From day one of his administration, the left has held Barack Obama's feet to the fire way more than the right ever did to George W, Bush -- at least until Bush's nomination of Harriet Meirs to the Supreme Court. Put another way: the diversity of opinion about Obama and his presidency among activist Dems far exceeds early Bush-era diversity of opinion among activist GOPers. Now -- a few caveats.
One -- this isn't just a case of a journalist discovering -- gasp -- that liberals aren't monolithic. It's an observation about a significant difference in the political context in which Obama governs. Democrats like and support Obama, as do liberals, but they're willing to be openly critical -- not always, but often enough, some more than others, in different forums.
Two -- it's early in the administration. Obama hasn't had his 9/11 game-changing moment, which, briefly, united the country around the former president. Perhaps the progressive universe will be less tolerant of internal criticism if some unexpected event intervenes.
Three -- the progressive world developed and matured its protest/activist/speak freely orientation through technology, from the bottom up, as party coherence declined and Democratic leaders in Congress were generally seen as feckless.
And I attribute some of the disparity to differences in expectations: Obama came into office with much greater expectations placed upon him -- in some cases deliberately and intentionally self-imposed -- than Bush did.
But still -- one wonders how President Bush would have governed if the right had been critical of Bush from the start -- if uniformity and hierarchy hadn't characterized the Republican Party from 2001 to 2004. I'm not so sure that the difference is one of temperament -- there are plenty of internal, dissenting voices within the GOP now, though they're having virtually no effect on the party's leaders. And it's also true that, as the Democratic opposition developed during the Bush years, parts of it fell victim to the temptation and safety of dogma and in-group, out-group prejudice as well.
The point is that, as he governs, Obama faces a complication -- or a change -- that Bush never did -- internal opposition with a loud voice.
The right did not have a big problem with George Bush initially. So, why should they have complained? The problem the right had with Bush later on is he spent money like a Democrat, without any regard for revenue.
The left would like Obama to be a Nancy Pelosi. Just shove the agenda down the throats of the electorate. Congress is still the legislative branch, and they know they will lose the support they have been gaining in the South, Midwest, and West if the Democrats appear too radical.
Just because you do not like what Obama and his congressional allies are doing does not mean anything is being shoved down the electorates throat. Name one policy Obama has attempted to implement that he did not explicitly campaign on?
@Jeff
I think the main complaints are regarding the areas in which progress/change were promised or at least implied, and yet, it has become apparent that these aren't even on the radar. Or worse, the opposite is happening.
Think, torture prosecutions, DADT, government secrecy, detention/rendition, health care reform, financial reform...ad nauseam.
I think you miss the forest for the trees.
Odd thought - the Senate is expressly designed to favor small, low population States. You know - Republicans. I actually agree with that btw, it's simply something to be aware of.
Yet, even when the country so disagrees with the Republican/Conservative doctrine that even in the Senate the GOP has lost their ability to quash reform, conservatives feel obliged to think of themselves as victims, with the agenda of a majority of Americans being shoved down their throats.
With apologies - we tried it your way for eight years (Since 1994 in Congress). At what point do you start taking responsibility for the failure of your agenda and consider the possibility that you might be wrong?
Just Curious - Jonnan
Odd thought - the Senate is expressly designed to favor small, low population States. You know - Republicans. I actually agree with that btw, it's simply something to be aware of.
Yet, even when the country so disagrees with the Republican/Conservative doctrine that even in the Senate the GOP has lost their ability to quash reform, conservatives feel obliged to think of themselves as victims, with the agenda of a majority of Americans being shoved down their throats.
With apologies - we tried it your way for eight years (Since 1994 in Congress). At what point do you start taking responsibility for the failure of your agenda and consider the possibility that you might be wrong?
Just Curious - Jonnan
Lets take it to another level....
Conservatives (note I did not say Republicans) by and large want government to just get out of their way and let them be. While they do have pet peeves if you will, they aren't asking the government to do much for them.
On the other hand the Democratic party is made up of a patchwork of groups, all with their own agenda, and all expecting the government to step in and give them what they want. This myriad of groups can often be fundamentally opposed to each other (how do the UAW and the Sierra Club comfortably fit under one roof). It will be impossible to satisfy everyone....what they need to do is figure out how to say no tactfully.
Sure, conservatives want government to just get out of their way, unless it has to do with letting gay people have their relationships legally recognized, allowing women to exercize their consitutional right to freedom over their reproductive life, allowing states to experiment with different approaches to drug policy, allowing non-religious people not to have religion foisted upon them by the state, and so on. In those cases, conservatives think the government should be very much in the way, blocking invidivudal freedom.
It would be more accurate to say that conservatives by and large want government to just get out of the way of corporations and wealthy people, so that they can leverage their existing wealth and power to accrue even more of both at the expense of everyone else.
Legally recognized or married. There is a difference. And why stop at gay people. Why can't any two people, gay or not, just say they have a relationship and have rights as well. And oh, by the way, who is going to pay for all of these rights.
When is the last time you saw a bill to ban abortion. The conservative objection is to the government paying for abortions. And as to the right to choose, when does the viable fetus get that right?
