Will Obama and his base kiss and make up?
I’ve noticed that Obama’s base has become pretty much fed up with him by now. Although the right (and I include myself here) thinks he’s far to the left, and that any conciliatory gestures he makes are just a pose to garner votes in 2012, the left is furious at what they see as his betrayal and regards him as little better than Bush.
If you don’t believe me, just take a look at the comments section here. Former Obama supporters are alienated, big time.
Not atypical is this cri de coeur:
I just hung up on an Obama fundraiser. I’m done. It’s long past time to slam the door on this Republican-lite loser, the worst leader I’ve seen in the White House in my lifetime.
Alcoholics and drug abusers often have to hit bottom before they can truly accept their conditions and begin to recover. I think the US has to do the same. Why else would we continue to vote for””as George Carlin put it”””rich assholes who don’t care about you” in both parties, voting against our own interests, unless we are in deep, deep denial as a people? I think it’s going to take the shock of the loss of millions of votes to make the Democrats wake up and realize they can’t govern by being just slightly less bad than the Tea Party. If they want our support, then it’s time to man up, lead based on the values that we progressives have ascribed to them, and keep their fucking campaign promises.
But as long as they think they have the votes because the Republicans are so much worse, why lead at all? Why not elect a fifth columnist like Obama, who’s clearly the leader of the only political party in the country, The Corporate Party (TM)? I submit the only way to wake up the millions of voters in this country anesthetized by the media and their own apathy is to show them just how BAD things can get under Republican leadership. It would be worth 4 years of President Bachmann to get that kind of kick in the ass.
Does this strike a familiar note? To me, it’s the mirror image of what I see on the right from people who are angry at RINOs and who don’t want a relative moderate such as Romney as nominee, threatening to declare a plague-on-both-your-houses if such a thing were to happen.
I’ve never believed in that sort of scorched earth policy. And it’s an especially bad idea with an Obama second term likely as a result. Make no mistake about it: if those who say Obama is a man of the far left are correct, and he is elected to a second term, he will no longer have to worry about re-election and currying favor with moderate voters. His entire four year second term can then be devoted to doing whatever he can to further a far left program, much of which could be difficult if not impossible to undo.
It would certainly make his base happy, too.
Liberals may spit and howl and rage about how their party has “failed” them, but they will ALWAYS return to the flock. Obama could order drone strikes on orphanages in San Francisco and retain an 80% approval rating in that city, because liberals will be convinced that a republican president would’ve bombed orphanages AND hospitals. In their world, (D) = good and (R) = evil. It’s not about principles or beliefs.
“It would be worth 4 years of President Bachmann to get that kind of kick in the ass.”
One can hope! Perhaps two can play that game now that we’re thinking alike, even if only in a context of cognitive dissonance.
“…show them just how BAD things can get under Republican leadership.”
Yeah right, like 4.6% unemployment… No amount of government research can ever cure a moron…
People of the lie elected a man of the lie and are shocked he lies to them. This is like thinking Al Capone had some standards for whose head he wouldn’t bludgeon.
Jim Says:
Liberals may spit and howl and rage about how their party has “failed” them, but they will ALWAYS return to the flock.
Algore lost the 2000 election because of Ralph Nader.
From your mouth to God’s ears, gs. But who among the Democrats will challenge President Obama for the nomination?
(Other than Hillary, of course…)
Neo-neocon observes: “Does this strike a familiar note? To me, it’s the mirror image of what I see on the right from people who are angry at RINOs. . . ” and perhaps therein lies the truth. When the left and the right both are fed up because they see the “same men in different ties” perhaps the time has come for a real change.
On the right, we must remember that we only need to change the mid of about 10% of voters to avoid a second Obama term and I think this is do-able because during the Obama adminsitration, the Left’s mask has slipped and revealed itself for the disingenuous anti-American claptrap that their philosophy is.
Rail on interminably about G W Bush, then fall silent when a Democrat pursues the same policies. Blame Bush while in office and blame Bush while Obama’s in office. Be intolerant in the extreme of “invalid” wars and then ignore kinetic military actions imposed by a unilateral White House w/out congressional approval.
This will not matter to the Leftist extremist, as neoneocon noted, they have no other place to go. It is my experience, however, that Independents and cross-party voters are taking note. This is where the necessary votes are, and it seems that most of them do not like what they see.
As for President Bachman, wouldn’t it be sweet to see a President Bachman in the White House leading a resurgence of Reagan philosophy and optimism along with the resumption of the strongest GDP and market growth in our country’s history? Oh, how sweet it would be!
You’re giving me too much credit, Daniel. I wasn’t as focused as you think I was. I was only saying that the Left isn’t inevitably monolithic.
