Obama is better than George Bush. Way better. So much better that it is like comparing a real smirking chimp to the real Barack Obama. In fact the only time their names should be mentioned in the same breath is to note how wide and deep the chasm of character and ability there is between them. Otherwise they are simply apples and moldy oranges.
Obama has done more good in three weeks than George Bush did in eight years. Regardless of what is happening, we should all start each day with a deep breath of relief that Obama, not W, is in the White House. It may be the single most important distinction on the globe today.
If we were to have a President who could be anything even remotely close to Kevin Kline's "Dave" in the real world, it would be Barack Obama. And barack is smarter, more talented and more experienced than "Dave" (triple bonus!); they simply share a good heart and an appreciation for the jobs and other needs of the non-rich.
For these and many other reasons, we should be just as ready now as we were last year to hop in the car or on the next plane (or whatever you did) to go where and do what he needs us to do in order to help him address the mind-numbingly important things he has on his plate. The election was vital. So are the issues he and we face now.
And that's the end of the discussion. Or so many insist or imply. To say anything more is asking for ponies, behaving like chicken little, and deserving of nothing less than rude insults and STFU. These insults and demands for silence, BTW, are considered socially acceptable, while any rude responses to them? Not so much.
Calling someone an asshole and saying someone is sociopathically delusional are not qualitatively different. In fact, the latter is worse, since it asserts specific claims while the former is a vague, common epithet often tossed off carelessly. "So and so is an asshole." "Such and such people are assholes." "Assholes are everywhere." "Anyone who says or thinks such stuff is an asshole."
Which is not to excuse ad hominen attacks, but to bring them into sharp focus in the context of strongly worded, accepted attacks on people's comments, character, intelligence and grounding in reality that are legion and rarely questioned. Odd, what passes for civility and what doesn't. I have seen many people chased off diaries on a raft of insults with nary an explicit name called... with little if any protest.
That's why the recent diary claiming to discern what is "fact-based" and what is "reality-based" is, IMHO, little different than the typical "STFU chicken little" remark, which is worse, owing to its specificity, than "asshole." I am referring to Wanted: Reality-based Daily Kos, by Dragon5616. I generally don't refer to diaries and diarists by name except in praise, but this diary consists of attacking three diaries, their diarists and their damned supporters who are so delusional as to actually have raised these deformed diaries to the rec list.
This diary disingenously insists it is merely defending facts and reality.
Here's a sample of the reasoning:
A diary declares Obama a failure after two weeks in office and goes to the top of the rec list. Mind you, the final form of the stimulus package had not been reached and remains undetermined even now.
Forget a honeymoon (or lack of) by the GOP. Apparently, many progressives have also ended their relationship with Obama after essentially a one-night stand. The reality is that Obama has already kept several of his campaign promises--the Lily Ledbetter Act, the closing of Guantanamo, the ending of torture, the ordering of a withdrawal plan for Iraq, the extension of SCHIP, and the end of medical marijuana raids. He will likely sign the largest stimulus package in history in the next week or two.
He also pledged in his campaign, over and over again, to change the tone of the discourse in Washington. Of course that won't happen overnight,
but screaming that Obama should cease attempts to work with the GOP is not reality-based. Obama will always strive for more unity and bipartisanship. That goal is an essential part of Obama the man and Obama the politician. That does not mean he will cave to Republicans on every issue. That does not mean we should not push for progressive programs. It does mean he will continue to try to establish civil discourse with the GOP. That is reality.
To some, as the comments reveal, this is a breath of fresh, level-headed, reality-based air. To others, it is a subtle or not so subtle, incendiary insult, which led to some blowback.
The premise here is that because Obama has kept promises and accomplished good things those who question or criticize certain tactics or efforts-- such as the steps he has taken (or not) on the stimulus or his vetting of tax-dodging nominees--are not dealing with facts and living in reality.
The diary presumes to be a work of scholarship or investigative reporting compared to "those" diaries, which it insults, and not simply another op-ed, from a different point of view.
And this diary's supporters whole-heartedly agreed, hook line and sinker.
Then the diarist goes on to attack, in an entirely "level-headed", "rational", "real world" fashion, a diary that skewered Rahm Emmanuel, while extolling the virtues of Tom Geoghan, who dares to run for the office that Rahm had the temerity to ask that the seat be held for him! (Maybe that's what he got?) The diarist's argument is that, because Rahm is and will be CoS for the forseeable future, it is simply delusional, not within the bounds of reality at all, to go about attacking Rahm and promoting Geoghan.
Uh-huh. Another scientific proof.
