More On The Left Flank: Defining The Middle

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:21:05 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Politics is not a battle for the middle. It is a battle for defining the terms of the political debate. It is a battle to be able to say what is the middle. - BTD

Matt Yglesias writes:

That said, the other thing we see here is something that those of us who think Obama is too conservative don’t like to confront. You see a lot of talk about “guts” and being “tough” and “brave” and “bold” but fundamentally we’ve done a terrible job of persuading people in the public that we’re right and there are many issues on which Obama should be more progressive. As Chris Bowers likes to point out, the most credible most beloved messenger on the left is—wait for it—Barack Obama, which tends to make Obama immune to criticism from the left. This is a fundamental problem for shifting the country in a progressive direction. Indeed, in a lot of ways it’s even a problem for Obama himself. But it’s fundamentally a problem of persuasion rather than a problem of Obama’s character.

(Emphasis supplied.) This is a strange paragraph to me. It's one thing to argue that Obama is not likely to care about Left critiques. That may well be. But a bigger problem in my view is the idea that critiquing Obama from the Left is somehow a bad thing to do. I think that has been the point a lot of us have been making. Indeed, the premise of Yglesias' point is that Obama is not very progressive in action (a view I not only believe but argued for many years now.) More . . .

My point, and indeed my critique of Chris Bowers, has been centered on the idea that Democrats need a Left Flank willing to critique Obama.

That requires separating yourself from the pol and the Party, and focusing on the issues. I personally believe it is better for progressives and for their issues when they do this.

But I also think such an approach helps Dems and Obama. With a strong Left Flank, then Democratic policies will be perceived as "Centrist," even if they move the policy in a progressive direction.

It's my old saw:

[T]hat is FDR's lesson for Obama. Politics is not a battle for the middle. It is a battle for defining the terms of the political debate. It is a battle to be able to say what is the middle.

Speaking for me only

< The Democrats' Immigration Bill Is a Sham | On AZ SB 1070: Time To Act >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

More On The Left Flank: Defining The Middle | 23 comments (23 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I don't know how many times (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 11:26:21 AM EST

you have to write this before cheerleaders will decide to liberate themselves. It does usually take considerable exploitation though before a cheerleader notices that the upside of cheerleading and being the new sexy cool is only more exploitation :) And when your sexy cool gets old and tired and starts to slip.....well, that's too scary to even talk about :)

If it's not about Obama's character (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Cream City on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 11:27:41 AM EST

then it's about his intellect.

Cute, though, for the blogger to try to make it about our ability to persuade the president who was alleged by his blogger boyz to be brilliant and ballsy.

Oy, I know....he's like Jesus (5.00 / 5) (#7)
by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 11:31:32 AM EST

but like an Einstein Jesus. He's busy playing Galactic Worm Hole Chess and I'm just too simple and stupid to understand any of this.


I noticed it was OUR fault also... (5.00 / 10) (#10)
by jeffinalabama on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 11:38:39 AM EST

gee whiz, us DFH's can't persuade anyone. It's not Obama's fault, we were unpersuasive.

HOw is it that someone whose campaign was on transformation offers the same old same old, but it's our fault?

Here's something I find ironic and sad. George W Bush didn't suprise me at all with his actions for eight years. He was consistent, and he stuck to his beliefs. Even after 9/11, the Bush years were remarkable in their predictability.

The Obama administration, with calls for transparency, has appeared more opaque than Bush's administration. And all of the areas where I hoped for change, well those areas haven't really changed, except for the worse, in terms of policy.

I'm a blue-collar New Deal Great Society democrat in my beliefs. I have seen the laundry lists people post about what has been done by this administration.

But I feel like the child in the story "The Emperor's New Clothes." It looks naked to me.

Unless transformational change means transforming into a Republican-lite (at best) administration, I don't see it.

But it's MY fault because I, from my marginalized position, didn't do a good enough sales pitch? Heck, let's hire the cast of Mad Men, then, or Tony Roma from Glengarry Glenross.


: If we could offer Obama a multi-million-dollar job (none / 0) (#16)
by lambert on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 01:55:49 PM EST

on the teebee being the next Oprah after his unpaid internship at the White House ends, hopefully soon, we'd be able to "persuade" him. Until then, persuasion won't do the trick.

: The game is rigged (none / 0) (#17)
by jondee on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 02:59:54 PM EST

for Republican-lite and Republican-jihadist.
Probably right up until we have completely publicly funded elections.

I'm glad I'm not the only one (5.00 / 4) (#9)
by Kimberley on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 11:35:27 AM EST

who read that post yesterday and thought, "Huh?"

This is the part that raised the alarm for me:

[W]e've done a terrible job of persuading people in the public that we're right and there are many issues on which Obama should be more progressive.

It's easy to say, but is it true? How often are liberals advocating against the desires of a majority? Public option? DADT? Wall Street regulation? These are just a few recent examples of our alignment with solid majorities.

I contend that we don't have a problem with the public. We've got a problem with politicians.

I don't believe that most folks are sitting around thinking, "Well, if a liberal likes this idea it must be wrong." Most people aren't that simple, petty, or willing to throw their own interests on a funeral pyre just to piss off hippies.

I think what's happening here is that most people are receptive to a lot of what liberals advocate for and we lose them to manufactured impracticality and worse.

I'm an advocate because I'm passionate about these issues. But let's say I hold more of a can't-fight-city-hall mentality: I'm going to stay in the slipstream of power because there's comfort and safety in that kind of invisibility. If the nail isn't sticking out, it doesn't need pounding down.

We're unable to project enough power to convince them it's safe to line up behind us. Our right can't fight the might that's been amassed and they know it.

So, obviously, I agree wholeheartedly with you. This is a battle for setting terms of debate. And it could be easily won--if we didn't have a problem with politicians.

: Yesssssssss (heavy on the hiss) (5.00 / 5) (#11)
by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 11:40:20 AM EST

How often are liberals advocating against the desires of a majority? Public option? DADT? Wall Street regulation? These are just a few recent examples of our alignment with solid majorities.
I contend that we don't have a problem with the public. We've got a problem with politicians.
We have a problem with politicians and not much else

Well it sure as Hell isn't my fault. (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by oldpro on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 01:18:07 PM EST

It's the fault of the fools who made him the Democratic nominee with nothing but faith-based dreams and assumptions ("He's black...he MUST be liberal!)

Plenty of evidence to let any serious observer know where an Obama administration might be going (or not going) on many foreign and domestic policy fronts...with one exception: his disgraceful Justice Department. If someone predicted it, I missed it.

It's not a matter of persuading OBAMA (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by lambert on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 01:52:50 PM EST

Obama's a pol, so he understands (a) money or (b) pain. Those of who don't have money will have to bring the pain. (One way to do that is to move beyond the legacy parties).

It is a matter of persuading our friends and neighbors, on the ground. Many drops make a tide.

Okay, I'm having trouble - a lot of (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Anne on Sat May 01, 2010 at 02:43:39 PM EST

trouble - with this:

the most credible most beloved messenger on the left is--wait for it--Barack Obama, which tends to make Obama immune to criticism from the left.

Really? The most beloved messenger on the left is Barack Obama? And that makes him immune to criticism?

I've read that part at least 10 times, and still cannot make sense of it. He's not left, he's not even a messenger of left-leaning ideology, and beloved?

Are you kidding me?

Yglesias manages to make Obama sound like someone we're supposed to be bowing down before, that having been elevated him to the presidency, he has been enshrined in a glowing bubble that the great unwashed - us - can never hope to penetrate because all wisdom resides inside that bubble.

Should we be genuflecting and tithing and forgetting that we all have minds and opinions and ideas about where this country needs to go and needs to be and just be good little Stepford-like citizens?

I cannot believe people actually think like this - and are just giving up whatever ability they have to be agents of change.

: Obviously he never reads (none / 0) (#22)
by jondee on Sat May 01, 2010 at 02:59:14 PM EST

The Nation, Harpers, Mother Jones and blogs like this one.
Insert the word "progressive" for "the left" though, and he'd be echoing pitch-perfectly what many have been saying ad nauseum here for the last two years.
Though I'd beg to differ about him being "beloved" by progressives or being seen as a "credible messenger" by progressives.

: Yglesias point is that B.O. renders criticism ... (none / 0) (#23)
by RonK Seattle on Sun May 02, 2010 at 07:08:14 PM EST

... ineffective, not that criticism from the left is either absent or unwarranted.

very smart (none / 0) (#1)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:32:03 AM EST

you would think with the vocal right wingers relentlessly driving the middle to the right this would be obvious.

but I guess not.

