Barack Obama’s Achilles Heel: Liberals
By 2008Central.net | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack[Republished from 2008Central.net]
The first time Barack Obama made major news was in early 1990, when he became the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. Most of the write-ups on him were very complimentary. The apex of such articles may have been the Boston Globe profile of him on February 15, 1990:
It is not that Obama is self-deprecating. On the contrary, he is so exceptionally self-assured and directed – as when he notes that he sought the presidency because “I felt I’d enjoy having an influence on the course of legal debate in the country” – that one friend recalls being completely overwhelmed when they met four years ago.“I thought, ‘This guy sounds like he’s president of the country already,’ ” said John Owens, a former co-worker from Chicago, during a telephone interview. “I’ve never met anyone who could leave that impression after only five minutes.”
What seems to motivate Barack Obama is a strong identification with what he calls “the typical black experience,” paired with a mission to help the black community and promote social justice.
This is what fueled his unusual path, from childhood in Indonesia, where he grew up, he says, “as a street kid,” to adolescence in Hawaii, where he was raised by his grandparents; to college in California and New York, where after graduating he wrote articles for Fortune 500 companies so he could see how the economic system works. He then had a job directing a community organization to advocate for poor blacks in Chicago, then moved on to Harvard Law School, where he hopes to learn more about “the nuts and bolts of how the system works” so he can return to public interest work or electoral politics.
Yet it was not all roses. The March 12, 1990 article in the Chicago Tribune noted also some controversy regarding Obama:
Yet some of Obama’s peers question the motives of this second-year law student. They find it puzzling that despite Obama’s openly progressive views on social issues, he has also won support from staunch conservatives. Ironically, he has come under the most criticism from fellow black students for being too conciliatory toward conservatives and not choosing more blacks to other top positions on the law review.
“He’s willing to talk to them (the conservatives) and he has a grasp of where they are coming from, which is something a lot of blacks don’t have and don’t care to have,” said Christine Lee, a second-year law student who is black. “His election was significant at the time, but now it’s meaningless because he’s becoming just like all the others (in the Establishment).”
A decade and a half later, the divide is not racially based, but the antagonism still comes from many liberals, though by no means all. The Nation yesterday summed up the divide over Obama on the left thusly:
How you view Obama’s appeal to Republicans and Independents in large part determines what you think of his unity message. Some people think Obama, through the sheer force of his empathy and skills as a communicator, would broaden the political landscape and convince moderate Republicans and Independents to back progressive policies they ordinarily wouldn’t go for.Matt Yglesias of The Atlantic summed up the appeal thusly, “He says he’s not one of those liberals, he doesn’t call people ‘wingnuts,’ he understands the conservative point of view, blah blah blah, and then here comes his agenda of tax hikes, tons of new spending, ambitious carbon emissions curbs, less invading of other countries for no reason, gay equality, etc. And, remarkably, you keep seeing conservatives eat it up, discerning something incredibly ‘new’ and ‘exciting’ in a combination of conventional liberal policy views with vaguely conciliatory rhetoric.” Those in this camp believe Obama could be a Democratic version of Ronald Reagan. Think: Obama Republicans.
Other liberals, like Krugman, are suspicious of Obama’s inclusionary rhetoric. “It’s actually Mr. Obama who’s being unrealistic here, believing that the insurance and drug industries — which are, in large part, the cause of our health care problems — will be willing to play a constructive role in health reform.” Those like Krugman tend to agree with John Edwards, who says the only way to reduce corporate power in Washington is to “give ‘em hell.”
The argument between the Obama camp and Krugman over mandates and tactics is consuming a lot of people on the left. Clinton has run fliers touting what Krugman has said, and Obama has responded by citing a change in tone on Krugman. Jonathan Alter of Newsweek weighed in on Krugman calling for a modern day FDR by taking a historical look at FDR.
In order to beat Hillary Clinton [continued at 2008Central.net]
This entry was posted on Sunday, December 23rd, 2007 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:39 pm
I am a liberal. Obama believes the U.S. needs to “increase” its defense spending and he’s in the insurance industries pocket. Needless to say he will not be getting my vote.
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:40 pm
I do find it interesting how many liberals are so suspicious of Obama. If they study the positions and past records of the candidates as they profess they would know he gets his liberal agendas passed.
I guess so many democrats are too busy being angry and wanting blood they don’t see the strategy Obama uses in a stealth like way to get past the republicans.
Mark Schmidt at American Prospect has an excellent article regarding the strategy Obama uses and how he can break the conservative coalition apart.
Sadly, democrats only look at the surface rather than what may be going on now. They use to appreciate clever strategies to beat the other side. But, now they want to approach things like a video game in full frontal assualt. They only look at the surface of things and never do any thinking or digging. I use to think bloggers were alot more substantive and smart. But, I don’t see them using any great insights into their commentary.
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Firstly, you speak of politics as if it were some sort of zero sum game. You say “I guess so many democrats are too busy being angry and wanting blood they don’t see the strategy Obama uses in a stealth like way to get past the republicans.
Mark Schmidt at American Prospect has an excellent article regarding the strategy Obama uses and how he can break the conservative coalition apart.”
