As you may know I’m a big fan of OpenLeft and Paul Rosenberg is one of my particular favorites.
I asked for and received permission to quote at length a piece he wrote today which, while he may claim my excerpt mischaracterizes his position, thoroughly captures mine.
Ridgelines and River Bottoms
by: Paul Rosenberg
Sun Oct 25, 2009 at 17:30
… Obama is, at bottom, a conservative, notwithstanding some cultural inclinations to the contrary. When all is said and done, he wants to change things as little as possible, his desire for change is driven by a perceived necessity to avoid disaster, and the priorities and parameters of change are dictated by doing as much as possible for those representing existing power, and doing as little as possible for everyone else. This is what classic Burkean conservatives believe in, along with the ideal of unifying the polity, and marginalizing all divisive forces.
Divisive forces, for those not clued in, means you and me, pardners. Every bit as much as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. For a classic conservative like Obama, it really makes no difference whatsoever if the divisive forces are right or rational. All that matters is that they resist going along. And because of Obama’s essential conservatism, it’s you and I who are the problem in Obama’s eyes. Not Baucus, Nelson, Lieberman & the like. You and I. We are the problem.
And since we are the problem, we’ve got to get a whole lot better at it. Because if we can make ourselves insoluble, then that will force Obama to accept us, however much he may hate doing so.
And that is the only way that we will get what we want.
…
… (T)oward that end, we need to become very, very good at separating the wheat from the chaff. And very, very good at saying, “No!” and sticking with it.
In order to do this, we must be willing to risk taking losses. Because, quite frankly, losses are always a possibility–and generally become even more likely whenever you go on defense, no matter how reasonable it may seem. That’s why I’ve argued that we should not, and cannot support a bill with individual mandates and no public option. This will be political poison, and the only question is “How fast will it act?”
19 comments
Skip to comment form
Author
would even know who Burke is. I am sure Obama does.
Interesting. Must think about this.
not sure about the top. i have not studied obama closely enough to reach any kind of serious conclusion. i also have to admit that i am still in the camp of hoping that growing up african american in a white world and his years of community organizing have rendered him less conservative than paul perceives. as much as we have seen evidence of this, i am loathe to accept it just yet.
I LOVE it.
This is sort of what I was trying to talk about in my comments earlier today in buhdy’s piece. Sorta.
I said this all along that Obama was not a liberal just from his short voting history in the Senate. He has left some of the worst of Bushes policies in place and allowed the continued use of telecommunications surveillance and signing statements. His lack of support of a robust public option open to all is not surprising. Though I wouldn’t go so far as to say he is a Bush redux,, he certainly is so far a Clinton redux. All you have to do is look at the people he has surrounded him self with in the Treasury. Obama is his supporters worst fears, Hillary in a less colorful pant suit.
The part I can’t get past is that his campaign was a lie, and he’s the liar. I also can’t get past the fact that he’s Bush’s third term and worse than having Clinton back in the WH. In any event, I’m all in for no. No money, no votes, no support. I’ve been here since 06, with no where else to go. Where I differ is that Paul thinks its his inclination, and I think he’s just another paid for flunky.
From a great diary by Cassiodorus:
I’ve felt for many months that Obama is essentially a conservative.
He understands that his rhetoric must be more on the liberal side, that many/most Dems are susceptible to personality cult machinations.
I would love to hear a tape of his behind the door exchanges, w/Rahm or whoever. I think his DLC purity would surprise may of his supporters.
but I think it’s appropriate here too:
I don’t subscribe to all of John Pilger’s views but, overall, I think he’s right on the money here.
is what we did with Obama. Makes no sense to try and make the glass slipper fit the wrong foot. I agree with Paul, we should be the rational party of No. The problem is as I see it most people thought this was a fix and that as Hillary said the ‘Sky would part etc……’and they cannot see the landscape in any other way.
However losses are useful too, once people realize they have lost and that their fears of the return of the Republican bad cops, falling too bigs and terrorists are all part of the con and their reality is worse then their fears. Fear has been turned towards phantoms. Fearing loss in many cases is fearing winning. It’s upside down, the cart before the horse.
It’s hard to admit that you have been bamboozled but when they start yanking money right out of your pocket, and your told the only thing that counts is wealth and profit and peace is war, I think it easier to say No! Our work it would seem is to turn the so called political realists into actual pragmatists. Left of the Left is in actuality the middle and no amount of rhetoric, can hide the reality were living through. I do believe we’ve had enough, maybe not, but a few more ‘wins’ that make life hell, may make the majority actually stop fearing and do something, other then blame the doggies or their constituents or the demographics of mass destruction.
Rosenberg is right on. Since Obama always tries to evade pain, being [a] pain is our best weapon. As long as we cause or threaten him pain, he will have to deal with us.
But not a Goldwater conservative–who would say you’ve got to take your bad tasting medicine, not take a sedative, to get better.
At some point, a form of true conservatism will meet a true progressivism and we will take this country back.