Liberals don’t think Obama is liberal enough…
That may sound preposterous to you and me. But I think Waldman is onto something; I’ve seen no indication from most liberals I know that any disappointment they feel in Obama has anything to do with disillusionment with liberal ideology, only Obama’s execution of it. Waldman points out that the Obamacare website rollout was especially hard for liberals to take, because it showed that Obama and company were incompetent at governing, the thing they were supposed to do best. Note he doesn’t say that the rollout showed them the incompetence of big government in general (as opposed to the Obama administration) to take on projects like the reorganization of the entire health insurance system.
He also notes that at his highest point Obama had the approval of 88% of Democrats, and at his lowest 80% of them. That’s not much of a decline, is it? It accords with my own observations, as well. I was watching a few minutes of one of those Fred Luntz focus groups the other night on some cable news show, and quite a few Obama supporters kept making the same tired old excuses for him: the Republicans got in his way, and it’s Bush’s fault and so it will take decades to undo the terrible deeds of his predecessor.
So it should come as no surprise that although a large number of people would vote for Romney instead of Obama if they had it to do over again today, the same people would let Hillary win over Romney in a walk. Since I firmly believe that Romney is not running again, this is only important as a gauge of the “hope springs eternal” stance of the Democratic electorate. If Obama didn’t quite deliver the goods, they’ll try the next in line.
[NOTE: Barney Frank illustrates this quite nicely, in statements I read only after I’d written this post. He’s appalled at the Obamacare rollout and the lying promises, but only because the first demonstrated incompetence and the second was doomed to backfire. He doesn’t for a moment question Obamacare or the liberal/leftist enterprise at its core. But I wouldn’t expect that from Barney Frank.]
“I’ve seen no indication from most liberals I know that any disappointment they feel in Obama has anything to do with disillusionment with liberal ideology, only Obama’s execution of it. “ neo
That’s my perception as well. If truth is the first sacrifice upon an ideology’s altar, then abandonment of that ideology has to be the last. It’s their worldview and you’ve written much about the mental gymnastics involved in changing one’s worldview. I also think that liberals have so much of their self-esteem invested in that worldview that changing it would leave them profoundly ‘adrift’. Most people want certainty in their lives and relatively few leave the land of certainty to set sail upon the shifting waters of uncertainty in hopes of finding a firmer footing in a foreign land that they think unlikely to even exist.
People underestimate the power of the Left’s faith. They continue to treat it as some kind of political or philosophical argument. Thus they think it’s easier to convince the Left than it is to convince fanatics or zealots. They speak this assurance to themselves but ultimately end up surprised.
But it’s never Dear Leader’s or Stalin’s or Lenin’s or anybodies fault – they all mean well!
There’s nothing with Leftist utopias – it’s always the failure of all those little people who are mistaken.
(Being Leftist means never having to question one’s dogma – only Karma.)
I’ve always lived in very “liberal”/”progressive” communities [not as much now, *finally*], and I spent many years, too many years, of my life trying — *not* to convince my left-oriented friends and acquaintances of a better vision — but merely trying to get them to understand that my positions were reasonable, not grounded in selfishness (or, as time yawned on, by racism, or sexism, or whateverism); trying to get them to understand that I was not really a bad person, just someone with a vision different from theirs.
At some point, maybe twenty or thirty years ago, I came to understand the utter futility of attempting this. The best I ever got, the best I was ever going to get, was that well, if I wasn’t a tool of the greedy, of [big oil, big tobacco, big weapons merchants, big carbon, big cholesterol, big whatever], I was a decent guy but seriously deluded.
In brief, I spent years finding out what many of us, including landlord neo, now know all too well: this so-called “progressivism” is an utterly unshakeable dogma, Religion with a capital R. Adherence to it is an integral part of their very being. It’s a vital part of their identity. They have no self-esteem unless aligning with it. I may as well have been trying to convince fundamentalist twice-born Christians that Allah is God and Mohammed is His Prophet.
I’m older, wiser, — and sadder as a result.
I thought I must write a comment, and then noticed M J R above writing that their thinking is “… an utterly unshakeable dogma…”. And even though they are secular, it is a “Religion with a Capital R”. I gave up trying to even discuss such matters w long-standing friends not long after WTC 9/11/01.
