forward, especially if that someone is in the Senate. If Obama becomes more doubtful of getting the support of say 3 or more progressives in the Senate, rather than 3 or more Republicans or Blue Dogs, then there is a chance to move Obama to the left. This would be a damn tough tight-line to walk, but it is the only clear line of attack that I have noticed. Anyway, until a leader comes forward, it is all up to the diffuse grassroots, such as we are. I agree that we must be honest and not seek to mislead.
Alternatively, Obama could surprise us and move farther to the left, but I wouldn’t count on that unless we get more than 60 Democrats in the Senate. Even if that happens, I still wouldn’t hold my breath.
Maybe Franken, if he ever gets to the Senate, but again, I’m not expecting anyone to become a leader at this time. The job is open, but there don’t seem to be any capable applicants.
How about Chris Dodd, who just effed in the a the top twenty banking executives at the largest firms in the country.
Hell, the head of Citigroup now stands to make thirty-three cents in bonuses next year.
Since Dodd is Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, I think he could do it. I just don’t see him trying to push Obama to the left. However, I give him kudos for probably being an important player in getting compensation caps for the top executives of the recipients of TARP money.
If he really wants to be the progressive leader, I would think he would make his play in the committee hearings over financial reform, that will surely come about in the near future.
They want a push from the Left, even a push that misleads our readers and advocates totally unrealistic outcomes or outcomes that aren’t even necessary.
I have no idea what he wrote because I didn’t click the link. But I find it humorous that you seem to now be making the same argument I made to you more than a year ago and you seemed to reject at the time – that bloggers who advocate in a way that misleads or ill informs their readers risk losing the only thing they really have – their credibility. And that hurts us all in the end.
I’m not going to defend Greenwald or Judis on this, but I think it’s clear that Yglesias is referring to what is politically possible.
To use the ongoing example of the stimulus, just because it is politically impossible in the current Senate to get the necessary 2 or 3 GOP votes for a, say, $1.5 trillion stimulus package doesn’t mean that more and, frankly, shriller voices on the left calling for such a thing wouldn’t have been a good thing.
Similarly, it may be politically impossible to get single-payer health care through congress, but the thing itself (even if not possible and not even necessary) is still a good idea and having more people on the left calling for it would make a good health-care reform package more likely.
This isn’t calling for demagoguery in any form. It’s saying, “Don’t let the center-left position be the most leftward position ever advocated. Obama and the congressional Democrats have to look to what can really be passed, but those on the outside shouldn’t give up on trying to drag the Overton window back our way–and we don’t have to lie or demagogue to do so.
Exactly, Jeb.
Right.
But there is a fine line.
It’s one thing to say we ought to pursue a single-payer system.
It’s quite another to say that the reason we are not is because Harry Reid is in the pocket of Big Pharma and the HMO’s. See the difference?
Oh, I see the difference all right. It’s just that your tone in the post seemed to be implying that even the statements by Yglesias (and similar arguments by others), were over the line–which seemed to me to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater….
It’s not that I disagree with what Yglesias is saying. But when he says we need people pushing for unrealistic and even unnecessary legislation he’s opening up something we should talk about. Because I know that I won’t put any trust in someone I see as bullshitting me about what is possible and necessary.
Thanks for clarifying that, because I had the same impression jeb did when I read it. And FWIW, I agree with Yglesias that you need someone out there vocally pushing from the left so that center doesn’t become the leftward position by default.
The conspiracy theory aspect of pushing from the left (in your second example) I could do without. Universal healthcare is a good idea for many reasons, people should stick to the story.
Unless, of course, Reid IS in the pocket of Big Pharma. 😉
well, i don’t know.
I’ll agree that sirota is engaged in demagoguery. but iread greenwald’s column, and he made good, defensible points. There ARE a lot of “dear leader” obama supporters. just go over to daily kos, and see what happens when you criticize the new president.
And I think he DOES need pressure from the left: has the progressive caucus gotten the same attention as the blue dogs have gotten? Look at the FISA bullshit and the more recent state secrest bullshit. I’ve actually seen obama supporters defend that crap.
so yeah, i don’t know booman.
Agreed!
I want a national health insurance program. I know for a fact we are not going to get it if Obama appoints Phil Bredesen, yet he is in the running to be appointed HHS. All you people who tell us we have to trust him , have stood by while he appointed several republican freemarket fundamentalist, not to mention Summers, Geithner.
I wrote a letter to Obama expressing what a distaster I though Bredesen will be and I don’t care whether you like it or not.
I have chronic health problems and I don’t care about the careers of various Dems.
I don’t think Bredeson would be a good HHS Secretary either.
Yet, he isn’t nearly as important to you as attacking David just because he won’t lay off Obama. You’re priorities are awful funny, and you’re defenses of Obama sure aren’t increasing your audience share.
last I heard, he was out of the running. In any case, I posted twice in favor of Dean for HHS.
yeah the week before Rahm was appointed they claimed he wasn’t in the running either. Then, surprise. He was appointed.
There are more signs of demagoguery than ‘If you lie, exaggerate, distort, or dissemble’.
There is also personalizing comments aimed at those that disagree. Or attacking others positions in order to silence them. One does not often see that from Greenwald. And you don’t at all see him ‘lie, exaggerate, distort, or dissemble’.
But here? I have seen plenty of comments aimed at silencing others, particularly in the TARP threads in Oct. Personal stuff.
Those that live in glass houses should be careful throwing stones.
nalbar
I just read Greenwald’s post and I don’t see where he made the republicans out to be the party dissent.
To say he did looks a bit like a strawman.
Another reason I am having problems with your priorities. I have never ever seen David Sirota behave as abusively to a poster as Dhinmi, and his sycophants. I think it is very disturbing that Kos allows him to post on the front page of his blog, and he gives him administrative privledges. It is like dealing with a corrupt cop or something. I dislike Kos for the sole reason that he has promoted the career of the awful Dana Houle, and I think this is a very bad reflection on his character, but I have never seen you front page anything but a veiled criticism of the man. It is true you put up with people that have left because of him but you never directly criticize him.
Funny thing.
My fights with Dana (I can call him that now) are legendary.
But, as for Markos, I thought his coverage of the primary and election was outstanding. He was certainly far better than any other major A-List blogger. I’ve had plenty of disagreements with him in the past, including over how he administered (or didn’t) his site. But you don’t seem me criticizing him much lately because I happen to agree with most of what he is saying.
You retort him in the comments section occasionally, but you never front paged a post mentioning him by name, which would have been much more chastening to him in my view.
You have never frontage any story attacking him like you have David.
I think the reason you don’t like David is because David is more of an activist than an Obama supporter. You dislike him for the same reason Democrats in fact disliked MLK! They were to the right of where they should have been on civil rights and didn’t want to be called on it.
you can think what you want.
It just makes me sad thats all. I myself didn’t want to spoil the party and I didn’t raise caine over rahm, but then summers and geithner. Then Gates, and Gregg. Obama is spoiling the party for progressives in my view, and I find it very sad no one calls him on it, but those of us who don’t fucking matter.
For God’s sake, Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do. The more progressive candidates in the election, like Kucinich failed to break 10%. The public does not embrace “progressive” policies in that sense. It’s one thing to push policies that are too the left of what Obama will do, but all this stamping-of-feet and gnashing of teeth indicates that “the left” absolutely refuses to actually work at building a movement and wants only to sulk.
You build movements to the left of a candidate by building a movement without the too conservative candidate.
that would be a good plan. I don’t see how complaining about Obama’s office staff works into it though.
Dennis was a joke the 2nd time around … how much did he get back on ’04? Tell me this … what do you think Feingold could get if he ran? .. hell Edwards got 30% in Iowa .. and he was spouting Progressive policies(putting aside his Blue Dog-type days in the Senate) .. Progressivism can succeed .. it just needs the right voice .. a serious voice to advocate for it
There are lots of people to the left of Obama (left/right is not quite the correct terminology, but let’s say “more radical than Obama, who’s not radical at all”), who don’t distort social reality (very much), and who have very sensible things to say about what should be done about the present mess. A lot of readers of this blog probably also read them every day elsewhere on the `nets, as I do. So I don’t think it’s quite true to say that there are no leaders to the left of Obama, that there is some sort of odd political vacuum.
Or it may be true in a sense that there are no such “leaders,” because these people I mentioned above are not being listened to by very many Americans. You can’t have leaders without a following, and you can’t have a following if no one even pays attention to you.
Partly, I think, this is due to the fact that Americans have lost the habit of listening to anyone even slightly radical (or “leftist”) for the last generation at least, because of red-baiting and the corporate development of the media. In any case, we aren’t going to have any “left” leaders until Americans get that habit back, which might happen if this economic emergency gets much worse.
You might say, “Where is the charismatic left leader who can impress the public with the impact that Obama has had? Don’t we have a lack of such people?” I’m not sure about that. There may indeed be lefty Obamas around, but few people are paying attention to them.
A lot of what passes for “attack from the left” has nothing to do with policy or ethics or historical/economic analysis but is mostly concerned with either “we’re doomed/betrayed” stupid carping or totally uninformed demands for tactics that are obviously self-defeating.
If “the left” was generating protests/letters/coverage for a demand to accelerate withdrawing from Iraq or for national health – it would be performing a useful service. But idiotic claims that “Obama must” be less naive about Republicans (as if!), or “slap Harry Reid around” or sound more like Harry Truman (who lost every legislative battle) or say so and so etc etc coupled with incessant panic attacks about how it is all fucking hopeless are the opposite of useful.
Wouldn’t it be grand, just for example, if all the people who blah-blah-blahed about how Obama was no working class hero like Hillary Clinton and how his embrace of Reaganomics would ruin the world would either admit they were wrong or stop demanding that someone they consider right-wing adopt their half-wit “framing”?
We can’t make the conservative media publish are letters of protests.
You’re just bashing strawmen leftists.
I am going to stop reading this blog.
I can’t stand being bullied around by right wingers. If I liked it I would hang out and free republican.
Dear God, what a sloppy use of language. Democrats are only marginally Left compared to the the far Right who control the GOP.
However, Democrats are not Leftists and the former are willing to go along to get along, especially if the rewards are the reins of government power. Pigs at a trough one could say and the Democrats are only scantly less porcine in behavior. There is not much different in the main stream positions between Democratic policies versus the GOP. Abortion is the major issue and the economic policy differences are only marginally distinct, especially when held in relief to differences between Democrats and Leftists.
Leftists don’t give a damn about Obama’s retreat from the positions expounded in his campaign speeches because they never believed them in the first place, and regardless, the Obama campaign promises show only half a loaf compared to what is needed in this country.
Like Gore Vidal, Noam Chomsky and others have mentioned, both parties are merely different wings of the national business party.
So Greenwald is merely being a dilettante arguing about scintillas of differences when he ought to be delineating the differences between what we are getting versus what we need.
Greenwald is a lawyer, a participant in a debased legal system that has essentially disenfranchised the majority of the people in this country, and he is not about to rock the boat by pointing out the real corruption in the body politic.
The guy is a good read yet he is not going to point out the real problems. It is too easy to point out the minor flaws and act all indignant.
WTF? How many other writers/media people(besides Amy Goodman) are going to interview Dr. Mustafa Barghouti?