News Orgs: The Left Is Upset With Obama -- Even Though It Isn't
Look, this is getting ridiculous already. Is it possible that "the left" isn't a monolith that has reached a collective and uniform conclusion about the entire Obama presidency?
Today The New York Times reports that criticism of Obama from the left has been "muted" thus far. Yet the paper nonetheless buries that observation inside a long story devoted to the idea that Obama has "deeply frustrated liberals who thought Mr. Obama's election signaled the rise of a new progressive era."
Meanwhile, over at The Politico, Ben Smith notes accurately that the angst on the left is largely a fiction, adding that "the bigger, and a bit harder to dramatize, story is probably the one about how happy the left is with him." Yet Politico nonetheless felt obliged to run an entire piece claiming that liberals are monolithically "nervous" and "flat out angry" about Obama.
The problem here is this bizarre need to decide one way or the other whether the entire left is or isn't irrevocably dismayed with the Obama presidency and whether it has or hasn't completely given up hope on it.
This is fairly straightforward. Some liberals have concerns about this or that particular appointment or this or that particular policy statement. They're voicing those concerns. That doesn't make "the left" as a whole unhappy with Obama's entire presidency. Those same liberals are happy about other things Obama's doing, and many of them are generally optimistic. Believe it or not, people can simultaneously entertain more than one opinion about Obama's evolving administration.
The problem here is the desire that the news orgs have to tell a simplistic story about those poor, sad, delusional lefties whose silly idealism blinded them to Obama's "pragmatism" and "centrism." You can understand why centrist and right-leaning commentators are pushing this line: They're hoping to discourage Obama from attempting big liberal initiatives by hailing him as pragmatic and centrist, the ultimate D.C. establishment seal of approval.
The news orgs, by contrast, are doing this out of laziness and a hopeless addiction to portraying lefties as a kind of perennially-disappointed lost tribe who will never, ever find their way out of the wilderness. It's just boring and predictable, really.
Word!
December 9, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
tena, you're always first. we salute you for that.
December 9, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least I don't just post: "First!"
;)
December 9, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Palabra!
December 11, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Way o/t but are y'all catching the details of this Blagojevich deal. If true, what an idiot. He knows he's under the microscope and has been for a while yet he's out shopping Obama's Senate seat around to the highest bidder. I'll wait to hear more but from what I've seen so far, it doesn't look good. Not what the party needs right now. And what a boob. Not only was he under investigation already but it was Fitz who is on his arse...and he almost always gets the collar.
December 9, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would argue that getting rid of the bad apples is exactly what is needed right now.
December 9, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jeez, the guy's a complete moron. And I can't imagine a more idiotic scene--caught screwing around with filling the freaking president elect's gd seat. How untouchable did he think he was? It eschews the mind!
December 9, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chris Matthews keeps spewing this "deeply frustrated liberals" stuff as well. Sometimes I think he makes up stuff just so he can hear himself slobber all over the place.
December 9, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes I like to watch Chris - sometimes - but he is a total instigator!
December 9, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me all this "liberals are....." BS is from the non-liberal media. And the amount of it seems to prove that the liberals DON'T have a monopoly on the media!
December 9, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh. I'm as annoyed as anyone about this, but to say that it's a mass media fiction is simply not true. Take Salon, a lifestyle mag for smug San Francisco progressives: they had an article going on about exactly the same thing, and they most certainly know what they're talking about.
December 9, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
One wonders if we're in for 4 years of this shit, and the: "Clintons are causing tension" shit.
*sigh*
December 9, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stop trying to ruin a perfectly good meme with facts.
December 9, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
For my money it's a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to frame the Left as a monolithic Disgruntled Bunch of Ingrates(tm)
I, for one, am gruntled, polylithic and grateful.
December 9, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
But are you a Grate? This is very important to know.
December 9, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
And on one hell of a roll this morning.
December 9, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I'm working from home. Ice and snow (6-12 inches). Not so great for my 75 mile commute (each way) but great for my mood!
December 9, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Happy Snow Day!