I do agree with him on this (none / 0) (#2)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:37:26 AM EST

You see a lot of talk about "guts" and being "tough" and "brave" and "bold" but fundamentally we've done a terrible job of persuading people in the public that we're right and there are many issues on which Obama should be more progressive

And it is unfortunate that Obama was the one that some on the left were counting on to do the persuading. But that just means to me that it is time to find a different spokesman. Who will emerge as a vocal challenger and progressive political leader?

I'll add...to me it goes without saying (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:39:53 AM EST

at this point that progressive blogs and media need to pressure Obama. But I think more pols have to pressure him too.


Not unless they are in a safe seat (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by jbindc on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 10:55:59 AM EST

And since we've seen those don't exist, we can't expect those dependent on OFA/DNC for money and support to push Obama too hard.


: Or those dependant on Corporate donations (5.00 / 5) (#8)
by hookfan on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 11:32:16 AM EST

since it's clear who and what is Obama's priorities. Defining Obama as left or even centrist means supporting corporatist agendas and priorities.
I think defining the issue as left or right is a red herring that is used to divide the populace in order for both parties to continue their march with corporate dominance.
The real issue is corporate hegemony and what to do about it. The real influence doesn't,imo, depend on what we blather and babble about what we define as left, center,or right-- it's just part of the theatre. It's all about the money now, babe--just that and nothing more.

: yeah, we are scr***** (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 12:24:10 PM EST

yeah, geez matt, it's that (none / 0) (#12)
by cpinva on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 12:22:55 PM EST

whole "facts" thing, that makes us progressive types so difficult to believe. now, if we were to just lie, then everyone would love us, and our candidates would win handily.

of course, that it would turn us into the right is merely a minor detail.

I wonder if some of this is tea party-driven (none / 0) (#18)
by kempis on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 03:34:27 PM EST

The loudest mouths in the country these days are attacking Obama as a socialist-commie-leftist-radical.

Those voices are amplified by media coverage because the media loves a freak show--and the tea baggers provide. And they're even amplified by the mocking they're rightfully subjected to.

I honestly think the average American, who doesn't pay close attention to politics, hears all the tea party and Faux News hubbub about Obama's being a radical leftist and they assume it must be so.

There is no comparably loud movement on the left--not except for the DADT activists (bless them)--to break through the ho-hummery with a message about the Obama administration.

The reason for that, ironically, is the Obama loyalists' resistance to criticism of Obama. It's ironic because these people fancy themselves progressives.

But, for example, did we progressives really succeed in pushing Obama leftward on HCR? No. And while there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth online, I doubt the average American knew what the public option was and why it was important to them that the progressives (the real ones) win that debate.

So it's not really surprising that 40% of Americans think Obama is "too liberal" and only a fraction think he's "too conservative" when the reality is that he is by far more conservative than liberal. Progressives can't be heard over the voices of the "progressives" who tell us to leave Obama alone.

What sound does an old saw make? (none / 0) (#19)
by RonK Seattle on Sat May 01, 2010 at 01:36:39 PM EST

zzzZZZzzzZZZzzzZZZzzz...

The Right exercised power until the New Deal, at which they lost power and turned to very patient programs of persuasion.

The Left obliged them by giving up persuasion, in favor of power.

Now the Left (if it exists) has neither ... but its remnants maintain an increasingly futile search for increasingly ingenious power tools.

zzzZZZzzz...

: Class interest (none / 0) (#20)
by jondee on Sat May 01, 2010 at 02:10:10 PM EST

is the driving force behind the marginalization of the Left. Because Mitt Romney and Chris Dodd meet at the same club at the end of the day. And those workers there, who should get grateful for what they get, dont need no stinkin' "solidarity" and no stinkin' unions.
The point is to continually remind people that going from close to half the workers in the country being organized to 10% has little if anything to do with the strength and bargaining power of the progressive cause in this country. And the fact that the most militantly anti-union voices in this country are always on the Right isnt indicative of all that much either. Why, I heard John McLaughlin say that just the other night, so there must be something to it. Workers in this country are perfectly satisfied with Teapartys, a focus on values and protecting their Fourth Amendment rights.