FDL’s writers have been among the sharpest of the reality-based critics of the Obama administration, as posts like this one will show. But, contrary to what’s been claimed, we’re not so steeped in reactive Obama hatred that we won’t give the man credit when it’s due. Case in point: His being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Yes, he’s only been in office a little over eight months. Yet he’s already made more progress with both Russia and Iran than George W. Bush and the neocon cabal made in eight years, which makes experts on the Middle East like Juan Cole quite happy:
President Obama is slowly putting Iran in a box. His cancellation of the useless and expensive so-called missile shield program in Eastern Europe, which had needlessly antagonized Russia, has been rewarded with greater Russian cooperativeness on Iran. The U.S. right wing accused Obama of a failure of nerve. But in fact his move was shrewd and gutsy, since he predisposed Russia to increased cooperation with the U.S. in regard to Iran’s nuclear research program. Obama’s full-court press for a United Nations Security Council resolution on nuclear disarmament also pulled the rug out from under Iran’s previous grandstanding tactics, whereby it accused the U.S. and its allies of only wanting nuclear dominance, not the abolition of nukes.
Cole goes on to note that President Obama chaired the U.N. Security Council at the summit level on Thursday, and pushed through an important resolution on nuclear disarmament. The video of the event is at the top of this post.
Now the people who really are steeped in reactive Obama hatred, left and right, are howling over this. The right wing is just plain howling, whereas the biggest beef from the left has more substance to it: Namely, that it seems presumptous to give Obama that prize when we haven’t totally left Iraq yet and we’re not yet close to pulling out of Afghanistan — though the fact that the Obama people are taking seriously a recent olive branch of sorts from the Taliban is a good sign. But longtime FDL commenter Sara points out that the Nobel committee frequently awards the Peace Prize as a means to encourage future good behavior, as well as to acknowledge current good deeds. She also suggests we do the following:
If folk here want to learn about the Nobel Peace Prize, I would suggest that you google Irwin Abrams, and select the first google selection.
Done and done:
Irwin Abrams is Distinguished University Professor Emeritus at Antioch University. He is regarded as one of the world’s leading authorities on the Nobel Peace Prize and the history of the international peace movement. He appears frequently on radio and television, including CNN, National Public Radio, BBC, and the CBC, and is often cited in the international press. His books include The Nobel Peace Prize and the Laureates: An Illustrated Biographical History, 1901-2001, the authorized edition of the Nobel Peace Lectures, 1971-2001, and Words of Peace. Born in 1914, he was educated at Stanford University and received his Ph.D from Harvard University. For a full bio, click here or follow the links below
As Sara (who had Abrams as a professor in college) notes:
Professor Abrams (Retired Antioch College Emeritus History Professor) has written several books, and a number of essays as well as edited collections of Nobel Lectures — and they are maintained at his sites on line. Irwin Abrams was part of the party representing the American Friends Service Committee, which along with the British Friends won the Nobel Award in 1947 for their work in postwar Europe, and since that time he has been involved with the Nobel Committee. The Nobel Committee has always looked toward former awardees for nominations and assistance with documenting the accomplishments of nominees, and I would not be all that surprised if Dr. Abrams was not involved in collecting documentation for the Barack Obama award. He was deeply involved in the Jimmy Carter nomination, and in fact has edited a collection of essays with Carter about the award and the Laureates. I believe he was also involved with the Gore nomination.
So this isn’t just a slap at the old Bush administration, as has been surmised, but both a reward for things started and done and encouragement towards future progress. As Beliefnet’s Paul Raushenbush says:
The question that immediately must be asked is: How has the President ”strengthened international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”? The answer is exactly what hawkish conservatives deride him for – his speeches. The committee especially cited the approach he has had to nuclear weapons as evidenced in the speech in Prague; and his willingness to directly engage the Muslim world in his brilliant speech in Cairo. Anyone who domestically dismisses these efforts will have to explain why America has risen in the past ten months to be the most admired nation in the world after having fallen during President Bush’s terms.
And that is that.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Juan Cole, who knows a thing or two about the Middle East, chimes in to praise the award and swat at the Murdoch-media conservatives bashing it:
Good morning PW!
Hillary Clinton’s State Department on President Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize:
http://www.instantrimshot.com/
Morning, PW!
Good morning! Got some coffee left in the pot. Who wants to make a new one?
We are going to need to make a split screen video of Obama receiving the Nobel and Bush getting the shoe treatment.
I only hope that Obama’s acceptance means it will inspire him to get on with the business of waging peace. We need some more of that.
That would be excellent!
Just got up, on the Left Coast, so I’ll assume the responsibility for a fresh pot.
That was surely an interesting thread and I’m so glad you and Sara were there.
Be right back with some java.
It’s looking very much like he’s going to take the advice of Biden and the actual (non-neocon) ME experts and cut a deal with the Taliban, which a) have no ambitions beyond their part of the world and b) aren’t too fond of their nominal “allies” in Al-Qaeda.
Thanks, demi! I made some apple pancake rollups (pancakes rolled up crepe-style with minced apples inside the roll). They’re sitting on the counter next to the stove.
Good Morning Phoenix Woman and Firedogs,
Post War Europe calls out something I had on my mind throughout yesterday’s kerfluffle.
as she does almost every summer, my young adult daughter was traveling through Scandanavia and Germany late summer 05. she happened to be in Berlin the wednesday the world saw the horror that was the New Orleans Convention Center.
she called again and again to say the Europeans as a whole and especially the Germans were gobsmacked by what they were seeing, she said none of them could stop talking about it – in Dresden like terms. none of them could believe what they were seeing. and she was with mostly young people who clearly had been raised to see us as that country that fed their parents and grandparents and to see us sink so inhumaely low was all but incomprehensible to them. she said the hamfisted, boorish refusal of aid sent them around the bend.
I think the award represents a collective sigh of relief – as if to say “Phhewww you’re back !” and a thank you to the American people for reaffirming ourselves
He’s seems to be a big advocate of negotiations and talking beats bombs in my book. If he reaches some sort of deal and we can bring our troops home, that would be awesome.
Of course the MIC is always looking for nails for their hammer heads and I know that they would foment strife to justify their existence and the need to maintain MIC spending.
