Skip to main content

View Diary: Anatomy of Hate: Dissecting ODS Comments (88 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not all "progressives" (9+ / 0-)

    ...worked for Obama's election.  Some worked for varioius other parties and independent candidates.  So there is that.

    I don't think you will ever get communication coherence in this bunch like the GOP and right-wing has.  And different folks have different abilities to separate their feelings from their logic.  The tact that I generally take is to caution against mistaken personalization of the issue.

    People's mental models of the Presidency often reflect their relationships with their own workplaces, especially smaller workplaces that can tend to have absolutist bosses.  They cannot comprehend the highly matrixed communication environments of most large organizations.  Nor is it easy for them to understand the degree to which the leader of a large organization has to built compliance from the direct reports and their direct reports to get the organization aligned in the direction the leader seeks to direct it.

    And the federal civil service is among all workforces the most difficult to get aligned because most of them will outslast any President.  The military is likely even more difficult, but the guy that allowed them to get bin Laden should have some political capital there.

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 09:00:01 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  You bring up important insights. (5+ / 0-)

      I myself don't have a lot of experience within organizations, but I at least see how they operate from a distance.  With some of these comments it's a lot worse than not getting the dynamics - they don't seem to get that other people in an administration are even autonomous entities, let alone that there are gradations of authority between being personally managed by the President and have no control whatsoever.  What pisses me off isn't the ignorance so much as the indifference to the facts they don't know.  It's Know-Nothingism.

      I'm not sure what level of internal political capital the President has with the military.  He has strong credibility among the public and rank-in-file troops on foreign policy, but that doesn't necessarily make him strong with the command and industrial complex.  I hesitate to reach conclusions on the subject given how much of it transpires secretly, but it's hard to argue with the fact that we're no longer in Iraq, no attack on Iran has occurred, we helped free Libya from Gaddafi without becoming mired there, we have a hard deadline in Afghanistan, etc.  So I'm inclined to trust the President given the results, at least as far as military operations are concerned.

      Where intelligence is concerned, it's a bit of a catch-22 for everyone except the malefactors.  A reformer couldn't share what they're doing without sounding ridiculous - e.g., "I'm reining in the abuses, but can't tell you about any of it."  And meanwhile making a thing out of it would put them at odds with the people who would have to cooperate to make it happen, and make people dealing with bread and butter issues feel like the White House had completely lost touch with their priorities.  

      Fixing the problem will require persistent change well beyond the actions of a President, covering Congress, court cases, civil disobedience, etc.  But, unfortunately, attention spans are pretty short among the most passionate critics.

      "She's terse - I can be terse. Once, in flight school, I was laconic." -Wash

      by Troubadour on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 09:17:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wow. You are really hitting on all cylinders in (6+ / 0-)

        your follow up comments, IMHO.  "I'm reining in the abuses, but can't tell you about any of it."  If I were faced with an opponent that is totally belligerent and had sworn an a oath to destroy me (like Hamas has done with Israel) I would certainly be using some sort of strategy like game theory to get something done.  What you have said after the sentence I quoted has occurred to me so many times.  I think this is how results are happening.

        When the debt ceiling struggle ensued I was directed by someone here to a website at Harvard's negotiation's research department on hostage negotiations.  I was dumbfounded to realize that the President's team were using the five or so critical points to the letter, including letting the hostage taker feel that they have the upper hand at different points.  Sound familiar on other fronts?

        One of the reasons I respect the President is that he does not believe in using people as cannon fodder in any situation.  Many on the left and on the right however are quite willing to let the chips fall where they may, hurting many, to further their cause or aims.  They don't consider  that retaliation for outrage (if you end DADT for example) will fall on the isolated and powerless.

        •  I hadn't known that about the hostage negotiation. (4+ / 0-)

          But it makes sense.  This is an administration that deals with reality as what it is, not as one might wish it were, and tries to move toward better outcomes from imperfect present circumstances.  That's basically the definition of progressive.  But they wouldn't get credit for it because some thought they should have been making impotent speeches railing about it and banging their shoes on the table.

          Yeah, see, the thing about that is....(runs away)

          by Troubadour on Sun Jun 23, 2013 at 06:14:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site