NP Rank:
No need to go to conspiracy theory to explain Liberal loss
Liberals don’t like to fight as they prefer to persuade with intellectual argument and strategic force. The trouble is that in politics it is often a brawl with political punches thrown.
Liberals retreat to lick their wounds and sulk. Sulking is what killed the liberals. They also got laryngitis apparently; lost their voices.
In my view there are always sinister groups at play in politics. That is no conspiracy as that is the game in town.
“Liberals resort to conspiracy theories to explain Obama's problems
Friday, November 26, 2010
Following two years of poor economic performance and electoral repudiation, liberalism is casting around for narratives to explain its failure - narratives that don't involve the admission of inadequacies in liberalism itself.
THIS STORY
· Liberals resort to conspiracy theories to explain Obama's problems
For some, the solution is to lay the blame on President Obama. He hasn't been liberal enough. He can't communicate. "I cannot recall a president," Robert Kuttner says in the Huffington Post, "who generated so much excitement as a candidate but who turned out to be such a political dud as a chief executive." Obama is "fast becoming more albatross than ally."
This is an ideological movement at its most cynical, attempting to throw overboard its once-revered leader to avoid the taint of his problems.
But there is an alternative narrative, developed by those who can't shake their reverence for Obama. If a president of this quality and insight has failed, it must be because his opponents are uniquely evil, coordinated and effective. The problem is not Obama but the ruthless conspiracy against him.
So Matt Yglesias warns the White House to be prepared for "deliberate economic sabotage" from the GOP - as though Chamber of Commerce SWAT teams, no doubt funded by foreigners, are preparing attacks on the electrical grid. Paul Krugman contends that "Republicans want the economy to stay weak as long as there's a Democrat in the White House." Steve Benen explains, "We're talking about a major political party . . . possibly undermining the strength of the country - on purpose, in public, without apology or shame - for no other reason than to give themselves a campaign advantage in 2012." Benen's posting was titled "None Dare Call it Sabotage."”
NowPublic on Facebook
Crowd Power
-
YankeeJim
Arlington, Virginia, United States


Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (10)
at 20:06 on November 26th, 2010
Conspiracies are known to have been engineered,and now with powerful embedded media and paid news,in print and on TV channels,the taks of dissimination of falsehood is much more easy ,conspirators feel at ease.What matters is who controls media,not who conspires
and for what?Sometime conspiracies boomerang,but unfortunately it didn't happen in Obama's case.There is another theory in circulation,who would like to kill a dying man.A
confused president,who wanted to break record of lies told by Bush,who in all eventualities is likely to be outrightly rejected for second term,great deal of consolation to Americans that he was'one term president.
at 23:04 on November 26th, 2010
The "progressive" left can't believe that Americans didn't come to adopt their agenda wholesale, and that their agenda would be rejected so completely by Americans. Typically for those who have always placed themselves as the moral superiors of their nation, the fault can not be theirs. Their truth. Republicans have conspired to thwart the greatness to which the progressive left led. Except for one glaring post election factoid. Numbers. Democratic Party numbers. That is not conspiracy. That is open and forthright rejection. Too bad Obama has to pay the price for jumping into bed with the minority left-wing of the Democratic Party. If Obama is smart he will shift his camp to the moderate majority and lead the path towards successful compromise with the new House and encourage the same behavior with in the Senate come January.
at 05:21 on November 27th, 2010
That's what Clinton did. Obama wanted his presidency to be different from that of Clinton. He started with saying that he wanted to do hard things and be a great president rather than go with the polls and be a mediocre president. Of course being a mediocre president is better than being a failed president, so we'll see what Obama decides.
at 05:57 on November 27th, 2010
The book will be called, Opportunity Lost, memoir by Barack Obama. Divinity was lost first when his credibility was undermined by ineffectiveness of his own party in Congress to produce quality legislation. Failings mounted by compromising on ending the war and cutting defense costs that would have immediate and lasting impact on the economy.
at 06:16 on November 27th, 2010
I think Michael Gerson is lamenting the fact that he didn't make Salon's hack 30. Obama has failed in his first 2 years because of his liberal/progressive tendencies? Really? Health care reform was a major giveaway to the private insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry. This, is spite of overwhelming support for the public option.(A liberal position, negotiated away to gain support from conservative Blue Dog Democrats in the Senate.) Banking Reform. Making TBTF institutions pay for wreaking havoc on the economy by demanding stricter regulatory restrictions on speculative investments? Expecting bondholders to suffer and absorb some of the losses? Too punitive, and the result was taxpayers footing the bill for corporate excess. How liberal of the Obama administration. Upholding the rule of law, and holding individuals accountable for possible war crimes? (You know, torture, indefinite detention, rendition.) "We're looking forward." And by extension, continuing the policy of the Bush administration.
