The main topic for the radio show tomorrow night will be a discussion about liberal expectations for the Obama administration and whether they're too high, too low or just right.
It's more or less prompted by what I've been attempting to wrap my head around for a while now. Specifically, how will certain liberal/progressive expectations impact the long term success of the Obama presidency? In brief, I'm a little worried that too much focus on the the terrorism topics (tribunals, torture, FISA) without evaluating them in the context of the bigger picture will disillusion the left and consequently help Republican chances in 2012.
Most recently, I just can't get beyond Glenn Greenwald's hectoring of anyone who even moderately praises the administration, or happens to be keeping an eye on the bigger picture.
Here's a very sincere question I have based upon Greenwald's post today: If President Obama is just like George W. Bush on terrorism -- in some cases "expanding" Bush policies, as is claimed by Greenwald and Jack Goldsmith -- what do we do about it? On one hand, with enough pressure from his left, he could budge on a couple of these positions. On the other hand, he might not.
Then what?
Do we support his reelection campaign in 2012? How should liberals vote, given this hyperbolic He's Bush! notion? Do we support a third party? If we do, how will that impact the outcome of the election?
If the He's Bush! hectoring works, then maybe he'll move left. If it doesn't work, then his support erodes and we're a big step closer to Republican President X. We already witnessed a dynamic like this in 2000. It can happen again.
What I'm suggesting here is that it's a huge gamble to be treating President Obama with the same fury we treated President Bush -- to paint both presidents with the same brush without reinforcing the reality that he's closer than any president in several generations to being able to act on behalf of some of our other high priority issues.
I've written this before, but it bears repeating: No, he's not perfect and he's not doing everything I would do. But I never expected that he would. I only expected that the awfulness would begin to recede and that we'd have a serious shot at clean energy, national healthcare, protecting a woman's right to choose, etc. Almost as important, however, is that his leadership style, intelligence, his ability to be a positive role model and his grace under pressure all serve a greater good beyond his individual policy choices.
Adding... I absolutely understand that intellectual honesty has to rule the day, and criticism is necessary. But just to be clear: the criticism has to be conveyed within this larger context, otherwise we could be shooting ourselves in the collective feet.