a dearth of signs (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} prosphoros) wrote,@ 2009-07-14 07:28:00 |
|
Does Rachel Maddow Speak for the Left?
Disappointingly enough, from The Nation:
A few weeks ago, Rachel Maddow appeared on Charlie Rose and announced that conservatives weren't the only ones disenchanted with Barack Obama. "The President has disappointed the left," she said. Rose asked her to be more specific – on what exactly? "I would say on the war, on healthcare, on economic [policy]… on civil liberties and on civil rights," Maddow said.
Eyal Press goes on to dismiss all of those concerns in an attempt to show that "the left" isn't disappointed with Obama by citing Democratic polling of Democrats, African Americans, Hispanics etc. The flaw in this "logic" is that membership in any or all of the above demographic groups doesn't make one a member of "the left".
But, based on that shoddy logic, Press then goes on to state that the reasons "the left" isn't disappointed with Obama are:
1) Progressives and left-leaning Democrats (if not self-identified radicals who want the system overthrown) are in an overwhelmingly pragmatic mood, notwithstanding the wide-eyed idealism that supposedly swept Obama into office.
(2) The legacy of the Bush era.
(3) The likeability of Obama.
Seriously? So, one is to assume it's natural and understandable for the very thing that swept Obama into office, "wide-eyed idealism", has now turned into business as usual pragmatism? Or is the new rallying cry for Obama changing from "Change you can believe in" to "At least he's not Bush?" And finally, "likeability"? Remember all the polling that showed Bush Lite was a "normal guy", someone with whom the majority of Americans could ostensibly see having a beer with? Is that really what anyone wants to pin their hopes on, knowing how badly that went before?
All celebrity crush aside, speaking as a self defined member of "the left", I'd say yes, in this regard, Rachel Maddow does speak for me, only I would have said it with more frustration and profanity.
I am very disappointed in Obama.
Disappointingly enough, from The Nation:
A few weeks ago, Rachel Maddow appeared on Charlie Rose and announced that conservatives weren't the only ones disenchanted with Barack Obama. "The President has disappointed the left," she said. Rose asked her to be more specific – on what exactly? "I would say on the war, on healthcare, on economic [policy]… on civil liberties and on civil rights," Maddow said.
Eyal Press goes on to dismiss all of those concerns in an attempt to show that "the left" isn't disappointed with Obama by citing Democratic polling of Democrats, African Americans, Hispanics etc. The flaw in this "logic" is that membership in any or all of the above demographic groups doesn't make one a member of "the left".
But, based on that shoddy logic, Press then goes on to state that the reasons "the left" isn't disappointed with Obama are:
1) Progressives and left-leaning Democrats (if not self-identified radicals who want the system overthrown) are in an overwhelmingly pragmatic mood, notwithstanding the wide-eyed idealism that supposedly swept Obama into office.
(2) The legacy of the Bush era.
(3) The likeability of Obama.
Seriously? So, one is to assume it's natural and understandable for the very thing that swept Obama into office, "wide-eyed idealism", has now turned into business as usual pragmatism? Or is the new rallying cry for Obama changing from "Change you can believe in" to "At least he's not Bush?" And finally, "likeability"? Remember all the polling that showed Bush Lite was a "normal guy", someone with whom the majority of Americans could ostensibly see having a beer with? Is that really what anyone wants to pin their hopes on, knowing how badly that went before?
All celebrity crush aside, speaking as a self defined member of "the left", I'd say yes, in this regard, Rachel Maddow does speak for me, only I would have said it with more frustration and profanity.
I am very disappointed in Obama.
