The press rewrites Dem history
November 05, 2008 11:51 am ET by Eric Boehlert
Keep your eyes on this meme as it continues to gain momentum inside the Beltway, as it anxiously awaits the arrival of the Obama administration.
The D.C. Establishment, which includes the press corps, seems jittery that Democrats might actually govern from the left following their impressive electoral gains. That's a bad idea, the talking heads insist, because the nation is fundamentally conservative.
Forget that the facts don't back that up. Here's where the revision comes in: Pundits keep warning Obama that he shouldn't make the same mistakes Bill Clinton made in 1993 when he arrived in Washington, D.C. and ran into all kinds of political setbacks because he, you guessed it, governed from the left!
See, according to the pundits, it was Clinton's run-away liberalism that did him in early on during his first months in the White House. And wouldn't you know the Post's Ruth Marcus hits that very point today, insisting that Dems need to "resist" the urge be liberals:
Yet the experience of President Bill Clinton's rocky early months -- remember gays in the military? the BTU tax? -- suggests the steep political price of governing in a way that is, or seems, skewed to the left. This risk is particularly acute for Obama, whose opponents have painted him as a leftist extremist. The good news is that his advisers seem exquisitely aware of this trap and determined not to fall into it.
The truth however, is a bit different. And the truth simply does not support the revisionist history about Clinton that's being spread around in attempt to fend Obama off from tilting to the left. As one GOP corporate lobbyist recently told Politico:
He recalled the arrival of President Bill Clinton in 1993. Rather than going after business, Clinton presented a moderate image and reached out to the corporate community. Clinton's goal was to "co-opt a portion of the business community" through his positions on free trade and other issues, said this lobbyist. And the strategy worked pretty effectively with global corporations.
But none of that matters, because the pundits are convinced that Clinton (and Dems) circa 1993, were left-wingers. That's what Time's Mark Halperin said on MSNBC this morning; that Clinton selected "left-wing people" to serve in his first administration. Y'know, people like Warren Christopher and Lloyd Bentsen.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
I kept hearing this last night after Obama had won from almost every single talking head, and almost nobody (except maybe Roland Martin) challenged any of the pundits on it.
So, in 2006, the democrats won a bunch of seats, took control of the House and the Senate. In 2008, we win the Presidency, and more seats in the House, and more seats in the Senate. Something tells me that the country wants a move to the left away from the hard right turn we took starting in 2001, and ending in January of 2009. That, and most people identify with liberal policies, or support them, as a vast majority in the country. Of course the republicans last night were preaching about bi-partisanship, and working with each other. "F" that I say. When Bush took the White House in 2000, I remember being told to sit down, shut up, because the "adults" were running the show now, and that I should just do as I was told. I think Obama is above that, but I'm not.
You invite being misunderstood in discussing Public Policy, by discussing it in the senseless vague terminology of "left" (or "right") and "liberal" (or "conservative").
Exactly what Public Policy opinions are specifically expressed by name and issue, using the words "left" and "liberal"?
None.
If you would then claim that yes there are specific Public Policy opinions expressed by the word "left" etc., then why use that vague senseless word to descibe those opinions?
The word left is perfectly clear and understood when describing horizontal direction with respect to the body, but when misused to represent Political opinions, it leaves us wondering what it's supposed to mean...
What's the "leftist" Public Policy opinion regarding the bailout of financial services companies? What's the "left" Political opinion on U.S. Troops in IRAQ? What's the "left" opinion of Congressional ethics and corporate lobbying? What is the "leftist" Public Policy opinion regarding the extraordinary and malicious influence of defense contractors over the Department of Defense, and of the privatization and politicalization of the U.S. Intelligence Community?
Serious Public Policy questions there... answer them in terms of "left" and "right" and "liberal" and "conservative", and I swear you're either intentionally inviting misunderstanding by saying nothing while pretending to say something, or you're an idiot who actually thinks that Public Policy has something to do with horizontal direction with respect to the body.
Public Policy discussions in terms of "left" etc., are an absolute waste of time and a tedious exercise in listening to vague and senseless speeches, where specific opinions should be expressed and heard.
Somebody needs to rescue Public Policy talk in the Public forum and in the media, from the current empty mass of vague and senseless words that talk takes the form of.
Because we're getting nowhere by saying nothing, where something can actually be said, if we'd just use the specific and meaningful words to say it.
Truly it is sad that we are stuck with the left right garbage. It doesn't make any sense when you consider the fact that many of the so called leftist items are traditional Republican stances. At this point it seems that the term Left is defined as anything that doesn't agree with Neo-Con philosophy.
Of course the public has allowed the Neo-Cons to redefine so many political terms that their followers no longer have the ability to have a true discussion of politics.
OK Eric, but the more important thing to address in what Ruth Marcus writes is this:
"The good news is that [Obama's] advisers seem exquisitely aware of this trap and determined not to fall into it."
The historical basis may be revisionist and the statement of public sentiment false, but there's a pretty good reason to believe that the Obama administration is going to act on them anyway.
Obama will (hopefully) raise taxes on the rich. The press will not stand for it. Nothing else that Obama or congress does matter.