More Polling Deflates Notion Of Left "Angry" With Obama's Cabinet Picks
Here's more polling that shows that the notion of an "angry left," dissatisfied with Obama's pragmatism and perceived moderation, is really more of a media creation than a widespread phenomenon: According to the new Pew poll, only six percent of Democrats say Obama shouldn't appoint Republicans to top positions.
The poll shows that a narrow majority of Democrats, 51%, say Obama should appoint Republicans, plus 41% who say it doesn't matter. Furthermore, 57% of self-identified liberal Democrats approve of appointing Republicans.
On top of that, only 33% of Democrats say the party leaders should go in a liberal direction, with 57% preferring a moderate approach.
So the Democrats who do object to Obama's appointments don't really constitute a big chunk of the overall electorate -- they just have the opportunity to post their objections online, and in turn attract some fiery rebuttals from the other side.
Urg, this just confirms that way too much of the Democratic Party is Republican-lite.
We have a lot of work ahead to move people to the left.
December 8, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, folks have already moved to the left! That's why ending the war, healthcare, green energy, etc are considered centrist positions. That wasn't the case 5-10 years ago.
Thanks to Bush and the republicans "base-only" strategy, the left has won and folks like you don't even know it. You're angry because more people are embracing this "radical" agenda and you no longer stand out. Welcome to the mainstream!
December 8, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you insisting on dividing up the people on these threads, almost all of whom were and continue to be strong Obama supporters?
December 8, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
You call it dividing; I call it posting. You know, like I'm entitled to do.
I don't like the whining and I'll say so. I don't like people being more concerned with ideology than policy and I'll say so. If that makes me a divider, I can live with that.
December 8, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you are free to say anything you like, I agree.
I also frown upon whining, and ideologues.
See how easy that was?
December 8, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what you consider "moving left," but I consider a jobs program, reforming health care, paying attention to labor, retooling our foreign policy to a less militaristic stance, and talking about regulations being reintroduced very left indeed.
What do y'all want?
December 8, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't agree with you more.
Talk about missing the forest through the trees. The guy is about to embark on a massive public spending program to re-tool our infrastructure, make us a green energy economy, re-build schools, work on universal healthcare, end the war in Iraq...
and we're attacking him for not being a progressive?
Ridiculous.
December 8, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's also: closing Gitmo, making government more transparent, hiring liasons to the internet, etc.
December 8, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Tena, hate to disagree with you, but I would call all those policies centrist, not left, based on the current status of the country, it's totally f*cked up, and people want action. That's not really left-wing in my book.
December 8, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well we can't discuss this then because we don't agree on what is and isn't liberal.
I think you're way off - a huge jobs program a la FDR, is hardly centrist.
December 8, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, but I'd also argue: does it matter? Either we agree with his agenda or we don't.
I happen to support his agenda AND think it's left-leaning, but that's just me!
December 8, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, I'm on the world's longest honeymoon with President Awesome. I totally support his choices at the moment.
Someday I may get over the honeymoon. If I'm lucky, I won't.
What could there possibly be to complain about after the past 8 years?
December 8, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, that is "left" ala fdr, but my point was that based on where the country is today, I would argue that all of your points are "centrist" as the vast majority of the country support obama's policies. The label really is irrelevant, it's where the country is today vs. where it was a few years ago.
December 8, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
But Michael, they *were* considered left not long ago. Now, they're considered mainstream/centrist. So, anyone Obama appoints is likely to be in favor of these policies. I really can't see what all of the handwringing is about. Unless some care more about labels than results.
December 8, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I really don't care about labels either.
December 8, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the country has veered deeply to the left over the past four years. If someone were talking like that in '04, they'd be considered a wild-eyed liberal.
Yet, here we are calling the guy planning to do it all a "centrist". Yes, but only because the center has moved.
We should be looking for our desired outcomes, not for the Obama administration to be more left then the average person, even when the average person changes their mind!
December 8, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
left, right, center, up, down, black, white: who cares? Just get shit done. If Obama stands true to what he stood for in the election I'm cool with that.
December 8, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Get Er Done!
December 8, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hesitated when writing the comment just for that reason. Thanks.
December 8, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm happy about what he's done and how he's done it in the transition process so far, and I'm happy to see many others are.
December 8, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't this sort of changing the goalposts? Many of the choices that have generated the most criticism aren't republicans at all.
December 8, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
So there's no angry left wing. And yet, this notion persists, and will continue to persist.
