Why Are Liberals So Pissed?

Nader Voter - By David ShankboneI am really mystified about the left's level of anger at Obama over this debt deal. Not only do liberals believe the debt deal was an unmitigated disaster (Why? What are the concrete consequences of this deal? I haven't seen anyone explain what specific program, policy, or vulnerable community has been harmed by this deal), but they believe that Obama is actually a closet Conservative!  A sampling of the vitriol from Corey Robin's facebook chat with notable liberals (in all cases they are referring to the President):

Rick Perlstein‎: ”The fellow’s not quite well."

Jay Driskell: "I’d like to think he’s in the thrall of capital, but more and more of me thinks that he is naive and clueless and out of his depth. That is, if he were in the thrall of capital, that would at least be comprehensible (and reprehensible) to me."

Doug Henwood: "Plus, he needs Wall Street money for a billion-dollar re-election campaign. ... Jay, “If he were in the thrall of capital”? In who else’s thrall is he?"

Jodi Dean: "I’m not sure moderate right fits someone to the right of Nixon and Reagan."

Katha Pollitt: "IMO, he’s weak. I don’t exactly disagree with Doug — clearly, he is Wall St’s man –but I think a more skillful politician, one less in love with being above the fray, could have handled this a lot better and gotten more on the other side."

Adolph Reed: "He’s a one-trick pony, always has been, and that trick is performing judiciousness, reasonableness, performing the guy who shows his seriousness by being able to agree with those with whom he supposedly disagrees and to disagree with those with whom he supposedly agrees. He has never — not at any moment in his political career — stood for anything more concrete than a platitude."

Corey Robin: "I tend to think people like Obama really don’t believe the bullshit they preach; what they do believe is that moderation is the mark of maturity and that Wall Street types are smarter than the rest of us."

Doug: "Corey, the personal angle with O, I think, is the fact that he was nurtured from an early age by elites – fancy universities and foundations and then the Dem leadership. He’s in awe of them, and grateful for all they did. Cf. FDR, who emerged from the elite and had the confidence to challenge them. ... I also wouldn’t go too far with the contentlessness of his reasonableness: it’s always about loyal service to power. Not to belabor the obvious, but it’s extremely useful to the bourgeoisie to have a mixed race, cerebral Democrat imposing the austerity program. I’m reminded of Dinkins telling Wall Street skeptics, who thought he didn’t have the balls to impose austerity after the 80s went poof, back during his first campaign: “They’ll take it from me.”"

On and on, further down the rabbit hole. Beyond confusion that anyone could think these are the simpliest explanations for Obama's performance as President (here's my simple version of Obama: he wants to get liberal stuff done but he's very risk adverse about his election prospects), I just think this is an incredibly disproportionate response. 

Liberals seem upset that social program cuts could be included in the plan put out by the "supercommission" that hasn't been formed yet! That's like giving up in disgust with the game tied at halftime.  

Yes, we should be focused on jobs right now.  This does smell like 1937, when FDR tried to balance the budget and sent the economy back into a recession.  Except, that's not what is happening (at least yet).  There is no significant deficit reduction this year or next year. You're dreaming if you think a fat infrastructure stimulus package was there for the taking but for Obama's incompetence as a negotiator. So the only justified complaint is Obama's failure to use the bully pulpit to convince the American people of the righteousness of the liberal cause. Fair enough, but that hardly makes him history's greatest monster.

It seems like Liberals are completely ignoring the fact that there was (is?) a hardcore conservative mass movement that swept 63 Republicans into office 9 months ago. Unlike the liberals speculating about Obama's psychological motivations, I won't try to spin a grand theory about why that happened. But I suspect that at least some of those Tea Party [1] folks were motivated as a reaction to all the liberal stuff that happened in the first two years of the Obama administration.[2] 

It's quite possible that the marginal benefits of doing even more liberal stuff would have outweighed the marginal costs of further enraging the most conservative people in the country. I'd be pretty happy to have cap and trade in the bank right now, even if it meant the Republicans had more seats in Congress. My point is that Obama isn't acting in a vacuum; actions have reactions. One day you are talking about comprehensive immigration reform and cap and trade, and suddenly you are trying to playing defense.

I personally think we are pretty lucky to have Obama.  He's not perfect, but I remember the Bush administration, the McCain campaign, and I don't look forward to President Romney, Perry, or Bachmann.

I'm tired of hearing liberals cast down fellow travellers for insufficent loyalty to organized labor or the belief that the market does a pretty good job most of the time.  I vote Democratic, donate to Obama and the DNC, volunteer to make calls and knock on doors, write about policy on the internet, have worked at a left-leaning nonprofit, and I lead an LGBT student group.  Yet, I feel like they think I'm playing for the other team because I like textbook economics.

If you don't like the sharp right turn we've taken in the past six months (and I don't!) then let's start building a coalition.  Step one: don't throw out the people who mostly agree with you, because the team isn't big enough as it is. Step two: stop crying wolf about the mild pain of the debt ceiling bill and get back in the game before something really bad happens.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Part of the problem is that these liberal elites, and I say that with no malice, have wished the Tea Party out of existence.  Here's a quote from Gordon Lafer from that conversation: "I think it’s important not to call them “the Tea Party” since there is no such thing, while there are real actors at work here." He mentions the Koch Brothers and Ari Fleischer. I think the Tea Party is at best deeply wrong and quite possibly just confused ("Keep the government's hands off our Medicare"), but can we at least all agree that it did happen? The moon landing wasn't filmed at Disney world and astroturfing doesn't get 60+ Republicans into the House.

[2] Again, to these liberals nothing progressive happened in the first two years! The stimulus was too small, the Affordable Care Act didn't have a public option, Dodd-Frank was too easy on the banks, and Obama still pretends he doesn't support gay marriage. Meanwhile, we're still in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Libya. Guantanamo Bay is still open. Card check, the Dream Act, and cap and trade are dead. So is Osama bin Ladin, but that just proves where Obama's heart really is.  He's not a liberal, he's a neoliberal. Scratch that, a neoconservative!