home

From the Pols Are Pols File

Matt Yglesias on President Obama's broken campaign promises, including on the public option:

I’ve heard Obama talk about how for progressive policy to have a chance of getting support from the American people he needs to try to rebuild people’s faith in the ability of the government to do useful things and do them well. I agree with that. But he also needs to rebuild people’s faith that engagement with the political process can accomplish something. The unseemly wriggling away from campaign promises he’s engaged in is going to achieve the reverse.

The problem is not with Obama on this score. The problem is with anyone who puts their faith in pols, any pols. My old refrain, pols are pols and do what they do:

As citizens and activists, our allegiances have to be to the issues we believe in. I am a partisan Democrat it is true. But the reason I am is because I know who we can pressure to do the right thing some of the times. Republicans aren't them. But that does not mean we accept the failings of our Democrats. There is nothing more important that we can do, as citizens, activists or bloggers than fight to pressure DEMOCRATS to do the right thing on OUR issues.

And this is true in every context I think. Be it pressing the Speaker or the Senate majority leader, or the new hope running for President. There is nothing more important we can do. Nothing. It's more important BY FAR than "fighting" for your favorite pol because your favorite pol will ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS, disappoint you.

In the middle of primary fights, citizens, activists and bloggers like to think their guy or woman is different. They are going to change the way politics works. They are going to not disappoint. In short, they are not going to be pols. That is, in a word, idiotic.

Yes, they are all pols. And they do what they do. Do not fight for pols. Fight for the issues you care about. That often means fighting for a pol of course. But remember, you are fighting for the issues. Not the pols.

Speaking for me only

< GOP: The "Let Them Eat Cake" Party | Up Or Down Vote On The Public Option >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    dunno if you saw this axelrod quote (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Turkana on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 11:01:14 AM EST
    but i did a small post on it.

    change.

    The Impotent President Theory (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 11:07:11 AM EST
    This was sold on background for a while now. you saw it taken up by the Village Dems.

    Parent
    somehow (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Turkana on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 11:24:40 AM EST
    i don't think it would have made for a good campaign slogan.

    Parent
    Not impotent at all (4.25 / 4) (#7)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 11:31:19 AM EST
    Obama has been very successful in making sure that all of his promises made in back room deals to the industries have been kept no matter how they impeded providing actual affordable health care.  

    Parent
    That's a different point (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:43:36 PM EST
    than the one I am making.

    Perhaps I am particularly snippy today, but I am not liking the comments today. They seem intended to willfully misunderstand what I am saying.

    Parent

    You pissed aboot the Hockey? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Salo on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:32:50 PM EST
    Whiskey and Cigars?

    Parent
    Another back room deal (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 11:21:18 AM EST
    I Suppose the theory (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:12:13 PM EST
    can also be used to account for Prez's willingness to scratch federal consumer protection agency?

    Parent
    Axelrod's Doublespeak (none / 0) (#12)
    by norris morris on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 02:07:12 PM EST
    Thanks for letting me read this ridiculous Axelrod hype blather.

    It's an unconvincing cop out to protect an uninvolved and disappointing president with the lamest of excuses.

    It's like there wasn't FDR  or Martin Luther King [and others] that were able to create social programs that offered real benefits and tremendous social change. Or Susan B. Anthony and others who were responsible for women's right to vote. And Betty Freidan , et al who fought for women's right to choose.  I could go on and on.

    While it's true that a Pol is just a Pol and it is also up to the citizens to react and criticize in order to affect issue change, nevertheless when Obama promised at least to be open and transparent we find he double dealed from day one with Insurance and drug monopolies to give away the PO and drug importation, drug generics [not for 10 yrs], and the entire rotten deal he struck while play acting and handing it off to Congress. Obama got political cover by remaining silent and not communicating for obvious reasons.

    We have a right to expect that sometimes a rare leader presents us with an opportunity for decent social change on important issues.

    We have found out that Obama is not this man, and until someone emerges [?] we will have to take our issues to the streets,blogs,media, and poll booth.

    Parent

    This is BTD's POPS shtick. (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by observed on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 07:15:14 PM EST
    While I understand it's purpose, taken to extremes his premise is ridiculous. Therefore, I"m going to endorse BTD's POPS campaign, not because I believe him, but because I"m sure that he can't be serious.