1. Enough of them might stay home to make a difference.
2. Wrt your question, there’s Kucinich. Or–dare we dream?–Brown or even, though very unlikely, Cuomo.
Here’s what scares me, actually. The situation is ripe for a far-left candidate to run, saying “President Obama promised he’d steal from the rich and give to the poor, but he really just gave to his own cronies. But I’ll REALLY steal from the rich and give to the poor!”
Now that we’ve established that empty grandiose promises can be an easy, cheap way to win an election, the stage is set for someone else to try it… and then another, and then another.
I don’t think this will happen. But it’s happened elsewhere, and it would be bad indeed if it happened here.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Let us turn now to to imdb.com, where Senator Bullworth (Warren Beatty) responds to an activist at a townhall-type meeting:
“Angry black woman: Are you sayin’ the Democratic Party don’t care about the African-American community?
Bullworth: Isn’t that OBVIOUS? You got half your kids are out of work and the other half are in jail. Do you see ANY Democrat doing anything about it? Certainly not me! So what’re you gonna do, vote Republican? Come on! Come on, you’re not gonna vote Republican! Let’s call a spade a spade!”
To Gs’ point: Nader was to the left of Algore; there’s nobody to the left of Obama.
gs: maybe that’s the winning election strategy right there. Get Republicans to the polls, and simultaneously persuade Democrats to stay home (since both candidates are the same anyway…)
How to do that without it backfiring? Mmm, there’s the question!
The Progressives have left him because he’s capable of centrist thought, opinion, decison-making, he’s capable thinking outside of tablet form — the Right dislikes him because he’s black, he’s not a Christian, he’s not a US citizen, he’s a Democrat.
A disturbing number of people, on both sides of the left-right divide, seem to be eagerly hoping for the country to collapse under the theory that this will somehow make their lives better. Guaranteed: if it happens, it will be a lot less fun than they are fantasizing.
Onyo writes: “The Progressives have left him because he’s capable of centrist thought, opinion, decison-making, he’s capable thinking outside of tablet form. . . .”
Obama a centrist? In which universe? Capable of thinking outside tablet form? I assume you mean “out of the box.” Obama can’t conceive of solutions outside of the leftist/progressive framework in which he was raised. He is blinkered beyond belief.
Two ends against the middle…
“Now, without relitigating the past, I’m absolutely convinced, and the vast majority of economists are convinced, that the steps we took in the Recovery Act saved millions of people their jobs or created a whole bunch of jobs,” Obama said at his Monday press conference.
“And part of the evidence of that is as you see what happens with the Recovery Act phasing out,” he said. “When I came into office and budgets were hemorrhaging at the state level, part of the Recovery Act was giving states help so they wouldn’t have to lay off teachers, police officers, firefighters. As we’ve seen that federal support for states diminish, you’ve seen the biggest job losses in the public sector–teachers, police officers, firefighters losing their jobs.”
I have never understood the logic Neo refers too, that a POTUS who doesn’t need to worry about re-election in his 2nd term can finally let it all hang out and do whatever.
That makes no sense. None. The folks who believe that have been asleep since Hussein took office. We have seen Hussein the Compromiser, but just you wait ’til 2012 when the gloves really come off?
That logic also ignores the other two branches of government. My hope in those shrinks by the day, but as long as we have folks like Issa, Grassley, and Peter King, my atrophied hope persists.
To Gs’ point: Nader was to the left of Algore; there’s nobody to the left of Obama.
Stalin?
Mao?
Hit…nevermind…
“Here’s what scares me, actually. The situation is ripe for a far-left candidate to run.. ”
Lyndon LaRouche and Ralph Nader are waiting in the wings. 😉
I think there is a slight chance that someone like out of work Russ Feingold may challenge Obama in the early primaries which would be a real stain on BHO’s general election campaign. But probably the best we can hope for is that a small percentage of the ‘progressives’ stay home on 11/6/12.
david foster says, “A disturbing number of people, on both sides of the left-right divide, seem to be eagerly hoping for the country to collapse under the theory that this will somehow make their lives better. Guaranteed: if it happens, it will be a lot less fun than they are fantasizing.”
I guarantee that your guarantee is 100% correct.
We still have to hope that the attacks come from all angles. I wonder how many black parents in Atlanta may stay home from the polls because they have lost faith in Dem/union promises. Every Obama expiration date is likely to discourage some voter group. We don’t really have to win a lot of new votes; we have to ensure that the Obama fan club sleeps in on election day. This also involves making them question their reps and senators.