Putting that genie back in the box is not going to be easy.
If you’re going out to the garden, take a jacket. It’s damp out there (not raining, just very damp).
An excellent perspect. Thanks.
BTW, Rachel Maddow did an excellent job of putting matters into perspective.
OT slightly: My all-time favorite bit of carping about peace prize was when Gold Meir complained that Begin and Sadat didn’t deserve peace prizes but rather Oscars.
Oh, exactly, exactly, exactly. Most European conservatives were horrified by the Bush crew.
Ha!
Hey, everyone, I gotta run. Be nice to Gregie and remember to clean up when you’re done, OK? Bye!
Obama totally deserves this award, thanks for sharing, PW!
Obama has made the call for nuclear disarmament for years. As President, his voice on the matter has so much weight.
Someone mentioned yesterday that students in China are learning English using BO’s speeches. I have a friend in Oslo who would listen to the speeches (played loud) of MLK while he painted in his studio.
I would not rate Obama’s speeches in the same category as MLK’s. But words can move people, and Obama is making progress on the issue of nuclear weapons disarmament. This is an idea that has been talked about, but never by a president while in office, at least not that I recall.
I saw Capitalism (ALS) yesterday. I hope everyone checks it out. It is very good,IMO.
I hope when Baucus and Tester lobby for keeping all our warheads here in Montana at Maelstrom Air Force Base, Obama gets rid of all of them. The state of Montana is the 5th, I think, largest nuclear power in the world i.e. we have a lot of nukes. Many of the people of Great Falls wouldn’t mind some other industry there, say, a wind farm instead of all those ICBMs.
Foolish business, so I look forward to what nukes get disarmed.
Baucus, Tester and Others Support ICBMs
(Reaching for one now.)
I’ll reitterate one of the points I was trying to make during that thread, or might have been the other pie fight about the prize.
Christy had made the point a while back regarding the health care debate that it’s worthwhile for people to share their stories. Putting a face on need, pain and misery helps for others to personalize the plight. Here in this community as well as in the rest of my world, I find it so much easier to try and be understanding of another’s comments if I feel like I know them. I had said it’s the difference between reacting to another’s words with Oh, my. She/he surely got up on the wrong side of the bed this am, instead of thinking, Shit, what an a**hole!. I’d like to expand that theory to the larger villiage of our Planet. When we tear down borders in our heads and see us all as global citizens, it’s a bit easier to be understanding of others differences. Also, when we see that we are all in the same big boat, maybe we don’t have to be so quick to judge and hate.
Be the change you want to happen. I think Jane Hamshire does that well here with here Big Blog.
Thanks for this, PW.
Thanks, hon. It was fogged over when I got up, but it has lifted now. But, then, I’m up on a hill. Prolly still gloomy down below.
That could be merely a weather report, or it could describe my perview. Ha!
I agree that it is great that we don’t have to travel with Canadian T Shirts right now, but we also cannot be complacent. New Orleans is no better than in 2005 and worse in many respects as far as the privatization of public schools. I’d like to see a WPA jobs program to restore the Ninth Ward. Hire people directly and not sub contract to war profiteers like Halliburton.
But now they’ve taken to concern trolling, e.g., this by Greg Miller from the front page of today’s LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nobel-assess10-2009oct10,0,7362046.story
And, thank you for the diary about our Katymine!
I don’t disagree. just couldn’t shake those thoughts throughout yesterday
and mad thanks to you mm for all you are doing in this epic HCR fight – heard tell you buttonholed Tester enough to get some face time with him – he clearly moved his position this week.
We spent 8 years with an administration that quickly threw one bad decision or policy at us after another in a knee-jerk way without caring about anybody’s opinion on what they did or were about to do. It was like watching a demolition derby. And as much as many of us hated what they did and how they did it, we got used to these snap decisions. Now we have a president that seems to care about world views. He hasn’t been in office for a year, and we’re expecting that he undo the damage instantly. Some of us need to be reminded that it takes a lot longer to rebuild a country than it does to demolish it. Thanks for your thoughtful post.
Where can the neocons go with their hateful philosophy? South America has turned left and so that party of the generals and the top families running plantations is over. Can’t go to Africa with their racist views. Africans are taking over there as well. Europe’s a no no – they’re socialist and the French is smack in the middle of that mess of a socialist hell, Asia? Commies over there. Australia!
If I were on the committee, would Barack Obama have come to mind as a recipient? No.
I think of people like Malalai Joya when I think of worthy recipients.
Here’s a list of 1000 women who are more deserving:
http://www.1000peacewomen.org/eng/friedensfrauen.php
Why do you think they are looking for water on the moon? Ha!
We have been pretty tough on the President here, partly because we had high expectations, and partly because we have strong agreement here as to what the big problems are. There is a tendency to talk ugly when our issues are not resolved quickly, or handled as we would like.
It is great to have a chance to remember that with the President, we have a chance if we fight. We haven’t had that chance in a very long time. That’s all I want, a chance, to show the reasons and the emotional strength of our positions.
The Nobel people are acting on that sentiment, and we should rejoice in it.
A significant fraction of them would prefer Israel.
Amen, brother. Well said.
Nice to read the word Rejoice here.
I am glad to read this. Yes, we’ve been tough on Obama, but this award allows us to take a step back and consider where we are now, which is a lot further down the road to better things than we have been since Reagan and his ‘rich people first’ came to power. Obama has changed the tone of international relations rather completely, and for this the Right cannot forgive him. The left needs to give him that credit.
We wish them a bon voyage.
“so steeped in reactive Obama hatred”
That’s right, we’re steeped in it but just not so deep as the “non reality based”critics. jesus
(((masaccio)))
I like your take on the award and Obama’s moves.
let me start by saying my idealism has taken a savage beating in these last years. perhaps the biggest blow came not from Bush but from Democrats after 2006.
given that i’ve become incredibly cynical, i’m not really seeing, when I look at the list of Pres. Obama’s accomplishments, peace as the priority, but more positioning.
because if he really wanted peace, imo, he would insist on enforcing our laws and international law. he would be insisting on investigations of BushCo. and enforcing congressional subpoenas.
if he wanted peace, he would not play games with the public option and have rahm acting like BushCo did with David Kuo, like we’re all a bunch of dupes and idiots. and rahm protecting obama’s electability doesn’t thrill me either.
if he wanted peace… he wouldn’t have Hillary and Gates giving interviews telling us how they told Afghanistan that we’re not leaving there “anytime soon”
as i usually end these kind of comments, i hope i’m 1000 times wrong.