The third example, which tackles a diary I confess I have not read and will not be reading (apologies to the diarist), things moving apace as they are, attacks a diarist for a misleading attack on a Newsweek article (which I won't be reading, either). Now, from this compromised position, I do not intend to dissect this "analysis.". I will simply note that the argument did hinge, in part, on the assertion that Newsweek is liberal-leaning, which I find highly debatable and hardly a matter of record. I canceled my subscription on the exact opposite conclusion, and then Newsweek went on to hire Karl Rove, a guy who should be in jail for life, for "balance". But, like I said, I have no real argument to quarrel with this example. In fact, research may reveal that this is the one example that supports the diarists claim: that he is simply fighting for facts and sourcing, not simply arguing the merits of one set of assumptions and interpretations of them against another.
I read the comments and the diarist's littany of praises for Obama's accomplishments for many was as truly transformational as the veiled scorn of those whose attention lay elsewhere; many commenters were simply thankful for the respite from "gloomy outlooks", cynics and critics.
As with the diarist, for many of these commenter, it was clear that those who criticized Obama, those who implied or called certain tactics "failures", were obviously birds of a feather with those precious few kossacks who actually have concluded that Obama is a failure, thus "abandoning" him like a one night stand. As if such actions and remarks could have but one translation: "he's dead to me." As if this generalized observation were itself factual, sourced, rational and, you know, reality based.
Now, the diarist doth insist quite strongly his recognition of the following:
Folks, we need the give and take of ideas here. We need to both praise and criticize Obama. We need the tension between more "pure" progressives and more "pragmatic" ones (I do not use those terms pejoratively). But we also need to make sure our diaries and comments are accurate, sourced, and reality-based.
Like the Lorax who speaks for the trees, he is only speaking to ensure that "diaries and comments are accurate, sourced, and (...wait for it)...reality-based."
Although my own rec'd diary was not a target here, I took umbrage to 1) the intellectual dishonesty I have described, the gap between the diarist's claim (he was merely clearing up and defending facts) vs. what he actually does in at least two cases (attack interpretations), and to the 2) several good kossacks who were ruthlessly denigrated.
I ashamedly admit that after reading the diary and then the comments for ten or fifteen minutes or so, the first thing out of my keyboard, and many others after it, were filled with ad hominem attacks that left the respondents little room but to insist I was being "incoherent", which is one boilerplate emotional response to an emotional attack. And of course I--unlike those who impugned other people's and my own intelligence, grasp of reality and character, without name-calling--was extensively troll-rated. No doubt this was both for my own rude "treatment" of people but also for the ideas I was expressing, though some insisted my comments were "incoherent", thus could not evoke intelligent reactions, except that in some cases, from some readers, they did. In defense, I, as many others in this situation before me have done, explained how committed I was and am to Obama, including a littany of the travel I conducted on his behalf last year. I was called a complete full-of-shit liar. I provided details, including where I went and with whom I worked, and I was lambasted for that as well. Apparently calling me a delusional liar, dipshit and compulsive ass, however, were all well within bounds, because I started the name-calling, after all.
Much, much later I did finally apologize for the name-calling, which was out of character and line. I should have done so much earlier. Scratch that, I shouldn't have fallen prey in the first place.
Interstingly, those who responded in kind no doubt feel justified, just as they feel their assaults on others equally justifiable. Logic, however, would seem to dictate that those who insulted others and myself at least as viciously, if not moreso, with and without ad hominems, should be big enough to dole out apologies and withdraw troll-ratings as well. Just sayin'.
If diaries that seriously take Obama to task for this or that under the dire circumstances we are in are to be, in this manner, effectively troll-rated, then those who attack and troll-rate them and their authors and supporters deserve no less, I suppose. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and we'll all be blind mashed potato eaters.
As for the gist of arguments that have criticized Obama, which are attacked for being gloomy, un-level-headed, and irrational, even while in most cases they do acknowledge his good deeds and the author's commitment to him, here are two:
- In Nov, they were planning to have an effective stimulus pacakge on his desk on Jan 20th. Given the time and magnitude of the consequences, there's no reason this could not or should not have been done.
- After the election, the R's were whipped, demoralized and in disarray. Things were incredibly bleak. Obama had enough political capital to ask for the moon and get it. All he needed were a couple of votes from reasonable R's, those who read the tea leaves, or those who could be coerced due to conditions in their home districts.
- Despite being in power, the R's have outmaneuvered the D's 2-1 on the media. Obama has the bully pulpit. He can be on television any minute he wants, several times a day if necesary. With that leadership, several surrogates would be given the same treatment.
- Governors widely support the stimulus, even red state governors like Jon Huntsman here in UT.
- The cost of the delay, combined with the nomination vetting gaffes, has cost him unnecessarily. Instead of coming out strong and sure-footed, he came out unprepared and talking out both sides of his mouth (we need to be bi-partisan; I won).
- Despite all this, Obama continues to have more than enough public support to seal the deal, not a compromise deal but one that will do the most good, at ANY moment. He can use public opinion like a club and either threaten or whack the R's with it. This is neither the media nor the R's fault. It's on the D's, starting with Barack.
- As kos correctly noted, until recently, Obama made bipartisandship the higher priority over stimulus, and that has cost hundreds of thousands and the nation dearly, more than the good he has done, unfortunately.
