The New Republic

Greenwald seems to be talking about detention policies and Chait is talking about legislative initiatives. They are talking past each other. I do wish that liberal pundits would focus more on Obama's detention policies. Greenwald seems to be the only real harper on this. And there is a lot of conflicting information out there and it would be nice to have reporters that I trust (and i don't really totally trust Greenwald) focus more on the issue.

- BlueCivic

June 21, 2010 at 3:59pm

criticizing you for supporting Iraq isn't a personal attack, but an irrelevant one. What's even more striking, is that Ezra Klein (!!!!) is listed among the "homogenous party loyalists who cheerleaded the Iraq war"

- miceelf

June 21, 2010 at 4:01pm

How old was Ezra when the Iraq War began? Like 18.

- jimbomoron

June 21, 2010 at 4:21pm

Perhaps this blog should be entitled "Defending Jonathan Chait."

- jacob111

June 21, 2010 at 4:24pm

Most "liberal" critiques of Obama and the Democrats have a credible basis and are not socialistic, pie in the sky, policy or presidential power dreaming that I often feel are the basis of Chait's columns and other tnr posters. A summary and basis of most of these complaints are as follows: . he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. ….the Constitution is not a suicide pact (attributed to) — Abraham Lincoln ..I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require…… — But in the event that the Congress shall fail to [act], and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe. — FDR Our times require presidential leadership that expands the range of what is possible and keeps the public engaged. Reformist presidents, at their best, capture the public sentiment and use it to push through measures opposed by entrenched interests. President Obama has taken on some very tough and complicated issues. But as a political leader, he has largely withdrawn from public engagement on those issues… In fact, he has often spoken to weaken bills dealing with those issues (stimulus package, health care, financial reform, oil spill, climate change, etc., etc.). Obama has consistently erred by imagining that conservatives and Republicans are anything than implacable enemies and trying to obtain bi-partisan cooperation and compromise. Complete waste of time and political resources and produces much worse policy than would otherwise occur. A more assertive, less reactive communications strategy, would prevent some of the political damage Obama is suffering, while preserving more of the administration's leverage to pursue good policy. The ability to rally the people to a cause via the bully pulpit is the strongest weapon any President has. There is never a time to “stop playing politics” as the President constantly advocates for all parties (You’ll get no such repeated oxymoronic quotes from Lincoln, TR, FDR, LBJ, Reagan, or GWB). Democratic government is inherently a political business and any president is inherently a political leader. When making fundamental change, politics must be played—and played to win. I doubt any president listed above who has used the power of the bully pulpit to shape public opinion would have let themselves get hemmed in by something as trivial and mundane as Senate reconciliation procedures or cloture votes - certainly not without attempting to rally public opinion to press for overturn of such reform-preventing traditions over-turnable by a majority vote of the Senate. These aren’t Constitutional issues. When the majority fails to do what's necessary, that is on the majority. They could have blown up the filibuster, but they didn't want to, primarily because many Democrats in the Congress actually prefer Republican policies, and wished an excuse for inaction. Obama knew it. He failed to deliver the message. Democrats with supermajorities in Congress failed to do what was required. They continue to fail, week after week, month after month, as the evidence continues to mount that a second recession is on the way. Obama and Democrats got the stimulus package and other policies off target-- just not as much as much as Republicans. It's hard to see how continued Democratic majorities in Congress will make any difference unless they change their policies and break the filibuster. "Not very good, but better than GWB and the Republicans" is hardly a rousing political message. Obama has said he would sooner be a one-term President than compromise on core principals. What core principals is he saving up for?

- drofnats1

June 21, 2010 at 4:25pm

Yeesh, do we some better commentary from the left or what? Greenwald is stinking up the place. Back in the day Hitchens was great fun. He's a hard act gto follow (just read his book) and I know he's gone rather winger on us, but surely there's someone else out there who can provide cogent, concrete responses from the left.

- WandreyCer

June 21, 2010 at 4:27pm

Sorry, BlueCivic. I disagree with the administration's detention policies. But I'm not going to put it even remotely on par with, oh, 45,000 Americans who die due to inadequate health insurance each year; thousands of children who die of heat stroke each year due to public health hazards from lack of environmental protection; or even my underemployed sister from Virginia state budget cuts. Barack Obama is not some god or cult. He's not even Abraham Lincoln or FDR. Barack Obama certainly has had his share of screw-ups as President. But President Obama has more than fulfilled his end of the bargain with the people who voted for him. And that's all that really matters.

- jimbomoron

June 21, 2010 at 4:30pm

drofhats1, Your post is entirely contradictory. On one hand, you talk about the the transformational President being able to move public opinion. And then you talk about a homogenous, recalcitrant, intransigent Republican Party that is around 45 percent of the country (including "independents"). Well, you can't persuade the unpersuadable, so which is it?

- jimbomoron

June 21, 2010 at 4:36pm

All this liberal ignorance of basic legislative processes is so puzzling. I mean, wasn't Schoolhouse Rock a liberal television program designed to familiarize children with those legislative processes? Wasn't the subtext that kids better learn about how legislation is made so we wouldn't have something like Vietnam again during the next generation? I would have thought someone like Glenn Greenwald would have watched Schoolhouse Rock and taken at least some its lessons to heart. I mean, he wasn't out playing football or deer hunting (or, on the completely opposite side of the cosmopolitan spectrum, going to shul) every Saturday morning, was he?