We have become so cynical here that we couldn’t even take 5 minutes and be glad for Obama or our country. The glass is always about 1/4 full and sometimes bone dry. It’s very disheartening.
What is it about hate that seems to be so attractive? I’m anticipating several good threads about the President’s upcoming Big Gay Speech. Saw Boehner spewing on tv yesterday about the Hate Crime Bill.
I’d rather steep tea.
I’m not cynical. We are not a homogenous group. We are individual hearts and voices. I have no problem speaking my mind, even when it goes against the prevailing line of thoughts. I’m not alone. There are other voice here which stand up and don’t just follow with what everyone else is saying.
But
the Right inthe United States is to peace as velociraptors were to vegetarianism.It matters not who is sitting in the presidential chair, the United States with its 700-odd foreign military bases bankrupting our country and antagonizing (if not bombing and killing) others weaker than we, is the nation-state antithesis of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Yes, Obama is Kinder and Gentler and yes, he has a massive hole from which to dig himself and us out of.
But there is something very wrong about awarding the nobel prize to someone who’s been ordering predator drones to bomb civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
And there is something very wronger about Americans ignoring our duties under international law to do what we can to stop war crimes like the bombing of civilians.
As far as Iran goes, that game changed out from under Obama when the election was rigged and results declared independent of vote tabulation. Iran was a form of Islamic democracy, Ahmanedinijad won the first election fair and square, but the regime has renounced any claim to electoral legitimacy and is now Ahmanedinijad and the ruline elite mullahs are set to rule as a dictatorship.
I’m not sure what box Iran can be put in by the US and Russia that will achieve the stabilizing policy goals that the US desired under these conditions, at least not without further antagonizing the muslim world and providing the kernel of outrage which fuels asymmetric warfare against us here at home. In other terms, if the domestic right wing is able to get people in the streets using inflammatory nonsense, then those capable of practicing asymmetrical warfare against us will be able to get people to strap on bombs should Obama and Russia challenge the Islamic Republic of Iran in a way that alienates Islamic fundamentalists regionwide.
We can’t allow the terms of the debate to only have two points, MSNBC and FOX News with nada in between. Obama is not evil, but he does choose policies that appear to be counterproductive to his stated goals because the US’ unelected “intelligence community” and “national security community” insist upon it. And when those policies are war crimes, as in Afghanistan and Pakistan, then that should be an automatic disqualification from being awarded the Peace Prize.
Question: will the Nobel Peace Prize honoree be sending 40,000-60,000 more troops to Afghanistan, to parapharse George Orwell’s words, “Is War now Peace?”
I like Rachal Maddows take on this.
Any time your president wins an award this prestigious it’s good for your country .
I think a lot of the criticism is off base, especially that coming from the left.
Yes, there is still work to do ,but in 10 short months Obama has managed to change the worlds perception of our country .
Isn’t that in itself worthy of our praise and not our scorn?
I think Obama said it best himself… He didn’t deserve it and he plans to give the money to charity.
I think Nobel is now trying to morph into some form of Entertainment Tonight and hand out prizes like Cracker Jack.
And since PW cites no examples of all the hatred from all corners… as a person who witnessed no hate from the left yesterday I think it would be nice of an author to source / cite / link some examples or quotes.
Sweeping generalization calling people haters without better sourcing. WTF?
I think this is a terrible, shrill attempt to cheerlead without merit.
Isn’t that what football is for?
doesn’t start for 10 more minutes
You bet it’s worth it and we are regaining some of the respect that we lost over 8 years of horror. I’m no pollyanna but I certainly count my blessings every day that we do not have insane people running our country.
You crack my shit up, you.
Would love to see him donate the award to Acorn. Guess you don’t win the Nobel by being as “immature” as my wish reflects, though.
The have a strong left wing to deal with and Palestinians too.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again
The kind of real change we want takes time .
The conservatives have been running our country for nearly 30 years ,we can’t expect to roll back 30 years of bad policy overnight.
I see some changes in war policy right now.
If a commander had asked for 40 thousand new troops during the Bush reign ,they’d already be on the way no questions asked.
He will be thoroughly criticized no matter which charity he chooses.
The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama was a dopey choice. The left side of the blogosphere is supposed to be the fact based side, and there are no facts that justify this choice. Obama gave a few speeches, great. If we look at what he has done and what he is doing, the outlook is grim. It is rather like awarding Paris Hilton an Oscar for her movie career, not really that she has had one, but on the offhand chance that she might, and might actually be good at it.
Just because the kooks on the right are upset about this doesn’t mean that it’s right. They have also been bellyaching about healthcare reform. So have all of us on the left, but for radically different reasons.
In response to demi October 10th, 2009 at 8:42 am @ 43
I don’t think Twain’s point was that anyone has to “fall in line.”
Twain’s saying that we don’t always have to focus on what’s wrong, but that we can also take a moment to praise an accomplishment (even imperfect ones!) rather than complain about what wasn’t accomplished.
I tend to agree. I’d rather find a way to take action in the hope of improving things than just complain about how bad this is or that is.
I try to think in terms of the echo chamber, and how to avoid finding in it!
Write letters to members of Congress, to the White House, to leaders of associations and other groups, to local journalists.
Make contributions to FDL Action, to other groups working toward common goals, to the Democratic Party, to The National Association of Free Clinics.
Click here to see the email from Congressman Grayson, stating his support for real health care reform and asking Americans to sign his petition to Senator Harry Reid, which I’ve posted at FDL.
Sign petitions!
Click here to see the email from Congressman Grayson, stating his support for real health care reform and asking Americans to sign his petition to Senator Harry Reid, which I’ve posted at FDL.
Although it was unintentional on the part of the Bush Admin, their intransigence in the area of foreign policy has actually benefitted the current administration by giving Obama an opportunity to play good cop to Bush’s bad cop.
