The liberal argument against Barack Obama
A lot of things have changed for Barack Obama since 2008, as inevitably happens when a largely unknown, charismatic challenger becomes a well-known and battle-damaged incumbent.
But perhaps the most dramatic evolution, and likely the most dangerous, for Mr. Obama’s re-election chances, is the stiffening narrative among liberals that this is a man who lacks the moral vision to lead.
A lot has been made of the headwind that the Obama campaign faces in conservative media.
But more damaging is the fact that left-of-center media outlets from the Huffingtonpost to Salon to Democracy Now — and liberal icons from Bill Maher to Jon Stewart — have been hammering at the idea that this Administration lacks a clear and meaningful compass.
Exhibit A in their prosecution of Mr. Obama is his relentless pursuit of terrorists, and his embrace of Homeland Security measures first envisioned during the Bush years.
Writing in Salon, prominent liberal write Glenn Greenwald suggested this week that the Obama years have shown “how extremism is normalized.”
Now we have this question: if the U.S. President can openly declare the power to order even the nation’s own citizens executed by the CIA in total secrecy, without charges or a whiff of transparency or oversight, what can’t he do?
Responding to the news that the Obama administration developed a “kill list” for alleged terrorists, Jason Linkins reported on the left-of-center backlash for the Huffingtonpost, which described the issue as “a test of Obama’s principles and will.”
Well, in response to this, one concerned citizen has taken to the White House’s “We The People” petitions portal to request the creation of a “Do Not Kill” list, which perhaps should be known as the “Please Consider According Me the Due Process of Law That I’m Constitutionally Entitled to Before You Allow Me to Be Summarily Executed by Joystick-Wielding Sociopaths” list.
For many left-of-center pundits, the national security issue fits neatly with a growing conviction that Obama has “centered” himself well to the right of their own moral comfort zone.
Guantanomo Bay remains open. Mr. Obama has made no effort to decriminalize marijuana, despite evidence of his own drug use. His stand on climate change has ranged from tepid to silent.
Until recently, he refused to take a stand supporting same-sex marriage, and still won’t support an effort to legalize gay weddings on a Federal level.
Mr. Obama’s administration has also accelerated efforts to identify and deport undocumented workers, many of them Hispanics.
It’s worth noting that while pundits and journalists on the left are disenchanted — even furious — with Obama’s political and moral tilt, average Americans don’t seem to share that view. This from a Gallup report earlier this month:
In fact, 54% of all Americans say that Obama is more liberal than they are, while 9% say he is more conservative than they are. Looked at differently, if we just examine the pool of those who say that Obama’s ideology is different than theirs, 86% of this group say he is more liberal than they are.
Thus, basically in American politics today (or at least in the swing states), you either think that Obama is more liberal than you are, or that his ideology is the same as yours.
Naturally, this perception of Obama as being more liberal is driven by Republicans, almost eight in 10 of whom say that Obama is more liberal than they are. Importantly, independents also tilt that way, with 59% saying that Obama is more liberal than they are.
One would imagine that Democrats would be more likely to say that Obama shares their ideology. This is generally the case, although not overwhelmingly so. About six in 10 Democrats say that Obama is about the same as they are. But, almost a quarter say Obama is more liberal than they are (14% say that Obama is more conservative than they are).
Which puts Mr. Obama in a tough spot, one perhaps symbolized by his public embrace of same-sex marriage. It was a move he probably needed to make, in order to quell some of the discontent among liberal activists and pundits.
But if he shifts too far in that direction, he will likely lose even more independents, and perhaps a significant chunk of moderate Democrats, as well.
I think we’ll see by the end of summer whether the liberal argument against Mr. Obama will be crippling. We’ll see this question answered first in voter enrollment and fundraising numbers.
If liberal attacks continue, and if enough of those 14% of Democrats who stand to the left of the President decide to write him off, then it may be game-over.
Particularly in tipping point states like Colorado, New Hampshire, and Virginia that look more and more like must-wins, a big surge is needed on college campuses, in gay communities, from Hispanics, and from environmental groups.
Will those liberal constituencies fight for a candidate who they view as morally compromised? We’ll see.
Tags: analysis, election12, politics
The junk worry about executing our own citizens can easily by solved by passing a law that says when you become a terrorist attacking this country, we formally recognize you have given up your citizenship.
In fact, that is what has happened.