- wildboy

June 21, 2010 at 4:43pm

I am torn here. I do think though there are circumstances that make it almost impossible to have true progressive government, and I think perhaps Greenwald would do well to recognize it. You have a large corperate media front that attacks anything the least bit left of Reagan era policies as "socialist." So yes, even Nixon's health care plan was seen as a Bolshivik plot by large segments of America because they were told it was by a well funded campaign. So Obama MUST appear to "reach out" to moderates and Republicans because anything hint that he won't will not just be met with attacks by the GOP media front, but perhaps more importantly also by many moderates who have a misplaced idea of what fairness and bi-partisanship means. At the same time, I believe the GOP in its outright nuttiness has given Obama an opening. He can get moderates to agree with him that this violent rhetoric from Angle et al., is repugnant and the idea that "small government" is not always best (i.e. BP and the Gulf). He just needs to use the bully pulpit on these points.

- MikeB.

June 21, 2010 at 5:11pm

GG has done some great commentary over the past several years, so I'm not one to join this GG bashing post. There was a time when being exiled was only symbolic; not so with GG.

- rayward

June 21, 2010 at 5:12pm

everything that you need to know about glenn greenwald: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/+orwellian

- azlant

June 21, 2010 at 5:16pm

It's too bad that "useful idiot" has such specific meaning, because Greenwald does useful work while also being kind of an idiot.

- Simon Greenwood

June 21, 2010 at 5:33pm

drofnats1, So, let me see if I have this right. Obama faces a political situation comparable to the Civil War and / or the Great Depression? A situation where (in the case of Lincoln), the opposition was armed opposition, even as his own party dominated Congress? Or a situation where (in the case of FDR) we "see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished", even as FDR had a landslide election and re-election plus majorities we can only dream of? And because of that Obama can demand executive powers far beyond anything his immediate predecessor aimed for, indeed far beyond what any president has ever demanded for himself, even though that predecessor's critics howled about the abuse of executive authority? Really? Are you trying to prove that the Sharron Angle's of this world are right?

- timteeter

June 21, 2010 at 5:36pm

Jimbo-- I agree that Obama has done a very good job as president so far under tough circumstances. And I dont mean to get into how important detention policy is relative to other areas (though I do think that defining executive power in this area is worthwhile). My only point is that as far as I can tell Greenwald is the only prominent pundit person doing rigorous work on detention policy and I would like to see more of it from Chait et al.

- BlueCivic

June 21, 2010 at 6:38pm

Jonathan - "...for the record, I didn't support Lieberman in 2004, and neither did most staffers at TNR..." I find this a troublesome, dubious statement, at least the part about "most staffers". Let's start with the incontrovertible fact that in 2004 TNR did indeed support Lieberman for President. I immediately wrote an outraged letter to the editor that was never published. Then I wrote a personal letter to Marty Peretz and mailed it to his home in Cambridge. He was kind enough to respond. He said that while he personally did not agree with the Lieberman endorsement, the staff felt that because Lieberman agreed with most of TNR's positions that they should endorse him. In other words, the decision was STAFF DRIVEN. Well, was it or wasn't it? It looks like now no one wants to own up to having supported a dog. But we know that SOMEONE or ONES did. Magazines don't invent their own endorsements autonomously. Ex post facto revision of history is unattractive.

- JackR

June 21, 2010 at 7:10pm

Has Greenwald's underlying error gone to your head, sir? We genuinely do not care - your dog excepted - what you think. We care what you say. You invite us much closer to the crises of your life than your reader wishes to venture, given sobering priorities.

- Carter

June 21, 2010 at 10:15pm

Glenn Greenwald is a fool. And an unfair one, at that. He is just out to score some cheap points against you, Jonathan, as can be seen by his outburst. Perhaps Andrew Sullivan will initiate a Greenwald Award as a complement to the one named after Matthew Yglesias, who is another person given to misrepresenting his opponents' positions.

- liberal reformer

June 22, 2010 at 2:34am

I wouldn't even call it a liberal foible. There's a certain set of people on the left who are only comfortable when they are "speaking truth to power" and who believe that winning an election necessarily demonstrates one's compromised morals. They don't have particular policy goals; their goal is to have critiques of the inevitable compromises and limitations that governing entails. Much of the right are three-year-olds (spend money on me, mommy, but don't raise my taxes!!!!; protect me from the scary [Arab, Black, whatever] man!!) And much of the left are permanent adolescents, stuck in rebellion, unwilling to become adults, and addicted to angst and noble loss in much the same way that 14 year old girls are addicted to Edward Cullen

- miceelf

June 22, 2010 at 9:47am

jimbo. No contradiction. Facts have a well-known liberal bias. Independents aren't Republicans. The intransigents are 20-25%. The rest are movable, including some Republicans.

- drofnats1

June 22, 2010 at 11:27am

Jonathan - "...for the record, I didn't support Lieberman in 2004, and neither did most staffers at TNR..." "I find this a troublesome, dubious statement, at least the part about "most staffers". Let's start with the incontrovertible fact that in 2004 TNR did indeed support Lieberman for President. I immediately wrote an outraged letter to the editor that was never published. Then I wrote a personal letter to Marty Peretz and mailed it to his home in Cambridge. He was kind enough to respond. He said that while he personally did not agree with the Lieberman endorsement, the staff felt that because Lieberman agreed with most of TNR's positions that they should endorse him. In other words, the decision was STAFF DRIVEN. Well, was it or wasn't it?" There's no necessary contradiction here. The "staff" of TNR in 2004 is not identical to the "staff" in 2010. Chait and Peretz have both been on the staff for the past six years, but they're only two out of many staffers. This blog post is in the present tense. Presumably Chait meant only that most people who are TNR staffers right now did not support Lieberman in 2004. This could be the case even if most 2004 staffers supported Lieberman.

- jaltcoh.blogspot.com

June 23, 2010 at 12:40pm