Progressives Could Lose a Small Battle to Win the Big War

As someone miffed by what I am seeing with the appointments, and the proof that change apparently doesn't mean change, it simply means getting out of the chairs so that those who had them 8 years ago can have them back, your argument that we can “vote his sorry butt out of office in 2012″ assumes an alternative.

It would appear that your method of handling a situation like this in a two party system is to give the greater of two evils the presidency in order to punish the lesser of two evils.

I voted for Obama because I believed that change was more than just shifting from Republican to Democrat. If that's all it was, I could have voted for HRC. Rather, the vote was for a new way of thinking and a new way of governing.

Time will tell, but right now, I'm not seeing how a group that is eerily similar to the 42nd president's administrations is going to provide us with fresh ideas on how to lead this country. I do hope I'm wrong.

What I don't appreciate though is how suddenly we are the enemy. Dirty hippies? Some of us are the true idealogues, while it would appear that folks like Atrios are simply partisans, who were really interested in regaining power rather than any true ideal. If that's not the case, then perhaps the tone has to change. Otherwise, they have just become the same as conservative talk radio by using ad hominem attacks on those to the left of the writers.

This rapid change that everyone thinks is going to happen, or was supposed to happen, under an Obama Presidency is totally over-inflated. I think Obama is a smart man that realizes you need to get people to work together to accomplish the goals that are in the best interest of the country. That is why he is not going too far to the left with his appointments. He knows that if he did this, Republicans would be alienated, and I don't know if you saw, but there is not a sufficient number of Democrats in the Senate for an alienation of the republicans to facilitate any kind of policy passage. If that happened, Republicans would just cry “foul” and be totally against anything his admiistration comes up with (kind of like the Dems with the current Administration).

The fact is things are so screwed up right now, it's going to take years to get it back on track, and that is not going to happen by railroading Republicans. Like it or not, they are Americans too, and the progressives need them at this point in history…for now.

I appreciate your concerns, but I still think more or less writing off the Obama administration as simply Clinton redux is a mistake. My point is to wait and see. It's too early for such judgments, and I suspect Obama is quite serious that he will be the driving force behind policy. Having people who are experienced at working the levers of government is merely a strategy for implementing his agenda.

I would recommend Hendrik Hertzberg's essay in The New Yorker a couple weeks ago.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhe…

Hertzbeg writes:

The theory seems to be that a “Clinton person” would be inclined, at best, to reproduce the policies and actions of the Clinton Administration, including the accompanying mistakes, or, at worst, to serve the interests of “the Clintons” should they prove divergent from those of the Obama Administration and the nation.

I sincerely doubt any of the people Obama has chosen would do this, or Obama would tolerate anyone under him attempting it. The full essay is worth a read for an explanation of the benefits of employing seasoned hands.

As for Atrios, I don't think he was implying those on the left are “dirty hippies,” but was using the popular hyperbolic criticism of “the left” for comedic and illustrative effect.

I think you are right. The ship of state is not designed to turn on a dime, and I think it is clear that Obama (wisely) intends to pursue a generally incrementalist strategy in a steady leftward direction by appealing to the center. Ultimately, the reality of the situation is that Democrats do need the cooperation of at least some Republicans.

As someone miffed by what I am seeing with the appointments, and the proof that change apparently doesn't mean change, it simply means getting out of the chairs so that those who had them 8 years ago can have them back, your argument that we can “vote his sorry butt out of office in 2012″ assumes an alternative.

It would appear that your method of handling a situation like this in a two party system is to give the greater of two evils the presidency in order to punish the lesser of two evils.

I voted for Obama because I believed that change was more than just shifting from Republican to Democrat. If that's all it was, I could have voted for HRC. Rather, the vote was for a new way of thinking and a new way of governing.

Time will tell, but right now, I'm not seeing how a group that is eerily similar to the 42nd president's administrations is going to provide us with fresh ideas on how to lead this country. I do hope I'm wrong.

What I don't appreciate though is how suddenly we are the enemy. Dirty hippies? Some of us are the true idealogues, while it would appear that folks like Atrios are simply partisans, who were really interested in regaining power rather than any true ideal. If that's not the case, then perhaps the tone has to change. Otherwise, they have just become the same as conservative talk radio by using ad hominem attacks on those to the left of the writers.

This rapid change that everyone thinks is going to happen, or was supposed to happen, under an Obama Presidency is totally over-inflated. I think Obama is a smart man that realizes you need to get people to work together to accomplish the goals that are in the best interest of the country. That is why he is not going too far to the left with his appointments. He knows that if he did this, Republicans would be alienated, and I don't know if you saw, but there is not a sufficient number of Democrats in the Senate for an alienation of the republicans to facilitate any kind of policy passage. If that happened, Republicans would just cry “foul” and be totally against anything his admiistration comes up with (kind of like the Dems with the current Administration).

The fact is things are so screwed up right now, it's going to take years to get it back on track, and that is not going to happen by railroading Republicans. Like it or not, they are Americans too, and the progressives need them at this point in history…for now.

I appreciate your concerns, but I still think more or less writing off the Obama administration as simply Clinton redux is a mistake. My point is to wait and see. It's too early for such judgments, and I suspect Obama is quite serious that he will be the driving force behind policy. Having people who are experienced at working the levers of government is merely a strategy for implementing his agenda.

I would recommend Hendrik Hertzberg's essay in The New Yorker a couple weeks ago.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhe…

Hertzbeg writes:

The theory seems to be that a “Clinton person” would be inclined, at best, to reproduce the policies and actions of the Clinton Administration, including the accompanying mistakes, or, at worst, to serve the interests of “the Clintons” should they prove divergent from those of the Obama Administration and the nation.

I sincerely doubt any of the people Obama has chosen would do this, or Obama would tolerate anyone under him attempting it. The full essay is worth a read for an explanation of the benefits of employing seasoned hands.

As for Atrios, I don't think he was implying those on the left are “dirty hippies,” but was using the popular hyperbolic criticism of “the left” for comedic and illustrative effect.

I think you are right. The ship of state is not designed to turn on a dime, and I think it is clear that Obama (wisely) intends to pursue a generally incrementalist strategy in a steady leftward direction by appealing to the center. Ultimately, the reality of the situation is that Democrats do need the cooperation of at least some Republicans.