- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Either way, though it's constructive to express views on his high-level appointments, it makes sense to wait to see what Obama himself actually does as President before assessing whether his commitments are illusory. -GlennGreenwald
Although I agree with this statement, I can sympathize with the Lucy and the football syndrome from which many of us suffer. We're flinching before there's even an indication of an impending blow ... or, are we?
Chris Bowers of Open Left was on Hardball last night to speak to Matthews' assertion that some on the Left are feeling "betrayed" by Obama's National Security choices. I think Chris, as Jane Hamsher has, did a nice job of deflecting the betrayal meme while still advancing a concern about the ideological positions of the individuals Obama is selecting.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10223
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/28003726#28003726
About one minute in to the discussion with Matthews, Bowers makes, what I think is, a reasonable observation. If Obama has selected individuals who are to the Right of him on National Security, or to the Right of his "vision," then it is going to be hard for Obama to see his "vision" (whatever it is; I'm still not completely sure) enacted. His vision must be carried out by others. A sprawling bureaucracy requires that Obama delegate; he won't be able to micromanage the activities his appointments will oversee. Bowers argues that if you want to govern from the Left then you need people managing the departments of Defense and State, who are on the left. It's presumed that Bowers sees Clinton, Gates, and Jones to the ideological Right of Obama on National Security.
It may be true, that none of these individuals are to Obama's Right in this area. That Gates, Clinton, and Jones actually reflect Obama's ideological stance accurately. Or, it could be true that Obama has selected these individuals for their competence, knowing that they are to the Right of his intended National Security position, but expects them to effect his more Leftward agenda without having to do close oversight. Either way, I can sympathize with the concerns people express. Because, either way, it's possible - if not likely - that the best Obama can do is to effect a nice, stable, moderate-Right administration. The Left, in any real sense of the word, may see little of their own reflection in an Obama presidency.
Personally, I think this moderate-Right position is the best that we can do. It is a second best option. However, the angst expressed by those genuinely on the ideological Left, who worked hard to get Obama elected, and believed he could/would govern from the Left, seems warranted to me. Would govern from the Left was always a Hope™. Now, the concern might reasonably be that Obama is closing off the Hope™ that he could govern from the Left.
