One way you can tell that its hit the mark is that the poutragers are talking about it - big time!
Here are the examples I found (feel free not to click):
David Dayen at Firedoglake
Digby at Hullabaloo
Armando at Daily Kos
Joan Walsh at Salon
What's obvious from reading these is that none of them really understood what President Obama said. In a truly bizarre twist, here's Walsh criticizing Obama for making the exact point she is trying to make:
In the end, I think the president gave the young politicos some bad advice about politics, as he pointed to compromise as perhaps the best embodiment of political spirit. "Don't set up a situation where you're going to be disappointed," he told them. Hmmm. How can you avoid that? Politics breaks your heart, if you have strong values. Obama is right that compromise is essential. But if you care deeply about issues and policies and principles, well, you're going to be disappointed, and that's OK. Compromise is crucial, but so is dissent, and maybe even disappointment too. Obama, the prophet of compromise, sometimes seems to be trying to wish away the rough and tumble reality of politics, the clashing of interests, the genuine disagreements about important policy decisions, and the real disappointment one feels when something you care about deeply gets compromised away. Disappointment can drive you from the process, which isn't good; it can also help you resolve to fight harder and smarter next time, and win.
I read that and literally scratched my head. The whole point of what President Obama was telling those students is to not give up their fight or their ideals when the political process leads to compromise. At least, that's what I took from it.
But then she literally jumps the shark.
Meanwhile, across the aisle, there's a vivid example of how dissenters and unyielding partisans and people unafraid of disappointment can move the country in the direction they want to take it. The debt ceiling crisis is a scandal, but you have to politically admire the 2010 House freshmen who have caused the crisis.
That is scary apocalyptic thinking, to me, but it's also politically effective.
What????? You have to admire the lunatics who are either too crazy or too ignorant to know better than to threaten a world-wide economic collapse in a hissy fit?
Yes, in Joan's world, we lefties should be doing more of that kind of thing.
One thing that would strengthen his [Obama's] resolve might be Democrats to his left who won't vote for such a deal even if he says he backs it. Yes, they would be joining the GOP extremists in playing chicken with the debt ceiling, but it's worth playing that out for a while.
I'm pretty much at a loss for words on that kind of advice. It amounts to suggesting that the best way to counter insanity is to replicate it. I guess the good news is that Joan is a columnist instead of an elected Democrat.
"The debt ceiling crisis is a scandal, but you have to politically admire the 2010 House freshmen who have caused the crisis.
ReplyDeleteThat is scary apocalyptic thinking, to me, but it's also politically effective."
I think that epitomizes the emoprogs thinking. They don't care that the country may default, they still admire the teabaggers who are on their way to shutting down the government. They don't really care about Medicare, Medicaid, the poor, etc like they claim.
It's like admiring the thief who got away with robbing the bank.
These people are deluded.
I did not think Walsh could go any lower in my eyes, but she's found a way.
I'm thinking Walsh kinda summed up the difference between the poutragers and the pragmatists...do we replicate the lunacy or provide a more sane example?
ReplyDeleteI haven't listened to the video yet (can't, at work), but I wonder if Obama was using the word "disappointed" in a different way than Walsh did. I don't think Obama was saying, you'll never feel less than satisfied with the results. I think he meant, don't set yourself up to fail, to not make progress or accomplish anything. You may still feel disappointed (because you haven't made as much progress as you'd like), but you won't be disappointed (because you've achieved something and are moving in the right direction).
ReplyDeleteI keep trying to find a comment I saw on another blog, in which a woman said something like, "At least if Obama really fought vocally and lost, we'd feel like he was on our side." It's about the feelings: I won't feel disappointed if only Obama would be as unwilling to negotiate and loud and boisterous as the Republicans. But the real world consequences of failing to come to an agreement--IOW, tangible rather than emotional disappointments--don't seem to matter. I'd say the attitude is one of privilege, except that I know the commenter who wrote that is among the long-term unemployed. And I wonder if some people just don't realize how bad those real consequences would be, even if Obama made them "feel" better.
ReplyDeleteSo according to the poutragers, being an inflexible ideologue is 'politically effective'? That doesn't square with my reading of history, which is replete with terrible 'compromises' such as the Civil Rights Act of '64, legislation that established Soc Security, etc. These folks have an unhealthy attachment to a romaticized view of politics, and only hear what they wanna hear from the president.
ReplyDeleteMonala
ReplyDeleteI think you've hit the nail on the head with the idea of feelings. Some of you many know that many of the poutragers accuse us pramatists of being blind loyalists. They see us as the emotionally-driven ones. But I often see it exactly opposite.
What I wrote this morning about bullying is a perfect example. Nothing would feel better than to punch a bully in the face. What you have to ask yourself is "what would it accomplish?" That's what pramatists do.