They don’t see the strategy? What is this? The middle game of chess? Besides, you speak of “liberals” as if they are some homogeneous group. “Liberalism” encompasses a wide spectrum of political thought, ideology and activism. We “liberals” aren’t out to necessarily conquer the conservative base, we just want to see justice. Whether that entails political justice, environmental justice or justice in general. I don’t believe Obama is any different than any of these other career politicians that are beholden to “special interests.” By the way, consider how comfortable the American people have become with the idea that politicians serve the “special interests” in this country instead of serving the people with which they are intended. I wouldn’t wipe my ass with 99% of the politicians in this country in fear that I might get it dirty. Obama is no exception.
December 24th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Oh, and by the way. This liberal is not a Democrat anymore. I see Democrats as being as worthless if not more so than their so-called conservative counterpart, the Republicans. Democrats and Republicans have been bumping elbows for decades–smashing any viable third-party contenders from bringing
about reform and addressing the real issue of this country. Instead we are fed an endless serving of catchy election time ads and career politicians which spend their days in office addressing the concerns of corporate America instead of the rank and file American that makes America possible.
December 24th, 2007 at 7:13 am
I find the wide “spectrum” of liberals out there to be a significant part of Obama’s success. Perhaps a better wording would be to say that the senator’s weakness is with those to the left of the Democratic Party.
As a young, moderate Democrat, Barack appeals to me, and in many of the ways that he is more independent, I am as well.
@ Jeremy:
Your take on the political system seems to be an increasingly popular rhetoric. I agree with you to an extent–ballots should be more accessible for third/fourth party candidates, but for how disgruntled “independents” are with the state of the nation, they sure do quite little for as loud as they rant.
December 24th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
“but for how disgruntled “independents†are with the state of the nation, they sure do quite little for as loud as they rant.”
Edward, not to be confrontational but just because you have come across a few self professed “independents” that were lazy doesn’t necessarily mean all independents are lazy too. Also, I believe Joseph Lieberman has referred to himself as an Independent from time to time, I can’t help but think what a shame the guy is either. He’s no liberal, he’s no moderate. He’s a conservative Republican in sheep’s clothing.
Please understand that I was a Democrat up until this last November election, at which time I voted Democrat across the board. The Democrats rolled over and died. Signed Bush’s blank checks and co-sponsored unconstitutional legislation allowing Bush unfettered executive power to spy on Americans wholesale. That! is not what I consider Liberal nor do I understand it to be consistent with the Democrat’s platform. But the Democrats have proven everyone wrong, they are in fact blending the two parties into one party that pretends to be two and share power by passing legislation that makes it all but impossible for potential candidates that want to make America a better place.
I belong two half a dozen political organizations. I donated at least 15% of my income every month to the most pressing causes that I feel are in need of support. I make it a point to discuss politics with just about everyone I know and I keep abreast of politics daily. Sounds pretty lazy to me.
And one last point. The reason I will be voting for a Republican, yeah Ron Paul, is because ironically enough, it’s a Republican who is standing up against the Iraq war, not the Democrats. It is a Republican that is standing up against spying on Americans. It is a Republican that is standing up against the Patriot Act, not Democrats. It is a Republican that is standing up against un-American torture, not Democrats. It is a Republican that is standing up against corrupt politicians that are in bed with special interests, not the Democrats. It is a Republican that is standing up for Habeas Corpus, not Democrats.
Tell me? Just what are the Democrats standing up against? The lose of their cushy little congressional seats of which they abuse in order to enrich themselves at the expense of the people that elect them? Democrats had their chance. In your parlance “they sure do quite little for as loud as they rant.”
December 24th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
“I use to think bloggers were alot more substantive and smart. But, I don’t see them using any great insights into their commentary.”
This isn’t just regarding bloggers. Paul Krugman and Alter and the like are having this same argument, and at some point it’s worth noting that Obama’s problem demographic are liberals, not independents like Edwards and Clinton.
And yes, Jeremy, liberal is a vague term, but in general, the further left someone is the morethey are likely to distrust Obama.
What’s the point of someone ‘standing up’ for ideals? Anyone can do that. We as a society hire representatives to DO things and change the law.
If you want someone to stand up for ideals and never get any of them accomplished, vote Kucinich or Paul and get out of the way. Any candidate who has to accomplish something will either have to compromise or get the other party to go along.
Pick your poison.
Thanks for the feedback, though…
December 24th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
“I find the wide “spectrum†of liberals out there to be a significant part of Obama’s success. Perhaps a better wording would be to say that the senator’s weakness is with those to the left of the Democratic Party”
You may be right; I consider Krugman a Democrat as much as anyone though. And many of Edwards’ supporters loathe Obama, and they’re definitely all Democrats. It’s a sort of pointless word game, but you’re point is well taken.
December 26th, 2007 at 1:58 am
“If you want someone to stand up for ideals and never get any of them accomplished, vote Kucinich or Paul and get out of the way. Any candidate who has to accomplish something will either have to compromise or get the other party to go along.
Pick your poison.
Thanks for the feedback, though…”
Yes John W, because we all know that a far-far right leaning politician (Bush) can’t get anything accomplished without compromise. Uhh huh, okay! You seem to believe that people who believe passionately are somehow hopelessly “idealistic.” It’s pretty simple, they are “hopeless idealist” because they are sick of the election promises and post election corruption. Mr. Obama proves to be no less a shill for special interests than the rest of the Demublican party.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Actually, Bush got the other party to go along. Ergo, we have Edwards apologizing for his vote and Clinton … doing whatever she can do to say she regrets it but does not want to apologize.
Or do you want to make the case that Democrats stood up to Bush? If Democrats 5 years ago had half the fortitude Senate Republicans have now, things would have been far, far different. And you know that.