What Do You Get For The Liberal Who Wants Everything?

While I know that Christmas is still four and a half months away, I think it's worthwhile to consider what present to get the very grumpy liberal Democratic base (which I happen to be a part of). What do you get for a group that wants EVERYTHING?

Well, what they got this week from White House Spokesperson, Robert Gibbs, was a healthy smackdown. For those that may have missed it, Gibbs derisively referred to those on the left that compare President Obama to George W. Bush as the "professional left," and suggested that they "should be drug tested." Of course, many on the left wing chattering class took considerable umbrage to his remarks. Various liberal commentators responded with outrage, and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann busted out with a particularly tiresome--and less than surprising--"Special Comment."

I think it's fair to say that Olbermann is getting perilously close to Rosie O'Donnell territory. As a liberal, you may agree in principle with their view points, but you sure as hell don't want them speaking for you.

So what is it that has liberals so down on Obama? To be fair, the President certainly raised expectations during his campaign to untenable heights (don't they all?). And while many benchmarks in the liberal agenda have either been reached or are in progress, many have been compromised or simply not achieved fast enough for the base.

The President got off to a fast start with allowing government funding for stem cell research, ending the torture of detainees, and passing the Lilly Ledbetter Act which allows women to sue employers for past wage related sexual discrimination. That was the easy part. The first two items did not need congressional support, and with large Democratic margins in the house and senate, the Ledbetter Act sailed through without a fuss.

Then came the tough stuff.

First, the President managed to push through his stimulus plan with the aid of three Republicans. While liberals were pleased that the bill became law, many complained that it wasn't large enough and included too many tax breaks. Of course, if it were larger and submitted without the cuts in taxes, it would have never passed. More on that point later.

Secondly, came the Health Care Reform Bill and the summer of discontent. I'm sure everyone remembers the Tea Party's efforts to disrupt town hall meetings and spread misinformation about the bill itself (see "Death Panels," "Government Takeover," etc.). Clearly, Republicans won the message war with the public. Even after scaling the bill back and removing the much desired "Public Option" from the legislation, it still took reconciliation to get the bill across the finish line. Of course, if it would have had a "Public Option," or the even more preferred (by liberals) "Single Payer," it again, never would have passed.

Most recently, the President signed the Financial Reform Bill that included the most sweeping changes to our financial system in over 60 years. However, this plan did not reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act that disallows retail banks from also being investment banks, therefore reducing the chances of "Too big to fail." Still, it includes a consumer protection piece that is quite promising, and does add more accountability and oversight to the risk taking that banks partook of that created this mess in the first place. However, many liberals were still disappointed. They wanted the banks broken up and downsized. Of course, the bill never would have passed if that were included, but...well, you get the idea.

As well, liberals are steamed that the President hasn't repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell and passed comprehensive immigration reform.

While the pentagon is undergoing an examination of the policy and the completion of this review will almost certainly end DADT, that's not good enough for the left. Which to a degree is understandable. This policy is clearly prejudicial, and has resulted from far too many soldiers being kicked out the military. But there is no arguing that the issue is progressing in a positive direction for gay and lesbian soldiers.

Immigration has become the hottest issue of the summer. People are up in arms over border security, illegal immigrants taking jobs and accessing goods and services. No one in their right mind would argue that our system isn't broken. For far too long, this issue has been avoided by politicians who either don't want to upset the fastest growing minority (Latinos) in the U.S. or don't want to give up the cheap labor that fuels the agriculture and construction businesses. The issue has gotten so contentious that Republican Senators who were once for a comprehensive plan (this means you McCain, Kyl, and Graham) are now against it, and several states are considering usurping federal law and creating their own laws to deal with the influx of illegals (take cover Arizona!). When the Governor of said state, Jan Brewer, signed a bill into law that would require illegals to be put through the state system and would have unavoidably lead to racial profiling, the President's Attorney General, Eric Holder, sued the state to prevent the law from being enacted. This still isn't good enough for liberals who want comprehensive legislation passed and right now.

Which brings me to a greater point. Do liberals want all or nothing? It seems to be the case. While most polls show tight races between Democrats and Republicans in the upcoming mid-terms, the surveys also show a significant enthusiasm gap between the followers of the two parties. In almost every single poll, Republicans hold a double digit lead when respondents are asked about how motivated they are to vote in November.

Why? Because Barack Obama is not the President of their dreams. He doesn't walk on air, isn't able to part the sea, and has not waved his magic wand to meet the unreasonable expectations that liberals are holding him to. Don't get me wrong, it's important to push your party and not just go along to get along. As liberals, we should always strive for more. We should also be realistic. We should try to understand that there are Democrats from more conservative areas of the country who may not agree with us on everything. And right now, there is an opposition party that has made a bet that sitting on their hands and doing nothing is a healthy strategy for mid-term ballot booth success. Guess what? They may just be right. They may indeed take over the House and/or the Senate (less likely).

So what will liberals be left with then? Ladies and gentlemen, I present you with House Speaker, John Boehner, and Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell. Is that not the stuff of your nightmares? How much of the liberal agenda do we think will make it to the President's desk after November if we decide to take our ball and go home? Can any of us imagine equality for gays and lesbians or immigration reform getting anywhere? Do any of us lefties think that Health Care Reform, Financial Reform, or even the Lilly Ledbetter act would have had a snowball's chance in Hades of becoming law. Even in the case of the former two as compromised as they were? Not bloody likely.

So be careful about how bad you make this administration out to be. Because if you think it can't get any worse, then go ahead and stay home this November. But expect that theory to be sorely tested when the new congress of 2011 takes to the halls with people like Rand Paul, Sharron Angle, Linda McMahon, and Ken Buck in tow.

As my father-in-law once said to me, "Never challenge worse."

Sumo-Pop
August 13, 2010