A critical moment: Why we need President Obama

[Dreadnaught]

This was published.

A critical moment: Why we need President Obama
Deepak Chopra
Monday, July 18, 2011

One of the virtues of being on the liberal side of politics is that total obedience isn't required. There are no hidden agendas. Ideology doesn't lead to unreason. In a political climate where it feels as if the inmates are running the asylum — as in the current Republican threat to default on America's debt — the prevailing sanity of President Obama is something that others and I have taken for granted.

We cannot afford that luxury any more, I'm afraid.

For many reasons, this is the moment when loyalty is going to count the most. That's a hard sentence to write. Liberal politics is based on a non-regimented, all-inclusive approach to democracy. Freedom of thought is paramount. But certain harsh realities must be faced. For thirty years and more, the progressive tradition has been severely undermined, dating back to Nixon's "Southern strategy" (coddle the racists) and Ronald Reagan's smiling reactionary agenda (AIDS victims deserve what they get), through the first President Bush's Willie Horton strategy (another boost for racism) and the second President Bush’s deceptive "compassionate conservatism."

It was such a relief to return to humane, non-ideological governance when President Obama won in 2008 that we underestimated the debasing effect that two generations of right-wing indoctrination has had. Each increment of this debasement seemed fairly tolerable, even bizarrely quixotic. A pledge never to raise taxes until the end of time? Blatant favoritism toward Christian groups, however intolerant their dogmas? Stuffing the foreign service with neo-cons, the Justice Department with graduates of Jerry Falwell's law school? These aberrations go unnoticed outside Washington, perhaps, but bit-by-bit the damage has been corrosive.

When Lincoln was assassinated, an anguished Walt Whitman wrote "O Captain! My Captain!" whose theme was that the ship of state had reached a great victory — the end of the Civil War — just as the captain lay dead on the deck. We all know that this victory was unfulfilled, followed by a reactionary period that destined America to a hundred more years of virulent racism. Without being melodramatic, I think the work of undoing decades of reactionary policies has barely begun.

Which is to say that all of us who have taken advantage of our liberal heritage to question and criticize President Obama need to step back and consider the radical nature of the opposition, from the Supreme Court down to the local precinct. The current debt ceiling crisis is proof that sensible, sane responses are not going to be automatic anymore. Paul Krugman calls the current Republican tactic outright extortion. The leaders of the Republican Party are so terrified of losing their seats in Congress that they have collapsed in the face of the ultra right and its worst ideologues.

If you suppose that the average citizen remembers that the right wing are the very ones who got us into this forlorn tangle of wars abroad, financial collapse, out-of-control spending, and massive bonuses for the rich, you have not felt the power that fear exerts. Since 9/11, playing upon fear has been wildly successful for the right wing — it re-elected a catastrophic President — and now outrage has been added to the mix thanks to the romping recklessness of Wall Street, which paid not the slightest penalty for bringing on the recession.

If ever there was a time to stand behind the captain, this is it. Not because pluralism and free expression are wrong. They aren't and never will be. But like Churchill calling upon a coalition cabinet in the depth of the war years, it’s paramount that we see the greater danger for what it is. Attention was drawn to the cover of a recent issue of The Economist, which showed a tall President Obama towering over a squabbling handful of pygmy republican rivals for the Presidency. The headline read, "He Could Still Lose." We need to remember that if that were to happen, it wouldn't be because President Obama made too many mistakes or failed to pass a sufficiently liberal agenda. The reason would be that all of us forgot the thirty-year reign of reactionary administrations (minus the Clinton years) and the power of debased politics to keep coming back, again and again.

Deepak Chopra is the author of over 60 books on health, success, relationships and spirituality, including "The Soul of Leadership." Learn more by logging on to www.deepakchopra.com or www.choprafoundation.org. To follow Deepak on Twitter, go to http://twitter.com/DeepakChopra.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...a_critical.DTL

As commented/paraphrased elsewhere:

1. Left-wing people are freethinkers who wisely question their own assumptions.

2. Conservatives, by contrast, are sheep who blindly adhere to crazy dogmas.

3. It is crucial to keep Obama in office lest the crazy, stupid conservatives take over.

4. Therefore, liberals should stop questioning him and give him their blind support.

[Ominous Gamer]

I can just tell Dread is going to be fun when the election draws closer.

Now, you're stretching some of what is being suggested, but its been said for a long while now that the Republicans do as well as they do because they all stick so close to the base of the party. They all know the talking points. There was a democrat I think a few months ago who talked about how unfocused his party was, how politics have become a case of core unwavering Republican ideas/talking points vs everyone and everything else. How his party needed talking points to focus and line up behind, but admitted he likely wouldn't pay them much attention, because thats not the type of person he is

[Dreadnaught]

What is the Republican "base" exactly? It's no less diverse than the Democratic base.

Everyone has talking points. The idea that Republicans are somehow more "on base" or "on message" has itself become sort of a left-wing talking point.

[Lebanese Dragon]

I don't think it's farfetched that the idealogies of liberal are less concetrated than the idealogies of conservatives. There are set ways to keep the social status quo's, or to have small government in general. There are many ways to diverge from social and economic status quos. I think Warren Buffet, and others have spoken up and agreed that the system is biased and corrupted toward the upper class. I think the current economic and social structures of our time is flawed. Not without merits, but it's far from perfect.

I don't think any man is worthy of blind support; It's hard to see Obama's "mistakes" because the issues are complicated ones. I feel a mistake for me is not pushing for the social reforms he campaigned for earlier in his career. Such as establishing gay marriage. Perhaps he didn't do it, to appease republican lobbyist, in hopes of passing other bills, namely his Stimulus package.

Anyway, I guess when i think of republican base, I think of anyone who takes fox news seriously. I'm not what percent of total republicans that is, but that's what I'd be referring to when I think of the republican base.

[LittleFuzzy]

When Lincoln was assassinated, an anguished Walt Whitman wrote "O Captain! My Captain!" whose theme was that the ship of state had reached a great victory — the end of the Civil War — just as the captain lay dead on the deck. We all know that this victory was unfulfilled, followed by a reactionary period that destined America to a hundred more years of virulent racism.

It had nothing to do with reactionary politics and everything to do with Treasury mismanagement of the burgeoning financial markets. The new financial capitalist power bloc *which the Union all but created to fund the prosecution of the Civil War* HAD to get Congress to relinquish Reconstruction because a major general rollback in power and involvement national affairs was the only way to get the Treasury Department to stop straining the economy with unnecessary seasonal volatility from its management of specie.

What is the Republican "base" exactly? It's no less diverse than the Democratic base.

That's not really true. The Democratic party is much more of a conglomerate of starkly different, even competing, interest groups. Labor and environmentalists being perhaps the most stark. As a purely relative contrast, the various GOP factions largely don't care one way or the other about the strong interests of the other factions and hence can and will go along with them. For decades that was at least partly because there was simply more Democrats. I don't know if that's still true, but the legacy is that the GOP is more internally cohesive. Usually. Some issues do allow them to demonstrate the extent to which they are also an umbrella party, issues like immigration.

[CitizenCain]

Even for SanFran, that's pretty outrageous.

If there was anything at all reasonable, or "free-thinking" or even remotely honest about liberal "ideology," we'd have heard something from someone on the left about how Obama's been exactly the same as Bush, only worse. All the policies that Bush enacted that the left was furious about, Obama has expanded or strengthened, and it's as if he hasn't even tried to do anything differently than Bush. The only liberal goal he even tried to undertake was universal health care, and he fucked that up so badly, that even a super-majority of Democrats didn't want it by the time it got passed. The man is literally worse than Bush on every single issue he campaigned on (and probably every single issue, period), and no one on the left has called him to task for it.

So much for Democrats or liberals giving a shit about civil liberties or peace or any of their rhetoric (big surprise) - all they care about is being the ones in charge of screwing everyone else over.

[Lebanese Dragon]

If there was anything at all reasonable, or "free-thinking" or even remotely honest about liberal "ideology," we'd have heard something from someone on the left about how Obama's been exactly the same as Bush,

Hasn't the Republican party pretty much opposed everything Obama has tried to do, while supporting the majority of things bush wanted passed? If Obama is Bush reincarnate you'd think you'd see more republican support.

[Aimless]

Hasn't the Republican party pretty much opposed everything Obama has tried to do, while supporting the majority of things bush wanted passed? If Obama is Bush reincarnate you'd think you'd see more republican support.

Okay that was kinda smooth

[CitizenCain]

Hasn't the Republican party pretty much opposed everything Obama has tried to do, while supporting the majority of things bush wanted passed? If Obama is Bush reincarnate you'd think you'd see more republican support.

Welcome to American partisan politics... but if you've got an example of a Bush outrage Obama hasn't expanded on, I'd love to hear it. Surprises can be fun.

[RandBlade]

Hasn't the Republican party pretty much opposed everything Obama has tried to do, while supporting the majority of things bush wanted passed? If Obama is Bush reincarnate you'd think you'd see more republican support.

As far as I know:

Obama and the Dems criticised Gitmo - its still open
Obama and the Dems criticised Bushes deficit spending - it got far worse than ever before.

I'm sure there are more.

[Dreadnaught]

That's not really true. The Democratic party is much more of a conglomerate of starkly different, even competing, interest groups. Labor and environmentalists being perhaps the most stark. As a purely relative contrast, the various GOP factions largely don't care one way or the other about the strong interests of the other factions and hence can and will go along with them. For decades that was at least partly because there was simply more Democrats. I don't know if that's still true, but the legacy is that the GOP is more internally cohesive. Usually. Some issues do allow them to demonstrate the extent to which they are also an umbrella party, issues like immigration.

At least based on the union posters I take down from my building lobby, I'm not sure I've really seen any particular disagreement between labor and environmental groups here. But maybe there are hot-button issues that split them in CA I'm not aware of?

[Loki]

Democrats have historically had a much more diverse coalition. They represent more interests and don't vote with each other at nearly the same rate as do the Republicans.

[GGT]

This was published.

As commented/paraphrased elsewhere:

1. Left-wing people are freethinkers who wisely question their own assumptions.
2. Conservatives, by contrast, are sheep who blindly adhere to crazy dogmas.
3. It is crucial to keep Obama in office lest the crazy, stupid conservatives take over.
4. Therefore, liberals should stop questioning him and give him their blind support.

What's wrong with his commentary being published? Free Speech and all that. (You know who Chopra is, right?)

Your paraphrasing sounds about right, except #4---not giving blind support to Obama but recognizing the option would be conservative idealogues in power and "The leaders of the Republican Party are so terrified of losing their seats in Congress that they have collapsed in the face of the ultra right and its worst ideologues."

He's talking about ideology as expressed in American politics, when the right-wing and its rigidity takes over an entire party (Tea Party Nation able to influence the GOP), is able to use "crazy dogma" in simplistic terms to get votes (No taxes, taxes are evil, government is evil and the root of all our problems, etc.)

I'd say it's playing out that way today, with some Tea Party yahoos adamant that this debt ceiling drama is nonsense, and nothing but a ploy to allow more spending and debt by democrats. They'll vote NO on any compromise, push us toward default and immediate recession, and cause real damage to our country.

The new GOP/Tea Party freshmen in the house claim, "We were elected on our pledge to NOT raise the debt ceiling and dagnabbit that's what we're going to do!". They plug their ears and refuse any factual information that pokes holes in their reality (that isn't based on reality at all).

[CitizenCain]

As far as I know:

Obama and the Dems criticised Gitmo - its still open
Obama and the Dems criticised Bushes deficit spending - it got far worse than ever before.

I'm sure there are more.

I was actually thinking about all the civil liberties crap that was an intolerable police state under Bush... has been massively expanded under Obama, and somehow, now that it's a Democrat spying on us and ignoring due process and tagging us at the borders like migratory wildlife, it's not supposed to be a big deal or something. (Warantless wiretapping, national security letter investigations, tightened border security for no good reason, even much stricter TSA shite, and come to think of it, his appointee in the parks department threatening campers in national forests with federal weapons felonies for bringing certain types of folding knives into the national parks.)

And on top of all that crap, he's added a bunch more shit to worry about, like aggressively prosecuting (with the federal courts) government whistleblowers, expanding troop commitments in those "evil" Bush wars of aggression, aggressively targeting state medical marijuana dispensaries (much more so than Bush), and his whole IP disaster... trying to essentially censor the internet through warantless domain and server seizures, more aggressive targeting of digital "piracy," to the point of taking on European sports discussion boards (which may have linked to online feeds of sporting events) and something that just slipped my mind.