Just like Obama's "problems" with Latinos and women. Doesn't mainstream media understand how completely it has abrogated its job? It perpetuates fallacies. And no one stands up and recognizes that the emperor doesn't have any clothes.
December 8, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's killing them with kindness, obviously. I still can't believe 49% of lefties would rather have a GOP-free cabinet. That's terribly short-sighted. If he ever lets the GOP convincingly brand him as a radical leftist, he'll lose most of his sway in Congress and give republicans something to campaign against.
December 8, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
If he ever lets the GOP convincingly brand him as a radical leftist, he'll lose most of his sway in Congress and give republicans something to campaign against.
Yes. And since our media seems allergic to actual facts (e.g., polling data cited above), Republicans have an easier job of branding him as a radical, socialist leftist, even if his positions are those of the majority of the American people.
Maybe we forget something about the campaign. Perhaps Hildebrand is just engaging in long-range strategic positioning. Who knows?
December 8, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's called the corporate controlled right-wing media that is in the tank for republicans and to help republicans win to protect the bottom line.
Now, the way to deal with it is to break-up the corporate media conglomerates, that profess to provide news, to increase competition and get rid of the right-wing monopolies. I hope that the break-ups are at the top of the dem agenda. Otherwise, we will be served garbage for 4 years that obama is a muslim commie in disguise.
December 8, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I said, most of these stories involve "journalists" scrolling to the bottom of the blog entry and reading anonymous comments from the most emotionally hyperreactive element of the party.
December 8, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly!
December 8, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
While the country has definitely moved to the left, "liberal" is still a dirty word, one used to described DFHs and one that people avoid calling themselves even though most of the policies they support and want could be called "progressive" or "liberal". If a "moderate" approach means a withdrawal from Iraq, a focus on jobs and the middle class, and end to the executive branch abuses of power of the Bush years, the closing of Gitmo, diplomacy first in foreign policy, the promotion of a "green" economy, and significant healthcare reform, they can call it whatever they want...it will make this liberal happy.
Perhaps a successful progressive administration will make the term "liberal" respectable again. But we've got 45-years of the demonization of that label to undo. Won't be easy.
December 8, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not that hard.
Just keep telling people you are a liberal, with pride. That's what I do and if they don't like it they can kiss my ass.
December 8, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like progressive. It has the word "progress" in it. I can't imagine that one being sullied by the Sean Hannitys of the world, but any repugnant thing is possible with the GOP.
December 8, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as we distinguish between hand-wringing and legitimate questions, we will be fine.
This just smacks of wholesale shouting down of anyone asking questions, which is not helpful, or even close to fitting in to Obama's way of doing business.
December 8, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Hildebrand comment, I mean.
I just don't like this dividing up of our own forces.
December 8, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nor do I, but the left is going to have problems here until some things are defined.
I can't discuss what I believe are liberal policies if y'all refuse to think they are liberal.
Y'all need to define what you mean by the criticism.
December 8, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Forget everything I just said. This just might be brilliant strategy; set up the "angry left" as a Straw man, and as long as they are in a froth about Obama's policies, they don't appear so "Progressive."
Front page on Yahoo right now says, "liberals are worried about Obama".
I can't help but laugh, and see that as good news for progress.
December 8, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now that makes sense. Good point.
December 8, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been arguing this for the entire time.
December 8, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope this is right cause it would be great cover. LOL!
December 8, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reading comprehension was never my strong suit, but I'm not surprised to be in agreement with my fellow Nutmeg State'r.
December 8, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said "posturing". You said "straw man". That sounds significantly more thoughtful than posturing.
December 8, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's wrong with explicitly supporting a position because it's correct in the name of a forthright politics that seeks to build a broad based consensus for liberal policies? Bush and the neocons weren't discredited by a left that pretended right wing policies were a rational option: we fought to bring them down. Likewise, we need to fight in the name of transparency, among other things, for what's right.
It's as though people around here actually believe that the US is a center-right nation despite considerable evidence to the contrary.
December 8, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing's wrong with supporting a position because it's the right position. But I'm not sure why you're responding to my comment about posturing.
If Republicans and the media want to think Obama is moving to the center in response to some mythical band of dirty fucking hippies on the left, and Obama continues to push and support a progressive agenda regardless, then I say more power to him. If Hildebrand wants to pick a fight with "lefties", it seems he's either posturing, or creating a straw man argument because, as you said, the country isn't center-right.
