Occam's Banana
02-13-2013, 06:28 AM
Glenn Greenwald, one of the few voices of integrity (not to mention sanity) on the left, posted an especially good column a couple of days ago.
He denounces the Obama "drone" apologists on the left for the hypocritical "unprincipled hacks" that they are. It's a long read, but very much worth it.
One of things that struck me the most was a brief passage showing that Führerprinzip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrerprinzip) is alive and well in America ...
(Someone remind me - what was it that "we" supposedly fought World War Two to prevent?)
FTA: DOJ kill list memo forces many Dems out of the closet as overtly unprincipled hacks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/11/progressives-defend-obama-kill-list)
Beyond the inherent dangers of fealty to political leaders for partisan gain, this behavior has a substantial effect on the ability to fight radical government policies. Progressives often excuse Obama's embrace of these extremist Bush/Cheney terror policies on the ground that Americans support these policies and therefore he's constrained. But that claim reverses causation: it is true that politicians sometimes follow public opinion, but it's also true that public opinion often follows politicians.
In particular, whenever the two political parties agree on a policy, it is almost certain that public opinion will overwhelmingly support it. When Obama was first inaugurated in 2009, numerous polls (http://www.salon.com/2009/01/22/torture_12/) showed pluralities or even majorities in support (http://my.firedoglake.com/jimwhite/2009/02/12/huge-majority-favors-investigation-of-bush-policies-and-actions-gallup-spins-poll-headline/) of investigations into Bush-era criminal policies of torture and warrantless eavesdropping.That was because many Democrats believed Obama would pursue such investigations (because he led them to believe he would), but once he made clear he opposed those investigations, huge numbers of loyal Democrats followed their leader and joined Republicans in opposing them, thus creating majorities against them.
Obama didn't refrain from investigating Bush-era crimes because public opinion opposed that. The reverse was true: public opinion supported those investigations, and turned against them only once Obama announced he opposed them. We see this over and over: when Obama was in favor of closing Guantanamo and ending Bush-era terrorism policies, large percentages supported him (and even elected him as he advocated that), but then once he embraced those policies as his own, large majorities switched and began supporting them (http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/repulsive_progressive_hypocrisy/).
Progressive willingness to acquiesce to or even outright support Obama's radical policies - in the name of partisan loyalty - is precisely what ensures the continuation of those policies. Obama gets away with all of this because so many progressives venerate leader loyalty and partisan gain above all else.
He denounces the Obama "drone" apologists on the left for the hypocritical "unprincipled hacks" that they are. It's a long read, but very much worth it.
One of things that struck me the most was a brief passage showing that Führerprinzip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrerprinzip) is alive and well in America ...
(Someone remind me - what was it that "we" supposedly fought World War Two to prevent?)
FTA: DOJ kill list memo forces many Dems out of the closet as overtly unprincipled hacks (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/11/progressives-defend-obama-kill-list)
Beyond the inherent dangers of fealty to political leaders for partisan gain, this behavior has a substantial effect on the ability to fight radical government policies. Progressives often excuse Obama's embrace of these extremist Bush/Cheney terror policies on the ground that Americans support these policies and therefore he's constrained. But that claim reverses causation: it is true that politicians sometimes follow public opinion, but it's also true that public opinion often follows politicians.
In particular, whenever the two political parties agree on a policy, it is almost certain that public opinion will overwhelmingly support it. When Obama was first inaugurated in 2009, numerous polls (http://www.salon.com/2009/01/22/torture_12/) showed pluralities or even majorities in support (http://my.firedoglake.com/jimwhite/2009/02/12/huge-majority-favors-investigation-of-bush-policies-and-actions-gallup-spins-poll-headline/) of investigations into Bush-era criminal policies of torture and warrantless eavesdropping.That was because many Democrats believed Obama would pursue such investigations (because he led them to believe he would), but once he made clear he opposed those investigations, huge numbers of loyal Democrats followed their leader and joined Republicans in opposing them, thus creating majorities against them.
Obama didn't refrain from investigating Bush-era crimes because public opinion opposed that. The reverse was true: public opinion supported those investigations, and turned against them only once Obama announced he opposed them. We see this over and over: when Obama was in favor of closing Guantanamo and ending Bush-era terrorism policies, large percentages supported him (and even elected him as he advocated that), but then once he embraced those policies as his own, large majorities switched and began supporting them (http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/repulsive_progressive_hypocrisy/).
Progressive willingness to acquiesce to or even outright support Obama's radical policies - in the name of partisan loyalty - is precisely what ensures the continuation of those policies. Obama gets away with all of this because so many progressives venerate leader loyalty and partisan gain above all else.