Until the liberal/progressive community abandons trying to win based on facts and reason, no meaningful progressive reform is possible. The recent mid term election was a clear repudiation of results based on persuasive reasoning. We will now see a push to reel in spending, give more tax cuts to the wealthiest 1%, and make the middle class pay for the excesses of crony capitalism by slashing social programs. You want to talk about class warfare? The catfood commission is proposing that retirees wait another 5 years to collect SSI. (A 20% cut in benefits.) And there is talk of not paying back the SSI Trust Fund on bonds coming due. That's called stealing. The trust fund is every working class individuals contributions to the system, lent to the government, by law, and now they're telling us the government is going to default on an obligation? I can't wait to see China's reaction.
at 07:35 on November 27th, 2010
"Until the liberal/progressive community abandons trying to win based on facts and reason, no meaningful progressive reform is possible."
This could be your best posted comment ever.
I beat the catfish commission to the punch and filed for retirement with disability to get the cash flow started early while there still is cash to flow. I am stockpiling catfood. Can't tell the difference between the discount tuna package and the feline version.
at 09:34 on November 27th, 2010
Thanks for the comment. Interestingly, the Catfood Commission was not given any charge to recommend policy changes regarding SSI. SSI has no,repeat, NO impact on the deficit. It is self funded and has ample reserves to pay out benefits at current levels until around 2025, with no changes to current policy. The more pressing concern with regard to the deficit is Medicaid, which in fact has deficit implications currently. Amazingly not a word on this or Medicare in the commissions prescriptions for deficit reduction. For a detailed in depth look at the real picture regarding SSI, I'd recommend looking at the heavy lifting being done by Bruce Webb over at Angry Bear. Unfortunately, his research is based on facts, and he is of a liberal/progressive persuasion. This will put him and like minded individuals at an extreme disadvantage once the narrative has been framed in favor of cutting benefits, and raising the retirement age. The Bruce Web: History, Politics, Myth: The Angry Bear Social Security Series
I urge anyone interested in understanding the SSI issue check the link. A lot of the information is based on real numbers, statistical analysis and real policy solutions that will protect SSI for future retirees with very minimal cost. This guy deserves recognition for a thankless task, done at his own expense.
at 08:57 on November 27th, 2010
I think Nanute's 1st paragraph highlights generally why the majority came to reject Obama's policies on reform. Nothing was really being reformed and the people saw through it and felt they were being "pieced off" with a health care bill they didn't understand so business could continue as usual behind the smoke and mirrors. Which is probably why the black community didn't come out in the numbers they did to elect Obama, and why the majority of Democrats got as much distance from the policies as they could to fight their own elections. The biggest or closest fight for Dems during the election had nothing to do with Obama's policies. They were fought over Latino interests and keeping the borders open. Harry Reid took home the trophy on that. The one case where the majority of Americans understood the situation and wanted the rule of law enforced but, have been denied for years.
at 12:58 on November 27th, 2010
I am in violent agreement.
at 05:08 on November 28th, 2010
An extremely complex social, economic, political, and media driven answer in..'No need to go to conspiracy theory to explain Liberal loss'
This lastest 'election results' generally proves how easily political and specific media driven manipulation of the voting public is in America today. A media driven confusion and specific created apathy. A perceived economic disillusionment. A swinging of mental comprehensive intellect from specific media driven voter psychometric results.
The current political process has become a circus of basically media driven, money backed, misinfo-commercials,_reseached and focused by psychometric results. Basic voter misunderstanding within specific confusion and distrust.
America's election process is being specifically manipulated and corrupted by media driven big money pr. causing voter confusion, apathy, distrust, and specific non-engagement.
You could say today it's really not about specifically understanding the issues as much as being specifically media driven in the swaying of public opinion. Targeting voter apathy and paranoia.
It's basically gone high tech with big money within specific media public relations voter manipulation.
1