"Joy and pleasure are as real as pain and sorrow and one must learn what they have to teach. . . ." -- Sean Russell, from Gatherer of Clouds

"If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right." -- Helyn D. Goldenberg

"I love you and I'm not afraid." -- Evanescence, "My Last Breath"

“If I hear ‘not allowed’ much oftener,” said Sam, “I’m going to get angry.” -- J.R.R. Tolkien, from Lord of the Rings

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Baby, Bathwater, and Sink

John Aravosis has a good analysis of the administration's actions in response to right-wing criticism, but I'm not convinced he goes far enough:

It's possible to defend each of the recent administration actions individually (e.g., severing ties with ACORN, getting rid of Van Jones, changing the immigration language in the health care bill to address Joe Wilson's concerns, even dropping the public option after conservatives angrily disrupt Democratic Townhall meetings (I don't defend dropping it, but I can imagine arguments made for dropping it (to save the bill, etc.)). Each action can be justified by the argument that by severing ties with ACORN, or getting rid of Van Jones, the administration has effectively stifled the criticism by nipping the problem in the bud, and thus removed a potential threat to their larger goals.

This is perhaps true - I say perhaps because I don't necessarily agree with each action. But, for arguments sake, let's say we do agree. The problem is that at some point, individual actions, in the aggregate, send a larger, and wrong, message. The ACORN action, on the heels of Van Jones and Joe Wilson (not to mention failing to follow through aggressively on campaign promises regarding the public option and gay rights, among other issues) - and then admitting that these actions were taken to appease some of the administration's most vocal conservative critics, does not assuage those critics. It inspires them to cause even more trouble.


It's deeper than that. Keep in mind that ACORN, Van Jones, the public option are not the issues for the right-wingers. We know that. Their goal is to sink Obama, so it doesn't matter what the "issue" is, they will find something to harp on and if they can't find something, they will make it up ("death panels," anyone?). Aravosis is right in that caving is not the right response.

The Republicans are in essence being told to keep up the fight and never negotiate, and eventually President Obama and the Democrats in Congress will cave to their demands, while asking nothing in return. It's not the message I would choose. And I think it's going to make it very difficult for the administration and Congress to get anything done in the future.

The message being telegraphed by the White House -- and the Democrats in general -- is that they are gutless. I've seen several commentators bemoaning the fact that the discussion has turned away from the "real" issues and is now focused on the ability of Obama to actually govern effectively -- as in, does he have the will and the balls to do it? Sorry, boys and girls, but he (and most likely Rahm Emanuel) have made that a legitimate concern.

Obama needs to do more than stop appeasing them. He needs to tell them, joined by Pelosi and Reid (and good luck on that one), to go fuck themselves. If they're lying, call them liars. Name names. Point fingers -- and dare them to support their accusations, and when they try to change the subject (because they will), nail them on that. Obama has the bully pulpit. Use it, for crying out loud -- don't hand it over to the likes of Glenn Beck.

No comments: