White House press secretary Robert Gibbs generated a huge controversy by slamming the “professional left” for being too critical of the Obama administration. People who compare Obama to Bush”ought to be drug tested,” according to Gibbs. Responses to the Gibbs remarks can be found almost anywhere you look–Glenn Greenwald’s post provides perhaps the most thorough reaction.
In the corporate media, moving to the right and bashing the Democratic base is constantly offered up as a smart move for Democratic politicians. So it was not a surprise when Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank offered a defense of Gibbs’ comments (8/12/10):
Gibbs and his colleagues have reason to be frustrated by the constant carping from the professional and semi-pro left. The Gulf oil spill has been plugged, and three-quarters of the oil is gone. Combat in Iraq is ending in a matter of days. Healthcare reform has been enacted. The auto industry is recovering, the bank bailout funds have been repaid, and a depression was averted. Yet the president, instead of getting credit, has received the sort of criticism from his unruly base that the right never bestowed on George W. Bush.
That’s a pretty unconvincing case. The fact that the oil spill “has been plugged” is irrelevant; progressives disagreed with Obama’s pro-drilling stance, his choice of interior secretary, the administration’s failure to address existing problems at the Minerals Management Service (which oversees offshore drilling) and the degree to which the White House seemed either disengaged on this issue or acting more on BP’s behalf than the public’s.
“Combat in Iraq is ending in a matter of days”? That would be a surprise. If Milbank means the U.S. troop withdrawal, then yes that is happening. That policy was a continuation of George W. Bush’s drawdown plan. The massive troop increase in Afghanistan, meanwhile, was opposed by the left–and is unmentioned in the column.
On healthcare, the left’s critique (familiar to everyone who followed the debate) was that the White House stripped out the most progressive aspects of the reform bill, such as the public option (never mind the failure to even raise single-payer as a serious option).
The fact that bailout funds “have been repaid” does not address the criticism that the subsequent Wall Street/financial sector reforms were weak, or that the bailout itself was structured to benefit certain Wall Street giants (Goldman Sachs, for instance).
Averting a depression is, of course, a good thing; the criticism from the left is that the federal government hasn’t done enough to combat unemployment, and that the economic stimulus was smaller than it needed to be (a decision launched in a futile attempt to attract GOP support).
Looking back to this post on the FAIR Blog, I was reminded that Milbank was defending the Obama White House against left-wing agitators back in December. His main point then was that Obama’s escalation of the Afghan war “is above all a pragmatic, nonideological strategy.” Opposing it, then,is crazy; Obama supporters should instead “applaud this sort of thoughtful, methodical leadership.” Milbank singled out Michael Moore, Arianna Huffington and Code Pink for not having the good sense to support a president who does something they fundamentally disagree with. It was a strange argument then, and it’s a strange argument now. But it’s not surprising that Beltway pundits would approve of Gibbs’ base-bashing.
> the bank bailout funds have been repaid
This is not necessarily an Obama issue, but this appears to be untrue. As of July, only $137 billion were repaid, and $65 billion were still outstanding. (Interestingly, in June the Treasury department said that the numbers were $192 billion repaid and $190 billion outstanding.) And this is just the banks. (But what’s a few billion dollars between friends? It’s all just a drop in the bucket of the Pentagon budget.)
We are talking about degree here.
Regarding healthcare, the folks on the Right would have none of it, and so compromises were necessary to pass ANYTHING.
So many good legislature moves, helpful to the recovery of our economy were blocked by a stone wall of “NOs” that it is hardly the fault of the present administration that we haven’t made more advances.
On the other hand, I am disappointed in some of the choices the President has made to head departments with the ‘same old, same old’ heads of the previous administration. That doesn’t bode well for the ‘change’ he promised us.
Getting out of Afghanistan would free up a good deal of money which could be better spent on programs here in the United States, to stimulate the economy, such as transportation, finding alternatives to our energy needs, encouraging manufacturing of goods here instead of importing from foreign countries, etc.
US “professional leftists” have the courage of Obama’s (professed) convictions: With his Derelicked Party, unsettle ’em; then UNSADDLE ‘EM!
Readers may also note Mr. Milbank’s potshots at Keith Olbermann. I assume that he still holds a grudge after their rather public falling-out in 2004.
Gibbs could not describe the “left” in all its righteous glory for the same reason that the president cannot describe the reactionary state of opinion generally – and Milbank is limited to a short list of “successes.” When the “left” can summon the courage to point to the structural barriers that prevent the president from telling it like it is at the centre of a military-industrial empire at pork-barrel time – for the edification of the Great Unread – it will honestly wear the name.
