What Do They Think They’re Doing?

Really good piece on the chasm between progressives and the White House from Open Left’s Mike Lux:

The Obama team forgets that once the primary was over in 2008, the folks in the blogosphere and all the progressive groups were pretty united on helping Obama win the election. A pretty sizable share of the 13 million people on the Obama e-mail list were also reading blogs, getting e-mails from MoveOn.org or phone/mail from unions and other groups. Everyone had the same goal of defeating McCain and other right-wing Republicans, and we were all reinforcing (for the most part) what the campaign was doing and saying.

That sense of teamwork is pretty well gone, blown apart not only because of some policy decisions many progressives disagreed with, and not just by the series of insulting comments I spelled out in the first paragraph, but by a serious lack of outreach as well. The result is that Obama gets a steady stream of criticism from Markos, Arianna, Rachel, and many of the rest of us, and when good things happen, they rarely get played up positively as well as they should. I think that is one of the big reasons why online giving has been fairly weak on the Obama list (a person with knowledge of the list told me that the fundraising trend off their email list was “extremely worrisome”), why volunteer recruitment has been down, and why Democratic voter enthusiasm in the polling as been so consistently weak (obviously the bad economy has a lot to do with that as well, but don’t discount the bad relationship with progressive media and institutions).

Here’s the thing that drives me most crazy, though: the only thing making the Obama White House take the huge gamble of not reaching out to the professional left is their own arrogance. Engaging the “professional left” would be easy to do if they cared about it at all, and had a strategy to do it. In the Clinton White House, that presidency of NAFTA, failed health care, the 1994 election fiasco, and “triangulation”, the progressive community- the professional left as well as progressive voters- progressives never deserted Clinton. Through his two elections, special prosecutors, the Lewinsky mess and impeachment, the Democratic base stayed loyal to and enthusiastic about Bill Clinton (even when he didn’t always deserve it). Why? Because Bill Clinton cared about having a good relationship with progressives, and because we had a strategy for working effectively with them. President Clinton frequently asked me about who was happy with us and who was disgruntled in the progressive world, and we made sure to bring in everyone in the latter category for meetings and social events at the White House. At the height of the NAFTA fight, we organized a dinner for labor leaders where the President hung out with them for a long, social evening, telling them in his remarks “I know we are in a fight right now, but I want you to know that my White House will always be your house too, that we always will be friends.” We made sure progressives always had chances to have serious input into policy development. Whenever we had bad news to deliver to progressive groups on any issue big or small, we reached out to them before the announcement, talked about how to make the damage hurt less, and talked about what we could do to help them on other issues. And whenever there was good news, we made sure the folks who cared about it were part of the celebration.

Here’s the other thing: other Democratic politicians in 2010 get the need to work effectively with progressives. I have had my share of disagreements with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, but they and their staff have never failed to work constructively and conscientiously with me and other progressives I know. This is politics 101 as far as I am concerned, but to my knowledge, this White House isn’t engaging in much of it. [Editor’s note: I got ONE email from an online outreach White House staffer on economic issues. She told me to contact her with any questions. That’s not the way it works.]

I am on the board of many different progressives groups, and know a wide assortment of folks in the blogosphere, in organizations, in the progressive donor world, on Capitol Hill, and I rarely hear about any kind of high-level outreach of this sort going on. One other important point on all this: what worries me the most is that I am as insider-y as a person can get. I have known Rahm for 30 years, Axelrod and Plouffe for over 20. I have been a client of Jim Margolis, Anita Dunn, and Axelrod’s firms. I was a co-founder of Strategy Group, the Chicago based firm that was one of the closest inner circle firms in the Obama Presidential campaign. I have worked in the White House, and I even worked on the Obama transition. I am one of the professional left (not at all the only one, by the way) who, in spite of my disappointments with some of the compromises made, ended up supporting, enthusiastically working for, and praising Obama on all those initiatives mentioned above. Now I know that some folks in the White House are mad at me and have shut me out because I have been critical at times of this White House, but I still have to think: if the relationship with the “professional left” is as shaky as it is, and someone like me is not being reached out to much or asked to help, what about all those bloggers and progressive media people and organizations who don’t have much in the way of inside connections? It worries the hell out of me, and it ought to be worrying the White House.

Gibbs’ statement has caused a flurry of damage control, just as all the other statements in paragraph one did. But it’s not enough: this White House has to do a better job of working constructively, every single day, with progressives. The White House should be in genuine partnership with the progressive community. That doesn’t mean agreeing on every issue, and it doesn’t mean avoiding some frank conversations behind the scenes where voices get raised back and forth. But progressives, including the “professional left” would be a lot more loyal and enthusiastic, a lot more willing to give credit where credit is due, if they felt like the White House cared what they thought.

9 thoughts on “What Do They Think They’re Doing?

  1. Yes, it’s bad that the Obama administration fails even to keep lines of communication open to progressives. Yet, at another and more important level, this post from Mike Lux is profoundly disturbing: it prescribes nothing more than talk. And talk is cheap.

    When and if any White House includes progressives at the tables where actual problem solving and policy are shaped and pursued, then there will be a strong foundation in this part of the base.

    Absent that, though, it’s all a blend of delusion and illusion.

  2. So, he signs on with a candidate that lies willingly about another candidate he knows to be competent, honest and liberal, and he stands by as the campaign in question uses raw bigotry against the other candidate, and then he expects them to behave like honest, responsible people once in office?

    Mr. Lux – Obama’s candidacy was always a con. You’ve been had.

    The best thing you can do is admit publicly that you backed the wrong candidate – Clinton is smarter, more effective, far more honest and way more liberal. Do that, and you’ll do something to improve the situation.

  3. Talk might be cheap, but sometimes it involves listening, which is what ain’t happening. But then again we’re assuming the White House is not listening. But that might not be true. Either way…

  4. Yes! More blogger lunches and junkets to Amsterdam!

    I’m all for establishing better relations between the White House and the progressive base, but Mike sounds like he’s suggesting freebies and swag. I think substantive discussion is a little more important than social events.

    But then, I was never invited to Amsterdam or a Clinton blogger lunch.

  5. Greenwald does it better.


    I still say; if he’d just closed Gitmo, people would have cut him and the Dems in Congress some slack. That was the one promise, above all others, that made me proud to vote for him because it meant he valued humans; all else would follow.

    I think the time is past for listening to the White House, and time to think about 2012. (And hey! Another three years of history flushed!)

  6. Yep, looks like Obama’s planning to ask Hillary to run w/him in 2010, and let Joe be Sec’y of State. ‘Course I caught that little nugget on Faux News, so who knows? One thing’s for sure IMO: Barry’s a one-termer if something doesn’t change really soon. And ya know what? I really could give a rat’s ass about his political career b/c he’s shown himself to be a fraud. Who was it that said (paraphasing here): a politician is fucked if (s)he attempts to fool all the people all the time? Was that Lincoln?

  7. K,

    I still say; if he’d just closed Gitmo, people would have cut him and the Dems in Congress some slack. That was the one promise, above all others, that made me proud to vote for him because it meant he valued humans;

    Obama realized that closing Gitmo would make it look like he valued terrorists…

    One of the few decisions that Obama made that I actually agree with…


    Yep, looks like Obama’s planning to ask Hillary to run w/him in 2010, and let Joe be Sec’y of State.

    The only reason that Obama would ask Hillary to be his VP is to keep her from going after the POTUS spot..

    If Obama’s numbers keep going south, Hillary will likely laugh in his face…

    Hell, depending on who the GOP puts up, *I* might vote for Hillary… Stranger things have happened.. I voted for Obama, after all…


Comments are closed.