In Defense Of the Left Flank

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 05:58:52 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Matt Yglesias criticizes the Left flank of the blogs (specifically Chris Bowers.) I want to speak in defense of them. While on policy I am to the right of all of them (Sirota, Stoller, et al), I simply love that they speak strongly in favor of the policies they believe in. That they worry about it. That they pressure about it. A while ago I wrote at Corrente my view of what the Left blogs should be about:

Lambert invited me to discuss what the blogosphere should do now. My short answer is that it should do what it should have been doing before - fighting for the issues each particular blog believes in through the mechanisms it feels are most effective. The short answer is to do what is most effective to advance the cause of the issues you believe in.

That is what Chris, Matt, David and the rest of the "concern trolls" are doing. And Gawd bless them for it. We need more people fighting for what they believe in.

Speaking for me only

< Federal Judge Denies Relief to Guantanamo Teenage Detainee | President Bush Issues 14 Pardons, 2 Commutations >

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.

In Defense Of the Left Flank | 34 comments (34 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

We are heading towards a time (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 06:38:58 PM EST

where so many of us are going to be vulnerable in ways we may have never imagined. We will have to make it through it together. Our economic situation is pretty dire and no fix is going to make everything all better really fast while currently we are still far from experiencing how bad it is going to get. It is during such times that everyone will understand better what gates the far left has chosen to defend. It isn't something I volunteer to do until it is needed. I am more towards the center on most issues but the center moves, and I've already had to live through a time in history when the lefty left was gagged and marginalized and it was not fun for anyone! It was pretty fricken scary actually.

Well, call me stubborn, but (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 06:44:07 PM EST

I believe we'll make it, if only because we don't have any choice but to make it.

It's times like this I'm glad I grew up with grannies who juggled multiple jobs and a mother who never threw out a bite of food or a button.

But it is going to be very rough. But we'll do it.


Visualize World Peace (none / 0) (#17)
by squeaky on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 01:14:59 AM EST

Aka think positive.


: ?wtf? (none / 0) (#22)
by Salo on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:29:36 AM EST

ayooytm?

Funny how John Cole isn't going after THEM, no? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by andgarden on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 06:48:21 PM EST

(I think you've made that point before. . )

Hmm (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by lilburro on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 08:10:40 PM EST

well IMO...the conversation about progressive appointments seems to be a real coming to grips/terms for a lot of writers. Which is fine...the tone Obama sets now is important.

I'm still wondering where the all out attack on Brennan is. I would trade this conversation, and the anti-Lieberman agitation, for an onslaught against Brennan and another conversation about Jami Miscik. That conversation seems more timely.

I would rather see the NYTimes write about how bloggers are enraged by the national security picks Obama's team has hinted at. Not, bloggers are enraged by Lieberman. If you're going to get the NYT's attention...

What can I say? I just don't care about Lieberman! My two cents.

Children, calm down (5.00 / 4) (#14)
by koshembos on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 09:42:26 PM EST

After a long primary and elections, I have no respect for any the guys you mention. Yglesias tries to hit in both directions and mostly misses. Sirota and Stoller don't make much sense either.

Let's face it, every knew that Obama is a centrist; what do they want now? They could have supported somebody else, but hate overcame them.

None of them belongs to any left I know; actually the primaries have also decimated the left as well as the Democratic party of FDR, JFK, Chavez, Huerta, Edwards and Carey McWilliams.

Amen, brother (5.00 / 5) (#15)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 12:07:01 AM EST

The so-called "left" we have left in this country is largely composed of whiny-babies play-acting and posturing like crazy.

It took me until a fairly ripe age now, but I finally understand the Republicans' long complaint about "knee-jerk liberals." The conservatives, of course, are every bit as knee-jerk, but we're supposed to be better. Hah.


: The GOP actually do think... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Salo on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:46:59 AM EST

...Obama is a socialist though. That's what is so depressing about the leftosphere in the primary. They were under the same impression as the GOP spinners.

There is a lot of truth in your comment (none / 0) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:37:22 AM EST

But pressure still can be brought to bear.

Pols are pols after all.


I fully agree with BTD about speaking out for your (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by DeborahNC on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 12:53:25 AM EST

beliefs. It is crucial that we each do that, otherwise, we're not fully participating in our government. Granted, most days I feel that the voices of the public are heard and acted on less and less by our elected officials. Yet, if we become less vocal, the situation will only get worse.

On a less political note, speaking up for our beliefs is empowering, both personally and collectively. There are many things that we each cannot control in this world, but taking personal action isn't one of them--no matter the situation.

The world can be a harrowing place, but when I visit sites like this and others, where people are passionate and actively making their beliefs known, it lights a little spark in me. It reminds me that I too can change some things and sometimes gives me the incentive to take the first step.

And, for that, I thank each of you.

During the Primaries (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by Chatham on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 05:12:50 AM EST

During the end of the primaries I was reading Bower's talk about Obama's "bold progressive agenda". I remember right after the primaries, some people (like Stoller, who could be pretty bad during that time period) saying they had stopped donating to Obama because he turned out to be a centrist. Now, I don't disagree with what you are saying, and we probably should have a more issues based approach. But:

It's hard to take these guys seriously when they were assuring us that Obama was going to be more progressive than he was, and the only change (it seems) has come from them, not him. Until they own up, posts like Bower's seem hypocritical.
The time to pressure people politically is during the primaries. Giving them a carte blanche then (when you actually have a say), and then moving against them when they are trying to enact the legislation they said you would and you supported (when they need political capital), seems to be a completely backwards way of doing things (that's me being polite).

I agree. I was reading a post on (none / 0) (#1)
by Teresa on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 06:24:17 PM EST

Open Left recently by Bowers and reading the grief he got in the comments. I feel like the blogs and I have done a 180 when I agree with them, but I do. It's been a strange year.

It really depends (none / 0) (#2)
by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 06:28:53 PM EST

Sometimes they sound like nothing short of sheltered whiners with entitlement complexes. The posters, at least, and a few of the wonkers.

Other times, however, I'm glad they're getting after it.

I suppose you can't have one without the other.

If you have read me (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 06:34:49 PM EST

You will have seen my not only disagree with each and every one of them, but make fun of them.

"Creative class" anyone?

Two different things.


: Yea (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 06:41:35 PM EST

You have. And I see your point that they're two different things.
Gad, if there were some way to extract the whiners, a kind of network root canal, everyone's like would be so much easier ...

: Seems that most often (none / 0) (#11)
by Pepe on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 06:51:17 PM EST

making fun of people is just a slightly veiled way of disagreeing with them, isn't it?
And you have disagreed with both Bowers and Stoller straight-up on several occasions just as you do with others.
And of course you are going to disagree with them. They are Progressives and you are not - which makes them right and you wrong.
*Speaking for Progressives everywhere. ;)

: Creative Class Political Syndrome (none / 0) (#21)
by Salo on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:24:29 AM EST

A dose of the CCP's.
A definition:
Looks like it's left wing, but in the end perfectly willing to ignore all the evidence of centrism until it's too late to retract support. CCP's are generally quite happy with a good graphic design logo and poster series. If you can create a rocking slogan ripped from a farmworkers union--all the better comrade!--but don't look at the policy stuff, whatever you do.

I agree with them on the dearth of progressive (none / 0) (#3)
by magster on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 06:34:15 PM EST

cabinet posts. The "Team of Rivals" is a bogus meme, because there's no one in the cabinet yet that comes from the so-called left wing.

I disagree with them (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 06:35:17 PM EST

but I love that they are fighting for what they believe in.


: That's a better way to say what I meant. (none / 0) (#8)
by Teresa on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 06:41:45 PM EST

I'm glad to see consistency even if I don't agree with their position.

: heh (none / 0) (#19)
by Salo on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:18:55 AM EST

...only so long as they are fighting after the real decisions have been made by the press and duped voters.
Bowers and 'such' support for Obama in the primary system looks delusional-it's merely practical in the actual election but pure self delusion if you actually are left wing.

Possibly because the Senate... (none / 0) (#12)
by santarita on Mon Nov 24, 2008 at 07:25:46 PM EST

might not confirm someone who was to far to the left.


The man's (none / 0) (#20)
by OldCity on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:19:55 AM EST

entire history suggests pragmatism and consensus building. People who worked with him at the Harvard Law review who possessed opposing political orientations speak about him in almost reverent terms.

I think many are getting ahead of themselves. Obama is going to be concerned with the possible. Now, healthcare for everyone is about the most progressive thing any President can achieve (assuming we're cleaving to the popular definition of "progressive"), and he's going to do it. And, he's not going to do it by flipping a switch. It's a huge, massive, complex (did I say gargantuan?) effort that will require consensus and compromise. And he's being criticized for concentrating on things that he can actually do?

Failure, though noble, is still failure. Politicians don't seek the gig to be ineffective or p!ss against the wind, at least not the ones who are concerned with actually improving things (as they see it) for their constituents. The majority of people do not vote for someone they expect to be either a laughing stock or an impediment. Why bother?

The majority of my views skew pretty far left. So much so that I know whtat my opinions will never be broadly shared enough to become policy. Zealots on both sides must accept that extreme views are just that, extreme. In those cases, we must live our lives accoring to those views, but certainly not expect them to be embraced by the public writ large. One can be very left of center and still be a realist...there's no contradiction in my mind.

But, I'm also pretty sure that my views on choice, healthcare, disproportionate focus of the criminal justice system on minimal drug crimes, abolition of the death penalty, curch and state, etc, etc....aren't broadly shared. And won't ever be.

Getting ahead of themselves? (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:33:14 AM EST

In what sense? I never understand this argument. Do you think that these folks are hurting their causes?

Do you think Obama is too fragile to take a little pressure? Even of the pressure is unnecessary?

Hopefully from their perspective, their concern is unmerited. But you hardly know if it is.

you argue to wait to express and argue for your views. I never understood the logic of such an argument.

I still do not.

I have no idea what the rational basis of your complaint (indeed any of these complaints) could be other than - "leave Barack alone." that is an unconvincing argument to me.


And the fuirther I read (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:36:12 AM EST

The less I liked your comment. This part especially:

"The majority of my views skew pretty far left. So much so that I know whtat my opinions will never be broadly shared enough to become policy. Zealots on both sides must accept that extreme views are just that, extreme. In those cases, we must live our lives accoring to those views, but certainly not expect them to be embraced by the public writ large. One can be very left of center and still be a realist...there's no contradiction in my mind."

With the approach you propose, they almost certainly will never be shared by anyone, much less the majority.

I do no doubt for a moment that your are well Left of me. I have complained less and less about Obama because I am pretty pleased with what he is doing. It sounds like you expect to be displeased (at least in terms of your views not being adhered to.)

What is the point of holding your views if you are not going to argue for them?


: I have pretty leftist views (none / 0) (#31)
by zyx on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 11:29:46 AM EST

but I agree with OldCity. I may be personally leftist, but I'm damned pragmatic, AND I would like to see this country steer a consistently moderate course than lurch from right to left--which it ain't gonna do, anyway. We aren't going to set up a lefty shop.
I think "progressives" do well to pressure pols to pursue a course that is a little left of center--meaning that it's balanced and market-friendly but doesn't give too much to corporate interests. (But, leftist though I am, I'm for free trade.) EVEN THAT has to be done carefully, dammit! Look what we got after Carter!--Ronald Reagan and right-wing denigration of the Carter years, and after Clinton!--Bush and RW denigration of the Clinton years! and those were MODERATE Democrats.
Watching the "progressive" bloggers heads explode lately is interesting. Those folks are idiots.

: Not so much (none / 0) (#32)
by OldCity on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 12:02:09 PM EST

I think too many people are preemptively b!tching, which to me is a far cry from advocacy.
The guy below assumes Obama is going to adopt a hawk-like mentality for example, despite repeatedly saying we were going to get out of Iraq. It's ridiculous to think we're just going to pull up stakes. He does have a moral obligation to get out the best and fastest way possible, with limited loss of life. So, like it or not, you do need the advioce of people that have actually done the job before. the difference of course, is that he'll be (we presume) directing them, and not the opposite.
I don't foresee the government or worse, the individual states changing their focus on certain law enforcement initiatives. Despite the crippling effect that enforcement/penal policies have had on California's bottom line,
we aren't seeing movement. America is still convinced that excessive punitive treatment is the best answer for relatively minor crimes, such as drug possession, even of relatively benign drugs such as marijuana. America still thinks that certain religious beliefs automatically imply Anti-American sentiments. America still believes that marriage can be corrupted yet further, despite a 50% heterosexual divorce rate.
I can want change in these areas. I can agitate for it. But, I need to be realistic and accept the fact that change will only come about with increased exposure and sophistication of a broad spectrum of the electorate.
So, I concentrate on the possible. Healthcare. Economic stimulus. Federal voting protections. Mandatory COLA's in the minimum wage. These things have a shot.
9/11, the war, the Republican majority...they showed me something about America...the country is capable of tremendous xenophobia. We're hypocritical moralists, overall. Even now, the objections to the Republicans are found far more in economic policy than in the social issues that I think are important.

Some days they make their cases (none / 0) (#26)
by ruffian on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 09:30:07 AM EST

better than others, but I am glad to see them sticking up for policies that are more progressive than may be achievable right now. Maybe Obama does have a good sense for where the 'as progressive as possible' line is drawn. Some of us are going to be disappointed, but we shouldn't stop trying to push the envelope.

I just dont think Obama cares (none / 0) (#27)
by ai002h on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 09:36:59 AM EST

about filling his cabinet with Progressives, as if that's going to get the policies through. There's one quote of Obamas that really, really sticks with me: "I don't like glorius losses."

Basically this is a guy who only cares about getting the results, its his policies that these "centrists" will enact. It was Obama, more than Clinton or Mccain, that was the sole voice of his campaign. You knew who was in charge.

just poorly written? (none / 0) (#28)
by Salo on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 10:32:11 AM EST

Or blather? Or both?

I am not a fan of the moniker progressive. It means nothing to me. But it is critical to have left wingers in a Democratic cabinet. When they do their War Cabinet a war cabinet dominated by righies will vote in favour of rightie solutions. Same with economic issues. I the inner cabinet has noone with leftist instincts then the left wing point of view has no opportunity to even be heard in these closed door sessions. Wbhat you said makes no sense. Obama is only going to be a first among equals in a war cabinet or an economic discussion.

I hope he's not merely interested in winning for winnings sake. His policies will be what his innner cabinet agree on collectively. Too many (one or two centrists might be too many as it is) centrists and moderate GOP types will end up drowning out any leftwing policy.

Obama was not the sole voice of his campaign--or even much of a voice. He resembled a riddling sphinx IMHO. Or over time a tabula Rasa onto which the press chalked their instructions to the public. The primary voters merely painted in their own wishful thinking following the broad outlines of what thew press instructed them to do. He's also had a lot of people acting as apologists for his campaign missteps and the embarrassing elements of his centrist agenda.


The reporters (none / 0) (#34)
by ai002h on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 12:12:09 PM EST

who followed all 3 campaigns closely and saw a lot of the inside workings of a campaign pretty much agreed that Hillary Clinton and John MccCain didn't do a good job of controlling their campaign while Obama did an impeccable job. Maybe they're biased, I dont know.

And I didn't say Obama was solely interested in WINNING, I said he was interested in RESULTS. Big difference. The former implies a more selfish objective while the latter does not.


: he did win (none / 0) (#35)
by Salo on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 05:14:24 PM EST

they would say that

I am in favor of a Left Flank (none / 0) (#33)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 12:07:11 PM EST

the point of my post.