Lucky. We've got warm, humid weather ahead of a front. This is my least favorite kind of weather. I've wanted to get in the car and drive to Taos the last two days so much I've had to fight myself.
I could quit worrying about getting everything done for Christmas and just let it happen - go to the Pueblo for the Christmas morning dance. *sigh*
Someday -
December 9, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love how the media covers "the left" like an Anthropology case study. It calls to mind the recent Geico commercials with the British Nature guy....
"And now we observe the liberal in its natural state, furiously typing away on an Open Left post while sipping a latte in a Che Guevara tee-shirt....Fascinating little creature, isn't he?"
December 9, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hee hee hee!
We just have to face it - we are the Wild Kingdom.
December 9, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately Mutual Of Omaha was a casualty of the Bush Deregulation Doctrine and we will all be canceled.
December 9, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, that one made me laugh the laugh that scares the doves!
I hope you get a lot of snow days - you're too much fun.
December 9, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Probably have an easier case to make if you did not indulge in commentary like this yourself:
December 9, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess the MSM has merged with the WWF.
Gotta have a smackdown. If one doesn't exist, manufacture it.
December 9, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean WWE, right? I think the wildlife guys sued and got their acronym back.
December 9, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
World Wrestling Federation.
Maybe I'm dating myself here.
December 9, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
World Wildlife Fund?
December 9, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
HA! See Tena, Carl Jung was right! There's an undercurrent of synchronistic animalism amongst the Left! Maybe we _are_ monolithic...
OOoohhh... Trippy!
December 9, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or else we're a bunch of closet Furries.
(people who get off on being dressed like furry animals and getting involved with other people dressed as furry animals. I'm not making this up.)
December 9, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't there an episode of Entourage about that?
December 9, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was at least one episode of CSI about it...
December 9, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
My bad, that was "plushies"
December 9, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
That may be the correct term.
Vanity Fair did a big story on them a few years back and I think there was an Entourage, now that you mention it.
December 9, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
(I'm _really_ not so bent that I'm actually familiar with these sorts of fetishes but I believe "furries" pretend to be actual animals whereas "plushies" pretend to be stuffed animals...
I could be wrong... My deviances are somewhat tamer as it were ;-)
December 9, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Plushies"? I tell ya, I learn something new every single time I come to this site.
December 9, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
And it takes weeks to forget it.
December 9, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, Greg, wasn't it you yourself who freaked out the other day because Hildebrand tried to frame Obama's progressive stances on the issues as "centrist"? Remember? You finally got him to admit that his administration and even, gasp, his moderate and conservative Cabinet members will be focused on advancing a progressive agenda. Good work, shit-for-brains.
December 9, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I subscribe to CT Voter's theory that the Obama campaign is allowing this to play out in the media in order to make their policies and administration more palatable to the American mainstream.
"Hey, there are lots of people on the right who are angry at Obama. And the left is angry at him too. He must be all right."
(And please, let's not get into another of those tiresome debates about whether Obama is "centrist" or "center-left" or one-third pi radians. I think even most of the angry left couldn't give a damn what label you apply to him at this point)
December 9, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
We need some polls here to vote on who on the left is mad and who isn't. Let us see who votes for what though so we can filter out all the SFCWallace, sfcwalace and Sfcwlace's.
December 9, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
CT Voter may be right but I wasn't joking when I admonished knee-jerk liberals, especially certain self-annointed "leaders" of the netroots, to STFU.
December 9, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's lovely JM, and you're welcome to enjoy your new President Elect. But, are you actually suggesting that those who are not entirely happy with his decisions thus far should refrain from criticizing? That there should be no dissent among supporters? And if so, why?
December 9, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the record, this lefty is DEELIGHTED and very proud of our President-elect.
December 9, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
:)
I'll just keep saying it: I'm on my honeymoon with President Awesome, thank you.
All the critics can take a hike.
December 9, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Same here. Although I rather had Richardson for SOC than Hillary.
December 9, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't even care about that. He was my first choice, too, but I'm not unhappy with Hillary as SOS. In fact, I'm happy with the choice. She's got the gravitas and the creds. If she doesn't hire Mark Penn for anything, then she's golden.