All off the top of my head. How anyone can claim Obama's actually a change is beyond me. Same shitty course we were under Bush, just accelerating faster to a socialist surveillance police state, where the egregious crime of pointing out government waste and ineptitude that damages national security is a federal felony. And, just because I can, I might as well point out his recent crusade against job-stealing ATMs too.

Seriously, can anyone point to something Bush did wrong that Obama hasn't expanded on? Other than buying his kids a puppy, of course. OG, you're a loony Democratic zealot - you gotta have at least one of these.

[Dreadnaught]

It's exactly what he's saying. His point is that left-wingers are somehow uniquely more self-critical, but they need to shut that down in the face of an insane opposition that will ruin the country.

[GGT]

Chopra is also using the term "liberal" more broadly than you are, Dread.

Obama is routinely criticized by his own party. He's called Bush v 2, progressives blast him for not getting rid of DADT or DOMA, more troops in Afghanistan, expanding the Patriot Act, not closing Gitmo....

[LittleFuzzy]

Even for SanFran, that's pretty outrageous.

If there was anything at all reasonable, or "free-thinking" or even remotely honest about liberal "ideology," we'd have heard something from someone on the left about how Obama's been exactly the same as Bush, only worse. All the policies that Bush enacted that the left was furious about, Obama has expanded or strengthened, and it's as if he hasn't even tried to do anything differently than Bush. The only liberal goal he even tried to undertake was universal health care, and he fucked that up so badly, that even a super-majority of Democrats didn't want it by the time it got passed. The man is literally worse than Bush on every single issue he campaigned on (and probably every single issue, period), and no one on the left has called him to task for it.

So much for Democrats or liberals giving a shit about civil liberties or peace or any of their rhetoric (big surprise) - all they care about is being the ones in charge of screwing everyone else over.

Since Bush Jr. never met a spending program he didn't like, it's not surprising that the Dems haven't tried to roll many/any of them back. They decried the high deficit spending but that was mostly objecting to the tax decreases, not the spending.

[Dreadnaught]

Obama is routinely criticized by his own party. He's called Bush v 2, progressives blast him for not getting rid of DADT or DOMA, more troops in Afghanistan, expanding the Patriot Act, not closing Gitmo....

Yes, he Chopra is clearly suggesting this criticism should stop.

[LittleFuzzy]

At least based on the union posters I take down from my building lobby, I'm not sure I've really seen any particular disagreement between labor and environmental groups here. But maybe there are hot-button issues that split them in CA I'm not aware of?

I didn't say they were necessarily disagreeing, I said they were more different, they reach a position from a radically different set of motives, and this can and often does mean they'll take frictional stances. They have been able to make common cause more often than has historically been the case as a result of their mutual distaste for the consequences of globalization though.

[GGT]

Yes, he Chopra is clearly suggesting this criticism should stop.

So what? In his opinion, which he said was difficult to write, and against the backdrop of what really does look like crazy conservative yahoos calling the shots in congress....he's saying "loyalty" to liberal and humane policies can only be found in the democratic party. Even though Obama isn't exactly the poster child for lib'rul sssocialists that progressives would prefer.

[CitizenCain]

It's exactly what he's saying. His point is that left-wingers are somehow uniquely more self-critical, but they need to shut that down in the face of an insane opposition that will ruin the country.

Sounds like he should save his breath. By the time Obama's done, there won't be anything left for the Rebuplicans to ruin anyway.

Chopra is also using the term "liberal" more broadly than you are, Dread.

Obama is routinely criticized by his own party. He's called Bush v 2, progressives blast him for not getting rid of DADT or DOMA, more troops in Afghanistan, expanding the Patriot Act, not closing Gitmo....

If you say so. Maybe I'm just missing it, but the Bush bashing was non-stop and impossible to miss from the left. There was even a fair bit from the right, what with Bush Jr.'s "compassionate" conservatism thing, which seems to mean spend like a drunken sailor on shore leave. I've got the same news sources now, and can hear a pin drop over the amount of criticism Obama from the left, at least on the issues that made Bush Jr. the hybrid incarnation of Lucifer and Hitler. Yeah, I read the complaints that he's not pushing the progressive agenda hard enough (DADT and DOMA and Obamacare, etc.), but that seems to be pretty much it from the left. Where's the outrage over the civil liberties abuses and elimination of due process and so on? If anything, it seems like the left wants more of that, with their stance on government net neutrality and tighter IP regulations.

<shrug>

[GGT]

I think it's because democrats aren't as cohesive as a political group. Not like the republicans are when they rally behind just a couple of issues.

I don't know which news sources you read, but there seem to be more "main stream" sources that focus on those issues the GOP runs on. Taxes, economy, budgets, money. While democrats who care about social progressivism are on the defensive against conservatives who want to ban gay marriage, change constitutions to define marriage with DOMA, keep gays out of the military, ban (or prohibit) abortion, etc.

[Dreadnaught]

So what? In his opinion, which he said was difficult to write, and against the backdrop of what really does look like crazy conservative yahoos calling the shots in congress....he's saying "loyalty" to liberal and humane policies can only be found in the democratic party. Even though Obama isn't exactly the poster child for lib'rul sssocialists that progressives would prefer.

He's expressing a view that ideological heterogeneity should be stopped-up while using eliminationist rhetoric against those to the right of the Democratic party.

[GGT]

He's expressing a view that ideological heterogeneity should be stopped-up while using eliminationist rhetoric against those to the right of the Democratic party.

Eliminationist rhetoric? Seems to me he's saying democrats should rally behind Obama as the "captain" of their party, to confront their competetion head-on instead of bickering within their ranks. Pretty much the same tactic used by republicans rallying their base.

You may not agree with his opinion, but what exactly are your gripes about him writing it? You also posted Wynn's "epic anti-Obama rant on conference call", where he claimed to support Reid but not Obama. That's the sort of thing Chopra suggests could be self-defeating to democrats. I never thought of him as a political pundit, but maybe he felt it important to express his thoughts about the Big Picture playing out in politics? What's wrong with that?

[Aimless]

It's exactly what he's saying. His point is that left-wingers are somehow uniquely more self-critical, but they need to shut that down in the face of an insane opposition that will ruin the country.

His point is mainly that the "left" is/may be full of whiny grumpy disloyal naive/extreme self-serving opiners and idealists who're uniquely incapable of reining in the bickering in order to secure long-term success. I can buy that. Us lefties think very much of ourselves and we've never been very good at accepting the leadership and the strategic vision of another lefty. We get upset about compromises. We're impatient. Anything less than 100% right here right now is a failure. WHERE ARE THE JOBS??!?!?!

Just because we're "self-critical" (but am I criticising myself or other members of my very heterogenous group?) doesn't mean we're especially enlightened and right. If anything it increases our chances of sabotaging ourselves.

[GGT]

The alternative is electing the 100% self-righteousNess people who claim God and the Constitution is 'on their side', even when they get the facts wrong.

[Dreadnaught]

We get upset about compromises. We're impatient. Anything less than 100% right here right now is a failure.

That describes anyone with a strong political viewpoint.

[Lebanese Dragon]

I think our PR with other nations is a lot better, and internally as well. I'm happy with the goal of raising taxes on the upper bracket, because I feel the most economic growth will come from smaller businesses. I'm re-affirmed in this by individuals such as Warren Buffet, who've flat out said their "effective" tax-rate is lower than many that make less than them. I'm happy the stimilus included some investment in alternative energy defying the large oil lobbyists. I like Obama's rhetoric when it comes to social issues, I feel that that alone helps to change the social climate to make transitions easier for future U.S. goverments to make reforms; however, I would have like to see more push, I really feel he's afriad of losing "the christian vote", and some more moderate republicans.



Random thoughts i've had.
What if you bribe the head of companies to shut down their lobbyist components. You pay off a few individuals who make those decisions in regards to who lobby's for them, and pay them money to not lobby at all. Might be too many to have any real impact.

[Ziggy Stardust]

http://www.theworldforgotten.com/showthread.php?t=2109

Clowns to the left of me. Jokers to the right.

[CitizenCain]

He's expressing a view that ideological heterogeneity should be stopped-up while using eliminationist rhetoric against those to the right of the Democratic party.

I gotta ask, though... if the ideology says all this shit Obama's doing is utterly awful and unforgivable... what possible reason could there be to support him? Why not overthrow him (impeach, rendition, etc.) and give Biden a chance at not being the worst thing since Bush?

Or is the author the type who'd enthusiastically defend Stalin and Hitler if they were running on the Democratic ticket?