Jonathan Chait Asks: "When Did Liberals Become So Unreasonable"

Jonathan Chait has written another critique of liberals. In a recent New York Magazine column, he asks "When Did Liberals Become So Unreasonable"? Unreasonable, of course, means criticizing President Obama for taking rightwing or centrist positions.

Several others have written this jaded analysis before. The details are quite mundane (see relevant commentary on Dissenting Justice).

But here is a not-so-mundane response to Chait. With respect to US history, I believe that "liberals" became "unreasonable" when they demanded full suffrage and emancipation for blacks in the early 19th Century. Thankfully, some folks in US history had courage.

Chait's essay is just another strained analysis by political moderates, who are so threatened by progressive criticism that they feel a constant need to defend so-called liberal politicians and condemn the Left.

Repeat After Me: Obama Is A Moderate

Every time new legislation or policies fall short of the expectations of progressives, several things happen. First, progressives complain that President Obama (yet again) has rushed to compromise with moderates and conservatives. Second, media commentators praise President Obama for being pragmatic and willing to work with others. Third, conservatives describe the legislation or policies as evidence of President Obama's sinister plot to turn the US into a communist society. To all who have engaged in this discourse, repeat after me: Obama is a moderate.

Progressives Continue to Ignore Reality
Regular readers of this blog know that I have long described Obama as a moderate -- even before he was elected. A long list of prior blog entries on this subject appears below this article. During the Democratic primaries, when Obama was the untouchable darling of the progressive community, I often watched with alternating confusion and amazement over the Left's collective worship of Obama and its portrayal of him as a progressive figure.

After Obama was elected, several factors indicated that he would fall far short of the wild expectations that many progressives had of him. He appointed despised Clinton-era officials to positions in his own administration. He chose Hillary Clinton, a "defeated" enemy of the political left, as his Secretary of State. And he would soon show his commitment to some policies of the Bush administration that progressives had vigorously opposed.

Although these decisions caused some progressives to awaken quickly from what I have described as an Obama-Vegetative State (a condition in which the patient is unable to think critically about Obama), clearly, others remain wedded to the unsubstantiated idea that Obama is a true progressive.

Despite the variety of data that prove Obama's moderate leanings, many progressives cling to the fantasy that he is a leftist. Accordingly, they become extremely upset when he dives toward the center and "compromises" with Republicans and moderate Democrats on issues such as the healthcare public option, the Bush tax cuts, and the magnitude and substance of the economic stimulus. Progressives demand that Obama negotiate from the left and move slightly to the right. Surprisingly, they assume that he shares their desire to start from the left in the first place.

The False Pragmatism Canard
In response to progressive criticism over Obama's political moderation, media commentators scold progressives for being partisans. They also praise Obama for being flexible and strategic. These commentators believe that Obama is a progressive but that he, unlike his progressive critics, is pragmatic. Most of these commentators, however, do not even engage the possibility that Obama himself is a strategic moderate who occupies the center not because failing to do so would doom him politically, but because this is the political space that coincides with his own ideological commitments.

The Conservative Red Scare Tactic
No one can convince Obama's rightwing critics that he is not a Muslim, socialist, communist, foreign-born individual causing the inevitable destruction of US society. So, I will leave them to their ideas. It is interesting, however, that the right and the left are equally drawn to their belief that Obama is a progressive.

What Progressives Must Do
If progressives wish to engage in helpful politics, they must first embrace a strategy grounded in reality rather than fiction. President Obama is a moderate. Starting with this premise creates the conditions for effective political action.

Second, progressives must become students of history. Moderate presidents have presided over deeply progressive social change, such as the abolition of slavery, the extension of voting rights to women, and the implementation of extensive civil rights legislation in the 1960s. If progressives study this history, they can learn how to build effective political action for change.

Third, progressives must engage in organized social movement behavior to shape public opinion about the need for change -- rather than exclusively focusing on their defeats. Although many progressives continue to participate in collective politics, these efforts are literally drowned out by the voices of critics who are continually frustrated by a president who does not satisfy their unrealistic expectations about his political ideology.

Finally, progressives need to engage in multidimensional political advocacy. Focusing on one political figure is a completely ineffective political strategy. Historically, political change has come about as a result of complex activism at the local, state and federal level. This political action has targeted voters, corporations, lawmakers, and executive branch officials. It has also involved courts and litigation. For many progressives, however, the national government -- and more specifically Obama -- has absolute centrality.

Social movements have produced remarkable progressive changes in the US. Part of this history involved criticism of political leaders. Nonetheless, a large part of that history centered around crafting public information campaigns and fostering ties with the public and with multiple layers of politicians and private entities to create political opportunities for change. If progressives refuse to follow this historical practice, then they will have to blame themselves as much as (or even more than) Obama for the failure of progressive politics.

The promised reading list on Obama as a moderate:

2008 Is Not 1964: Why Liberal Mania and Conservative Panic Are Nothing But Melodrama

Chicken Little Politics: Moderate Obama Causes Progressive Panic

Criticizing President Obama Is Pragmatic

Progressives Awaken from Obama-Vegetative State

Free at Last? No!

From the "Duh" Files: Effusive Political Adoration Does Not Lead to Social Change

A Sober Look at a Democratic Sweep

If Obama Emulates Lincoln, Will Progressives Follow Abolitionists and Radical Republicans?