A man of peace would have already brought 40,000 or more troops home.
I don’t think Twain’s point was that anyone has to “fall in line.”
I didn’t think so either. Sorry if my comment implied that.
Twain has never struck me as the good little soldier type.
Jane has always said “don’t use Republican talking points.” To criticize Obama is fine and should be done, but sometimes it’s not just that. Sometimes it’s just plain ugly and mean-spirited. What does that gain for us? We hand the wingnuts their talking point.
I think in the spirit of the award, the money should go to some international relief organization. I don’t know if they qualify as a charity but something like the UN World Food Programme or the World Health Organization might be good choices.
I’m not a good soldier. I have not been pleased at all with many of the things Obama has done – probably even most. I do like to be rational in my thinking and just feel that some of the things we have expected in the early months have not been realistic. And we don’t have to cut him off at the knees to express our displeasure. Name calling is silly.
The first link I meant to put up above @54 was this one:
Olbermann: Donate to The National Association of Free Clinics (NAFC).
Typing way too fast!
Betwixt and be Twain.:)
((Twain))
Name calling is a form of judgement, I think. It is dehumanizing.
I’m just an old lady who has seen so much and although life is a bit more difficult for me now, I still love my country and applaud the good things
It’s politics , bring ‘em home and you will be attacked ferociously from the right ,don’t bring ‘em home you’re attacked from the left.
I think he’s looking for a way out ,while not giving ammunition to his opponents .
Here ya go
http://firedoglake.com/2009/10/09/president-obama-wins-nobel-peace-prize-wingnuts-throw-collective-temper-tantrum/
The Taliban are more deserving huh.
I heard that President Obama is donating all of the $1.4 million that he will receive for the prize. Don’t know yet where the money will go.
[Finally got the reply function to work, if just this once!]
There was a thread once, where Loo Hoo asked you about the derivation of your handle. I didn’t see your reply. Will you kindly share?
PS I love your name, though. I can call you Rat and not be accuse of name calling. *G*
Oh, yeah. Real fact-based comment from the left, huh?
Amen, sister. Your voice and counsel are always most welcome.
Moderation in all things (but don’t overdo it)… “g”
How can Obama claim a pro Peace position while simultaneously be increasing the Military budget ? What do we call a person who perpetuates mayhem while claiming benign intent? – Nobel Laureate?
In Firefox if you refresh the page before you finish typing your reply the comment attribution is removed. Clicking the reply link on the original comment will turn it back on.
In Safari I have to finish and post my comment before refreshing or I lose what I typed. Don’t know about the other browsers.
Increasing the military budget by borrowing money and adding to the deficit, while refusing to provide universal health care to Americans because he does not want to bust the budget and add to the deficit is an amazing feat of intellectual gymnastics.
Smart commentary avoids the herd mentality and Kool-Aid drinking.
I never overdo moderation :)
Here ya go.
At least you didn’t wake up this morning and find yourself a citizen of North Korea or China. That’s enough to give me a small happiness.
Obama is in good company. Here’s 1996 Nobel peace laureate Jose Ramos Horta, concluding an article on his support for the invasion of Iraq:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005071
Gotcha. Now I’m hungry. Must. Make. Breakfast.
I’d hope that Americans, especially progressives, would not measure our successes by how far we have come from examples of failure, but would stand affirmatively for values and principles that we’re supposed to all hold in common.
The fact is that our tax dollars are being used to commit war crimes, mostly in order to secure supplies of cheap petroleum, and that those war crimes are the genesis of asymmetrical warfare directed against us in retaliation.
Since this is a discussion of the Nobel Peace Prize, I’d hope that this reminder of the realities of US foreign policy, a foreign policy the basis of which is not subject to electoral review, was not mistaken.
2013 for health care. Nice. Another several hundred thousand people without proper treatment will die or be diagnosed with problems that could have been cured with proper screening. Or will it be a million or 10?
I agree that the Nobel is deserved, based on the things that he will do. Mr. President, what will those things be?Will we live to see them? It is time to go to work.
You seriously can’t buy the comparison of the postwar Indonesian regimes to Saddam Hussein, or the East Timor insurrection or Umkhonto we Sizwe to the US invasion of Iraq, can you? The slaughter of those rebelling against Suharno and Suharto’s Sumatran regime on the periphery of the Jakarta orbit or the ANC’s popular liberation struggle cannot be seriously be compared to what happened in Iraq prior to the US invasion.
Mandela and Ramos Horta had broad popular support behind their liberation struggles and their movements had worked tirelessly to garner global support for their people. Nothing similar can be said about the US invasion of Iraq, which was ostensibly to stop WMD, and then became about democratization but is really about….wait for it….destroying a country so that we can have more, easier access to cheap oil.
This sort of low bar bull, will before long have us waking up in a third world country reminiscent of the Soviet Union before its fall.
It was not unintentional … Bush was following the standard American Foreign Policy, which has been around since the Cold War. He went extreme with it, but it was carefully planned and executed to keep handing Billions to Big Oil and MIC.
This wasn’t unintentional and Bush/Cheney were not dummies, they are War Criminals.
The world would do better if the US were not voraciously consuming resources that we take from others by threat, intimidation or military force.
I only meant that Bush’s assistance in making his successor look better by comparison was unintentional.
I guess the Nobel committee thinks that as the second shoe drops marking the real end of the Cold War, the demise of the unipolar US empire, Obama will take care to ensure that when we do go splat, the resulting juices won’t splatter over everyone else’s finery.
Like the Soviet Union decomposing into Russia, the US is facing a triple whammy of economic, military and political deterioration. Obama seems to have taken steps to bring the US back to baseline from the Bush hole, but that only gets us to Clinton bombing the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, an aspirin factory in the Sudan and firing cruise missiles indiscriminately into civilian areas of Iraq.
But political rehabilitation will not do much to counter the economic and military damage the US continues to do in order to sustain our unsustainable standard of living.
This is a much better thread than some of yesterday’s, where I put up my criticism of the overly-idealistic criticizers.