Without such honesty, it is only a carping, demoralizing and counter-productive force.
As a proud member of the “Professional Left” I not only resent Gibbs’ attempt to squash any dissonance from the left, I also feel the Obama Administration properly deserves criticism on many issues. Furthermore, they are guilty of, as a minimum, breach of faith with their base on the left and outright mendacity in their attempts to spin their failures. There has been damn little transparency and even less “Change” of the variety upon which Obama campaigned, but they seemingly expect their base on the left to offer up the same fealty given Bush by the right. Sorry, ain’t gonna happen. If they’re wilting from the light of transparency or the heat of change, perhaps it’s time to get out of the kitchen.
Obama deserves to lose in 2012. It will be the death knell for America if Romney or Palin; or for that matter ANY republican wins. Notwithstanding, Obama desrves to lose in 2012, let the chips fall where they may. I for one will NEVER vote for Obama again.
“People who compare Obama to Bush ‘ought to be drug tested'”. I agree. I feel exactly as does Dana Milbank. I am most angry at those who voted for CHANGE and then were disapointed because Obama didn’t wave a baguette magique. In the face of the Party-of-Obstruction and lack of Campaign Reform, did they expect miracles?!!! Please remember the total mess that Obama inherited. // Jean Clelland-Morin
And slytot, for whom will you vote? Be careful. Think this through. (the weird hour posting is due to the fact that I live in France.) // Jean Clelland-Morin
Perhaps strategic criticism of the Left precedes stronger criticism of the Right in the weeks and months to come. The problem is the criticism of the left was entirely unwarranted. Gibbs’ remarks were unnecessarily insulting, which suggests that the Administration has no sympathy with our views. But so what? So what if we are unsatisfied with Obamatics? They don’t have to do anything we suggest or advocate for. If they can get along without our votes or support, more power to them. They will not scare me with the threat of a Republicrat majority and presidency. What we have now is different by only a matter of degree, not change.
Maybe Gibbs doesn’t understand this yet, WE AREN’T REPUBLICANS. If the Democrats could have held together lockstep the way the GOP does we could have stopped this war in it’s tracks 8 years ago. But the Democratic elite doesn’t like people who rock the boat, anyway. What really struck me about Gibbs comments was the way he lumped the wildest accusations together, as though the progressives voices were as whacked out as the Tea Party.
Maybe we should have kept our ‘mouths’ shut when Obama told us to leave Sarah Palin alone? Not that there was a chance of that happening, but Gibbs simply demonstrates an ignorance of the value of independent media that is going to bite Obama on the ass and maybe sooner than later.
I wondered what Gibbs’ background was that he could say the stupid thing he did. Or maybe it’s his job (and his alleged duty) to defend Obama– and keep the job– that caused him to opine thus. It only further separates Obama from the people (us) who elected him, the traditional base of the Democratic Party, progressives. We would have to be blind not to see that from day one the Obama administration has been at pains to push us away and embrace the right. Despite all his kowtowing to them, at the end of the day the rich and powerful will not let him in the country club. We must not accept the Obama cold shoulder offered, but fight even harder for the issues so critical to the nation. A third-party effort for progressives cannot and should not be ruled out.
All troops in Iraq are combat troops. Also, Milbank’s paper did not even report on how many mercenaries are still in Iraq.
Eddie Haight, I agree that Gibbs has displayed an ignorance and also an arrogance. The question I have: Does the ignorance arise from his arrogance or is it the other way around?
I trust that the comments in this blog do not represent the best analytical thinking of the “professional left.” Aside from Paul Krugman in the NYTimes there is no believable mainstream political-economic analysis in sight. What do you folks expect the White House to say in the intellectual vacuum of American popular opinion?
How can you expect the president to perform miracles in such a dumbed-down, increasingly irrational climate that extends into the Democratic centre, all of which cannot be mentioned. I thought Gibbs was being temperate, given that any political analyst has to understand the barriers to open discussion of the condition of political thought in America. How do you manage to avoid considering that?
Jefferson experienced the same frustrations for the same reasons, essentially.
I hate to agree with the late George Wallace. But back in 1968 he hit the proverbial nail right on the head. “If you put the Democratic and Republican candidates in a bag and shake it up, you’ll pull out Tweedledum and Tweedledee.”
Jean Clelland-Morin, Nader might be running again.
As usual, no one bothers to mention points brought up by damnable “leftists” like Glenn Greenwald and many others–the President has continued (and worsened) Bush policies of rendition, torture, and generally ignoring the Constitution. He has declared that he can assassinate US citizens anywhere in the world, and as usual Liberals who would’ve screamed bloody murder under Bush are silent as stones, or actively approve of these things. The fact is, the President is a centrist, pro-corporate Democrat, beholden to the same power structures and pre-conceived notions as Bill Clinton, the Bushes, etc. Modern Centrist Dems hate what they think of as the Left just as much as they hate the Right, perhaps even more so, because the Left won’t get in line, when they should. Rest assured, if the Obame presidency tanks, the “left” will be blamed. As usual.
Think about this: There are huge, fat targets available on the right (who truly are trying to undermine Obama) for that idiot Gibbs to assail, and he goes after . . . who? What exactly does the “Professional Left” mean? Kieth Olbermann? Noam Chomsky? It’s just a catch-all phrase for a group that bothers to point out that fraudulent liberals are just that.
An excellent article. Milbank’s assertion that the so-called “professional left” is indeed undermining this administration is filled with nothing but platitudes and warmed-over Inside-the-beltway “bash the liberals” hash. This administration is doing an excellent job of undermining itself.
One such tactic is their (baffling) strategy to alienate the base, which will backfire in 2010 if they don’t stop. Sadly, I don’t think they see the train coming.
We all understand that the Democratic Establishment hates liberals, but when it starts to alienate its longtime, bedrock, middle-of-the-road base, it’s playing with fire.
My father is one such person. A lifelong middle-of-the-road Democrat and military veteran, he’s tired of being taken for granted and mocked for his grassroots activism and is thinking of taking the Press Secretary’s glib advice and having a “drug test” this election day rather than voting. Here’s the cautionary tale:
http://thedonkeyedge.com/2010/08/14/my-father-i…
Forget Cronkite: this administration has just lost my father.
People who compare Bush to Obama SHOULD be drug tested.Obama is even worse…. by a country mile.Yet in a weird way I cant hold it against him as I would like.He simply was never qualified for the job.I remember looking at Bush seniors resume.Good schools.Youngest naval pilot ww2.Successful in business.Worked his way up through local politics.Senate.Ambassador to China.On the board of several fortune 500 companies.Head of the CIA.Vice president 2 terms(that is the short list).And when he ran people thought him NOT QUALIFIED!Obama is a man boy.Thee most unqualified one in any room he walks into.This was all bound to happen.And Obama was never ever what he claimed to be.Now He has caused consternation even within his own party.I think what you are seeing is a fight taking place within the Democratic party of radical left liberals like Pelosi who thought they could jam everything down Americas throat, and brush aside more centrist voices.Remember for most of the time Obama enjoyed a super majority yet could accomplish less than he wanted.He seemed mired in molasses.Even Healthcare his big play ,is disliked by most Americans who would see it repealed, yet he burned through his political capital without any thought of applying the breaksl..Rs had no voice.Party of obstructionists indeed!This was a country run strictly from the left.The right did respond with endless warding off blows that brought massive agreement from the populace.Conservative voices had a field day as he moved hard left.So Obama now has lost his independent base .And almost everyone is looking for the exit except for his hard core libs(I mean who else will have them).Democrats are cutting and running.Talking dirt in the hope they can save themselves from the coming turmoil.I think they would love for Hilary to run.Anything to separate from this Albatross round their necks.I would reveal the real name of the” professional left” as those Democrats who want to still have a job when the dust settles in the coming elections.The Rs deserved to loose.Now the Ds do as well.Even palin who though more qualified than Obama is simply not qualified enough could do a far better job …if she did nothing at all.Simple as that.
TimN Says:
August 15th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
As usual, no one bothers to mention points brought up by damnable “leftists” like Glenn Greenwald and many others–the President has continued (and worsened) Bush policies of rendition, torture, and generally ignoring the Constitution.
– – – – –
And do not forget the financial reform bill – it has provisions to track every bank transaction in a new federal government department. Of course, gathering this information, information they used to need a warrent to get, is nicely called ‘consumer protection’.
Then there are those airport full body scans that they first guaranteed they would destroy, but now are only guaranteeing that they will not be posted next to wikileak’s copy of classified documents from the state department.
I wonder how long it will be before HHS tells us about the ‘missing’ medical records?