- Big business is behind a big stimulus.
What more did/does he need?
Some will call this Monday morning QBing, but I and kossacks, economists and pundits have been noting these things all along, which of course only drew accusations of not giving Obama enough time. Which ignores the crux of the argument: had he approached it differently and leveraged his assets, he had plenty of time!
Now, once more, I love Obama and if he said he needed volunteers at a particular place and time to get this thing done I would be on the next plane. In fact, I wish he would. And I am not a wealthy man. I simply believe we are at a critical juncture on several vectors. And that does not mean that, given these dire circumstances and the zig-zagging of his methods, I won't criticize or express concern. And I am not alone here in Dkos or among economists and pundits.
As I said in another diary:
We can rightly blame (the economy, the wars, the lack of action on global warming) on George Bush, but we can't pretend that now is the time to approach all things in moderation. As Krugman intimates, it's not time for "centrism." That time has come and gone. George Bush used up most of the fuel taking this ship out into the middle of the storm. We can't zig-zag back by some collegial, bi-partisan good enough for government work process of successive approximation. We head straight for shore by dead reckoning or we don't reach it. Period.
Here's the Krugman piece to which I refer, What Hath Centrists Wroght.
I was told I am "living in a dream world" for asserting the above conditions upon which Obama entered office and undertook the stimulus...
presumably because nothing can be done in DC without tremendous compromise and/or complete cave-in, with which we are all too familiar, regardless of how popular the President, how much support he and the stimulus have, how much strength he has in Congress and among Governors and business, or how weak his opponents are.
Now I am impressed with the turn of events of the past few days, the fire in his belly and his decision to take it to the people. Some interpret this as a relieving adaptation to what wasn't working, others assign to Obama a grand strategem. I don't know, he and the other D's seemed to be offstride, on their heels, out of control. That was some act is this was just a ploy. But either way, his new approach is likely to be more successful in getting a bill passed.
The other key argument that has caused much debate between the criticize/don't criticize factions has to do with the size and content of the stimulus itself. The economists who have expressed concern and written prescriptions throughout the development of and reporting on the package are legion and oft-cited. I need not list them here. Yet when they and their essays and remarks are written up, they are frequently attacked for criticized as being alarmist and/or just complaining, not providing solutions. Obama himself said if Krugman had some good ideas he'd like to hear them! Sorry, but that's horse-pucky (I like that one.) As if Krugman hasn't being prescribing solutions for years, a number of times in the past few months alone. And he's hardly alone. You can't take a step without falling over economic advice from those who largely got it right. Obama has just been listening more to other voices, when he hasn't been negotiating against himself for bi-partisanship's sake.
Before inauguration, criticism of nominations and other decisions and pronouncements were routinely rejected because he wasn't even in office yet. As if none if his actions before inauguration counted. Criticisms now are rejected as coming too soon, as if we should wait as long as it takes and until it is a done deal. Will this dynamic change later? I'm beginning to seriously doubt it.
Well, some of us disagree. Strongly. We are not trolls. We are not traitors. We are activists, many of us, and we will hold Obama not to a vague standard of what is "reasonable" or "practical", since, as I have shown, these are subject to wide variances in interpretation of "facts", but rather by the standard of what is demanded by the time and enormity of the consequences of both the timeliness and the content of the stimulus.
Take Meteor Blades' diary last night about Big Job Losses.. That is what is important, not how long Obama has or hasn't been in office. I would argue, in a perfectly sane, level-headed manner, that all the gains of the good he has done, however wonderful and better than Bush, are far less than the damage that has occured unnecessarily (for the reasons I stated above) due to what has and has not happened on the stimulus and the bailout to date.
(And the same arguments for why he should have gotten a great stimulus into place much earlier hold for the bailout as well. Sorry, no excuses.)
The housing market, the bank failures, auto failures, retail failures, education and other public service cuts, all of which continue apace--costing jobs and housing--are prelude. Commercial real estate, credit card companies and many other dominoes stand ahead.
Most of the people who lost their homes and/or jobs did not believe that would happen to them. Ditto for those who are experiencing these now and in the future. I know a very talented COO who was RIF'd just last week. And I know how hard the executive market is, especially today.
Unfortunately, we did not act soon enough to prevent the Iraq War or this completely foreseeable economic disaster (fortunately, I got my 401K into CDs two years ago). So, as with the Iraq War, we have to deal with it now that the shitstorm is flying. We can act now to fight the war on financial terrorism, the war for jobs, the war for social safety nets, or we can wait until it's much worse, as we've always done in the past.
I'm heartened to see so many who are fighting now, and I will continue to exhort everyone who will listen to join us sooner rather than later. And I'll try harder to always keep it civil and constructive.
Again, I love Obama. Really. But I will continue to be demanding in accordance with the times, and, like many others, believe he would ask and expect no less.