I add that many of these people are quite educated and accomplished live responsibly and generously. They suffer from the FATAL CONCEIT OF THE CENTRAL PLANNER. They believe that well intentioned people like themselves can centrally plan our rapidly advancing healthcare industry. They also believe that reasonable people with good intentions can negotiate peace with murderous enemies.
Historically, there have only been a rare few who have converted zealots or fanatics of a different opposing religion, to a different faith.
Most Americans don’t qualify under that rarity scale.
Not too long ago I was debating with a liberal over a series of things, including Health care. Try pointing out that government run single payer could be like the Veterans Administration and he didn’t see the Falsification of documents and the bonuses given to administrators-no it was “Republicans’ Fault” for not enough funding for the after math of “Bush’s two wars”. Same guy who claimed there was very little fraud involved in Medicare and Medicaid and told me to stop watching Fox news. I forwarded him a link to one of those agencies where they were admitting their was billions in fraud going on and asking for help by reporting it…said he would read it later…..
I concur with the comments on this thread. American liberalism (although I prefer the term “progressivism” as the term “liberal” has been corrupted in this country since FDR) is a quasi-religion in many circumstances. For many, liberalism/progressivism mixed with an ethical secular humanism entirely supplants any transcendent religious faith. Others still nominally adhere to traditional religion of some sort (typically mainline Protestantism, selective/cafeteria Catholicism or Reform Judaism) however their political ideology utterly and completely informs whatever abstract and vague transcendent religious beliefs they hold. In other words, they profess their religious faith entirely in expressing their politics.
As am article of faith, liberalism/progressivism is largely impervious to rational and logical argument; particularly if proffered by an unbeliever or, worse an apostate (such as Neo, myself, or many who frequent this blog). Understand, however, not all liberals are true believers. However, for the ones that are, rational argument and debate is largely pointless. Personally, when I was on the left, I doubt any arguments or evidence made by conservatives or libertarians would have had much effect on my world view.
Now, as to Obama, liberals are trying desperately to reconcile three seemingly contradictory premises. Doing so is essential to uphold the tenants of their faith. These premises are:
1. Every liberal philosophical and policy position is empirically true, morally just and aesthetically beautiful.
2. Barack Obama is a brilliant and eloquent genius who can effectively and seemlessly convey any message he chooses to.
3. Liberal policies are not being implemented in toto, as expected when Obama was elected. Liberal hegemony has not ocurred culturally or politically; ind eed, there is considerable organized resistence.
At times Premise #3 is called into question. It is sometimes argued that while liberal hegemony has not fully happened as yet, America is well on the way to being entirely subjected to liberal / progressive control. The Tea Party and related events are considered revanchist; one last gasp of a dying worldview. Liberal hegemony is on the horizon; it is simply taking longer than would be ideal. There is, alas, ample circumstantial evidence for this explanation. But it is hardly satisfying or reassuring for anxious liberals seeking clear, palpable arguments to buttress their faith.
Premise #2 cannot be seriously called into question. Liberals have invested far too much in Obama; they have attached much of their own identities to him and to the their fundamental belief in his eloquence and brilliance. Many white liberals also harbor a deep fear of even thinking any thing which could, by any stretch of the imagination, be construed as racist. Were Obama different politician (and, quite frankly, were he Caucasian) Premise #2 would be subject to far more scrutiny and doubt. Rather, what little hinting there is in regards to this premise is very tame and usually spun as complimentary: Obama is just TOO smart and TOO eloquent for the troglydyte masses to comprehend and appreciate.
Of course, premise #1 can ever be questioned; can never be scrutinized; can never in any way even slightly be doubted. This is the central tenant of the quasi-religious faith that is American liberalism/progressivism
So, what other options are open to the faithful liberal? How else to reconcile the three above articles of their faith? An obvious rationalization is simply that Obama is not liberal enough. Whatever his personal worldview, he is not sufficiently orthodox in his progressivism in his official capacity. Ah, if only he were! But fear not, the progressive true believer assures himself, soon we will have Elizabeth Warren!
All my Progressive friends assure me that Progressives are unhappy with Obama because he is not Progressive enough — in fact, that many are bitterly disappointed because he has not done “anywhere near” what they expected him to do. They think he compromises too much!! And I have tried to convince several apparently invincibly ignorant people that President Obama not only doesn’t compromise, but is famous for not compromising, so I know how they hold to what they think is true (such as: how President Obama is a great uniter!).