The Progressives have left him because he’s capable of centrist thought, opinion, decison-making, he’s capable thinking outside of tablet form – the Right dislikes him because he’s black, he’s not a Christian, he’s not a US citizen, he’s a Democrat.
Rubbish.
It might be a good time to remember how Reagan was painted as an extremist:
“And since G.O.P. Front Runner Ronald Reagan relies upon a base of support that is on the far right wing of the Republican Party, some experts have long declared that if he wins the nomination, the G.O.P. would simply be repeating the suicidal Goldwater campaign. Ex-President Gerald Ford left no doubt about his views when he warned last month: “A very conservative Republican cannot win in a national election.”
” National opinion polls continue to show Carter leading Reagan by an apparently comfortable margin of about 25%. They also show that more moderate Republicans like Ford would run better against the President.”
“Reagan cannot hope to win, however, unless he moves beyond the hard-line conservative base that has sustained him since he first appeared on the national political scene as a spokesman for Goldwater himself. He has no experience in Washington politics or foreign affairs.”
“Worse perhaps than the verbal gaffe is Reagan’s relentlessly simple-minded discussion of complex problems.”
“One of his proposed cures for inflation is the notion that a huge tax cut will restore the productive vitality of the economy and control price rises. Most economists believe this approach is nonsense, that it would simply fuel more inflation.”
“Reagan’s loose statements and flabby positions will make splendid targets for Jimmy Carter. John Sears, Reagan’s former campaign manager, was worried by that very problem during his year-and-a-half reign, and after Reagan fired him in late February, Sears complained publicly that Reagan does not have well-prepared policy positions.
“Frets Sears: “I’m not sure that he is now adequately briefed on matters on which politicians and the press and the people hold him to account.”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921912-2,00.html
gs – Good point about Nader/Gore, but I think liberals have “learned their lesson” since then. I believe Nader ran in 2008, didn’t he (I could be wrong)? Obama has become the most polarizing president in modern history; 2012 will be about Republican vs. Democrat, winning vs. losing. I don’t think there will be an in-betweenor an alternative. Obama’s base will not leave him.
No matter how angry the Left may get at Obama, they will always take it out on Republicans. I think we’re going to see a lot more organized SEIU/La Raza/LGBT/insert-lefty-group-here antics like we saw in Wisconsin, as well as individuals randomly losing it, such as that Rutgers professor excoriating Paul Ryan over expensive wine.
Sorry, I just don’t see disillusionment with Obama leading to anything but worse behavior and continued vilification of all things conservative and Republican.
Lefty radio has been saying this sort of thing for months. They will vote for him again (unless Kucinich runs and draws away a measurable fraction). But they will not be so eager to “organize”.
The biggest problem for Democrats is how disillusionment with Obama hurts their “ground game”. It weakens every D candidate in every race across he country. With Bush III at the top of the ticket, who will want to doorknock for the local Progressive candidates?
And, it is not a crazy case to assert Obama as a centrist based on his record. He hands money to corporations and drops bombs on brown people around the world.
In some cases he has been true to his Marxian programming (Sotomayor…). But in very many, he is to the right of the leftoid ideal. That makes him a centrist, no matter how it looks to the righties.
I say it is an example of the limited power of the simplistic right/left political space. Remember, our cultural programming puts national socialists and international socialists at opposite ends of a continuum. When the vocabulary is that misleading, our descriptions are inherently inadequate.
Remember, our cultural programming puts national socialists and international socialists at opposite ends of a continuum.
We owe that cultural programming to the Left, which tried mightily (and succeeded) in portraying a leftist heresy as the antithesis of leftism instead of a variant of it.
The terms left/right and conservative/liberal are now so debased as to be somewhere between meaningless and misleading except between people of the same political persuasion. (Was a Soviet bureaucrat struggling to keep Communism alive conservative?)
A better, more operational definition that avoids these conundra characterizes viewpoints along an individualist-collectivist axis.
Speaking of leftist heresy, I just finished reading Mein Kampf, and was struck by how lefty it was.
It essentially substitutes race for class in its depiction of historical struggle, and comes down strongly on the side of unions, workers, and collectivism and against stock markets, finance, and capitalism. Paradoxically, at the same time its author bitterly opposes Marxism. In fact, the relationship between his anti-Marxist and anti-Semitic views poses a kind of chicken or egg problem. Ironically, Marx (who I’m reading now) himself was also virulently anti-Semitic. Go figure.
“”A better, more operational definition that avoids these conundra characterizes viewpoints along an individualist-collectivist axis.””
OB
How about just the moral and immoral. I can appreciate a sincere collectivist living in a commune that isn’t a liar, cheat and a thief. But those can probably be counted on two hands by now.
