The Emergence Of The Dem Blogosphere: The Celebration Of Triangulation
Here is a dkos diary that really exemplifies the transformation of the once Left blogosphere into the Democratic blogosphere. It riffs off of quintessential Beltway insider Al Hunt's article that equates Left wing criticism of President Obama with the irrational teabagger hate:
Obama Transcends Ideology by Riling Both Flanks
Barack Obama, charges former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, is “the most liberal president” in modern times, pursuing “an agenda that really is foreign to mainstream America.” Other Republicans routinely talk about the president’s “socialist” agenda. Simultaneously, the left wing says he’s a traitor to their cause. Liberal bloggers regularly accuse him of selling out to corporate interests, claiming that he has failed to keep his campaign commitments. Former Democratic Party Chairman and ex-presidential candidate Howard Dean has echoed some of these sentiments. A left winger who betrays left-wing causes? Ideology isn’t the ideal prism to evaluate the Obama presidency.
This vapid Broderite Beltway analysis would have once been mocked in the Left blogs. It means precisely nothing, other than the typical Beltway Media "if both sides hate you, I must be dong something right" silliness. Today, it is the height of insight in the Left Democratic blogosphere:
Albert R. Hunt has a fascinating piece up at Bloomberg. The lede is that Obama transcends ideology by pissing off both sides and then he goes through a list of issues on which Obama is blasted from the right and left with equal vehemence.
Yes, fascinating. The celebration of triangulation by the Beltway Media. Never seen that before. Sheesh.
This is the "Left" celebrating the triumph of triangulation. This is actually, as Professor Darren Hutchinson pointed out last December, very unpragmatic:
Commentators who laud Obama as a pragmatist almost uniformly condemn his progressive critics as ideological and impractical. Unlike Obama, who is a good, pragmatic progressive, liberals who criticize the President are politically inflexible ideologues whose rigidity, if widely followed, would preclude the implementation of helpful policies.
[. . .] With respect to [. . .] pragmatism, depending upon the goals of progressives, criticizing Obama could operate as a highly pragmatic political tactic. President Obama has several items on his agenda -- including reelection. These goals, however, might cause him to act in a way that is inconsistent with progressive political agendas. Progressives can only influence Obama and other elected Democrats if they express their discontent. If they can also reveal that Obama is betraying his liberal base, then they can possibly make him more vulnerable from a political perspective. In order to cure or avoid this vulnerability, Obama may have to act in a way that addresses the concerns of progressives. If progressives never complain or engage in advocacy or mobilization, then politicians will have very few incentives to address their concerns.
By criticizing Obama, progressives are modeling the behavior of social movement participants as diverse as the abolitionists, suffragists, civil rights advocates, feminists, and proponents of GLBT rights. Progressive movements have never achieved their goals by peacefully acquiescing to the will of politicians. While successful progressive movements have undoubtedly made and accepted compromises, they have also condemned politicians -- even sympathetic politicians -- when doing so was appropriate. The election of Obama does not provide a reasonable basis for abandoning this tried and tested historical approach to social change.
I used to think this was an obvious point. Not so obvious anymore apparently.
Speaking for me only
| < Moscow: Women Suicide Bombers Kill Dozens at Metro | Monday Morning Open Thread > |
