It's A Progressive Condition, It Won't Get Better...

For some time now, I’ve been pointing out that the left is not happy with Obama. This weekend gave us another huge bit of proof. What proof you ask? An article in the Politico full of the illogical whiny ramblings of various “progressives” who are dismayed at how paradise turned out.

The article starts by summing up the problem the left is facing: “For many liberals, this is the summer of their discontent. Already disappointed with Obama’s ability to deliver on campaign promises, they now contemplate a slowing economic recovery and a good chance of Republican gains in November.”

Of course, I would argue that it was Obama’s attempts to deliver on campaign promises that was the real problem, both for the economy and for the new found popularity of the Republicans, but let’s not let facts get in the way of a good whine.

According to the article, this last week saw a sort of dueling banjos thing going on in progressive ranks, with a 17,000 word piece published in The Nation by Eric Alterman and a counterpiece published by Michael Tomasky in Democracy: A Journal of [Lousy] Ideas.

Said wordy Eric, Obama’s presidency is “a big disappointment” for progressives. He blames the system. . . and the boogeyman: “Face it, the system is rigged, and it’s rigged against us.” He even titles this little missive, “Why a progressive presidency is impossible for now.” Aw, poor dear. Apparently, young Eric has realized part of the truth, he just can’t bring himself to understand the real reasons. The system is rigged against them because Americans aren't stupid enough to believe what he believes.

Tomasky takes a different approach than young Eric. He says that it’s too early for progressive to quit: “The changes we want to see won’t happen in 18 months, or in two years, or four, or probably even eight,” and he suggests that the progressive community is still throwing a bit of a tantrum, and nothing will change until they stop.

Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor of The Nation, tries to blame the existential: “It’s not just really about Obama; it’s about the state of our country. Every day, you have a sense that people are wondering where this country is headed.” And no doubt they crave socialism, right? Delusion is a powerful drug, isn’t it Comradina?

Some blame the stimulus bill which contained “too many compromises in a futile attempt to garner Republican support.” Yep. Of course, those of us who haven’t been snorting liberal pixy dust will remember that the Democrats controlled the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, so this “evil Republicans stabbed us in the back” thing won’t wash.

Comrade Les Leopold of Firedoglake provides us with the most interesting quote. Let’s take it apart piece by piece:

• “It’s open season on Obama, whom so many hoped would lead us out of the neoliberal wilderness.” Yeah, I’ve been there, that place sucks, the WhinyCommieBears are really annoying!

• “He once was a community organizer and ought to know how working people have suffered through a generation of tax breaks for the rich.” Huh? How does a tax break for someone else cause me to suffer? Oh that’s right, you live on spite. Sorry, my bad. Please continue. . .

• “When the economy crashed, he was in the perfect position to limit the unjustified pay levels on Wall Street.” So a moron blogger knows what is justified in pay? Dare I suggest that if Comrade Les gets a penny, then his pay is unjustified.

• “Instead, we got a multitrillion-dollar bailout for Wall Street, no health care reform, no serious financial reforms whatsoever, record unemployment and political gridlock that will be with us for years to come.” Hello! You're talking about Democrats! What else did you expect?

E.J. Dionne Jr., who is named after a mustard, whines that ObamaCare should have been a victory but turned into a failure. Why? Because it took too long! “It simply took too long to pass health care.” Which I guess tells us that E.J., which stands for Extreme Jerk, has a short, short, short attention span. Because there is no other way to make sense of that quote.

But enough about the preliminaries. These are progressives after all, which means they will eventually get around to blaming a cartoon villain. . .

“Whatever the motivation, it has become easier and easier for a determined minority to throw sand in the gears of the legislative process,” says our friend Eric. “It is therefore no coincidence that the 40 Republican senators with the ability to bottle up almost anything in the Senate represent barely a third of the U.S. population.”

Oh Eric, you wrote this just for me didn’t you? For it has not become easier and easier to throw sand in the legislative gears; the rules haven’t changed in decades. Nor, my idiotic young friend, did the Republicans have 40 Senators during Obama’s first year of total failure. And I hate to tell you this, but the 40 Republicans represent about half the population of the country. Nice try though. Finally, that word "coincidence," it doesn't mean what you think it means. Look it up sometime.

So what have progressives learned? Says Michael Kazin a “history professor” from Georgetown University: “It was always naive to expect a president to start a movement. It’s a little bit like expecting a chief executive to start a union.” Huh? What a horrible analogy. Also, I thought progressives were already a movement? And I thought Obama was one of you, not some random corporate type who you hoped would form a progressive movement? Sounds like Michael could use him some skoolin?

In any event, Bob Borosage of some liberal institute says that progressives need to form a movement like the Tea Party people to “challenge conservative Democrats and Republicans and challenge the White House.” Only then might you see a “bolder agenda.” Why does this sound like sour grapes: “we never really tried yet,” and “Obama wasn’t really a progressive.”

So what do progressives do now to recapture the initiative they never had because they never tried and because Obama was never a true progressive who had to face all those Republicans from little states with so much damn power? According to our friend Eric, they just need to wait for the public to turn against Republicans just in time for Obama’s second term:

“This would be consistent with FDR’s strategy during his second term and makes a kind of sense when one considers the nature of the opposition he faces today and the likelihood that it will discredit itself following a takeover of one or both houses in 2010.”

Yes, let’s wait for the public to hate the other guys and then they’ll love us! Now that’s solid advice, because we all know that hating one person translates into loving another. Heck, Eric should write a dating column!

Of course, there is one minor problem with this. If those evil small states can be bought, then how do we “uncorrupt” those states in 2012? And, even worse, if Obama is nothing but a non-progressive CEO, why would he suddenly become one in 2012?

Oh the agony. . .