I'm astonished by the continued vehemence of the STFU crowd on this site. As currently being vigorously debated over the last few days, the issue is about the use of the word "trust" in reference to criticism of the Obama administration's HCR efforts up to now (in reaction to Krugman's "Obama's Trust Problem" column late last week). Some say any criticism is counterproductive. The answer clearly is this: CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is healthy and productive, and in our political system it provides a critical barometer for politicians to gauge their policy positions before such positions coalesce.
Fact: We would have lost the public option by now if there had only been silence from progressive Democrats, as evidenced by the recent backpedaling from the White House after the stir caused by Sec'y Sebelius' comments appearing to throw the public option under the bus. Loud, vocal advocacy works, and is not a sign of weakness.
There are many on DKos who equate criticism of the President or certain Democrats with traitorousness, secret troll-like agendas, not being "real" Democrats, or at a minimum with a lack of seriousness about the need for unanimity and consistency.
Losing Trust in Progressives?
In reaction, one diary recently at the top of the rec list asserts that progressive "handwringing" is undermining our agenda and giving the opponents of what is just and right ammunition to undermine the president and our broader agenda.
The diarist and many others before him are disdainful of pundits such as Krugman, who in a recent column suggested that Obama is losing the trust of progressives:
So there’s a growing sense among progressives that they have, as my colleague Frank Rich suggests, been punked. And that’s why the mixed signals on the public option created such an uproar.
Now, politics is the art of the possible. Mr. Obama was never going to get everything his supporters wanted.
But there’s a point at which realism shades over into weakness, and progressives increasingly feel that the administration is on the wrong side of that line. It seems as if there is nothing Republicans can do that will draw an administration rebuke: Senator Charles E. Grassley feeds the death panel smear, warning that reform will "pull the plug on grandma," and two days later the White House declares that it’s still committed to working with him.
It’s hard to avoid the sense that Mr. Obama has wasted months trying to appease people who can’t be appeased, and who take every concession as a sign that he can be rolled.
Indeed, no sooner were there reports that the administration might accept co-ops as an alternative to the public option than G.O.P. leaders announced that co-ops, too, were unacceptable.
So progressives are now in revolt. Mr. Obama took their trust for granted, and in the process lost it. And now he needs to win it back.
Glenn Greenwald agrees with Krugman, noting of the health care reform debate is a proxy for a host of important progressive issues that are being short-changed by the administration:
Krugman contends that while "the fight over the public option involves real policy substance," it is at least as much "a proxy for broader questions about the president’s priorities and overall approach." That's the argument I made the other day about why the health care fight is so important regardless of one's views of the public option. The central pledges of the Obama campaign were less about specific policy positions and much more about changing the way Washington works -- to liberate political outcomes from the dictates of corporate interests; to ensure vast new levels of transparency in government; to separate our national security and terrorism approaches from the politics of fear. With some mild exceptions, those have been repeatedly violated.
Inconsistent, Circular Firing Squad?
Another thoughtful DKos diary rescued this evening more generically cites the problem with progressives as a mercurial lack of consistency that weakens our message and power to solidify our majorities -- the classic "circular firing squad" analogy. It counsels establishing "blacklists" and "advocacy pages" to ramp up the power of the DKos community.
While there may be merit in ramping up our advocacy, and there is definite merit in targeting Blue Dogs for primary challenges by real Democrats, I would argue to this diarist that where he/she sees inconsistency in the diversity of viewpoints and criticisms, I see a strength. The Repugs have the "luxury" of maintaining consistently strident and borderline (and occasionally actually) psychotic positions that pander to their Southern Rump Party base, Democrats, by dint of achieving a majority, have embraced a wide variety of views all under the Democratic tent. Our inconsistency is naturally a part of our diverse embrace of positions held by most Americans.
Avoiding Friedman Units Syndrome and Making Our Voices Heard
Many, many critics of the critics on this blog say it's ridiculous to be criticizing so early in the administration. We should simply all STFU and given Obama and Co... another six months?... of trust, and march in lock step to enable him to do his magic. FWIW, this "It's only six months-plus into the President's term!" excuse reminds me a little too much of Atrios' infamous "Friedman Unit" during the height of the Iraq debacle.
Silence is Not Golden in Politics
Keeping silent and equating this with "trust" is almost akin to the demagogic far right memes that criticism of Dubya was tantamount to treason. But let's be charitable to the critics of the critics, and assume they are arguing about tactics and not impugning the intent or good will of the Krugmans, Greenwalds, and other good progressives in this community and others like it. The bottom line is that tactically, persistent, constructive criticism, and voicing of opposition to trail balloons like that floated by Sebelius, is what has kept the freakin' public option alive today. Without progressive push-back, the Blue Dogs and the TRULY traitorous Repugs would have won the day for the insurance companies and Big Pharma.
Greenwald quotes a comment at the bottom of his column that I think aptly summarizes the main issue here:
On the general question of "trusting Obama," BTD makes an important point: "I am against the idea of trusting any politician, including Obama, Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi and Anthony Weiner. Watch what they do, not what they say." Indeed, as I've written many times, "trust" is appropriate for one's friends, loved ones, family members and the like -- but not for politicians. That's what John Adams meant when he said: "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." "All" means "all" and "none" means "none."
But that's not how our political culture works generally. Our politics have become entirely celebretized. Political discussions typically resemble junior high chatter about one's most adored and despised actors: filled with adolescent declarations of whether someone "likes" and "trusts" this politician or "dislikes" that one. "I trust Obama" has long been a common refrain among his most loyal supporters. The fact that, as Krugman says, that is much less true now is quite significant, even if "trust" is an inappropriate emotion in the first place to feel towards any political official.
So: Here's to criticism and making our voices heard loudly, to the rooftops, so that we can, perhaps ironically, guarantee continued trust in our President and our Party by "making them" do the right thing. Let us not go gentle into that good night, and when our advocates in Washington stray from the positions and values they were elected to uphold, let's constructively rage as needed so that they know we're still out there!