If entire swaths of the voting public start clamoring for reforms in health care, insurance, and the pharmaceutical industry, reforms in environmental policies, and so on, while believing themselves to be "centrist", what is the issue?
December 8, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point was more directed towards the idea that leftist positions require the ideological "cover" of "centrism" in order to gain traction than your related distinction between "posturing" and "straw man."
We shouldn't be afraid to be identified as leftist supporting a leftist politics.
December 8, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken.
But can politicians do that, and still achieve those goals? "Liberal" has turned into a dirty word. I think "conversative" hovers on the brink. Will we hear anything about conservatives and liberals in 2010? I suspect not. It'll be all about moderates. Whether the policies that one proposes are moderate won't be relevant.
We've already seen that in this election. I was told repeatedly that John McCain wasn't really a conservative. He most definitely was, but it just didn't matter to those who wrote about his policies--they didn't think he was a conservative, and reality be damned.
Do you bow to that state of affairs, or continue to take a stand as a "liberal", knowing that you run the almost certainty of being erroneously pigeon-holed by the media as some sort of out-of-touch, elitist academic Marxist?
December 8, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Dorn, did you notice the glow around Obama's head. You know, implying his supporters think he is God.
December 8, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do people keep misusing "pragmatic" as a synonym for "practical." They're not the same, as anyone who's ever cracked a book by William James, Charles Pierce, John Dewey, Richard Rorty can attest.
Pragmatism has a very useful place in our politics, potentially, but it's misused to limit rather than expand our range of policy options when associated with mere "practicalism."
December 8, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's the same reason people use 'philosophy' as a synonym for 'ideology.' As much as I'd like for philosophy to have a place in our politics, I see very little of it.
December 8, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a card-carrying member of The Left and I'm not angry. I'm in the, "it's not the people, it's the policies" camp. And on that front, so far so good.
December 8, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can someone tell me specifically what the complaint is? If it's that he's too centrist, can we get some concrete idea of what we're talking about? I'm literally lost here since there's little agreement on whether or not there is even a problem.
December 8, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chris Bowers. David Sirota. Glenn Greenwald.
December 8, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
O.
Gotcha. I guess I need to pay attention to what y'all are saying about Sirota. I never could get past the looks or the sexy voice. But all you had to say was "Glenn Greenwald."
;)
December 8, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does "centrism" mean after Bush pushed our government so far to the right?
December 8, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I take it to mean what it always has and I take it that Obama sees it that way, too.
I base that on his health policy ads during the campaign. He ran an ad explaining that the extremes on the left and the right aren't the answer. A synthesis is. I think Obama sees problems as dialetics.
That's my impression.
December 8, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What it always has" seems to suggest a false continuity in the wake of the wild ideological shift to the right that Obama's being encouraged to maintain in the name of "pragmatism."
Daschle and most other Dems were firmly in the so-called center when submitting to Bush's Iraq war policy. The point remains: centrism is an empty set, politically with no real valence except to maintain the status quo.
Sure centrism sounds nice as everyone wants to think their reasonable - not too hot or cold, just the right temperature - but as a practical political position, it's utter nullity.
December 8, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you figure it's an "empty set?"
I just told you that according to Obama, he looks at the thesis, the antithesis and reaches a synthesis. Or so it seems to me.
I think y'all are making artificial distinctions based on your own ideologies.
December 8, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you're assuming we're just talking about abstractions. We're not. Daschle, for example, has written an entire book that details concrete health care reforms that certainly lean leftward ideologically.
December 8, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your theory is exactly the justification that Hillary gave for her yes vote on Iraq. The thesis being Saddam as tyrant and WMD, the antithesis being wrong war at wrong time empowering wildly ideological neocon agenda, the synthesis - Hillary votes for "more inspections."
Centrism is a prescription for a reactive politics of triangulation. We need some positive ideas on how to get us out of these international and domestic messes beyond mere reaction if were going to move forward.
December 8, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry this was meant as a reply to Tena
December 8, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
O for heaven's sake = Hillary wasn't the only one in Congress who made that mistake, but what does that have to do with Obama? And the problems he faces now?
Y'all can add Jane Hamsher to the list of unreasonable leftists. She's pitching a fit at HuffPo over Caroline Kennedy being in the senate. Jane wants to know where Caroline has been the last 8 years.
Goddamn, are we going to be able to make any progress out of this mess, or are people going to start putting up obstacles based on ideologies?
