Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Clarity begins at home

vastleft's picture

Paul Rosenberg:

If "exaggeration, compulsiveness and inflexibility" don't describe Obama's infatuation with consensus and compromise, I don't know what does. What's more, reaction formation also helps explain Obama's hostility towards progressives who want him to actually do something-whether they be single-payer advocates pressing for real health care reform...

Could be. I'm curious, though, whether Paul has a theory that explains Open Left's hostility to single-payer advocates.

Sure we're all "assholes," as John Emerson called Lambert before they locked the latter's account. Maybe that's all there was to it, and if we were more likable, OL would have pushed for what Paul (here) and we (always) call "real reform."

0
No votes yet

Comments

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

bipartainship and consensus is just a cover for the fact that Obama wants to continue the kleptocratic policies of Bush.

there is NO other explanation for his proposed raid on social security.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

That a fetish for bipartisanship leads Obama to home in on policies that satisfy Village consensus (i.e., extreme rightwing-compliant).

Same result, just switching the cause and effect. I wouldn't rule it out.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

Obama made noises about supporting lefty policies, but he also showed quite plainly that when the rubber hit the road, he was going to go Reagan/Bush every single time.

The only reason he was able to hornswoggle so many people was that he didn't have a real record to prove that he was lying about what he believed in and what he would do in certain situations.

He doesn't get that now, when he starts speechifying about how he's going to fight against Washington, it sounds schizophrenic, not inspirational. He doesn't understand that now that he has a record of breaking every promise he's made to the liberal base, his stump speeches from 2008 don't exactly ring true.

I still see so many lefty pundit types saying, "Well, even though he hasn't kept his promise, I think he sincerely believed it when he said...." Why? Why do they think he's sincere when he does exactly the opposite of what he says he's going to do? What part of OBAMA HAS ABSOLUTE POWER do they not understand?

I don't think the President really gives a shit about being post-partisan. He just wants money and power, and knows that the best way to do it is to transfer as much wealth as he can from the proles to the .0001%.

basement angel's picture
Submitted by basement angel on

Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Obama believes that he is sufficiently genius and transcendent that he can bring people together to do what HE wants and further, he thinks people are stupid enough to fall for him so he can get away with it. Why does he think that? Because they did.

Obama went in intending do what he wanted and presumed that he is sufficiently charismatic that the left would go along with him. He knew he was going to be doing what the right wanted because that's where the money is. And guys like him have fun hurting people.

Obama is just your basic sociopath albeit with better developed skills than most of them. If you look at everything that has transpired through that lens, it all makes sense.

ntoddpax's picture
Submitted by ntoddpax on

I'm one for reaching out and looking at all this through the lens of systems thinking, but BHO seems to have fetishized the bipartisan thing because of his time in the Senate, not to mention a rampant, maybe inherent, Democratic fear that the GOP will bash them for governing with, you know, a dominant majority.

Nadai's picture
Submitted by Nadai on

was obsessed with this bipartisan crap long before he was elected to the Senate. Remember his 2004 DNC convention speech - no red states, no blue states? That was months before he was elected to the Senate.

letsgetitdone's picture
Submitted by letsgetitdone on

Does it matter which is which? From our point of view, we've learned to ignore what Obama says and to watch what he does. What he's doing is ruining our country and leading us to that second dip.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

There's usually a virtue in having as accurate a mental model as possible, though if for any input, the same output (neo-conservatism) occurs, it's pretty much just an intellectual exercise to differentiate the cause and effect.