|

Liberals disappointed with Obama? So what else is new?

obama-gas-prices

Molly Redden (with a helping hand from Jonathan Chait) ARGUES that dissatisfaction with President Obama among some liberals is not especially surprising:

Liberals are dumping Obama. Again. A story on Politico today declares that the left has “revoked Obama’s liberal card” for presiding over a (meager) push to use force against Bashar al Assad’s forces in Syria. And that, combined with a slew of previous disappointments—he never pushed for single-payer health care, he let the Glass-Steagall Act wither and die in favor of Dodd-Frank—this is the last straw. “I don’t think that anyone at this point would characterize the president as the progressive warrior that the progressive movement is anxious to see,” Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson said.

If the news surprises, that may be because, like a friend who keeps reuniting with his college girlfriend, it can be hard to keep track of when exactly he is broken up with her and when they’re timorously seeing each other again. Stories of a liberal-Obama breakup have been a Beltway constant since before he was even sworn into office. (Remember all the heartbreak he caused when he invited Pastor Rick Warren to pray at his first inauguration?)

But for once, it might not be right to blame the recycling of the Obama-liberal breakup storyline entirely on a hungry press corps. (Although they’ve helped keep it alive.) Liberal elite opinion really has abandoned the president—only to briefly take him back—time and again since his first election.

(Snip)

Now that the election is over—indeed, now that Barack Obama never has to run for reelection again—liberal opinion is back at the fore. And it often appears to uniformly run against Obama. There are some good reasons for this, like the NSA revelations, whistleblower prosecutions, Obama’s decision on Plan B,  and his somewhat mystifying inability to hold the line when Republicans threaten to shut down the government or allow the U.S. to default on its debts.

But he has also accrued some major liberal achievements (the massive and hard-fought expansion of health care and the sneaky implementation of the most stringent environmental regulations in modern memory), and failed to attempt at others (cap and trade). He has attempted to wrest very liberal economic compromises from Republicans and hamstrung himself with a poor understanding of negotiating tactics. “What happened” to Obama, is that he acquired a checkered rap sheet, like any president; in some senses, Obama’s record is quite liberal; in others, it is resolutely not.

In piece for New York Magazine that ran in late 2011, Jonathan Chait argued that the persistent disappointment liberals feel is the product of self-sabotage. “Liberals are dissatisfied with Obama because liberals, on the whole, are incapable of feeling satisfied with a Democratic president. They can be happy with the idea of a Democratic president—indeed, dancing-in-the-streets delirious—but not with the real thing.” It’s a partial history of how liberals have never been satisfied with any Democratic president—not Obama, not Clinton, not Carter, not Johnson, not Kennedy, not Truman—at least not until after he had left office. Time and again, he wrote, these presidents failed to live up to liberals’ expectations in almost identical ways: “He is too accommodating, too timid, too unwilling or unable to inspire the populace.”

In other words, liberals keep calling things off with Obama for the same reason that a lot of serial couples split—someone’s expectations are just too idealistic.

Share:

8 Comments

  1. “In other words, liberals keep calling things off with Obama for the same reason that a lot of serial couples split—someone’s expectations are just too idealistic.”

    Sounds just like the Tea Party types who are disenchanted with “conservative” Republicans once they get into office.

  2. One big difference, doc: Tea Party types are semi-literate morons.

  3. Exactly what I expected you would say. You really are too predictable, but you know what they say about old dogs….

  4. doc will always defend the Tea Party types, because his favorite senator, Ron Johnson, is one of them.

    That’s all you need to know about doc’s political slants. He’s a member in good standing of America’s booboisie.

  5. Brian Opsahl

    I disagree with him all the time Doc, but saying that will bring out the nut’s from your friends and turn this blog into a free for all…

    The red line comment he said then tried to re-say is one. But none of that compares to what the bush gang was doing.

  6. I will ALWAYS defend Tea Party types?

    You are simply a liar…..and a hypocrite as are most of the snarky liberals I know.

  7. Brian Opsahl

    Snarky Liberals…do you know any teabaggers that make one bit of sence..?

  8. No, I don’t know any teabaggers.

    I do know some people that would claim to be aligned with the Tea Party movement that make perfect sense though.

    And you should be careful about defending snarky liberal hypocrites Mr. Artic Cat

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>