Liberal Schizophrenia: Let Obama Be Obama!
We Democrats can be an oddly schizophrenic lot. Even before President-elect Obama takes office, we seem indirectly determined to cripple him via our deprecating second-guessing.
Take, for instance, the use of clever, Machiavellian strategies to win elections: we seem to resent, and often deplore, it as a moral failing when used by liberals, yet begrudgingly admire and expect such smart muscularity when used by Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, the evangelical right and their conservative ilk.
Many liberals savor believing that they hold their politicians to a higher, purer, superior standard of behavior and belief than conservatives. And then, they lament miserably when their neutered candidates lose time and time again. Think Al Gore and John Kerry.
I bring this up because Barack Obama is obviously one of the smartest political strategists in modern U.S. history. (Do you really think an inexperienced, 47-year-old liberal African-American with little personal wealth won the White House without significant reserves of political cunning?)
And yet when he subtly, accidentally, inevitably shows his pragmatic Machiavellian side, we acted shocked... shocked!
(New York Times columnist David Brooks described this dichotomy in Obama well in his June 2008 op-ed The Two Obamas.)
A recent example of liberal schizophrenia is Obama's apparent consideration of Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State.
At first blush, surprised liberal praise for Clinton at State was effusive and, in some Democratic corners, ecstatic. "At long last, the feminist icon would represent the feminist ideal of getting a room of her own, all on her own!" exuded Maureen Dowd in the New York Times .
But then came the cynical suspicions that this move might (gasp!) be to Obama's benefit: Why would Obama do this? How does it benefit him? Is his true motive to (inexplicably) hurt Hillary? Is he trying to move to the middle and ignore OUR goals? But she failed our litmus test six years by voting for the Iraq War...
MSNBC's First Look darkly obsessed, "The best reason for Obama to be looking for a place in his cabinet for Clinton is simple: to get her out of the Senate." Plenty of liberal bloggers echoed similarly suspicious sentiments.
Really? The BEST reason for this superbly capable woman to receive the top cabinet post in Obama's administration:
- Isn't because she almost won the Democratic nomination for president?
- Isn't because Obama genuinely believes she's the best candidate for the job?
- Isn't because she's highly qualified for the job?
- Isn't because she loyally campaigned nonstop for Obama after losing her cherished goal of the presidency?
Huh??? That's nonsense. Utter, unadulterated nonsense.
Yes, I admit that selection of Sen. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State could serve some interesting goals for President Obama: It could remove her from criticizing him over health care and other domestic policies. It could remove her from granting political favors, garnering loyalty chits, and even from fundraising. Yes, it could reduce her chances for the 2012 presidential race.... if she even is a viable candidate four long years from now.
Yes, removal of Hillary Clinton from freelancing in the Senate could, indeed, greatly raise the prospects of Obama's presidential renomination in 2012... regardless of the tough tasks he handles, or bungles, in his first term.
So what?
So what if such a move has political upside for Obama? The Secretary of State slot also has plenty of upside for Clinton as well: burnish her foreign policy credentials, become a key player, perhaps secure a spot in history with her negotiations. Possibly position her for a 2016 run at the presidency.
But the bigger question is this: So what if Obama makes solid political decisions for our country that also carry political benefits for himself?
We fully expect Republicans to be both patriots and political survivalists. Why, then, do we expect Democrats to sacrifice their viability on the altar of political correctness or feigned moral superiority or uselessly partisan stupidity?
Barack Obama got himself elected as the 44th President of the United States because of the clarity and strength of his better vision for the United States in the 21st century.
Barack Obama also got himself elected as only the second Democrat in over 30 years to ascend to the presidency because of his vast and vastly underrated political skills and intuition.
Liberals, at the risk of grievous blasphemy, I say to you: it's time to take a page from Republican behavior. It's time to do more trusting and truly following our chosen leader, and less carping critically at every decision, no matter how miniscule.
It's time for liberals to grow up and act like leaders, not like schizophrenic victims.
It's time to let Obama be Obama.
We elected Barack Obama for good reasons. It's time for us liberals to get out of the way, and to let our leader lead.
- Related Reading
- Barack Obama's Uplifting Election Night Speech
- Why Red States Turned Blue in 2008
- Five Reasons Why Obama Won the '08 Election
(Photo of Obama taken on Election Night: Joe Raedle/Getty Images; Photo of Clinton taken at the Democratic Convention: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
Your use of the term “schizophrenia” in this context is unhelpful. This serious, incurable disorder, which affects about 1% of the population, has many and varied symptoms but ‘two identities’ is not one of them. You do sufferers a great disservice by misrepresenting their symptoms.
A good place to find more information is http://www.schizophrenia.com/index.php
Well said. Lincoln is Obama’s political mentor as he has said. A “team of rivals” would be a good move for Obama. The only question I have is “do you want someone at State who opposed you on all of your major foreign policy positions more vehemently than she did on your domestic positions?” Given Hillary’s history with the Children’s Defense Fund, would not Secretary of HHS be a better position considering her lifetime commitments and her political agreements with Obama on these issues?
Good post, I don’t think people should be naive enough to think anyone could rise to the top of the current bureaucracy with good intentions alone.
I agree Senator Clinton would be a qualified Secretary of State, but any logical person could deduce that President-Elect Obama had to grant Mrs. Clinton something for her recalcitrant primary concession. This has always been the nature of politics, it’s connotative associations have more to do with strategic relations than governing.
I think for now people need to step back and let our soon to be President do his job without excess scrutiny or blind loyalty.
Fine observations.
You seem to be in substantial agreement with what Scott Simon said last week on NPR.
“…as a Chicagoan, I also have a somewhat less starry view of President-elect Obama. Of course he is eloquent and inspirational. But it doesn’t diminish those qualities to say that I also see him as a clear-eyed, cool-tempered and occasionally cunning Chicago politician.[...] It is hard to imagine President Obama calling for a vote in Congress that he cannot win, the way President Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did for the financial rescue package. Chicago politicians, including Obama’s designated chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, know when to call votes and when to duck them.[...] In the end, millions saw in Barack Obama a man who might lift them out of the pigeonholes that politicians and pollsters so often use to define and divide Americans by color, faith, ethnicity or class.
And with a steely politician’s mind, Obama put who he is and what he symbolizes to use. He arouses inspiration. But he relies on the sweat and elbow grease he learned in Chicago’s wards.”
In case you missed it, check out the whole piece.
I like that word “cunning.” Politics at its most effective.
I’m dismayed at how many liberals are freaking out over the whole Clinton as SecState issue. It’s not Obama selling out. It’s Obama listening to thousands and thousands of American voters (including me) who WANTED Hillary as president. He’s smart to put her there, and American liberals need to grow up. Clinton is smart, connected, and has proven her loyalty to the incoming president. Why on Earth should she be penalized because, well, it’s good for Obama politically to have her there?
You mention that Barack Obama is inexperienced…uuuugh, Obama has more elected official experience than Hillary Clinton. More than John Edwards, Rudy Guilliani and Mitt Romney. More than Bill Clinton had when he ran for Prez in 1992. Actually Obama has more elected official experience than about 20 U.S. presidents before him. It is and always has been Obama’s experience that helped him do so well in both the primaries AND general election. Liberal Racism I tell ya! Give the man some credit for his accomplishments PLEEEAAASE! Also remember since Obama was on President Clinton’s Illinois campaign team in 1992, he and the Clintons have been friends for almost 16 or 17 years. Hillary road Bill’s coattails of success until the wheels fell off. He couldn’t get her the Presidency, though he tried. Bill triiiiiieeed…he really did. But his coattails could not carry Hillary that far..and she couldn’t get herself there the rest of the way. However Barack, like Bill, has always respected Hillary’s intellect and her strength.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson/only-22-presidents-had-mo_b_132475.html
“Democrat” and “liberal/progressive” are not synonymous. Remember, it was a Democratic president who took the ax to the New Deal policies that have served this nation so powerfully since the Roosevelt administration. Democrat H. Clinton has been a long-time advocate of the harshest conservative policies, and a leading advocate for taking money out of human needs programs to help finance continuous expansion of corporate tax “relief” tax relief. Barack Obama is oblivious to the fact that millions of Americans are well below the “suffering middle class”, and his only poverty plan is to continue Reagan’s “trickle down” economics, a particularly interesting point given Obama’s early condemnation of that economic agenda.
I would love to hear about ANY correlation between the post-Reagan Democractic party and liberals/progressives.
Schizophrenia fits. A politician is someone who makes a career via wrong decisions made at the wrong time for the wrong reasons.
We didn’t get where we are because of leadership. We’re here because our leadership gene pool has devolved, and Americans prefer fantasy over reality. If America can’t find a way to outsource our schizophrenic politicians, we deserve whatever happens.