Drug policy, I assume you mean those that are now illegal, not over the counter. If drug use didn't have an impact on you and I through increased medical costs, law enforcement costs, etc. And if people can handle themselves responsibly when under the influence, then maybe we would be ready to talk. But when your behavior encroaches my freedom there is a time for regulation.
And as to your last point....no I want to have the opportunity to become one of those wealthy people....I don't want the government I am evil because I work hard, have taken chances, have stumbled and got back up, and have been willing to change in order to get ahead.
Troll.
Please do not feed.
"Diversity of opinion" is one way to put it. The Democratic party is basically a coalition party right now, representing a huge swathe of the electorate. Obama is leading a party that is made up of everything from hard-core socialists to Rockefeller Republicans. It's a little difficult to excert "party discipline" when many in the party have conflicting views and incompatable ideas.
It's akin to a self-selection issue. Those personality traits and intellectual abilities and self-esteem-related factors that correlate with adherence to conservative economic thought tend to be incompatible with hubris, grasping self-entitlement, and the constant outrage that generally accompanies said grasping self-entitlement.
We don't go frothingly ballistic every time someone fails to serve our needs above all others' needs.
This is the funniest thing I've read all day.
what great comments... The alantic.com must censor all the liberal F$*&##en comments. It is good to read a discussion instead of a lot of cussing at each other.
My comment: The United States will not find peace or progress until the political system stops fighting for government control of everything and starts working for the voting public. You will not be able to sever the majority as long as the right of the minority are held to be superior, by the courts, to the majority's rights.
You can't serve two Gods at once and you can not combine two opposing views or beliefs at the same time. I can see it now the Atheists are typing out their objection to me using the word God as the Mexican, Gay and Lesbians are complaining about my use of the word minority and how minorities have rights to.
The Mexicans had better start promoting the power of the majority as their time is coming.
Read up on your Tocqueville and democratic theory. For matters of self preservation, the majority must maintain the rights of the minority, for in a democracy, the majority can eventually become the minority and will have an interest in the protection of their rights.
Of course, none of this is a given. You could let the a maniacal political party crush minority rights and you'd have a dictatorship (technically an oligarchy). Either way, that's not what the United States was founded on.
Incidentally, I wonder if anyone has done a study of the number of public outbursts for Obama's assassination versus G.W.B. Seems to me there are far more violently anti-Obama Americans than there were/are violent anti-Bush Americans. Mostly the Bush detractors just wanted him impeached for war crimes.
I have no idea why the right built such a cult of personality around Bush in his yearly years... but we can see how well that worked out for them.
The rest of the country (both moderates and the left), it seems, tends to see politics not so much as a power game but as a way of actually getting things done for the public. In that regard, more people are willing to be consistent about their goals and principles, regardless of who's in office. This means that when Obama backpedals on something like, e.g., indefinite detention without charge, or a public health insurance option, or support for gay rights, that people who consider those things important (and voted for him on that basis) can and will criticize him. It means that when he surrounds himself with advisers who actually helped create our problems (paging Larry Summers!), rather than those who have ideas on how to solve them, that people get legitimately concerned that he may offer not "change" but "more of the same."
Obama is, from all appearances, the smartest and most capable (and most liberal) president we've had in 40 years... and that's a good thing. But the fact remains, "we are a nation of laws, not of men," and he's not perfect, so he's not exempt from criticism. Outside the authoritarian right-wing fringe, obedience and loyalty and party discipline have never been significant values in American politics. Seeing the public step back from that is reassuring.
There may be a bit of a paradox here, though: the diversity of opinion among the Democratic coalition is simultaneously (A) what makes it possible for citizens to push Obama to stick to his promises and get more done, and (B) what makes it more difficult for him actually to get legislation through Congress. How can that paradox resolve itself? It's tricky... but getting some better people into Congress would be a good start.
MA: "From day one of his administration, the left has held Barack Obama's feet to the fire way more than the right ever did to George W. Bush."
In what sense is this even remotely true? The administration's conduct as to Gitmo, gays in the military, state secrets, torture investigations, the health care public option, and corporate bailouts, just to name a few, have all been disappointments to the left without political cost to Obama. Can Ambinder name even one instance where the left has won a significant battle over the moderates within the administration?
Maybe left has held Barack Obama's feet to the fire, but you wouldn't notice it from the NY Times or most other Main Stream Media.
How many repetitions of his Jan/Feb stimulus promises to save/ create jobs as compared to the actual performance?
As a Libertarian, I didn't follow Conservatives loving Bush, but I strongly recall that he was widely criticized for his Steel Tariffs, which were anti-free trade. (March, 2002)
There was also the 2000 Florida vote issue, where both sides were far too partisan, up to and thru his inauguration. From Nov 2000 thru Jan 2001, any criticism of Bush was essentially support for make 'Crazy Al' Gore (where is the data set for global warming???) President.
Both Reps and Dems are 'big tents' with die-hard partisans as the majority of the support, yet with swing independent voters who usually dislike the other party more. (Reps small gov't, Dems big gov't).
The Bush Tax Cuts, which allowed the US to grow out of the dot.com bubble pop, were also media-hated, but effective and mostly conservative loved. Bush Tax Cut economic success has instead been falsely demonized by the Big Gov't Dems and media, without Reps supporting Tax Cuts strongly, so the current Porkulus alternative is far worse.