That's just exactly what the Repugs are guilty of doing and ruining the country thereby.
December 8, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point was to provide an actual, analyzable, empirical case where the thesis-antithesis-synthesis example you provided could be tested. That Hillary wasn't the only one behind it merely adds more support for what I've said.
December 8, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't use the "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" terminology to discuss triangulation, it's been bastardized enough, thank you.
With that said, again, you appear to be dealing with abstractions that don't have much application to the real world. You're assuming left and right are actual polarities, and that only adherence to one pole or the other can produce a "positive" public policy. It's a false binary, reductive signs created for the media's convenience. There's no metaphysical foundation for it, and those of us who support measured reform towards social democracy are not somehow compromised due to our lack of interest in these categorizations.
December 8, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah ok, I see Tena was the one who came up with that term of art. Apologies.
December 8, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you're a cheerless, angry left-wing hater too, eh? Welcome to the club...
December 8, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Caroline has done plenty, but it does seem like a somewhat frivolous choice. The idea of a Kennedy in RFK's seat is appealing to any Democrat, though.
December 8, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are a handful of "keepers of the flame", self appointed, who claim to speak for all progressives, Sirota, Stoller, Hamsher, Greenwald. They seem to be fully intent on marginalizing themselves, and they are doing a damn good job of it.
December 8, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. I'm a liberal but the older I get the more I can't stand those folks.
December 8, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which of the aforementioned people's policy preferences do you not like, or is it merely a question of "style," as in, "it's not what's being said but the way in which "X" says it?"
December 8, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This reminds me of 1991 when Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to fill Thurgood Marshall's SC seat. It was such a pandering, gross move that seemed correct on its face because "at least he was keeping Marshall's seat black."
Many black organizations refused to come out against Thomas and many African Americans said "well, at least he's black so we shouldn't complain." They got caught up in the labels and didn't bother to realize that Thomas was the complete opposite of everything Marshall and they stood for. 17 years later, I bet every one of them would have taken an albino transvestite over Thomas as long as he was with them on the issues.
LESSON: Fuck the labels and look at the policies!
December 8, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too funny. Albino transvestite.
By the way, thomas is beyond pathetic. He is an unintelligent, far right-wing hack. I really wonder how he sleeps at night when he is f*cking so many people with his outrageous positions and votes. It really boggles the mind.
December 8, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm as much a radiclib as you can find and I'm giving Obama time to implement his policies. The personell chosen so far hasn't made my day, but Obama says he supplies the vision so I'll wait.
This whole "angry left" meme is primarily driven by traditional media outlets who love to see "dirty fuckin' hippies" get punched in the mouth.
It's more of a fantasy than a reality.
December 8, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chris Bowers is the cross the Left must bear
Count blessings ....Could be worse...take a look at what the Right must endure
December 8, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which of Bowers's policy preferences do you find undesirable and for what reasons?
December 8, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not the policies, it's the message. The whole crew at OpenLeft (David Sirota, Matt Stoller, and Paul Rosenberg even more than Bowers) have mainly posted for the last six months about their paranoid fears that Obama is going to screw them over.
December 8, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read and contribute to openleft too, and don't see what you're talking about. I do see people making data-driven arguments that the Rubinite economic appointments indicate Obama supports Rubinite economic policy, and that personnel has a strong influence over policy.
There's a far greater range of opinion at openleft than is commonly acknowledged here. Many people disagree vehemently with Sirota, for example, as do many take a "wait and see" approach to what Obama actually does before dismissing him.
Maybe you could point out the disparity between policy and message you assert by way of presenting a testable case.
December 8, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
To wit: http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10336.
Does this sound like bad "messaging?" What Bowers says here is perfectly calm, rational and evenhanded.
December 8, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I was being a little too quick on the keyboard. Reviewing the posts I see Bowers' are mostly pretty good, it's the others that have caused me to stop reading it so much.
December 8, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who wants to bet that the new meme coming from the media will be that the Left is having an identity crisis? That's what it looks like from the posts that I've read all over the blogosphere and we all know the media gets their news story from the comments posted.
December 8, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ezra Klein has an interesting take on how Obama may be trying to shift the center with Hiilderbrand's rhetoric.
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=12&year=2008&base_name=obamas_theory_of_change_in_act#comments
December 8, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Asking this
And of course their happy with his appointments just to get some real Americans in their -to make sure he doesn't go Muslim-ing up the place.
December 8, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink