cross-posted on Huffington Post
For months this has been going on. In fact, I was the first to point it out. Maybe the void of comment is why Barack Obama felt he could get away with attacking Paul Krugman, one of the leading thinkers in the progressive community. It’s akin to going after Molly Ivins, but since she’s gone I guess Obama decided to take down one of the only progressive columnists that have our back. At issue isn’t just the personal attack on Krugman because he dared to analyze Mr. Obama’s health care plan, an analysis that was right on the money. The bottom line is that this proves what I’ve been saying for over ten months. Barack Obama has no ideological compass. He doesn’t care if it’s a progressive honestly pointing out the flaws in a policy plan. All Obama cares about is the aura of him, because he has no ideological center, which he admitted himself, offering the first self-inflicted warning signal that all progressives should have picked up.
“I think that I have the capacity to get people to recognize themselves in each other. I think that I have the ability to make people get beyond some of the divisions that plague our society and to focus on common sense and reason and that’s been in short supply over the last several years. I’m not an ideologue, never have been. Even during my younger days when I was tempted by, you know, sort of more radical or left wing politics, there was a part of me that always was a little bit conservative in that sense; that believes that you make progress by sitting down listening to people, recognizing everybody’s concerns, seeing other people’s points of views and then making decisions.” – Barack Obama (on ABC’s “This Week”)
It didn’t start with Paul Krugman, though Obama’s voracious appetite for anti progressive attacks reached its crescendo with it. Obama’s audacity of a smear against a leading progressive shows no political conscience whatsoever. This comes as no surprise to me. Skipping out and not being counted where it matters on the issues is what Obama’s been doing all year.
Obama not being an ideologue explains so much, not only his Krugman attack, but also his revelation that Social Security is in “crisis,” giving the Republicans the bone they’ve wanted for so long. Mr. Obama’s ability to cannibalize the very essence of progressive policy by going to the right of our Democratic party foundation knows no bounds. From a DailyKos diary in 2005:
Too often, the “centrist” label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don’t think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don’t work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).
“Market-based ideas,” hmmm, wonder what Mr. Obama is talking about? It’s obvious. It’s also a warning. Putting Social Security on the table, especially after progressives won that battle during the Bush era, is something no Democrat should swallow. It goes beyond not being an ideologue. It reveals that Obama doesn’t care at all about anything Democratic, including one of the most important aspects of what makes us Democrats, Social Security.
So, of course, Mr. Obama has no compunction of going after the leading progressive economist, Paul Krugman, because Obama’s loyalty is not to Democratic principles, but to his own agenda, which at it’s core can be summed up in four words: Let’s Make a Deal. Just look at the campaign’s attack “Facts Page” on Krugman. Take this snippet:
THE PLAN
KRUGMAN THEN: Obama’s Health Care Plan “Is Smart And Serious, Put Together By People Who Know What They’re Doing.” Paul Krugman wrote, “The Obama plan is smart and serious, put together by people who know what they’re doing…So there’s a lot to commend the Obama plan.” [New York Times, 6/4/07]
KRUGMAN NOW: “The Fundamental Weakness Of The Obama Plan Was Apparent From The Beginning.” Paul Krugman wrote, “The fundamental weakness of the Obama plan was apparent from the beginning.” [New York Times, 11/30/07]
In the “then” section above there is another point completely left out of Obama’s (ahem) “Fact Check” item:
Now for the bad news. Although Mr. Obama says he has a plan for universal health care, he actually doesn’t — a point Mr. Edwards made in last night’s debate. The Obama plan doesn’t mandate insurance for adults. So some people would take their chances — and then end up receiving treatment at other people’s expense when they ended up in emergency rooms. In that regard it’s actually weaker than the Schwarzenegger plan. I asked David Cutler, a Harvard economist who helped put together the Obama plan, about this omission. His answer was that Mr. Obama is reluctant to impose a mandate that might not be enforceable, and that he hopes — based, to be fair, on some estimates by Mr. Cutler and others — that a combination of subsidies and outreach can get all but a tiny fraction of the population insured without a mandate. Call it the timidity of hope. … ..
There is no “then” and “now” with Krugman. But you wouldn’t know that from Obama’s “facts” because the only goal is to cannibalize a progressive who dares rebut Obama’s health care spin with the truth. Obama puts himself above a progressive with unquestioned liberal bona fides; someone who stands alone in the rhetorical world. It’s not like we have a lot of op-ed contributors taking up the progressive cause in newspapers across this country. To attack a leading liberal economic writer from The New York Times makes it worse.
But Mr. Obama has never had any trouble going to the right to attack his own. There was the “Bush-Cheney lite” slam against Clinton. Now you don’t have to like Hillary Clinton to understand you don’t ever use right-wing talking points to attack a fellow Democrat. There was Mr. Obama ducking out on being counted on the MoveOn.org ad. But who can forget his ducking the Kyl-Lieberman vote? His campaign didn’t even release a statement on it until late at night; then at the next debate when John Edwards went on the attack against Clinton on the vote, Obama stood absolutely mute. He didn’t even bring it up until much later, when it was politically popular to attack on it. Never mind that he supported a similar piece of legislation earlier in the year.
Barack Obama has no intuitive passion on policy. He doesn’t react reflexively. He only reacts after it’s found to be politically advantageous or when his own image is in question. Look what he did with the Robert Novak rumor column. Obama turned, repeating Novak’s swill, attacking a Democrat, even after the Clinton campaign emphatically denied any involvement. The truth didn’t matter. It also didn’t matter that there was no sourcing whatsoever on his column. The fact that it was Robert Novak didn’t phase Mr. Obama. The reality that Robert Novak does nothing unless it benefits Republicans eluded Obama. If he could help himself by parroting the Plamegate traitor it was a no brainer for him.
It’s like Obama’s Donnie McClurkin politics of convenience. It didn’t matter that the reverend believes in “conversion” therapy for gays and lesbians. Obama can simply make a statement about his support for the gay and lesbian community. Actions don’t matter. After all, Obama needs to get elected and he will stand with anyone who can help him do it.
It doesn’t matter that in the Illinois state senate, when votes on choice came up, instead of voting on principle, Mr. Obama voted to give others cover, because he was afraid a no vote might be too harsh for colleagues. Voting “present” on matters of choice instead of standing up was his out. It helped that Planned Parenthood and NOW got his back. But giving cover for conservatives on choice, while not standing up on principle for women voting no on legislation that basically gives fetuses more rights than a woman isn’t a profile in courage. It’s the politics of convenience. That it is a slap to a woman’s civil rights to vote “present” on an important policy matter on principle never occurred to Mr. Obama.
So why not bring Oprah into a non-union house in New Hampshire? As an aside, Oprah runs a completely non union house herself through her television show. Do unions matter anymore to Democrats? It depends which Democrat your eyeing. The AFL-CIO has his back on that one too, obviously taking his word that he supports them, even though his actions belie the fact. Again, like McClurkin and his “present” vote on choice and civil rights matters for women, as well as his “market-based” ideas that include Republican plans, even on Social Security, he can always just make a statement, and his charm will mollify the masses.
It helps that the traditional press is blindly swallowing Obama’s spiel. What do they care? It’s not the Dmeocratic and progressive agenda at stake for them. But make no mistake about it, it is for us.
The bottom line is that Barack Obama doesn’t cast votes or make a stance and fight on the hill of Democratic principles. He is not an ideologue by his own confession. He’s a deal maker. But let’s face it all politicians are in the end. However, most passionate progressives don’t go into a room after signaling first that all items are on the table. Obama is, while also being willing to do whatever he can to get elected, cannibalizing his own and our ideals as he goes; bringing as many people along as he can, including conservatives who will have no allegiance to what progressives have worked for over decades to achieve. That’s because Obama’s loyalties are not to Democratic or progressive causes.
That’s why Mr. Obama had no problem whatsoever taking out after Paul Krugman, the leading progressive writer we have fighting the fight for Democratic causes, economic and social, every day. Good thing Molly Ivins is no longer around, because she would likely be next.
UPDATED (12.9.07): Eriposte over at The Left Coaster has done an extensive and excellent smackdown: Barack Obama’s War On Of Triangulation.
Comments are closed.