And the last thing the Big Dawg wants to do is screw things up for Hillary. He owes her and he's dying to start working down that debt. He'll do just about anything to see her be a success as SOS, I think - including getting out of the public eye if he has to.
December 9, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
David Corn STFU
Just now on MSNBC speaking for me
December 9, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't watch MSNBC because I like to keep my sanity, what did Corn said?
December 9, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
He rehashed his WaPo oped to the effect that that liberals were either frustrated, angry or fit to be tied over the appointments.
He conceded that it was his view that the centrist appointments were designed to give Obama room to enact progressive agenda etc but warned of increasing discomfiture on the left if the remaining appointments didn't show that the left had a voice at the table.
Slammed Hillary and Gates, dismissed Susan Rice "she's in New York"
December 9, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where's your disagreement with his argument, John?
December 9, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if I agree totally. We, the crazy news-addicted people on here, know what Obama stands for and what he's angling to do. I kind of think that the media's straw-manning the angry left actually props up Obama as a reasonable guy to those who lean right.
His rising approval numbers (an aside, approval for what? He hasn't even had his first day on the job yet!) actually support this. The left support him generally. Rising numbers means that moderates are swinging his way. What this means is that he has more support to follow his agenda beginning on day one. If the media wants to call me angry and it allows Obama to get another bill passed, then so freaking be it.
December 9, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously a majority likes his cabinet picks and his pressers and what he's saying.
That majority includes most of the left.
December 9, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
sorry, I guess I let my fingers complain too much.
You're right. I was just trying to say that those rising numbers have to come from somewhere. And that's gotta be from the moderately right.
And an almost 80% approval rating is huge political capital to get lots of awesome stuff done.
December 9, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree - it's a big majority and I think it represents most of the left and the middle. The far right can't be happy. The remaining Repugs aren't happy.
Everyone else seems to be pretty damn happy.
December 9, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way Obama's approval 78% + Bush's approval rating 29% = 107%. So 7% of Americans like Bush and Obama. Weird.
(http://www.gallup.com/poll/111769/Gallup-Daily-Bush-Job-Approval.aspx)
December 9, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least 7 percent. There are probably some that don't like either.
December 9, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heh heh, yeah. You're right.
December 9, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The MSM is a dumb beast, and it's used to the right wing being a single-minded entity with all parts marching in lock-step. It is going to take awhile for it to come around to the realization that it's a brand new day in America.
December 9, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
My thoughts exactly. They've had a lot of their legwork done for them over the last eight years--no sampling of opinion needed when one wingnut's publicly stated views are identical to those of the next. In some ways, it would be nice if "the left," such as it is, did march in lockstep a little more; it might get more accomplished. But it never will, for better or worse.
The other mark of MSM laziness here is that they're equating quibbles with some of the cabinet selections with being "upset with Obama," which is ludicrous. Questioning and commenting on individual decisions that he makes is not only appropriate, it's our responsibility--but it's possible to not blindly cheerlead his every move and still be entirely supportive of him overall. Alas, that's also a degree of subtlety that the MSM no longer seems capable of.
December 9, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The other half of the laziness is that for years, "the left" could be assumed to oppose all things Bush, because they were actively harming the country and nearly always supported by bad-faith arguments and obvious BS. The idea that there could be criticism that's any more subtle than a lynch mob isn't something they've had to write about for the past eight years.
December 9, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fake outrage is dumb. Outrage about fake outrage is just boring.
December 9, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't mean to overestimate their importance, but if someone surfed the blogosphere and saw the OpenLeft crowd's postings (particularly people like Sirota, Stoller, et al), their repeated appearances on the "Rachel Maddow Show," etc, you maybe COULD get the impression that there really is an angry left upset with Obama.
Now, I'm not excusing the MSM for not doing more research to find out that this is just a vocal minority, but that doesn't mean I don't resent those bloggers' endless drumbeat of manufactured anger and faux controversies for portraying an angry and inaccurate face to the rest of the world.
December 9, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have a good point.
December 9, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
All this talk about how the LEFT wing of the party is having a tizzy-fit about P.E. Obama and his Cabinet selectees makes me wonder about the MSM motive.
Could it be that the LEFT is being too civil to a point of unnerving the MSM? Perhaps they believe too much in their own caricature of the left to realize they're more sane than the entire republican party could ever hope to be. Or maybe the MSM became to accustom to the lock-step marching of the repug masses and are unfamiliar with the rout-step march of the Democrats?
Either way, the MSM needs to get their story straight. The Democrat Party isn't the repug party. So if they just sit back and watch...they may see democracy reborn.
December 9, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could it be that the LEFT is being too civil to a point of unnerving the MSM? Perhaps they believe too much in their own caricature of the left to realize they're more sane than the entire republican party could ever hope to be. Or maybe the MSM became to accustom to the lock-step marching of the repug masses and are unfamiliar with the rout-step march of the Democrats?
Dead-on.
Next will be the resurrection of the Obama's-not-really-black meme, when his successes start making the racists' heads explode.
December 9, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
the rout-step march. . .
Technically it's "route-step", but your version is MUCH more apropos in this context. :-)
December 9, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in a county where 80% of the population are registered Democrats, I and a good majority of my friends all worked on the Obama campaign, we all self-describe as 'pinko liberals', and many of us have had clothing emblazoned with "1/20/09" for over a year now. We're all also damn happy with the Obama Transition Administration... not so much with the MSM.
Oh, perhaps the MSM could also point out that even if liberals are critical of the Obamam Transition Administration, that's who we are, we don't kowtow just because one of our own gets into power. 'Critical' is a key component of 'critical thinking.'
Can we get back to reality now?
December 9, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point the MSM fails to recognize is the repug masses weren't allowed to speak their minds as individuals...they all had a prepared speech to recite.
December 9, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem here is the news orgs. contributing the "anger" to simply "the left". It's just the far-far lefties who swooned over Dennis Kucinich. Though the news orgs. may want to paint the entire left wing as far far lefties, that's just not the case. And though they may want to make it out like they're a huge majority of those on the left, it's simply not true, either.
December 9, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dammit dammit dammit. I challenge the assertion that it's been only the far left expressing concerns.
But I also challenge the assertion that expressing concern or even disagreement is the same thing as "anger". You can give an opinion that you strongly disagree with some of Obama's choices and still be completely excited (chomping at the bit even) to watch his team take the field.
This is like saying if you don't like the defensive end, suddenly you no longer support your favorite football team and you hate the coach.
I blame the PUMAs.
December 9, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a difference between anger and disagreement. I have seen more disagreement than anger, but it is quite obvious to me from things I've read, on top of people I have specifically spoken to, that there are those who are outright pissed off at Obama.
Unfortunately, many of those who are so pissed off are very vocal about it, so it gets more attention than the vast majority of others who are not pissed.
As for whether it's just the far-left... Unfortunately, I have seen no one outside of the far-left bitching and moaning in the way that those on it are. Frankly, it's classic of the far-left. Engage irrational panic mode!
Sure, there are those outside of the far-left with "concerns", but I have yet to see much anger outside of the far-left.
Raising rational and reasonable issues is one thing. Ranting on a tangent about all this crap before Obama's even in office and before he can even start to enact policy is another.
December 9, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Multiple Stupid Magpies (MSM) Logic:
Conventional wisdom sells, so why not go with the easy narrative. Accuracy is too much hard work! Maybe if enough people complain, we'll eventually get around to really investigating.
December 9, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is total crapola. The Left...heck I am leading a post election Obama Grass Roots Movement in CO and there are over 50 House Parties up and down the Front Range.
I talk to progressives and liberals every day and let me say we are in the 90%. What those influencing the NY Times and Chris (who wants to run) Matthews is that they are not consulted.
Read Team of Rivals and Alter's book on FDR and you can see precisely what Obama is doing----and he is transforming the Old Left.
The Times better worry about borrowing against their Real Estate to pay for operating costs....why not sell the building and locate up in Harlem or Brooklyn?
December 11, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink