|
Edited on Fri Nov-21-08 11:57 PM by Two Americas
I don't understand why that is a sad state of affairs. Woulld it not be a much more obvious and simpler explanation to say that right wingers like this cabinet because this cabinet is shaping up as friendly to the interests of the right wing?
For months and months the DLC was vilified here, and Obama was portrayed as the anti-DLC candidate, yes? I didn't agree with that, but it did happen. Why would it them surprise us that people anticipated a repudiation of the DLC? Certainly, recent events suggest something different than that. Again, why would the reaction by some here surprise us?
For months and months people here said that every idea and concept from the Republican party was to be discarded, that everything they had done and said was anathema. I agreed with that. To then hear an Obama appointee speak for the administration and say "we welcome ideas and concepts" from the Republicans would naturally enough get a negative reaction here.
For months and months we heard that the Clintons personified everything that was wrong with the party, and during the primaries negative comments against the Clintons were more numerous than positive posts about Obama. Now Senator Clinton is being welcomed into the administration and given one of the top offices. Of course that would lead to dissent here.
For months and months we were told to withhold from making any critical remarks about the candidate, and then nominee, for the purposes of getting him and other Dems elected. After that, we were told, we would be free to criticize and we would be "holding his feet to the fire." Now the election is over, and the calls for people to refrain from criticizing and the attacks on those who do have escalated, they have nit abated.
I can't see why anyone is surprised. The reaction and the criticisms of Obama's decisions have, in my view, been extremely tame given what has happened.
My guess is that Obama loyalty - in the sense of the cult of personality - is at odds with the program people thought they were supporting, or told others to support. The resulting cognitive dissonance is causing people to be hyper-sensitive to even the mildest forms of critical analysis of Obama's decisions, because it forces them to look at all of the internal contradictions they are trying to hold on their minds.
That is causing the divisions here, not the actions of the critics. The drama about the supposed drama is much bigger and more destructive than the initial perceived provocation - expressions of "disloyalty" we are to believe.
I say that "give him a chance" and "continue to speak out" are not mutually exclusive, that "be loyal" and "support" does not mean abandon our principles or refrain from giving our critical opinion, and those could only be seen as contradictory because people are too closely and emotionally identifying with the personality of Obama, are in fact thinking like groupies or hero worshipers.
A while bunch of contradictions have been set in motion - not by Obama but by some of his supporters - and now the chickens are coming home to roost. In their frantic efforts to resolve the cognitive dissonance they are experiencing, although they are calling that "support" and "loyalty," some Obama fans are actually doing more damage to the p-arty and the new administration than any one could.
I also think that some of the people engaging in this super-loyalty and hyper-sensitivity to any and all criticism of the new administration are surreptitiously trying to force the administration and the party to the right, and harass those on the Left to distract and confuse people.
|