While I am not 100% pleased with everything the President has done or not done, I think I would be an idiot not to vote for him.
When has anyone ever been 100% in favor of everything done or not done by any President?
You know what really bothers me? It seems we have become a nation of spoiled children.
If he’s politically smart, he’ll just keep his corporatist, militarist, anti-transparency positions. Liberals are always going to mindlessly vote for him rather than consider actual progressive alternatives (like the excellent Green candidate Jill Stein). Why should he bother appeal to lemmings who are already going to vote for him no matter how much they may whine about him? Liberals don’t have backbones, which is why conservatives keep driving the agenda.
14% ?
I don’t trust those poll numbers.
The positions described above that Obama has taken have strengthened the attacks that many of his critics said of him during his first run…that he was a master campaigner, savvy politician and eloquent speaker…but nothing more. In other words, an empty suit.
He has demonstrated that he does not have any clear separation on civil rights and liberties than any other goofball in the District, whether they have an R or a D after their name.
Casting a vote for Obama has little difference than casting a vote for Romney. Despite a few issues, they are nominees for parties that are extremely similar.
Americans need to wake up and realize how important it is becoming to have a viable third and fourth party in this country. If Libertarians or Green Party or any other third party candidates could make any headway, maybe the Dems and Republicans would wake up and realize they need to maintain the principles of our nation’s founders, as found in the Constitution.
The notion of simply continuing drone strikes which kill civilians (admitting they also kill their targets), executions of American citizens without due process, use of military personnel and weapons to conduct warfare without any consent or notification of Congress, and wink,wink, nudge, nudge public declarations of ending indefinite detentions and indefinite wars while never really intending to do so would go the way of the dodo bird.
None of those things are in line with our country’s founding principles nor would most Americans agree to them if directly asked. Yet this is how Obama has ruled. I say ruled because by doing these things he is acting more like a dictator who makes up laws as he pleases, than presiding as President of the United States.
Just remember, both sides support:
– Collective Rights in favor of Individual Rights (whether it be corporatism supported mostly by the Right or forced unionization supported by many on the Left)
– Never-ending militarism and imperialism. Bush ran freely during the starting years of the War on Terror and Obama hasn’t slowed down a bit. We may be ending military operations in Iraq and heading towards it in Afghanistan, but there is no plan for everyone to come home from those spots. Not to mention the wholly illegal, unprecedented Libyan adventure Obama took us into earlier. And who knows what lies ahead with Syria and Iran.
– Continued Erosion of Civil Liberties. The PATRIOT Act was re-signed by Mr. Obama. Guantanamo remains open. Indefinite detentions of terror suspects continue. temporary “detentions” of suspects in foreign lands is still allowed (i.e. – countries that allow torture). The Kill List is reviewed every Tuesday to confirm whether or not to kill more people with drones without any due process for these individuals, some American citizens. And, yet, there is little to no outrage in Congress.
And the beat goes on…Liberals will continue to vote for Obama while they went hoarse screaming at GW Bush for these same heinous behaviors. And Conservatives will vote for Romney or anybody but Obama because of his “socialist” tendencies that appear to be no different than his predecessor.
One of the two goofballs is going to win anyway…so may I suggest you vote for a third party candidate this year…get the numbers high enough to be a discussion point for a few days. get people thinking critically again.
And the “liberal” argument in favor of Mitt, the lover of of men/women and man’s best friend, Romney is?????????
Drone strikes are excellent and unlike Bush’s world empire plan, actually have the terrorists on their heels and in retreat. Also I respect him for being a part of every strike, it is not some sort of slimy I didn’t know about this sort of deal, he is taking the responsibility for who is killed, which is what a President should do.
Politics is about compromise and doing what is best for the whole country, not about scoring liberal or conservative points, but then again Obama is not in his mom’s basement blogging with his superman wallpaper, as Tracy Ulman so accurately identified liberal bloggers.
I question the results from the poll, largely because I don;t think the public is informed enough to say whether Obama is more liberal or conservative than them. I think I’m relatively well-informed and I can’t figure out f I’m more liberal or more conservative than Obama. On individuals issues can tell but on average not really, though I object to many of his policies, sometimes for “liberal” reasons and other times for “conservative” reasons.
i really wish we could move beyond liberal vs. conservative and left vs. right and look at issues individually and think more independently.
The idea of due process was to remove human error and prejudice in administering justice. To assume Obama and his “Death Czar” are somehow super-humanly wiser, smarter, and prescient than the average citizen to pass judgement over life and death of “suspected” terrorists merely because of the title of their elected office is not only naive, but dangerous to the personal liberties of American citizens.
Every terrorist they kill by remote control drone is labeled a “suspect”. For all they know it could be some innocent illiterate goat herder who picked the wrong time and place to walk into a hut. So-called “Military intelligence” is a oxymoron. If the CIA, FBI, and Military intel did not foresee 9/11, could not find WMDs in Iraq, and took a decade to find Bin Laden, do you really think they ought to be trusted killing people with extreme prejudice on no more evidence than the being”suspected’????
You would think the liberals, of all people should remember the the McCarthyism, or better yet, the Salem witch trials.
Mervel, I partially agree that politics is about compromise, or at least at used to be. But it should only be about compromise when we are covering specific actions that fall outside of fundamental, Constitutionally protected rights and powers.
Drone strikes are excellent, and have certainly been effective at chasing Al Qaeda and the like. But one could say that tactical nukes would also be excellent and effective. That does not make them right.
However, the President has no Constitutional power to perform such actions. He is not allowed to kill anyone without due process of law allowing him to do so. Such due process could include a declaration of war and allowing the military to perform such actions. It could include a legal, courtroom process in which independent parties make determinations that are legal and binding prior to strikes, not just asking the opinion of advisors and lawyers sitting around the table.
He could also use these powers in an emergency in which American lives or territory is imminent danger and the above process, or something similar, would be dangerous. However, most of the drone situations, if not all, have probably not involved imminent danger.
While you declare respect for Obama for taking this on himself, you’ve made my point that he acts like a dictator. By taking on the actions all by himself, he has usurped the intentional, multi-layered checks and balances our government is supposed to follow. He acts as if he is above the law. And he is, no different than his predecessors of the past few administrations and his current political rival would likely be.
That is my concern. Once we begin to chip away at the fundamental structure of our government, where and when does it stop? Not to mention, his actions are in direct opposition to his campaign promises and the soaring rhetoric he spoke with in speeches. Hmm. A liar in the White House? Sound familiar?
Of course, I am aware enough to know that civil liberties and constitutional rights are not the major issue of the day. How families are going to be able to pay their cell phone bills, or ever go on vacation again, or buy their next new car is the topic du jour. I mean, can you imagine what life would be like if we all remained in our current standard of living in this new depressed economy?!?
Captain Marvel: Brevity is the soul of wit.
Brian: Much of Greenwald’s critique of Obama generally is a libertarian one; others critics, many of them liberals like Charles Pierce, don’t like the utter abrogation of war powers by Congress and the usurpation of same by the executive branch–which, interestingly, used to be a constitutionalist, conservative position.
Point is, not sure how much labels matter on some of these issues. Is Ron Paul’s dislike of Obama’s more craven pot and war policies a liberal critique, just because liberals agree with it?
oa,
fine. you win.
Obama is just as bad as that Bush jackass ever was, and that Romney jackass ever would be.
thanks for sucking the fun out of it.
The sad reality is there are only two realistic options for who will be President the next term. A moderate-right Republican or Mitt Romney.
Obama is the best republican president since Eisenhower.
Captain, in broad strokes I agree about the civil liberty issues surrounding a good portion of our “war on terror” which is such a stupid name I can’t even say it.
But the drone strikes are no more illegal than any of the recent wars we have fought in Afghanistan or Iraq and they are far far less violent and horrific. You look at the thousands and thousands of little children that were obliterated by our bombs and shelling in Iraq, bodies torn apart, limbs torn off, shelling and bombing are just horrible, and of course leaders can sit back and act like they are not responsible. Compare that to the selective killing of identified terrorists and I would take the drone strikes as a much more effective and humane method of fighting this conflict.
You have a group of people who have declared war on the US and I think it is legitimate to fight that war around the globe. We didn’t ask Egypt if it was okay to fight Rommel in the sands of the Sahara.
On the other hand two countries that we invaded and one where we are now, did NOT declare war on the US and we did not really declare war on them as the constitution would require, in that regard drone strikes are actually more constitutional than our wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Gauntanimo Bay should have been closed.
Of course the issue is the same basic one that Bush had, what are you going to do with these guys? I think they should be tried and either sent to US federal prisons or released. The problem is I don’t think we could convict any of them using even the most minimal standards of due process or evidence, which would then be a huge problem politically for the administration. So in that regard keeping it open is more political than it is strategic.
Ditto myown and gromit, above.
Nice to know that I am not a liberal, since none of the liberal criticisms of Obama were major problems for me. His failure to go after Wall Street/Banker crooks (while hammering mostly-harmless and working illegals), and failure fight for substantial financial reforms, and failure to act on the opportunity provided by Simpson-Bowles commission are much greater.
BTW, I think this points out a major difference between liberals and progressives. Liberals tend to be focused on protecting the oppressed (gays, Gitmo inmates & drone targets [innocent or otherwise], undocumented workers, etc), while progressives are more focused on fixing problems that affect the broad range of society, “the public interest”, but mostly concerning the middle class. This was also true of the original (circa 1900-1917) progressives, who were concerned with things like cleaning up government, improving food safety, and votes for women, but ignored civil rights for blacks and favored limiting immigration. Which is not to say that people, including me, do not have concerns in both liberal and progressive areas. They often overlap.
Obama, except for saving Detroit, has been a disappointment. But infinitely preferable to Romney. It’s like a choice between Barney Phyfe and Tony Soprano.
All due respect, Newt, I don’t think there’s any major policy differences between liberals and progressives these days, just personality differences. A lot of people who choose to call themselves “progressives” are just running away from the taint the word “liberal” took when Gingrich and Limbaugh decided to make the term a slur. Those guys are trying to do the same Orwellian dance with the term “progressive” now.
And how is Simpson-Bowles progressive or liberal? It aims to weaken Social Security in ways that will lead to its ultimate death.
“And how is Simpson-Bowles progressive or liberal? It aims to weaken Social Security in ways that will lead to its ultimate death.”
The numbers prove it is already dead eventually. The “baby boom” is already having many negative effects. Many of the unemployed now realize that one problem is that older folks are not retiring and vacating the jobs as the system was designed. That leaves younger folks (who need welfare and unemployment) at one end and older folks working and collecting SS that they don’t need at the other end.
Democrats are scared to death of having to fix this problem and the wrath of that voting constituency. Just like republicans are scared to death to raise taxes and deal with that fallout.
oa-You are correct that the two terms have been confused, blurred, and conflated for the reasons you cite. And, as I said, their is often overlap between them, both in values and application (e.g., to my “pure” liberal the most important reason for universal access to healthcare would be because everyone deserves to have decent healthcare while to a “pure” progressive, the MOST important reason would be because our semi-privatized system is much more expensive and ineffective for society than the government -guaranteed systems found in the civilized world. But both views have validity).
Simpson-Bowles, as presented (subject to much change and compromise, if enacted), would provide for both reductions in entitlements like Social Security and reforms in taxation that would increase revenues. I heard equally loud screams of outrage from liberals, conservatives, and reactionaries (the branch of the Republican Party now controlling the House) when it was presented. Both areas need reform desperately. Most people I respect seem to think both are necessary. The end product could be a disaster for ordinary people, but by failing to use it as a starting point for negotiations, Obama failed to begin realistic confrontation of the long-term debt problem. Worse, he made it easy to be targeted as a sap for the Democrat base. Simpson-Bowles mght not be the best way to contrast the two views, but it points in that direction because in contrast realism and compromise with the rather heedless “let’s just take care of everyone and not worry about the (government) money it takes” that one often hears from liberals.
I think the new Deal, which was extremely successful regardless of what some here like to say (could we use a 10% reduction in unemployment now?), combined liberal and progressive values fairly effectively.
In the end, something like Simpson Bowles will be adopted and we will get out of the mess we are in.
“The numbers prove it is already dead eventually.”
That’s one strange construction, Paul. Meanwhile Bernie Sanders (and others) is ready to simply raise the payroll cap, making the problem of the baby boom go away.
Walker, Like I said you are going to have to do something. If you do nothing we have a serious problem eventually, no “strange construction” there whatever that means?
Walker, don’t listen to me look at what the SSA predicts:
http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee12-pr.html
Walker, it also doesn’t surprise me that Bernie’s solution would be to raise the cap. He’s like a broken record.
And deficit hawks aren’t broken records?
The strange construction is “already dead eventually.” We’re all “already dead eventually.” The United States is already dead eventually, and the planet earth is already dead eventually. Kinda meaningless, no?
Okay, fine. I imagine that most folks got the point but let me clarify.
What I think that oa was referring to when he/she said “death” (that wasn’t my “construction”) was where the system could not afford to make any payouts.
That point is projected (I think “death” is a fair term) to be not to far out in the distant future.
Call it whatever you like, the train is coming.
Paul, it wasn’t the word dead I thought was funny– is was the “already… eventually” part.
2033 is 21 years from now. Twenty-one years ago the world was a very different place than it is now. Saddam Hussein was still in power. We hadn’t even started Operation Desert Storm yet. The Dow was at 3000. The Soviet Union still existed. Cell phones were big, and relatively rare. The Internet was just coming into wider use, and was almost completely free of ads. Global warming was not on the nightly news. Bill Clinton had not yet been elected and all but wiped out the deficit.
Stuff happens in a couple of decades. Sure we have to do something about Social Security. We have to do something about climate change. There’s lots of stuff that, if we don’t do something about it, something terrible would happen.
Walker, I agree to some extent. But I think that 21 years is not that long to solve a fiscal problem this big, especially at the rate we are going! It takes most folks 20 or 30 years to pay off a mortgage, I kind of see this is a fiscal issue similar in size for this “family”. But I hope you are right. I suspect that people are going to continue to live longer so it is a moving target. Have a good weekend.
Plus, if you look at the link I sent above we lost three years just last year. I hope that trend doesn’t continue or we don’t have 21 years we have 7.
With all that said I do not expect SS to exist when I reach retirement age. Anyone counting on it more than a decade out is probably not planning well for the future.
“Anyone counting on it more than a decade out is probably not planning well for the future.”
Anyone counting on it more than a decade out probably doesn’t have a lot of other options.
Paul, I suggest you read up on the fake SS crisis. It can be easily fixed, most easily by raising the income cap as suggested upthread. Why income after $130,000 (or whatever the cap is now) isn’t subject to FICA is a total mystery to me. And it would solve the problem.
People get bamboozled by conservatives who lump SS and Medicaid/Medicare together to say there’s an impending crisis. SS is just fine.
And I should be able to count on those checks. So should you. We’ve both paid into the system. If you don’t think that’s worth fighting for, then you’re not a very good businessman.
And I don’t want it privatized and played with by the likes of Jon Corzine.
But what are the odds of that happening? We are going in the OPPOSITE direction; we have reduced the ss tax and everyone is fighting to keep it reduced. We are accelerating the problem right now.
Unlike Medicare it is fixable through simple changes in the payout or tax rates.
Paul, I havent looked at your link yet but it would make sense that the graph would project downward over the last year or two since Obama gave a short term tax break because of the economic crisis. Once that break phases out the trajectory will change.
“…we have reduced the ss tax and everyone is fighting to keep it reduced.”
Well, yeah, we’re still in the middle of the Great Recession– not a great time to increase a regressive tax. And recession or no, the Republicans would love to reduce it further so they could drown it in the bathtub.
But there are (tenuous) signs that the G R won’t last forever. When we’re out of the woods it will make perfect sense to restore the full tax and raise the cap a bit.
That is the Republican argument for not raising taxes.
So if we are in the “middle” of the Great recession that means three to four more years. What are the odds after 6-8 years of ever increasing that tax again?
So given we can’t even maintain a payroll tax at levels that are still not going to float the SS boat, what are the chances that we could ever actually reform the system on our own?
Mervel’s right, we shouldn’t have reduced the SS payroll tax. Republicans will just howl “tax increase” when it is time restore it. And the book keeping will make SS finances look worse. There are better, more effective ways to stimulate the economy.
Given the age demographic of the Tea Partiers chances are that in 4 years they won’t have the strength to get their walkers to the polling place.
“…what are the chances that we could ever actually reform the system on our own?”
You mean with the Republicans trying to actually be helpful, or business as usual? I guess that would depend on how many of them are left after November.
Obama lowered the SS payroll tax not Republicans. However if we are going to give tax cuts to wealthy people I certainly support tax cuts to the lower half also, which would mean you cut ss taxes. But at the end of the day we need that money to make the SS system work. The math is actually pretty easy to solve the issue; the politics I think are much harder.