Pragmatics 101

A couple of interesting posts from Hullabaloo this morning, The first from Dday, about the first days of the Obama administration. I posted about the advisors who are looking at Bush's executive orders to see what needs to be reversed, and Rahm Emanuel has identified some of the legislative priorities -- mostly stuff that Dubyah vetoed after they managed bipartisan support in Congress.

The refreshing thing is Emanuel's lack of ideology in his remarks -- in fact, his repudiation of it.

As for the inevitable center-left/center-right question, this isn't a horrible way of putting it:

So I asked Mr. Emanuel if the election of an unabashed liberal like Mr. Obama has made the New Democrat strategy obsolete. Perhaps what we witnessed on Tuesday means that liberalism is ascendant and the U.S. is no longer a center-right nation. "I think the country is incredibly pragmatic," he responded. "Pragmatic and progressive. But you still have to mix and match different approaches to reach your objectives. You have to be flexible."

He said the similarities between Barack Obama and the last Democratic president matter more than the differences. "Both Barack and Bill Clinton have an incredible connection to the public," he said. "Both ran on a message of hope. Both ran against failed policies that let the country down prior to them being elected. I don't think the country is yearning for an ideological answer. If anything it's the opposite. They want real solutions to real problems. And if we do an ideological test, we will fail. Our challenge is to work to solve the actual problems that the country is facing, not work to satisfy any constituency or ideological wing of the party."

I know a lot of people want to hear "progressive mandate" in there, but there is some work to be done with the public in proving that what is pragmatic is progressive, so I'm actually fairly OK with it. It's pretty close to the Wellstonian "politics is about improving people's lives."

I've been saying all along, it's the ideology that's screwed us up. (You may have gotten the idea that I think ideology is for dummies. You'd be right.) What the punditocracy doesn't seem to get yet is that people voted for Obama because he promised to actually fix problems, rather than just letting them breed.

Speaking of the punditocracy, Digby has a good take on where their heads are -- still up their butts, repeating a new version of the old mantra: "Obama is the Messiah!" -- as long as he governs with their vision of bipartisanship: cater to the right.

All over television this morning the gasbags seemed convinced that Obama had been elected to stop the left from ruining the country. And when it turns out to actually be his supposedly cooperative new partners in governance --- the right --- that stands in his way, they will blame him for being too far left. It's a trap.

What these people really want is a wizard who can solve all problems without a fight, a leader who gives them tingles down their legs and an historic figure who makes them feel really, really good about themselves for being the agents of America's transformation from country to Nirvana. It's not the left who sees him as an apostle. It's the Village.

I have what may seem a snarky question, but I'm serious: who listens to these people? I mean, besides each other?