Head Explosion at The Nation: Left "Duped" by Its "Own Wishful Thinking"

The "Yes We Can" Movement Gets Sudden Reality Check!

The Dubious Benefits of Obama's Political Compromises

President Obama continues to "reach out" to conservatives and moderates. The benefits of this approach, however, are dubious at best.

Ben Nelson
Obama, for example, secured support for healthcare reform legislation from Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska by giving his state millions of dollars in Medicaid assistance. Although Nelson finally overcame his opposition to patients in insurance exchanges receiving abortion servies, Obama's outreach did not create a new partnership between the two. Instead, Nelson has announced that he will join Republicans to filibuster the nomination of Craig Becker to sit on the National Labor Relations Board.

Republicans oppose Becker's nomination solely because he is pro-labor. They have not, by contrast, opposed pro-business nominees. Instead, the opposition is purely ideological. Nelson's move will probably kill the nomination.

Joe Lieberman
After he was elected, President Obama tried to smooth things out with Senator Joe Lieberman. Many Democrats wanted to deprive Lieberman of his seniority because he endorsed and openly campaigned for John McCain during the 2008 presidential election. Despite the wishes of many Democrats, Obama stepped in to make peace and told Senate Democrats not to punish Lieberman.

Lieberman, however, recently opposed Obama's healthcare proposals. Consequently, President Obama, in a controversial move, ordered Harry Reid to drop the public plan and Medicare buy-in options from the pending legislation.

Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe
President Obama has also struggled to define pieces of his legislative agenda, including the stimulus package and healthcare reform, around the political leanings of Susan Colins and Olympia Snowe. Neither of the two Senators from Maine, however, support his healthcare agenda. Furthermore, the stimulus package would have passed without the support of Collins and Snowe, but Obama made unnecessary concessions to obtain their votes.

Republicans Generally
Most recently, Obama has tried to warm up to Republicans. He debated House Republicans at a recent retreat, and he has offered to meet with Republicans to discuss bipartisanship regarding healthcare reform -- which seems doomed after the election of Republican Scott Brown as a Senator from Massachusetts. Republicans, however, have either resisted the idea or accepted it with major caveats.

Comprising With Moderates and Conservatives, Criticizing Liberals
Although Obama continues to reach out to and to make compromises with moderates, members of his administration have harshly criticized liberals. For example, responding to progressive criticism regarding healthcare reform, senior members of Obama's staff called liberals "irrational" and "insane." Rahm Emanuel has also stated that liberal critics of moderate and conservative Democrats are "fucking retards." The White House has clearly decided to isolate its liberal critics.

Final Take
While the Obama administration criticizes its base of support, it continues to chase down the approval of moderates and conservatives. If the latter approach paid off politically, then perhaps it would make sense. But to date, the benefits of this approach are dubious at best.

While White House Condemns Liberals, Congressional Moderates Remain Inflexible

Now that the House and Senate have passed heathcare bills, the process of merging the disparate proposals must take place. The White House has branded liberals who oppose the more conservative Senate bill as inflexible and impractical. But moderates, whom Obama has eagerly sought to appease during the legislative process, have repeatedly drawn firm and rigid lines in the sand.

Joe Lieberman, for example, issued multiple filibuster threats until Obama instructed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to drop the public plan option from the Senate bill. Ben Nelson won concessions on abortion funding after he threatened to derail the bill. And Mary Landrieu secured millions of dollars in federal funding for Louisiana after she vowed to vote against the measure.

According to The Hill, Senate moderates have promised to maintain their inflexible stance during the upcoming negotiations:

Democratic centrists have informed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) they will accept few changes in the final healthcare bill negotiated between the House and Senate.

Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) have made clear there is little room to deviate from the bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve.

They are the most vocal of nearly two-dozen senators who have indicated they see little wiggle room in the conference talks. . . .

Lawmakers in the House will have to accept the Senate legislation with little change if a final bill is to muster 60 votes to overcome procedural hurdles and make it to President Barack Obama’s desk, the centrists say.

“There’s very little room for this bill to change,” said Landrieu. “The framework really has to stay basically in place.

Although centrists have continually dug their heels in the sand and threatened to kill the reform process unless their demands were met, the White House has not described their muscularity as "insane" or "irrational." Instead, these labels seemingly apply only to liberals who demand a tough posture during negotiations.

Question for readers: What do you think explains the disparate treatment of liberals and moderates by the White House?

See also:

NYT's Adam Nagourney Peddles New White House Attacks on Progressives

Criticizing President Obama Is Pragmatic

Rahm Emanuel Tells Liberals To Kiss His Arse

Liberals Battle White House Over Healthcare Reform

White House Shows Its True Colors on Healthcare Reform

Irrational Robert Gibbs Says Howard Dean Is Irrational

Salon's Glenn Greenwald Says: Blame Obama, Rather Than Lieberman

Why Is Obama Still Protecting Lieberman?

House Democrat Louise M. Slaughter: Scrap Senate Healthcare Bill

Obama Falsely Claims that the Senate Healthcare Bill Matches His Campaign Promises

Ezra Klein's "Pink=Blue=Colors" Logic Regarding Healthcare Reform