Obama is not perfect, his defects need to be countered by organized pressure from our side. Yet far too many comments yesterday were sounding just like Michael Steele. The first big point: can’t you see that the award for Obama is a huge net positive for “the left” simply because it makes the wingnuts heads’ explode?
Second big point: Obama is not perfect. He needs pressure from an ORGANIZED left wing, ideally one based on a thorough criticism of international military and corporate imperialism, and the social and personal imperialisms of the right that sabotage democracy here in America.
When will the commenters of FDL show as much enthusiasm for discussing and entering into models of organization, as they show for idealistic criticism (too often with little or no grounding in the reality of any type of grouping or organization of citizens who might be able to counter the power situation being criticized) of various unjust situations in all phases of life, or snarkfests of sarcasm and in-jokes which don’t ultimately help anyone (except to the extent that you feel great about yourself in your lonely pizza-box-encrusted basement because of the great snarky line you got off).
If I saw that these comment threads were at least being considered as a tool for organization that might actually help us fight the corporate d**kheads and the Republican and Democratic politicians they own, I would look on the idealistic criticisms of the idealistic left with much more favor and approval.
When it’s all just, “Obama isn’t perfect enough for me, so I’m going to make nasty comments and hide in my room and never sacrifice anything of my ideals in the effort to build organization(s) that can actually counter right-wing power, and convince myself that my isolation and ineffectiveness is somehow much more pure and correct than anyone else could possibly be,” yeah, then I’m going to be one of the biggest critics of the idealistic left-wing critics.
I congratulate Obama, but actions speak louder than words, and I do not regret my decision long ago to judge him by what he does and not what he says. His words have inspired hope in the hearts of millions of people around the world where before there was only despair, and that is an incredible achievement no one else accomplished or could have accomplished.
Pray that he meant what he said, or if he didn’t — as many of his acts indicate — that this award will impress upon him the awesome responsibility and burden to do his best to change the world for the better. That is all that I ask.
For starters, I want him to stop treating liberals and progressives like dirt, give us a place at the table, and listen to what we have to say.
Your comment reads as if you might need to take a long look in the mirror yourself.
I’ll bite. How do we create an opt-in model of grassroots organizing where folks can subscribe to areas of interest and be called upon to take direct action to move the agenda in a progressive direction?
The veal pen is comprised of two-tier groups, where a paid membership elects a board of directors (or they self perpetuate) who chooses executive staff. In general, the boards of directors in the veal pen prefer to find a celebrity ED and then to support them in following the policies they prefer. The problem with this model is that it approaches that of a unitary executive. The marginalization of the shareholders in this model makes nonprofits less democratic than many for profit corporations. We’ve got to remember that at the end of the day, nonprofits are organized on an authoritarian corporate model, that’s the nature of the beast and it brings with it substantial baggage.
That model needs to be upended so that the shareholders, average folks, can participate in a triad of corporate governance, where there is interplay between the board of directors, staff and shareholders. In fact, nonprofits should be required to identify who is not at their table but who should be and to find ways to broaden the participatory base. Playing exclusive keep away means that the policy products put forth will not take into account important but perennially underrepresented constituencies.
An ever more difficult task involves how to take the folks who are politically progressive by one measure, enviro, labor, health, transit, housing, etc, and offer up a chance for cross pollenation? Breaking down the barriers between single issue groups, or at least facilitating mutual aid across campaigns to magnify numbers has to be done. A progressive political exchange where calls to action can be disseminated for coordinated action is essential. Ideally, we’d have an infrastructure in place that could respond to the next Van Jones in real time instead of being blindsided by it.
We’ve come further than most here in SF as far as bringing together a progressive coalition to win elections, but even with a simple majority on the board of supervisors, corporate SF is still running circles around us. Our local veal pen is serving as a cap on activism by monopolizing access and resources, keeping themselves employed, but not even approaching resolution to critical problems.
Prolly incorrect … his successors were McCain & Palin … *g*
Many on this site have valid arguments with BHO and his policies, do not demean and belittle them.
A politician is a politician and an active citizenry is what keeps them from becoming dictators.
What is needed is to separate the honest disagreements from the dishonest ones and for that, you have to hang around here an awful lot more before you decide to judge anyone here.
Sorry, Raven. I’m fickle. (((PacificCoastRon)))
Let’s look at what we all have in common. We are at this site because we care about our country, our planet. We are here because we are passionate about our values. Passion can sometimes turn into disagreements.
We are here at this site this morning because we are procrastinating all of our Saturday chores.
*G*
Bar-Bar-Bar-Bar-Barbara …
LOL !!!
It seems among the critics that they feel that he some how “ran” for the Nobel. He didn’t.
“…help us fight the corporate d**kheads and the Republican and Democratic politicians they own”
Obama’s appointment of Summers, Geithner, etc. makes him the “corporate d**khead” in Chief, – so what exactly are you pushing here, other than smugness?
And, wouldn’t the world be a boring place if we were all the same?
I agree. Horta was very wrong on Iraq and Obama’s so-called “good” war in Afghanistan is not going to solve the long-term problems of that country or our problems with terrorism.
There is something to be said about confronting bogus charges instead of allowing them to stand, but it is always easy to fall into the trap of legitimating our irrational opponents by giving them too much of our time.
I think that everyone who can be has been convinced that the majority of people who control the Republican Party are an irrational sect, and that we’re not going to be able to persuade those not convinced to rethink their position. As a queer, I’m okay with the fact that there are people out there who no matter what we do will hate me for being queer. We’ve got to learn to accept that no matter how hard we try, there are people who will simply not be reachable, and that we’ve got to move on, forward. The fact that some are irreconcilable imbeciles opposed to our position does not diminish our position, in fact, it makes us stronger. We need to walk in power rather than to play defense against the irrational.
While I never thought Obama was the Progressive Dream Candidate, I always thought that his background as a community organizer — he actually has a pretty good history of working with real folks pre-politics, if anyone cares to look into it — spoke to a genuine desire to to good on behalf of ordinary people. I could never buy into the picture of him as completely soulless corporate creature.
I find myself incredibly frustrated with how things are being run in his administration, how slow some things seem to happen, how anti-progressive/liberal some of the moves seem to be. I watched Moyers and Marcy Kaptur last night and was enraged. I’ve told the DNC, OFA and DSCC they’re not getting a dime or a minute more unless a Public Option happens.
