Gibbs' Attack on Progressives Misses the Point Entirely
ON TUESDAY, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs railed against what he called "the professional left.''
"They will be satisfied when we have Canadian health care and we've eliminated the Pentagon,'' he told The Hill, a Washington publication. "That's not reality.''
Later, Gibbs apologized for losing his cool. "I watch too much cable, I admit,'' he wrote. "Day after day it gets frustrating.''
Who got under Gibbs's skin? The White House expects liberals to be Obama allies. Yet left-of-center cable TV commentators like MSNBC's Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and contributors to the Huffington Post among others, have been scathingly critical on issues from Afghanistan and civil liberties to the economy.
As co-editor of a liberal magazine whose stance has ranged from polite pleading to occasional exasperation, I have to say that Gibbs misses the point entirely. Few liberals are critical of this president out of ideological purity. Even fewer want to eliminate the Pentagon.
Most progressives fervently supported Obama. Many of us imagined a rendezvous between a brilliant outsider politician and a practical crisis rooted in failed conservative ideology - a Roosevelt moment.
The George W. Bush view that the private sector can do nothing wrong and government nothing right crashed the economy. In repairing the damage, Obama had an opportunity to restore a more balanced form of capitalism and to make it a governing philosophy shared by a majority of Americans, just as FDR did.
Liberals have criticized Obama mainly because he is bungling this opportunity, not because he isn't as leftwing as some might like.
If his governing style and legislative achievements were producing either an economic recovery, or a sense on the part of distressed voters that he is their champion even if Republicans block his efforts, we would be cheering, never mind the details of his health reform.
Politics is the art of the possible, but also the art of leadership. President Roosevelt's Democratic Party gained seats in Congress in 1934, the first mid-term election after Roosevelt took office, despite unemployment exceeding 15 percent. Ordinary Americans knew Roosevelt was on their side.
And rather than seeking illusory common ground with Republicans or with Wall Street, Roosevelt was eloquent in naming and shaming his opposition.
By contrast, Obama has not convinced regular citizens that his primary goal is an economic recovery for Main Street. His economic team is far too close to Wall Street.
He has sent mixed messages on whether his top priority is restoring jobs or reassuring financial markets about reducing deficits.
With his temporizing, Obama has left independent voters perplexed and the Democratic base dispirited. Democrats are now at risk of an epic legislative defeat this November, leaving Obama with even less running room to provide the recovery program that the country needs.
Obama's failure to rise to the moment seems more characterological than ideological. He has the temperament of a conciliator, at a time when his opposition wants mainly to destroy him.
Why isn't Obama behaving more like Harry Truman in 1948? Truman pulled off one of the great upsets of American political history, winning his own election and flipping 75 House seats from Republican to Democrat.
Even though Republicans, who controlled Congress in 1948, were certain to block his program, Truman sent Congress the legislation he wanted and dared Republicans to vote it down - rather than starting with half a loaf, ending with crumbs, and blurring differences.
Rather than turning obstructionism around on the Republicans, Obama seems to fear looking weak. But that reticence isn't working.
So for the most part, liberals are criticizing our president out of tough love. We dearly want him to succeed. For if he fails, we fail.
And if Robert Gibbs, and the rest of Obama's too-small insider circle mistake this benign exasperation for ideological purity, they are passing up a chance to rekindle the groundswell of enthusiasm that elected this president. It wouldn't take all that much.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
ON TUESDAY, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs railed against what he called "the professional left.''
"They will be satisfied when we have Canadian health care and we've eliminated the Pentagon,'' he told The Hill, a Washington publication. "That's not reality.''
Later, Gibbs apologized for losing his cool. "I watch too much cable, I admit,'' he wrote. "Day after day it gets frustrating.''
Who got under Gibbs's skin? The White House expects liberals to be Obama allies. Yet left-of-center cable TV commentators like MSNBC's Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and contributors to the Huffington Post among others, have been scathingly critical on issues from Afghanistan and civil liberties to the economy.
As co-editor of a liberal magazine whose stance has ranged from polite pleading to occasional exasperation, I have to say that Gibbs misses the point entirely. Few liberals are critical of this president out of ideological purity. Even fewer want to eliminate the Pentagon.
Most progressives fervently supported Obama. Many of us imagined a rendezvous between a brilliant outsider politician and a practical crisis rooted in failed conservative ideology - a Roosevelt moment.
The George W. Bush view that the private sector can do nothing wrong and government nothing right crashed the economy. In repairing the damage, Obama had an opportunity to restore a more balanced form of capitalism and to make it a governing philosophy shared by a majority of Americans, just as FDR did.
Liberals have criticized Obama mainly because he is bungling this opportunity, not because he isn't as leftwing as some might like.
If his governing style and legislative achievements were producing either an economic recovery, or a sense on the part of distressed voters that he is their champion even if Republicans block his efforts, we would be cheering, never mind the details of his health reform.
Politics is the art of the possible, but also the art of leadership. President Roosevelt's Democratic Party gained seats in Congress in 1934, the first mid-term election after Roosevelt took office, despite unemployment exceeding 15 percent. Ordinary Americans knew Roosevelt was on their side.
And rather than seeking illusory common ground with Republicans or with Wall Street, Roosevelt was eloquent in naming and shaming his opposition.
By contrast, Obama has not convinced regular citizens that his primary goal is an economic recovery for Main Street. His economic team is far too close to Wall Street.
He has sent mixed messages on whether his top priority is restoring jobs or reassuring financial markets about reducing deficits.
With his temporizing, Obama has left independent voters perplexed and the Democratic base dispirited. Democrats are now at risk of an epic legislative defeat this November, leaving Obama with even less running room to provide the recovery program that the country needs.
Obama's failure to rise to the moment seems more characterological than ideological. He has the temperament of a conciliator, at a time when his opposition wants mainly to destroy him.
Why isn't Obama behaving more like Harry Truman in 1948? Truman pulled off one of the great upsets of American political history, winning his own election and flipping 75 House seats from Republican to Democrat.
Even though Republicans, who controlled Congress in 1948, were certain to block his program, Truman sent Congress the legislation he wanted and dared Republicans to vote it down - rather than starting with half a loaf, ending with crumbs, and blurring differences.
Rather than turning obstructionism around on the Republicans, Obama seems to fear looking weak. But that reticence isn't working.
So for the most part, liberals are criticizing our president out of tough love. We dearly want him to succeed. For if he fails, we fail.
And if Robert Gibbs, and the rest of Obama's too-small insider circle mistake this benign exasperation for ideological purity, they are passing up a chance to rekindle the groundswell of enthusiasm that elected this president. It wouldn't take all that much.
ON TUESDAY, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs railed against what he called "the professional left.''
"They will be satisfied when we have Canadian health care and we've eliminated the Pentagon,'' he told The Hill, a Washington publication. "That's not reality.''
Later, Gibbs apologized for losing his cool. "I watch too much cable, I admit,'' he wrote. "Day after day it gets frustrating.''
Who got under Gibbs's skin? The White House expects liberals to be Obama allies. Yet left-of-center cable TV commentators like MSNBC's Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and contributors to the Huffington Post among others, have been scathingly critical on issues from Afghanistan and civil liberties to the economy.
As co-editor of a liberal magazine whose stance has ranged from polite pleading to occasional exasperation, I have to say that Gibbs misses the point entirely. Few liberals are critical of this president out of ideological purity. Even fewer want to eliminate the Pentagon.
Most progressives fervently supported Obama. Many of us imagined a rendezvous between a brilliant outsider politician and a practical crisis rooted in failed conservative ideology - a Roosevelt moment.
The George W. Bush view that the private sector can do nothing wrong and government nothing right crashed the economy. In repairing the damage, Obama had an opportunity to restore a more balanced form of capitalism and to make it a governing philosophy shared by a majority of Americans, just as FDR did.
Liberals have criticized Obama mainly because he is bungling this opportunity, not because he isn't as leftwing as some might like.
If his governing style and legislative achievements were producing either an economic recovery, or a sense on the part of distressed voters that he is their champion even if Republicans block his efforts, we would be cheering, never mind the details of his health reform.
Politics is the art of the possible, but also the art of leadership. President Roosevelt's Democratic Party gained seats in Congress in 1934, the first mid-term election after Roosevelt took office, despite unemployment exceeding 15 percent. Ordinary Americans knew Roosevelt was on their side.
And rather than seeking illusory common ground with Republicans or with Wall Street, Roosevelt was eloquent in naming and shaming his opposition.
By contrast, Obama has not convinced regular citizens that his primary goal is an economic recovery for Main Street. His economic team is far too close to Wall Street.
He has sent mixed messages on whether his top priority is restoring jobs or reassuring financial markets about reducing deficits.
With his temporizing, Obama has left independent voters perplexed and the Democratic base dispirited. Democrats are now at risk of an epic legislative defeat this November, leaving Obama with even less running room to provide the recovery program that the country needs.
Obama's failure to rise to the moment seems more characterological than ideological. He has the temperament of a conciliator, at a time when his opposition wants mainly to destroy him.
Why isn't Obama behaving more like Harry Truman in 1948? Truman pulled off one of the great upsets of American political history, winning his own election and flipping 75 House seats from Republican to Democrat.
Even though Republicans, who controlled Congress in 1948, were certain to block his program, Truman sent Congress the legislation he wanted and dared Republicans to vote it down - rather than starting with half a loaf, ending with crumbs, and blurring differences.
Rather than turning obstructionism around on the Republicans, Obama seems to fear looking weak. But that reticence isn't working.
So for the most part, liberals are criticizing our president out of tough love. We dearly want him to succeed. For if he fails, we fail.
And if Robert Gibbs, and the rest of Obama's too-small insider circle mistake this benign exasperation for ideological purity, they are passing up a chance to rekindle the groundswell of enthusiasm that elected this president. It wouldn't take all that much.