    The POPS theory is nothing but a Randian absolute statement that people always act in their self interest. Well, one can always argue that.
    However, it's unquestionably true that many pols have ideals which they believe in and fight for. To pretend otherwise is to ignore history.
    Even Republicans have ideals. I would say that republicans in particular have ideals and goals: they believe that a return to 1890's America is something worth fighting for---even worth going to jail for. They are misguided, but many of them are driven ideologues.
    I wish more Democrats had real passion.

    Acutally (3.50 / 2) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:45:09 PM EST
    it's the fault of Obama and the people who believed him. His marketing campaign was based on making him into a holy figure, not a typical politican so letting him off of responsiblity would be like letting off those people who scam elderly people out of their money.

    Now anyone with half a fig of brain could look at his record and see what was coming but there are suckers born everyday and just because there are suckers out there doesn't excuse the con men.

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by klassicheart on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 12:41:08 AM EST
    should absolutely be held responsible.  If he can be responsible for the "great" campaign he supposedly ran, then he can be  responsible for his misrepresentations or active deceit while running it.  I agree with you.

    Parent
    American Idol (3.66 / 3) (#13)
    by norris morris on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:17:40 PM EST
    Obama had a very sketchy background in Chicago, and some of it was not so hot which included his dealings with Tony Rezko [now in jail I believe] whose sweetheart deal[$$$] alowed him to buy his Chicago home. He'd been involved with Rezko for years using government subsidies for low income homes that ultimately were not funded and bankrupted. His tenure as State Senator was full of "present" votes rather than yes or no when this was politically expedient wshich was often.Obama was responsible for obtaining subsidies for Rezko as State Senator. Rezko was Obama's main fundraiser and mentor.

    There's lots about this in The Chicago SunTimes which I pointed out in many posts during the campaign.  In fact as a life long democrat I was nevertheless tarred and feathered for even suggesting Obama was being oversold and backed by party leaders as the anti Hillary, and further that he had little experience to qualify him.

     I also questioned what he believed in as his speeches were full of impassioned generalized
    hyper rhetoric that smacked of religious fervor, but lacked any details about his beliefs.

    Nobody believed I wasn't a Republican spy, and Huffington Post among other blogs wouldn't include my posts.
    So it goes when people are whipped up in a
    frenzy of idolatry.

    So American Idol became President and we see he's  been deceptive in his dealings, and regarding  the issues he promised to address and change for our benefit- he bombed out.

    Because the African American community finally had a hero who was within  possibility of becoming president there were powerful emotions  and hopes on the line.  If only Obama had not been a political rock star, but a believable progressive who could fight for his dreams and promises!

    Actually it's now occurred to most of us  we don't really know what Obama really believes or what he stands for, if anything. His behavior as President reveals nothing more than another on the make Pol who says one thing and does another while being protected by his Chicago cadre.

    So much for American Idol, hero worship, and not paying attention. Our politics have ben suffused with celebrity worship and we've suffered the consequences. We cannot be afraid to demand more and separate ourselves from the cult of personality.

    Parent

    I wish the sketchiness was covering up (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Salo on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:36:33 PM EST
    some glamourous Communistic sentiment in the man. Sadly no. It was just personal ambition.

    Parent
    some pols tell you what they think (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 11:15:51 AM EST
    whether you like it or not and then they proceed to follow their ideals and keep their word.
    some say anything to get elected and had no particular ideals in the first place.

    Don't make excuses for Obama being a weasel.

    No pols do that (3.66 / 3) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 11:23:13 AM EST
    you are fooling yourself.

    Parent
    They are mainly killed or (none / 0) (#17)
    by Salo on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:31:53 PM EST
    driven off.  Normally they seem to serve whatever Barons placed them on the Throne or they perish.

    Parent
    Some pols maybe (none / 0) (#14)
    by Socraticsilence on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:22:32 PM EST
    but not presidents, I mean seriously name a single President who didn't end up going back on promises- first term Bush is the only guy in recent memory I can think of and that's because 9-11 let him run roughshod over congress for 3 years or so- and even he completely flipped on pulling back from America's oversea's commitments.

    Parent
    Kathleen Hall Jamieson said Bill Clinton kept (none / 0) (#10)
    by jawbone on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 12:53:57 PM EST
    most of his campaign promises (from early Bill Moyer's program, when it was still NOW?).  She said also that when he broke a promise it was bcz he explained why he had broken it or it was bcz the Repub Congress would not let him enact his programs.

    These pages from her book, Everything You Think You Know About Politics -- and Why You're Wrong, uses research to support her statement. (It's a Google excerpt, so I'm uncomfortable about copy'n'pasting from it....)  

    But, with Clinton I looked at the political principles he expressed, his long history as a governor, and what I could learn about his life.
    Which is what I tend to do for the important, powerful elective offices.  Not easy to find out all that much about state and local candidates.

    There was a lot of actual governing which could point to how Clinton would govern. Not so much about Obama.

    My research into Obama's political career made me doubt what Obama would actually do, especially since it was so publicly knowable that he said things that were almost polar opposites. In those sitations, I tried to pay attention to his body language, facial expressions, tone of voice: I cannot forget how grudgingly he answered the question, put to him about three times, iirc, as to whether health CARE was a human right. It was like pulling teeth...but he finally said, "Yes."

    The was also report, by HuffPo's citizen report Mayhill Fowler, from the PA private fundraiser where he told his wealthy donors that he was not going to be able to do everything on health, education that he'd "talked about." This report was ignored or castigated in the left blogs, never seen in the MCM.

    When a pol "talks about" doing things to the electorate, I take that as a promise. When that same pol says something different to powerful backers, I sense he or she is a hypocrite.

    BTD, I always think of your exhortation: Trust the principles, not the person.  What's tough is when the person is a stealth candidate.

    I agree absolutely with this. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by esmense on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 06:52:57 PM EST
    Clinton didn't succeed with everything he proposed, and I didn't agree with everything he proposed or did, but he did attempted to address, in good faith, every issue that he raised in the campaign. My first impression of him was not good -- another "moderate" Southern politico from a socially conservative right-to-work state was not my ideal, and personally I found him a little off-putting. But when he and the other major candidates on Washington's primary roster, from both parties, were asked 10 questions by the Seattle Times (5 on local issues and 5 on national issues), Clinton was not only the only one who answered all 10, but the only one who answered with specifics, in detail. (Bush answered 3 national questions with the same one sentence boiler plate response (that basically said I can't answer this now), Buchanan answered 5 with BS talking points, Brown answered 7 in a similarly ideological but hopelessly vague way.) I had never encountered a national politician willing to put his views so honestly on the line like that. Plus, he was as knowledgeable about our most controversial local issues as he was about the national issues.

    When he was elected he did address everything he said he would address -- including action on our local issues --  sometimes failing, sometimes compromising, sometimes succeeding.  

    I think it is ironic that the man so many people glibly dismiss as sleazy and dishonest is, if you actually bothered to learn what he really proposed and are now willing to be objective when you look into his record, one of the most honest, in his public life, presidents to serve in that office in a very long time.

    I hate the term "campaign promises." Candidates don't promise, they propose. Those proposals should provide an honest idea of how they view the issues, what solutions they prefer over others, what their priorities will be in office, and what they hope for. But politicians, no more than the rest of us, can't provide a fail proof promise of what the future will bring.

    If someone proposes a specific approach to health care, fights for it and fails, like Clinton did, that's not a broken promise or a sign of dishonestly. If someone supports popular elements of health care in the campaign, simply to position himself against an opponent's proposal, but drops those elements entirely the moment he's in office, that's dishonesty.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#15)
    by norris morris on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:24:47 PM EST
    Jawbone for a very enlightening post. I was one of the bloggers during the campaign that was castigated for pointing out many details about Obama's Chicago political career.  I was ignored along with others who had real doubts about Obama's fitness, experience, and core beliefs. All evidence was ignored.

    Again, thanks.

    Parent

    I believe in Huge book deals. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Salo on Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 04:30:38 PM EST
    Huge wedges of money from Random House or Simon and Shuster for employing a ghost writer. Obama does too.

    Obama can write a Tome explaining how perfectly unreasonable all his peers are.

    Everyone will agree it is a worthy book.

    BTD, (none / 0) (#22)
    by cpinva on Sat Feb 27, 2010 at 12:29:58 AM EST
    i think you could make a tidy sum, selling t-shirts with that slogan on it.