But I remind myself of the entrenched system he’s stepped into (or is that “steeped in”?), from the Village to the Military to Congress to the GOP and the VRWC to K Street — and I think, how the FUCK could anyone change that from the inside at all, let alone within a year? Or a term? How could you completely dismantle the machinery on day one? And barring that, how can you use or co-opt it without becoming entangled in it?
I know I’ll be slagged as a craven apologist for saying so, but some things actually do take time — if they’re not going to become Pyhrric victories or noble failures. And some strategies do look insane or counterproductive until the proper conditions reveal their merits. “Democracy” in this country has been seriously compromised, especially during the last Administration. I want real change too, but I never for a second believed that it would happen without a desperate and lengthy struggle. No real change EVER happens that quickly, no matter how much sense it seems to make.
Not to say that I’ve bought into 12-dimensional chess master Obama — I just think that on balance we’re better off than we have been for the past 8 years, contrary to what many people believe, and there is ample hope that things can be improved and momentum sustained with effort on all our parts — hey! That sounds like participatory Democracy.
Also contrary to what many seem to believe, it seems obvious to me that Progressive voices both inside and outside Washington DO carry more weight now. No matter how foot-draggy and annoyed Obama and co may seem, they hear what’s being said and it is having an effect on policy, as anyone who follows this blog and supports ActBLue or Blue America can attest. That’s change I can believe in.
Okay, fire away. ;)
The same way that FDR did, by taking bold action that challenges the vested interests which are causing the problems, supported by a mobilized population ready for change?
“No real change EVER happens that quickly, no matter how much sense it seems to make.”
Considering the economic meltdown and the overnight transfer of trillions from the masses to the few, I’d have to say that your claim is bogus.
Obama could act like a believer, – like an Alan Grayson, or a Bernie Sanders, or a Kucinich, Kaptur, or Barbara Lee! Instead he will walk us back two steps after we’ve been force marched ten. And that, my friend just does not compute!
Obama is more like Hoover than FDR at this juncture, which means if he fails to take bold steps to pull up from the economic nosedive, the next FDR will come from the right wing.
I mostly agree with you, but I don’t believe the two situations are as easily analogized. I think the vested interests are far more entrenched, sophisticated and entwined in what is now Global, not just domestic, finance, and the population is much harder to ‘mobillize’ now.
I think it’s a vastly different world than pre-WW2 America, and that kind of barnstorming change may just be a nostalgic fantasy. Not that I don’t think that it could be achieved — I just don’t see how it could happen as quickly as I would like, and I doubt that it was as pretty or as easy in FDR’s time as many tend to paint it (’Come on, PEBO! Just wave a little FDR over it and it’ll be fine!’).
No way.
While there is a strong populist, anti ‘Communist Capitalism” (Dylan Ratigan?) backlash coming from the right, an FDR will never enter the stage from the right.
“Obama could act like a believer!”
I’m not saying he couldn’t. I think he probably does as much as a modern President who wants to be re-elected in this climate does — the man is, after all, a politician.
As far as the economic meltdown, that took decades to create. Sure, the actual theft was swift, but the conditions that gave the financial industry the gun to point at everyone’s collective head took years and years to create. So I think you’re wearing the bogus hat right now.
And as far as your prediction that “he will walk us back two steps after we’ve been force marched ten”, well, okay. Sure. Whatever you say. Got any great stock tips for me? What do you think of the Dodgers next week? Will the world really end in 2012?
You don’t really know, do you? No. And neither do I. So can we stop trafficking in silly overwrought prognostications?
Our opponents have adapted, if we don’t evolve and adapt in turn, we’ll go extinct. Excusifying does not change that grim reality.
Obama has chosen to support a few zombie Wall Street gamblers who should have been wiped out, and that choice has prolonged the agony for Americans. The fact is that the country is being run by Wall Street, the “intelligence community,” and the “national security community.” Obama’s election seems to prove that those areas of policy, the precise ones which are taking the US down, are not subject to democratic debate or election.
In FDR’s day, the interests were as powerful as now and the government less powerful, yet FDR managed to crack heads.
If anything, we have a greater potential for organizing right now with unmediated many to many communication at our fingertips. But if people’s hopes are raised and then summarily dashed, they tend to avoid getting screwed again and again and again, don’t like Lucy Van Pelt pulling up the football every time.
from the will of Alfred Nobel:
admiring words from neo-con Robert Kagan, co-founder of PNAC, remember them?
the Nobel committee has done some more self-inflicted damage to its reputation, which is why so many people’s first, honest and genuine reaction was that the nomination was a joke.
“encouragement towards future progress”? tell that to survivors and relatives of those victimized by American bombs under Obama’s military. Tell that to National Guardsmen, who want to get home to their families intact rather than live under bombardment, occupying foreign lands.
That Shephard Fairey “Hope” poster has turned so many into the kind of loyal Party Followers who gazed adoringly at portraits of Soviet Leaders. That socialist realism graphic style was initially adopted mockingly, ok?
Unconditional love is for babies, kittens and puppies, not presidents.
“…the conditions that gave the financial industry the gun to point at everyone’s collective head took years and years to create. So I think you’re wearing the bogus hat right now.”
Oh, yes, the shit has been piling up ever since Saint Ronny declared the Government to be the enemy of the people, – but that wasn’t my main point. I was refering to the UNCONDITIONAL surrender of the wealth of the nation to a few Obama cronies on Wall Street.
I completely agree with everything you say — I don’t think I’m excusifying, I’m saying that conditions are different and change is not going to happen overnight. Adapting to new conditions isn’t the same thing as suddenly finding a magic wand.
You talk about who’s really running America but your formula for ending that hegemony is — what? How do you attack the problem? What are the actual mechanics of that? Because ‘BOLD!!’ in and of itself isn’t an answer.
My whole point is that this is a deeply corrupt and tangled system that is not going to be subject to easy or neat dismantling. And the fact that the existing machinery, as repellent as much of it is, actually runs the country (and much of the world) makes it more difficult to start pulling apart without engaging in it to some degree. You can see this as ‘excusifying’, but I just think it’s reality.
