The Left-Wing Blogosphere and Geithner: A Case Study of Immaturity

It’s been a few months since I stopped participating in discussions at DailyKos. I left at the time because I felt that it was devolving into a series of endless outrages and microscopic arguments over the day-to-day minutiae of what was, at the time, just an administration in transition. I still read the site and check it out daily – and since I left I am grateful that I no longer have to get into mindless arguments with people (not everyone there, just the most vocal) who define themselves as consistently oppositional, utterly impractical, and deeply immature.

It was clear since November 5th that the blogosphere wasn’t going to unite behind Obama and form an organization to help him enact his agenda. No, that would be too Republican for them – too “mindless” – too much like the Bushies of yesteryear who failed to question the Iraq War, etc etc (note, I’m using their arguments, not mine). But even in my worst nightmares I didn’t imagine that they would be so short-sighted as to join with far-right members of the GOP in demanding that the Treasury Secretary step down two months into an effort of economic recovery. Even the supposed “adults” are joining in the game: Arianna Huffington joined in the chorus. Perhaps most distressingly, Frank Rich, normally so astute at seeing past the Northeast Corridor bubble at what the pundits miss, insultingly calls the AIG bonuses Obama’s “Katrina Moment,” despite evidence that, in the real world, this media-ginned-up outrage wasn’t hurting Obama’s poll numbers (and yes, I personally believe the AIG bonus debacle is a tempest in a teapot – a distraction for those who can’t handle the notion that economic recovery might involve some unfairness).

Al Giordano smartly points out that Geithner’s departure would be a disaster for economic recovery, makes no strategic sense now, and illustrates how few of his critics are proposing a realistic alternative – both to his plan and to his position. He posted his piece to DailyKos, spurring the usual amount of “oh you are just saying we can’t criticize Obama” nonsense. Indeed, more than a few members of DailyKos have pointed out how eagerly the community and the left-wing blogosphere has been drinking from the spout of God Krugman. Yes, I know, there are plenty of economists who dispute the validity of Geithner’s bank rescue plan, and they could indeed be right. But not one of them has to deal with the practical nature of governing, nor do very few of them propose alternatives (Krugman believes in nationalization/receivership – but rarely discusses how ugly this would be, entirely ignoring the IndyMac example).

But this isn’t even my main point: my main point is that to listen to the whims and passions of some of these communities is a foolhardy endeavor. Remember how we all loved to pile on Kristol or Friedman and attack them for their poor track records of getting things wrong? Well – let’s see what happens when we apply that test to some folks in our own world.

I know, it’s poor form to call out a specific blogger…but hey, this is my site and I’m no longer on DailyKos. So let’s pick the most jarring example: a young blogger named Slinkerwink. Now, I know Slinkerwink. In fact, we worked together on a blog last year during the election. In those days I allowed my passion to get the better of me, and got caught up in some of Slink’s more virulent attacks on Obama’s campaign strategy. Well, I realized by the fall that I was wrong – and have admitted as much many times since. Slinkerwink still was convinced she was right in her diatribes against Obama’s campaign strategy. Fair enough. But given the degree to which she invested her heart and soul in his election, you’d think she’d give him more than a couple months to see how the results turn out?

Nope – Slinkerwink didn’t wait a day. She immediately launched into incessant barrages against his administration as soon as it went into transition, in particularly launching into unsourced, unsubstantiated attacks on Rahm Emanuel as the source of all things wrong in Obama’s world. Didn’t like a certain cabinet appointment? “Rahm Emanuel’s fault!” It was a constant, childish refrain. Then there would be more attacks on certain cabinet appointments, often relying on the reasoning of others. If you took issue with one of Slinkerwink’s assertions, the response would be, “Well, I guess you don’t agree with Glen Greenwald then!” As soon as there were issues with Daschle’s confirmation, Slinkerwink led a mob charge against the administration, demanding his dismissal (and, predictably, calling for Howard Dean to run HHS).

But perhaps the best example is this diary demanding that Obama withdraw Tom Vilsack’s nomination for Agriculture Secretary. In this work, she links Vilsack to everything from e.coli to childhood obesity, then uses the literate phraseology: “SAY THE FUCK NO to Vilsack!”

Flash forward to this week’s NYTimes, and an article about how sustainable food activists are thrilled with the Obama administration and with Vilsack in particular – who has turned out to be much better than they imagined. In fact:

The sustainable-food crowd isn’t alone in its love fest with the Obama administration and Mr. Vilsack. Food-safety activists have praised Mr. Vilsack’s remarks about creating a single food-safety agency, and nutrition advocates are enthused about his comments on school lunches and health care reform.

So, here is a clear example in which the passions and eagerness of members of the left-wing blogosphere led to a short-sighted burst of outrage which turned out to be misplaced. An apology? A retraction? Hardly.

Who does this behavior remind me of? A certain Nobel-Prize winning economist who works for the NYTimes. Remember this gem?

I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.

How about this doozy, TEN DAYS into the Obama administration?:

Why has the Obama administration been silent, at least so far, about one of President Obama’s key promises during last year’s campaign — the promise of guaranteed health care for all Americans?

Krugman then goes onto speculate, negatively of course, all the reasons why Obama wasn’t talking about healthcare in its first ten days. Only a couple weeks before Obama…talked about healthcare in front of Congress and then released a budget that set us on the path to universal healthcare…OH, and held a healthcare summit?

Now, I’m not saying that Krugman doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to economics. Nor am I saying that his clear history of disdain for Barack Obama – and the degree to which Krugman laid that out on the line during the primaries – is now causing him to root for Obama’s failure. No.

But I am saying that he’s far from infallible. In fact, he’s often prone to hyperbole. And when members of the left-wing blogosphere cite clearly fallible opinions as fact, and then look at their own track record of outrage without even giving the smallest hint of a chance to see if they may be wrong – then we see the dangers in spending too much time letting our opinions and feelings be swayed by the blog world we know and love.

Yes, Obama can be wrong and make mistakes, obviously. He has and will. Hell, even FDR tried and failed many things in his approach to the New Deal. But when we follow the passions and whims of the moment and raise up in outrage and demand a Treasury Secretary be fired two months into a crucial economic recovery because some have a different opinion about his approach…well, I just thank goodness that there are cooler heads in the administration. In the left-wing blogosphere? There’s a lot of growing up to do.