The Obama Boys

[Vympel]

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/the-obama-boys

A pretty devastating article talking about the utter uselessness of the Obama Administration by an analysis of the memoirs of some of its staffers.

TL;DR - a bunch of preppy intellectuals who got brain-poisoned by watching too much West Wing get blindsided by the ruthless exercise of political powers by people that hate them (Republicans, Netanyahu, etc).

The summation:

The left can learn a few important lessons from examining Pfeiffer, Rhodes, and Litt. First, these are not the sort of people you want in government. You need people who (1) have clear moral vision (2) have thick skins and (3) do not care about the goddamn White House Correspondents’ Dinner. You need people who understand that politics is about gaining power and then using it to make people’s lives better, not about giving uplifting but empty speeches and walking with purpose down Washington hallways. They also need to avoid accepting political reality as “fixed.” The people who defend Obama suggest that his hands were tied—power was arranged in such a way that he could not act. But the question is: How are you going to change that arrangement of power? If it’s true that “X bill will never pass this Congress,” then how are we going to get a different Congress? The Obama administration was reactive. They played the hand they were given, they had a very narrow sense of the boundaries of the “possible.” They did not understand that being uncompromisingly radical is actually more pragmatic.

It’s essential to stop fetishizing credentials. Obama wanted to “hire the best qualified people no matter their politics, and send a message of unity.” That led to him hiring actual Republicans. Unless you’re a Republican, don’t do this. “No matter their politics”? No, politics matter. Your politics are the sum of your vision of what ought to be done. If a president wants to get something done, they need a team of people who also want to get that thing done. That should be elementary, but there just wasn’t that much politics to the Obama movement. Everything was about a guy.

And I suppose that’s the final lesson here: Cults of personality are bad. Movements need to be about the people, not a person. The West Wing view of politics is that you just need to get the smartest, most competent, most qualified, most virtuous people into government. But that means nothing without a substantive vision for change and an understanding of how you mobilize an authentic popular movement to make it happen.

[Gandalf]

Damn, that was a good read.

It's also amusing how The West Wing has aged so poorly, but that's another topic.

[B5B7]

You need people who understand that politics is about gaining power and then using it to make people’s lives better,

For one side of politics it is about gaining power and using it to make some other rich and powerful people's lives better (and yes some of this type of people are on the other side too).
Sure the Obama administration mightn't have been ruthless enough; however, one needs a balance, can't simply throw out doing good simply for the sake of power and some lies about making things better for people.

[FaxModem1]

I think a key quote about the whole administration is their inability to comprehend this part right here:

Their West Wing-ism meant that the Obama staffers completely lacked an understanding of how political interests operate, and were blindsided when it turned out Republicans wanted to destroy them rather than collaborate to enact Reasonable Bipartisan Compromises. Jim Messina, Obama’s deputy chief of staff and reelection campaign manager, spoke to a key Republican staffer after the 2008 election and was shocked when she told him: “We’re not going to compromise with you on anything. We’re going to fight Obama on everything.” Messina replied “That’s not what we did for Bush.” Said the Republican: “We don’t care.” Rhodes and Pfeiffer, in particular, are shocked and appalled when Republicans turn out to be more interested in their own political standing than advancing the objective well-being of the country. Rhodes nearly has a breakdown when he is dragged through the conservative press over some Benghazi nonsense. He found himself in “an alternate reality that was insane,” and can’t believe Mitch McConnell turns out to be so “staggeringly partisan and unpatriotic” that he doesn’t care about Russian hacking.

They thought that since everyone was American, that everyone being an American would matter. It didn't. The Republicans kept on hitting them back, and they didn't understand why they their political opponents were being so short-sighted in how to guide the country.

[mr friendly guy]

Will try to read article when I have time. However is thr underlying message, real politik triumphs ideology.

[The Romulan Republic]

Will try to read article when I have time. However is thr underlying message, real politik triumphs ideology.

It would be illuminating to know what you mean by "real politik". From the context, and the contrast you make between real politik and ideology, it looks like its the usual interpretation where "real politik" is used as short hand for "only naïve fools have principles, and the most ruthless and unethical person will always win." Which is no doubt a popular position to hold in this the Age of Cynicism, where apathy and universal cynicsm are seen as the highest wisdom and derision as the highest form of wit, but its not necessarily an accurate interpretation of what "real politik" originally meant. Quoting from Wikipedia, but:

The term Realpolitik was coined by Ludwig von Rochau, a German writer and politician in the 19th century.[2] His 1853 book Grundsätze der Realpolitik angewendet auf die staatlichen Zustände Deutschlands describes the meaning of the term:[3]
The study of the forces that shape, maintain and alter the state is the basis of all political insight and leads to the understanding that the law of power governs the world of states just as the law of gravity governs the physical world. The older political science was fully aware of this truth but drew a wrong and detrimental conclusion—the right of the more powerful. The modern era has corrected this unethical fallacy, but while breaking with the alleged right of the more powerful one, the modern era was too much inclined to overlook the real might of the more powerful and the inevitability of its political influence.
Historian John Bew suggests that much of what stands for modern Realpolitik today deviates from the original meaning of the term. Realpolitik emerged in mid-19th century Europe from the collision of the Enlightenment with state formation and power politics. The concept, Bew argues, was an early attempt at answering the conundrum of how to achieve liberal enlightened goals in a world that does not follow liberal enlightened rules.
Publicist, journalist and liberal political reformer Von Rochau coined the term in 1853 and added a second volume in 1869 that further refined his earlier arguments. Rochau, exiled in Paris until the 1848 uprising, returned during the revolution and became a well-known figure in the national liberal party. As the liberal gains of the 1848 revolutions fell victim to coercive governments or were swallowed by powerful social forces such as class, religion and nationalism, Rochau—according to Bew—began to think hard about how the work that had begun with such enthusiasm had failed to yield any lasting results.
He said that the great achievement of the Enlightenment had been to show that might is not necessarily right. The mistake liberals made was to assume that the law of the strong had suddenly evaporated simply because it had been shown to be unjust. Rochau wrote that "to bring down the walls of Jericho, the Realpolitiker knows the simple pickaxe is more useful than the mightiest trumpet". Rochau's concept was seized upon by German thinkers in the mid and late 19th century and became associated with Otto von Bismarck's statecraft in unifying Germany in the mid 19th century. By 1890, usage of the word Realpolitik was widespread, yet increasingly detached from its original meaning.

In short, real politik in its original conception was never a rejection of ideology or of principle, but rather about trying to understand how to implement ideology effectively.

In any case, ideologies themselves have a form of power, in their ability to inspire popular support and shape how people view the world. Only a very foolish politician would ignore that power, even if only as a tool to more cynical and self-serving ends.

[madd0ct0r]

I query the "utter uselessness of the obama administration"

He served the status quo, kept the usa out of new wars and (whatever that article claims) did a bunch of policies that were a compromise but have stuck because of that.

The article might claim that radical shifts of us society were possible. Bermie and aoc suggest that the shift is growing. Im not sure i believe that a radical shift under obama would not have resulted in greater trumpian backlash agaisnt uppity niggers.
Perhaps. Perhaps reworking the status quo means less people buy in to a fascist usa. Perhaps. I doubt it.

[The Romulan Republic]

I query the "utter uselessness of the obama administration"

He served the status quo, kept the usa out of new wars and (whatever that article claims) did a bunch of policies that were a compromise but have stuck because of that.

He also among other achievements, helped push forward the gay rights movement, helped open up relations with Cuba and improve relations with Iran (albeit Trump fucked that all up), and at least made some significant progress on expanding access to health care, something which Presidents had been trying and largely failing to do for literally the better part of a century (the prohibition on denying people health insurance for pre-existing conditions alone as doubtless saved many a person from bankruptcy and death). On domestic policy, he was the best President in recent history, I believe. On foreign policy, his record is more mixed (his diplomatic successes in Cuba and Iran are noteworthy, and he caught Bin Laden, but he didn't take the Kremlin seriously enough as a threat, and his "red line" in Syria, and subsequent necessary backtracking, were downright embarrassing and made a bad situation worse).

His big sin was in believing he could be moderate and work with people who were calling him a Nazi and trying to incite violence against him. That and failing to take Reich-wing militias and Kremlin interference seriously enough as a threat.

The article might claim that radical shifts of us society were possible. Bermie and aoc suggest that the shift is growing. Im not sure i believe that a radical shift under obama would not have resulted in greater trumpian backlash agaisnt uppity niggers.

Um... not a mod, but I'm fairly sure that posting that word has previously been treated as a bannable offense? Certainly one many people find offensive, regardless of the context in which its used. However true your assessment is.

Could he have pushed harder on progressive policy? Probably. Would it have worked? I don't know. I don't know that the progressive base that allowed for Bernie and AOC to come as far as they have existed in 2008, not on the same scale.

Perhaps. Perhaps reworking the status quo means less people buy in to a fascist usa. Perhaps. I doubt it.

The fascist backlash is largely a backlash against the concept of a world in which minorities and women are allowed to have actual power, and in part against simply the concept of a world in which minorities outnumber white people and women are allowed to be anything but sex slaves. Economic inequality and corruption may have given it more angry and frustrated people to try to recruit, but it wouldn't have gone away completely whatever Obama did. The details might have changed, but short of conceding principles which are absolutely non-negotiable to a 21st. Century democracy, it could not have been placated.

Failing to realize that and act accordingly was Obama's great failure. He thought he could be the uniter. But his very existence was an unforgiveable affront to the Reich-wing.

[Patroklos]

...kept the usa out of new wars and (whatever that article claims) did a bunch of policies that were a compromise but have stuck because of that...

Do you have an eight year memory gap?

[The Romulan Republic]

...kept the usa out of new wars and (whatever that article claims) did a bunch of policies that were a compromise but have stuck because of that...

Do you have an eight year memory gap?

Obama didn't really keep us out of new wars (unless you use a very narrow definition of war, maybe). But he did implement a number of compromise policies (yes, I know that the Right doesn't recognize a policy as a fair compromise unless they get everything and the other side gets nothing), some of which Trump hasn't yet managed to gut. Surely even you cannot argue, for example that a) the Affordable Care Act exists, and b) it was a compromise position between what the Republicans wanted (no major health care reform or more privatization) and what progressives wanted (universal health care).

[Patroklos]

All I commented on was the no new wars claim. I had no other issues with what posters said.

[The Romulan Republic]

Fair enough, and on that score you are correct.

[madd0ct0r]

I said new wars, iraq and afghanisatn continued to rumble.

I can find shit tons of drone operations, and air support during the syria civil war, and a deployment of 500 troop to the Cameroon. What obvious thing have I forgotten?

[Vendetta]

Will try to read article when I have time. However is thr underlying message, real politik triumphs ideology.

No, their underlying message is that Obama's administration didn't really have an ideology.

[ray245]

Will try to read article when I have time. However is thr underlying message, real politik triumphs ideology.

No, their underlying message is that Obama's administration didn't really have an ideology.

If anyone listened to Obama's keynote address back in 2004, it shouldn't be a big surprise. Obama sees himself as a uniter of political division back in 2004, his entire campaign in 2008 was build upon those ideals and beliefs.

I think Obama seriously see himself as someone who can really unite both wings of the American political system and staked his entire career on that.

So I'll say the adminstration does have an ideology, which is bipartisanism can work and be used to build a better USA.

[Patroklos]

I said new wars, iraq and afghanisatn continued to rumble.

I can find shit tons of drone operations, and air support during the syria civil war, and a deployment of 500 troop to the Cameroon. What obvious thing have I forgotten?

I am not sure why air strikes, especially when the sorties number in the thousands and were near continuous over Syria over the Obama administration from 2014 on, does not count as a new war. But since he had a persistent on the ground troop pressence in combat operations since at least 2015, your exclusion of Syria is ridiculous.

Then there was that whole Libya thing...

[Vendetta]

So I'll say the adminstration does have an ideology, which is bipartisanism can work and be used to build a better USA.

Possibly.

But that doesn't work when the other party is explicitly trying to destroy the system to benefit themselves.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't see how any of the things the article points to as evidence in any way imply that the Obama administration was somehow "useless". It basically just seems to show how the Democratic Party underestimated the degree to which the Republican Party had turned into a toxic front for the various ideologies that would eventually coalesce around Trump. Which is something that took a lot of people by surprise, including many conservative thinkers. Hindsight is 20/20. And it seems like a pretty useless definition of "useless" to say that any political party that has ever been defeated in a political contest is "useless". The Democrats made a mistake, and lost. That's what happens in politics. If this a series of events that leads to the utter unraveling of the Democrats as a potent political force then, sure. But that's hasn't happened yet.

[ray245]

Possibly.

But that doesn't work when the other party is explicitly trying to destroy the system to benefit themselves.

I think Obama clearly thought he had a mandate to be bipartisan, because that was what his campaign was built upon, and this was what his entire political career was about. So if he was someone that thought the reason he won in the first place was because he could appeal to a wide base, then it becomes really difficult to abandon something he saw as being the primarily reason he was elected in the first place.

Despite what some of the more liberal people would like to think, Obama never ran as a liberal candidate. He ran in 2008 as a Democratic bipartisan candidate with enough charisma to appeal to the more liberal-wing of the democratic party. Obama managed to appeal to both the liberal and the more conservative wing of the Democratic party.

A politician in such a position will see a shift in policies towards more liberal stance as a form of political suicide. The Republicans and far-right realised this much earlier than the democrats and realised they could take advantage of Obama's "bipartisanship" for their own political gain.

[FireNexus]

I don't see how any of the things the article points to as evidence in any way imply that the Obama administration was somehow "useless". It basically just seems to show how the Democratic Party underestimated the degree to which the Republican Party had turned into a toxic front for the various ideologies that would eventually coalesce around Trump. Which is something that took a lot of people by surprise, including many conservative thinkers. Hindsight is 20/20. And it seems like a pretty useless definition of "useless" to say that any political party that has ever been defeated in a political contest is "useless". The Democrats made a mistake, and lost. That's what happens in politics. If this a series of events that leads to the utter unraveling of the Democrats as a potent political force then, sure. But that's hasn't happened yet.

That’s my thinking. The fully intransigent opposition of the Republican Party was entirely new. While you could say it should have been expected, I don’t buy it. Obama’s primary sin appears to have been not figuring out how to effectively fight a novel kind of political war overnight while doing the job of presidenting.

[Gandalf]

There was also backing down on stuff that wouldn't have required such a fight, like releasing the Abu Ghraib photos, and the general ramping up of torture and drones.

[Imperial Overlord]

That’s my thinking. The fully intransigent opposition of the Republican Party was entirely new.

I disagree. Newt Gingrich in the 90s gave us a good view of the totally hostile Republican Party. Gingrich self destructed and the Republicans acted ended up in control of the presidency under Bush so their was a time gap, but it wasn't a new phenomena.

[FaxModem1]

I do think it's worth noting that even in The West Wing, they note the self-destructive behavior of Democrats:

Bruno Gianelli's thoughts on Democrat behavior

Because I am tired of working for candidates who make me think I should be embarrassed to believe what I believe, Sam. I'm tired of getting them elected. We all need some therapy, because someone came along and said that liberal means "soft on crime." Soft on drugs. Soft on communism. Soft on defense. And we're gonna tax you back to the stone age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to. And instead of saying, 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave-it-to-Beaver-trip-back-to-the-fifties!' we cowered in the corner and said, 'Please. Don't. Hurt. Me.' No more. I really don't care who's right, who's wrong. We're both right, we're both wrong.

That this scene was looked over and ignored tells you that they ignored this lesson. Especially as in the series itself, Santos wins against Vinick in the final season due to his being willing to win by playing to win, while Vinick lost by doing a clean campaign.

[Gandalf]

Don't forget that Vinick was an absurd liberal wet dream of a Republican who distanced himself from the religious right and (in the past) approved a nuclear plant which had a catastrophe during the last few weeks of the election.

[FaxModem1]

Don't forget that Vinick was an absurd liberal wet dream of a Republican who distanced himself from the religious right and (in the past) approved a nuclear plant which had a catastrophe during the last few weeks of the election.

Yes, the events of the West Wing universe seemed to conspire to ensure Santos won.