Romney is the most electable Republican and the one most likely to conserve Obama!s bold advances.
Romney is the most electable Republican and the one most likely to conserve Obama!s bold advances.
Hillary is the most electable Democrat, and the one most likely to conserve the White House for the Democrats.
Right back at ya.
A great many conservatives slagged McCain as a RINO at best. His reaching across the aisle always resulted in doing things the dem way, and so forth.
Many conservatives on the blogs insisted they were going to stay home.
So. Did they? Did it make a difference? Did it make the difference?
In the current environment, we have the zero base really finding out that President Training Pants is doing about the same as Bush wrt national security at home and abroad. That can’t make them happy. At home, he’s been limited by the election of 2010, so he can’t go full Marx, which they presume he wanted to, or at least told them he did.
Some time ago, when Reagan was first elected, a Flint UAW union official, questioned about it, said that, it it hadn’t been for the issues of crime, the economy, and failing national security, his guys would have voted democrat. IOW, he expected his guys to vote against three of the most important things to them and their families in order to vote dem. Point is, they didn’t.
For all the noise of the SEIU, and the thugs in Madison and elsewhere, the voting booth is where it counts.
So, possibly, some of the dem voters, union and otherwise, might decide to vote against Obama. If we do indeed have a military subculture, a good many of them, whether Vietvets or the parents of currently serving folks, are union. They know, even if they weren’t told it in school, about the price of weakness.
Then there are all the folks without jobs….
Going to be an interesting year.
Here’s what I wrote in response to a similar item on the PJM Tattler: Of course they rarely ever admit it in mixed company, but the left will always feel betrayed by their chosen leader until they have a Castro, Chavez or a Mao in office. And once that time comes, they’ll be too busy at the forced labor camp to have any time to reflect on their betrayal.
Occam’s Beard: I’ve never read Mein Kampf, but what you write has long been my impression of what I would find there. A few months ago, Pamela Geller quoted a passage from Ayn Rand where Rand was quoting segments of the Nazi Party Platform document from 1920. Needless to say, it is pretty standard leftist stuff. When you go and look at the actual document, you discover that it’s basically standard leftist stuff with race and nationalism mixed in throughout. In some respects, it was sort of like political shorthand for the Nazis to substitute race for class because there were so many Jews represented in the capitalist class of merchants and bankers.
A commenter at Bill McGurn’s WSJ piece today, gave us the rallying cry for Obama’s base: Give peas a chance. Now if only that could be set to music.
Artfldgr, that is a money quote which shows ∅bama’s economic thinking. According to the POTUS, jobs are saved or created by government taxes creating government jobs. Others assume that jobs are created by businesses expanding their workforce in response to higher sales.
expat: Perhaps the National Endowment for the Arts could fund someone to write such a song. Perhaps Julian Lennon? 🙂
It’s the old “who else are they going to vote for” argument. But it there is an enthusiasm gap then the turnout battle will bode very poorly for him. See Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania etc..
I still think Hilary could jump in but time is running very short. I think the “true” independents and the left base would be recharged big time and give whoever the Republican candidate is fits.
Of course they rarely ever admit it in mixed company, but the left will always feel betrayed by their chosen leader until they have a Castro, Chavez or a Mao in office.
Excellent point, Kurt. And I can identify the mechanism. Leftists fervently believe in socialism, which does not and indeed cannot work, because people will act in their own self-interest if left alone.
At each juncture they ascribe socialism’s failure to not having gone far enough – then it would work. But the only way to implement socialism, for those who are really serious about doing so, is coercion.
Next stop: a Lenin, Stalin, or Mao. Or, God help us, a Pol Pot or Kim Il Sung.
That makes it sound like “Obama’s Base” is essentially a tribalist group who want THEIR turn on top, dishing out the goodies seized from the “evil Other”, making sure “the losers” feel “oppressive humiliation”.
Kind of like Zimbabwe when the government started seizing the white farmers’ land and passing it out to dickheads who had no clue that ACTUAL WORK is involved before it’s possible to claim the profits of productivity…
Richard Aubrey Says:
July 11th, 2011 at 10:43 pm
“… the voting booth is where it counts …”
==========================
Now, was it Stalin who famously stated, “It’s not the votes that count, it’s who counts the votes”?
We’ve already had “interesting” cases in which a unionized poll worker “found a box of ballots” in the trunk of his car; and where it was determined that more votes had been cast than there were registered voters in the district, and so forth.
I’m thinking we need to have a lot of patriotic volunteers contact the ladies of “True the Vote” in Houston and find out how to keep everybody honest!
Hey, Nonny.
True, but there is a term, “beyond the margin of fraud”.