Confronting Ideological Differences

If you haven't done so, check out the New Yorker's recent profile of legendary Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank. Barney is by no means a perfect exemplar of liberalism and probably deserved more criticism for his (mis)handling of the bailout then he received in the article. That said, his constructive critique of Barack Obama, in particular, is worth remembering:

"Obama tends to overstate his ability to get people to change their opinions and underestimates the importance of confronting ideological differences," Frank told me. "It's one thing to talk to somebody. I talk to more conservatives than anyone, because I'm trying to get legislation passed. But it's another to make Rick Warren the most honored clergyman in the world." In California, Warren supported Proposition 8, the successful anti-gay-marriage referendum. "Now, when we fight Warren in California, we are going to hear, ‘Oh, yeah, but Obama picked him for the inaugural.' He doesn't deserve that honor. And I don't want to hear that the other clergyman at the inaugural, Reverend [Joseph] Lowery, supports gay rights. I didn't vote for a tie in the election."

I thought of Frank's comments when reading about Obama's dinner party with conservative columnists last night, most of whom are guaranteed to oppose most or not all of Obama's governing agenda. In response, my editor Katrina vanden Heuvel asked, "Will Obama Find Time to Dine with Progressive Thinkers & Writers?" The answer, we quickly learned, was yes (sort of), as Obama met this morning with (but didn't break bread with) a few outspoken lefties, such as Frank Rich and Rachel Maddow, a rather conventional list of center-left columnists like E.J. Dionne and Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, and half a dozen prominent members of the mainstream media who probably fall nominally to the left. Not sure where Maureen Dowd or Andrew Sullivan fit in. Full list is here.

I can see Obama's rationale in meeting with the conservatives. Why not try and defang a few of your most outspoken likely enemies, or at least extend an olive branch? If George Bush had done the same when he came to Washington, maybe he could've as least claimed to be a "uniter not a divider."

But there's a strange asymmetry here, as Matt Yglesias notes. Bill Kristol has been wrong about virtually everything over the past eight years and yet he gets the same amount of face time before the President-elect as Frank Rich. Obama has been promising to change the way Washington works, but mostly he's just been catering to the existing power structures thus far. As my colleague Chris Hayes mentioned to me, Obama is the one person who might have the power to actually alter those power dynamics if he so chose. That, of course, would entail calling out the Kristols and Kudlows and the Washington establishment that went along with so many of the botched decisions of the past eight years, and deciding whether triangulation or transformation lies ahead.

Comments (20)

1. "In response, my editor Katrina vanden Heuvel asked, "Will Obama Find Time to Dine with Progressive Thinkers & Writers?" The answer, we quickly learned, was yes (sort of), as Obama met this morning with (but didn't break bread with) a few outspoken lefties, such as Frank Rich and Rachel Maddow, a rather conventional list of center-left columnists like E.J. Dionne and Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, and half a dozen prominent members of the mainstream media who probably fall nominally to the left."

   "quickly learned" means maybe your Boss jumped the gun a little, huh? As well as all those screaming "pure progressives" who have started their alliance with the Right in the "Obama is already a failed President" chorus?

   Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 4:07pm

2. again...i admire what obama appears to be trying to do.

   and i don't think anybody can read anything into it one way or another. they can try and obviously will, but who is to say?

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 01/14/2009 @ 4:18pm

3. "But there's a strange asymmetry here, as Matt Yglesias notes. Bill Kristol has been wrong about virtually everything over the past eight years and yet he gets the same amount of face time before the President-elect as Frank Rich. Obama has been promising to change the way Washington works, but mostly he's just been catering to the existing power structures thus far."

   ~Berman

   There's the nugget.

   Well done. And now progressives need to keep repeating that line --even "catapulting" it if you like-- over and over and over and over and over and over for however long it takes to drive the point home.

   Alright now!

   Altogether, progressive mags and organizations.....

   HEAVE......HOOOOOOO!

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2009 @ 4:56pm

4. I don't understand this argument. Since when were dining with someone and confronting their ideology mutually exclusive? Since when were discourse and confrontation opposing actions? This is silly.

   Posted by Thrawn at 01/14/2009 @ 5:01pm

5. ......."This is silly."

   ~Thrawn @ 5:01pm

   Perhaps a tad.

   But the point is well made, overall, that Obama campaigned on a message of "change we can believe in" and virtually every signal thus far sent indicates that this was just a giant crock of Hoo-Ha -- I like that word, "hoo-ha". ;-)

   It's not too early to begin ramping up the blow torch beneath Obama's lead boots.

   He's bound to fail miserably if a strong progressive movement --allied with smart conservatives ala Andrew Bacevich-like thinkers-- does not get its ass in high gear ASAP.

   Just watch.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2009 @ 5:14pm

6. Haha, I have to admit hoo-ha is a pretty fun word (and no one can really object to it, either, so it's a no-lose deal :D ).

   Obama promised change, both in the sense of moving away from conservative ideology AND in moving away from strict partisan divides. I think there's clearly a value in the progressive movement making sure he fulfills the first half of the promise, but I think it's important not to forget the second half as well. It seems to me that this is what Berman simply isn't taking into consideration. You don't just talk to conservatives to whip them into line; you talk to them because they have disagreements (often reasonable, even if you think they're wrong) with you and you want to engage them in a dialogic process. That doesn't mean you abandon your own position, but it does mean you actually engage with them. They often have very worthwhile perspectives to share (and perhaps if you ignore conservatives, you don't get a Bacevich).

   Though this hasn't been seen as much, I would hope for any conservative President to do the same.

   Posted by Thrawn at 01/14/2009 @ 5:26pm

7. "Though this hasn't been seen as much....."

   ~Thrawn

   That's probably a pretty sizable understatement, Thrawn --and perhaps the most powerful insight into today's American political culture that such a spare statement can make, in my opinion.

   Thanks for the honesty in making it.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2009 @ 5:36pm

8. "The Times's Paul Krugman was invited, but did not attend. "

   Not a very smart move, KRUGMAN!

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/14/2009 @ 5:51pm

9. why should Krugman worry? he is a Nobel laureate. none of the others who showed can make that claim.

   Obama is unique. just watch.

   Posted by emile duBois at 01/14/2009 @ 6:30pm

10. I have to go full bore with Thrawn on this one. He is doing what he promised to from the beginning. He is meeting with all sides and trying to understand their positions. What is wrong with this. SHOULDN'T he give them equal time instead of catering to one side over another. Doing that IS returning to the same old partisan politics. What he is doing IS changing the way things are done in Washington. Progressives want more of the same dominated by a progressive point of view.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 6:54pm

11. <i>Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2009 @ 5:36pm </i>

    I agree, and I think that's really unfortunate. I wish we'd seen more of it from Bush, a LOT more.

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/14/2009 @ 7:05pm

12. I think its the FREE lunch thing that entices them, they think there IS such a thing!----Posted by comanchenation at 01/14/2009 @ 6:25pm

    So the same thing would apply to George Will, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, etc., too.....wouldn't it, Mr. "Independent"?

    Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 9:05pm

13. I think its the FREE lunch thing that entices them, they think there IS such a thing!----Posted by comanchenation at 01/14/2009 @ 6:25pm So the same thing would apply to George Will, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, etc., too.....wouldn't it, Mr. "Independent"? Posted by Mask at 01/14/2009 @ 9:05pm

    check out dean baker's book:

    http://www.conservativenannystate.org/

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2009 @ 9:56pm

14. And there I was trying to figure out how we can send David Brooks to The Hague.

    Posted by RLawrence at 01/14/2009 @ 10:31pm

15. That is the one thing that annoys me about our hero, President Obama, his insatiable appetite to be Mr. Cool. In the famous words of one of my most favorit people, Micelle Obama. "Don't you dare blow this buster". To many people have died on the economic alter of greed and gluttony.

    Posted by julien38 at 01/14/2009 @ 10:56pm

16. I think it was a smart move by PE Obama to have dinner with these folks, it shows he wants to be inclusive as he has stated all along. Also he has shown, unlike Bush that he is prepared to talk and listen to views from the folks outside his own party. Folks can knock him all they like and they will....we have the makings of a great President in Barack Obama and in some cases people just can't stand the thought it might just be true!!!

    Posted by Caj at 01/15/2009 @ 08:51am

17. Frank's comment about "the importance of confronting ideological differences" is not surprising, since people like him on both sides have done nothing BUT allow ideology get in the way of any kind of success or progress. "Ideological Differences" will be the Baby Boomers legacy, and the reason we have done nothing but argue for 20 years.

    One commentator on MPR said the other day that, know it or not, Americans have just elected their first Independent President. The guy was right. Obama has no intention picking up the standard of left or right and running in the appropriate direction: No, he DOESN"T pay attention to the ideology as much, and thank God for that. Maybe now we'll get SOMETHING done.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/15/2009 @ 08:55am

18. What he is doing IS changing the way things are done in Washington. Progressives want more of the same dominated by a progressive point of view.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/14/2009 @ 6:54pm

    Ccc, I would like to believe you but I'm afraid that this dinner and discussions with conservative writers and reporters was just PR smoke and mirrors. I doubt if anyone changed anyone's mind about anything.

    Posted by fram at 01/15/2009 @ 09:41am

19. I am still collating, as the situation is perhaps more complex in a certain sense/context, as Obama, me thinks, actually has an I.Q. capable of nuance. The saying "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" comes to mind. So it is, in my humble opinion, not enough to judge the coming moves on the board (checkers or chess, take your pick) we watch by the mere act/happenstance, of the meeting itself.

    Those "rats" if not actually walking the plank, or out right deserting the (neo con) sinking ship, are at least looking over the rails hoping for a soft dry place to land. They might be attempting to keep the (to me sheer belief in Santa Claus level phantasy) of "real conservatives-ism" alive.

    Also as I have stated else-when, if the citizens, the people, allow Obama the perception the he has more to win, gain and or lose by disappointing his "backers" (speaking of which, pressure from same is doubtless very, very, very intense…) than "us..." it is still possible for this Republic to pull defeat from the jaws of this particular victory.

    Posted by V at 01/15/2009 @ 10:21am

20. Again, just love the irony (maybe hypocrisy)...

    the Right attacked Obama for wanting to talk to Ahmadinejad, and the Left (rightly, I might add) defended such an idea...

    Obama talks to Kristol/Krauthammer/Will...the Right defends him, the Left attacks him for "meeting with the enemy" and "not standing tough against them".

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 01/15/2009 @ 12:34pm