As far as your last point, well, you make my point. But if people are actually willing to just throw in the towel because they’re disheartened after nine months, well, to hell with ‘em. Even FDR didn’t do it all by himself.
By this point in Roosevelt’s term, he’d declared a bank holiday, wiped out the bad banks, and covered deposits.
FDR did not take his overwhelming majority in Congress and bend over backwards to tongue the nether regions of a minority party that is certifiably detached.
Obama gives the Republicans more cred than he gives the progressives who elected him, and that will be his undoing.
over at Greenwald’s, today, a bit of recent history. The banks whose recklessness led to the crisis last year consolidated a lot of power under Democrat Bill Clinton, and his Treasury Secretary, on loan from Goldman Sachs, Robert Rubin. mentor to Tim Geithner.
citing in turn Bill Moyers:
Saint Ronny had less to do with the current crisis than Saint Bill.
Again, there would not have been the power to force an unconditional surrender if the groundwork had not been laid by several decades of deregulation and chicanery. And it started under Bush, so now these people magically become only “Obama cronies”?
Why not just ask for his birth certificate, while you’re at it?
Obama may be every bit the complete craven fascist sellout that many paint him as. He may be in it solely to clock his eight years in the service of his corporate overlords and retire to a life on the board of Goldman Sachs and motivational speaking engagements at AIG retreats. He may sincerely believe that the world is a better place with more dead Afghan babies and newlyweds. He may be just as bad as Bush. I sincerely hope not, but he may actually be that guy. The jury is still out.
My point is not to make excuses, but to recognize that it’s a vastly corrupt system and I don’t see how you reform it or even take it on — while simultaneously running the country in something like its normal form — without getting your hands dirty and sometimes alienating those on whose behalf you’re working.
Ronny and Bill did the Con’s tango on us – yes indeed, but now we have this DLC’r and we need to resist his snake oil remedies and siren’s song – as the quality of working peoples lives, world over, depends on it.
How many FDL folks would answer this polling question with “approve?”
“Do you approve or disapprove of how President Barack Obama is handling health policy reform?”
Again, that was in the 1930’s. America was not yet the most powerful nation in the world, our economy was structure completely differently and there wasn’t a ‘global financial industry’ the way there is now.
As far as the amount of tonguing of the Repubs, yeah, it pisses me off too, but I tend to think it’s been more of a bid to solidify gains among Independents and Moderate Republicans than it is evidence that he’s a closet Conservative or a psychologically damaged weakling. And FDR himself had no shortage of critics on the Left; Huey Long, anyone?
An FDR for 2009 would be great, and I wish to God Obama was or could become that guy — but even if he did, you still can’t fight today’s war using yesterday’s strategy.
Mercury, – you are [Edited by Moderator] and your grasp recent history is proof.
“Started under Bush” – Glass Steagall?
[Mod Note: Only attack the argument]
Now the people who really are steeped in reactive Obama hatred, left and right, are howling over this.
Horse hockey. This is the sort of rationalization George W. Bush’s followers used to denigrate anyone who dared to criticize him – that we’re all just a bunch of poopy heads who hate the guy for no good reason. It’s a component of nearly every defense of this award that I’ve read, including this one. It’s been notably absent from most of the criticisms I’ve read by progressives and moderates.
There’s plenty of reason to believe this prize is premature at best, and potentially embarrassing at worst.
Since the US is being pushed out of the airplane right about now, I’d hope our pilot would put on the parachute and pull the cord, because its going to be a long, hard fall from unipolar superpower otherwise.
To the contrary, he’s kicking in the teeth “them what brung him to the daince.”
Dear Mr. Fuckno, YOUR grasp of MY recent history is…whatever nasty thing you said about me.
When I wrote “it started under Bush” I was referring to your ‘unconditional surrender to Obama’s cronies’ statement — i.e., the bailout, which did indeed start under Bush. Right?
I myself wrote earlier, and more than once, that the conditions which made that surrender and blackmail possible were decades in the making — i.e., Glass Steagall, etc. I guess you didn’t read that part, or something.
So, please, take it easy, put a cool towel on your weary little head. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear enough for you, but there’s no reason to get nasty.
it’s your pedantic pomposity thats a bit jarring. – nothing personal, really.
Just wanted to say I have enjoyed your calm, rational and reality-based arguments in this thread. You have reflected many of my thoughts regarding Obama, the situation he inherited, and his (lack of) performance to date – and have teased out well the differences between fact, conjecture and feeling that are so often conflated in such discussions.
Sorry if this has been mentioned previously, but the link to Juan Cole’s article didn’t work for me. It’s a valid link, but Salon won’t let me go there directly. I first had to go to the regular link and then hit the “Print” link there.
Thanks, db. As far as I’m concerned the jury’s still out on the guy, but I don’t expect unicorns or even FDR from him. That doesn’t mean I don’t get pissed off and downhearted. I just don’t see how it’s that easy a proposition to do something about it.
As for Mr. Fuckno, don’t worry, I don’t take your opinion of my pedantic pomposity personally in the least. You’re just a silly name on a screen.
Sorry I jarred you, however.
I just don’t think he’s ready. I mean, look at what kind of precedent this could set – other similar awards would be ridiculous, as this video illustrates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVDWYAikpYo
Apparently, you’ve not experience unconditional love.
There’s something very humanely lacking from you comment.
What an odd statement, or, possibly, not, seeing that you have no evidence for it.
Are you saying that you have unconditional love for a President?
PW does a little vague calling out:
Look, on this one, I’m 100% in agreement with the apparently steeped-in-self-hate Obama, who said:
And refreshingly, there are a great many on the left, right, and in the center who agree! It looks like the partisan bickering is coming to an end!
Moreover, we have this to be thankful for: Nobody’s been saying “reactive racist Obama hatred” (leaving aside the right, here).
Baby steps toward civility, that all can applaud!
Thank you. The self-organizing things you describe are at the heart of the problem.
