Feeds:
Inlägg
Kommentarer

Posts Tagged ‘Michelle Goldberg’

VITA HUSET | Andrew Sullivan, som bl.a. bloggar på The Daily Beast, skriver i Newsweek om varför både vänstern och högern har fel om Barack Obama.

Kritiken från höger har oftast varit förutsägbar. Betydligt intressantare är när Sullivan skriver om hur vänstern har projicerat alla sina önskningar på presidenten.

Med så höga förväntningar är det inte konstigt att resultatet uppfattas som en besvikelse. Men enligt Sullivan vill man inom vänstern inte ens erkänna de framsteg som gjorts under nuvarande administration.

You could easily make the case that Obama has been far more fiscally conservative than his predecessor—except, of course, that Obama has had to govern under the worst recession since the 1930s, and Bush, after the 2001 downturn, governed in a period of moderate growth. It takes work to increase the debt in times of growth, as Bush did. It takes much more work to constrain the debt in the deep recession Bush bequeathed Obama.

[…]

But the right isn’t alone in getting Obama wrong. While the left is less unhinged in its critique, it is just as likely to miss the screen for the pixels. From the start, liberals projected onto Obama absurd notions of what a president can actually do in a polarized country, where anything requires 60 Senate votes even to stand a chance of making it into law. They have described him as a hapless tool of Wall Street, a continuation of Bush in civil liberties, a cloistered elitist unable to grasp the populist moment that is his historic opportunity. They rail against his attempts to reach a Grand Bargain on entitlement reform. They decry his too-small stimulus, his too-weak financial reform, and his too-cautious approach to gay civil rights. They despair that he reacts to rabid Republican assaults with lofty appeals to unity and compromise.

[…]

Obama was not elected, despite liberal fantasies, to be a left-wing crusader. He was elected as a pragmatic, unifying reformist who would be more responsible than Bush.

And what have we seen? A recurring pattern. To use the terms Obama first employed in his inaugural address: the president begins by extending a hand to his opponents; when they respond by raising a fist, he demonstrates that they are the source of the problem; then, finally, he moves to his preferred position of moderate liberalism and fights for it without being effectively tarred as an ideologue or a divider. This kind of strategy takes time. And it means there are long stretches when Obama seems incapable of defending himself, or willing to let others to define him, or simply weak. I remember those stretches during the campaign against Hillary Clinton. I also remember whose strategy won out in the end.

This is where the left is truly deluded. By misunderstanding Obama’s strategy and temperament and persistence, by grandstanding on one issue after another, by projecting unrealistic fantasies onto a candidate who never pledged a liberal revolution, they have failed to notice that from the very beginning, Obama was playing a long game.

Se även: Michelle Goldberg’s Op-Vid Campaign 2012 on Liberal Despair på The Daily Beast.

Övrigt: Artikeln och tidskriftsomslaget är från Newsweek den 23 januari 2012.

Read Full Post »