I understand your criticism of the small-voting-elite vs. the non-voting larger mass of contributors in the standard non-profit model, it is a problem. However, after trying to work within the framework of the Green political party from 1990-2004, I’m also very frustrated with their iterations of the pure democracy model. It really gets bogged down even at the best of times, and it creates its own “worst of times” out an excess of well-meant motives, when after every election defeat people wish to “go back to basics” and get into an new endless round of committee meetings to create a new “visioning” process that ends up with another jumbo-sized statement of principles that tries to appeal to all factions of the left with idealistic goals, yet in my opinion actually marginalizes the Party further (as people who may agree with some of the specific statements may have problems with some other specific ideals, as the ideals themselves grow detached from reality in the search for political correctness, and by providing opportunities for further disruption of the volunteers acting on practical problems later, as some new idealistic volunteer comes in and says ‘hey, what about my cherished ideals X and Y’ when the committee was trying to work on Z.)
So it’s all very much a problem, IF WE HAVE TO HAVE EVERYTHING AGREED IN ADVANCE before anyone will join or get to work. I don’t know what the answer is. The main thing I was thinking of this morning was a series of essays/diaries trying to get across the point of a modern, democratic-pragmatist critique of “left-wing-infantilism” or less insultingly, “left-wing-perfectionism.” We are all working for that perfect ideal society where all dreams come true and there are ponies and rainbows everywhere. But there is no blueprint, we all understand that we have slightly different versions of the truth, and we can work together as adults knowing that this earthly plane is not a place to seek perfection.
Let me copy four long paragraphs here that get at where I’d like to see us going, that I wrote as a personal letter to another activist back in August. The first paragraph goes over the concerns I tried to express above, the next three get into the model of political organization I’d love to see. My wife and I have some pleasant errands this afternoon, I don’t pretend to have all the answers. Yet I’d love to get the conversation going. If I thought there was a real enthusiasm, I’ve got a couple of thousand to invest as seed money (if I think it will lead to a new job for me in the future) and I am a master of building organization on a shoe-string budget), a couple of tech-types to do the dirty work of making and placing web ads and we could get a start on it. Sorry about all these incredibly long run-on sentences here, but I’ve been grappling with these problems for years and have a lot of thoughts to convey.
Copying from my letter of August: So I’ve had my fill of earnest-but-useless committee-meetings of tiny activist groups with no budget, and I am fairly determined that I want to avoid that in any new group that gets built. Yes, of course, we have to be democratic, yes, yes it is even more important to get the benefits of what grassroots efforts people can make … but the Green Party model of absolute grass-roots democracy with every chapter having to approve every tactic with endless meetings, is, in my firm opinion, a participation and energy-killer that needs to be avoided. Somehow there has to be an effective model that energizes the grass-roots to do what they can do best, yet also does not hobble the leadership cadres who do have more experience and often have better vision, from providing more creative leadership.
The thing that I’d like to get into, which I guess is really a long-term education project as much as it’s a political project, is an analysis of the typical Democratic Party politician as a version of a corporate PR spokesman, whose apparent liberalism is only a cover for greedy personal ambition. They know the proper liberal things to say to get approval from our grassroots, yet their real focus is on their own career, and getting enough lobbyist/corporate donations to run corporate-type top-down campaigns, relying to totally false and misleading TV ads. The media and conventional wisdom has accepted this model of political behavior as the norm, thus the media is surprised and skeptical of any attempt to oppose it; yet the popular cynicism that does affect 40-60% of the public-at-large, I believe shows a basic understanding of the same issues that I’m trying to focus on, giving us a huge base to build on if we could communicate it effectively. Short version: Most Dem politicians are lying weenies, and we can prove it. If it seems like they belong to a privileged class, well, it’s because they belong to a privileged class. So maybe it’s a media education project, to get them to deal with the cynical truth that the public knows in its gut.
And then there’s the second part of the problem of trying to get useless establishment Dem. politicians out of the way, without giving the country over to Republicans who are demonstrably worse: the logic of the two-party system and the plurality-winner-takes-all voting system allows the establishment Dems to sit on liberals and radicals all through each biennial fall campaign, saying over and over again, “you gotta go with our guy because the other guy is probably worse.” This is what kills the Greens over and over, and after being with the Greens and seeing how fiercely the organized parties and their friends in the media defend the two-party model, they know they’re doing it precisely to kill any third parties. The Greens have mostly responded to this with earnest, no-budget attempts to get better voting systems such as the ranked choice or “instant Runoff” model, which go over nicely … to the 2% of the population the Greens are already reaching.
My nervous energy is demanding a much more serious response to this problem. The best thing I can come up with a cadre-education effort to create a political party that has two organizational forms, one within the Democratic party and one outside the Democratic party, and using them ruthlessly against sell-out Dems as necessary. They get opposed by the group within the party (whose official candidate will of course take the conventional pledge to support the nominee, but his base won’t), and if they can beat us in the primary, we’ll use the second group (and we’ll have our voters switching registrations tactically as often as their state’s laws will allow) to go after them in the general. Where they will again use the argument that 3rd parties never get anywhere, and if we “split the vote” the Republican will win. Which we will counter by having a very cold-blooded calculation to be announced a few days before the election: where we will fight to the end, risking that Republican victory, and where we will tactically withdraw in favor of casting enough ballots for the establishment Dem to allow them to win — yet not doing it with friendship, but with a full final blast our messaging power to both the Establishment Dem, and to the media, saying how unhappy and dis-satisfied we are and how we will continue doing everything we can to either push the Dem to the left, or replace him/her soonest.
Hey, sorry if you saw smugness in my comments, not what I was trying to convey. See my longer statement above for more details.
I’m not asking anyone to “fall in line” with Obama and the corporate Dems. I was trying to communicate the larger historical vision, the Peace Prize award to Obama is a tiny bit of added momentum to the decades-long momentum of various overlapping categories of the social, cultural and political “leftists” (of all degrees from just past centrism to far beyond Marx, Bakunin, Ghandi or anyone else).
Let’s keep that momentum building, not get hung up with today’s insult on Obama’s failure to meet our ideals. All things considered, I say that even for uncompromising far-leftists it’s better that Obama is sitting in that chair than McCain or Palin (after he’s deceased).
Interesting:
Precedent for success? Say, in the 1850s-60s?
Reactive Obama hater Glenn Greenwald writes:
Yep.